Venue: Committee Room A - County Hall, Llandrindod Wells, Powys. View directions
Contact: Lisa Richards 01597 826371
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To receive apologies for absence. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations of interest from Members. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
DISCLOSURES OF PARTY WHIPS To receive disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011. (NB: Members are reminded that under Section 78 Members having been given a prohibited party whip cannot vote on a matter before the Committee.)
Minutes: There were no disclosures of party whips. |
|
Car Park Order 2016 PDF 282 KB To consider the delegated decision made regarding the Car Park Order 2016. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Monitoring Officer explained the call in procedure and detailed the relevant sections of the Constitution. He explained that he the Section 151 Officer had been consulted and it had been agreed that the proper procedures had not been followed as an Impact Assessment had not been carried out. For this reason the call in had been allowed.
Members were advised that the meeting of the Committee gave them the opportunity to persuade the Portfolio Holder that the decision was wrong and their reasons for that. The Committee could ask the Portfolio Holder to review his decision or refer the matter to County Council for further debate. It was noted that neither the Committee nor County Council could demand a change to the decision as that ultimately lay with the Portfolio Holder.
Documents: · Portfolio Holder delegated decision report · Call in letter · Extract of Cabinet Minutes – 9 September 2015 · Impact Assessment
Discussion: · A Member queried the costs of implementing charging on some car parks - the Portfolio Holder challenged the question and sought the Monitoring Officer’s advice on its relevance. The detail had been included in a Cabinet report in September 2015 at which time the Portfolio Holder had been granted delegated authority to implement the decision. The Monitoring Officer allowed the question as, although the call in was based on procedural matters, any information may be relevant to the Portfolio Holder reviewing his decision · The Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) indicates that £30K should be saved in this service area. The MTFS and budget were both approved by County Council. The savings were not made in 2015/16 as planned and were rolled forward into the current financial year. Investment is required to ensure these efficiencies are achieved. Ticket machines, officers and Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) are already in place · Some modifications to the original plans have been agreed and costs would be lower · Members were of the opinion that it would be unlikely that £30K could be achieved in the current financial year – the Portfolio Holder accepted this and noted that it would be rolled over into the next financial year · The Committee sought clarification on 20% of car parking charges being made available to Hay Town Council. The Portfolio Holder corrected this misunderstanding – no revenue from car parking charges was made available to any town or community council. Under an agreement between Community Asset Transfer (CAT) and the Town Council, a sum equivalent a percentage of car parking charges is paid to Hay Town Council to facilitate community delivery. These funds are not within the control of Highways, Transport and Recycling (HTR). It was understood that this agreement had been reached in discussions between the Chief Executive and the Portfolio Holders for Finance and Commissioning. · It was noted that the Cabinet had not followed the Council’s process in that an Impact Assessment had not been completed. Members were of the opinion that the way in which the decision had been made was flawed as the Cabinet ... view the full minutes text for item PLSC50-2016 |
|
Exempt Information The Monitoring Officer has determined that category 3 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following items. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 11.8 of the Council's Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing this information. Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting. Minutes: RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 3 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007.
|
|
Leisure Service Savings To undertake scrutiny on the report of the Portfolio Holder for Commissioning and Procurement. Minutes: Documents: · Report of the Portfolio Holder for Commissioning and Procurement
Discussion: · The Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) has agreed savings for 2016/17 and indicative savings for 2017/18 and 2018/19 · There is a reduction of £200K required in the leisure and sports centre budget · Discussions are ongoing with Freedom Leisure as to how to achieve these savings with the least impact · It is proposed that the sports centre at Llanfair Caereinion could be transferred to the school – this has been achieved successfully at Crickhowell and Gwernyfed · Unless an alternative delivery model can be found, it is proposed that Knighton sports centre may have to close · Alternative options for Staylittle would be sought · Freedom Leisure are not obliged under their contract to work with the Authority to achieve the savings – however, they are willing to assist in order to maintain a good working relationship · Freedom Leisure is a not for profit organisation and any surpluses that may be generated would be reinvested into facilities · Consideration of sports facilities had been in hand since 2007 when it was acknowledged that the Council was unable to provide the level of investment required to maintain facilities. · In considering the current level of savings all options have been considered – V4 were retained to review delivery and concluded that the only realistic solution would be to change or close three centres · Local Members were of the opinion that all centres should be subject to cuts with closures on one day a week, for example, in order to maintain current facilities. If this option were to be pursued, the cost of the service could become more expensive. It is essential to ensure that income covers costs. There have been year on year reductions to the leisure budget and a significant analysis was undertaken prior to the contract being let in the summer of 2015. The sites that would remain would make the lowest level of loss. · It was acknowledged that facilities are highly regarded locally, but costs are the main driver · Many young people have benefitted from the facilities at Staylittle - Members hoped that this could be taken over as a commercial venture and expand its base to include leadership development etc. It was acknowledged that there was insufficient business acumen within the authority to run commercial enterprises. This had been instrumental in seeking a commercial partner to run leisure facilities. · The local member for Llanfair Caereinion sought clarification of the current negotiations regarding transferring that facility to the school and reassurance that if it were to be transferred the Authority would not abandon repairs that are needed · The Committee asked what had been learned from the V4 report that the Authority were not already aware of? Little had been learned but it provided an independent and objective view of options available and could have highlighted further options which had not been identified. There was concern that if options had been developed in house they may not have been accepted. Those options have now ... view the full minutes text for item PLSC52-2016 |