Agenda and minutes

Cabinet - Tuesday, 26th July 2011 10.00 a.m.

Venue: Lancaster Town Hall

Contact: Liz Bateson, Democratic Services - telephone (01524) 582047, or email ebateson@lancaster.gov.uk

Items

No.

Item

17.

Minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday 5 July 2011 (previously circulated).

Minutes:

It was proposed by Councillor Hamilton-Cox, seconded by Councillor Barry and resolved unanimously:

“That the exempt minute in relation to the Former Shell/ICI Site (Minute 16) be made public and that the minutes of 5 July 2011 be revised accordingly.”

Resolved:

That the exempt minute in relation to the Former Shell/ICI Site (Minute 16) be made public and that the minutes of 5 July 2011 be revised accordingly.

18.

Items of Urgent Business Authorised by the Leader

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

Minutes:

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

19.

Declarations of Interest

To consider any such declarations.

Minutes:

No declarations were made at this point.

20.

Public Speaking

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

Minutes:

Members were advised that there had been a request to speak at the meeting from a member of the public in accordance with Cabinet’s agreed procedure, as set out in Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.7, with regard to Lancaster Market (Minute 21 refers).

Peter Corke, Chairman of Lancaster Market Trader’s Association spoke to this item.

21.

Lancaster Market

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

Report of the Head of Property Services (to follow)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Property Services to consider options for the future of Lancaster Market including the opportunity to integrate with the City Museum.

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

The Council had several options on how it might move the market forward. These options were based on the decision taken by Council in March 2010 to retain a refurbished and revitalised market in Lancaster.

Option 1:

· To implement the finding of the NCS review which would require the following investment

	Budget Figure (£)
Entrance doors	40K per entrance
Internal layout changes	400K
Drop down banners	1K
External glazing vinyl transfers	12K (+ original images)
Demountable stalls	1K each
Part-time business development manager	20K per annum

· Review the rents to market value once the refurbishment works are completed

Advantages

· The NCS proposals would provide an opportunity to reinvigorate the market and potentially bring in new tenants.

Disadvantages

· There would be a substantial cost to the council and no guarantee that the scheme would be a success or that the existing deficit, currently estimated at £619,500 for 2011/12 would be reduced.

Risks

· There is a risk that reduced number of traders would continue in the market as a result of the increased rents. This could lead to a further spiralling down of the market prior to refurbishment works being undertaken.

Option 2:

As a consequence of discussions held with the market traders there is a proposal to move all tenants down to the ground floor, and retain first floor accommodation for either a single let or a let at some other use, e.g. exhibition space. Costs of the works, including a plan of the proposal, are show at Appendix B.

· The costs of refurbishing the ground floor to accommodate such usage, with minimal refurbishment to the first floor are estimated at £270K including fees. However, it should be noted that this does not include the cost of any particular fitting out requirements in individual stalls other than specialist works to relocate café kitchen equipment. Market traders have expressed the view that the council should be responsible for all costs of any move, although cabinet may wish to indicate whether they feel that traders should contribute to fit out costs as part of this agreement

· Consideration could be given under this arrangement to increase rents to full market value on completion of works.

Advantages

· The move of all units to the ground floor will give the traders more visibility and create a greater sense of vitality to the market

· Traders appear to be in agreement with the option, and this cooperation of the traders may well encourage a quicker resolution to current underutilisation.

· The option would cost less than full refurbishment

Disadvantages

· There would still be a substantial cost to the council, with no guarantee that the scheme would be a success

· There would be limited assurance ... view the full minutes text for item 21.

22.

Provisional Revenue, Capital and Treasury Management Outturn 2010/11 PDF 135 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

Report of the Head of Financial Services

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Financial Services which provided summary information regarding the provisional outturn for 2010/11 and the timetable for completion of the closure of accounts process. It also set out information regarding the carry forward of underspent/overspent revenue budgets and capital slippage for Members’ consideration, and sought approval of various Prudential Indicators for last year for referral on to Council. The Treasury Management Outturn report (previously reported separately) was also included.

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

The City Council has a legal requirement to ensure that its expenditure is fully funded and to produce a Statement of Accounts in accordance with proper accounting practice. In addition, the Prudential Indicators are a statutory requirement linked to the budgetary framework. For these aspects, therefore, there were no alternative options for Cabinet to consider. Members were asked to endorse certain actions taken by the Head of Financial Services, however. Cabinet were requested to consider whether it had sufficient information to do so or whether it required any further justification. With regard to reserves contributions, there would be opportunities for these to be amended during the current financial year, as part of the usual arrangements.

The report requested Cabinet to consider a number of revenue budget carry forward matters and capital slippage. The framework for considering these was set out in the report but basically Cabinet could:

- Approve any number of the items / requests, in full or part.

- Refuse any number of the requests and if commitments have already been incurred, require alternative funding options to be identified. Cabinet was requested to note, however, that this might impact on other areas of service delivery.

- Request further information regarding them, if appropriate. Cabinet was asked to bear in mind any work required against the value of the individual bids.

Officer recommendations regarding any carry forward of overspendings were set out in Appendix F, to the report. Where there were alternative options for other aspects of the outturn, in view of the comments made above there were no specific officer preferred options put forward.

Although 2010/11 has been an uncertain year financially, as at 31 March the Council had improved its financial standing overall by generating net efficiency savings and through other underspendings. Balances were significantly higher than forecast. Whilst there were still uncertainties surrounding the outcome of Icelandic investments, the Council had retained its provisions to cover ‘worse case’ estimated losses and therefore potentially there was scope for its financial position to improve further, should a positive ruling be forthcoming. Looking forward, the Council had earmarked further reserves to help respond to the ongoing financial challenges expected over the coming years. Given funding prospects the Council must continue to reduce costs wherever possible – substantially more efficiency and other savings initiatives would be needed in future in order to ensure a ... view the full minutes text for item 22.

23.

Shared Services Programme PDF 69 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Report of the Chief Executive

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive to report on 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, since the last progress report presented to Cabinet on the 19 April 2011.

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

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

Councillor Blamire proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

“To approve the recommendations as set out in the report with a further two recommendations with regard to establishing a Shared Services Cabinet Liaison Group and inviting a representative from Liverpool Council to discuss their experience in relation to shared services with members.”

Councillors then voted on the amended proposals:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1) That Cabinet notes the progress made in developing a Shared Services Programme for the Council, since the last progress report presented to Cabinet on the 19 April 2011.

(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 and as appropriate to achieve any decision-making deadlines.

(3) That a Shared Services Cabinet Liaison Group be established.

(4) That a representative from Liverpool Council be invited to discuss their experience in relation to shared services with members.

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. The decision also supports the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities for working closely with other partner organisations to deliver improved benefits for the Lancaster district community. Establishing a Cabinet Liaison Group will enable members to get more involved in the details.

24.

Cycling - Future actions following Cycling Demonstration Town Project PDF 116 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Policy

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Policy with regard to proposed future actions following on from the Cycling Demonstration Town Project.

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

	Option 1: That the grant offer be accepted and approval given for a procurement process for this works in combination with the Section 106 funds from the Globe Arena.	Option 2: Not to accept the offer of the funding.	Option 3: None
Advantages	Increased amenities for cycling to schools. Builds on the skills and infrastructure developed in delivering the CDT project.	None
Disadvantages	None	This would miss the opportunity to encourage more sustainable travel options for school pupils and staff as well as other members of the community.
Risks	There is a small element of risk that costs could exceed the budget but robust estimates have been used for the bid and additional funding from our revenue budget would be available.	Reputational risk that the Lancaster City Council is not taking opportunities to promote sustainable transport measures

Local Sustainable Transport Fund

	Option 1: That the council note the bid in consortium with Sustrans , Devon County Council and 36 other local authorities and authorise officers to work up the bid if successful in the first round and report further details when available.	Option 2: That the council do not take forward this bidding process.	Option 3: None
Advantages	Further funding to promote cycling	None
Disadvantages	None	Missed opportunity for funding to promote sustainable transport within the district
Risks	None	Without continued funding the infrastructure and initiatives already in place from the CDT Project could go into decline and suffer

Partnership working with the County Council

	Option 1: That the Head of Regeneration & Policy be given delegated authority to agree partnership work with the County Council to deliver cycling schemes, subject to there being no additional call on City Council budgets	Option 2: Do not work in partnership with the County.	Option 3: None
Advantages	Builds on existing partnering experience and provides fee income for work.	None
Disadvantages	None	Missed opportunity for funded partnership working and loss of fee income for staff time
Risks	None	Reputational

Support for the Continuation of the Bike it Officer

	Option 1: That the Council continue to work in partnership with Sustrans and support the Bike it Officer with £16.7k from Public Realm revenue budget.	Option 2: Do not offer this support	Option 3: None
Advantages	Builds on existing partnering and continues valuable work to encourage school pupils to cycle safely and responsibly. Supports other proposed works (Links to Schools at Westgate & Heysham)	None
Disadvantages	Commits City Council revenue budget	Local schools will lose the resource to encourage their pupils to use bicycles safely and responsibly
Risks	None	Reputational

The officer preferred option in each of the above was option 1. Sustainable methods of transport such as cycling are increasingly important for health, ... view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

International Youth Games 2012/13 PDF 104 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sands)

Report of the Head of Community Engagement

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sands)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement in order to seek members’ views regarding hosting of the International Youth Games in 2013.

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

Option 1

To send teams to Rendsberg 2012 and to host the International Youth Games in 2013

Option 2

To send teams to Rendsberg in 2012 and not to host in 2013.

Option 3

To withdraw from both Rendsberg 2012 and the hosting opportunity in 2013

Advantages

Continue to shape the benefits of the Games beyond those of sport and more strongly align with corporate priorities as referred to within this report.

Exploration of tourism opportunities that may exist between the countries.

Provide opportunities for partners to become involved particularly with the hosting – maximising the diverse and unique offer the district provides.

Opportunities to develop the role of the civic delegation.

Financial savings to the Council in 2013/14 – in the region of £53k.

Financial savings to the Council in 2012/13 in the region of £5k and £53k in 2013/14.

Disadvantages

In order to host the games staff resources will need to be maximised and work commence as soon as possible in order to put arrangements in place.

Significant cost to the Council

Missed opportunity to showcase the district to the region on a sporting and cultural front.

Missed opportunities to further develop other potential (as yet unexplored) benefits taking part in the games might provide.

Potential negative impact upon the Council’s reputation

Missed opportunity to showcase the district to the region on a sporting and cultural front.

Missed opportunities to further develop other potential (as yet unexplored) benefits taking part in the games might provide.

Potential negative impact upon the Council’s reputation

Risks

An early decision is required with respect to attendance at Rendsberg and also hosting. Delay could increase the risk of venues not being available nearer the time.

There is a risk that the invitation to Rendsberg may be withdrawn.

There is a possibility (although unlikely) that the invitation to Aalborg this year could be withdrawn.

Unlikely that any future invitation to participate in the Games would be received.

Following the recent elections, this report provided an opportunity for the new Cabinet to reaffirm (or otherwise) its commitment to continue to take part in the International Youth Games in the light of the ongoing difficult financial climate and the Council’s current priorities. The Officer preferred option was Option 1. Taking part in future International Youth Games provided an opportunity to showcase the district to the region on a sporting and cultural front in addition to other potential benefits which could be developed to offer more support to the Council’s corporate priorities.

Councillor Blamire proposed, seconded by Councillor Bryning:-

“(1) That Cabinet reaffirms the Council’s commitment to participate in the International Youth Games in Rendsberg in 2012 and to act as host to ... view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

LDLSP Performance Reward Grant PDF 152 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Report of the Head of Community Engagement

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement to seek approval for the latest proposals from the Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership (LDLSP) Management Group for the allocation of the one-off Performance Reward Grant (PRG).

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

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risks

Option 1: Approve the proposals

Key priorities for the LDLSP and the City Council will be addressed, including the Climate Change, Economic Regeneration and Partnership Working corporate plan priorities

A significant amount of matched funding will be secured for the district

Delegation of authority to agree the specific domestic abuse activities will ensure no delay in decision-making

There will be no PRG revenue funding available to address any future issues that arise

Financial and reputational risks: The initiatives are complex and will require strong leadership and management to ensure they are successful. If this is not achieved then any delays or failures could result in a waste of public funds, and reputational risk to the LDLSP and its partners, including the City Council.

Option 2: Do nothing

The PRG funding would be available for other initiatives.

The proposed initiatives will not go ahead, leading to missed opportunities to deliver better services and outcomes for local people.

Matched funding via the CERT and FITs schemes will be lost.

Reputational risk: there is the potential for a loss of trust between the City Council and other LDLSP partners

The LDLSP has finalised proposals for the proposed PRG initiatives and approval from Cabinet was required to ensure that these benefits were now realised:

· The focus on hydroelectricity would facilitate the development of long-term renewable energy initiatives that would leverage initial investment AND provide a long-term benefit for local communities.

· The ‘Warm Homes’ initiative would insulate 2000 homes, many occupied by households at risk of fuel poverty, with matched funding maximising the LSP’s investment.

· The social enterprise initiative would help to create self-sustaining service delivery and will enhance the potential of local organisations in supporting their local communities.

· The fund finder initiative will not only bring at least £1 million of new strategic investment into the district, but would improve the ability of organisations to successfully bid for their own funds in future.

· The domestic abuse initiative would provide direct and immediate support to some of the district’s most vulnerable families, as well as helping to ensure a sustainable future for domestic abuse services beyond 2012.

These initiatives were complex and amendments to the plans would certainly be required – by delegating authority to the Leader to approve those decisions Cabinet would ensure that approval was given in a timely manner.

PRG was a one-off opportunity and these initiatives would ensure that it would meet partner expectations and deliver a lasting legacy in the district. Further initiatives that would benefit from the unallocated capital PRG monies were currently being considered by the LSP. Authorisation for any ... view the full minutes text for item 26.

27.

Business Improvement Districts for Lancaster and Morecambe PDF 163 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Policy

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Policy to provide background information on the concept of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and update members on work towards the establishment of BIDs in Lancaster and Morecambe.

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

Although the report was primarily provided to update Members the following options could be considered:

	Advantages	Disadvantages	Risks
Option 1: Do nothing	No advantages.	Loss of credibility with business community. No contribution to council’s Corporate objectives.	Council may be in breach of statutory duties to support BID proposer as defined in BID legislation.
Option 2: Continue with preparations for introduction of BIDs in partnership with Lancaster Chamber in Lancaster and with the local trade associations in Morecambe	Successful BID should have benefits for the local authority as well as the business community. Clear and credible leadership for the business community to identify with. Potential for more effective use of council resources and innovation in town centre service delivery. Should engender a closer relationship between business community and statutory service providers. Fosters improved and clearer communication and genuine partnership with business Effective opportunity for local businesses to have a voice on subjects relating to the environment in which they trade.	No guarantee that BID ballot in Lancaster or Morecambe would ultimately be successful. Allocated resource for BID proposer/partnership to move to ‘BID readiness’ will need to be supplemented by council officer resources. Relatively long lead in period to ensure best possible chance of success.	Council and officer resources required pre and post ballot which need to be fully defined and understood. Implications for council and other statutory services of committing to ‘baseline’ service provision over BID lifetime may reduce flexibility.
Option 3: Explore alternative routes / partnerships for introduction of BIDs in Lancaster and Morecambe	Could have same benefits as Option 2 although development could take longer.	As Option 2 but with the addition that it is difficult to see an alternative partnership/route to BID implementation that has credibility in the business community.	As Option 2 but even more difficult and time consuming to get to ballot stage

Option 2 was the Officer preferred option. There was a clear way forward for Lancaster BID and emerging consensus for progression of the Morecambe BID. The BID officer working group should ensure that any issues arising from BID Proposal development and pre/post ballot resource implications for both Lancaster and Morecambe were addressed in partnership with the BID proposer.

The Lancaster Chamber and NWLCC had confirmed that the resources agreed for the Lancaster BID were sufficient for the purposes of BID Proposal development. This follows the experience of NWLCC in successfully progressing the Preston BID through both proposal and implementation stages. The outcome of a BID ballot could not be guaranteed but officers believed the relationships being built and the direction emerging gave the best ... view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

Minutes:

It was moved by Councillor Hamilton-Cox and seconded by Councillor Barry:

“That the following item (Minute 29 refers) be considered in the public part of the meeting and that the report be made available to the press and public.”

29.

Property Services Restructure

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Report of the Chief Executive

Minutes:

Cabinet resolved unanimously not to exclude the press and public at this point

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive to advise of the current position of creating a shared service with the Property Service function of the Council and to provide direction to enable discussions to be concluded with a single authority.

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

Although a full costing analysis had not been completed officers were coming to the conclusion that a decision on a preferred partner was the most logical next step. The two options were set out below.

	Option 1: Shared Service with the County Council	Option 2: Shared Service with SLDC/NPS
Advantages	Improved district wide asset management leading to potential revenue savings and capital receipts for the City and County through property rationalisation delivered through the new function. Offers an opportunity to redefine standards with amore robust resource to manage the joint portfolio of the city and county councils. Allows for the potential benefits of being part of larger contracts with possible cost reductions. Potential cost reductions through shared management and reduced establishment.	Allows the authority to take advantage of alternative resources and management expertise. Offers the opportunity to redefine standards & possibly reduce service costs Increase the pace of change & innovation
Disadvantages	Not all costs have been identified at this stage until the city council’s direction is more clear. Both councils would potentially have differing aims & objectives. Differing schemes of delegation and ways of working	This is an unknown cost until final agreement is reached There would be a need for a client officer with appropriate funding. Internal ‘notional’ recharges (based on time spent by staff within other support services, e.g. Financial, Governance Services, etc) replaced by actual management costs charged by NPS, but not necessarily offset by corporate corresponding saving from reduced staffing levels in other support services
Risks	There would be a need to ensure that the aims of the shared service are brought together to ensure that all local objectives are achieved to the satisfaction of both authorities. Failure to achieve the local objectives of both authorities could lead to a reduced level of service provision with delays likely in undertaking work	Costs still need to be determined. Provider may not be able to respond as quickly to local objectives due to reduced local knowledge of the Lancaster district or where there are specific areas of difference despite having similar requirements Public procurement rules, i.e. failure of the ‘client function’ meeting the legal definition of a shared service agreement

Option 1 was the officer preferred option. To make further progress in this review it was advisable to make a decision on a preferred partner to allow that option to be worked up in more detail. It was unreasonable to continue working up proposals with other organisations if there is potentially little likelihood of further progress. The ... view the full minutes text for item 29.