Agenda and minutes

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 15 January 2013 (copy enclosed). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2013 were signed by the Leader as a correct record.  

(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.

·        In accordance with Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.4, Mr Craig Jackson asked the following questions:

Bearing in mind the Localism Act 2011, can you tell me what the latest advice is to councillors, especially those on the Planning Committee, with regards to the pre-determination of planning applications?

The Leader stated that all councillors on the Planning Committee had been advised of information detailed within the Localism Act.  All councillors were aware that they had to approach each planning application with a clear mind and be open to the evidence presented to them.

The Monitoring Officer advised that information had been presented to the Planning Committee in January 2012, providing guidance on the information detailed within the Localism Act. She advised that Mr Jackson would be provided with a copy of this guidance after the meeting.

In relation to clarifying the rules on predetermination, the publication ‘A plain English guide to the Localism Act’ states the following:

‘In parallel with the abolition of the Standards Board, the Government has used the Localism Act to clarify the rules on predetermination.  These rules were developed to ensure that councillors came to council discussions – on, for example, planning applications – with an open mind.  In practice, however, these rules had been interpreted in such a way as to reduce the quality of local debate and stifle valid discussion.  In some cases councillors were warned off doing such things as campaigning, talking with constituents, or publicly expressing views on local issues, for fear of being accused of bias or facing legal challenge.

The Localism Act makes it clear that it is proper for councillors to play an active part in local discussions, and that they should not be liable to legal challenge as a result.  This will help them better represent their constituents and enrich local democratic debate.  People can elect their councillor confident in the knowledge that they will be able to act on the issues they care about and have campaigned on.’

Why is that some so-called Independent District Councillors representing Sutton Bridge say that they are unable to comment or offer an opinion on planning applications when the Act has clarified how councillors can interact with their constituents on these issues?

The Leader responded that this was not an appropriate issue for the Cabinet to answer.  He reiterated that members had to go to debates regarding planning applications with an open mind, and the fact that members may express opinions prior to a debate could lead to legal challenge.  Councillors could actively lead campaigns but had to be mindful of the pre-determination issue.  Mr Jackson would need to speak to the relevant councillors to find out why they were not commenting on the application.   

Do you support your economic development policies relating to the Wingland Enterprise Park (Chapter 5 – Policy EC1 – on major employment areas – sites allocated for employment use)?

Paragraph 5.14 states – Currently, employment development on this site is expected to be confined to Classes B1, B2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

There were no matters subject to call-in.

To report on the recommendations of the Policy Development Panel on work undertaken by the Community Transport Task Group (report of the Community Transport Task Group enclosed).

Consideration was given to the final report of the Community Transport Task Group containing recommendations which had been approved by the Policy Development Panel. 

The Policy Development Panel had re-established the Community Transport Task Group on 30 August 2011, and it had commenced its work on 19 July 2012.  The scope of the review was to examine the current position in relation to the following projects – Voluntary car scheme (including as a model for young people); Wheels to Work; and the Minibus brokerage scheme, and to make recommendations to Cabinet, if necessary, on how South Holland District Council could support the schemes.  The final report was attached at Appendix A.

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Localism and Big Society thanked the Task Group for its work.  The following issues/changes to the content of the final report and the covering report were raised:

·        It was clarified that John Potter had occasionally helped with the Youth Council, and was not a consultant as detailed in the covering report;

·        South Holland Car Scheme – Holbeach and Crowland parishes were both members of the car scheme but were not mentioned as such within the final report;

·        In relation to the minibus brokerage scheme, it should be clarified that Holbeach Community Minibus was not part of the incentive scheme.

DECISION:

That the following recommendation of the Task Group be approved:

• That South Holland District Council continue to support all three projects, and that promotion of these services be undertaken.

(Other options considered:

• Not to approve the Task Group’s Final Report and/or suggest that some or all of the recommendations be amended; or
• Do nothing

Reasons for decision:

• In terms of the three projects which formed the subject of the review, the Task Group felt that these initiatives were proceeding reasonably well.  However, there was a need to undertake more promotion of the services that were available and they should therefore retain the support of South Holland District Council.)

To report on the recommendations of the Performance Monitoring Panel on work undertaken by the Effectiveness of CCTV in South Holland Task Group (report of the Effectiveness of CCTV in South Holland Task Group enclosed).

Consideration was given to the interim report of the Effectiveness of CCTV in South Holland Task Group containing recommendations which had been approved by the Performance Monitoring Panel.

The Performance Monitoring Panel had agreed to re-convene the Effectiveness of CCTV in South Holland Task Group on 6 November 2012, and it had commenced its work on 21 November 2012.  The scope of the review was to examine the effectiveness of the Council’s CCTV service and prospects for future provision.

The Task Group had not yet concluded its work, but given recent developments regarding a possible countywide CCTV system, had produced an interim report for consideration.  This interim report had been considered by the Performance Monitoring Panel on 29 January 2013, and was attached at Appendix A.

The Chairman of the Task Group presented the recommendations and clarified that this was an interim report.  The Task Group agreed that the current system provided a valuable service that was good value for money, however, could cost more if it was allowed to lapse.  There were issues around the recruitment of volunteers; parish councils (who felt that they had contributed to the system but had little input); and the inability to contact officers at South Holland District Council.  However, it was felt that these issues could be resolved and the system improved.

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Localism and Big Society confirmed that there was a real possibility that both Holbeach and Long Sutton parish councils would withdraw from the CCTV scheme at the end of March.  He also stated that funding for interim CCTV contracts could come from the Community Development Reserves which included monies for a new capital scheme for CCTV, however, this would reduce the amount available in the capital scheme for a new system in the future.

The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services reported that correspondence from the newly elected Police Crime Commissioner had advised that work on the efficiency of CCTV in the area was being undertaken, that the current arrangements contained inefficiencies and that until these were resolved, more investment could not be contemplated.

A discussion by all parties involved with CCTV ensued and the following observations were made:

·        Inspector Jim Tyner, representing Lincolnshire Police, stated that although it was difficult to produce data to confirm the benefits of CCTV to the Police, he did believe that it worked and that it was helpful to the Police in their work.  He commented that, if it was advertised that there was no CCTV in an area, this would have a negative impact and he was therefore concerned if parishes withdrew from the scheme.  He fully supported the work undertaken by volunteers who operated the CCTV equipment, although there were retention problems.  Alongside the current recruitment process for street pastors, the Police were hoping to recruit prayer pastors to provide logistical and spiritual support, and hoped that this resource could also be used to monitor CCTV.

·        Harry Drury,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To consider the General Fund revenue and capital estimates and the Financial Medium Term Plan, the Capital Strategy and the Treasury Management Strategy Statement prior to formal adoption by Council (report of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services and the Assistant Director, Finance enclosed).

Consideration was given to the joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services and the Assistant Director Finance (S151) which set out the General Fund revenue and capital estimates and the Financial Medium Term Plan, the Capital Strategy and the Treasury Management Strategy Statement.  The Cabinet was requested to consider this information, prior to formal adoption by full Council.

The appendices to the report outlined the 2013-14 revenue and capital estimates for the General Fund; the proposals for the setting of discretionary fees and charges; the outline financial position through to 2017-18; the financial medium term plan; the capital strategy and the Treasury Management Strategy Statement.

The financial medium term plan set out the framework within which the budget was to be set to ensure that it enabled the Council to achieve its own corporate objectives.  The capital strategy set out the framework for the capital budget setting.

The Treasury Management Strategy Statement addressed how the Council would manage its treasury function over the coming year, as well as identifying the prudential indicators that the authority had to approve to meet the requirements of regulations.

The report under consideration concentrated on the General Fund estimates.  The Housing Revenue Accounts had been approved at Council on 23 January 2013.

The Cabinet was advised that the amount at which the Spalding Special Expense for a Band D property in 2013-14 should be set, detailed in recommendation D, was incorrect.  The amount should read £23.28 and not £23.29 as detailed within the recommendation.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL:

a)     That the General Fund revenue estimates (Appendix A), use of reserves (Appendix D) and Fees and Charges (Appendix H) be approved;

b)     That the Council Tax for a Band D property in 2013-14, to be set at £156.24, be approved;

c)      That the Spalding Special Expenses estimates (Appendix C) be approved;

d)     That the Spalding Special Expenses for a Band D property in 2013-14, to be set at £23.28, be approved;

e)     That the Medium Term Financial Plan (Appendices A and B) be approved;

f)        That the Capital Strategy and Programme (Appendices E and F) be approved; and

g)     That the Treasury Management Strategy Statement, including the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy, Annual Investment Strategy and the associated Prudential and Treasury Indicators (Appendix G) be approved.

(Other options considered:

·        To note the report and make changes if necessary; or

·        To do nothing

Reasons for decision:

·        To comply with the budgetary and policy framework.)

To approve recommendations (report of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services and the Assistant Director Finance enclosed).

Consideration was given to the joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services and the Assistant Director Finance (S151) which detailed information on the forecast full year financial position, as at 31 December 2012, and sought approval of recommendations detailed within the report.

The Cabinet was advised that the covering report indicated that all recommendations should be made by full Council.  It was clarified that recommendation A was a decision that could be made by Cabinet and that recommendations B and C should still be referred to Council.

DECISION:

That the use of the Council Tax Reserve to finance the £40,000 contribution in respect of Spalding Flower Parade be approved.

RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL:

a)     That the transfer of Waste Incentive Scheme revenue funding of £329,153 to the Organisational Development Reserve in advance of spend in 2013-14 be approved; and

b)     That the Disabled Facilities grant budget be increased by £78.147.

(Other options considered:

• Not to approve the recommendations detailed within the report; or
• Do nothing.

Reasons for decision:

• To provide timely information to members on the overall finances of the Council and to make the best use of resources available.)

To recommend writing off irrecoverable debts.  (Joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services and the Assistant Director Finance (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 12.)

Consideration was given to the joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services and the Assistant Director Finance (S151) which sought approval to write off irrecoverable debts.

Members noted that the appendices were not for publication by virtue of Paragraphs 1 (Information relating to any individual), 2 (information which was 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.  The appendices were therefore attached as agenda item 12, for members to consider in more depth if they wished.

The Monitoring Officer advised that she had liaised with the Information Commissioner and had received guidance on the information detailed within the Write-Off reports that should be considered as confidential.  It was hoped that future Write-Off reports would contain less exempt information.

Members commented that it would be useful to have a comparison of the amounts of each of the write off figures, on a year by year basis.  The Director of Finance (S151) advised that a report could be produced which could be presented to the Cabinet on an annual basis, using the current year’s figures as a baseline.  

DECISION:

a)     That the following debts be written off:

Council Tax                      £10,627,50               

Non Domestic Rates      £42,043.78

Sundry Debtors               £11,301.23

Total                                 £63,972.51

b)     That an annual report be presented to the Cabinet showing a year on year comparison of write-offs, using the current year’s figures as a base line.

(Other options considered:

·        To approve the recommendation with amendments; or

·        Do nothing.

Reasons for decision:

·        All recovery methods available had been considered and where appropriate pursued before making the decision to write off.)

DECISION:

To consider resolving that, under section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Appendix (Enclosed)

Consideration was given to the appendices relating to the joint report of the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Finance and Democratic Services and the Assistant Director Finance (S151) which sought approval to write off irrecoverable debts.

This item had been dealt with earlier in the meeting, under agenda item 9.

Members commented that they were unable to gain a full understanding of the circumstances leading to the amounts that were being requested for write off, and asked that a more detailed level of information be provided to Portfolio Holders.

DECISION:

a)     That the S151 Officer provide the Finance Portfolio Holder with greater detail of outstanding debt and recovery action taken, and where there was a remaining challenge over debt recovery, this would be reported back; and

b)     That officers consider how to ensure liability for Council Tax for private rented property could be secured against the occupant rather than the landlord.

(Other options considered:

• Do nothing.

Reasons for decision:

• To provide a more detailed level of information for Portfolio Holders to consider before any decision be made to write off.)