Agenda and minutes

Cabinet - Tuesday, 29th July 2014 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

20.

Minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 (previously circulated). 

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 24 July 2014 were approved as a correct record.

 

21.

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.

 

 

22.

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:

No declarations were made at this point.

 

23.

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.

 

 

24.

Destination Branding pdf icon PDF 124 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sands)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sands)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning) which provided information on the two new destination brands for Lancaster (including the Lune Valley) and Morecambe Bay and proposed arrangements for the future management and use of the brands. 

 

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

 

 

Option 1: Cease funding the distribution of printed Visitor Guides for the district, using alternative ways to make up to date visitor information more widely available as part of destination marketing. 

Option 2: Continue to provide funding for the distribution of the Visitor Guides and identify alternative sources of funding. 

Advantages

More effective in reaching potential visitors far away and works well to raise initial interest

 

Much easier to provide ‘real time’ up to date and current information

 

Demand for digital information is increasing year by year

 

Extremely cost effective

 

Can be high impact if supported by right skills and expertise to support content and positioning

 

Timing of the change works well alongside the launch of the two new destination brands, which opens up wider opportunities 

 

Would allow destination marketing costs to be managed within existing budgets

 

Some tourism businesses like the Visitor Guides for marketing their services and produces

Disadvantages

Some tourism businesses like the Visitor Guides for marketing their products and services – details of other options would need to be provided

Additional budgets would be required to support destination marketing costs

 

The Visitor Guides are less able than other options to reach potential visitors on the scale or in the locations  required

 

Information in the guides is published once and cannot be changed to reflect current activities

 

Difficult to assess impact once distributed but some evidence shows that internet can be up to 5 times more effective than brochures in attracting first time visitors

 

Risks

No specific risks identified

No specific risks identified

 

  The officer preferred option is Option 1. This represents a cost effective approach to marketing the district allowing budgets to be used to greater effect.

The two new ‘destinations’ brands for Lancaster, incorporating the Lune Valley and Morecambe Bay are the culmination of many months of work on the part of partners in the district and the South of Cumbria.  Potentially these will have a significant impact on the visitor economy and jobs as well as generating future investment in these destinations and their assets.  It is very important that future arrangements to ensure the brands work effectively are secure and sustainable.   Proposals in this report suggest ways that this can be achieved cost effectively, working with partners and making more of opportunities to engage with visitors on a far wider scale than before, with current, up to date information about what is on offer and why these are great places to visit.

 

Councillor Sands proposed, seconded by Councillor Bryning:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

(1)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

Council Housing- Building Programme Manager pdf icon PDF 97 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Report of Chief Officers (Environmental) & (Health & Housing)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Cabinet received a joint report from the Chief Officers (Environment) and (Health & Housing) which sought approval to use the Housing Revenue Account (Business Support Reserve) to fund the establishment of a post to manage the Council Housing Building Programme.

 

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

 

 

Option 1: Agree to fund the establishment of a Building Programme Manager

Option 2: Don’t agree to fund the establishment of a Building Programme Manager

Advantages

Provides the capacity required to develop firm proposals for a building programme and then oversee this.

 

Disadvantages

 

There is currently insufficient capacity to deliver the programme without impacting on existing service delivery or increasing the risk to the City Council.

Risks

The proposals for the building programme take longer than expected to be agreed, (e.g. there may be local opposition). This could require extension of the fixed term contract.

The building programme isn’t delivered.

 

The officer preferred option is option 1.

 

Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Smith:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)             That Cabinet approves the use of the Housing Revenue Account Business Support Reserve to fund the establishment of this post for a fixed term of 3 years.

(2)             That delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Resources) to update the General Fund Revenue Budget and Housing Revenue Account accordingly.

(3)             That any need to extend this post in the future be reported back to Cabinet.

 

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Officer (Environment)

Chief Officer (Health & Housing)

Chief Officer (Resources)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The building programme is integral to the Council’s corporate priority of Health and Wellbeing.  The establishment of a fixed term Building Programme Manager will provide the needed capacity to develop a delivery plan, and subject to this being agreed, oversee the building programme.

 

 

26.

Waste / Recycling Collection- Updated Policies for Householders pdf icon PDF 169 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Smith)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Resources)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Smith)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Environment) which sought approval for a set of updated policies for household waste collection/recycling.

 

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

 

 

Option 1:To adopt the updated set of policies outlines

Option 2: To adopt only parts of the policies outlined

Option 3: Not to adopt the policy outlined

Advantages

Clear guidelines for officers to work to.

 

Consistent service to householders.

 

Encourages householders to maximise recycling.

 

Achieve the success measures set out in the corporate priority Clean, Green & Safe Places.

 

Continue to deliver the objectives of the Lancashire Waste Strategy 2008-2020

 

Supports the control measures for monitoring costs of replacing wheeled bins and recycling boxes.

 

Can be delivered within existing budgets.

 

Tried and tested and adapted to local needs.

 

Provides clear guidelines for officers and consistent service to householders where parts of the draft Policy have been adopted.

 

 

 

 

Disadvantages

 

Could lead to retrospective complaints.

 

 

Potential of not  achieving all the objectives of Clean, Green & Safe Places.

 

May not be possible to deliver within  existing budgets.

 

Not tried and tested

 

 

No clear guidelines for officers to work to.

 

No consistency in service to householders.

 

No restraint to grey bin capacity to householders.

 

Risks

Dissatisfaction of some householders that the quality of the service falls below their  level of expectation

 

Dissatisfaction of some householders at perceived differences in level of service

 

The potential to lead to continued budget requests, through the budget process, if requests for replacements continue to rise.

 

 

 

 

Option 1, to formally agree the tried and tested set of policies as set out above, is the officer preferred option.  The adoption of these will provide clear and consistent guidelines for both officers and householders, encourage householders to maximise recycling and make the most efficient use of limited Council resources.

 

Councillor Smith proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry:-

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)          That (1) to (17) of the updated waste/recycling collection policies be approved and with regard to (18), subsidised service/usage charge; to continue as described in the policy (appended to the minutes) until further clarification be sought on the possibility of house builders being required to provide bins as part of the planning process.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Officer (Environment)

Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision is consistent with the Council’s corporate plan priority to provide ‘Clean, Green and Safe Places’ and will ensure that the Council has in place clearly defined and understood policies which support the reduction of the overall amount of waste that householders produce, the maintenance of the % amount of household waste re-used, recycled and composted and makes the best use of the Council’s limited resources.

 

27.

Corporate Non-Housing Property Portfolio Improvement Works: Year 2 Delivery Plan pdf icon PDF 199 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Resources)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hamilton-Cox)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Resources) which sought approval of a draft year two delivery plan for Corporate Non-Housing Property Improvement Works, in line with the basic programme originally supported by Cabinet in January 2013.

 

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

 

 

Option 1:

To approve the year two delivery programme as set out in table one

 

Option 2:

Produce an alternative year two plan

Advantages

This option would halt deterioration for those buildings identified within the year two delivery plan and help prevent associated unplanned operational difficulties.

 

Puts in place the foundations for establishing a planned maintenance approach to provide improved financial certainty moving forward. 

No advantages identified; depends on rationale behind any alternatives put forward.

 

Disadvantages

The 5 year planned refurbishment/maintenance programme is a long term initiative and it will be a few years before the real financial benefits became apparent. 

 

Inevitably there will be some disruption to services affected although this will be planned rather than reactive.

The time taken to develop an alternative programme would delay overall progress. 

 

Risks

Not all high priority works can be taken forward at the same time and failures could always occur in the interim with associated risks attached.  This risk exists at present, however, and by approving the plan, the Council can be seen to be taking action and managing the position.

 

As works would be carried out alongside the joint property review and various service reviews there is some residual risk that works will be carried out at a building subsequently identified for closure /sale despite the monitoring and review arrangements in place.  That said, improvement works could improve sale prospects / likely capital receipts.

 

May create delays in progressing the delivery programme and associated risks attached - could leave the Council open to greater criticism or action should there be failure of any of the items where works have been identified. In addition could increase costs / inefficiencies over time.

 

Ultimately any risk will depend on the nature of any alternatives proposed.

 

 

The officer preferred option is option 1.  In line with the previous Cabinet reports, this option would help ensure that the Council fulfils its obligations in respect of maintenance and other works to buildings so that they meet the relevant health and safety standards and that the items falling into the greatest state of disrepair can be addressed. 

 

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

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)          That the schedule of capital works set out in Table 1 of the report for progression during 2014/15 be approved, on the basis set out in the report.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Officer (Resources)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision seeks to ensure that the Council’s property portfolio is fit for purpose in terms of supporting the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

Provisional Revenue, Capital & Treasury Management Outturn 2013/14 pdf icon PDF 151 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Resources)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Resources) which provided summary information regarding the provisional outturn for 2013/14.  It set out information regarding the carry forward of revenue budgets and capital slippage for Members’ consideration.  It also incorporated the treasury management outturn report and related matters.

 

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

 

The City Council has a legal requirement to ensure that its expenditure is fully funded and to have regard to proper accounting practice.  In addition, the Prudential Indicators are a statutory requirement linked to the budgetary framework.  For these aspects, therefore, there are no alternative options for Cabinet to consider.  Members are being asked to endorse certain actions taken by the Chief Officer (Resources), and Cabinet should consider whether it has sufficient information to do so or whether it requires any further justification. 

 

The report requests Cabinet to consider a number of capital slippage items and Reserve transfers.  The framework for considering these is set out in the report but basically Cabinet may:

 

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

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

-          Request further information regarding them, if appropriate.

 

On the assumption that the Council continues to support its previously approved spending plans, then the Officer preferred options are to approve the capital slippage requests (Appendix G), require no carry forward of the overspendings (Appendix E), and approve the various transfers and use of Reserves as set out in the body of the report.

 

Although the Council’s General Fund budget and the associated Government funding reduced again in 2013/14, it continues to manage the financial pressure well, and has again improved its financial standing as at 31 March 2014. This has been achieved by narrowing down the breadth of service provision and reducing the number of employees both of which have had an impact on service delivery.  Balances for both General Fund and the HRA are higher than forecast, and the Council has other substantial earmarked further reserves to help respond to the tough financial challenges expected over the coming years, in shaping and delivering against future corporate priorities. 

 

Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

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

 

(1)           That the provisional outturn for 2013/14 be noted, including the transfers to provisions and reserves actioned by the Chief Officer (Resources).

 

(2)           That as set out in section 4.2.1, the £57K transfer to the Welfare Reforms Reserve be endorsed, and that the Chief Officer (Resources) be given delegated authority to draw up to this amount  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.