Agenda and minutes

Cabinet
Tuesday, 4th December 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

78.

Minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 6 November, 2012 (previously circulated). 

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 6 November 2012 were approved as a correct record.

 

79.

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.

 

 

80.

Declarations of Interest

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. 

 

Minutes:

 

Councillor Hanson declared an interest with regard to the Ryelands Park Bandstand report, as a member of Morecambe Town Council (Minute 91 refers).

 

81.

Public Speaking

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

 

Minutes:

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 Chatsworth Gardens and Clusters of Empty Homes Funding (Minute 82 refers) and Service Level Agreement Storey Gallery (Minute 83 refers).

 

82.

Chatsworth Gardens and Clusters of Empty Homes Funding pdf icon PDF 126 KB

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Leytham & Hanson)

 

Report of the Head of Regeneration and Planning

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Hanson & Leytham)

 

Mr Stephen Swithin, who had registered to speak on this item in accordance with the City Council’s agreed procedure and Cabinet procedure Rule 2.7, spoke in support of the regeneration proposals.

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Planning to seek approval to deliver a viable solution to the stalled Chatsworth Gardens project through the acceptance of the Clusters of Empty Homes Funding offer of £1.9M.

 

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

 

 

Option 1: Do Nothing and reject £1.9M CEHF and withdraw from project

Option 2: Accept £1.9M CEHF to deliver Chatsworth Gardens initially bar one Regent Road terrace

Option 3: Accept £1.9M CEHF and request Council funds resources to complete full Chatsworth Gardens scheme

Advantages

Avoids project delivery risks.

No further direct capital cost to the council.

Removes uncertainty.

Provides a positive and viable solution to Chatsworth Gardens.

Utilises existing regeneration funding and poses no further budget costs on the council.

Brings empty homes back into use.

Clearly sets out council’s commitment to local residents and owners in the area.

Demonstrates delivery to HCA boosting chances for future funding.

Provides a comprehensive and positive solution to Chatsworth Gardens.

Brings empty homes back into use.

Clearly sets out council’s commitment to local residents and owners in the area.

Demonstrates delivery to HCA boosting chances for future funding.

 

Disadvantages

Risk of exacerbating local housing market failure.

Disposal may take several years to realise.

Ongoing management costs and staff resources.

Adverse impacts likely to be caused resulting in negative regeneration effect.

Does not allow take up of Clusters of Empty Homes Funding opportunity.

Ideally requires co-operation from owner occupiers & landlords to avoid costly legal action.

Uncertainty of delivery remains for the Regent Road terrace in the Eastern block.

 

The budget required could not be implemented within the existing MTFS. The challenging and uncertain financial prospects mean that it is difficult to see this position improving.

Ideally requires co-operation from owner occupiers & landlords to avoid costly legal action. Reduces opportunity for external funding.

Risks

This was calculated as the highest overall ‘all risk.’

The potential impact of this approach is a high negative regeneration effect.

There are reputational risks to the council and HCA being seen to ‘pull out’ of the project and the impact on West End. But in financial risk terms withdrawal is the least risky option.

Reputational risk with the HCA would make future bids less credible.

Long sales period presents health and safety risk from dilapidations.

Involves the council taking the delivery risks on a capital housing development project.

The council will face a sales risk on the direct refurbishment properties that needs to be mitigated by some form of mortgage assistance scheme.

Limited control over private sector match required to access part of HCA funding.

Build costs and sales date/value can adversely impact project. However the appraisal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

The Chairman informed the meeting of a revision to the order of the agenda in view of the request to speak by a member of the public on the following item.

83.

Service Level Agreement Storey Gallery 2012-13 pdf icon 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)

 

Mr John Angus, Director of the Storey Gallery, who had registered to speak on this item in accordance with the City Council’s agreed procedure and Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.7, spoke on behalf of the Storey Gallery.

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement to seek members’ views as to future arrangements regarding the Council’s Service Level Agreement with the Storey Gallery.

 

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

 

The options were to:

(1)        Accept the proposals put forward by the Storey Gallery Company, subject to gaining clarity on the funding of its future ‘infrastructure’ costs (see financial implications).

(2)        Reject or amend in some way the proposals put forward.

 

No specific officer recommendation was put forward, but attention was drawn to the comments in section 2 of the report summarised as follows:

Since the October meeting of Cabinet there has been ongoing correspondence including proposals by the Storey Gallery Company set out in Appendix A to the report.  No further information was available to assist Cabinet regarding the company’s new direction, other than to quote from the company’s consultant’s report that was presented to Cabinet on 9 October, contained in paragraph 2.3 of the report on the agenda. In terms of the third part of the company’s request, Officer’s views were that it is for the company to decide whether it wished to apply to the Arts Council for funding, rather than it being a matter for the Council.

The City Council has had in place a longstanding SLA with the Storey Gallery Company. The current financial and operational difficulty the company was facing had led to the closure of the gallery space and a review of its current operational and financial arrangements.  The proposal put forward by the Storey Gallery Company attempted to find an interim solution to the company’s current difficulties, to give it time to determine its future.

 

Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Sands:-

 

“(1)      That Cabinet agrees to underwrite the rent and service charges on the office currently occupied in the Storey Institute until the end of February 2013 to allow sufficient time for an application to be made to the Arts Council.

 

(2)        That Cabinet agrees to support in principle the proposed new direction (noting the existence of such support from County Council and Arts Council)

 

(3)        That Cabinet reaffirms its decision taken on the 9 October 2012 to keep the £10,700 grant held back until detailed proposals regarding any specific project are brought forward by the company for consideration by Cabinet.”

 

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That Cabinet agrees to underwrite the rent and service charges on the office currently occupied in the Storey Institute until the end of February 2013 to allow sufficient time for an application to be made to the Arts Council.

 

(2)        That Cabinet agrees to support in principle the proposed new direction (noting the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

84.

Commissioning Arrangements for the Voluntary Sector pdf icon PDF 105 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Report of the Head of Community Engagement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Barry)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement to advise members of progress to date in developing a Commissioning Plan to support the voluntary, community and faith sector in delivering services to meet current and emerging local needs.

 

A detailed options analysis and risk assessment was developed as part of the November report to Cabinet (Minute 71 refers).  This report provided information relevant to Resolution 8:

 

“That the Commissioning Plan and service specification be approved at the December Cabinet meeting, prior to publication of the plan.”

 

The Council had taken steps towards introducing the commissioning arrangements proposed in this report over the last two years.  Detailed reviews of current SLA’s, an assessment of local needs and opportunities and communications and engagement work with the VCFS had been undertaken, leading to these proposals.  The recommendations provided a means of steering the council’s investment in VCFS services to achieve the maximum impact linked to current needs and opportunities in the district.  In addition, they would provide clear, transparent arrangements that focused on value for money and impact and supported the principle already agreed by Cabinet at earlier meetings.  Specific steps had been taken to work with Lancashire County Council with the potential to invest jointly providing a more strategic investment in some services. 

 

The preferred officer option was to approve the Commissioning Plan and funding allocations as per Appendix A and B of the report.

 

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

 

“(1)      That the timetable and process for development of a Commissioning Plan be noted and the Plan approved for publication following the inclusion of ‘Disabilities’ within the Delivery Plan Advice and Information Services (commissioned services).

 

(2)        That the General Fund Budget assumptions for future years be noted.

 

(3)        That the portfolio holder and Leader meet with relevant officers to agree the allocations of funding for each of the services to be commissioned subject to final confirmation as part of the budget process.”

 

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That the timetable and process for development of a Commissioning Plan be noted and the Plan approved for publication following the inclusion of ‘Disabilities’ within the Delivery Plan Advice and Information Services (commissioned services).

 

(2)        That the General Fund Budget assumptions for future years be noted.

 

(3)        That the portfolio holder and Leader meet with relevant officers to agree the allocations of funding for each of the services to be commissioned subject to final confirmation as part of the budget process.

 

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Community Engagement

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

Proposed commissioning arrangements fit with Corporate Plan priorities and outcomes as follows:

·  The voluntary, community and faith sector has capacity to deliver services for the district

·  Local communities are actively working with partners to improve where they live in ways that matter to them

·  Efficiency savings and service improvements achieved through joint working and shared services

·  Impact of welfare reforms managed well to avoid any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

85.

Storey Creative Industries Centre: Progress Update pdf icon PDF 61 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

 

Report of Head of Resources

Minutes:

(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 (CIC).

 

As the report was presented primarily for information no options were presented.  Cabinet Members and Officers visited the Storey on Wednesday 14 November and had an informal meeting with tenants and gained a broad appreciation of what the building and gardens could offer. 

 

The Storey operation would need to support Council’s priorities and be sustainable and the report outlined the work being undertaken by officers within Regeneration and Planning, Communications, ICT and Property to fit with the Council’s theme of managing the Council’s resources to deliver value for money.

 

Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Sands:-

 

“(1)      That Cabinet notes that time will be needed to develop a clear strategy to support proposals to take the Storey forward and confirms that the SCIC now sits within the portfolio of the Cabinet Member responsible for Regeneration.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That Cabinet notes that time will be needed to develop a clear strategy to support proposals to take the Storey forward and confirms that the SCIC now sits within the portfolio of the Cabinet Member responsible for Regeneration.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Resources

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

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

86.

Budget and Policy Framework 2013/16: Revenue Budget and Capital Programme Update pdf icon PDF 117 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Report of Head of Resources

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(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 position to help inform development of Cabinet’s budget proposals.  Given that the Local Government settlement had not yet been received, the report was primarily for information, rather than seeking any specific decisions.

 

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

 

GENERAL FUND REVENUE BUDGET – CURRENT YEAR

 

An in-depth analysis of all current year budgets had been undertaken and a summary of the budget and variance analysis was attached at Appendix A to the report.   There was still time for the revised budget position to change further over the coming weeks and therefore Cabinet was simply requested to note the overall position at this stage. In terms of earmarked reserves and provisions, a full review had not yet been completed.  This would be undertaken in time to report to January’s Cabinet meeting. 

 

2013/14 DRAFT REVENUE BUDGET

 

The first draft of the 2013/14 budget had been produced, in accordance with Financial Regulations and the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS).  Further information would be provided for the January meeting.   Currently the draft budget for 2013/14 stood at £20.196M, as shown in Appendix A to the report, which also showed the provisional variance analysis undertaken so far.

 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT

 

The provisional Local Government Finance Settlement was not expected to be announced until later this month and therefore the impact would be reported formally into January’s Cabinet meeting.  The MTFS approved in February assumed that Government support would reduce by 2% in 2013/14 (over 4% in real terms) compared with 2012/13, and 0% (about 2% in real terms) the year after. 

 

COUNCIL TAX

 

In addition to the change in the referendum trigger threshold being reduced to 2%, the Government had also announced proposals for a continuation of the Council Tax Freeze Grant.  Under this proposal, the Council would receive the equivalent of a 1% tax rise (£84K) for 2013/14 and 2014/15, should it choose to freeze or reduce council tax for 2013/14.  Take up of this arrangement was voluntary.

 

SAVINGS REQUIREMENTS: SCENARIOS

 

At this stage it was impossible to give any reasonably accurate picture of what the Council would need to save next year to continue with existing services, depending on its council tax targets.  This was mainly because of the uncertainties over Government funding and other legislative changes.  Some scenarios were set out in the report. 

 

RE-DIRECTION OF RESOURCES (SAVINGS & GROWTH OPTIONS)

 

The Council’s financial prospects could change significantly as a result of the Government funding settlement.  In view of this position, Cabinet was advised once again to focus its attention on identifying and prioritising areas for making recurring savings and this linked to the Corporate Priorities report elsewhere on the agenda.  It was reiterated that without such an approach, Cabinet ran the risk of:

 

-        not being able  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

87.

Corporate Fees and Charges pdf icon PDF 138 KB

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Bryning, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Leytham and Sands)

 

Report of Head of Resources

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Bryning, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Leytham and Sands)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Resources to consider the annual review of fees and charges for 2013/14.

 

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

 

In order to assist the decision making process the report was structured into four main areas as follows:

n       Environmental Services - Car Parking

n       Health & Housing

n       Wellbeing

n       Regeneration & Planning – Cycle Parking Lockers

 

These set out the key considerations for Members in context of the latest budget projections and listed the relevant options, options appraisal and officer recommendations either in the body of the report or in the appendices.  It was important to remember that income budgets had been set based on the best information available at this time, but also that the impact of the current economic climate could continue to adversely affect income generation.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES – CAR PARKING

It was agreed that consideration of proposals regarding car parking fees and charges be deferred until the January Cabinet meeting when it was hoped the county council would had confirmed their proposals regarding on-street parking charges. If this was the case it would still allow for implementation in April 2013.

 

HEALTH AND HOUSING

Appendix D to the report set out the current charges and options for increases for 2013/14. 

 

Pest Control Fees

The pest control fees were increased last year by 5% on the previous year. Any further large increase could deter the public from seeking expert advice.  This could lead to people carrying out their own DIY treatments, which might have serious health and safety implications.  It also allowed pest problems to escalate to a point at which the Council would be forced to intervene, by which time treatment was more difficult, more labour?intensive and more costly.

 

Cemetery Fees

Neptune Baby and Young Child Memorial Garden.

As in previous years, uptake of memorial options in this area had been limited.  It was again proposed therefore that the fees for burial options, cremated remains, memorial plaques and associated extras be retained at the same level as last year.

 

General Fees & Charges

Most of the fees and charges covered in the report related to the provision of statutory services but the council did have flexibility in setting fees for these services. 

For the discretionary services, the council was at discretion to set its own level of fee provided that the fees remained competitive and affordable to retain customers.  The pest control service was estimated to operate at a loss of £89,600 inclusive of recharges, and £20,800 excluding recharge in 2013/14, based on the latest draft budget which included an inflationary increase of 2%.  If Option 2 (5% increase) was approved the deficit would be reduced by £3,300.

 

 

 

Option 1

To approve an inflationary increase of 2% in fees.

Option 2

To approve a 5% increase.

Option 3

To do nothing and retain  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

88.

Local Government Finance Act 2012 -Reforms to Council Tax: Use of Discretionary Powers pdf icon PDF 174 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Report of the Head of Resources

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Resources to inform Members of various new discretionary powers available with regard to council tax discounts, premiums and exemptions, and seek Cabinet’s recommendations on their adoption for referral on to Council.

 

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

 

There were three options available for consideration.  Appendix D to the report set out an equality impact assessment and this had informed development of the proposals.  Inevitably, however, balancing the differing impact on stakeholders involved judgement and as such, any policy changes adopted would be kept under review after implementation.

 

Option 1

To recommend the introduction of a charging policy in line with recommendations

Would encourage owners to bring property back into occupation and provided flexibility where appropriate.  The two month exemption period for Class “C” dwellings catered for short turnover periods between occupiers.

 

         Option 2

            To decide not to recommend any changes in charging policy to Council

            Would lose the opportunity to raise additional income for the Council and its   precepting partners, as well as losing any associated impact on helping to bring empty homes back into use.

 

            Option 3

To recommend an alternative, e.g. maximising charges by using the discretionary powers to their limit

Whilst potentially such a policy might maximise income generation, it might provide a disincentive to repair property and bring back into use and would not cater for short empty periods between occupiers.  Landlords would be liable for charges during all turnover periods and this may have knock on implications for the rental market.

 

Option 1 was the preferred option in line with the following comments:

 

(i)  For Class “A” dwellings it was considered that the Council should provide a reasonable but not excessive exemption period to promote property development, particularly supporting major upgrading and improvement to poor quality housing stock.

 

            (ii)  For Class “C” dwellings it was considered that the Council should provide an initial two month exemption period to allow for the changeover of occupiers, particularly tenants, and 50% discount for an empty period for a further four months after which the full charge would be applied.

 

            (iii)  For Second Homes it was considered that the Council take advantage of this flexibility to levy an extra 10% charge to homeowners of second homes, who should contribute fully towards services and generally they had a choice in ownership.

 

(iv)  For long-term empty homes it was considered that the Council should levy a 50% premium on homes that had been empty for more than 2 years.  This initiative should encourage owners to return them to use, whilst providing additional income to the Council.

 

There was potential for the Council to raise additional revenue in adopting these discretionary powers.  However, it was noted with caution that income relating to empty properties generally proved difficult to collect and staffing resources, collection performance and bad debt provisions would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

89.

Budget and Policy Framework 2013/16 - Corporate Plan: Priorities Review pdf icon PDF 83 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 in order that Cabinet could highlight areas of service for review that could, in turn, affect the Council’s future priorities.  No options were listed in the report but Cabinet Members were advised that any review needed to be considered in the current financial context which required savings to outweigh growth.

 

Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

 

“(1)      That the following be considered as areas for review:

·         Energy sign up scheme

·         Empty homes officer

·         Renewable energy project”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

 

(1)        That the following be considered as areas for review:

·         Energy sign up scheme

·         Empty homes officer

·         Renewable energy project

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Resources

Head of Health & Housing

Head of Environmental Services

Head of Community Engagement

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

At its meeting on 9 October 2012 Cabinet agreed that any new priorities would be reported at the December meeting (Minute 62) refers.

 

 

90.

Lancaster City Council Energy Strategy pdf icon PDF 97 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Report of the Head of Environmental Services

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Environmental Services to establish Cabinet’s preferred approach to further delivering the outcomes of the Corporate Plan that relate to energy.

 

Option 1- Continue to deliver this aspect of the Council’s corporate plan in the way that it had been delivered to date. The main risks of this were that there would be no real focus and when opportunities did arise the lack of underpinning strategy would create problems in terms of resourcing, staffing, consultation and ability to deliver real wins to the Council. It was also considered certain that ultimately energy costs would continue to rise, targets for reducing carbon emissions etc would continue to rise, commercially proven renewable technologies would improve and incentives for introduction of renewables would decrease. Not having any planned approach could act against the Council’s best interests and there could be no guarantees that this approach would effectively deliver this aspect of the Corporate Plan.

 

Option 2- Seek to develop a Council energy strategy, subject to consideration as part of the budget. This would help to ensure the Council had in place a clear, agreed and realistic plan for the future that would allow us to protect ourselves against rising energy costs, meet emission targets, generate income and take advantage of available technologies at the opportune moments. It would require a budgetary allocation of around £20,000 to develop the actual strategy. Dependent on the approach chosen it could potentially cost millions to deliver, but potentially the benefits financially, economically and environmentally might far outweigh the initial costs.

 

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

The development of an energy strategy would require significant officer time as well as the use of external expertise.  If deemed a priority the officer time would be prioritised from existing budgets however it was estimated that the one-off cost of external expertise would be in the region of £20K.  There was currently no specific budgetary provision for this and therefore it would need to be considered as part of the current revenue budget exercise.

It should be noted that once developed, the strategy was likely to highlight areas requiring significant financial investment (potentially into the £millions) and Members should be mindful that difficult financial decisions would need to be taken in order to support the strategy.  However, as the results were unquantifiable at this moment in time, further reports would need to be prepared in order to outline options available including full financial appraisals to justify their support.

 

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

 

“(1)      That Option 2 be approved: Seek to develop a Council energy strategy, subject to consideration as part of the budget.

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That Option 2 be approved:  Seek to develop a Council energy strategy, subject to consideration as part of the budget.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

91.

Ryelands Park Bandstand pdf icon PDF 66 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Smith)

 

Report of the Head of Environmental Services

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Smith)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Environmental Services to seek Cabinet’s decision on a request from Morecambe Town Council with regards to the Ryelands Park bandstand.

 

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

 

Option 1- Agree / Not Agree to the relocation of the Ryelands Bandstand to Happy Mount Park. Based on previous advice this option was not practically feasible and even if it were would require consultation with the users of Ryelands Park. The City Council has no resource currently available to undertake this consultation. Were Cabinet minded to consider this option it should consider requesting that Morecambe Town Council covered the costs of a consultation exercise.

 

Option 2- Agree / Not agree to the principle of a bandstand in Happy Mount Park. A permanent bandstand in Happy Mount Park would take up valuable space and would need to be properly maintained. At this stage there was no real evidence to show how a permanent bandstand would add to the visitor experience in Happy Mount Park and complement the existing range of activities, which already included concerts and bands who managed to perform without a permanent bandstand. Were Cabinet minded to consider this option consultation would need to take place to establish whether a permanent bandstand really was needed. The City Council has no resource currently available to undertake this consultation. Were Cabinet minded to consider this option it should consider requesting that Morecambe Town Council covered the costs of a consultation exercise.

 

Councillor Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Sands:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

(7 Members (Councillors Balmire, Barry, Bryning, Hamilton-Cox, Leytham, Sands and Smith) voted in favour, and 1 Member (Councillor Hanson) did not vote.)

 

Resolved:

(1)                    That Cabinet did not agree with the principle of Morecambe Town Council’s proposed relocation of Ryelands Bandstand to Happy Mount Park.

(2)                    That before Cabinet considered whether it would in principle allow Morecambe Town Council to locate a bandstand in Happy Mount Park a comprehensive consultation exercise, overseen by the City Council, but funded by Morecambe Town Council be undertaken with the results  reported back to Cabinet.

(3)                    That based on Cabinet’s decision the Head of Environmental Services responds to Morecambe Town Council’s letter.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Environmental Services

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

Given the poor condition of the structure and potential costs of this exercise it was not considered appropriate to agree in principle to the request regarding the relocation of the bandstand.  However, the decision enables Morecambe Town Council to undertake a consultation exercise to ascertain the level of support for a new bandstand and report back to Cabinet in due course.

 

 

92.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

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 items in private. It should be noted that, whilst the report for item 17 is a public report, it will only be necessary to exclude members of the press and public should Members need to refer to the information in exempt appendices 3 and 4 of the report.

 

Cabinet is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to Item 17, should it be necessary to refer to exempt information, and in relation to Item 18:-

“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 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act.”

 

Members are reminded that, whilst the following item(s) have been marked as exempt, it is for Cabinet 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 also whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In considering their discretion Members should also be mindful of the advice of Council Officers.

 

Minutes:

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following item (Minute 93) when it became necessary to refer to the information in the exempt appendices.

 

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

 

“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 items of business, on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3of 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. 

 

 

 

93.

Supporting People Programme - Budget Proposals pdf icon PDF 115 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Report of the Head of Health and Housing

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health and Housing to provide details of the proposed changes to the distribution of the Supporting People Programme Grant across Lancashire.

 

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

 

 

 

Option 1: 60/40 model

Option 2:

50% need:50 deprivation

Option 3:

75 % need; 25% deprivation

Option 4: 100% need

Advantages

None 

None

Lancaster district’s current budget allocation would increase by 0.24% and is the preferred model that the county wish to implement.

Lancaster district’s budget allocation would increase by 7.94% and by 0.38% even after the savings have been applied. Less savings to be achieved to commission the proposed homeless hostel.

Disadvantages

Lancaster district would see a current budget reduction of -10.31% increasing to -16.14% when the savings are applied.

Lancaster district would see a current budget reduction of –4.11% increasing to -10.61% when the savings are applied.

Lancaster district’s future budget reduction would decrease by -5.11%.

This is not the county’s preferred model.

Risks

Loss and/or reduction in services particularly when the savings are applied.  

Loss and/or reduction in services particularly when the savings are applied. 

Potential loss or reduction in some services when the savings are applied but to a lesser extent than Option 1 and 2. Some districts may not support this model as the 100% needs model presents better outcomes for 10 out of the 12 districts.  Would require savings of £300k from 2015 to commission the new service.  The reduction in existing services could place more pressure on the council meeting its statutory duties although the council is not thoroughly meeting its current statutory duties towards single homeless households in a satisfactory way at present.

If there is a majority vote from districts to adopt this model, the county are not likely to support and adopt it because of the budget implications upon a neighbouring district, which is exacerbated when this model is applied.

 

The officer preferred option was Option 3, which was the County Council’s preferred model.  Whilst it did not represent the greatest financial gain for the Lancaster district, the county have to take into account the potential impact and any financial reductions imposed on all districts within the partnership by any model applied, and if districts were to vote against this model, it was highly likely that the county would refuse to implement the 100% needs model, as before with the 60/40 model, which would result in delays in planning for and implementing the necessary savings by the end of 2014/15, or the county might be forced to implement Option 3 anyway.  The preferred model meant that the resultant reductions in budget were below -20% of current budgets, which the county believe was a reasonable and rational approach.  Although there would be a need to identify savings if option 3 was approved in order to commission the homeless hostel, officers would provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

94.

24, Hala Grove, Lancaster

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Report of Head of Resources

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Resources with regard to the restrictive covenant on 24 Hala Grove, Lancaster.  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:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)        That the proposal to remove the restrictive covenant on the property known as 24 Hala Grove, Lancaster be approved.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Resources

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision may assist with bringing empty properties back into use, in partnership with Lancashire County Council.