Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 9 October 2012 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 receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting). 

Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. 

In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code Of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct. 

Councillors Barry, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson and Leytham declared an interest with regard to the Take Pride Community Fund report in view of their involvement with a number of the organisations involved in the bidding process.  (Minute 72 refers). Councillors Barry and Hamilton-Cox advised the meeting that they would abstain from voting on that item.

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 Barry)

Report of the Head of Community Engagement

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement to propose commissioning arrangements to support the voluntary, community and faith sector in delivering services to meet current and emerging local needs and to recommend a timetable for Arts commissioning following the publication of the Arts Strategy for the district.

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

The officer preferred option was Option 1 as this reflected the findings of the Local Assessment, the engagement workshops and also provided the most efficient and effective way of maximising impact by providing benefits across the VCFS and supporting a very wide range of services indirectly.

The Council had taken steps towards introducing the commissioning arrangements proposed in the report over the last two years.  A detailed review of current SLA’s, an assessment of local needs and opportunities and communications and engagement work with the VCFS had been undertaken, leading to the proposals.  The recommendations provided a means of steering the Council’s investment in VCFS services to achieve the maximum  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Report of the Head of Community Engagement

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Councillors Barry, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson and Leytham declared interests in the following item in view of their involvement with some of the organisations referred to in the report.  Councillors Barry and Hamilton-Cox advised the meeting that they would abstain from voting on this item.

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement to make recommendations on the allocation of the Take Pride Community Fund (previously referred to as Second Homes Funding for 2012/13).

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

The officer preferred option was Option 1. It confirmed the fair, transparent and Member-led process that had resulted in the recommended allocations.

The massive amount of interest in the Take Pride Community Fund had shown the effectiveness of the advertising process, the evident passion organisations have to continue their good work, and also the extent of the need for support for the VCF and Arts/ Leisure sectors in these difficult times. The Member Panel has had to make difficult choices in agreeing these recommendations but ultimately the proposed projects would deliver the greatest lasting benefit to local people and the organisations concerned.

Councillor Blamire proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved:

(6 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Hanson, Leytham, Sands and Smith) voted in favour, and 2 Members  (Councillors  Barry and Hamilton-Cox) abstained.)

(1)                    That the process undertaken to seek bids to manage the bidding round for Take Pride Community Funding and the involvement and support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Report of the Head of Resources

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Resources to provide an update on the position regarding the Storey Creative Industries Centre as requested by Cabinet on 9 October 2012 (Minute 61 refers).

Cabinet were informed that a variety of parties had expressed an interest in assisting the Council take forward the Storey venture.

As the report was presented primarily for information no options were presented.  A visit to the Storey and a meeting with the tenants had been arranged and the report provided outline issues for consultation and discussion at that meeting.

Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

“(1)      That the report be noted.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That the report be noted.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Resources

Reasons for making the decision:

At its meeting on 9 October 2012 Cabinet requested written updates on the Storey Creative Industries Centre be tabled at each meeting.  (Minute 61 refers).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

Report of the Head of Resources

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Resources which provided an update on the Council’s financial prospects for future years in order to help inform development of its budget strategy. 

The report was primarily for information and for seeking direction from Cabinet and other than for council tax, no specific options were put forward at this time. 

The options regarding council tax targets were basically to either:

-        reduce the existing council tax target to no more than 2% for future years; or

-        recommend alternative council tax target increases for future years; or

-        delay making recommendations at this stage, until later in the budget process.

The level of any net savings requirement (and the associated risks) would depend on the tax level proposed.  Clearly the compensation arrangements in support of a council tax freeze required specific consideration.

The main risks attached to any option follow on from the information in the report and the ability of the Council to take decisions on matching service levels with the money available to fund them.  The impact on council tax payers was key; the reputation and public perception of the Council might well be affected.  The key risks could be summarised as follows:

-          Actual savings targets prove to be substantially different from those shown, due to changes in financial projections.

-          Required savings targets can’t be met, without having an unacceptable impact on service delivery – either from the Council’s own viewpoint or from public perception.

-          Government / the public perceive council tax levels to be too high, resulting in capping action being taken against the Council and/or a negative impact on public relations and the Council’s reputation.

-          Council tax targets are too low, resulting in them being unsustainable in the longer term, without having adverse effects on future service delivery and/or the Council’s financial standing and reputation.

To counter these risks, there would be further opportunities to review target increases later during the budget process.

Planning the Council’s finances continued to be very challenging, especially given all the uncertainties.  Nonetheless, it was impossible to get away from the fact that lower government funding and lower council tax increases ultimately meant that more savings were needed – with more pressure therefore to reduce service provision.  Redirection of resources would be needed to support any new growth needs.

Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith:-

“(1)      That the current position regarding current spending and forecasts for future years be noted, together with associated risks and uncertainties.

(2)        That the Government’s proposed council tax threshold of 2% for 2013/14 be noted, and that any recommendations of any formal changes to council tax targets be reconsidered in December when more information should be available.

(3)        That Cabinet notes the work underway in developing the budget but also commissions officers to bring forward such budget options that would address a reduction of up to 10% in future government funding.

(4)        That the key  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Report of the Head of Environmental Services

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Environmental Services which sought the approval of Cabinet to the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee with regard to the revised Customer Comments, Compliments and Complaints policy.

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

OPTION 1- The first of these was direct involvement in the investigation/review process via a member panel at Stage 2. Should members wish to pursue this option considerable staff resource would be required to service the panel. This included advice from the Service Head concerned to advise the panel, the Stage 1 investigating officer to answer any technical issues and Democratic Services to arrange meetings, call any witnesses and advise the complainant on the process and their rights to attend. If such a panel were to be set up a Constitutional update might be required and the approval of Full Council needed. Clearly this option complicated the process and would likely add to the time spent handling complaints. This in turn increased the risk of failing to meet the LGO’s expectation that the complaints process (all stages) be completed within 12 weeks. As outlined it would also require considerable additional resource. At this stage no indication of additional cost was available.

OPTION 2- was for Elected Members to review complaints data on a regular basis, (eg through Performance Review Team meetings) which could give an indication of overall performance – i.e. complaints trends could indicate service areas in need of improvement. Reports could be provided to the relevant committee at agreed intervals. This would provide an overview of the types of issues that were being complained about and then allow for Elected Members the opportunity to explore these areas further if required.

The Council’s Overview and Scrutiny committee recommended approval of the revised Policy and Guidance relating to Customer Comments, Compliment and Complaints.  With regard to the options for more Elected Member involvement Overview and Scrutiny recommended the following-

 (1) That Cabinet be recommended to approve option 2 as set out in the report.

(2) That Budget and Performance Panel be requested to undertake performance    monitoring of the complaints procedure.

(3) That sample complaints be reviewed on a regular basis.

If the number and type of formal complaints received from each service area was added to the reporting that takes place through the Performance Review Team process the recommendation made could be managed within existing resources. This would provide Elected Members with much more information than was currently provided. Based on these reports if members of Budget and Performance Panel or relevant Portfolio holders wanted further information based on trends or particular areas of concern then that could be requested.

Therefore, it was proposed that Cabinet –

·               Approve the revised Customer Comments, Compliments and Complaints Guidance.

·               Approve the recommendations of Overview and Scrutiny with regard to Elected Member involvement.

Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

This is to give further notice in accordance with Part 2, paragraph 5 (4) and 5 (5) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 of the intention to take the following item(s) in private.  No representations have been submitted on this intention.

Members are asked whether they need to declare any further declarations of interest regarding the exempt report(s). 

Cabinet is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to the following item(s):- 

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

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

It was moved by Councillor Hanson and seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

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

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

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

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility)

Report of the Head of Environmental Services

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Environmental Services to outline options for the future management of the Parksafe Car Park in Lancaster and establish, in principle, Cabinet’s preferred option.  The report 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 set out in the exempt report:

Councillor Hamilton-Cox proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

“(1)      That Option 2a – to negotiate a contract extension with Parksafe be approved.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved:

 (7 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire, Bryning, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Leytham and Sands) voted in favour, 1 Member (Councillor Smith) abstained.)

(1)        That Option 2a – to negotiate a contract extension with Parksafe be approved.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Environmental Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision is consistent with the Council’s Corporate Plan 2012 – 2015 priorities of Economic Growth and Clean, Green and Safe Places and the key supporting themes of Working Together in Partnership and Managing the Council’s Resources. The ongoing provision of a high quality guaranteed security car park is also consistent with the Council’s Parking Strategy and commitment to community safety.