Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 (previously circulated). 

Councillor Mace queried the wording of exempt minute number 53, Land at Scotforth Road, Lancaster.

Members took a vote to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 1 September 2009, as follows:-

Resolved:

(8 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Kerr and Langhorn) voted in favour, 1 Member (Councillor Mace) voted against and 1 Member (Councillor Thomas) abstained)

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 1 September 2009 be approved 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 Barry declared a personal interest with regard to the report on Allotments in view of his involvement as an allotment holder. (Minute 65 refers).

Councillor Langhorn declared a personal and prejudicial interest with regard to the report on the Approval of the Fair Pay Package (Incorporating the Pay and Grading Structure)  in view of his wife’s employment with Lancaster City Council. (Minute 58 refers).

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) declared an interest with regard to the report on Land at Mossgate/Douglas Park, Heysham in view of his Council appointed role as Secretary to Heysham Mossgate Community Facilities Company, Ltd (Minute 68 refers).

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 Members with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace and Councillor Thomas)

Report of the Chief Executive.

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Mace and Thomas)

(It was noted that Councillor Langhorn had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item in view of his wife’s employment with Lancaster City Council. He left the meeting prior to consideration of the item).

The Chief Executive called for nominations to chair the meeting for the item. Councillor Archer nominated Councillor Thomas and Councillor Ashworth seconded the nomination. There were no further nominations and Councillor Thomas took the chair.

The Chief Executive submitted a report to enable the Cabinet to consider the updated financial information in respect of the preferred pay and grading structure and to consider recommending to Council to approve the financial implications of the proposed fair pay package.

Councillor Farrow tabled and presented a detailed summary of the Joint Consultative Committee’s (JCC) involvement in this issue to assist Cabinet Members. The JCC is a Committee made up of the seven elected members of the Personnel Committee and seven Trade Union representatives.

The officer options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report of the Chief Executive as follows:-

Option 1

To recommend the Fair Pay package in total to Council including the preferred Pay and Grading structure.

Option 2

Whilst Officers would not recommend removing any elements of the Fair Pay package there are one or two elements that are not integral to the Pay and Grading Structure such as the proposals around Annual Leave (see paragraph 11 of Appendix One of the report) and those in respect of Pay Protection (see paragraph 4 of Appendix One of the report).

Option 1 is the preferred option.

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

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

By way of addendum, which was accepted as a friendly addendum by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, it was moved by Councillor Barry and seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

“and that officers consider reviewing and amending the structure within the next two years.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved:

(8 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Mace and Thomas) voted in favour and 1 Member (Councillor Kerr) voted against)

(1)        That the financial implications of implementing the proposed Fair Package, incorporating the Pay and Grading structure 9.5.4.5 be recommended to Council and that officers consider reviewing and amending the structure within the next two years.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision reflects previous considerations by the Personnel Committee, Cabinet and Council and is in line with the agreed process and revised timetable for implementing Fair Pay. The preferred grading structure is still considered to be the best structure to assimilate employees following the Fair Pay review. However, the financial implications in the medium to longer term of this structure are unsustainable. Therefore it will be necessary to review and amend the grading structure within two years of implementation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report to update Members on the current coastal and flood defence issues and arrangements for grant funding by central government; to endorse that the city council continues to work with all agencies to sustain and improve our coastal and flood defences; to consider the offer of funding for the investigation of flooding at Hest Bank Lane, Slyne and to update Members on the revision of the Shoreline Management Plan and the important opportunity to influence the plan during its public consultation.

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

Revised arrangements for coastal and flood defence grants

Option 1: The Council note the Environment Agency’s revised arrangements for the application for coastal and flood defence grant funding and endorse that the Council continues to work with all relevant agencies to sustain and improve our current defences in line with the councils existing budgetary framework and approvals processes. the grant available is for 100% of approved costs and requires no match funding, although there may be costs to the council relating to staff time, as advised previously in the report.

Option 2: Not to continue with grant applications for flood and coastal defences. This will diminish the ability for the council to meet the predicted increasing risk from these events.

Grant offer of £45,000 from the EA for the investigation of flooding at Hest Bank Lane, Slyne.

Option 1: That the grant offer be accepted to investigate a possible solution to the flooding risk.

Option 2: That the grant offer be rejected which would mean no immediate progress, at minimal cost to the council, will be made on this matter and there could be a loss of confidence in the councils ability to address these issues. In addition, the flooding problems at Hest Bank Lane would still need to be resolved and it is likely that the council would have to provide some financial input.

Shoreline Management Plan

Option 1: That Members note the opportunity to participate in the consultation on the revised shoreline management plan and officers of the council continue to work with the North West coastal groups to finalise the proposals for SMP2 and report back on the outcomes of the public consultation relative to the Lancaster coastline.

Option 2: That the opportunity for Members to participate is not taken up and the chance to comment on or influence the final plan would be missed.

Officer Preferred Option (and comments)

Revised arrangements for coastal and flood defence grants

The officers preferred option is Option 1, to continue working with all agencies to enhance our coastal and flood defences to the benefits our residents.

Grant of £45,000 from the EA for the investigation of flooding at Hest Bank Lane

The officer’s recommendation is Option 1, to take this opportunity to investigate a possible solution to the flooding risk for residents in the vicinity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

The Chief Executive submitted a report to enable the relevant Cabinet Members to be appointed to the Lancaster and Morecambe Vision Board Working Groups.

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

Option 1: That Cabinet appoint the most appropriate portfolio holder to each Steering Group.

Option 2: That no appointments be made by Cabinet and the issue of City Council representation on the Vision Board steering groups be referred back to Council.

The officer preferred option is Option 1.

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

“That Councillor Ashworth be appointed to the Place, Culture and Identity Steering Group”

It was moved by Councillor Bryning:

“That Councillor Blamire be appointed to the Place, Culture and Identity Steering Group”.

However, it was noted that there was no seconder for the nomination and so the nomination fell.

It was moved by Councillor Mace and seconded by Councillor Blamire:

“That Councillor Bryning be appointed to the Business and Knowledge Innovation Steering Group.”

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Thomas:

“That Councillor Mace be appointed to the Connectivity Steering Group.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)               That Councillor Ashworth be appointed to the Place, Culture and Identity Steering Group

(2)               That Councillor Bryning be appointed to the Business and Knowledge Innovation Steering Group

(3)               That Councillor Mace be appointed to the Connectivity Steering Group.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Head of Democratic Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision will provide Cabinet Member representation for the City Council on the three Vision Board steering groups.

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillor Ashworth and Councillor Mace)

Report of the Head of Democratic Services.

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Ashworth and Mace)

The Head of Democratic Services submitted a report asking Members to consider an invitation from the Council’s Associate Town, Almere, to participate in the 2010 International Youth Games.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option and comments, were set out in the report as follows:

Option 1 – To accept the invitation to attend the International Youth Games 2010 in Almere in full (as set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report) and give a commitment to the Council’s future participation in the Youth Games, subject to a budget being established.

Option 2 – To accept the invitation to attend the International Youth Games 2010 in Almere in part (varying the numbers as set out in paragraph 2.5 of the report) and give a commitment to the Council’s future participation in the Youth Games, subject to a budget being established.

Option 3 – to decline the invitation to attend the International Youth Games 2010 in Almere.

Officer Preferred Option (and comments)

In light of the Council’s resolution at its meeting in April 2009, officers’ preferred option is Option 2 above, although it is for Members to determine the level of participation and the size of the civic delegation.  This is governed for the most part by cost.

Of the potential sports listed by Almere for inclusion in the Games, 8 of those proposed have been supported in the past by groups operating in this district and volunteer leaders may be available to accompany the young people.  It is suggested therefore that having accepted the invitation, the final make-up of the group be determined by the willingness of local sports clubs to participate and the availability of volunteer leaders.

Dance, music and theatre styles can vary and the inclusion of any representatives to take part in these programmes will again be determined by the availability of any suitable groups in the district and a willing volunteer leader.

The cost of travel to and from Almere is difficult to quantify at this stage.  Indications at this stage are that flights could be anything from £50 to £250 per person.  Buses will also be required to and from the airport at each end, adding approximately £1-2,000 subject to numbers.  Ferry crossings are approximately £100 per person.  Costs of a coach for a week will need to be added to the ferry cost, including accommodation in Almere for the driver.

In past years a contribution has been sought from each child taking part in the Games towards their travel and other costs of taking part.  This was set at £200 in 2007 and 2008 and the suggestion is that this be continued for 2010. 

There are also incidental costs of providing a suitable tracksuits with logo, insurance and CRB checking for accompanying adults.

Officers would also advise that an invitation to Almere in 2010 should only be accepted if the Council is prepared to commit (as far  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

Report of the Head of Democratic Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Mace)

The Head of Democratic Services submitted a report updating Cabinet on the Community Foundation for Lancashire and work in progress to implement the Cabinet’s previous decision to bring back into use existing charity funds which currently lie dormant.

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

Option 1 – to note the work of the Community Foundation of Lancashire in this district but to continue with the proposed amalgamations and transfer of funds as agreed by Cabinet in January 2009.

It should be noted that this work is not a priority and although included in Democratic Services Business Plan is unlikely to progress quickly.  There also remains a concern as to the staffing capacity to manage the new Trusts once established.

Option 2 – to note the work of the Community Foundation of Lancashire in this district and invite a representative to a future meeting of Cabinet to outline the work they are doing and ways in which they can assist in ensuring that funds are put to a better use in this district.  

Officer Preferred Option

Option 2 is the officer preferred option, as this has the potential to take advantage of the expertise of a specialist grant making organisation to bring back into use funds which have lain dormant for many years and on which slow progress is being made using Council resources. 

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

“(1)      That Cabinet note the work of the Community Foundation of Lancashire in this district and invite a representative to meet the Head of Democratic Services and the relevant portfolio holders (Councillors Fletcher and Mace) to outline the work they are doing and ways in which they can assist in ensuring that funds are put to a better use in this district.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That Cabinet note the work of the Community Foundation of Lancashire in this district and invite a representative to meet the Head of Democratic Services and the relevant portfolio holders (Councillors Fletcher and Mace) to outline the work they are doing and ways in which they can assist in ensuring that funds are put to a better use in this district.  

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Head of Democratic Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision provides the potential to take advantage of the expertise of a specialist grant making organisation to bring back into use funds which have lain dormant for many years and on which slow progress is being made using Council resources. 

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

It was noted that the item Land at Aalborg Square, Lancaster, had been withdrawn.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) to follow.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) submitted a report updating Members on the Revenue Budget.

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

The following options are available to Cabinet.

Savings and Efficiency Options

1                    Consider the savings and efficiency options included at Appendix A of the report for inclusion in the Cabinet’s draft list of recommendations, highlighting those that can be supported and those that may need further work.

2                    Consider the savings and efficiency options included at Appendix A of the report but offer no view at this stage on those for inclusion in the Cabinet’s draft list of recommendations

Preferred Option

The preferred option is option 1. This will ensure that officers are clear which options are to be considered further and those that require further work. This will also provide an on-going position summary of the savings and efficiencies position.

Shared Services

1                    Approve the creation of a shared, senior management structure as outlined in Appendix B of the report, and authorise officers to consult with vulnerable postholders and to liaise with Preston City Council to implement the arrangements as soon as practicable

2                    To agree an alternative approach

            Preferred Option

The preferred option is option 1. This will ensure that a shared service can be developed in a phased approach and affected staff consulted. It will enable a shared senior management structure to be established prior to further options being developed. This option will generate immediate savings for both councils.

Consultation Exercise

City Council Exercise

1.      endorse the planned programme of events as set out in Appendix C of the report for undertaking the consultation exercise on the 2010/11 budget proposals

2.      not to endorse the proposals and request officers to prepare other options for the consultation programme.

Preferred Option

The preferred option is option 1. This will ensure that officers can prepare for the consultation exercise in good time and maximise community engagement by organising the exhibitions and forums after the Christmas and New Year period.

County Council Exercise

1.      to consider the request from the County Council attached as Appendix D of the report on Cabinet’s preferred method for involvement in their budget consultation exercise and respond accordingly

2.      to consider the request from the County Council on Cabinet’s preferred method for involvement in their budget consultation exercise but  to offer no view at this stage

 Preferred Option

The preferred option is option 1.  This will ensure that the council can engage positively with the County Council in their budget exercise.

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Thomas:-

“(1)     That Cabinet notes the latest position in respect of identifying savings and efficiencies as set out in Appendix A to the report and that at this stage all options be retained for further consideration as the budget process progresses.

(2)     That Cabinet Members continue to meet with officers to review spending variances from outturn and Performance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Report of the Head of Corporate Strategy.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Councillor Emily Heath presented the referral report from Overview and Scrutiny seeking Cabinet’s support to the recommendations of the Allotments Task Group regarding future allotment management arrangements.

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

To accept the recommendations (Option 3A as set out below) of Overview and Scrutiny:-

Option 3a - Partnership with Council (Peppercorn rent)

Partnership

Council

·         Capital to improve basic infrastructure at allotment sites (initially 5 year programme is recommended).

·         Strategic oversight of allotments

·         Agreement with allotment associations as to priorities for officer time allocated to allotments

·         Allotment sites provided at peppercorn rent to allotment associations

·         Provides support in practical ways (e.g., insurance, access to compost, grass cutting, waste management etc)

·         Review infrastructure needs on an annual basis and feed into capital programme

Allotment associations

·         Self manage allotment sites on a day to day basis

·         Seek external funding opportunities for their allotment sites

·         Continue to contribute to Council priorities

ALMA

·         Represent allotment associations when dealing with Council

·         Seek external funding for allotment development

To not accept the recommendations of Overview and Scrutiny.

To make alternative proposals to those recommended by Overview and Scrutiny.

The key risk to consider is associated with the allotment associations’ stated positions in giving up their leases if changes are not made.  This should be considered and balanced against future demand for allotments, and any prospects for potential alternative lessees.

Preferred Option (and comments)

To accept the recommendations of Overview and Scrutiny – i.e. the adoption of Option 3A as the Council’s future approach to the management of allotments. The principal eIements of this option are the future provision of allotments at a peppercorn rent and the provision of an estimated £80,000 of capital investment over a 5 year period in improving the basic infrastructure of allotment sites.   In recognition of these points, the Council’s financial position and competing needs and priorities, the preferred option is that such growth be considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

(Councillors with Special Responsibility Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Blamire and Bryning)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Blamire and Bryning)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report seeking Member approval to the reorganisation of Corporate Strategy, Cultural, Economic Development, Planning, Tourism and Customer Services to effectively and efficiently implement the City Council’s priorities set out in the Corporate Plan and the Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership Community Strategy in line with the revenue budgets estimated to be available to the Council over the next three years.

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

Option 1

Members approve the restructuring proposals identified in Appendix B and C.

Option 2

Members do not approve structures and continue with existing services.

The officer preferred option is Option 1.

It was moved by Councillor Archer and seconded by Councillor Ashworth:-

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

By way of amendment, Councillor Mace proposed and Councillor Bryning seconded:

“That Cabinet approve the restructuring of services as set out on page 11 of the report.”

2 Members (Councillors Bryning and Mace) voted in favour of the amendment and 8 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Fletcher, Kerr, Langhorn and Thomas) voted against.

Councillor Mace then proposed an addendum to Recommendation 2, seconded by Councillor Thomas and accepted as a friendly addendum by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, as follows:-

“and to the North West Employers Organisation for its input as part of proposals for top management restructuring.”

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved:

(9 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Kerr, Langhorn and Thomas) voted in favour and 1 Member (Councillor Mace) voted against.)

(1)        That Cabinet approve the restructuring of four Services to two Services; Community Engagement and Regeneration and Policy.

Resolved unanimously:

(2)        That the proposed structures for the Community Engagement Service and Regeneration and Policy Service be referred to Personnel Committee for approval and to the North West Employers Organisation for its input as part of proposals for top management restructuring.

Resolved:

(9 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Fletcher, Kerr, Langhorn and Thomas) voted in favour and 1 Member (Councillor Mace) abstained.)

(3)               That Cabinet approve the funding principles for termination costs as outlined in the financial implications, and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Members are asked whether they need to declare any further declarations of interest regarding the exempt reports. 

Cabinet is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to the following items:- 

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 12 of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

Members are reminded that, whilst the following items have been marked as exempt, it is for the Council itself to decide whether or not to consider each of them in private or in public.  In making the decision, Members should consider the relevant paragraph of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and should balance the interests of individuals or the Council itself in having access to information.  In considering their discretion Members should also be mindful of the advice of Council Officers.  

 The Chairman asked for any further declarations of interest from Cabinet Members regarding the exempt report.

It was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Archer:-

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.”

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

(It was noted that the Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) had previously declared an interest in the next item, in view of his Council appointed role as Secretary to Heysham Mossgate Community Facilities Company Ltd. He left the meeting prior to consideration of the item.)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted an exempt report regarding land at Mossgate/Douglas Park, Heysham.

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option and comments, were set out in the exempt report.

It was moved by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Bryning:-

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

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)               The resolution is set out in a minute exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Property Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The reasons for making the decision are set out in a minute exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.