Agenda and minutes

Cabinet
Tuesday, 17th January 2012 10.00 a.m.

Venue: Morecambe Town Hall

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

Items
No. Item

71.

Minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 6th December, 2011 (previously circulated). 

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 6 December 2011 were approved as a correct record.

 

72.

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.

 

73.

Declarations of Interest

To consider any such declarations. 

Minutes:

No declarations were made at this point.

 

74.

Public Speaking

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

 

Minutes:

Members were advised that there had been no requests to speak at the meeting in accordance with Cabinet’s agreed procedure.

 

 

75.

Exceptional events 2012 pdf icon PDF 92 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 to update members and seek approval for plans and resources for events to celebrate and maximise the economic impact of the Olympics.

 

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

 

 

 

Option 1:Notes the update, determines whether £40K or £50K is to be recommended, and seeks Council approval at the beginning of February, to allow earlier progress towards festivals and events for 2012 and 2013 – as set out in paragraph 3.3. above.

Option 2: Notes the update, determines whether £40K or £50K growth be proposed, but does not agree to seek early budget update and delays any decision until budget council at the end of February 2012.

Option 3:Notes the update and decides to provide some funding to cover the necessary health and safety costs associated with the torch passing through the district.

Advantages

It will encourage visitors to the district at the time – supporting the regeneration priority.

Unprecedented local,

regional, national and

international coverage of the district – raising the profile of Lancaster and

Morecambe long term as an attractive place to visit/stay, supporting the

regeneration of the district.

It will help potential visitors to geographically locate Lancaster / Morecambe as a visitor destination close to the Lake District,

It will demonstrate to other potential event organisers that this district is able to successfully host

international scale events.

This again supports the regeneration priority.

It will be an enormous

opportunity for the

community to come

together and enjoy a once in a lifetime experience.

It will also help to enhance the community’s sense of

pride in the district.

It will raise the profile of sport amongst local people and provide a springboard to encourage regular

exercise and sporting

opportunities.

Creates certainty and planning time for businesses who will benefit from the events

Supports the council’s priorities and a significant element of the council’s Visitor Marketing Plan

Council is able to make any decision within the overall context of setting its budget for 2012/13.

Allows the Torch to pass through the district safely.

Disadvantages

Decision taken ahead of wider budget setting context.

Resource implications – people and financial.

Failure to realise the massive benefits this event might bring

 

 

 

 

 

Option 1 was the officer preferred option.  Cabinet needed to take a decision with regard to the Council’s commitment to this exceptional event in 2012. The earlier a decision could be made the more this would assist in planning for the event.

 

 

Councillor Sands proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith:-

 

 

“(1)      That at its next meeting, Council be recommended to establish a Reserve of £40K in 2012/13 for the Olympic Torch Event and the allocation of this funding be determined by Cabinet following the production of a detailed programme of events.

 

(2)        That subject to the approval of the Apprenticeship Growth Bid as part of the main budget process,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

76.

Corporate Review of Service Level Agreements pdf icon PDF 117 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

 

Report of the Head of Community Engagement.

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement to update on progress in relation to the corporate review of Service Level Agreements and to make recommendations for future management arrangements, joint working and commissioning.

 

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

 

 

Option 1

Introduce a commissioning framework

Option 2

Do nothing – retain existing arrangements

Advantages

Opportunity to use the commissioning approach to reinforce positive engagement with partners

Potential for improved value for money

Improved opportunity to align council investment with delivery of corporate priorities

Increased flexibility to focus funds on current high priority service areas

Longer term planning opportunities for delivery partners

Development of staff expertise and capacity to take commissioning forward in other areas of work

Officer time not required to develop commissioning arrangements

 

 

Disadvantages

Officer time required to develop commissioning arrangements

 

Funding may not be closely aligned to current priorities

Current agreements limit the council’s ability to steer funding towards priority activities that offer maximum return

Best possible value for money may not be achieved

Current arrangements not consistently supported by agreed priorities and transparent criteria for funding

Lost opportunity to strengthen engagement with partners via commissioning processes

Risks

Possible concerns on the part of current delivery organisations – can be mitigated by communications and fair, transparent processes

Possible risks to high priority services if funding is already fully allocated and flexibility is not available to shift funding priorities over time

 

The officer preferred option was Option 1.  The Council has supported a number of organisations to deliver services in the district for some years.  Funding has been provided as part of Service Level Agreements with the relevant organisations.  Over the last year the Council has reviewed these arrangements in detail and, following the review, the report made some recommendations to ensure that the Council’s investment was in line with corporate priorities, that collaboration was supported and other requirements including value for money, quality standards, sustainability were met.

 

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

 

“(1)      That the Council continues to develop joint approaches with other funding partners, where possible, including Lancashire County Council, to achieve efficiencies and maximise impact of funding.

 

(2)        That a request is made to Lancashire County Council that the Council is able to use any Second Homes funding that may be available to support the Council’s agreements with the Arts and Voluntary, Community, Faith sectors.

 

(3)        That the Council continues to develop partnership working arrangements with the Arts and the Voluntary Community, Faith sectors, to support service delivery in the district and to achieve efficiencies.

 

(4)        That the Council works with Arts and Voluntary, Community, Faith sector partners to develop commissioning frameworks to secure important services for the district and to provide robust arrangements for management of the related funding provided by the council.

 

(5)        That the Council’s funding for the Arts and the Voluntary, Community, Faith sectors is aligned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

77.

Review of Parking Fees and Charges 2012-13 pdf icon PDF 171 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Report of the Head of Property Services. 

 

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Property Services to consider the Annual Review of Parking Fees and Charges for 2012/13.

 

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

 

 

Option 1: This option is to do nothing and to retain the existing fees and charges

Option 2: This option is to reduce some charges in a bid to increase usage

Option 3: This option is to approve increases to some fees and charges to achieve the 2012/13 Draft budget 

Advantages

 

This option limits the impact on parking usage and town centre businesses and trading

 

This option is likely to receive the most support through the consultation process

 

This option has the potential to reduce any further reductions in usage

 

 

Depending on the range of reduced prices this option could encourage greater use of car parks and increased use of local businesses and traders

 

This option is likely to receive the greatest support through the consultation process

 

This option allows parking fees and charges to meet the

financial target and to also potentially make an additional contribution to the 2012/13 budget process through surplus income

 

Disadvantages

 

This option is unlikely to achieve the required budget contribution through increased usage

 

 

This option is unlikely to achieve the required budget contribution as considerable additional usage would be required

 

 

This option could have a negative impact on short stay parking and town centre trading

 

This option is likely to receive the least support through the consultation process

 

Risks

 

This option increases the budget preparation difficulties at a time when additional income or major savings are required

 

 

 

It is extremely difficult to predict customer reaction to any reduced prices and the financial impact for the council. There are substantially increased risks associated with this option

 

 

This option could lead to further reductions in usage and the consequential risk of this could be that the estimated level of additional income may not be achieved

 

The officer preferred option was Option 3: to increase pay and display charges and to consider the two sub-options summarised as follows:-

 

Increase the Up to 1 hour charge on all car parks from £1.20 to £1.30

            Increase the Evening charge from £1.20 to £1.40, or

           

            (b) Increase Short Stay Up to 2 hours from £2.00 to £2.20

             Increase Short Stay Up to 3 hours from £2.70 to £2.80

            Increase Short Stay Up to 4 hours from £3.40 to £3.50

 

            That Cabinet approves allowing resident permit holders from Bulk Zone C to use Upper St Leonardsgate Car Park, Monday to Saturday before 10.00am and after 4.00pm and all day Sunday and that the Off-Street Parking Places Order is only amended when other substantive changes are required.

 

           That Cabinet approves adding Marine Road No 5 and No 6 to the list of car parks that Morecambe General Permit holders and other car park permit holders can use and that the Off-Street Parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

Health and Housing Fees & Charges 2012/13 pdf icon PDF 175 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Report of the Head of Health & Housing.

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health & Housing which had been prepared as part of the 2012/13 estimate procedure and set 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:

 

 

Option 1

To approve an inflationary increase of 2.6% in fees.

Option 2

To approve a 5% increase.

Option 3

To do nothing and retain the existing fees and charges.

Advantages

This option allows for increased fee revenue whilst retaining fees at competitive levels.

 

The increase in pest control fees reduces the council’s subsidy of this service by a substantial amount whilst retaining pest control fees affordable compared to some private sector providers.

 

This option allows for a greater increase in revenue..

This option would mean no price increases for customers.

Disadvantages

 

Any increase in fees is likely to be unpopular with customers.

 

No opportunity to raise additional revenue through fees and charges.

Risks

There is always a risk that customers will choose not to access services if fees are too high.

 

However, evidence gathered shows core fees and charges are comparable to other nearby local authorities.

There is always a risk that customers will choose not to access services if fees are too high.

 

There is a risk that even current income levels will fail to be achieved if fees are perceived to be too high.

 

This option increases the difficulties of securing a viable budget at a time when additional income and savings are required.

 

There was no officer preferred option.

Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That the Environmental Health & Private Sector Housing fees in Appendix 1 to the report be increased by 5%.

 

(2)        That the 50% discounts in qualifying cases (fleas, bedbugs, rodents) for those in receipt of Council Tax and/or Housing Benefit is retained.

 

(3)        That the fees and charges for the Neptune Baby and Young Child Memorial Garden are not increased for 2012/13.

 

(4)        That last years approved reduction of 50% for the lease of memorial plaques in the Neptune Baby area is retained for this and future years and forms the base fee for any proposed increases.

 

(5)        That a new fee of £80.00 (plus vat) be introduced for drain camera surveys as detailed in the report.

 

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Health & Housing

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

Fees and charges form an integral part of the budget setting process, which in turn relates to the Council's priorities.  Large increases in fees can disadvantage those residents least able to pay. However any of the proposed increases are considered to be fair and reasonable and in the case of pest control fees are less expensive or equal to that charged by most commercial companies.

79.

Budget and Policy Framework Update - General Fund Revenue Budget and Capital Programme pdf icon PDF 153 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 to provide information on the latest budget position for current and future years, to inform Cabinet’s budget and policy framework proposals and to allow it to make final recommendations to Council regarding council tax levels for 2012/13.

 

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 attached to the agenda.  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 public engagement.  Emphasis should be very much on the medium to longer term position.

 

-        In terms of the reassessment of reserves and the initial priorities for allocating surplus balances, given circumstances it was considered that there were no real alternatives.  Cover for such liabilities and risks would need to be made from somewhere.

 

With regard to the more specific recommendations, options were outlined below:

 

-        For the revenue growth to support development of the funding bids for the Science Park and Heysham Gateway, Cabinet could choose to consider them as part of their budget proposals or reject them.  If rejected, although it avoids some extra pressure to make savings, it also meant that an opportunity to attract significant investment and deliver against existing priorities was lost.

 

-        For the Community Capital Fund, Cabinet could choose to confirm or reject the allocation of funding, or defer a final decision and consider it as part of its overall budget proposals.  This allocation would support purely discretional spending and there were no detailed proposals available at this stage.  Members were advised to consider the LSP’s recommendations and assumed commitments, against other potential uses for these funds given the capital position.

 

Under the Constitution, Cabinet was required to put forward budget proposals for Council’s consideration, in time for them to be referred back as appropriate.  This is why recommendations were required to feed into the Council meeting in early February, prior to the actual Budget Council later that month.  Officer preferred options were reflected in the recommendations.

 

Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith:-

 

“(1)      That Cabinet notes the current budgetary position and prospects for future years and in particular, the progress  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The meeting adjourned at 11.25am and reconvened at 11.40pm.

80.

Budget and Policy Framework Update - Housing Revenue Account and Capital Programme pdf icon PDF 133 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Report of the Heads of Health & Housing and Financial Services.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Heads of Health & Housing and Financial Services which updated the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) revised budget position for the current year and set out the recommended budget for 2012/13 and future years under the new self-financing regime.  It also set out the updated Capital Programme for 2011/12 and a proposed programme to 2016/17.

 

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 2012/13 rent increase were to:

 

i)                    Set the average housing rent at £69.22 i.e. an increase of 7.82%.  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 4.75%, broadly in line with previous projections. This would mean an actual average rent of £67.25, which would result in a total loss of income of £1.67M, over 5 years, when compared with Option 1. 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 may not support sustainability of the HRA in the longer term.

 

iii)                 Set the rent increase different to either of the proposed options above.

 

The options available in respect of the minimum level of HRA balances were 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 2013/14 to 2014/15 were to recommend those as set out, or to consider other proposals for incorporation.  It should be noted that if Cabinet did not go with option 1 and decided on option 2 or other alternative rent levels for 2012/13 or future years’, these would alter the budget projections.

 

The options available in respect of the Capital Programme were:

 

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

81.

Morecambe Bay Nature Improvement Area pdf icon PDF 92 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

 

Report of the Head of Regeneration & Policy.

 

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

 

The Head of Regeneration and Policy Service presented a report to obtain the agreement of cabinet for the City Council as managing authority for the Arnside/Silverdale AONB to act as accountable body for the Morecambe Bay Nature Improvement Area (NIA) in the event of the funding bid being successful. 

 

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

 

Option 1 was for the Council to agree to act as accountable body, and to proceed with the bid for funding and in doing so aim to secure three years external funding for project work which could not normally be undertaken either in the AONB or outside the designated area.   Insofar as the AONB is concerned project work would help to implement the local authority partners adopted Management Plan.  In other areas improvements to the natural environment have been restricted due to reduction in public funding across a wide range of agencies and the success of this bid would help to replace some of those funds.

 

Option 2 was for the Council not to agree to act as accountable body, and therefore not to proceed with the application for funding.  This would lose the opportunity to obtain external funding for the partnership bodies to invest in improvements to the natural environment.  It would mean that the AONB Management Plan’s objectives would continue to be harder to achieve in the current financial climate.

 

Option 1was the preferred option as this presented a unique opportunity in the current financial climate to obtain external funding for projects to improve the very special areas which the City Council has a responsibility to manage, without any match funding burden on the council itself. It would therefore be in the City Council’s best interests to attempt to secure these funds and agreeing to act as accountable body was a reasonable action which reflected its leading role within the AONB partnership. 

 

 

Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That Cabinet agrees to Lancaster City Council acting as accountable body for the Morecambe Bay NIA and signs the required Memorandum of Agreement by 31st January 2012. 

 

(2)        That the revenue budget and capital programme be updated accordingly in the event that the Stage 2 application is successful, subject to there being no impact on City Council resources and subject to detailed monitoring arrangements being agreed with the Head of Financial Services. 

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Regeneration and Policy Service

Head of Financial Services

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

Management of the Arnside/Silverdale AONB is a statutory function for the City Council and partnership working to share facilities and access new areas of funding is a clear corporate priority for the council.   The enhancement of the high quality environments in the district is important for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

82.

Community Safety 2012/13 pdf icon PDF 115 KB

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Hamilton-Cox and Smith)

 

Report of the Heads of Property Services and Environmental Services.

Minutes:

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Hamilton-Cox and Smith)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Property Services and the Head of Environmental Services to provide information to allow consideration of priorities for the Council’s contribution to community safety in 2012/13.  The report covered the specific areas of CCTV, PCSOs and other contributions to safety.

 

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

 

It was clear that greatly reduced budgets available to the public sector would have an impact on the amount that the Council and its partners were able to deliver.

 

The report clearly set out that with regard to community safety there were a number of conflicting priorities. The information in the report was provided to help Cabinet decide which activities were the ones which would have the greatest impact on the Corporate Plan and Cabinet’s priorities.

 

Once that had been determined Cabinet could then determine within the context of statutory responsibilities, the Corporate Plan, Cabinet’s priorities and the Council’s budget what level of resources to allocate to them.  Because the CCTV system was directly provided and managed by the Council the report detailed very specific options for future provision set out below.

 

Specific Options for CCTV

 

No change – this would result in the budget remaining the same for the time being. There would be a need to enter a tender process for the staffing and maintenance functions of the operation and depending on the specification set out, the costs may or may not vary. For the purposes of this report, it has been assumed that costs for this option would remain static and that the contractual obligation for the tender would be three years.

 

There were no specific advantages, disadvantages or risks associated with this option as it retains the status quo.

 

Reduction in the number of operating cameras – to achieve this, a view would have to be taken on the areas that would have fewer cameras. This could be based on consultation with the police about those areas that have least crimes and it could for example be geographically based or perhaps based on the cover provided for certain types of property, for example car parks or shopping streets as opposed to residential areas.

 

Reducing camera numbers would not result in a reduction of staffing unless the cameras which were to be removed were in the busiest urban areas which may therefore reduce the need for double manning on Friday/Saturday evenings, but it would result in a reduction of the maintenance costs. At present this is based on approximately £1,000 per camera and is based on a new for old replacement basis if it is not possible to repair the cameras. Each camera removed from the system would therefore result in a saving of approximately £1,000.

 

However, it should be noted that the existing maintenance contract was due for immediate renewal if the council decided to retain the system. This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

83.

Shared Services Programme - Oneconnect Limited pdf icon PDF 71 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Report of the Chief Executive.

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Executive to advise on progress and proposals for shared services with Oneconnect Limited (OCL - the strategic partnership established between Lancashire County Council and BT) around Information Services and Customer Services.

 

Cabinet were requested to note the progress being made for shared services in respect of Information Services and Customer Services and support further development of the proposals on that basis.

 

Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

 

“(1)      That Cabinet notes the progress and proposals for shared services with OneConnect Limited in respect of Information Services and Customer Services and supports further development of the proposals on that basis. “

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

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

 

(1)        That Cabinet notes the progress and proposals for shared services with OneConnect Limited in respect of Information Services and Customer Services and supports further development of the proposals on that basis.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The efficiencies delivered from developing a shared service programme would greatly assist in achieving the objectives in the Council’s Corporate Plan, particularly in terms of efficiencies and working closely with other partner organisations to deliver improved benefits for the Lancaster district community.

Councillor Bryning left the meeting at this point.

84.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

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

 

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

 

“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 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 items 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. 

Minutes:

The Chairman asked for any further declarations of interest from Cabinet Members regarding the exempt report.

 

It was moved by CouncillorHamilton-Cox and seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

 

“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 paragraphs 2 and 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 paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act. 

 

 

 

85.

Shared Services - Property Services

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Deputy Chief Executive which was exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 2 and 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 Hanson proposed the recommendations as set out in the exempt report.

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        The resolution is set out in a minute exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 2 & 3 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive

Deputy Chief Executive

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The reasons for making this decision are set out in a minute exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 2 & 3 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972.