Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday 7 December (reconvened on 14 December 2010) and (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 7 December (and reconvened on 14 December 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 two requests to speak at the meeting from members of the public in accordance with Cabinet’s agreed procedure, as set out in Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.7, with regard to the Canal Corridor Redevelopment (Minute 91 refers.)

The Chairman advised that he had also agreed to a Ward Member speaking at the meeting upon the report regarding the Canal Corridor Redevelopment (Minute 91 refers.)

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

(Jon Price, President of Lancaster and Morecambe Chamber of Commerce and Tim Hamilton- Cox who had registered to speak on this item in accordance with the City Council’s agreed procedure and Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.7, spoke to this item.)

(Councillor John Whitelegg, who had requested to address Cabinet as a Bulk Ward Councillor, spoke to this item).

Cabinet received a report from the Deputy Chief Executive to consider the Development Agreement for the development of the City Council's land for the proposals contained within the Lancaster Canal Corridor Development Brief.

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 Langhorn)

Report of the Head of Property Services

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Property Services to enable consideration of the Annual Review of Parking Fees and Charges for 2011/12.

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

The preferred option is Option 2 which is summarised below:

(1)        That Cabinet approves 0.20p increases on the pay and display tariffs highlighted in the table at paragraph 3.1 for 2011/12 to generate additional income of £186,600 (exceeding the financial target of £110,300 by £76,300).

(2)        That Cabinet approves a 5% reduction in the level of public permit charges for 2011/12 generating additional income of £2,400.

(3)        That Cabinet approves the conversion of Lucy Street Car Park to a short stay pay and display car park generating additional income of £10,000.

(4)        That Cabinet approves the conversion of Bulk Street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Report of the Head of Health & Housing Services

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health and Housing Services which had been prepared as part of the 2011/12 estimate procedure and set out the 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:

The officer preferred option is Option 1.  This option allows for increased revenue whilst retaining fees at affordable and competitive levels.

Councillor Kerr proposed, seconded by Councillor Ashworth:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)               That the Health & Strategic Housing fees in Appendix 1 of the report be increased by 2.40% (inflation) subject to deciding pest control fees as per recommendations 2, 3 and 4.

(2)               That the current fees for rodent and insect treatments and hourly pest control rates be increased by 10% as set out in Appendix 1, retaining 50% discounts in qualifying cases (fleas, rats) for those in receipt of Council Tax and/or Housing Benefit.

(3)               That charges are introduced at the standard rodent/insect treatment rate for advisory visits together with chargeable cases where, upon visiting, pest control officers are not in a position to provide or complete treatments.

(4)               That a charge is introduced for bed bug treatments at the standard insect treatment rate plus a new domestic hourly rate for every subsequent complete or part hour required to finish a treatment, with 50% discounts in qualifying cases for those in receipt of Council Tax and/or Housing Benefit.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Report of Deputy Chief Executive and Head of Financial Services

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Cabinet received a report from the Deputy Chief Executive and Head of Financial Services to provide information on the policy framework and latest budget position for current and future years, to inform Cabinet’s budget proposals and to allow it to make final recommendations on to Council regarding Council Tax levels for 2011/12.

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

Options were 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 were known and it should be noted that Officers may require more time in order to do this.  Outline options were highlighted below, however.

–        Regarding Council Tax, various options were 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 considering or 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 the medium to longer term position, given that further reductions in revenue funding are expected in future, in line with Government’s Spending Review.

-        With regard to items for noting, no options were presented.

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.

Officer preferred options were reflected in the recommendations, where appropriate.

The provisional Settlement was much better than expected, albeit that the Council still faced significant year on year funding reductions; this highlights how much expectations have shifted in recent months.  The Council had been successful in achieving major budget reductions and therefore in the short-term, the Council’s revenue prospects may be easily managed but the medium to longer term must not be overlooked; the challenge of balancing the Council’s budget beyond 2011/12 to deliver its corporate priorities still remained.  With regard to capital, the key risks still centred on completing land sales and reaching decisions on stalled regeneration schemes.

Councillor Langhorn proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry:-

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

By way of amendment which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, Councillor Ashworth proposed:

“That recommendation 3 be revised and the words ‘partnership working with Lancashire County Council and’ be inserted between ‘with the costs being funded from’ and ‘ongoing savings already approved in developing the budget.’

By way of an amendment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Report of the Head of Housing and Health and Head of Financial Services (Report to follow)

Please note this report is to follow, because at the time of publishing this agenda information on housing subsidy for 2011/12 had not been received from the Government.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health and Housing and the Head of Financial Services which updated the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) revised budget position for the current year and set out the recommended budget for 2011/12 and future years.  It also set out the updated Capital Programme for 2010/11 and a proposed programme to 2015/16.

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

With regard to the Revised Budget, Cabinet could consider other proposals that may influence the Revised Budget for the year and the call on revenue balances.

The most obvious options available in respect of the 2011/12 rent increase are to:

i)                    Set the average housing rent at £64.20 i.e. an increase of 6.9% as proposed in paragraph 3.3.1.  This is largely in line with the Government’s Guideline Rent increase. The benefit of this option would be that the Authority would be in line with the Government’s proposals to achieve convergence with no negative financial implications to the HRA.  Whilst this increase may appear large, this is only because currently, average council housing rents are below those of other social housing providers.

ii)                   Set the rent increase at a minimum level of 5.1% being the RPI inflation of 4.6% +.05%.  This would mean an actual average rent of £63.12, which would result in a loss of income of £210K with similar amounts for future years.  With no other compensating factors from the Government to offset the loss of income, the shortfall would have to be met from savings within the HRA or funded from Reserves.  This option would also considerably delay the Authority in achieving convergence, and does not support sustainability of the HRA in the longer term.

The options available in respect of the minimum level of HRA balances are to set the level at £350,000 in line with the advice of the Section 151 Officer, or to adopt a different level. Should Members choose not to accept the advice on the level of balances, then this should be recorded formally in the minutes of the meeting, and could have implications for the Council’s financial standing, as assessed by its external auditors. 

The options available in respect of the revenue budget projections and assumed rent levels for 2012/13 to 2013/14 are to recommend those as set out, or to consider other proposals for incorporation.  It should be noted that if Cabinet decides on alternative rent levels for 2011/12 or future years’, these would alter the budget projections.

The options available in respect of the Capital Programme are:

i)                    To approve the programme in full, with the financing as set out;

ii)                   To incorporate other increases or reductions to the programme, with appropriate sources of funding being identified.

Any risks attached to the above would depend very much on what measures Members proposed, and their impact on the council housing service and its tenants.  As such,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Report of the Chief Executive

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Langhorn)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive with regard to the progress made in developing a shared services programme for the Council as requested as an action from the Corporate Performance Monitoring Report Quarter 1 2010, and further to the last progress report presented to Cabinet on the 5 October 2010.

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

Option 1

To note the progress being made in respect of the service areas identified in the Appendix and to receive reports back to Cabinet as appropriate to ensure that any service improvements and efficiencies are considered as part of the budget exercise.

Option 2

To note the progress being made in respect of the service areas identified in the Appendix.

Councillor Langhorn proposed, seconded by Councillor Ashworth:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That Cabinet note the progress made in developing a Shared Services Programme for the Council, since the last progress report presented to Cabinet on the 5 October 2010.

(2)        That officers continue to develop shared service partnership opportunities for achieving service improvements and efficiencies with a view to reporting back as determined by Cabinet to allow proposals to be considered as part of the budget exercise.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Chief Executive

Reasons for making the decision:

The efficiencies delivered from developing a shared service programme will greatly assist in achieving the outcomes of the Council’s savings and efficiency programme and targets included in the Medium Term Financial Strategy including the continued operation of the three community pools.  It will also support the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities for working closely with other partner organisations to deliver improved benefits for the Lancaster District community.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Report of the Head of Community Engagement

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Kerr)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement to seek Cabinet’s approval of a Safeguarding Adults Policy and Procedure.

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

There were three options presented:

(1)        To agree the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults policy and procedure.

(2)        To agree the draft Policy and Procedure with amendments.

(3)        To not agree the new policy and procedure and have no policy place in respect of vulnerable adults.

The officer preferred option was Option 1. The draft Safeguarding Adults policy is a new policy developed in line with Lancashire County Council guidance and reporting procedures. It provides guidance to staff who may come into contact with vulnerable adults regarding the identification of different types of abuse and also what to do if they have concerns relating to a vulnerable adult.  The revised policy and guidance provides the Council with up to date information and procedures that are necessary to fulfill the council’s responsibilities.

Councillor Kerr proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry:-

“That Cabinet approve the policy and procedure set out in Appendix A of the report and that staff and Members are made aware of the new policy.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

That Cabinet approve the policy and procedure set out in Appendix A of the report and that staff and Members are made aware of the new policy.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Community Engagement

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision will provide the Council with up to date information and procedures that are necessary to fulfill the Council’s responsibilities.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Robinson)

Report of the Head of Governance

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Governance to consider the future of the Universities Cabinet Liaison Group.

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

There was no officer preferred option.

Councillor Robinson proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry:-

“That the Universities Cabinet Liaison Group be stood down.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved:

7 Members (Councillors Ashworth, Barry, Blamire, Fletcher, Kerr, Langhorn and Robinson) voted in favour, and 1 Member (Councillor Bryning) voted against.)

That the Universities Cabinet Liaison Group be stood down.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Governance

Reasons for making the decision:

There appeared to be a consensus among members of the Universities Cabinet Liaison Group that the Group was no longer required, as its function was now covered by other groups and working relationships.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry) 

Update from the Lancaster Market Cabinet Liaison Group. 

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

Cabinet received an oral update on the work of the Lancaster Market Cabinet Liaison Group.

Councillor Barry informed the meeting that a report with options would be presented to Cabinet in February.

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That the oral update be noted.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Deputy Chief Executive

Head of Property Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The terms of reference of the Lancaster Market Cabinet Liaison Group stipulate regular reports to Cabinet.