Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Priory Road, Spalding
Contact: Amanda Taylor 01775 764837
To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Tuesday 2 September 2014 (copy enclosed).
The minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2014 were signed by the Leader as a correct record.
Matters arising - Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership Projects Update
At the last meeting, consideration had been given to a report on the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership (GLEP) Projects. Updates were received on a number of the decisions that had been made, as detailed below:
1. That the development of outline business cases for Council led projects i) and ii) below for the next funding round of GLLEP Growth Deal and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) bidding be approved – i) South Holland Business Growth and Employment Project (Crease Drove – Growth Deal); and ii) Grants4Growth Phase 2 (ERDF).
· South Holland Business Growth and Employment Project (Crease Drove – Growth Deal) – The Portfolio Holder for Localism, Economic Development and Big Society advised that the Economic Development department had submitted an outline business case for the Crease Drove project and were still waiting to hear if this had been approved to go forward to the next full business case stage. The Economic Development department was working with Assets on the full business case so the Authority was ready to submit within the tight timescales set by the GLLEP programme for the next round of Growth deal funding. Should the bid not go forward in this round, a full business case was ready to take advantage of future rounds or alternative GLLEP funding sources.
· Grants4Growth Phase 2 (ERDF) – The Portfolio Holder for Localism, Economic Development and Big Society reported that this outline business case had been submitted and would form part of the business support GLLEP Growth Hub programme, and was likely to be funded through the European Regional Development Fund (another LEP funding source). A full business case was currently being worked up ready for submission in early 2015 when the programme had been finally agreed with the EU and had been signed off with central government and UK LEPS.
2. That the partner led projects identified within the GLLEP Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and projects i), ii), iii) and iv) below that meet strategic SEP alignment priorities be supported by the Cabinet in priority order – i) Spalding Western Relief Road Phase 2 and 3; ii) Holbeach Campus; iii) Peppermint Junction; and iv) Rail Freight Interchange.
· The Portfolio Holder for Localism, Economic Development and Big Society confirmed that the above ranking order of SHDC priorities would be reflected in all future strategic documents and submissions.
3. That a potential project to provide and extend Spalding Town bus service be researched to ascertain if it met the criteria.
· The Portfolio Holder for Localism, Economic Development and Big Society advised that following some research, the Economic Development Manager had advised Councillor A Newton (who had raised the original question of GLLEP funding for an extension to Spalding bus services), that this type of project would not meet the GLLEP funding criteria due to its scale and nature. Economic Development officers were currently investigating any alternative sources of funding which may be able to assist.
4. That an update on the schedule for funding of Phase 1 of the Spalding ... view the full minutes text for item 26.
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.)
No interests were declared.
Questions raised by the public under Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.4
No questions were raised under Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.4.
matters subject to call-in
There were no matters subject to call-in.
Interim report of the Leisure Task Group
Consideration was given to the report of the Leisure Task Group containing recommendations which had been approved by the Policy Development and Performance Monitoring Panels.
The Performance Monitoring and Policy Development Panels had established the Joint Task Group on 30 April 2013. The Terms of Reference for the Task Group has been agreed at its first meeting on 21 January 2014, which were as follows:
· Establish what leisure provision the District Council presently provides, examining costs, resident satisfaction and competitiveness in order to identify ways of increasing income or reducing expenditure;
· To understand what the District Council wishes to provide and what the public and major employers need; and
· To examine the options for future provision either to be supplied by the Council, the private sector or shared management.
It had been agreed that the Leisure Task Group would provide an interim report to the Panels and Cabinet during the autumn of 2014, with the anticipation of a final report to Cabinet in February 2015.
The Chairman of the Task Group presented the interim report to the Cabinet, and the following issues were raised:
· Stating that the facilities were ‘not fit for purpose’ was not in context with some other comments within the report which stated that the facilities were well used. The language on this issue should therefore be reconsidered.
· The work of the Task Group was generally good, and where it was leading was helpful. The Authority had to be prepared in plenty of time before the current contract expired in 2018.
· Had the results of a previous review of leisure facilities undertaken in 2012 been utilised? The Authority should not duplicate work that had already been undertaken if some of this information was still valid.
· Had the Task Group looked into how a new/refurbished facility could be sustainable? The Chairman responded that consideration had been given to this when visiting other facilities and that this would be one of the areas in the next phase of the Task Group’s work.
· One of the recommendations within the interim report was that a provisional sum be provided to the Task Group in the sum of £20,500 to allow a full consultation exercise to be carried out. . Cabinet were concerned at this level of expenditure at this time and wanted further consideration of the previous research to take place..
· Care should be taken with questions to be asked of the public within the survey in order that expectations were not raised.
· Leisure facilities did not necessarily have to be provided by the local authority. Consideration should also be given to its provision by the private sector.
· It was suggested that consideration be given to including provision of new/refurbished leisure facilities within the Corporate Priorities, however, the Leader was uncomfortable including it here at the moment. He suggested that the Corporate Management Team look at the interim report and the issues raised within the discussion of it, that this be fed into the ... view the full minutes text for item 30.
To provide an update of delivery against our 2011-15 Corporate Plan for the period 1 April 2014 to 30 June 2014. (Joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Internal Services, Performance and Business Development and Executive Director of Commissioning and Governance enclosed.)
Consideration was given to the joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Internal Services, Performance and Business Development and the Executive Director of Commissioning and Governance which provided an update of delivery against the 2011-15 Corporate Plan for the period 1 April 2014 to 30 June 2014.
At the meeting of Cabinet on 10 June 2014, the Leader had requested that more relevant detail be added to the Performance report. This additional information was now included within the report.
Members questioned the poor performance in relation to the percentage of major planning applications determined within 13 weeks. It was confirmed that loss of personnel within the department and subsequent recruitment had caused a drop in performance. However, the department was working hard to rectify the situation and thus improve performance.
The Portfolio Holder for Localism, Economic Development and Big Society clarified the following issues that had been raised at a recent meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel:
· Holbeach Town Centre Regeneration – This concerned projects around the proposed Peppermint Junction roundabout and housing.
· CCTV – The system was currently being tested and it was hoped to be in place by the end of October/mid November. With regard to Parish Councils, once the system had been tested, they would be contacted to discuss locations.
· Anti-Social Behaviour – Inspector Tyner advised that training was currently taking place to ensure understanding of new legislation that replaced DPPOs (Designated Public Place Orders).
That the content of the report be noted.
(Other options considered:
· Not to approve the recommendations; or
· To make recommendations for change
Reasons for decision:
· Reporting against the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Priorities was good practice and part of the local government transparency agenda.)
To recommend writing off irrecoverable debts. (Joint report of the Deputy Leader / Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Strategic Planning and the Finance Manager (S151) enclosed.)
(Please note that the appendices associated with this report are not for publication by virtue of Paragraphs 1 (Information relating to any individual), 2 (Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual) and 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) in Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972, and are therefore attached to this agenda as Item 11.)
Consideration was given to the joint report of the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Strategic Planning and the Finance Manager which recommended writing off irrecoverable debts.
A breakdown of the individual debts were attached as item 11 within the agenda, which was not for publication by virtue of Paragraphs 1 (Information relating to any individual), 2 (Information which is likely to reveal the identity of
any individual) and 3 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
Members agreed that only the principles of the report would be discussed and there was therefore no need for the meeting to go into private session.
Comment was made that in some instances, enforcement took too long and it was agreed that an explanation on this was needed.
That the following debts be written off:
Council Tax £15,067.48
Business Rates £14,180.07
Accounts Receivable £Nil
Former Tenant Arrears £2,349.82
Housing Benefit Overpayments £3,648.08
(Other options considered:
· Do nothing; or
· Approve the recommendations with amendments
Reasons for decision:
· All recovery methods available had been considered and where appropriate pursued before making the decision to write off.)