The Chairman sought Members consensus to transfer Item 14 from Section B to Section A part of the Agenda.

Members supported the recommendation.

Decision:

That item 14 be discussed in Section A part of the meeting.
 

Purpose of Report:

1. To present to the Executive the third quarter's performance (up to 31 December) on the Council’s:

• General Fund
• Housing Revenue Account
• City Maintenance Services
• Capital Programme
• Key budget risk assessments
• Earmarked Reserves

2. To provide a comprehensive briefing on the financial position of the Council.

Decision:

1. That the progress on the financial performance for the period 1 April to 31 December 2009 and the projected outturns for 2009/10 be noted.
    
2. That the allocation of £374,690 to the Housing Planning Delivery Grant Reserve and £52,630 to the Empty Shops Revival Reserve, as detalied in paragraph 2.8 of the report, be approved.
    
3. That the virements to re-allocate funds, outlined in paragraph 2.7 of the report and the budget changes including the revised reserve transfers, detailed in 3.5 of the report, be approved.
    
4. That in principle the proposed transfers to reserves of £46,360, as outlined in paragraph 2.10 of the report, be approved to be confirmed as part of the closure of the Council’s accounts and reported back to the Executive.
    
5. That the allocation of the forecast surplus on CMS of £75,830 to an earmarked reserve to contribute towards the purchase of a new computer system (paragraph 4.3) be approved. 
    
6. That the financial changes, to the General Fund Investment Programme, that were above the 10% budget variance limited delegated to the Director of Resources, detailed in paragraph 5.4 of the report, be approved.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

None.

Reason for Decision:

Financial Procedure Rules required the Executive to receive, on a quarterly basis, a report prepared jointly by the Director of Resources and the other Directors commenting on financial performance to date. The report was designed to meet this requirement.

The report covered the revenue and capital outcomes, movements of the earmarked reserve and key issues from the budget risk assessment. The report also asked for Executive’s approval on number of actions, as detailed within paragraphs 2 to 5 of the report.

The Director of Resources had delegated authority to approve financial changes up to a maximum of 10% variance of the value of the project. All changes over 10% were required to be approved by the Executive. The Director of Resources presented the financial changes to the General Fund Investment Programme and Housing Investment Programme, which were over 10% and required approval from Executive.

Purpose of Report:-

To inform Members of progress, and to seek ratification of Membership of the above, following the recent adoption of a formal constitution.

Decision: -

1. That the recommendations made by the ‘as of right’ core group, as set out in section 3.6 of the report, be approved.
    
2. That the Executive's comments, detailed in the Reason for Decision below, be forwarded to the core group for their consideration.

Alternative options considered and rejected:-

None

Reason for Decision:-

The Commons Advisory Panel's Constitution was formal ratified by full Council on 29 September 2009. One recommendation from Council was that those groups mentioned in the original 1985 undertaking to the Open Spaces Society be given ‘as of right Membership’, as detailed in Appendix A of the report. The request had been included within the Constitution document and they were referred to here as ‘ the core group’.

Within the Constitution each community group, user group, or other organisation whose Members used one or more of the Commons, shall be entitled to nominate a representative to serve on the Panel as a Member.

Besides the groups listed in the 1985 undertaking a number of other groups with an interest in the Commons had declared an interest in joining the Panel under the new Constitution rules. Such groups were asked to submit an application form along with a copy of their own Constitution.
The core group Members held a meeting on the 24 February 2010, to discuss the applications received and recommend to Executive the proposed Membership for the Panel.

The Group's recommendations were presented to Executive, as detailed within paragraph 3.6 of the report. However, the Group did request that the application from Carholme Community Forum be deferred until more information could be sought from the group. Once the core group had received the appropriate information, they would forward their recommendations to Executive for formal approval.

Executive expressed their concern that the request from Carholme Community Forum would overlap with the West End Residents Association application, and questioned whether two groups were necessary for the same catchment area. They felt that the Panel could become unbalanced and too focussed on one particular Common rather than the Commons as a whole. They requested that their concerns be forwarded to the core group for consideration. 

Purpose of Report:-

To update Members on the latest position regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations and request that in consultation with the Planning Policy and Economic Regeneration Portfolio Holder, the Director of Development and Environmental Services be given delegated powers to affirm existing section 106 tariffs should this prove to be necessary and appropriate.

Decision: -

1. That the content of the report be noted.
    
2. That the Director of Development and Environmental Services be given delegated powers, in consultation with the Planning Policy and Economic Regeneration Portfolio Holder, to affirm existing section 106 tariffs should it be proven to be necessary and appropriate.

Alternative options considered and rejected:-

None

Reason for Decision:-

CIL was introduced in the 2008 Planning Act. In July 2009 the Government produced a consultation document on the detailed proposals and draft regulations for the introduction of CIL. Following an analysis of the consultation responses, the Government made amendments to the regulations and published a final version in February 2010. These would take effect from 6 April 2010.

The introduction of CIL regulations required from 6th April 2010 “a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development where it is:

1.  necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
2. directly related to the development; and
3. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”.

These tests are not new since they were introduced in Circular 05/05 in 2005, however, the fact that they are now in the regulations meant that they are now enshrined in law.

RESOLVED that the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business because it is likely that if members of the public were present there would be a disclosure to them of ‘exempt information’ as defined by Section 100I and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Purpose of Report:

To provide Executive with a progress report on the strategic projects against their milestones for the third quarter of the financial year (1 April to 31 December 2009).

Decision:

That the progress on the delivery of the strategic projects, in particular the specific issues highlighted in Paragraph 4 of the report be noted and the appropriate actions being taken.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

None.

Reason for Decision:

Following a review of monitoring arrangements of major projects by the Director of Resources the Strategic Plan Implementation Team (SPIT) was developed to effectively drive projects forward. SPIT operated as a sub-group of the Corporate Management Team (CMT) and was chaired by the Director of Resources.

The overall mission of SPIT was; “To assist Members in formulating the Strategic Plan Delivery Programme and monitoring delivery of projects contained within the approved programme against agreed milestones to seek to ensure that the programme is delivered on time and within the approved budget.”The approved programme of projects was now more comprehensive and consisted of all projects from the Strategic Plan and other appropriate key strategic projects as agreed by Directorate Management Teams.

SPIT was currently monitoring 68 strategic projects; a number of these projects had been deferred as agreed by Executive on 15 September 2008 as part of the Service Review Programme.

Purpose of Report:-

To provide Members with the details of the completion of the acquisition of the leasehold interest in City Hall.

Decision: -

That the final details of the acquisition of the leasehold interest in City Hall be noted.

Alternative options considered and rejected:-

None.

Reason for Decision:-
 
As part of the Accommodation Service Review process the Council’s future accommodation needed to be explored in detail. As a major asset with substantial long term liabilities, City Hall was considered to be a priority for review. A comprehensive options appraisal was carried out and there was no doubt that the acquisition of City Hall at an acceptable price would provide not only financial benefits to the Council, but also give the Council the flexibility it needed to deal with the property to meet its strategic needs in the future.

The decision to purchase City Hall was approved by Full Council on 1 December 2009. Contracts were exchanged on 4 December 2009 and the purchase completed on 21 January 2010. The Council was now in the process of registering the freehold title with the land registry.

The report provided the details of the completed acquisition.

Purpose of Report:-

1. To request authority to: 

• extend further the THI Programme Grant Expiry Date
• progress an application for Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) grant funding, to bring back the Constitutional Club, into full economic use through the repair and reinstatement of the building fabric.

2. To inform Members of actions taken in completing the remainder of the THI Programme in line with the currently extended Grant Expiry Date (GED) of 28 February 2010 as agreed by the Executive in 18 January 2010.

Decision: -

1. That the opportunity from Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to extend the Grant Expiry Date of the THI Programme, to allow further development of the Constitutional Club project be accepted.
    
2. That the owner of the Constitutional Club be offered the opportunity to submit a compliant application for THI grant support; to be received by 27 May 2010 and accompanied with the following:-

• All appropriate permissions, plans, schedule of works and contractual inclusions (as stated in the THI Applicants pack)
• an agreed design and delivery team (AABC qualified and in accordance with THI requirements)
• a deliverable timescale for the project from submission to completion and grant defrayment (by 31st Dec 2010)
• full evidence of financial stability and sustainability of the applicant going forward (over and above that already provided)
  evidence of full funding package
• details of escrow account to be utilised to ring fence all required match funding to the project

3. That the Council’s capital allocation to the THI be ring fenced until a grant application was received and a decision was made.
    
4. That a further report outlining the nature of the THI Grant application and Programme with a view to determining if the Council could support the proposal and the funding requested, be presented to the Executive in June 2010.
    
5. That if the application was not forthcoming or was unsatisfactory, that a report still be presented to the Executive in June 2010, to look at the implications of finalising the Programme Close down.
    
6. That the progress on closing down all other aspects of the THI Programme before 28 February 2010 be noted.

Alternative options considered and rejected:-

None.

Reason for Decision:-

In January 2010, the Executive was asked to note the actions taken by the Council in association with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regeneration in accepting the funder’s offer to extend the Grant Expiry date of the THI Programme (from 31 December 2009 to 28 February 2010). 

The extension was to allow the completion of all projects, other than the Constitutional Club. The Critical Project was given a deadline by which key information including a full, eligible application was to be submitted and, if considered deliverable through the established appraisal process, was to be given an extended time to complete and claim the funding, which was to be by 31 December 2010.

Officers submitted a Final Claim within the extended timeframe, which did not include the Constitutional Club. This concluded the claim process for all expenditure in relation to the 4 main projects, detailed within  paragraph 3.2 of the report.

As previously reported to the Executive, the THI Programme had changed radically in terms of the initial bid and what had actually been delivered on the ground. Officers had liaised continuously with HLF, the funder, in order to minimise the risk of grant claw-back based on any perceived under-achievement in the Programme. Of greatest concern was the non- delivery of the Constitutional Club - the “Critical Project” in the Programme. The funder had stated the delivery of the “critical project” as a contractual priority. Officers had, to date, been recognised as using their “best endeavours” to develop the project, which was in third party ownership in order to bring the building back into productive use. This included the potential use of the Authority’s statutory powers in relation to the premises’ Listed Building Status.

Purpose of Report:-

To seek the Executive’s approval of the proposed reduction in the Market Supplement paid to Building Control Officers as a contribution to the savings identified as part of the Regulatory Services Review.

Decision: -

1. That the proposal be deferred to the relevant officers for re-evaluation, in consultation with the Planning Policy and Economic Regeneration Portfolio Holder.
    
2. That consultation with the relevant officers to identify an alternative option in achieving the required savings target be agreed, or
    
3. That if there was no feasible alternative option available, the Council be asked to negotiate with the relevant staff and trade unions to introduce an agreed phased approach in reducing their market supplement. 
    
4. That a report be referred back to Executive within 6 weeks with an alternative proposed option. 

Alternative options considered and rejected:-

The Executive was asked to support the proposals to reduce the Market Supplement paid to Building Control Officers from 15% to 5%. However, Members felt the option would demoralise staff and increase the risk of experienced staff being headhunted by the Private Sectors. They suggested that the proposal be re-evaluated and an alternative option be presented to Executive within 6 weeks times.

Reason for Decision:-

On the 16 February 2009, Executive agreed a 2009 programme of service reviews to deliver £1.5 million savings to ensure that a sustainable budget for the period 2009 to 2013 was in place.

The Regulatory Services Review tasked the Planning Group of Services to come forward with savings proposals that would contribute to an overall target of £136,820. Reducing Supplies and Services budgets across all of Planning Services had already identified some initial savings, as detailed within report. It was proposed that a reduction in the Market Supplement paid to Building Control Officers from 15% to 5%, would assist to deliver the further savings needed.

The Director of Development and Environmental Services outlined the responses from the staff consultation, as well as the minutes from the Employee JCC and Policy Review Scrutiny Committee meetings, which highlighted their comments and concerns on the proposal.

Executive noted the Policy Review Scrutiny Committee's comments and felt that the alternative recommendation presented by Policy Review Scrutiny Committee be agreed. However, they added that a timeframe be included and that a report be presented to Executive within 6 weeks.