Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, (insert), 2008 (previously circulated). 

The Minutes of the meeting held on 31^st July 2008 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To consider any such items authorised by the Leader and to consider where in the agenda the item(s) are to be considered. 

The Chairman advised that there were no items of urgent business.

To consider any such declarations. 

Councillor Bryning declared a personal interest with regard to the reports concerning the Storey Creative Industries Centre in view of his appointment by the City Council Cabinet as a member of the Storey Board. (Minutes 50 and 57 refer).

To consider any such requests received in accordance with the approved procedure. 

Members were advised that there had been no requests to speak at the meeting in accordance with the Cabinet’s agreed procedure.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

Report of Head of City Council (Direct) Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

The Head of City Council (Direct) Services submitted a report informing members of the implications of adopting the New Waste Management Strategy for Lancashire 2008 to 2020 and to determine a course of action with regard to the adoption of it.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Food Waste

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

Report of Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report seeking Cabinet’s approval to amend the existing framework for Performance Management arrangements with the Council.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1 is to approve the amended Performance Management Framework as set out in the report’s proposals. The proposals reflect the views of officers and members from the briefing sessions and are designed to simplify and re-focus the Performance Review Team (PRT) reporting process. The proposals are consistent with the recommendations from the Council’s recent Comprehensive Performance Assessment judgement.

Option 2 is to adopt the proposals in part and/or suggest other improvements.

Cabinet could decide to only adopt selective parts of the proposals or indeed offer new ideas for improvement. In adopting only part of the proposals, the opportunity for achieving significant benefits could be lost.

Option 3 is not to support the proposals and to retain the current PRT arrangements.

This would not achieve the improvements that could be made from implementing the new proposals or take on board the comments from the consultation briefings.

The preferred option is Option 1 for the reasons set out above.

It was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Charles:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)       That the proposed changes set out in the report for the Performance Management Framework be approved.

(2)       That Member and Officer briefings be arranged to inform those involved in the Performance Management Framework of the agreed changes.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision reflects the views of officers and members from the briefing sessions held in June 2008, and will simplify and re-focus the PRT reporting process. The proposals are consistent with the recommendations from the Council’s recent Comprehensive Performance Assessment judgement.

Report of Head of City Council (Direct) Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

The Head of City Council (Direct) Services submitted a report asking Cabinet to consider the ‘Pride in Primrose’ Street Pride Petition presented to Council on the 23^rd July.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1- To note the petition but take no further action.  In accordance with the officer scheme of delegation the Head of City Council (Direct) Services has responsibility for managing the ‘street pride’ scheme. For the reasons outlined in the report he does not consider it necessary to  add the streets in the Primrose area to the 2008/9 scheme. Any specific maintenance issues that residents have can be addressed through the appropriate channels, subject to available resources. Residents will have the opportunity to put forward their street for nomination, via their ward councillors for the 2009/10 programme.

Option 2- To request the Head of City Council (Direct) Services to take other action in the light of the petition. .

For the reasons outlined within the report the Officer preferred option is option 1.

It was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Charles:-

“That the recommendation, as set out in the report, be approved.”

By way of an amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposal, Councillor Blamire proposed:-

“That the following wording be added to the recommendation in the report:-

Cabinet also notes that the Street Pride Scheme is a more comprehensive process than merely removing litter, that it is planned for a full year in advance, and that residents anywhere in the district are actively encouraged to contact their local Ward Councillor if they wish to have their street or road considered for inclusion in a future schedule.”

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)               That Cabinet note the petition, but take no further action, given that, under the officer Scheme of Delegation, the Head of City Council (Direct) Services has responsibility for managing the ‘street pride’ scheme, and that residents will have the opportunity to put forward their street for nomination, via their Ward Councillors for the 2009/10 programme.

(2)               Cabinet also notes that the Street Pride Scheme is a more comprehensive process than merely removing litter, that it is planned for a full year in advance, and that residents anywhere in the district are actively encouraged to contact their local Ward Councillor if they wish to have their street or road considered for inclusion in a future schedule.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Community Services)

Head of City Council (Direct) Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision was taken because, under the officer Scheme of Delegation, the Head of City Council (Direct) Services has responsibility for managing the ‘street pride’ scheme based on proposals from ward members and residents will have the opportunity to put forward their street for nomination, via their ward councillors for the 2009/10 programme.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

(Councillor Bryning declared a personal interest in the following item in view of his appointment by the City Council Cabinet as a member of the Storey Board)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report providing an update on the Storey Creative Industries capital project progress and asking Cabinet to approve the application for potentially additional external resources.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1 is the preferred option as it provides the Council with the ability to deliver additional facilities and space in support of the project business plan and currently provides the only mechanism by which the Council can make additional capital funding available.

It was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved:

8 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Burns, Charles, Fletcher, Gilbert, Kerr and Mace) voted in favour and 1 member (Councillor Bryning) abstained.

That Cabinet

(1)     endorses submission of bids to the NWDA and ERDF for additional funds to extend the capital scheme and

(2)     authorises the Head of Financial Services to amend the capital programme  accordingly on approval of the additional resources.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Economic Development and Tourism

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision provides the Council with the ability to deliver additional facilities and space in support of the project business plan and a mechanism by which the Council can make additional capital funding available.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

Report of Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report seeking Cabinet’s approval for revised arrangements for Star Chamber and individual Cabinet members in bringing forward both service improvement proposals and service efficiency/savings options to meet the targets included in the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Corporate Plan.

The report set out proposals for reviewing priorities; value for money, efficiencies and savings, service improvements, revenue and capital growth, the format of Star Chamber, outstanding Star Chamber issues and a three year Efficiency and Improvement Plan.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1:- is to approve the proposals as set out in the report

Option 2:-  is to approve the proposals either in part, or as amended at the meeting

Option 3:- is to retain the present system and make no amendments to existing processes

Option 1 is the preferred officer option. It offers an improved process for assisting Cabinet in bringing forward its budget and policy framework proposals and would satisfy the recommendations from the recent CPA inspection judgement.

It was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)               That the revised arrangements for Star Chamber, and individual Cabinet members, in bringing forward both service improvement proposals and service efficiency/savings options to meet the targets included in the Medium Term Financial Strategy and Corporate Plan, be approved

(2)               That the amended Terms of Reference for Star Chamber as proposed in Appendix A be approved

(3)               That the revised timetable for Star Chamber as set out in Appendix B be approved

(4)               That the outstanding items from last year’s Star Chamber as set out in Appendix C be reviewed and those retained be progressed as proposed within the report.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

Head of Financial Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision to approve the proposals in the report offers an improved process for assisting Cabinet in bringing forward its budget and policy framework proposals and satisfies the recommendations from the recent CPA inspection judgement.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Fletcher)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Fletcher)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report providing an update on the Free Swimming Programme as offered by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Preferred options are 1 and 3; accept grant of £44,375 for free swimming for those aged 60 and above. Also, to submit an expression of interest for participating in the free swimming scheme for those aged 16 and under. This will also provide the additional advantage of exploring receipt of capital funding from DCMS.

It was moved by Councillor Fletcher and seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Members then voted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report informing members about the future options for Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE), previously known as Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) after the expiry of the current Agency Agreement with Lancashire County Council in September 2009.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

These are the options considered by the County’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the options from which the districts have been asked to indicate their preferred option by 1^st October:

Option 1 a

This option is to continue with the current arrangements. This would build on the success of the current operation and would provide a sound basis for the future of parking enforcement across Lancashire. The County Council believe this option is not sustainable owing to the overall accumulated deficit despite the recent improvement in the financial position. It is therefore not their preferred option. Lancaster has demonstrated that it can deliver effective parking enforcement from both an operational and financial point of view and this originally represented the best option for the City Council. This is where effective parking enforcement could continue under the current operational and financial arrangements.

Option 1 b

This option would again build on the success of the current operational arrangements but requires the majority of the districts to sign up to accepting capping arrangements that would limit the cost of providing the on-street element of the parking enforcement. Detailed information is not available at present on how the capping limits would be applied but these would be linked to ensuring the ongoing cost effectiveness of the current arrangements.

This option does not represent a significant risk for the Lancaster operation due its good performance within the current partnership arrangements that resulted in a small deficit in 2007/08. Furthermore, there is no longer a financial issue with this option as funding any deficits from on-street pay and display surpluses has been agreed in principle. As previously mentioned this option is the preferred option of the Lancashire Leaders Group and the majority of the districts.

Option 2

Under this option the County Council would undertake the on-street enforcement and the district councils would carry out the enforcement of restrictions and charges on their own car parks. The City Council would be able to utilise the County Council’s enforcement contractor and have the ability to increase or decrease these resources to suit local operational arrangements. The Council would also be able to use the back office function that deals with PCN processing, correspondence, telephone calls and payments. The City Council would still undertake the issuing authority statutory functions required by the Traffic Management Act 2004. It is likely that SLAs would be prepared for the districts requesting these services from the County Council.

This option does not allow an integrated approach to local parking enforcement which contributes to the wider management of parking and traffic within the district. There would be duplicated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Fletcher)

Report of Corporate Director (Finance and Performance).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Fletcher)

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report asking Cabinet to consider the re-establishment of the Children and Young People Cabinet Liaison Group and revised terms of reference.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 2 is the preferred Option in that this option will allow for full consideration of issues that are felt appropriate by Cabinet in order to progress matters in this area. 

It was moved by Councillor Fletcher and seconded by Councillor Burns:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That Cabinet approve the re-establishment of the former Children and Young People’s Task group and its revised terms of reference. 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

Head of Corporate Strategy

Reasons for making the decision:

This decision will allow for full consideration of issues that are felt appropriate by Cabinet in order to progress matters in this area.

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Gilbert and Kerr)

Report of Corporate Director (Community Services).

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Gilbert and Kerr)

The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report informing members about progress towards securing Supporting People programme monies for the Home Support Team and to seek approval for start date for funding of Vulnerable Households Project.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1: Agree to accept the funding of £49,500 from Supporting People and agree for the money to be backdated to April 2008.

This would allow the project to continue until April 2009. If a County wide decision is then made not to continue these projects, it would end at that point. If a decision is made that the pilots have been successful, Supporting People may procure them for a further two years: it is unlikely that this would go out to tender, but this would depend on a decision at that point on whether or not such a requirement can be waived.

Backdating the payment would return £20,625 to the Homelessness Reserve.

Option 2: Agree to accept the funding of £49,500 from Supporting People and agree for the money to be paid from September 2008. 

This would mean a receipt of £28,875 in 2008/9 and £20,625 in 2009/10 which would allow the project to continue until the beginning of September 2009, even if the evaluation of the pilot means that Supporting People decide not to continue to procure such projects after April 2009.

If Supporting People decide to continue funding, the City Council may lose the opportunity to recoup the finance made available for this purpose through the Homelessness Reserve.

The Officer preferred option is Option 1, which allows the City Council to recoup the finance made available for the Vulnerable Households Project pending the Supporting People decision.

It was moved by Councillor Gilbert and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That Cabinet agrees to accept the funding of £49,500 from Supporting People for the Vulnerable Households Project and agrees for the money to be backdated to April 2008.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Community Services)

Head of Health and Strategic Housing

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision allows the City Council to recoup the finance made available for the Vulnerable Households Project pending the Supporting People decision.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor John Gilbert)

Report to follow.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Gilbert)

The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report informing members of the developments planned by YMCA Lancaster and seeking approval for the City Council to become the accountable body for the funding of £1.5 million from Communities and Local Government for this project.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1: Agree to the City Council becoming the accountable body for the public money being made available from CLG to the Doorstep Supported Accommodation Scheme, subject to the asset management working group being satisfied that any risks and liability for over spends are on the part of Adactus/YMCA and not the City Council. The development agreement drawn up with Adactus/YMCA would also make it clear that the City Council do not expect to provide any revenue funding for the scheme.

This would enable the rest of the YMCA building to be developed, subject to the drawing up of a formal development agreement which satisfies the Council’s financial and legal officers that risks are not being borne by the City Council.

This option would enable a project to go ahead, at no financial cost to the City Council, drawing in substantial funding from other sources, and meeting needs which the City Council itself has identified.

The Adactus scheme at the YMCA premises would still go ahead having secured funding from the Housing Corporation.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

(Councillor Bryning declared a personal interest in the following item in view of his appointment by the City Council Cabinet as a member of the Storey Board)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report providing an update on the Storey Creative Industries Centre project and to review the level of revenue support required to assist with the initial short-term operation of the new centre.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:

When taken together the total potential revenue implications of the three issues outlined are as follows:

The full options and implications of providing SCIC support at various levels are as follows, but Members should note that the TIC rental cost issue is not considered separately due to its low relative importance when compared to the other two main issues.