Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 8 December 2009 were 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. 

Councillors Archer, Ashworth and Kerr each declared a personal and prejudicial interest with regard to the report on Room Hire Review as Members of Morecambe Town Council. (Minute 111 refers).

Councillor Mace declared a personal interest with regard to the report on the Museums Service, as a member of the Friends of Lancaster City Museums. (Minute 113 refers).

Councillor Blamire declared a personal and prejudicial interest with regard to the report on Williamson Park in view of her role as Chairman of the Williamson Park Board. (Minute 115 refers).

Councillor Langhorn declared a personal interest with regard to the report on the Roman Bath House and Vicarage Field, Lancaster, in view of his son’s membership of the Young Archaelogist’s Club. (Minute 116 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 Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Reports of Corporate Director (Finance and Performance), Corporate Director (Community Services) and Head of Financial Services to follow.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

The Corporate Director (Finance and Performance) and Head of Financial Services submitted a joint report providing Members with information on the latest budget position for current and future years, to allow Cabinet to make recommendations to Council on Council Tax levels for 2010/11.

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

Options are dependent very much on Members’ views on spending priorities balanced against Council Tax levels.  As such, a full options analysis could only be undertaken once any alternative proposals are known and it should be noted that Officers may require more time in order to do this.  Outline options are highlighted below, however.

·         With regard to the Revised Budget and resulting overspending, Cabinet could consider other proposals that may influence the Revised Budget for the year.

·         In terms of surplus Balances generally, it could consider retaining balances at a higher level than the minimum.

·         Regarding Council Tax increases, various options are set out at section 8 of the report.  In considering these, Members should have regard to the impact on service delivery, the need to make savings or provide for growth, the impact on future years and the likelihood of capping.

·         With regard to items for noting, no options are presented.

·         With regard to developing savings and growth options to produce a budget in line with preferred Council Tax levels, any proposals put forward by Cabinet should be considered alongside the development of priorities and in light of the public consultation.  Emphasis should be very much on achieving recurring reductions to the revenue budget, and avoiding any “unidentified” savings targets that undermine the robustness of the budget and financial planning arrangements generally.

Under the Constitution, Cabinet is required to put forward budget proposals for Council’s consideration, in time for them to be referred back as appropriate.  This is why recommendations are required to feed into the Council meeting in February, prior to the actual Budget Council in March.

The Officer Preferred options are as reflected in the report’s recommendations.

There is no specific officer preferred option with regard to Council Tax levels.  That said, both the Chief Executive and the s151 Officer would advise against planning for a Council Tax increase much lower than 4% at this time, at least for 2010/11, if Members aim to continue to provide a wide range of services to the public and wish to avoid more potential for major service cuts in future years.  Conversely, they would advise against aiming for an increase of around 5% or above at this time. 

Members asked if the comments from the public, rather than just the statistics shown at Appendix G of the report, could be circulated and were informed that this information would be made available to Cabinet Members shortly.

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

“That recommendations (1)-(5), as set out in the report, be approved.”

It was proposed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Report of Corporate Director (Community Services).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

The Corporate Director (Community Services) submitted a report prepared as part of the 2010/11 estimate procedure, setting out options for increasing the level of fees and charges.

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

Options to Members include:

a)         To approve either the 0.75%, 2% or 4% increase in fees for Health & Strategic Housing’s fees and charges.

b)         To approve a different % increase.

c)         To retain the fees for rats and mice at £25.00 (with a reduction to £12.50 for customers in receipt of Council Tax and/or Housing Benefit).

d)         To increase the fees for rats and mice in line with the other increases or a different amount.

e)         To increase the fees for fleas and wasps to bring them in line with other insects (but retaining the 50% discount for flea treatments for those in receipt of Council Tax and/or Housing Benefit).

f)          Not to increase the fees for fleas and wasps by this amount and to increase them in line with the other increases or a different amount.

g)         To delegate authority to set contract prices for pest control contracts to the Head of Health & Strategic Housing to enable current market conditions to be taken into account and allow for negotiation of contract prices.  (Subject to financial services agreement to the methodology for setting contract prices).

h)         Not to approve the delegation.

i)          To approve the suggested charges for registered charities.

j)          Not to approve the suggested charges for registered charities.

k)         To approve the introduction of a fee for the return of stray dogs from the dog warden service prior to dogs being taken to kennels.

l)          Not to approve the introduction of a fee for the return of stray dogs from the dog warden service prior to dogs being taken to kennels.

m)        To approve an increase in the Exclusive Right of Burial only for the Neptune Baby & Young Child Memorial Garden.

n)         To approve an increase in fees as well as the Exclusive Right of Burial for the Neptune Baby & Young Child Memorial Garden.

o)         To approve no increase for the fees for cremated remains memorial vaults.

p)         To approve a % increase for fees for cremated remains memorial vaults.

q)         To increase the charges for walled bricked vaults as suggested or by a different amount.

The officer preferred options are:

a)  0.75% increase to keep the increase in charges to a minimum to support residents at a time of recession and also, c), e), g), i), k), m), o) and q) for the reasons set out in the report.  The suggested increases and new fees would enable a slight increase in income for the council, whilst retaining fair and reasonable fees for the services offered.

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

“(1)      That the Health & Strategic Housing fees in Appendix 1 of the report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Archer)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Archer)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report seeking approval for the use of additional funding provided by central government to support high streets and town centres during the recession.

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

Option 2 is the preferred option, because it reflects the outcome of the consultation meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and also retains flexibility in the use of the funds.

Councillor Archer informed Members that she had consulted with the representatives of both the Morecambe and District Chamber of Trade and Commerce and the Lancaster and District Chamber of Commerce at the Cabinet Liaison Group meeting held on 11 January 2010 and had also heard subsequently from both organisations. Members also noted the additional information which had been provided in a letter from the president of the Morecambe and District Chamber of Trade and Commerce. The letter had been circulated prior to the Cabinet meeting.

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

“(1)      That Cabinet approves the use of the additional grant allocation of £52,631 for initiatives to support temporary re-use of vacant shops and other retail support measures in Lancaster, Morecambe, and Carnforth, to be split approximately as £22,000 each for Lancaster and Morecambe and £8,000 for Carnforth.

(2)               That Cabinet supports option 2 as set out in the report for use of the funds, comprising a grant scheme to support re-use of vacant shop premises in Lancaster, Morecambe, and Carnforth, plus a second scheme to provide funding for promotional festivals/events in the retail centres of Lancaster & Morecambe.

(3)               That approval of the details of the two schemes be delegated to Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Bryning and Fletcher)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Bryning and Fletcher)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report informing Members about the progress towards securing Supporting People Programme Funding for the Targeted Intervention Project and seeking approval to accept £49,800 external funding for the project and to proceed with project implementation.

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

Option 1 – Accept the external funding offer of £49,800 from the Supporting People Programme and seek to implement the project, from within existing staff resources, where possible.

Accepting the funding will create new employment opportunities and could enable the transfer of an existing project officer over to one of the new posts, if funding is not secured into 2010/11 for the Vulnerable Households Project. It will also add value to the Worklessness Project working along side to support the offer made to target the adult working population claiming out of work benefits in our most deprived wards within the district.

Option 2 – Reject the funding offer. This would result in a lost opportunity to deliver the project and the associated benefits as identified within the report.

The officer preferred option is Option 1 – Accept the external funding offer of £49,800 from the Supporting People Programme and seek to implement the project, from within existing staff resources, where possible. This will allow the recruitment of 2 temporary, full time posts creating new employment opportunities to deliver support to 30 households with a view to engaging households with the Worklessness Project if appropriate over the 12 month funding period.

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

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

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)       That the offer of £49,800 Supporting People Programme Funding for the Targeted Intervention Project be accepted and that the General Fund Revenue Budget be updated accordingly to reflect the additional expenditure and grant funding.

(2)       That officers be authorised to implement the Project.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Economic Development and Tourism

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision will provide an opportunity to extend the support services offered by the Integrated Support Team, and build on previous successful engagement within the community.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of the Head of Property Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

(It was noted that Councillors Archer, Ashworth and Kerr had previously declared personal and prejudicial interests in the following item in view of their membership of Morecambe Town Council. They all left the meeting prior to consideration of the item.)

The Head of Property Services submitted a report reviewing the process and charges for the hire of rooms and facilities in the Municipal buildings for the next financial year.

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

Room hire charges

Option 1

That the hire charges be raised to the proposed level as detailed in the body of the report. This will ensure that the majority of fee paying events make a surplus and may potentially raise income by £6,500 (giving an overall surplus of £9,500 based on 2008/09 bookings), noting that this is separate from inflationary increases already applied during the 2010/11 Draft Budget Process, therefore the additional surplus over and above that already included in the 2010/11 Budget is actually £3,900.

The majority of hirers will only incur small increases in hire charges which it is hoped will not affect their choice of venue. Although any increase in charges will inevitably be unpopular and may result in some hirers seeking alternative venues which could reduce income.

Option 2

No change. This will be popular with hirers but will leave 13.5% of bookings where a hire charge is making a loss. It is envisaged that room hire would continue to make a small surplus.

Registered charitable organisations and local non profit making organisations

Option 1

Remove the 50% discount for registered local charitable organisations and local non profit making organisations and the 25% discount for non local registered charities. This would be extremely unpopular with these organisations and combined with the proposed increase in hire charges would have a detrimental effect on their events. This is likely to result in the cancellation of such events, adverse publicity and a loss of income.

Option 2

Introduce a single discount rate of 25%. This would increase the Council’s income by £2,600 but is likely to be unpopular with hirers who have previously enjoyed a 50% reduction. It may result in adverse publicity and some seeking an alternative venue or not holding their event at all.

Option 3

Extend the 50% discount to include all registered charities. This would have little impact on income, would simplify the charging format, and may attract other hirers which would ultimately increase income.

Option 4

No change. Retain the 50% discount for registered local charitable organisations and local non profit making organisations and the 25% discount for non local registered charities.

Performing Rights Society (PRS) Fees

Option 1

Recharge the hirers incurring fees under the PRS music licence the actual cost of those fees. This would be a saving for the Council and only the hirers incurring the charges would be affected.

Option 2

No change.  Lancaster City  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Archer and Kerr)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration) to follow.

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Archer and Kerr)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report to provide members with details of the current position following the selected developer no longer being able to deliver the Chatsworth Gardens Housing Exemplar Project and in particular the contingency development as contracted in the funding agreement with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), together with associated proposals.

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

Option 1 – Progress Refurbishment Scheme

Firm costs are required to establish the viability of this option, or the extent to which it could be implemented. Previously as part of the Green Book Appraisal this option was discounted as being not financially viable. It may only be possible to undertake a selective refurbishment of target blocks with some properties sold off with restrictive covenants to provide funding to invest in the selective acquisition of outstanding properties in target blocks. It may also include some demolition to create either new public open space or private external space. Demolition may also be undertaken to enable a new development to come forward on part of the site from small developers. In summary the refurbishment option will review all possibilities to obtain the best possible scheme.

For the properties that can be refurbished this option would include the removal of rear outriggers and for the four storey properties the removal of a storey to make the houses of a size more suitable for single family occupation. To enable Level 4 Code for Sustainable Homes to be obtained the refurbished properties would require external wall insulation as well as party wall, floor and roof insulation internally. The properties would also require the extensive use of high efficiency heating and plumbing.

Renewable energy technologies such as solar hot water and photovoltaic panels would also be needed. Demolition may also be undertaken to enable a new development to come forward on part of the site from small developers. Any proposal made under this scheme would be subject to HCA funding and approval.

Option 2 – Disposal of properties already acquired for the scheme

The 2005 Funding Agreement does make provision that, if no alternative scheme is considered acceptable to the HCA and the Council, then all of the properties should be placed back on the market and sold in order to recoup public investment.  It should be noted that this option is not favoured by HCA who are keen to see the Council put forward alternative options.

            Non-statutory guidance issued under the Crichel Down Rules will need to be considered in the event of this option.

Officers have updated the previous options analysis undertaken for the Green Book appraisal and discounted a new build option due to the PFP outcome. If no viable option can be found or agreed Option 2 provides a mechanism to dispose of the acquired properties and close the project.  As noted this latter case is a last  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ashworth)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ashworth)

(It was noted that Councillor Mace had previously declared a personal interest in this item in view of his membership of the Friends of Lancaster City Museums.)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report asking Members to consider savings options in respect of the Museums Service.

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

Option A: That Cabinet instruct officers to enter into formal negotiations with Lancashire County Council to review and revise the Museums Partnership agreement, with a view to the City Council securing on-going revenue reductions.

Notwithstanding the Agreement referred to above, the City Council’s Head of Cultural Services has already been involved in informal discussion with the County Council Museum Service to determine and examine potential saving options for the Museums Service in Lancaster. As previously stated, the County Council’s preliminary response has been that there are no grounds for amending or terminating the Partnership Agreement within the terms of the originally agreed timescale i.e. 10 years from 2003.

Based on the above, it is unlikely that cost savings would accrue in 2010/11 or 2011/12.

Option B: To retain the current level of Museums Services within the District, via the existing Partnership Agreement with Lancashire County Council.

There would be no financial savings to the City Council.

Option C: To issue Lancashire County Council with twenty-four months notice from 1^st April 2010, of Lancaster City Council termination of the Partnership Agreement (i.e. to be implemented after 31^st March 2012), and for officers of the City Council over the ensuing period to examine options for bringing the Museums Service back into City Council operation, whilst also examining savings options.

Based on the above, no cost savings would accrue in 2010/11 or 2011/12, but based on indicative savings options, as set out below, there may be budget reductions with effect from 2012/13.

The projected savings (for illustration), if all were implemented would be in the region of £100,000 per annum. However, it must be noted that the options require more detailed appraisal and consideration of potential consequential issues, such as fewer admission numbers (therefore, failure to achieve income levels), and HR implications (TUPE transfer, redundancy), etc. It also has to be acknowledged that within the remaining period of the Museums Service Partnership Agreement, would require a negotiated agreement between the City and County Council on any or all of the above.

It may also be that there are other more radical options, including rationalising the number of museum buildings that the City Council operate/offer. Such options would also be considered further within the period  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

(Councillor Archer left the meeting during consideration of this item and before the vote.)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report asking Members to consider the Annual Review of Parking Fees and Charges for 2010/11.

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

Option 1

This option is not to implement any parking fees and charge increases in 2010/11.

The annual review of parking fees and charges is an opportunity for the City Council to review parking charges in line with budgetary commitments and the aims and objectives of the Parking Strategy. The revenue from parking is an important source of revenue for the Council and it assists with maintaining and continuing to improve the parking service that is provided. Although parking usage and pay and display income has been fairly positive in the present economic climate there is no evidence to suggest that usage and income would increase as a result of not increasing parking fees and charges. This option therefore does not meet the budgetary commitment included in the 2010/11 Draft Budget.

In terms of the budgetary position within the off-street parking service, reductions in excess of £60k have already been included in the 2010/11 draft budget through a combination of efficiency savings and the new CPE arrangements previously approved by Cabinet. Funding the shortfall from the remaining off-street parking budgets is likely to result in no reactive or planned maintenance or minor improvements being carried out during 2010/11 on the 2,900 spaces that are provided on 43 car parks throughout the district, for which there is currently a combined budget totalling £61.4K. This is contrary to the parking strategy that includes an objective to provide a high quality service through a number of objectives that can only be delivered through the proactive management of maintenance budgets. This will also have health and safety implications and increase the risk of accidents and personal injury claims arising from not being able to respond to reported faults and the twice yearly condition assessments that are undertaken. It is not possible to quantify the cost of any additional claims but these could have the potential for exceeding the required budget shortfall/maintenance savings.

It is therefore likely that this option would result in the revenue shortfall having to be met from another Service or function of the Council. As it falls outside of the current budget framework, if taken forward this option would need to form part of Cabinet’s budget proposals, for subsequent consideration and approval by Council.

Option 2

This option is aimed primarily at achieving the budgetary target that has been included in the 2010/11 Draft Budget whilst being consistent with the aims of the Parking Strategy.

This option achieves the budgetary commitment with estimated additional income of £60,000. This option only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ashworth)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration) to follow.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ashworth)

(It was noted that Councillor Blamire had previously declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item in view of her role as Chairman of the Williamson Park Board. Councillor Blamire left the meeting prior to consideration of the item.)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report presenting the latest position with regard to the current and future operation of Williamson Park.

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

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

(It was noted that Councillor Langhorn had previously declared a personal interest in this item in view of his son’s membership of the Young Archaelogists’ Club.)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report to advise Cabinet on the condition of the Roman Bath House and surrounding land and to seek future funding to improve and maintain that condition.

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

Option 1 – That increased maintenance regimes to the Bath House and surrounding land are undertaken to ensure that the property would be of an appropriate standard to feature as one of the city’s main historic attractions. This would require increased funding being made available and is a reversal of the council’s previous views on the maintenance of the area. Despite increased funding for maintenance there remains a risk that because of the remote location of the site, there could still be some vandalism in the vicinity.

Option 2 – do nothing. This would result in the continued deterioration the site with council failing to meet the requirements that English Heritage place on the owners of monuments such as this. If the council is to improve promotion of the cultural heritage of the district, the current poor condition of one of the main attractions would detract from that and lead to public criticism. In addition there would be continued growth of species such as Japanese knotweed over areas of the site.

Option 1 is preferred as this would lead to the consolidation and improvement of a major historic attraction in the district.

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

“(1)     That increased maintenance regimes to the Bath House and the surrounding           land are undertaken to ensure that the property would be of an appropriate standard to feature as one of the city’s main historic attractions.

(2)     That a general fund revenue growth bid for funding be included in the current budget process for an amount of £17,700 in 2010/11 and £2,000 per annum in subsequent years.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)               That increased maintenance regimes to the Bath House and the surrounding land are undertaken to ensure that the property would be of an appropriate standard to feature as one of the city’s main historic attractions.

(2)               That a general fund revenue growth bid for funding be included in the current budget process for an amount of £17,700 in 2010/11 and £2,000 per annum in subsequent years.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Property Services

Head of Financial Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision will lead to the consolidation and improvement of a major historic attraction in the district. 

Report of Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive submitted a report asking Members to consider the Cabinet appointment to the Local Government Association Coastal Issues Special Interest Group.

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

Option 1: To note existing arrangements and make no amendment to the representative on the LGA Coastal Issues Special Interests Group.

Option 2: To replace the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Economy with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment to serve on the LGA Coastal Issues Special Interests Group.

Option 3: Another option as proposed by Cabinet.

There is no officer preferred option, however, it is recommended that appointments to outside bodies be aligned as closely as possible to individual Cabinet Members’ portfolios.

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

“That Councillor Barry be appointed to the Local Government Association Coastal Issues Special Interest Group.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved:

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

(1)        That Councillor Barry be appointed to the Local Government Association Coastal Issues Special Interest Group.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Head of Democratic Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision is in line with the recommendation that appointments to outside bodies be aligned as closely as possible to individual Cabinet Members’ portfolios.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ashworth)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Ashworth)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report to enable Members to consider savings options in respect of the 3 Community Swimming Pools in Carnforth, Heysham and Hornby.

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

Option A: As to-date, no significant progress, in terms of cost savings, has been made from attempting a renegotiation of the Partnership Agreement between Lancashire County Council and Lancaster City Council, Cabinet is asked whether it wishes to give consideration to issuing twelve months notice from 1^st April 2010, of Lancaster City Council termination of the Partnership Agreement (i.e., to be implemented after 31^st March 2011) i.e., to refer the operation of the 3 Community Swimming Pools, back to Lancashire County Council.

No cost savings have been assumed so far for 2010/11. However, on the basis of Lancaster City Council referring the operation of the 3 Community Swimming Pools, back to Lancashire County Council, there would, with effect from 1^st April 2011, be potential annual savings to Lancaster City Council of;-

Carnforth                     £68,900           }

or/and                                                  }

Heysham                     £44,900           }           Total £147,700

or/and                                                  }

Hornby                         £33,900           }

There will also be HR implications (costs as yet undetermined)

Option B: Investigate whether an alternative operator can be found for the Community Swimming Pools at Carnforth, Heysham and Hornby.

As part of the 2009/10 budget deliberations, this option was pursued, but the outcome was that the alternative (private) sector operator was seeking an operating/management fee (not much less that the current revenue expenditure), and a guarantee that community and schools usage would remain at current levels, for the duration of any operating agreement. As neither the City Council nor County Council could offer such guarantees, discussions regarding alternative (private) sector management to operate one or more of the three community swimming pools terminated.

Option C: To retain the Partnership Agreement with Lancashire County Council, for the operation of the 3 Community Swimming Pools at Carnforth, Heysham and Hornby, but to review and reduce the swimming programme.

Typically, usage at public swimming pools is a mixture of;- casual swimming, club swimming (including private/commercial lettings), swimming lessons, and schools swimming programme. Based on the above, the % usage and cost profile at the three community swimming pools (based on 08/09 throughput), are;-

Estimated net costs, based only on an extrapolation of % usage, shows that for the majority of swimming programmes,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

(Councillor Blamire left the meeting during consideration of this item and before the vote.)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report seeking approval from Cabinet for a new corporate approach to Facilities Management across the Council and Members received a presentation from independent consultants, Cyril Sweett, to assist them in considering the way forward.

Members noted that, whilst the report for this item was a public report, the appendix to the report contained information exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

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

Option 1 – do nothing. This would result in the existing level of service provision being maintained. This will leave the Council at risk of failing to provide the most effective and efficient maintenance service and not achieving any progress in implementing its carbon management policies.

Option 2 – to retain the hard (reactive maintenance) facilities management function in an efficient way would require some clarification of roles and reporting lines within the existing service and would allow the council to concentrate on those areas of work that it does best. This includes retaining the strategic/”client” function, soft (caretaking) facilities management functions, reactive maintenance and data management whilst it would also benefit from a wider review of the service to ensure that the most efficient use is made of available resources. All major works and planned maintenance would be outsourced as would any specialist and statutory roles including energy management, health and safety roles etc. It is suggested that the outsourcing arrangements should be in the form of a partnering arrangement with the County Council and that discussions should be held with the County Council to this effect and a further report be brought back to Cabinet on the outcome of these discussions.

Option 3 – to outsource a fully managed service with the transfer of staff into an external managed service. This would result in retaining the strategy function and the soft facilities management services only. All major works, planned and reactive maintenance, data management and specialist and statutory roles would be outsourced.

The officer preferred option is option 2.

In order to fully consider the information in the appendix to the report, and in view of the fact that the last item on the agenda was also exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, it was moved by Councillor Langhorn and seconded by Councillor Thomas:-

“(1)      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 items of business, on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report which was exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3, of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972

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

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

“That the recommendations, 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 paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.