Agenda and minutes

Cabinet - Tuesday, 20th January 2015 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

69.

Minutes

To receive as a correct record the minutes of Cabinet held on Tuesday, 2 December 2014  (previously circulated). 

Minutes:

 

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 2nd December 2014 were approved as a correct record.

 

70.

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.

 

71.

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.

72.

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.

 

73.

Fees and Charges Review - 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 164 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) to consider the annual review of fees and charges for 2015/16.

 

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

 

The Council’s general fees and charges policy was last considered by Cabinet a year ago and in broad terms, the main principles are still considered relevant.  During the last year, however, the Authority has adopted new Financial Regulations and also the Scheme of Delegations to Officers has been updated.  The Fees and Charges Policy required updating to reflect these governance changes and the new draft is included at Appendix A to the report for Cabinet’s endorsement.

 

                      Chief Officers have reviewed the fees and charges within their service areas, together with any associated concessions, and any proposals that differ to the general policy principles outlined in the report, or are otherwise outside of the budget, are set out for consideration in the later sections of the report.

 

Where fees and charges are to change in line with policy and/or the budget, these will be amended through existing Officer delegations and therefore no Cabinet decision is required and so no detail is provided within the report, unless any unusual circumstances justify otherwise.  It should be noted that in exercising their delegated authority, Officers may well consider groupings of charges for similar or related activities and within those groupings, they may vary individual fees (or concessions) above or below inflation, for example but as long as in totality, it is reasonable to assume that the relevant income budget will be met and the variances do not go against any other aspect of policy, then no Cabinet decision is required.

 

Should Cabinet support any options contained later in the report that do not meet the draft budget assumptions, then they would need to go forward as growth, for consideration as part of Council’s budget proposals.  However, Members should be aware that in some instances the timescales for gaining Council approval may cause operational difficulties for implementing any new charges by 1st April 2015, taking account of any statutory notice periods required.

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

 

Car Parking

 

This is the only area in which a number of options are presented and therefore for clarity, full information is included in Appendix C to the report. 

 

Option 1A: Increase a range of charges to achieve the budget figure

 

This could be achieved by either a £0.10 increase on the 1hr short stay tariff or by a range of increases across less sensitive tariffs.

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

Risks

 

Could achieve the Council’s budget figure, and therefore fits with financial strategy.

 

May help maintain the income base for future years and smooth future years’ increases (or avoid above-inflation price increases).

 

 

It requires less savings to be made from other areas.

 

 

 

Because of a number of factors and particularly the upheaval of the United Utilities work it has been difficult to arrive at meaningful analysis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

74.

Potential Options for Salt Ayre Sports Centre pdf icon PDF 131 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sands)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Health & Housing)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sands)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Health & Housing) which informed Cabinet of the potential options for Salt Ayre Sports Centre (SASC) and sought approval to undertake further work to explore a development partner.

 

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

 

 

Option 1:  Continue to invest in line with current budgets with replacement and repair as necessary but with no major improvements.

Option 2:  Seek a development partner to invest and improve SASC in the short and medium term.

Advantages

None

Provides a planned programme of works over a period of years which could include for example refurbishment/expansion of the gym, change of use to half the sports hall to provide activities that would result in greater occupancy levels, spa facilities and an outdoor ropes course.

 

Provides facilities which meet current customer expectations as well as all H&S standards.

 

Would position Salt Ayre sports centre as a premier sport and leisure facility in the North West providing a diverse range of activities on one site whilst retaining a community hub for continuation of active health and other targeted health programmes for more vulnerable citizens.

 

Position the council well for delivery of public health commissioned activities that cut across a range of council delivered services such as leisure, housing and environmental health.

 

Provides a sounder financial footing for the sports centre.

 

Is a good example of the municipal entrepreneurialism theme of the ensuring council ethos enabling the council to translate its policy objectives into practice.

Disadvantages

Opportunity to reduce operating subsidy missed.

Upfront investment is required to facilitate these improvements.

Officer capacity to oversee the programme is required. Some external specialist legal advice may be required.

Risks

Operating costs increase to such a point that the facility becomes no longer viable to subsidise in the context of reducing resources. This could lead to decisions about closure.

 

Lack of investment in new facilities will increase the repair costs and potentially lead to unforeseen costs due to meeting health and safety standards.

Failure to secure a suitable development partner – this risk is mitigated by the fact that our soft market testing has shown there are a few experienced companies with a track record of success.

 

The investment required is substantial and the affordability, financial sustainability and prudence of this is not yet known – detailed analysis   of the financial model and robust due diligence processes will allow the council to ensure the best option of financing the improvements is chosen.

 

Officer capacity to oversee the programme may be insufficient – this risk is mitigated by the fact that the sport and leisure restructure  built in some capacity to progress projects such as this as well as day to day management.  In addition, the council adopts a cross service project team approach to large scale projects such as this similar to the solar PV project.

 

Option 2 is the officer preferred  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

75.

Development of the 2015/16 Festival Programme pdf icon PDF 136 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sands)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sands)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning) which sought a decision as to whether to submit applications for external funding for the Light Up Lancaster and Vintage by the Sea Festivals.

 

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

 

 

Option 1: Seek and accept external funding for both festivals

Option 2: Do not seek external funding for either festival

Advantages

Opportunity to secure funding for one or both major festivals for 2015/16 and potential to enter into a ‘Northern Lights’ partnership to develop funding bids for Light up Lancaster from 2016/17 onwards

 

Enhancing the district’s festival programme and significantly contribute to the visitor and night time economy

 

The proposed ‘signature’ events would fit and raise the profile of the new approved destination brands developed for Lancaster and Morecambe Bay

 

Fits well with the emerging arts strategy for the district

and the aims of Marketing Lancashire

 

The ‘Northern Lights’ partnership should result in raising Lancaster’s profile regionally, nationally and internationally as a key visitor destination and lead to an increase in visitor numbers 

No officer time required to seek, secure and manage external funding

 

 

No need to redirect the entire arts development budget, therefore a number of smaller arts projects could be delivered in 2015/16, or savings could be taken`

 

No requirement to undertake the role of accountable body for external funding

 

 

Disadvantages

Officer time is required to seek, secure and manage external funding

 

Council would be required to provide match funding at the same levels as 2014/15

 

Redirection of Council resources from the arts development budget in its entirety for 2015/16 to deliver Light up Lancaster

 

 

Without external funding the festivals would have to be significantly scaled down

 

Reduction in visitor numbers and visitor spend from scaled down festivals

 

Might not achieve aims of arts strategy or Marketing Lancashire in terms of promoting the District as a key visitor destination

 

Might prevent the Council from being involved in the ‘Northern Lights’ partnership and gaining numerous benefits including longer term funding for a Lancaster based event

Risks

The Council would be the accountable body for some or all external funding

Significant lack of additional economic impact from scaled down festivals

 

 

Councillor Sands proposed, seconded by Councillor David Smith:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)             That Cabinet gives delegated authority to relevant Chief Officers to bid for external funds (where relevant) for the Light up Lancaster and Vintage by the Sea Festivals, to take place in 2015/16, subject to them being within the Budget and Policy Framework.

(2)             That, subject to (1) above being successful in securing funding, the Council acts as accountable body where necessary, subject to being within the Budget and Policy Framework.

(3)             That Cabinet notes that due to urgent timescales a bid for £18,000 has already been submitted to Morecambe Town Council for the Vintage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

76.

Grand Theatre Grant Aid - Capital Works pdf icon PDF 134 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 sought a decision as to whether to offer the Grand Theatre grant support towards long term maintenance costs of this Grade II listed theatre.

 

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

 

 

Option 1: Provide grant support to the Grand Theatre

Option 2: Do not provide grant support to the Grand Theatre

Advantages

Supports the Grand Theatre and places the theatre on a more secure short term financial footing.

 

Protects an important grade II list building.

 

Supports an important attraction in the centre of Lancaster that contributes to the night-time and visitor economy

No further call on City Council Resources at a time of increasing budgetary pressure.

 

May help or encourage financial independence.

 

 

Disadvantages

The grant has not been budgeted for at a time of increasing budgetary pressure, although can be funded from 2014/15 corporate underspends identified during the budget process.

 

Could have a negative impact on the city’s night-time and visitor economy

 

A missed opportunity to financially support the Grand Theatre.

 

A grade II listed building could fall into further disrepair resulting in increasing maintenance/repair costs over the medium to longer term.

 

Risks

Could lead to other similar applications for grant aid, or perceived unfairness.

 

Could be perceived as showing a lack of support for a well known cultural facility in the area. 

 

A successful Grand Theatre benefits the District in artistic, cultural, regeneration and community development terms. In reputational terms it is probably one of our strongest attractions. It is also a key element in the Canal Corridor scheme. However, providing grant support for the Grand Theatre would also put further pressure on the Council’s resources, albeit only in the short term if given as a one-off award.  

 

Councillor Sands proposed, seconded by Councillor Blamire:-

 

“That a one-off grant totalling £15k in 2014/15 be made to the Grand Theatre to cover the cost of the theatre’s priority (non-routine) maintenance programme.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)          That a one-off grant totalling £15k in 2014/15 be made to the Grand Theatre to cover the cost of the theatre’s priority (non-routine) maintenance programme.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning)

Chief Officer (Resources)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision is consistent with the Cultural Heritage Strategy as a successful Grand Theatre benefits the District in artistic, cultural, regeneration and community development terms.

 

77.

Budget and Policy Framework Update 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 257 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 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 2015/16.

 

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

 

Options are 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 are known and it should be noted that Officers may require more time to do this.  Outline options are highlighted below, however.

 

        Regarding council tax, two options are set out at section 7 of the report. 

 

-        With regard to including savings and growth options to produce a budget in line with preferred council tax levels, any proposals put forward by Cabinet should be considered affordable, alongside the development of priorities.  Emphasis should be very much on the medium to longer term position.

 

Under the City Council’s Constitution, Cabinet is required to put forward budget proposals for Council’s consideration, in time for them to be referred back as appropriate.  This is why recommendations are required to feed into the Council meeting in early February, prior to the actual Budget Council in March 2015.

 

Generally Officer preferred options are reflected in the recommendations, with the exception of council tax.

 

In view of the level of savings still needed in future years, the ongoing impact that council tax freezes have, the Council’s current financial strategy, the reliance on use of Balances, and the fact that the Council is not yet clear about how and when it will achieve a financially sustainable budget, the Officer preferred option for council tax is to retain the existing 1.99% year on year increase, subject to confirmation of local referendum thresholds.  This preferred option would change only if the Council fundamentally reduces its ambitions regarding service delivery, evidenced through the adoption of a clear statement and strategy for doing so.

 

From the report, it is clear that good progress has been made in balancing next year’s budget.

 

Following the local and national elections this year, however, attention will have to focus on addressing the Council’s medium to longer term financial position.  This will be reflected in the review of the current medium term financial strategy, for consideration by Cabinet next month.

 

Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)    That following Cabinet’s decision to approve The Grand Theatre’s funding request included elsewhere on the agenda, the resulting 2014/15 Revised Budget be referred on to Budget Council for approval, with the net underspending transferring into Balances.

 

(2)    That Cabinet recommends to Council a 1.99% City Council tax increase for 2015/16, together with a year on year target increase  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

Corporate Plan 2014 16 - Half Yearly Performance pdf icon PDF 365 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Governance)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Governance) which provided an update on progress towards the delivery of the 2014-16 Corporate Plan as at 30th September 2014. As the report was primarily for noting, no options were provided.  In addition, Cabinet was requested to consider the outcome of the Investors in People Assessment undertaken in July/August 2014 and note the plans to take this forward.

 

Councillor Blamire proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

 

“That the report be noted.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1)          That the report be noted.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Executive

Chief Officer (Governance)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The report is a requirement of the Council’s Performance Management Framework in support of the delivery of key priorities and outcomes as set out in the overall policy framework and specifically in the Corporate Plan 2014-16.

 

79.

Information Governance and Assurance Update pdf icon PDF 316 KB

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Blamire & Bryning)

 

Joint Report of Chief Officer (Resources) & Chief Officer (Governance)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Members with Special Responsibility Councillors Blamire and Bryning)

 

Cabinet received a joint report from the Chief Officer (Resources) & Chief Officer (Governance) which sought approval for strengthening the Council’s information governance and other assurance arrangements (covering Information and Communications Technology (ICT), information management, corporate anti-fraud and internal audit generally), using budgetary growth approved in February 2014.

 

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

 

ICT/Information Governance

 

Option 1      Approve Officer proposals (covering ICT and Corporate Information                      Governance).

Option 2      Do not approve Officer proposals and require alternatives to be                              developed.

 

 

Option 1 – Approve Officer Proposals to develop functions as proposed 

Option 2- Do not approve proposals: require Officers to develop alternative proposals.

Advantages

Will enable and support better service provision through the development of ICT, corporate policies, procedures and standards of information governance.

Will enable exploration of options for better use and sharing of information.

Provision of greater assurance regarding information management and security; reduce the risks of inappropriate disclosure and any associated penalties.

None identified.

 

Disadvantages

Costs associated with additional resources (although these are already budgeted for.)

Further delays in improving service areas.

Inability to develop standards and respond to future development challenges in the interim.

Unable to provide assurance regarding the security and effective management/use of information.

No suitable alternatives identified to date.

Risks

Inability to recruit the requisite resources.

Increasing risk of information security incidents and associated penalties/adverse publicity.

Inability to respond to change and to take advantage of opportunities for better information sharing arrangements.

Risk of wasting time and resources, with no prospect of identifying a better solution for the medium term.

 

Option 1 is the officer preferred option.  Dedicated resources are required to provide the expertise, capacity, and guidance necessary to enable the Council to fulfil its information governance responsibilities and to make the best possible use of ICT and information in service delivery.

 

Corporate Anti-Fraud Arrangements

 

Option 1:  To approve the proposals for establishing a Corporate Fraud Team on a collaborative basis with the Council’s partners (Preston CC and Fylde BC).

Option 2: Not to approve the proposal, and require Officers to develop alternative proposals for meeting the Council’s residual obligations for tackling fraud, on transfer of staff to SFIS in June 2015.

 

 

Option 1 – Approve the establishment of a Corporate Fraud Team on a collaborative basis with Preston CC and Fylde BC

Option 2- Do not approve the proposal / seek alternatives.

 

Advantages

Objective would be for the team to be self-financing.

Opportunity to make use of existing staff capacity and expertise.

Benefits from larger scale of operation.

Would enable links and collaboration to be maintained with Internal Audit.

Flexibility and responsiveness to changing levels of demand/need within the partner organisations.

Benefits from Central Government funding which has been awarded.

Has the resource to engage with other interested parties.

None identified.

Disadvantages

Additional managerial oversight to

ensure that partners’ priorities and

calls on the team are managed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

Urgent Business Report pdf icon PDF 85 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Report of Chief Officer (Governance)

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Governance) to advise members of actions taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Members.

 

Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-

 

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

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

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

 

(1)             That the actions taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Members in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, in respect of the following, be noted:-

VARIATION TO CONTRACTUAL TERMS FOR CHATSWORTH GARDENS HOUSING REGENERATION PROJECT 

 

(1)  That a working amendment to the Heads of Terms for the project be agreed and incorporated in the final contract documentation, so as to provide for the transfer of the freehold ownership of the Phase 1 properties to PlaceFirst to occur once the developer has incurred expenditure of £1.25M in relation to the project, rather than upon the completion of the refurbishment works.

(2) That consultation is undertaken with a view to waiving call-in, in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny procedure rule 17, to enable the decision to be implemented immediately.

 

Officer responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Chief Officer (Governance)

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

The decision fulfils the requirements of the City Council’s Constitution in advising Cabinet of urgent decisions taken by the Chief Executive in accordance with the City Council’s Scheme of Delegation.