Agenda and minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday,12 March, 2013 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 12 March 2013 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. 

No declarations were made at this point.

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

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

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Report of the Head of Governance

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Governance with regard to the appointment of the appropriate Cabinet Member to the Lancaster Business Improvement District (BID) Management Group.

No options were presented as this was a referral from full Council which had considered a report on 27 February 2013 to decide the basis of appointment to the Lancaster BID Management Group.  Cabinet was requested, in line with the wishes of Council, to appoint the portfolio holder for Economic Regeneration to this outside body.

Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Bryning:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)        That Councillor Janice Hanson, as the Portfolio Holder for Economic Regeneration, be appointed to the Lancaster BID Management Group.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Governance

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision was consistent with the resolution made at full Council on the 27 February 2013 that the appointment to the Lancaster Business Improvement District (BID) be on the basis of the appropriate Cabinet Member  (Council Minute 133 refers).

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Report of Head of Governance

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Governance which sought agreement of the draft Corporate Plan 2013/14 and referral to full Council for formal approval in May 2013.

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

Option 1 – Recommend to full Council the draft Corporate Plan as presented or recommend with minor amendments.  Assuming no significant impact on resources and forward planning arrangements minor amendments could be managed without interruption to the strategic planning cycle and the Corporate Plan could be submitted for consideration by full Council in May.

Option 2 - Corporate Plan not recommended to Council at this stage.  This option was likely to lead to delays in publication of the Corporate Plan leading to uncertainty regarding the Council’s intentions and possible interruptions to delivery of some services or activities.

The Officer preferred Option was Option 1 as this would underpin Council activities as well as business and resource planning from an early point in the municipal year.  In addition, local residents, communities and partners would be clear about the Council priorities and actions and the outcomes it wished to achieve for the coming three year period.

The strategic planning arrangements created an opportunity each year to consider the changing needs and aspirations of local communities and the shifting priorities, opportunities and challenges that the Council faced.  These were reflected in the draft Corporate Plan for 2013 – 2014 taking into account recommendations by Cabinet, consultation and engagement with residents and visitors and draft budget information and options that had been set out in various Budget and Policy Framework updates since October 2012.

Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

“(1)      That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved with the following two revisions:

q       Insertion of ‘and generation’ after efficiencies on page 11

q       Deletion of the word ‘online’ in the bullet points under success measures on page 16”

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 draft Corporate Plan 2013 – 2014 be recommended to full Council with the following two revisions:

q       Insertion of ‘and generation’ after efficiencies on page 11

q       Deletion of the word ‘online’ in the bullet points under success measures on page 16.

(2)        That it be noted that Cabinet acknowledges that the financial situation as set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy will require a full review of the Corporate Plan for 2014/15 and beyond.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Governance

Reasons for making the decision:

The Corporate Plan was a central part of the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework stating the key priorities, outcomes and actions that the Council hoped to achieve for the district.  The decision enables the Council to consider its Corporate Plan in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Report of the Head of Regeneration & Planning

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration & Planning with regard to proposed improvements to streets and spaces in Morecambe’s established centre as per the draft area action plan and to report on the now deliverable first phase of works.

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

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Report of the Head of Health and Housing

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health & Housing to seek approval of members for the allocation of the remaining Performance Reward Grant (PRG) funding previously allocated towards the Warm Homes Scheme.

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 delivered the original objectives of the funding and supported Health and Wellbeing Outcomes and Success Measures in the Council’s Corporate Plan.

Through the Affordable Warmth Improvement Programme, the HIA had been able to deliver valuable assistance to a range of vulnerable clients which would not otherwise have been available. The award of further PRG funding would enable the HIA to continue to build on the work completed over 2012/13 enabling us to protect more vulnerable residents over the 13/14 Winter period.

Councillor Blamire proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)                    That the Affordable Warmth Improvement Programme receive the outstanding £48,260.50 of Performance Reward Grant funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Hanson & Leytham)

Report of the Head of Regeneration & Planning

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Hanson & Leytham)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration & Planning which sought approval to conduct a new preferred developer procurement route to test viable private sector led refurbishment solutions for the Chatsworth Gardens project following recent developer interest.

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

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Report of the Head of Regeneration & Planning

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration & Planning which presented the findings of the Economic Viability Assessment on the use of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in Lancaster District and sought a decision on the recommendations of the Study and the next steps.

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

Option 2: was the officer preferred option.   It was felt that the evidence of the CIL Viability Study directed that now was not an appropriate time to introduce a CIL Levy on development in the district.  The Council could however retain the option to re-consider this decision should local economic circumstances become more favourable.

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, at this point in time a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) not be introduced in the Lancaster District.

(2)                    That the Council continue to monitor the prospects for introducing a CIL and might seek to introduce a Levy at an appropriate time in the future when economic conditions were more amenable to supporting the charge.

(3)                    That the schemes identified within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) in Appendix 2 to the report, be recognised as schemes which should be given due consideration in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

(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 sought approval to update the existing Discretionary Housing Payment (“DHP”) Policy to reflect welfare reform changes in place from 1 April 2013, including  the abolition of Council Tax Benefit, size criteria in social sector housing (the “bedroom tax”) and the future benefit cap.  As context, the report also considered the feasibility of reclassifying council housing properties where additional rooms were currently not used as bedrooms, further to the recent motion considered by Council.

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

With regard to the feasibility work, no alternative options were put forward.  To meet existing housing demand there was no scope to remodel or reclassify council properties similar to that undertaken by Knowsley Housing Trust.  The Council’s council housing stock was kept under review through asset management to ensure that it was managed appropriately and remained viable, and there was no justification for reclassification of the bedroom numbers within the council’s housing stock at this time.

With regard to the proposed policy, the basic options were to approve it as set out at Appendix A to the report, or to require amendments.  

The existing DHP policy was working well but there had been recent welfare reforms that had resulted in the need for a policy update.  The proposed policy had now been adopted by Preston City Council and whilst (given the shared service) it was advantageous operationally for both Councils to have the same policy, there was no requirement to do so.

Risk Considerations attached to the Proposed Policy

In relation to DHP, it was anticipated that applications would exceed available resources but spend would be carefully managed to mitigate any risk to the Council, with issues flagged up to members at an early stage should the fund be likely to encounter financial strain. 

Indicative applications for DHPs in 2013/14 could be in the region of £287K, made up as follows:

·         Existing demand on the fund                    = £67K (assume constant)

·         Size criteria in the Social Sector               = £120K

·         Benefit Cap                                               = £100K

In the Lancaster area 834 residents were likely to be affected by the under occupancy rules (681 by 14% and 153 by 25%).  The difference between the rent charged and the rent for benefit purposes following a % deduction totalled £11K per week and provided an annual shortfall to Registered Social Landlords of £572K – which represented the additional amount of rent now collectable from tenants.

Early indications suggested that approximately 58% of these cases involved families receiving additional income disregarded for Housing Benefit purposes. i.e. Disability Living Allowance or Child Benefit.  In these cases, the customer might have the finances to cover the reduction in their housing benefit award.

For those individuals who had no additional finances (approx. 350) full support to pay their shortfall in rent could create a financial strain of approx. £240K on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

(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 sought approval to introduce an Exceptional Hardship Fund Policy (“EHF”), which sets out how the Council would operate an EHF in relation to Council Tax Support provided from 1 April 2013 and indicate the factors that would be considered in determining when an EHF award should be made. 

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

The basic options were to approve the proposed policy as set out at Appendix A to the report, or to require amendments.  Such amendments could either broaden or narrow the circumstances that the Council might consider as exceptional hardship.

The pathway for protecting our most vulnerable customers was previously through the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme but this route was no longer possible.  In policy terms there was a need to address the void created by this change in legislation, even though for this financial year, the Council had decided to retain existing levels of council tax support and in doing so, the Council already offered some protection to those low income customers who might struggle to pay council tax.  

The Officer preferred option was to approve the policy as set out in the report.  The policy demonstrated that the Council recognised the importance of providing measures that might help protect the most vulnerable within the community.  The proposed policy had now been adopted by Preston City Council and whilst it was advantageous operationally for both Councils to have the same policy, there was no requirement to do so.

Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

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

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)       That the new Exceptional Hardship Fund Policy as set out at Appendix A to the report be approved, to take effect from 1 April 2013.

(2)       That the Policy be operated within the financial cap as set out in the report and it be monitored on an ongoing basis, for reporting back to the Finance Portfolio Holder initially should total awards be in danger of exceeding the cap.

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

Head of Resources

Reasons for making the decision:

The Adoption of an Exception Hardship Fund policy in relation to council tax support would ensure the Council’s arrangements were fit for purpose for the current year and the policy would be reviewed in future to ensure that it remained so.  The intention to protect the most vulnerable in our society ran through the Council’s Corporate Plan.

Nothing to report at time of publication of agenda.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)

Cabinet were advised that that a draft business plan was being drafted for consideration at the May Cabinet meeting.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Report of the Head of Resources

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Resources to consider a draft year one delivery plan which prioritised those properties in need of urgent works or in poor condition, drawing on short or expected longer term operational needs and the corporate property review that was now underway.

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.  In line with the previous Cabinet report submitted in January 2013, this option would help ensure that the Council fulfilled all its obligations in respect of maintenance and other works to buildings so that they met the relevant health and safety standards and that the items falling into the greatest state of disrepair could be addressed. 

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

“(1)      That the recommendation, as set out in the report, be approved but that further reports be produced with regard to the Memorial Gardens, Lancaster and Mitre House, Lancaster with the decision in respect of Mitre House, deferred until the report has been considered.”

Councillors then voted:-

Resolved unanimously:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.