Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 27 July, 2010 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 27 July 2010 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. 

No declarations were made at this point.

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 Cabinet’s agreed procedure.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration) to follow.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Cabinet received a report from the Corporate Director (Regeneration) to provide members with a recommended contingency proposal for the Chatsworth Gardens Housing Exemplar Project, and requests the authority for officers to further develop and submit a detailed contingency proposal to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) under the terms of the original funding agreement.

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

ARUP Site Design Options

The final ARUP report is a detailed technical document which contains exempt information, but can be made available to cabinet members on request.  The balance between new build and refurbishment across the site was a key issue, but 100% new build was ruled out at the start due to the failure of this approach in the PfP scheme.

From a long-list the study team focussed on 12 realistic design approaches.  Each option was evaluated/scored against quantitative and qualitative benchmarks; effectively creating an ‘all opportunity and risk’ analysis.  The criteria are summarised in Appendix 1a of the report. Weightings were applied where criteria had particular importance (for example to delivery risk) to give an overall score.

While differing individually in details and form the individual options can be grouped for ease of understanding into approaches with broadly similar characteristics and final scores.  Officers have distilled the options into 5 groups: A, B, C, D and E. The approaches and overall risk assessment are summarised below (Table 1) and detailed in Appendix 1a of the report.  Plans of all the options are set out in Appendix 1b of the report.  In the scoring system a high score means lowest overall risk and vice versa.

Table 1

Design Option Summary

Approach A is not preferred due to the difficulties in managing retreat from the area.  It is however still a valid way forward when considered in the context of the matters discussed in Section 3.0 of the report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Report of the Leader of the Council.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Cabinet received a highlight report from the Leader of the Council in respect of the first quarter of Performance Review Team (PRT) meetings for 2010/11 recently undertaken by individual cabinet members.

The report was for noting and comment.

Councillor Langhorn proposed, seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“(1)      That Council be recommended to approve the changes to the Corporate Plan’s key performance indicators as identified in the monitoring report.

(2)               That officers ensure that the reports prepared for individual cabinet members for quarter 2 PRTs are consistent and include monitoring information in respect of each corporate priority’s key targets, actions and projects and corporate health indicators as set out in the Corporate Plan.

(3)               That Cabinet receive a refresh briefing on the Performance Management Framework.

(4)               That Cabinet note that the October Cabinet meeting will receive the following reports:

·         Shared Services update including Community Pools and Facilities Management

·         Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership – Performance Reward Grant allocations update

·         External funding update in respect of the budget sums currently included in both the Regeneration and Policy and Community Engagement Services.

(5)               That Cabinet note:

·         That a report on Search Fees be brought back to the future Cabinet meeting once the legislative position becomes clear

·         That the Leader is to meet with the Head of Health and Housing Services and the Cabinet portfolio holder to discuss the actions being taken to address the overspend on the Housing Revenue Account’s responsive repairs budget.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That Council be recommended to approve the changes to the Corporate Plan’s key performance indicators as identified in the monitoring report.

(2)               That officers ensure that the reports prepared for individual cabinet members for quarter 2 PRTs are consistent and include monitoring information in respect of each corporate priority’s key targets, actions and projects and corporate health indicators as set out in the Corporate Plan.

(3)               That Cabinet receive a refresh briefing on the Performance Management Framework.

(4)               That Cabinet note that the October Cabinet meeting will receive the following reports:

·         Shared Services update including Community Pools and Facilities Management

·         Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership – Performance Reward Grant allocations update

·         External funding update in respect of the budget sums currently included in both the Regeneration and Policy and Community Engagement Services.

(5)               That Cabinet note:

·         That a report on Search Fees be brought back to the future Cabinet meeting once the legislative position becomes clear

·         That the Leader is to meet with the Head of Health and Housing Services and the Cabinet portfolio holder to discuss the actions being taken to address the overspend on the Housing Revenue Account’s responsive repairs budget.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Reasons for making the decision:

The Council’s Performance Management Framework requires the regular reporting of performance to both the Budget & Performance Panel and Cabinet as part of the Performance Review Team cycle of meetings.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Report of the Head of Financial Services (to follow).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Financial Services updating Members on the Council’s financial prospects for future years, taking account of last year’s outturn, current year’s monitoring and known or expected changes being introduced by Government.

This report was primarily for Members’ information and therefore no specific options were put forward in the report.

Councillor Langhorn proposed, seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“(1)      That Cabinet notes:

·         the current position regarding current spending and forecasts for future years, together with the associated  risks and uncertainties;

·         the expectation that the Council’s current council tax targets of no more than 3.75% will need to be significantly less in future, in light of section 4 of the report;

·         in responding to any further specific funding reductions, Service Heads will ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken as soon as possible and in accordance with any delegations, to avoid any situations arising that are contrary to budget, as outlined in section 3.7 of the report;

·         the key issues arising from this review will be reported to Council for information; but that

·         a further update is scheduled to be reported to Cabinet in November, at which time it is hoped that sufficient information will be available for Cabinet to make recommendations to Council regarding new council tax targets, in light of Government’s spending review and any changes to existing capping arrangements

(2)        That Council Business Committee, which will be considering the Council’s response to the government’s consultation on its proposals on replacing capping with local referendums on council tax, be informed of Cabinet’s view of the proposals. This is that the proposals are unnecessarily expensive and do not take into account Councils’ own budget consultation arrangements.”

By way of addendum, Councillor Robinson proposed:-

“(3)      That Cabinet identify options to focus future modelling and scenario planning based on one of these options:-

(a)               equity between statutory and discretionary services

(b)               prioritisation of both statutory and discretionary services to commit to at least the current level of funding

(c)               to focus future growth funding on those statutory and discretionary services that contribute significantly to safer and cleaner streets.”

However, it was noted that there was no seconder to the addendum and, therefore, it was deemed to have fallen.

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That Cabinet notes:

·         the current position regarding current spending and forecasts for future years, together with the associated  risks and uncertainties;

·         the expectation that the Council’s current council tax targets of no more than 3.75% will need to be significantly less in future, in light of section 4 of the report;

·         in responding to any further specific funding reductions, Service Heads will ensure that appropriate remedial action is taken as soon as possible and in accordance with any delegations, to avoid any situations arising that are contrary to budget, as outlined in section 3.7 of the report;

·         the key issues arising from this review will be reported to Council for information; but that

·         a further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Cabinet received a report from the Corporate Director (Regeneration) seeking Cabinet’s approval to the timetable and process for the budget community engagement proposals to inform the 2011/12 budget.

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

Option 1

To approve the timetable for carrying out the exercise and delegate final approval of the budget questionnaire to the Leader of Council.

Option 2

To approve an amended timetable and / or an amended scheme of delegation for approval of the budget questionnaire.

Option 1 is the officer preferred option, as this provides increased opportunities for local people to engage in the process, assisting the council in its decision making process.

Councillor Langhorn proposed, seconded by Councillor Bryning:-

“(1)      That the timetable set out in the report to deliver the 2011/12 budget community engagement plan be approved.

(2)               That approval to the final format and content of the questionnaire to be used as the basis of the engagement exercise be delegated to the Leader of Council in consultation with other Cabinet Members.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved:

(4 Members (Councillors Ashworth, Barry, Bryning and Langhorn) voted in favour and 1 Member  (Councillor Robinson) abstained.)

Note: Councillor Kerr was absent when the vote was taken.

(1)               That the timetable set out in the report to deliver the 2011/12 budget community engagement plan be approved.

(2)               That approval to the final format and content of the questionnaire to be used as the basis of the engagement exercise be delegated to the Leader of Council in consultation with other Cabinet Members.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Community Engagement

Head of Financial Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision will ensure that an engaging budget community consultation takes place to ensure that together with emerging government policy and legislation the Council is able to capture feedback from its communities and use this feedback to inform budget decisions and future service delivery.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

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

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Cabinet received a report from the Corporate Director (Finance and Performance)seeking approval for the development of a business case for a full shared service. The business case, based upon operating assumptions contained within this report, would then be presented at the November 2010 Cabinet meeting, enabling Cabinet to make an informed decision about whether or not to enter into a full shared service arrangement for Revenues and Benefits.

Councillor Langhorn proposed, seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“(1)      That in the light of the further work carried out, Cabinet re-affirms its support for the Revenues and Benefits shared service proposal between Lancaster City Council and Preston City Council.

(2)       That Cabinet approves the development of a full business case for a shared Revenues and Benefits service between the two authorities, based on the assumptions presented within the report.” 

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)       That in the light of the further work carried out, Cabinet re-affirms its support for the Revenues and Benefits shared service proposal between Lancaster City Council and Preston City Council.

(2)       That Cabinet approves the development of a full business case for a shared Revenues and Benefits service between the two authorities, based on the assumptions presented 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 will ensure that the process agreed upon will enable Cabinet to make an informed decision about whether or not to enter into a full shared service arrangement for Revenues and Benefits.

(Councillor with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Report of the Corporate Director (Regeneration)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Cabinet received a report from the Corporate Director (Regeneration) to obtain Cabinet approval to permit a grant application for £90K from the affordable housing Section 106 commuted sums.

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

Option 1: Approve the £90K grant to Adactus Housing Association from the S106 commuted sum funds, which will provide the necessary funding in this financial year to make the scheme viable, subject to the resultant £90K from the £200K commitment contained in the Private Sector Housing Capital Programme being used to achieve further acquisitions of properties on Bold Street as originally anticipated prior to the Regional Housing Pot funding being reduced.

An agreement will be compiled to confirm the grant. The money will be awarded to the Association at the commencement of the development along with £110K from the Private Sector Housing Capital Programme. The agreement will set out a requirement that the Association must liaise with the Council on any change of use or adaptation to the management of the properties that would impact on the original use and nomination rights.

Option 2: Do not approve the £90K grant to Adactus Housing Association from the S106 commuted sum funds.  There will still be a requirement to provide a £200K commitment from the Private Sector Housing Capital Programme in this financial year, which will ensure the Marlborough Road scheme continues to be viable, but will not enable any opportunities to be gained from releasing £90K of RHP monies for other purposes.  Instead, the £90K S106 money will be used to support an alternative affordable housing project within the district.  To date, partner Registered Social Landlords have submitted informal expressions of interest for a number of possible schemes, which include three schemes in Lancaster city, a scheme to provide 6 x shared ownership properties in rural areas, and two schemes in North Lancaster.  All of these schemes would be subject to formal approval and sufficient funding being identified.  The Marlborough Road scheme is at an advanced stage of preparation and it is fully anticipated that it can be commenced in the near future.

Option 3: Approve the £90K grant and then re-allocate the released funds from the Private Sector Housing Capital Programme into the Disabled Facilities Grant programme (DFG's). Members will recall that the report to Cabinet in June highlighted the need for a waiting list to be introduced to manage the reduction in budget.  Since this was introduced following Cabinet's decision, the service has experienced delays in receiving new referrals from Occupational Therapy at LCC and although officers are in discussions with county to seek a resolution, at this point in time, there is no guarantee that any additional funds allocated to DFG's would be able to be spent or committed by the end of March 2011.   Furthermore, this option offers no benefits in terms of targeting additional financial resources in bringing about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.