Agenda and minutes

(Head of Research and Democratic Services) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

(a)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs D Collins declared a personal interest in item (6) (Overview and Scrutiny) of the agenda, by virtue of being the Chairman of the Epping Forest Primary Care Trust. The Councillor had determined that her interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item.

(b)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs C Pond declared a personal interest in item (8) (Loughton Broadway – Town Centre Enhancement Scheme) of the agenda, by virtue of being a member of Loughton Town Council. The Councillor had determined that her interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item and voting thereon.

(c)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor M Heavens declared a personal interest in item (19) (Council Plan 2006 -2010) of the agenda, by virtue of being a member of the Buckhurst Hill Town Centre Partnership. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item and voting thereon.

(d)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Jacobs declared a personal interest in item (23) (Bansons (WRVS) Hall – Bansons Way, Chipping Ongar) of the agenda, by virtue of being a member of Ongar Town Council. The Councillor had determined that his interest was prejudicial and would leave the meeting for the consideration of the item and voting thereon.

(e)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs D Collins declared a personal interest in item (26) (Parking for Community Health Staff) of the agenda, by virtue of being the Chairman of the Epping Forest Primary Care Trust. The Councillor had determined that her interest was prejudicial and would leave the meeting for the consideration of the item.

(f)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor Mrs D Borton declared a personal interest in item (27) (A Parish Centre for Nazeing – An Opportunity to make Provision for Integrated Community Facilities) of the agenda, by virtue of being a member of Nazeing Parish Council. The Councillor had determined that her interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item.

(g)            Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor D Stallan declared a personal interest in item (29) (South Herts Waste Management) of the agenda. The Councillor had determined that his interest was not prejudicial and would remain in the meeting for the consideration of the item.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet held on 19 December 2005 (previously circulated).

            RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2005 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Leader of the Council requested that the Cabinet consider item (18) of the agenda (Council Budgets 2006/07) at the end of the meeting in order to permit consideration of further items of business that would affect the final budget.

            RESOLVED:

That item (18) (Council Budgets 2006/07) be considered as the last item of business before the exclusion of the public and press.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs 6 and 25 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.

In accordance with Operational Standing Order 6 (non-executive bodies), any item raised by a non-member shall require the support of a member of the Committee concerned and the Chairman of that Committee. Two weeks’ notice of non-urgent items is required.

(a)            Additional Funding for Graffiti Removal (C/121/2005-06)

In accordance with Section 100(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs (6) and (25) of the Council’s Procedure Rules, the Deputy Leader of the Council, in the absence of the Leader, had permitted consideration of this item in order to allow the Council’s Budget for 2006/07 to be finalised and agreed.

The Community Wellbeing Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning additional funding for Graffiti Removal. The Portfolio Holder stated that the removal of graffiti was an important service for the local community, however the level of demand from the public for the service had been high and the budget of £20,000 had been exhausted by November 2005, which had resulted in the suspension of the service. The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that if the budget were increased to £40,000 per annum then the service would be able to remain operational throughout the whole of the 2006/07 municipal year.

The Cabinet were concerned that they had not been informed of the suspension of the service. The Joint Chief Executive (Community) reiterated that under the current budget, the service had been suspended every year due to lack of funds. In light of the importance of the service to the community, the Cabinet felt that a supplementary CSB estimate should be sought from the Council to enable the service to restart as soon as possible.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That, in order to enhance the Graffiti Removal Service within the District, a CSB growth bid be made in the sum of £20,000 from 2006/07 onwards; and

(2)            That, in order to resume the Graffiti Removal Service during 2005/06, a supplementary CSB estimate in the sum of £8,000 be recommended to the Council for approval.

Statement in Support of Recommended Action:

Street Scene was an important government and local priority, and the only way in which it was possible to maintain the Council’s current level of performance throughout the whole financial year was to provide additional resources. The Standing Scrutiny Panel on Planning and the Environment recognised the need for the Council to remain pro-active in dealing with such matters, including the use where appropriate of new enforcement powers and the need to properly resource services of this nature.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The only alternative options were: to increase funding but by a lesser amount; to maintain existing funding but reduce service levels so that only offensive or racially motivated graffiti was dealt with; or to maintain the existing funding and service levels resulting in an inability to provide the service over a full year.

To receive oral reports from Portfolio Holders on current issues concerning their Portfolios, which are not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

There were no oral Portfolio Holder reports for consideration at the meeting.

To consider any matters of concern to the Cabinet arising from the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny function.

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee provided the Cabinet with an update on their recent activities. The Chairman stated that she had declared a personal interest in the reorganisation of Primary Care Trusts within Essex and had vacated the chair for that item and had not taken part in the debate but had addressed the Committee in her capacity as Chairman of the Epping Forest Primary Care Trust. The Committee had recommended that the fourth option considered, five Primary Care Trusts for Essex and Epping Forest amalgamating with Harlow and Uttlesford, would provide the best level of care for residents within the District. However, Essex County Council had recommended that there should only be two Primary Care Trusts within the County.

The Cabinet were also informed that it had been agreed for the Constitutional Affairs Standing Scrutiny Panel to undertake a review of the Area Planning Sub-Committees, in order to balance out the amount of business that each Sub-Committee dealt with. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was also about to undertake a consultation with DEFRA on incineration. Finally, it was stated that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee required further items for inclusion on the Scrutiny work programme for the 2006/07 municipal year.

(Environmental Protection Portfolio Holder) Report to follow.

The Cabinet received a short presentation from Cleanaway, the contractor appointed by the Council, on their proposed solution for the Landfill Remediation Project at Bobbingworth Tip in Moreton. The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Protection thanked Cleanaway for their presentation before presenting a report. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Council had a duty to deal with the polluting effects of the former landfill site at Bobbingworth Tip in Moreton, and had signed a contract with Cleanaway in May 2005 to undertake works to deal with the leachate.

The Portfolio Holder stated that Cleanaway had developed a design that had addressed both remediation and restoration of the site. To treat the leachate that was drained from the site and discharged to the Moreton Sewerage Treatment works, it was proposed to install a reed bed to reduce the concentration of iron in the leachate, and an aeration plant to remove the dissolved methane. To restore the surface of the site, it was proposed to bury contaminated material from the northern part of the site in the southern part, and cover the site with clean soils. This would allow for future public access over the whole site and the surface would be regraded to match the surrounding countryside. Leachate was also leaving the site via surface and subsurface pathways, and contaminating the Cripsey Brook as well as land to the north and east of the site. It was proposed to construct a subterranean barrier on the eastern boundary of the site to prevent sub-surface migration of leachate. Groundwater flowing from the site from the west would be interrupted and pumped to the eastern surface drains for discharge. The site surface would also be engineered to minimise leachate generation through infiltration.

The Portfolio Holder further added that Atkins Consultants Ltd had been appointed by the Council to provide independent advice on the design and costs proposals put forward by Cleanaway. They had concluded that the proposed design offered a good solution to the former landfill site that would minimise the Council’s future risk of liability and provide a safe and attractive environment for local residents. They were also satisfied that the estimated budget for the project was realistic, but advised that it would also be prudent to allow for a contingency sum as well. The capital cost of the project was now estimated to be £1.35million, including a £250,000 contingency fund, and therefore an additional sum of £920,000 was required to implement the proposed solution. The Head of Finance reported that the CSB growth bids sought for the ongoing maintenance and management of the site had been revised to: £7,000 CSB growth and £4,000 DDF growth for 2008/09; £1,000 DDF growth for 2009/10; and no further monies required from 2010 onwards.

The Cabinet generally felt that this was the best solution to improve the site and make it suitable for public use. The Leader of the Council queried the size of the contingency that had been allowed for, but the Engineering Services  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

(Planning and Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/119/2005-06).

The Cabinet received a short presentation from Robert West Consulting on the outcome of the Design Guide Review for the Loughton Broadway Town Centre Enhancement Scheme. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development thanked Robert West for their presentation before presenting a report. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that it had been agreed in June 2005 to undertake a phase I enhancement scheme for Loughton Broadway, in accordance with the original 1998 Design Guide, and that the Steering and Focus Groups should consider the details of the scheme and report back to the Cabinet.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that the Steering and Focus Groups had completed its work in November 2005, and the scheme thus proposed reflected the original 1998 design. The Steering Group had also identified some additional works for consideration by the Cabinet: demolition of the garages in Vere Road at an estimated cost of £10,000; the provision of a traditional public convenience at an estimated cost of £100,000; and extended CCTV and Lighting to include the alleyway that linked Burton Road and Torrington Drive with Debden Underground Station, at an estimated cost of £10,000.

In respect of car parking in the area, the Portfolio Holder reported that due to extensive use of the current free parking by commuters, who should be in the nearby Debden station car park, the Focus and Steering Groups agreed that a pay-and-display regime would provide the most effective method of control to ensure that on and off-street parking was available to those who wished to visit the Broadway. It would be necessary to make provision for residents and business users of the Broadway through a permit scheme, and also to undertake a wider parking review of the area in order to ensure that other local roads were not adversely affected. If a pay-and-display regime were to be implemented then consideration would need to be given to the management of the Burton and Vere Road car parks. It was felt that the best approach would be to retain the car parks within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) but that they should be managed by Environmental Services on behalf of the HRA subject to a suitable fee.

With regards to the contract procurement, the Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that a ‘Design and Build’ process, using either Gabriels or another contractor to design, deliver and supervise the scheme, would be the preferred option. However, this approach would require a Section 278 agreement with Essex County Council in order to protect its interests in respect of the detailed design and supervision of the scheme, and the Cabinet would also have to agree to waive Contract Standing Orders. The Portfolio Holder further added that a Planning Supervisor would have to be appointed to comply with the CDM regulations, and commended the appointment of RSK Shear to the Cabinet. Whichever option was chosen, the Council would need to demonstrate that it had obtained best value. 

Finally, the Portfolio Holder reported that Robert West  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

(Chairman of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee) To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2005 and the recommendations therein (C/105/2005-06).

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented the minutes of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee, held on 12 December 2005. The only item highlighted for consideration by the Cabinet was Risk Management.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That the work undertaken on embedding Risk Management be noted;

(2)            That, at a cost of £4,000, the proposal from Zurich Municipal for the involvement of members in the production of an updated Strategic Risk Register be approved;

(3)            That the following Members be appointed to attend Risk Management training:

(a)            All members of the Cabinet;

(b)            Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee; and

(c)            Chairmen of two of the Overview and Scrutiny Standing Committees; and

(4)            That J White of Zurich Municipal be thanked for attending the meeting.

Reasons for Decision:

The Cabinet were satisfied that the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues in relation to the recommendations and that these should be endorsed.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet were satisfied that the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options in formulating their recommendations. The Cabinet did not consider that there were any other options.

(Chairman of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee) To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2006 and the recommendations therein (C/118/2005-06).

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented the minutes of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee, held on 11 January 2006. The only item highlighted for consideration by the Cabinet was the Revised Four-Year Forecast for the Budget.

            RESOLVED:

            (1)            That the revised Four-Year Forecast be agreed;

(2)            That, for the next four years, the District Council Tax be increased in line with the Retail Prices Index only;

(3)            That the potential for growth in future budgets be considered in due course, with regard to the Council Plan for 2006-2010; and

(4)            That, if unspent at the end of a financial year, DDF provision be no longer carried forward, and Portfolio Holders be required to re-bid for an allocation if they still wish to pursue an uncompleted matter.

Reasons for Decision:

The Cabinet were satisfied that the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues in relation to the recommendations and that these should be endorsed.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet were satisfied that the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options in formulating their recommendations. The Cabinet did not consider that there were any other options.

(Chairman of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee) To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2006 and the recommendations therein. Report to follow.

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented the minutes of the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee, held on 31 January 2006. Two items were highlighted for consideration by the Cabinet: the quarterly Audit reports; and the Council Budgets for 2006/07.

            RESOLVED:

(a)            Internal Audit Monitoring Report – October/December 2005 and Work Plan – January/March 2006

(1)            That the reports issued and significant findings between October and December 2005 be noted;

(2)            That the Audit Follow Up Status Report and System Improvement Schedule be noted;

(3)            That the Work Plan for January to March 2006 be noted; and

(4)            That the 2005/06 Audit Plan Status Report be noted.

(b)            Council Budgets 2006/07

(5)            That the Council’s 2006/07 General Fund Budgets be noted;

(6)            That, including the revised estimates for 2005/06, the 2006/07 Housing Revenue Account Budget be agreed;

(7)            That the intention to apply rent increases and decreases for 2006/07 in accordance with the Government’s Rent Reforms and the Council’s Approved Rent strategy be noted;

(8)            That the increase in deficiency payments to the Pension be capitalised again in accordance with the Capitalisation Direction request made to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister;

(9)            That the Council’s Prudential Indicators and Treasury Management Strategy for 2006/07 be agreed; and

(10)            That the Chief Financial Officer’s report to the Council on the robustness of the estimates for the purposes of the Council’s 2006/07 Budgets and the adequacy of the reserves be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

The Cabinet were satisfied that the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues in relation to the recommendations and that these should be endorsed.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet were satisfied that the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options in formulating their recommendations. The Cabinet did not consider that there were any other options.

(Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/101/2005-06).

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding Epping Forest Homestart at Unit 36, Oakwood Hill Industrial Estate, Loughton. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that in 1998, the Council had agreed to lease Unit 36 of the Oakwood Hill Industrial Estate to Epping Forest Homestart at a concessionary rental of £2,500 per annum. However, this decision had contravened the Council’s established policy to let all commercial premises at full market value, with any agreed concession made up via the Grant Aid budget. In 2002, the lease was renewed for a further four years at an increased rental of £7,700 per annum; £2,500 paid by Homestart itself with the balance of £5,200 covered by the Grant Aid budget.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the lease was now due for renewal again, and the market value of the unit had been assessed at £10,250 per annum. Thus, it was proposed that Homestart would continue to pay the concessionary rate of £2,500 per annum with the balance made up by the Grant Aid budget, and that the lease period be extended to eight years in order to give Epping Forest Homestart additional financial security. The Cabinet were further informed that the Epping Forest Primary Care Trust had also been providing assistance and support.

            RESOLVED:

            (1)            That, with effect from July 2006, the lease granted to Epping Forest Homestart be renewed for a further period of 8 years subject to a rent review and tenant’s break clause at the end of the fourth year;

            (2)            That a grant equivalent to the difference between the full rental value (£10,250) and the concessionary rent (£2,500) be agreed; and

(3)               That a CSB Growth bid in the sum of £2,550 be made for 2006/07 in respect of the additional market rental foregone by way of grant to Epping Forest Homestart.

Reasons for Decision:

The District Council had long recognised the valuable role performed by Homestart and had had a service level agreement with the organisation for a number of years, with the current agreement running to the end of the 2006/07 financial year. In addition, Homestart Epping Forest had received core funding from Social Services, but even with grant aid support from Epping Forest District Council, it had not been enough to meet their needs.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The other options for action were to require a market rental for the grant of a new lease, or terminate the lease at the end of the contractual term (July 2006) and offer the premises to let on the open market.

(Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/102/2006-07).

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented a report about the central support costs within the 2006/07 budget. The Portfolio Holder stated that following the Highways Agency transferring back to Essex County Council, and the externalisation of the management of the Leisure facilities, support service costs had to be reduced. Five of the Council’s service areas were affected: Finance; Human Resources and Performance Management; Internal Audit; Legal, Administration and Estates; and Research and Democratic Services.

In Finance, it was proposed to delete the vacant post of Exchequer Services Manager, which would save £35,100, but retain £10,000 of the savings to fund temporary staff to deal with peak workloads. In addition, the Senior Pay Officer would be subject to a voluntary redundancy and replaced by a new part-time Senior Pay Officer post, resourced from within the existing staff whose previous post would then be deleted. The total CSB saving for Finance would amount to £54,800, although it would be necessary to incur a DDF cost of £42,000 to achieve this.

In Human Resources and Performance Management, one of the Human Resources Consultants had requested voluntary redundancy, which would incur a cost of £14,000. This would produce a CSB saving of £47,080, but it had been proposed to retain £27,080 in order to fund a restructuring within the department. In the Internal Audit Unit, it had been proposed to delete the vacant Audit Assistant post, which would save £17,400, but retain £8,700 within the unit to fund the use of consultants.

In Legal, Administration and Estates, it was proposed to delete the part-time post of Clerical Assistant (Part-Time) in March 2006 when the current holder retired, as well as the vacant part-time post of Word Processor Operator to give a total CSB saving of £17,800. Finally, in Research and Democratic Services, it had been proposed to delete the vacant Scrutiny Support Officer following the appointment of a second Democratic Services Officer to give a CSB saving of £30,800. However, £15,000 would be retained within the service to fund a limited restructuring in 2006.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That the proposals put forward by each support service be endorsed;

(2)            That, following the loss of the Highways Agency and the externalisation of leisure management, a CSB saving of £114,100 in respect of central support costs be included in the 2006/07 budget; and

(3)            That, to allow for any costs of re-organisations, a bid for DDF growth in the sum of £56,000 be made for the 2006/07 budget.

Reasons for Decision:

The budget and Council Tax needed to be realistically set and so in the knowledge that a re-organisation of support services would occur during 2006/07, the savings that would arise from this should be reflected in the budget.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To increase or reduce either the savings or costs suggested.

(Civil Engineering and Maintenance Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/109/2005-06).

The Civil Engineering and Maintenance Portfolio Holder presented a report on the allocation of funding for remedial works to principal ordinary watercourses and flood defence assets. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that £451,000 had been allocated within the Capital Programme for the flood alleviation schemes at: Cobbins Brook in Waltham Abbey; Nazeing Brook in Nazeing; Boxted Close in Buckhurst Hill; and Hillmans Cottages in Abridge. Following investigations by the Council and the Environment Agency, it became apparent that only the scheme in Waltham Abbey would be progressed, thus it had been proposed that the existing Capital provision be reduced to £200,000 and be utilised for the flood alleviation schemes that were the responsibility of the Council. Following the transfer of responsibility for the critical ordinary watercourses to the Environment Agency, due to be completed by 1 April 2006, the Council would retain responsibility for the five flood relief watercourses that were on Council land, twelve flood relief watercourses constructed by the Council on third party land, as well as a further twelve flood alleviation schemes and associated watercourses for which responsibility was not being transferred to the Environment Agency. However, in order to comply with CIPFA accounting rules, it had also been proposed to allocate a further £290,000 of DDF revenue to carry out the initial investigative works for these schemes.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the flood alleviation scheme in respect of Hillmans Cottages at Abridge was in connection with the Roding River, which was a critical ordinary watercourse, for which responsibility had been transferred from the Council to the Environment Agency. Hence, the Council would no longer make capital provision for this particular scheme. However, the Environment Agency had indicated that it would continue to seek funding for the scheme, and that there was also the possibility for some flood relief through the River Roding Risk Management Strategy, which would be formalised by the Environment Agency in 2007.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That the status of the four flood alleviation schemes in the District, for which a sum of £451,000 has been set aside in the capital programme, be noted:

(a)   Cobbins Brook at Waltham Abbey;

(b)   Nazeing Brook at Nazeing;

(c)   Boxted Close at Buckhurst Hill; and

(d)   Hillmans Cottages at Abridge;

(2)            That the existing capital allocation of £451,000 be reduced to £200,000;

(3)            That a bid for DDF growth in the sum of £290,000 be approved for the inspection, rehabilitation and reinstatement to original condition of those flood relief schemes and assets:

(a)   On Council land;

(b)   Constructed by the Council on third party land; and

(c)            For the 12 flood alleviation schemes that were built by the Council; and

(4)            That the revised capital allocation of £200,000 be utilised for any works arising as a result of the inspections.

Reasons for Decision:

Due to the higher priority assigned to the maintenance of the critical ordinary watercourses and their associated flood alleviation schemes, principal ordinary watercourses had been historically assigned lower priorities and had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

(People First Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/113/2005-06).

The People First Portfolio Holder presented a report on the Electoral Administration Bill. The Government intended to make the Electoral Administration Bill and Regulations law before the May 2006 elections, in order to effect the following changes:

·                     Polling Day hours to be 7.00 a.m. until 10.00 p.m. for all elections;

·                     The receipt of all postal and proxy votes to be confirmed in writing; and

·                     Transfer duties concerning the return of electoral registration forms to the Electoral Registration Officer.

The Portfolio Holder further added that in order to meet the costs incurred by these changes, an extra £20,00 had been added to the Council’s provisional grant settlement for 2006/07, but the Department of Constitutional Affairs had stipulated that these monies could only be used for this express purpose. A sum of £2,000 had been added to the growth list as a result of the Bill’s likely assent, however this sum now needed to be substituted by the granted £20,000.

            RESOLVED:

That a CSB growth bid for 2006/7 in the sum of £20,000 be substituted for the listed item of £2,000 in respect of the implementation of the Electoral Administration Bill and Regulations, which are currently before Parliament prior to the May 2006 elections.

Reasons for Decision:

As the Government had made specific provision in the provisional grant settlement for the cost of implementing the Bill, the sum should be shown in the electoral budget.  This would meet the Department of Constitutional Affairs’ requirement that this grant provision would not be utilised for other purposes.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The only other option would be to leave the CSB growth item at its present level (£2,000) and update the actual costs after the May elections as a supplementary estimate. However, this was an untidy process and it would be preferable to ensure that the budget for 2006/7 reflected the actual position from the outset.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/114/2005-06).

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the Springfields Improvement Scheme. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that it had been agreed in November 2004 to undertake a major improvement scheme at Springfields in Waltham Abbey and that a budget of £4million had been agreed within the Housing Capital Programme. It had also been agreed that a consultation exercise with local residents should be undertaken, and the results used to undertake a Feasibility Study. An initial survey had been carried out in January 2005, and the main issues highlighted were: rubbish disposal; condensation; heating; water ingress; communal lighting; and external appearance. In addition, parking was identified as being in need of improvement, and the majority of residents stated that there were areas of the estate where they felt unsafe.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Feasibility Study had resulted in 19 proposed design options being identified. The Council had appointed Stace as Consultant Quantity Surveyors, who had advised that a scheme involving all 19 proposals would cost in excess of the agreed £4million budget. The Council had also appointed consultants Beha Williams Norman to undertake a detailed financial analysis to compare the cost of the Council undertaking the works with the costs of undertaking the works through a small-scale stock transfer to a Registered Social Landlord. They had concluded that the retention option was more financially viable for the Council than the stock transfer option.

The Portfolio Holder further added that there were 9 leaseholders within the blocks planned for improvement that had a financial liability towards the costs of the improvements under the terms of their leases. Their contributions had been calculated and found to be considerable, ranging from £27,000 to £55,000, and would almost certainly lead to the individuals concerned having to re-mortgage their properties. Following consultations with other local authorities who had undertaken similar schemes, four options for action had been identified: offer leaseholders a loan to spread payments over a number of years; cap the contribution from leaseholders; not charge leaseholders but impose a charge on the property to recover the costs when the property was sold; or the Council buy back the properties from the leaseholders. Following individual interviews with the leaseholders, the majority had indicated a preference for the Council to buy back their property. The Head of Housing Services confirmed that any leaseholders that reverted to tenants would have the right to buy their property, however the amount of their discount entitlement would be reduced by the amount of any previous discount given to them as tenants.

Thus, it had been proposed to make provision in the Housing Capital Programme and negotiate to buy back each of the properties, subject to an independent valuation by the Valuation Office, and offer each tenant the opportunity to become a secure tenant, in which case the purchase price would be reduced. If leaseholders elected not to sell their property back to the Council then the full cost of their proportion of the works should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

(Leisure Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/115/2005-06).

The Leisure Portfolio Holder presented a report on an interim restructure for Leisure Services. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the Council did not have a statutory duty to provide leisure and cultural opportunities, however the Council did play an important role by meeting gaps in the provision by others. In recent years, there had also been considerable success in generating external funding, thereby increasing access to local leisure and cultural opportunities. Thus, Leisure Services now comprised a number of service areas that provided a wide range of Leisure and Cultural opportunities over extended opening hours in several sites across the District. As a result, the service was staff intensive, however, the externalisation of the Council’s Leisure Facility management took place on 4 January 2006 and 104 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) posts transferred to Sports and Leisure Management in accordance with TUPE legislation. These posts would now require deletion from the Leisure Services Establishment list, including the administrative posts that handled the Leisure Centre Membership Scheme as well as the collection of direct debits for users of the gymnasiums.

The Portfolio Holder stated that there was a short-term need to develop a revised interim structure for Leisure Services to be able to respond to the new operational management of the Leisure Facilities, as well as the issues that currently faced the service. In respect of Waltham Abbey Sports Centre, the Dual Use Agreement with King Harold School was shortly due to expire. As this centre was not tendered as part of the Leisure Management Contract, the centre would remain directly managed by the Council until its future was determined. Thus, it was proposed to extend the role of the Leisure Development Manager to undertake the supervision of this centre, delete the existing Supervisor’s post, upgrade the Administration Officer to a full-time post, and re-designate the part-time Bar Person as a Leisure Attendant in order to increase flexibility at the Centre.

With regard to North Weald Airfield, a new Airfield Manager had recently been appointed and had concluded that an additional Duty Officer post would be required to cover the extended opening hours. This would be cost neutral, given the current levels of overtime incurred to provide the necessary cover. In Grounds Maintenance, the Assistant Area Manager’s post was currently vacant, and it was proposed to re-designate this post as an Assistant Arboriculture Officer post in order to handle the increased volume of tree-related work. Following the externalisation of the Council’s Leisure Facilities, the contractor had sole responsibility for ICT within the Leisure Centres.  The Council had now isolated the Leisure Centres from its network and thus it was felt that the Assistant Leisure Systems Officer post could be deleted from the establishment.

In respect of marketing and events, it had been proposed to delete the temporary Production Assistant post, and following a review of duties, to re-designate the Assistant Marketing Manager’s Post as the Marketing and Events Assistant. Again, this had been as a result of the externalisation of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

(Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee) To consider the attached report (C/112/2006-07) and draft plan (separately circulated), and receive comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented a report on the draft Council Plan for 2006-10. The Portfolio Holder stated that the format of the Plan had been improved and that the targets within it were now more realistic and achievable. If agreed by the Cabinet, the Draft Council Plan would then be subject to consultation with residents, partner agencies and other organisations before adoption by the Council later in 2006.

The Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny informed the Cabinet that the draft Council Plan had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and proceeded to suggest a number of amendments to the Action Plan, which the Cabinet confirmed, although some were dependent upon the results of the Housing Survey currently being undertaken by the Housing Scrutiny Panel, due for completion in March 2006. The Head of Human Resources and Performance Management reminded the Cabinet that the number of actions within the Plan had been reduced from 92 to 30, but that an executive summary could be produced if the Cabinet so desired.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That the content of the draft Council Plan for 2006 to 2010 be agreed for consultation purposes, subject to the following amendments to the Action Plan:

(a)            GU2 – that the recycling target to be achieved by 2008/09 be increased from 36% to 40%;

(b)            GU3b – that hits on the Museum website be included in the visitor figures;

(c)            SC1 – that, subject to suitable additional funding, appropriate accreditation be sought for more than one car park per annum;

(d)            SC2 – that performance monitoring of the Community Police Officers be included as well;

(e)            SC3 – that performance monitoring of the Anti-Social Behaviour Order Officers be included as well;

(f)            FL2 – that the description be amended to explain that the Beyond Suburbia project aimed to attract external funding;

(g)            EP2 – that Phases III and IV be included for completion by the end of 2007/08;

(h)            EP5 – that the description be amended to state that the Council was working in partnership with Essex County Council;

(i)            EP6 – that Town Centre Partnerships be replaced with Business Forums;

(j)            IP3 – that top quartile performance be not only achieved but maintained as well; and

(k)            IP5 – that the Key Performance Indicators be reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee;

(2)            That the following amendments also be made to the Action Plan for the draft Council Plan 2006 to 2010, pending thecompletion of the Housing Survey by the Housing Scrutiny Panel:

(a)       HN1 – that the number of affordable homes approved within the District be increased from twenty; and

(b)            HN4a – that the Grant provision be increased from £200,000 per annum.

Reasons for Decision:

To identify the Council’s key priorities for 2006 to 2010, and to address an area for improvement identified in the Council’s first Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) in 2004, in preparation for the next round of second-tier CPA due to commence during 2006/07.

Other Options  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

(Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/111/2006-07).

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the Summary Best Value Performance Plan for 2006/07. The Cabinet were reminded that the Council’s Best Value Performance Plan (BVPP) was produced in two different formats each year. A detailed version was prepared for the Government, Audit Commission and other bodies involved in the evaluation of the Council’s performance. A summary version was also prepared for distribution to all the households within the District with the annual Council Tax demands. The Cabinet felt that the format employed this year was an improvement on previous years and that the summary itself was easier to understand.

            RESOLVED:

That the Council’s Summary Best Value Performance Plan for 2006/07 be agreed.

Reasons for Decision:

To enable the publication of summary performance information within the Council Tax demands to be issued in March 2006.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

No other options were available. In previous years the BVPP Summary had been hand-delivered, but for the last three years production costs had been reduced in order to enable it to be contained within the Council Tax leaflet.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/103/2006-07).

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report on Choice Based Lettings within the Herts and Essex Housing Options Consortium. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the introduction of a Choice Based Lettings Scheme for the District had been approved in September 2005. The Government was keen for Choice Based Lettings Schemes to operate at a regional or sub-regional level and include Registered Social Landlords, voluntary organisations and local communities in order to give the maximum possible choice for housing applicants. A number of Choice Based Lettings Agencies had been formed, usually by groups of local authorities forming a non-profit organisation. These agencies were now very experienced at managing the entire process, and also provided regular and detailed statistical information to the local authority on bids.

The Portfolio Holder further added that the Head of Housing Services had met with officers from Brentwood Borough Council, Chelmsford Borough Council, Broxbourne District Council, Uttlesford District Council and East Herts District Council, who had all expressed an interest in exploring the possibility of working in partnership, through a consortium called the Herts and Essex Housing Options Consortium. Officers had also had discussions with two Agencies, who suggested that working in collaboration with other local authorities would reduce the on-going cost of a Choice Based Lettings Scheme from £25,000 - £30,000 to £18,000 - £21,000.

The Portfolio Holder announced that in the autumn of 2005, the Government had allocated £4million for local authorities in order to support the development of Choice Based Lettings Schemes in England. In December 2005, the Consortium had submitted a bid and received £96,000 from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It had been decided that the money should primarily be used to employ a specialist consultant to advise the Consortium and project manage the implementation of the scheme. Any residual grant would be shared amongst the partners in order to assist with their individual implementation costs. As the Council was the furthest advanced towards the implementation of such a scheme, the Portfolio Holder had agreed that the Council should act as the host authority for the receipt of the grant and employment of the consultant on behalf of the Consortium.

Under the Council’s Constitution, all delegations had to be approved by the Cabinet, including frameworks for partnerships, which would include the Consortium. Thus, the Portfolio Holder had requested that the Cabinet approve the delegation of the functions relating to the Consortium to the Head of Housing Services, although in practice they would be exercised by the Assistant Head of Housing Services (Operations).

            RESOLVED:

(1)             That the initial framework for the proposed Choice Based Lettings Scheme for all the Council’s vacant social rented properties be approved; 

(2)            That, in accordance with Financial Regulation F3 (which permits the Cabinet to delegate to an appropriate officer functions undertaken by partnerships), the functions relating to the Herts and Essex Housing Options Consortium (a partnership with five other local authorities) be delegated to the Head of Housing Services; and

(3)             That, as defined  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

(Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/104/2005-06).

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding the revision of the Prosecution Policy for the Benefits Division. The Cabinet were advised that recent guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions had stated that the overpayment amount, above which prosecution was the most appropriate form of action, should be increased from £1,500 to £2,000, and that the lower overpayment limit, which had determined the issue of an administration penalty or formal caution, should be abolished. In addition, in relation to the imminent Age Discrimination Directive from the European Commission (2000/78/EC), which would come into force in the United Kingdom on 1 October 2006, the Head of Legal, Administration and Estates had advised that the current exemption from prosecution for persons aged 75 years and over should be removed from the policy. 

            RESOLVED:

That the following revisions to the Prosecution Policy for Benefit offences be approved and adopted:

(a)            That the overpayment amount, above which prosecution is the most appropriate course of action, be increased from £1,500 to £2,000 in line with the advice from the Department of Work and Pensions; and

(b)            That, in order to comply with Directive 2000/78/EC due to come into effect on 1 October 2006 in the United Kingdom, the exemption from prosecution for all persons aged 75 years or over be rescinded.

Reasons for Decision:

The financial limits in the existing policies required updating, in line with the recently issued advice from the Department of Work and Pensions. In order to comply with Directive 2000/78/EC, the prosecution policy for the Benefits Division should not discriminate on the basis of age.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To continue with the existing Prosecution Policy, which had now become out-dated and contrary to guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions. To persist in discriminating against persons aged 74 years or less by not prosecuting persons aged 75 years or over.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/106/2005-06).

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report in respect of Bansons (WRVS) Hall, Bansons Way, Chipping Ongar. The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that the Council, through the Housing Revenue Account, owned Bansons Hall and was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the building as well as the utility bills, currently amounting to approximately £1,500 per annum. The current usage of the hall had declined in recent years and the Head of Housing Services had been investigating alternative uses for the building. The Head of Planning and Economic Development had already advised that the site was only suitable for limited residential development, and the suggestion that the site be extended in order to provide further sheltered housing had been rejected, as the demand within the District for this type of accommodation was not sufficient. However, Ongar Town Council had indicated that it would like to take over occupation of Bansons Hall on a long-term basis, in order to provide a replacement for its Love Lane offices.

The Portfolio Holder intimated that a transfer to Ongar Town Council would be the best option for all parties, and would be in keeping with the spirit of partnership working with local councils advocated by the Local Charter. The Portfolio Holder also felt that the provision of a long lease would be preferable to a freehold transfer, since the necessary controls would be easier to enforce. However, the Town Council had indicated that it would not be able to afford the full market value of the premises, thus following consideration by the Council’s Management Board, it was felt that the Council should grant a lease for a term of 50 years to the Town Council at a peppercorn rent subject to all other terms being agreed.

            RESOLVED:

That a Full Repairing and Insuring Lease for Bansons (WRVS) Hall, Bansons Way, Chipping Ongar, and associated land be granted to Ongar Town Council for a period of 50 years at a peppercorn rent, for the Town Council’s use as a Town Council Office and community meeting facility, subject to all other terms being agreed, and to:

(a)            No costs being incurred by the Council, including the Town Council meeting the Council’s reasonable legal fees and all costs of the required structural alterations;

(b)            The Town Council using its best endeavours to continue to accommodate both existing users and new community groups, either at Bansons Hall or its Love Lane offices;  

(c)            Provision being made that gives the Council a legal charge over the Town Council’s existing property at Love Lane, Ongar whereby, in the event of the Town Council transferring the freehold ownership, or granting a lease for other than community use, to another party, the Town Council would pay the Council an amount equivalent to the lowest of:

(i)            the difference between the value of the Love Lane premises in respect of its current use and the value of the premises in respect of the proposed use; and

(ii)        the open market value of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/107/2005-06).

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report on Phase II of the development of small Council housing sites. The Portfolio Holder reported that, following the agreement of Phase I by the Cabinet in July 2005, additional potential development sites on Council-owned land had been identified, with the possibility of providing a further 35 properties within the District. Accordingly, discussions had been held with the Council’s four Preferred Registered Social Landlord (RSL) Partners and it had been agreed with the Strategic Housing Partnership that Warden Housing would be the most suitable RSL to undertake the development of Phase II. It was being proposed that Warden Housing be requested to produce proposals for a self-funding scheme, whereby the Council’s land would be provided free of charge but some of the properties sold on the open market in order to fund the development of the affordable housing. However, there was currently £210,000 of Social Housing Grant unallocated by the Council, and Warden Housing had been asked to consider the effect on the proposals of utilising these monies, and the Portfolio Holder would consider what proportion, if any, of this funding should be allocated to the scheme.

It was proposed that the Portfolio Holder be authorised to consider and agree the development potential of each of the sites, the number of properties to be sold to provide the cross-subsidy and the submission of the necessary planning applications. With regard to the planning applications, it had been proposed that ward members not be consulted on the proposals prior to the necessary planning applications, to that it did not fetter their discretion when the relevant Area Plans Sub-Committee considered the applications.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That Warden Housing be selected as the Preferred RSL Partner to investigate the development potential and, where possible, undertake the development of the ten Council-owned housing sites under review;

(2)            That the general approach to be adopted by Warden Housing be to maximise the amount of affordable housing provided across the sites, cross-subsidised with free land and the sale of some properties on the sites;

(3)            That the Housing Portfolio Holder be authorised to consider and agree the development proposals for each of the sites, the proposed tenures, the numbers of properties to be sold to provide the cross subsidy, and to approve the submission of planning applications where appropriate;

(4)            That the Housing Portfolio Holder considers the overall effects different levels of social housing grant would have on the viability of the development proposals and, if considered appropriate, reports to theCabinet to seek approval to use some, or all, of the Council’s unallocated social housing grant in order to increase the viability.

(5)            That, for those sites that receive planning permission, the associated Council land be:

(a)            leased to Warden Housing for 125 years at a peppercorn rent, in return for the Council receiving 100% nomination rights on initial letting and 75% subsequently, in respect of the land for the affordable housing; and

(b)            transferred freehold to Warden Housing, free of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/108/2005-06).

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report regarding a virement of under-utilised DDF and the appointment of PPS to undertake works on private sector housing policies and strategies. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that £75,000 of DDF had been allocated to undertake a Private Sector House Condition Survey, to aid the revision of the Council’s Private Sector Housing Strategy. The cost of the survey had been £47,000, which had left a further £28,000 available to support further work in this area. The work undertaken by PPS in support of the survey had been excellent and thus it was proposed to retain their services for the production of three further policies and strategies that followed on from the Private Sector Housing Condition Survey. Contract Standing Orders C5 and C9 would need to be waived for this appointment to be made.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That £28,000 of the £75,000 DDF money allocated for the private sector house condition survey be re-allocated to private sector housing policy / strategy to enable the appointment of consultants to assist officers in the production of the:

(a)            Housing Assistance Policy;

(b)            Private Sector Strategy; and

(c)            Empty Homes Strategy;

(2)            That, given the fact PPS had successfully undertaken the recently completed private sector house condition survey, they be appointed to undertake further work in support of officers in the production of the:

(a)            Housing Assistance Policy;

(b)            Private Sector Housing Strategy; and

(c)            Empty Homes Strategy; and

(3)            That Contract Standing Orders C5 and C9 be set aside accordingly.

Reasons for Decision:

It was critical that the Council updated its private sector housing policies and strategies in the light of new and amended legislation and the recently completed private sector house condition survey.  Furthermore, the Standing Scrutiny Panel on Housing had been tasked with the oversight and development of an empty homes strategy for the Council, in respect of which the Cabinet had decided that the Council should seek to attain top quartile performance.  Given existing workloads and the availability of professional officers within the Council, this work could only be completed within a reasonable time frame if external support was applied.

PPS had demonstrated their professional capabilities through their work on the survey and their appointment would also ensure continuity between the survey work and the resulting policies and strategies.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The alternative options were to: not vire the monies to enable the additional work to be undertaken; or not set aside contract standing orders and to seek tenders for the strategy support work.

(Civil Engineering and Maintenance Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/110/2005-06).

The Civil Engineering and Maintenance Portfolio Holder presented a report on parking for Community Health Staff. The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that the Chief Executive of the Epping Forest Primary Care Trust had requested that key community health workers be granted the ability to park in controlled parking areas without penalty, which would not include the Council’s pay and display car parks. Similar requests from other organisations had always been refused in the past, however the introduction of further controlled parking throughout the District could conceivably cause problems for health workers treating patients within the District.

The Cabinet felt that granting such a dispensation for key community health workers could set a precedent and were reluctant to agree in principle to the request. Officers were requested to research other similar schemes, discuss the specific needs of the identified personnel with the Primary Care Trust, and report back to the Cabinet.

            RESOLVED:

That a parking exemption scheme for key community health workers be considered after further reporting.

Reasons for Decision:

Given the expansion of controlled parking throughout the District, there was merit in exploring the options for some form of exemption for key community health workers, provided a precedent was not set.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The only other option was to reject the application on principle.

(Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/116/2005-06).

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented a report concerning the provision of a Parish Centre for Nazeing, as an opportunity to provide integrated community facilities. The proposal was for the District Council to purchase the site of the former Total Garage in Nazeing at an estimated cost of £480,000, and provide another £20,000 towards the cost of consultants, in order to provide a Parish Centre for Nazeing Parish Council. The Portfolio Holder felt that there was a need for such a facility in Nazeing as the current facilities were not of the required standard, and that new facilities would:

·                     provide a focus for community engagement and participation in local democracy;

·                     enable the pre-school provision to expand and improve;

·                     provide a suitable venue for the development of youth activities;

·                     provide function rooms; and

·                     encourage the development of clubs and societies within Nazeing.

The Portfolio Holder added that the project was affordable during the current year; the site could be acquired by the Council using the surplus in the Capital Programme, and if the project did not complete then the site could be used to provide further affordable housing within the District. The Portfolio Holder foresaw the Council taking a facilitator role and that this would be the first of many such projects if local councils demonstrated a need for such assistance. The Parish Council had attempted to fund the project themselves but the Epping Forest Primary Care Trust had sourced another site within Nazeing for their proposed surgery and had withdrawn from the scheme. The Portfolio Holder had consulted with the Community Wellbeing Portfolio Holder who had supported the proposals.

The local ward member for Nazeing added that a survey within the village had shown clear support for a Village Hall facility within the centre of Nazeing rather than on the outskirts. There was now no possibility of a partnership with the Primary Care Trust, but the Parish Council was still in discussions with the Church Council about a possible partnership arrangement.

The Cabinet had sympathy for Nazeing Parish Council, and felt that the proposal was workable, but other Parish Councils within the District had funded their own Village Halls. One possibility would be for Nazeing Parish Council to borrow the money and acquire the site in the short term, and then decide over its use in consultation with the District Council. Alternatively, the District Council could buy the site and sell it to Nazeing Parish Council when their funding was in place in order to guarantee that the Parish Council acquired the site, but any works required to the site in respect of contamination from its former use as a petrol station would have to be the responsibility of the Parish Council. It was felt that this matter should be deferred to the next meeting to await a further, more detailed, report before a final decision was taken.

            RESOLVED:

That this item be deferred to the next meeting of the Cabinet on 6 March 2006.

The Leader of the Council advised the Cabinet that the executive procedure rules of the Council stipulated that any business not concluded by 10.00pm would either stand referred to the next meeting or be voted upon without debate. However, as the Cabinet had still to consider the proposed budget for 2006/07, the Leader requested that the Cabinet agree to waive the executive procedure rules and fully debate the remaining items of business.

RESOLVED:

That the executive procedure rules be waived in order to fully debate the remaining items of business.

(Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder) To consider the proposed budgets for 2006/07 (previously circulated); any revisions will be reported orally at the meeting.

The Finance and Performance Management Portfolio Holder presented a report on the proposed Council budgets for 2006/07. The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that the guidelines for producing the 2006/07 budget had been:

·                     CSB expenditure to not exceed £15.2million, including net growth or savings;

·                     DDF net expenditure to not exceed £0.9million; and

·                     The increase in District Council Tax to not exceed 2.46%.

It was also anticipated that the outturn for the 2005/06 budget would produce an underspend, which had permitted the proposed growth items to be accepted and the target levels for Council Tax increases to be reduced.

The Portfolio Holder briefly gave an overview of the current position. The most significant item of CSB growth was the extra £582,000 for the Concessionary Fares Scheme, as the scheme for next year would provide full fare discount as opposed to the half fare discount currently offered to pass holders. The other significant item of CSB growth was an extra £139,000 for additional refuse and recycling costs, in order to achieve higher levels of recycling and thus generate savings in the longer term. The Portfolio Holder emphasised to the Cabinet that no CSB growth had been allocated for the Customer Services Transformation Programme; it was anticipated that a supplementary estimate would be requested during 2006/07. CSB savings of £152,000 had been achieved through the externalisation of the management of the Council’s Leisure Facilities, and a further £130,000 had been achieved from Support Service costs due to the changes in Leisure Facility management and the transfer of the Highways Agency back to the County Council. A further £50,000 of additional income had been achieved from Council Tax recovery work.

The Portfolio Holder further added that net DDF expenditure had been restricted to £831,000. This had led to the Council being able to limit the increase in District Council Tax to 2.46%, which was considerably lower than the 4% guideline contained within the previous four-year forecast. With respect to the longer-term guidelines, current projections indicated that the Council’s reserves would be 38% of net budget requirement by 31 March 2007, far in excess of the 25% guideline. Thus, the Council could consider setting deficit budgets for the three years 2007/08 to 2009/10 in order to reduce its reserves.

The Portfolio Holder reported that a new system had been introduced for Local Government Finance Settlements to produce a two-year settlement, with the intention of producing three-year settlements in the future. The Assumed National Council Tax and Formula Spending Shares had been abolished, and replaced with a four-block system comprising: a Relative Needs block; a Relative Resource Amount; a Central Allocation Amount; and a Floor Damping block. The settlement received by the Council under the new system had been particularly favourable and had exceeded the prudent assumptions made in the Council’s four–year forecast. With careful management through the new Council Plan for 2006-10, it should be possible to achieve improvements in key service areas. A detailed analysis of the final Local Government Settlement for the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act indicated:

To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items which are confidential under Section 100(A)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972:

Paragraph 9 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in the Constitution require:

(1)       All business of the Council requiring to be transacted in the presence of the press and public to be completed by 10.00 p.m. at the latest.

(2)       At the time appointed under (1) above, the Chairman shall permit the completion of debate on any item still under consideration, and at his or her discretion, any other remaining business whereupon the Council shall proceed to exclude the public and press.

(3)       Any public business remaining to be dealt with shall be deferred until after the completion of the private part of the meeting, including items submitted for report rather than decision.

Background Papers:  Paragraph 8 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules of the Constitution define background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion:

(a)            disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of the report is based;  and

(b)       have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information (as defined in Rule 10) and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.

Inspection of background papers may be arranged by contacting the officer responsible for the item.

            RESOLVED:

That the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on the grounds that they would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972:

Agenda                                                                      Exempt Information

Item No.            Subject                                             Paragraph Number

29                    South Herts Waste Management            7, 8 and 9

(Environmental Protection Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C/117/2005-06).

The Environmental Protection Portfolio Holder presented a report on the waste management contract with South Herts Waste Management and drew the Cabinet’s attention to the revised ‘Interim Financial Arrangements’ section that had been tabled at the meeting. The Portfolio Holder also highlighted to the Cabinet that recommendation (7b) had been amended, in respect of garden waste collections, following the publication of the agenda.

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Protection reminded the Cabinet that the Waste Management contract was let to South Herts Waste Management in September 2002 for seven years, with an option to extend it for a further seven years. In recent months, the Contractor had sought further financial assistance from the Council in order to make a reasonable return on the Contract, some of which had been agreed by the Cabinet. The Contractor was now seeking additional financial assistance to cover the period from September 2005 onwards as a number of issues had arisen in that time. The Council’s original consultants during the tender process, Indecon, had produced a report on the contract and its costs for the Council’s consideration. In view of the complexity of the issues involved, and the need to find a longer-term solution to the financial issues within the contract, it had been proposed to establish a Cabinet Committee to examine the Indecon report, with the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Protection as the Chairman.

The Head of Environmental Services added that the Cabinet Committee would enable the waste management contract with South Herts Waste Management to be reviewed in depth, with advice from consultants, and also would provide an opportunity for the Contractor to make their views known. It was intended to be a short but intensive piece of work. It was felt that, aside from the Portfolio Holders for Environmental Protection and Finance and Performance Management, the other three members of the Cabinet Committee should be decided by the Group Leaders.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That the present situation regarding the waste management contract with South Herts Waste Management be noted;

(2)            That a new Cabinet Committee be established with the following terms of reference:

“To submit recommendations to the Cabinet on the following by 10 April 2006 at the latest on:

(a)        a review of the Indecon report on the current financial position of the contract with South Herts Waste Management and recommendations on the action required as a result; and

(b)            a review of the long term future of this contract, an analysis of available options which can be negotiated with the contractor and recommendations on a preferred option for consideration by the Cabinet”;

(3)            That the new Cabinet Committee comprise 5 Portfolio Holders, including the Portfolio Holders for Finance & Performance Management and Environmental Protection;

(4)             That the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Protection be appointed Chairman of the Committee;

(5)              That a standing invitation be extended to attend meetings of the new Committee to a Councillor representative of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee;

(6)             That the Council be advised at its next meeting that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.