Agenda and minutes

Cabinet - Tuesday, 1st October, 2013 6.30 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Priory Road, Spalding

Contact: Amanda Taylor  01775 764837

Items
No. Item

19.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 41 KB

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 3 September 2013 (copy enclosed). 

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2013 were signed by the Deputy Leader as a correct record.

20.

Declarations of Interest

(Members are no longer required to declare personal of prejudicial interests but are to declare any new Disclosable Pecuniary Interests that are not currently included in their Register of Interests.

 

Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate in the whole of an agenda item to which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.  In the interests of transparency, members may also wish to declare any other interests that they have, in relation to an agenda item, that supports the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.)   

 

Minutes:

No interests were declared.

21.

Questions raised by the public under Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.4

Minutes:

No questions were raised under Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.4.

22.

matters subject to call-in

Minutes:

There were no matters subject to call-in.

23.

matters arising from the Policy Development and Performance Monitoring Panels

Minutes:

There were no matters arising from the Policy Development and Performance

Monitoring Panels.

24.

Pinnacle Close Industrial Units, Crease Drove, Crowland pdf icon PDF 34 KB

To consider the options for utilising the £365,000 budget that is ring fenced for Economic Development use at Crease Drove Crowland.  (Joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, Commercial Assets and Strategic Planning and the Ecnomic Development Manager enclosed.)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, Commercial Assets and Strategic Planning and the Economic Development Manager which presented the options for utilising the £365,000 budget that was ring fenced for Economic Development use at Crease Drove Crowland.

 

Councillor M G Chandler queried whether research had been carried out as to determine whether one lone unit was the best option.  Councillor H R Johnson advised that any unit built would be able to be sub-divided, as research had been carried out which indicated that was the case.

 

Councillor P S Przyszlak confirmed that all units had been let or sold and a recently vacated unit had been re-let, therefore indicating that there was a demand as various units had recently been let.

 

DECISION:

 

a)      That the build of a 330 square metre unit at Crease Drove, Crowland, to rent on the open market, be approved; and

 

b)      That the build be funded from the ring-fenced capital funding available for Crease Drove, Crowland, to a maximum value of £365,000.

 

(Options:

·      Investigate the purchase of the 4 acres of adjacent land at a cost of circa £200,000.  This option would utilise the Crease Drove Capital for the original purpose;

·      Service the remaining 1 acre plot and market as serviced employment land.  This may improve the value of the land and result in an increased (ring fenced) capital receipt if subsequently sold, but would not improve rental income.  It did utilise the Crease Drove Capital for its original purpose.

·      Market the remaining 1 acre plot as un-serviced employment land.  This option would not utilise the existing ring fenced funds but would increase them if sold at a profit;

·      Service the remaining 1 acre plot and build a further 1 or 2 industrial units.  This might improve the value of the land to be serviced and result in an increased (ring fenced) capital receipt if subsequently sold or additional rental income if let.  It also utilised the Crease Drove capital for its original purpose; and

·      Do nothing.  This would leave the ringfenced funds in place and result in no further development at Crease Drove.

Reasons for Recommendations:

·      By building a 330 square metre unit the value of the land might be increased, resulting in an increased (ring fenced) capital receipt if the facility was sold or generated additional income through renting on the open market.  This option was considered to be the best option because it would offer continued economic growth to the area and generate further income.)

25.

Springfields S106 Applications pdf icon PDF 34 KB

To present Cabinet with the ranked assessment results of S106 application process to assist members in making decisions on which applicant projects provide the best value for Spalding as a result on receiving S106 funding.  (Joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, Commercial Assets and Strategic Planning and the Economic Development Manager enclosed.)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, Commercial Assets and Strategic Planning and the Economic Development Manager which presented the ranked assessment results of the S106 application process to assist members in making decisions on which applicants projects provided the best value for Spalding as a

result on receiving S106 funding.

 

Councillor Johnson announced a change to the recommendation within the report, as it was deemed more appropriate to defer the decision in order to provide the Spalding Town Forum with the opportunity to fully consider the projects and make recommendations as to whether they should be approved.

 

Councillor R Gambba-Jones raised concerns regarding the proposed bandstand in Ayscoughfee Gardens and queried how the application had made it this far through the process, as he was aware of more cost effective options such as converting an existing structure in the gardens.  He requested that more clarity be given, in terms of what the applicant wanted and the costs involved, to be presented to the Spalding Town Forum meeting at which the projects would be considered.

 

Councillor Gambba-Jones stated that the S106 money was all about the viability and sustainability of Spalding as a retail centre.  He supported the principle of a Town Centre Manager but requested clarity as to the future sustainability of the position. 

 

Members noted that Springfields had a final say over what the money was spent on, and a condition in place was that the retail outlet would be party to a promotion from the S106 money in order to combat any impact from the money being allocated to Spalding itself.  Councillor Gambba-Jones requested that Springfields give further consideration as to whether they actually needed to be involved through a promotion. 

 

Harry Drury, (Chamber of Commerce) agreed with the comments that had been raised and advised that he was pleased that the Chamber of Commerce had the opportunity to approach the Spalding Town Forum in order to clarify their applications. 

 

DECISION:

 

That the decision to approve funding for projects be deferred in favour of providing the Spalding Town Forum with the opportunity to review all listed projects contained within the report and make recommendations to Cabinet accordingly. 

 

(Options:

·      To fully fund one or more projects;

·      To part fund one or more projects; and

·      To decline funding for one or more projects.

Reasons for Recommendations:

·      Decisions on funding for eligible projects set out within the report would be made by Cabinet.  However, providing the Spalding Town Forum with the opportunity to review the projects was considered to be the more appropriate course of action, seeing as the S106 money had been allocated for the benefit of Spalding.)

26.

Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2014/15 pdf icon PDF 52 KB

To consider the options for the 2014/15 Council Tax Support scheme, and to approve formal consultation to meet the statutory requirement for Council to approve by 31st January 2014 its scheme for 2014/15.  Furthermore, it requests that delegated authority is given to the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive to approve the draft scheme and consultation approach.  (Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services, Portfolio Holder for Internal Services, Performance and Business Development Assistant Director of Commissioning enclosed.)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic

Finance and Democratic Services, the Portfolio Holder for Internal Services,

Performance and Business Development and the Assistant Director of Commissioning which presented the options for the 2014/15 Council Tax Support scheme, and sought approval for formal consultation in order to meet the statutory requirement for South Holland District Council to approve its scheme for 2014/15, by 31 January 2014.  Furthermore, approval was sought for delegated authority to be given to the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive to approve the draft scheme and consultation approach.

 

Councillor Przyslak recommended option 3 as the preferred approach as it was originally agreed by members in 2012.  Members agreed and requested that steps be taken to inform the Parish Councils of the effect of the changes and removal of the Government grant (outcome).

 

Councillor Gambba-Jones queried where the figure of 8.5% had originated, with regard to the maximum Council Tax liability eligibility for all working age claimants.  Councillor Przyslak advised that the figure had been determined by the Treasury. 

 

DECISION:

 

a)      That the Council return to the draft scheme, as originally agreed by members in 2012, and which was the basis for consultation for the 2013/14 scheme before the transitional grant announcement, be approved as the preferred option;

 

b)      That the Leader and Chief Executive be given delegated authority to approve the draft scheme and consultation approach in line with the preferred option; and

 

c)      That steps be taken to ensure that Parish Councils were informed of the effect of the changes and removal of the Government grant (outcome). 

 

(Options:

·      To do nothing;

·      To make no change and retain the 2013/14 Council Tax Support scheme for 2014/15; and

·      To design a new draft scheme from scratch on which to consult for 2014/15.

Reasons for Recommendations:

·      A return to the original 2013/14 draft scheme, was the preferred scheme by Members in 2012, as outlined in Section 1.4 within the report;

·      A full consultation programme had been carried out in 2012 on that scheme.  The results from 2012 would be considered alongside responses from this year’s consultation exercise where views would be sought from a representative sample of current Council Tax Support recipients along with other interested parties;

·      The final scheme for 2013/14 adopted by the Council had the effect of limiting the impact on working age claimants in that first year.  The transitional phased approach to reduce the level of CTS to 25% of baseline entitlement in year 2 would deliver the CTS scheme originally proposed for 2013/14;

·      That option would be updated to reflect technical changes and compliance with the Prescribed Scheme Regulations.)