| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham (Chairman), Councillor T.W. Hone (Vicce-Chairman), Councillor Tom Brindley, Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Tony Hunter, Councillor David Levett and Councillor Bernard Lovewell. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Strategic Director of Finance, Policy & Governance, Strategic Director of Customer Services, Head of Finance, Performance & Asset Management, Head of Policy & Community Services, Head of Housing & Public Protection, Corporate Human Resources Manager, Strategic Housing Manager, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, Corporate Legal Manager, Senior Lawyer, Property Solicitor, Solicitor, Democratic Services Manager and Committee & Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Councillors J.M. Cunningham (Chairman of the Grants Process and Related Community Benefits Task & Finish Group) and Fiona Hill. Mr Nick Wright (Managing Director of Rowan Homes); 6 Members of the Public. |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 20 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor I.J. Knighton. |
Noted | ||
| 21 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 18 June 2013 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 22 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no notification of other business. |
Noted | ||
| 23 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question; and (2) The Chairman asked that, for the benefit of any members of the public present at the meeting, Officers announce their name and their designation to the meeting when invited to speak. |
Noted | ||
| 24 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Cabinet was addressed by Mr Robin Dartington (representing Keep Hitchin Special) regarding the Lairage Car Park, Hitchin - Park and Stride (see Minute 40 below). Mr Dartington advised that Keep Hitchin Special (KHS) felt that the report submitted by officers omitted quite a lot of information material to the matter, which he now sought to bring to Cabinet's attention. Firstly, Mr Dartington referred to the current legal situation. The report omitted that, in March 2013, the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services agreed with Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) to provide free parking for Samuel Lucas School parents to create an NHDC Park and Stride Scheme. Nor did the report mention that HCC had presumed that the NHDC Cabinet would confirm the offer, or that the HCC Development Control Committee was told that there was a "secured agreement" on the assumption that planning permission was given. KHS considered that it seemed wrong for Cabinet to be asked so late to support HCC when it should take decisions wholly in the interest of the District. However, KHS understood that HCC did accept that a formal decision had not yet been taken. Secondly, Mr Dartington considered that the report was unclear on the length of the proposed commitment. The report suggested a one-year trial, but that did not fit with the Planning Condition which stated that the Park and Stride must be maintained for the life of the enlarged school, which could be 50 years, 100 years, 500 years or longer. The HCC Development Control Committee was told that the number of places would be reviewed annually, but not that NHDC would have the power to stop issuing permits altogether. He felt that any idea that the Council could pull out after one year was simply wrong. Cabinet could either withdraw the offer now, or else be committed for decades or more, however much other needs for parking in Hitchin may change. Thirdly, Mr Dartington referred to the number of permits. The report stated that 50 permits would be issued from September 2013, but did not mention that the Traffic Consultants had estimated that doubling the size of the school would result in an additional 44 car movements when the school was fully occupied - so the whole 2 form entry school would generate 88 cars per afternoon. Allowing for some natural growth in car usage, Cabinet should be prepared for the need for permits to rise to, say, 100 within 10 years, which would be one third of the entire capacity of the Lairage Car Park. Fourthly, Mr Dartington considered that the report implied that HCC could not enlarge the school unless Cabinet agreed to provide free parking. It omitted the alternative to provide more parking on the school site itself, as was recommended by two locally elected County Councillors, and that the HCC Development Control Committee had amended the Planning Permission to require additional parking. Extra space could be found on site if the fence was moved right up to Gaping Lane, allowing a whole line of cars to be parked along that boundary. That could free the current school parking to be used for an on-site drop off, thereby avoiding the need for parents to park off-site. Of course, if any parents preferred the Lairage, they could use it like any other visitor. Mr Dartington stated that KHS were concerned with free parking because they considered the Lairage to be a public car park, which should be properly managed to support the town centre and the convenience of residents, and should also create income for the Council. Neither of these aims would be met by simply giving away free parking for an indefinite period. Mr Dartington referred to the statement in the report that no precedent would be created. He questioned how officers had arrived at this conclusion, and drew attention to Paragraph 8.2 of the report, which quoted the Localism Act in that "all decisions must be reasoned in a matter that is cogent and internally consistent, as well as being in accordance with the Council's priorities and policies". He could not see how Cabinet would be consistent in refusing free parking to every other group whose activities also met the criterion in Paragraph 8.12 of the report of providing "a valuable local service". In respect of how could the Lairage be better used, Mr Dartington advised that KHS suggested: - a reduction in the all day charge to, say, £2 to reduce the commuters' cars currently clogging nearby residential streets - there were commonly over 90 cars in West Hill during the day and less than 45 at night. Officers had informed HCC that they would soon be proposing residents' only parking for the West Hitchin area, and so space at the Lairage could soon be urgently needed; - the provision of permits at reduced rates to town centre employers for passing onto their staff on minimum wages, to help the town centre economy; and - the sale of season tickets to the growing number of people living within the town centre who did not have parking spaces. Mr Dartington concluded by hoping that Cabinet would withdraw the letter of offer to HCC, and ask officers to think more creatively about the future use of the Lairage Car Park. The Chairman thanked Mr Dartington for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 25 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: 23 JULY 2013 - OFFICE OF SURVEILLANCE COMMISSIONERS INSPECTORS REPORT AND ACTION PLAN Referral Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C The Cabinet considered the following referral from a meeting of that Committee held on 23 July 2013 in respect of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners Inspectors Report and Action Plan (Minute 28 refers): "That the proposed amendments to the Council's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act Policy be adopted." The Cabinet was informed that the changes to the Policy were primarily in order to comply with legislative changes and recommendations from the Office of Surveillance Commissioners Inspectors report. RESOLVED: That the proposed amendments to the Council's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act Policy, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be adopted. REASON FOR DECISION: To update the Council's RIPA Policy in order to address the recommendations of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC). |
Agreed | ||
| 26 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: 23 JULY 2013 - PRIORITIES FOR THE DISTRICT 2014/15 ONWARDS Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 12 (see Minute 32 below). |
Noted | ||
| 27 |
STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS Report Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise, assisted by the Principal Strategic Planning Officer, informed Members of the current position regarding strategic planning matters, with particular reference to National and Regional planning issues; the new North Hertfordshire Local Plan; the Local Enterprise Partnership Growth Plan; and Neighbouring authorities' consultations. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - NHDC Response to Central Bedfordshire's Gypsy and Traveller Plan. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise advised that he had attended a meeting with the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and neighbouring authorities, at which the DCLG was pleased with progress and the NHDC Local Plan and supportive of the measures taken by the Council and its neighbours regarding the "duty to co-operate". The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise stated that he had attended a meeting with Luton Borough Council, who had agreed to re-visit their housing numbers, and were requesting NHDC to work with them on this issue. The Portfolio Holder had agreed to continue on-going dialogue with them, without committing NHDC to any firm action. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise advised that the consultation on the additional housing sites for the Local Plan was progressing well, and the Principal Strategic Planning Officer confirmed that over 600 responses had so far been received, and that over 400 interested parties had attended the two recent public exhibitions held to present the suggested sites and the Offley Parish Council meeting held at Cockernhoe. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise explained that the previous threshold for the requirement for the provision of affordable housing on new residential sites was on developments of at least 15 dwellings. More recently, this threshold had been reduced to developments of at least 5 dwellings. This may have had an impact on the number of sites coming forward, and so the Portfolio Holder proposed that officers bring a report to a future meeting of the Cabinet on the effect the change in affordable housing levels had had on the delivery of small housing sites. RESOLVED: (1) That the report be noted; and (2) That officers bring a report to a future meeting of the Cabinet on the effect the change in affordable housing levels has had on the delivery of small housing sites. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Cabinet is aware of current developments. |
Noted | ||
| 28 |
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) Report [Prior to the consideration of this item Councillor T.W. Hone made a Declarable Interest in respect of the matter due to his role in CIL as a Hertfordshire County Councillor. However, he chose to remain in the meeting for the duration of the item, but did not participate in the debate or vote upon the matter.] The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise presented a report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise in respect of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise stated that CIL was a way of collecting money from new developments to help pay for infrastructure costs and that it was optional for each District whether or not to introduce it. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise commented that there were arguments both for and against CIL in terms of how much money might be collected and how the system might be administered. In North Hertfordshire, it would appear that it may generate less money than even the curtailed section 106 system. It also may have unintended consequence in terms of reducing the amount of affordable housing delivered and discouraging smaller sites from coming forward. Whilst it might hand greater control to local communities over how money was spent, this was a dubious advantage as there would probably be less money to spend under CIL. It would also need more complicated governance arrangements with other infrastructure providers to be established, and did not guarantee that particular deficiencies in infrastructure would be addressed. Having considered the arguments, the Portfolio Holder suggested that, in its current form, CIL would not be the best way of maximising either affordable housing or monies for infrastructure in North Hertfordshire. It was therefore recommended that for the time being CIL was not pursued. The issue could be looked at again once the Local Plan was complete, and in the light of emerging Government legislation and guidance. RESOLVED: (1) That a Community Infrastructure Levy for North Hertfordshire be not pursued for the time being; and (2) That officers be tasked with preparing a revised Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document before April 2015 to take into account the operation of the pooling restriction on Section 106 obligations. REASON FOR DECISION: To give guidance to the development industry on the mechanisms the Council will seek to use for securing contributions from developments towards the cost of infrastructure; and to enable the viability work needed to support the new Local Plan to be prepared in light of the funding mechanisms the Council intends to use. |
Agreed | ||
| 29 |
LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) Report Appendix 1 [Prior to the consideration of this item Councillor David Levett made a Declarable Interest in respect of the matter due to his role as the Council's representative on the Letchworth BID Steering Group. However, he chose to remain in the meeting for the duration of the item, and participated in the debate or vote upon the matter.] The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise presented a report of the Head of Policy and Community Services in respect of the Letchworth Garden City Business Improvement District (BID). The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Draft Business Plan for the Letchworth BID District, including map of the BID area. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise advised that the cost to NHDC of the BID would be in the region on £12,000. It was noted that some elements of the BID, particularly concerning car parking, required further refinement. The Portfolio Holder therefore recommended that the BID proposals be amended so as to ensure that they were not in conflict with the objectives of NHDC. He further recommended that the draft Letchworth BID Business Plan be brought to the September 2013 meeting of the Letchworth Area Committee. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise also undertook to request the BID Steering Group to change the title of the submission to "Letchworth Garden City BID". The Cabinet agreed to support the draft BID proposals, and looked forward to receiving the finalised version at its next meeting on 24 September 2013. RESOLVED: (1) That the Letchworth BID proposal be supported, in principle; (2) That, having reviewed and discussed the attached proposals at Appendix A for the Letchworth BID, it be agreed they are amended to ensure they are not in conflict with the objectives of the Authority; (3) That sufficient officer time and expenditure, as identified within the report, be committed to progress the BID proposals through the necessary ballot, and if successful, to administer, collect, enforce and account for the BID levy for Letchworth; (4) That, subject to Cabinet agreement to progress and achievement of successful ballot, an investment for on-going revenue support to the sum of £5,336 per annum, and one-off ballot and software costs of £6,885, be supported; (5) That, in the unlikely event of a ‘no' vote with a turnout of less than 20%, the Council seeks to recover its costs, as proposed at Paragraph 10.3 of the report; (6) That the Head of Revenues, Benefits and IT be authorised to cast the Council's votes in a Letchworth BID Ballot in favour of the proposals; (7) That the draft Letchworth BID Business Plan be brought to the September 2013 meeting of the Letchworth Area Committee; and (8) That the intention of Hitchin and Royston BIDs to request a renewal ballot be noted, a report on which will be made to the September 2013 Cabinet meeting. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that NHDC as the billing authority can express its support, both in principle and in the allocation of officer time, toward the launch of a Letchworth BID. |
Agreed | ||
| 30 |
REVIEW OF COMMENTS, COMPLIMENTS AND COMPLAINTS POLICY AND CUSTOMER FIRST STANDARDS Report Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix D1 Appendix D2 Appendix E The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health and Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green Issues presented a report of the Strategic Director of Customer Services in respect of a review of the Comments, Compliments and Complaints Policy and Customer First Standards. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Customer First Standards; Appendix B - Handling Difficult Customers; Appendix C - Definition of habitual, persistent and aggressive customers; Appendix D - Revised Policy and Procedure for dealing with Unacceptable customer behaviour and unreasonable complainant behaviour, including Policy statements; and Appendix E - Local Government Ombudsman Policy on the management of unreasonable complainant behaviour. In respect of the handling of difficult customers, the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health advised that the existing procedure did not set out clearly for staff and customers what the expectations were in terms of behaviour and what action would be taken in cases of unacceptable behaviour. The proposed changes to the policy were intended to provide a clear process for those involved in the management of such situations and to ensure a transparent, proportionate and consistent approach to dealing with such situations. The instances of unacceptable customer behaviour were very rare and, therefore, it was expected that the policy and procedures would only be used in very exceptional circumstances. In respect of unreasonable complainants' behaviour, the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health stated that the Council was obliged to ensure the achievement of best value for complainants and the wider public, and that public money was spent wisely. In some exceptional cases, the nature or frequency of complainants jeopardised this aim. The amount of time spent on the few cases of unreasonable complainant behaviour was disproportionate and placed heavy demands on resources which, in turn, could hinder the Council's ability to effectively consider their or others' complaints. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health commented that it was important to note that the Council differentiated between persistent complainants and unreasonably persistent complainants. The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) stated that approximately 26% of complaints they investigated were justified, concluding that this level of persistence was often justified. The Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green issues drew attention to the LGO policy on unreasonable complainant behaviour, attached as Appendix E to the report, and highlighted that the proposed changes to the NHDC policy were in conformity with the best practice promoted by the LGO. The Cabinet supported the Strategic Director of Customer Services' proposed minor amendment to the NHDC Policy at Appendix D to the report, amending the seventh bullet point under the heading "Examples of unreasonable actions and behaviours" to read "Excessive number of contacts with staff, Members or others regarding the complaint which have a negative effect on the Council's ability to deal with the complaint effectively." RESOLVED: (1) That the amendments to the Handling Difficult Customers Policy and arrangements for handling unreasonable complainant behaviour, as set out in Appendix D of the report, and as further amended, be agreed; and (2) That the intention to conduct a broader review of the Customer First and 3Cs Policies be noted, and that any Policy changes that may be recommended as a result be brought to Cabinet in the Autumn of 2013. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that both policies are capable of dealing with the exceptional circumstances in which customer behaviour is unreasonable. |
Agreed | ||
| 31 |
YEAR END MONITORING REPORT ON PROJECTS IN THE PRIORITIES FOR THE DISTRICT 2012/13 Report The Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green Issues presented a report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of the Year End Monitoring on Projects in the Priorities for the District 2012/13. The Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green Issues commented that the report provided details on the status of the various projects identified in the Priorities for the District 2012/13. It did not include any projects initiated after the document was agreed and was not a full report on all of the projects that the Council undertook. The report summarised the status of each of the high level actions in the Priorities for the District 2012/13, and concluded that overall, good progress had been made. RESOLVED: That delivery against the key projects stated in the Priorities for the District 2012/13 be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable achievements against the Priorities for the District 2012/13 to be considered. |
Noted | ||
| 32 |
PRIORITIES FOR THE DISTRICT 2014/15 Appendix A Report The Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green Issues presented a report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of Priorities for the District 2014/15 Onwards. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Draft Corporate Business Planning Timetable for 2014/15. The Cabinet noted that the proposed Priorities for the District for 2014/15 Onwards were: - Promoting Sustainable Growth; - Working With Our Communities; and - Living Within Our Means The Cabinet received the following recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, made at its meeting held on 23 July 2013, in respect of the Priorities for the District 2014/15 Onwards (Minute 30 refers): "(1) That the Corporate Business Planning Timetable should remain as per the report, with efficiency and investment opportunities being considered at the same time as target setting for 2014/15; and (2) That more detail should be included under the Working With Our Communities priority, which would include examples of how the Council did this and ways in which communities could engage with the Council." The Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green Issues was not supportive of either of the recommendations proposed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In respect of Recommendation (1), he considered that the target setting for 2014/15 should be considered separately from the efficiency and investment proposals, and that the Corporate Business Timetable should be amended accordingly. With regard to recommendation (2), he was of the view that no action should be taken to amend the Working with our Communities Priority, as much of the detail under this heading would be derived from the results of the District Wide Survey, focus groups, mystery shoppers etc, as set out in Paragraph 8.12 of the report. The Portfolio Holder for Policy and Green Issues outlined the following proposed amendments to the report and its recommendations: - Paragraph 1.2 - revised to read "To propose that priorities are set with a review after five years (or sooner should external circumstances dictate); - Recommendation 2.2 - revised to read "That that priorities be set with a review after five years (or sooner should external circumstances dictate); - Paragraph 8.4 - third sentence to be revised to read "The Council's emphasis will be on sustainable growth"; - Paragraph 8.6 - second sentence to be revised to read "It is important that any such growth is financially, socially and environmentally sustainable"; and - A new Paragraph 8.13 to read "Together these priorities will enable us to deliver efficient, effective, customer focused services that enhance the environment which makes North Hertfordshire a vibrant place to live, work and prosper." In supporting the above proposed amendments, Cabinet also agreed that the Corporate Business Timetable for 2014/15, as attached at Appendix A to the report, should be further amended to show all actions in chronological order. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (1) That the following high level Council Priorities for 2014/15 be approved: - Promoting Sustainable Growth; - Working with our Communities; - Living within our means; and (2) That the Priorities be set with a review after five years (or sooner should external circumstances dictate). RESOLVED: (1) That the Corporate Business Planning Process Timetable for 2014/15, as set out in Appendix A to the report, and as amended, be approved; and (2) That no change be made to the "Working with our Communities" priority (Paragraph 8.10 of the report). REASON FOR DECISION: To set the Priorities which will guide the Corporate Business Planning Process for 2014/15 onwards. |
Agreed | ||
| 33 |
UPDATED CONTRACT PROCUREMENT RULES Report Appendix A1 Appendix A2 Appendix B The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of the updated Contract Procurement Rules. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A1 - draft amended Contract Procurement Rules (track changes version); Appendix A2 - draft amended Contract Procurement Rules (clean copy); and Appendix B - Summary of Changes. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT summarised the key proposed changes in the Contract Procurement Rules document as follows: - Requirements for Goods and Services Contract Value - these had been amended to new threshold requirements; - To further refine the Rules for Works Contracts and their requirements; - The Rules had been updated to reflect increased use of the e-tendering system for procurements; - Financial thresholds at which variations to a contract could be approved, and by whom, had also been revised; - The Rules had also been updated to reflect the particular requirements relating to the procurement of Consultants and for Land and Property disposals; - The EU thresholds had been replaced with a link to the Cabinet Office website, which was updated annually with any changes, thereby replacing the need to update the Rules each time the thresholds changed; and - This set of revisions retained the ability to invite the Portfolio Holder to attend Tender openings for contracts, although the threshold was now £100,000, instead of £50,000. RESOLVED: That the changes to the Contract Procurement Rules, as described in Section 7 of the report, be approved. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the Contract Procurement Rules, as attached at Appendix A to the report, be adopted. REASON FOR DECISION: To contribute towards effective organisational internal control and to comply with a key action in the Council's Procurement Strategy. |
Agreed | ||
| 34 |
MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2014-2019 Report Appendix A Appendix 1 to Appendix A Appendix 2 to Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2014-2019. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2014-2019 and General Fund Estimates 2014-2019. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that the MTFS reflected the fact that there were a number of significant queries at the present time in terms of the emerging financial impacts of Business Rates localisation and the Council Tax Reduction scheme, and also that Universal Credit had yet to be rolled out. On top of this, the full detail of SR13 would be assessed in the coming months and so it may therefore be necessary to update the MTFS later in the year as the financial situation became clearer. At this stage, the MTFS sought to identify the most likely scenario for further reductions in Government funding. The Cabinet noted that the overall impact of 2013 Spending Round on NHDC funding was currently being modelled, although it was already clear that, whatever assumptions were used, the likely revenue funding "gap" over the four year period 2014/15 to 2017/18 would require significant further revenue savings. The Cabinet further noted that a number of changes to the MTFS, as set out in Paragraph 8.5 of the report, had been implemented in recent years to further improve the Council's financial management strategy. Paragraph 8.8 of the report highlighted a number of the key risks in the assumptions after 2013/14, due to uncertainty around the overall impact of the ongoing Government funding reductions. RESOLVED: That it be noted that, until the full assessment of SR13 is complete and the modelling of the full impacts is confirmed, detailed financial planning is based on interim assumptions, and that an update will be provided when details are finalised. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy, as outlined in Appendix A to the report, be adopted and communicated to officers as the medium term financial framework for the Corporate Business Planning process. REASON FOR DECISION: To assist in the process of forward planning the use of Council resources and in budget setting for 2014/2015 to 2018/2019 culminating in the setting of the Council Tax precept for 2014/15 in February 2014. |
Agreed | ||
| 35 |
ADOPTION OF A NEW COMMON HOUSING ALLOCATION SCHEME Report Appendix A Appendix B [Prior to the consideration of this item Councillor Tom Brindley made a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of the matter due to his role as one of the Council's representatives on North Hertfordshire Homes. He withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the item.] The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health presented a report of the Head of Housing and Public Protection in respect of the adoption of a new Common Housing Allocation Scheme (CHAS). The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Proposed Common Housing Allocation Scheme (with tracked changes); and Appendix B - Equality Analysis Template. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health advised that the Council's housing partners, North Hertfordshire Homes (NHH) and Howard Cottage Housing Association (HCHA), had both registered concern over the impact of Welfare Reform, in terms of the number of tenants who would probably fall into rent arrears and the likely increase in the number of evictions that were undertaken. This would have further ramifications for the income of both organisations, potentially putting at risk their business plans. They had therefore requested that stronger sanctions were added to the CHAS to reduce the risk of them housing former tenants with poor tenancy records in the near future. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health stated that, in the initial version of the CHAS agreed by the Cabinet in March 2013, rent arrear evictees could not access the housing list until all arrears were repaid to the evicting landlord. However, once all debts were repaid they could join the housing list, although they could not be offered housing by the evicting landlord for a period of five years from the date of their eviction. In the case of those evicted due to anti-social behaviour, they could not join the housing list unless they had lived in the community for a period of five years without an incident of this type. The Cabinet was informed that the Council had sought the advice of Counsel on certain aspects of the new CHAS, and the risk of a potential legal challenge was highlighted if disqualification was only applied in respect of properties to be let by specific providers to their former tenants. Counsel also stated that, in its opinion, it was not lawful to have specific disqualification criteria within the CHAS only applying to nominations (for vacancies) by some, but not all, of the providers under the scheme. As a consequence, the Council needed to bring in the measures concerning exclusions for all former tenants, not only those of NHH and HCHA. Cabinet was further informed that the new proposals introduced a five year housing registration ban for all social housing evictees, from the date of the eviction. In addition to this provision, a ten year ban from accommodation owned by the evicting landlord was also proposed. This would apply to all evictees, not just those of NHH and HCHA. Counsel also advised that all prospective disqualifications at Paragraphs 5.4 to 5.7 of the CHAS should clearly state that any decision could be subject to the exceptional circumstances override at Paragraph 18.2. The Cabinet noted that discretion may be considered where there were instances of acute housing need concerning a household that would normally be excluded from the register, but could demonstrate mitigating circumstances. When discretion was being considered, individual cases would be reviewed by all NHHP members, ensuring decisions remained consistent and fair. The Council was working with the Shared Internal Audit Services on a consistent and fair mechanism for exercising this limited discretion. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health stated that he hoped that some elements of the CHAS could be launched in advance of the "official" launch date of November 2013, and so he proposed an amendment to the second recommendation in the report to enable the delegation to himself and the Head of Housing and Public protection to agree the launch date for the commencement of each key element of the new CHAS. RESOLVED: (1) That the latest version of the Common Housing Allocation Scheme (CHAS), as attached at Appendix A to the report, be approved; and (2) That authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health, in conjunction with the Head of Housing and Public Protection, to make minor amendments to the CHAS and to agree the launch date for the commencement of each key element of the new CHAS. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable to introduction of a new Common Housing Allocation Scheme that better meets the housing needs of North Hertfordshire. |
Agreed | ||
| 36 |
REGENERATION OF JOHN BARKER PLACE, HITCHIN Report Appendix A Appendix B [Prior to the consideration of this item Councillor Tom Brindley made a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in respect of the matter due to his role as one of the Council's representatives on North Hertfordshire Homes. He withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the item.] The Cabinet Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr Nick Wright (Managing Director of Rowan Homes). The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health presented a report of the Head of Housing and Public Protection in respect of a proposal to enter into a Development Agreement with North Hertfordshire Homes (NHH) for the regeneration of John Barker Place, Hitchin. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Plan of regeneration proposals for John Barker Place, Hitchin; and Appendix B - Proposed Development Agreement. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health advised that the proposed Development Agreement, attached at Appendix B to the report, outlined the responsibilities of both NHH and the Council in respect of the regeneration project. NHH had drawn up separate agreements with the shop keepers. The Council would undertake negotiations on a new lease with the Westmill Community Association in due course. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health stated that the majority of the land covered by the proposed regeneration scheme was owned by NHH. However, the Community Centre was situated on land owned by the Council. In order for the new Community Centre to be built before demolishing the existing building and to tidy up the boundary in the surrounding area, it was proposed that the NHH owned land, adjacent to the NHDC owned land, be transferred into Council ownership (as shown in Annex F of the Development Agreement). The cost of this transfer had been set at £1, the minimum value for this type of transaction. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health commented that the development had been phased to ensure continuity of service for the Community Centre. There was, however, no temporary provision for the play area due to the difficulties in finding an appropriate location that also minimised health and safety concerns due to the ongoing building works that would be underway during Phase 2. As a result, discussions would be undertaken with the Council's Children and Play Services Team and the Coffee Mill to mitigate the impact by providing more activities for young children, as well as seeking to provide additional events in the Community Centre and/or Oughton Primary School. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health explained that the Community Benefit Fund (CBF) featured in one of the schedules to the Housing Stock Transfer in March 2003, called the Community Benefit Agreement. Its purpose was to provide facilities for tenants of NHH or the community at large, and some examples would be enhancements to community centres, provision of recreation areas and road safety initiatives. The Cabinet was informed that NHH were obliged to send the Council details of every proposed project that would spend some of the funds in the Community Benefit Account for the Council to comment on, and NHH were obliged to take account of the Council's comments. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health advised that, in January 2013, the Cabinet supported the proposal to utilise £865,000 from the CBF for the development of a new Community Centre and the surrounding area. A Quantity Surveyor had subsequently estimated the total cost to be £1.327M. The cost was significantly higher due to the increased size of the Community Centre, the inclusion of the MUGA in this area, and the works required to clear the site and landscape the area. It was anticipated that this would be the maximum cost payable and that the final total would be less than this amount, as the contract for the development of the Community Centre area would be offered jointly with the contract for the rest of the regeneration scheme. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health stated that, as at 31 March 2013, the balance of the CBF stood at £1.084M. Should this proposal proceed, NHH had agreed to ‘forward fund' the building of the new Community Centre by providing the full funding of £1.327M when required. The timing of this regeneration project may well mean the CBF would be put in to deficit, however, this was not unusual, as subsequent receipts would eventually balance the account. RESOLVED: (1) That officers be authorised to enter into the Development Agreement for the regeneration of John Barker Place, Westmill, Hitchin, as attached at Appendix B to the report; (2) That the proposal to use the new amount of £1.327M, from the Community Benefit Fund, to finance a new Community Centre and development of the surrounding area, be supported; (3) That the Council acquires ownership of the remaining area surrounding the Community Centre from North Hertfordshire Homes (NHH) for the sum of £1; (4) That the transfer of the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) from its current location, on NHH owned land, to Council owned land on the site of the existing Community Centre, be agreed; (5) That a waiver of the Council's Contract Procurement Rules, in relation to the appointment of a contractor for the regeneration project, be approved; and (6) That authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder, to agree minor changes concerning any aspect of the regeneration scheme, providing they do not materially alter the agreed scheme. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the regeneration scheme for the John Barker Place area of Westmill, Hitchin to proceed. |
Agreed | ||
| 37 |
TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT ON THE COUNCIL'S GRANTS PROCESS AND RELATED COMMUNITY BENEFITS Report Appendix A Annex 2 to Appendix A The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group on the Council's Grants Process and Related Community Benefits (Councillor J.M. Cunningham) presented the final report of that Task and Finish Group. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Report of the Task and Finish Group on the Council's Grants Process and related Community Benefits. The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group stated that the report had been finalised having regard to the views and comments of the Senior Management team and Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Chairman of the Task and Finish Group advised that the Group had been very impressed by the work undertaken by the Community Development Officers in handling grant applications. He further commented that some of the grant recipients, who gave evidence to the Group, were pleased with the support offered by the Council in relation to their grants. In commending the report to Cabinet, the Chairman of the Task and Finish Group highlighted some of the themes running through the recommendations, as follows: - concerns had been raised about the level of Member monitoring of the Grants System; - there still appeared to be some confusion over Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs); - further work may be required at the way rural communities could access grants; and - consideration should be given to Area Committees being given a greater role in the allocation of Section 106 monies. The Portfolio Holder for Community Engagements and Rural Affairs stated that, generally, he had no objection to the Group's recommendations. Indeed, measures to address a number of the Group's recommendations were already in progress. RESOLVED: (1) That the comments of the Council's Senior Management Team in respect of the Task and Finish Group's recommendations, as set out in Paragraph 7.2 of the report, be noted; and (2) That the recommendations of the Task and Finish Group, as set out in Appendix A to the report, be endorsed. REASON FOR DECISION: To respond to the recommendations of the Grants Process and Related Community Benefits Task and Finish Group. |
Agreed | ||
| 38 |
PAYROLL SERVICES 2014 ONWARDS Report The Cabinet Chairman presented a report of the Strategic Director of Customer Services in respect of Payroll Services 2014 Onwards. The Cabinet Chairman advised that notice had been received from Midland, the Council's current Payroll software providers, to terminate the software licence agreement for the Trent6 Payroll System. Midland would not be doing any year end updates for Trent6 and they had served notice to all their Trent6 customers. There was therefore a requirement for the Council to implement a new payroll service ahead of the financial year 2014/15. The Cabinet Chairman stated that the very short period of time the Council had to implement a payroll service naturally limited its options to those that could be procured and implemented quickly. The two options that were considered were:- - Upgrade the current solution to iTrent the latest one that was provided by the present supplier; or - Join the Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) Framework Agreement for outsourced Payroll Services, via their contract with Serco. The Cabinet Chairman drew attention to the details and costs of each option, as set out in Paragraph 8.2 of the report. Cabinet was informed that the Senior Management Team had considered a detailed options business case on 1 July 2013, at which it was recommended it was decided to proceed to the detailed business case work with Serco, with a view to joining the HCC Framework Agreement for outsourced payroll services. RESOLVED: (1) That a business case for the provision of Payroll Services be considered by the Strategic Director of Customer Services, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holder; and (2) That, subject to resolution (1) above, an agreement under the Hertfordshire County Council Framework Agreement be entered into for this provision. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure a cost effective Payroll Service is available following withdrawal of support for the system. |
Agreed | ||
| 39 |
ENFORCEMENT POLICY REVIEW Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Report The Cabinet Chairman presented a report of the Acting Corporate Legal Manager in respect of proposed amendments to the Council's Statement of Enforcement Policy following a review carried out by the Corporate Enforcement Forum (CEF). The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - NHDC's amended Statement of Enforcement Policy; Appendix B - Public Interest Matrix; and Appendix C - NHDC's existing Statement of Enforcement Policy. The Cabinet Chairman advised that the Council's existing Statement of Enforcement Policy was produced in March 2004. The Policy was intended to work alongside departmental enforcement policies and procedures. The Corporate Enforcement Forum (CEF) had been considering the Council's approach to enforcement and the Statement of Enforcement Policy over the last 12 months. The Cabinet Chairman stated that an audit of the Council's enforcement powers had been carried out by the CEF and Legal Services. The key proposed changes to the Policy, as detailed in the report, covered the following key areas: - the Council's approach to enforcement; - the aims of enforcement action; - the corporate approach; - authorisation; - Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; and - the Public interest Test. The Senior Lawyer advised that, should cabinet approve the amended Statement of Policy, the relevant service areas would, in consultation with Legal Services, be updating each of their individual enforcement policies to ensure compliance with the corporate policy. It was likely that Cabinet Portfolio Holders would be involved in the work on updating the policies for the service areas for which they were responsible. RESOLVED: That the Council's amended Statement of Enforcement Policy, as attached at Appendix A to the report, be approved. REASON FOR DECISION: To update the Council's Statement of Enforcement Policy to ensure that it complies with current legislation and is fit for purpose. |
Agreed | ||
| 40 |
LAIRAGE CAR PARK, HITCHIN - PARK AND STRIDE Report [Prior to the consideration of this item Councillor T.W. Hone and A.F. Hunter made Declarable Interests in respect of the matter due to their role as Hertfordshire County Councillors. However, as neither had been directly involved in the matter at County Council level, they both chose to remain in the meeting for the duration of the item.] The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise presented a joint report of the Strategic Directors of Planning, Housing & Enterprise and Customer Services in respect of the proposed introduction of a Park and Stride scheme between the Lairage Car Park and Samuel Lucas School in Hitchin. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise advised that the proposed Park and Stride Scheme demonstrated partnership working with Hertfordshire County Council (HCC), and provided an innovative use of the Lairage Car Park, which was underused during the times the school required it for Park and Stride purposes. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise stated that the trial was for the use of 50 spaces at the Lairage, and that any request for an increase in spaces would need to assessed if and when received. The Council reserved the right to vary the scheme in the future should circumstances change. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise proposed an additional recommendation that the scheme should be on a one year trial basis and that, depending on the results, any further commitment should be in the form of an annual licence. He explained that this would not be setting a precedent, as any future requests for use of the Council's car parks along similar lines would all be assessed on their merits. Whilst commending the scheme to Cabinet, the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise hoped that HCC and the school would continue to investigate alternative solutions to the car parking problems. RESOLVED: (1) That the Park and Stride scheme commence at the beginning of the new school year in September 2013; (2) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with Hertfordshire County Council for the administration of the cost of the Park and Stride scheme; and (3) That the scheme be approved on the basis of a one year trial and that, depending on the results, any further commitment be in the form of an annual licence. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Council to make effective use of its resources as owner and manager of the Lairage Car Park, in accordance with its policies, in particular North Hertfordshire District Council's Parking Strategy 2009-2019 and the Hitchin Town Centre Strategy. |
Agreed | ||