| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham (Chairman), Councillor T.W. Hone (Vice-Chairman), Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor David Levett and Councillor Bernard Lovewell. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy & Governance, Strategic Director of Customer Services, Head of Finance, Performance & Asset Management, Head of Policy & Community Services, Parks & Countryside Development Manager, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, Corporate Legal Manager and Committee & Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Councillors R.L. Shakespeare-Smith (Chairman of Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Lorna Kercher (Chairman of Letchworth Committee), Mrs A.G. Ashley, David Leal-Bennett and Mrs C.P.A. Strong. 2 Members of the Public. |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 25 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Julian Cunningham and Tony Hunter. |
Noted | ||
| 26 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 24 June 2014 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman, subject to the replacement of the word "from" with "to" in the item "Recommended to Council" in Minute 9 - Revenue Budget Outturn 2013/14. |
Agreed | ||
| 27 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no notification of other business. |
Noted | ||
| 28 |
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; (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when invited to speak; and (3) The Chairman announced that Item 13 on the agenda - Storage Facilities - had been withdrawn. |
Noted | ||
| 29 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no public participation. |
Noted | ||
| 30 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM LETCHWORTH COMMITTEE: 23 JULY 2014 - 0.6 ACRE SITE ADJACENT TO IVEL COURT, RADBURN WAY, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY Referral Appendix 1 The Chairman of the Letchworth Committee presented a referral from the meeting of that Committee held on 23 July 2014, in respect of the 0.6 acre site adjacent to Ivel Court, Radburn Way, Letchworth Garden City. The report considered by the Letchworth Committee was submitted with the referral, as was the following appendix: Appendix 1 - Location plan for identification purposes only. Cabinet considered the following referral from the meeting of the Letchworth Committee held on 23 July 2014 (Minute 31 refers): "RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: That, as a matter of urgency, Cabinet request the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT, together with appropriate Officers, arrange a face to face meeting with senior officers of North Hertfordshire Homes in order clarify the position of North Hertfordshire Homes regarding: (1) The sale of this plot of land; and (2) Whether the sale of this plot of land would prevent future redevelopment of the rest of the area." The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that discussions had been held with North Hertfordshire Homes (NHH) regarding this site in the past. However, he had no difficulty in arranging a further meeting with NHH officers in order to clarify the issues raised by the Letchworth Committee. RESOLVED: That the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT, together with appropriate Officers, arrange a face to face meeting with senior officers of North Hertfordshire Homes in order clarify the position of North Hertfordshire Homes regarding: (1) The sale of this plot of land; and (2) Whether the sale of this plot of land would prevent future redevelopment of the rest of the area. REASON FOR DECISION: To respond to the comments of Letchworth Area Committee regarding the above site. |
Agreed | ||
| 31 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: 29 JULY 2014 - GRANTS POLICY REVIEW Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 9 (see Minute 34 below). |
Noted | ||
| 32 |
STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS Report Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise, assisted by the Principal Strategic Planning Officer, informed Members of the current position regarding strategic planning matters, with particular reference to Luton Airport, Local Enterprise Partnership, Neighbouring Authorities Plans, North Hertfordshire Local Plan, Local Development Scheme (timetable for Local Plan); and Neighbourhood planning. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - North Hertfordshire Local Development Scheme for approval at Full Council. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise updated Cabinet on the following matters: - Luton Airport - Luton Borough Council granted permission for the expansion of Luton Airport on 23 June 2014. This Council's request to be a signatory to the Section 106 agreement had been declined; - Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) - The Hertfordshire LEP had secured £20.9M additional funding for 2015/16 which, when added to previously committed Government funding of £32.3M, brought the total local growth fund for the Hertfordshire LEP for 2015/16 to £53.2M. Much of the money was assigned to the Croxley Rail Link near Watford and an M11/A10 transport package. More locally, £16M (including £2M in 2015/16) was earmarked for both a town centre ‘joint venture vehicle' to accelerate land assembly in Stevenage town centre and a ‘growth area forum' to advance major schemes in the A1(M) growth area. There was also £3.8M (including £1.3M in 2015/16) for an A1(M) transport package. The Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough LEP had secured £17.1M additional funding for 2015/16 which, when added to previously committed Government funding of £4M, brought the total local growth fund for that LEP for 2015/16 to £21.1M; - Neighbouring Authorities' Plans - Both Luton and Central Bedfordshire Councils had published draft local plans. Luton's draft plan was a preferred options (regulation 18) consultation, with comments due by 22 August 2014. Central Bedfordshire's draft plan was a revised proposed submission (regulation 19) consultation and, as such, was the last draft Central Bedfordshire proposed consulting upon before their plan was examined by a Government-appointed inspector. Comments were due by 26 August 2014. These two plans were of particular importance to North Hertfordshire for the contribution they made towards the housing need of the Luton Housing Market Area. The objectively assessed need attributable to Luton Borough was identified in the joint work done by the two councils (which this Council and six others sat on the steering group for) was 17,800 dwellings. Luton was proposing to accommodate 5,700 homes be built within the borough, whilst Central Bedfordshire made an allowance of 5,400 homes (within an overall total of 31,000 homes) towards needs arising for Luton. Neither plan stated how the balance of 6,700 homes was to be dealt with. Responses to both plans would be prepared and submitted under the Portfolio Holder's delegated powers; - North Hertfordshire Local Plan - It was proposed to publish a preferred options (regulation 18) version of the Local Plan in the autumn of 2014, with the proposed submission (regulation 19) version of the plan following in summer 2015. It was intended that the preferred options paper, including the potential housing sites, would be submitted to Council on 27 November 2014, with public consultation taking place thereafter; - Local Development Scheme - The Local Development Scheme was the formal name for the timetable document which had to be prepared for the preparation of the Local Plan. It was updated periodically. There was a need to review the current (February 2013) Local Development Scheme. Whereas previously such reviews were conducted under delegated powers, the Localism Act 2011 now required a resolution of the local planning authority to bring such reviews into effect. The draft revised Local Development Scheme was therefore included as Appendix A to the report; and - Neighbourhood Plans - A separate report on the agenda considered the application to designate the two parishes of Barkway and Nuthampstead as a single neighbourhood planning area. An application had also been received from Ickleford to have the parish designated as a neighbourhood planning area. This was being processed and the results would be reported to a future Cabinet meeting. The Principal Strategic Planning Officer advised that Luton and Central Bedfordshire Councils would in future be appearing in the High Court regarding a dispute over a site to the north of Houghton Regis. He added that the Central Bedfordshire Gypsy and Traveller site document was to be the subject of a public examination in September 2014. RESOLVED: That the report be noted. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the updated draft Local Development Scheme, attached as Appendix A to the report, be approved, to take effect from 5 September 2014. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Cabinet is aware of current developments; and to publish an up to date timetable for preparation of the Local Plan. |
Agreed | ||
| 33 |
MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2015-2020 Report Appendix A Appendix 1 to Appendix A Appendix 2 to Appendix A Appendix 3 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 2015-2020. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2015-2020 and General Fund Estimates 2015-2020 The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that the report reviewed and updated the existing Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) to reflect new requirements, the impact of the current economic situation, second year effects of both Business Rates localisation and the Council Tax Reduction scheme; and the modelling of the next five years, following decisions taken in 2013/14 and the Budget announcements. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that the updated MTFS provided the financial background to the Corporate Business Planning process for 2015/16 and beyond, and noted that the decision to make a contribution to the Pension fund in March 2014 had provided the opportunity to undertake some multi-year planning. In common with recent years, the report concluded that it may be necessary to revisit the MTFS in the coming months once there was greater clarity with regard to the treatment of New Homes Bonus funds. It was also noted that longer-term projections would be impacted by the re-baselining of Business Rates within the five-year timeframe of the MTFS. Financial modelling undertaken for the MTFS projected that the overall budget gap for the period 2015/16 to 2019/20 would be £1.7 million, assuming no council tax increase. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that the Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues (Councillor Julian Cunningham) had e-mailed him and the Cabinet Chairman with a number of comments on the MTFS, which he would address in the next part of his presentation. In drawing Cabinet's attention to the MTFS attached at Appendix A to the report, the Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT commented as follows: - The Council would maintain balances and reserves to enable it to respond effectively to unexpected events and opportunities and would ensure that the level of balances and reserves was sufficient to meet all known future liabilities. Due to the increased volatility from the change to funding from the localisation of Business Rates, and the impact of New Homes Bonus pooling proposals, the Council would maintain the minimum General Fund balance at 5% of net expenditure for unknown risks, plus a prudent allowance for known risks (when annual budgets were set), and would have a phased approach to the use of balances to ensure that the potential for erratic movements in Council Tax requirements was smoothed as far as possible; - The Council would continue to explore alternative means of service delivery including partnering, enabling, outsourcing, shared services, trading arrangements, and would aim to make best use of IT and changes to work processes to ensure that cost effective, economic and efficient services were provided at the level the customer required. Where a business case identified future savings, these would be built into the base budgets to encourage managers to realise the anticipated efficiency savings; - The Council had established a clear link between the budget strategy and the risk register to ensure that necessary funds were available to progress work to mitigate the Top Risks. The Top Risks were regularly reported to the Finance, Audit & Risk Committee and Cabinet and any impact on budgets was taken into account; - All investment priority bids for both Revenue and Capital were subject to robust scrutiny from the Corporate Board and Members, in accordance with the scoring matrix set out in the Strategy document. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT acknowledged that this methodology was always open for scrutiny and that he had asked officers to arrange a session for Cabinet colleagues to explain the application of the scoring matrix in more detail; - The Council would continue to use the Corporate Board (formerly the Challenge Board) process to undertake the detailed exploration of budgets to identify potential efficiencies. The Corporate Board would continue the work on value for money and on-going review of services which were statutory and discretionary, with a view to informing decisions on services where the Council may wish to spend less and provide less; and - The appendices to the MTFS provided three possible scenarios for General Fund Estimates for the period 2015-2020. Appendix 1 showed a 0% Council Tax increase and no efficiencies, which would produce a General Fund balance of £2M in 2019/20, below the level recommended; Appendix 2 showed a 0% Council Tax increase and efficiencies of £1.7M, and Appendix C showed a 1.9% increase in Council Tax and efficiencies of £500,000, both of which would produce General Fund balances in the region of £5.7M in 2019/20. RESOLVED: That the content of the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy 2015-2020 and the key strands of efficiency savings, development opportunities and income generation, be noted. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy 2015-2020, as outlined in Appendix A to the report, as amended, 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 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 culminating in the setting of the Council Tax precept for 2015/16 in February 2015. |
Agreed | ||
| 34 |
GRANTS POLICY REVIEW Report and Appendices In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Chairman presented a report of the Head of Policy and Community Services in respect of a Grants Policy Review. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Grants Policy (draft); and Appendix B - Revised grant application form. The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee presented the following referral from the meeting of that Committee held on 29 July 2014, in respect of the Grants Policy Review: "RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: (1) That it not be prescribed as to whether Area Committees can split their budget, including into Ward or Member budgets; (2) That fast-tracking of urgent grants continue up to a limit of £250; (3) That Major MOUs be re designated as District Grants and not be considered as part of the grants process; (4) That the title of the second column of the Summary Grant Award Matrix (Grants Policy - Paragraph 7) be re-titled "Maximum value that can be recommended by Officers"; (5) That, on condition (4) above is agreed, the Summary Grant Award Matrix (Grants Policy - Paragraph 7) be supported; and (6) That there be two distinct types of grant called "Area Grants" and "District Grants"." The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee realised that, should recommendations (1) and (2) above be adopted, amendments to Financial Regulations and the Council's Constitution would be required. The Cabinet Chairman advised that the awarding of grants to voluntary organisations, use of funds devolved to Area Committees and specialist grants to support a range of rural environmental and other schemes, allowed the Authority to further its aims and overarching Priorities of the Council and District. The Cabinet Chairman stated that a number of the proposals contained within the report referred back to the previously agreed outcomes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group in regard to the Council's grant making processes, to the SIAS (Shared Internal Audit Service) review of area committee grants in late 2013, and examination of a number of recent grant decisions as part of the Head of Policy and Community Services' review of application of the policy. There may be more minor amendments in regard to strengthening internal controls on the receipt, processing and award of grants still required, and thus a request was being made to Cabinet to delegate the authority for such amendment to the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs. The Cabinet Chairman referred to the recommendations from the Task and Finish Group set out in the report. All but one of these recommendations had been adopted by Cabinet and progress regarding their implementation was also set out in the report. It was noted that the recommendation detailed at Paragraph 6.4.5 of the report would be addressed through a full review of major Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs). The Cabinet Chairman next referred to Section 7 of the report, which concerned the outcome of the review of the Area Committee Grants process by SIAS (Shared Internal Audit Service). In particular, she drew attention to the comments of SIAS regarding Ward/Member budgets, as follows: "It is apparent that a process of then devolving the responsibility for ‘ward' or ‘Member discretionary' budgets has then developed through local ‘custom and practice' in some area committees. This has been in existence for a number of years. However, there is no specific authority for such expenditure to be delegated to individual Members; there are also a considerable number of risks in doing so. 1. By the very nature of such informal devolution, this could cause difficulty for Members who would then wish to be involved in a formal Committee decision. 2. For smaller committees, the increased possibility that a committee could frequently prove inquorate in-meeting, as those members previously mentioned on a grants form as having ‘agreed' funding may not be able to be involved in a discussion and resolution to fund/or not. 3. Further, where there is a necessary ‘pause' in the area committee cycle to accommodate elections, it could be seen that the informal ‘award' of grants by ward members in the remainder of the civic year, outside the area committee cycle, gives them a benefit not afforded to members in areas where such devolution of budget does not exist. 4. There must be greater consistency, transparency and importantly, controls in place to ensure that any expenditure made by the authority is based on a sound decision making process, with a suitable audit trail to support." In respect of the fast-tracking of grants, the Cabinet Chairman drew attention to the following comments made by SIAS: "These are often used inappropriately, either being submitted immediately after the committee cycle when there is insufficient evidence they are truly ‘urgent', e.g. equipment requested has been required for an event often planned weeks or months prior, and the grant awarded without sufficient scrutiny by a number of local Members. Advice has been sought from local community support and funding agencies, who are clear that groups seeking to arrange an event or project should ensure they meet committee or other application deadlines, not rely on ‘crisis' processes or fast-track funding decisions being available as a safety net. Fast-track will therefore no longer exist as an option except in truly exceptional circumstances eg:- an organisation has planned an event without seeking Council support and at the last minute one of the funders withdraws putting the community event at risk. The situation will remain under review on an annual basis as part of the grants review process to ensure that any change in the current situation can be addressed." The Cabinet Chairman recommended that the Grants Policy and proposed amendments advocated by SIAS be approved in principle. She further proposed that Recommendations (1) and (2) of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, concerning Ward Member budgets and fast-tracking of urgent grants, respectively, be drawn to the attention of Area Committees as part of the consultation exercise referred to in resolution (5) above, in order for the wider view of Area Committees to be included in the report back to Cabinet. It was further recommended that Recommendations (3) to (6) of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be supported, subject to the re-naming of "District Grants" to "District-wide Grants" in Recommendation (6). The Cabinet supported the proposed recommendations. There was some support for both Ward/Member budgets and fast-tracking of grants, provided appropriate controls were adopted and consequent adjustments made to the Council's Constitution/Financial Regulations. However, Members would await the outcome of consultation with Area Committees before approving a final Grants Policy later in 2014. RESOLVED: (1) That the draft Grants Policy, attached at Appendix A to the report, be approved in principle, incorporating any agreed amendments following discussion, for consultation with Area Committees in the September 2014 cycle; (2) That each of the amendments as proposed to the Council's grant making process arising from the internal audit review of Area Committee Grants, be agreed in principle; (3) That the updated advice provided to Area Committees in regard to their budgets, authority for decision making and delegations afforded to those Committees by Cabinet in the Council's Constitution, be noted; (4) That the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs, be delegated to make any minor amendments as may be required to the grants policy with regard to any increased internal controls as proposed by internal audit; (5) That it be noted that, following consultation with the Area Committees in the September 2014 cycle, the views of the Area Committees will be reported back to Cabinet to inform the final decision on the revised Grants Policy; (6) That Recommendations (1) and (2) of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, concerning Ward Member budgets and fast-tracking of urgent grants, respectively, be drawn to the attention of Area Committees as part of the consultation exercise referred to in resolution (5) above, in order for the wider view of Area Committees to be included in the report back to Cabinet; (7) That Recommendations (3) to (6) of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be supported, subject to the re-naming of "District Grants" to "District-wide Grants" in Recommendation (6); and (8) That a report back to Cabinet be received in late 2014 on the outcome of the review of Memoranda of Understanding and proposals for future funding of key agencies. REASON FOR DECISION: To commence the process of consultation on the draft Grants Policy, prior to a final decision being made later in 2014/15. |
Agreed | ||
| 35 |
BUILDING CONTROL - HERTFORDSHIRE AUTHORITIES PROJECT Report The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise presented a report of the Head of Planning and Building Control which provided an update on progress in respect of the Hertfordshire Building Control project, a joint venture between seven District Councils in Hertfordshire. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise advised that Local Authorities had a statutory duty to provide a Building Control service. This meant that, if an application was submitted to the Authority, it had a duty to ensure that the works complied with building regulations. Originally, Local Authorities were the sole supplier of this service. However, in 1997, the government gave powers that allowed Approved Inspectors (AIs) to also act in this capacity. This competitive environment had meant that it was more difficult for Local Authorities to retain their market share and attract new commercial work. Consequently, many Local Authorities, including NHDC, had struggled to ensure that the Building Control service they provided was both value for money and cost neutral. In order to sustain the service, new options for service delivery would need to be explored. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise stated that, in July 2013, Three Rivers District Council approached all District Councils in Hertfordshire with a proposal to explore a wider arrangement across the County. Six other authorities showed an interest in progressing this idea: Welwyn Hatfield, North Herts, Stevenage, East Herts, Hertsmere and Broxbourne. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise explained that, in January 2014, a proposal was put forward by the Solutions Centre to create a separate company owned by the seven local authorities that would deliver building control across district boundaries. The report before Cabinet was seeking an in principle agreement that the project move forward to produce a full business case for submission in the autumn of 2014. The Chief Executive commented that the potential operating models for a future building control service needed to be considered in detail, and involved the complexity of statutory functions that were not delegable to another type of body, as well as the nature of a trading operation. Consequently, detailed legal advice was being procured as part of the project and would be a key feature in the final business case and proposed operating model. RESOLVED: That the report be noted, and that it be agreed in principle that the project should move forward and produce a full business case for approval in the autumn of 2014. REASON FOR DECISION: To keep Cabinet informed of recent developments. |
Agreed | ||
| 36 |
BARKWAY AND NUTHAMPSTEAD JOINT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN AREA Report Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise presented a report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise in respect of the Barkway and Nuthampstead Joint Neighbourhood Plan Area. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Barkway Parish Council and Nuthampstead Parish meeting joint application for designation of a neighbourhood plan area; Appendix 2 - Map of the area to be designated as the Barkway and Nuthampstead Joint Neighbourhood Planning Area; and Appendix 3 - Summary of representations. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise advised that this was one of a number of Neighbourhood Plan applications considered by Cabinet in recent months. The boundary for Barkway and Nuthampstead proposal comprised the entirety of both parishes. RESOLVED: (1) That, having regard to the representations made, the Designation of the Barkway and Nuthampstead Joint Neighbourhood Area submitted by Barkway Parish Council and Nuthampstead Parish meeting, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved; and (2) That the funding available from the Department of Communities and Local Government for the financial year 2014/15 to assist local authorities in the preparation of neighbourhood plans, as set out in Section 10 of the report, be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable Barkway Parish Council and Nuthampstead Parish meeting to formally prepare a neighbourhood plan. |
Agreed | ||
| 37 |
REFURBISHMENT OF BANCROFT RECREATION GROUND, HITCHIN Report The Portfolio Holder for Leisure presented a report of the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services in respect of the refurbishment of Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure advised that the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) Board had met on 24 June 2014 to consider NHDC's application for the refurbishment of Bancroft recreation Ground, Hitchin. She conveyed the disappointing news that the HLF Board had unfortunately decided to reject the Council's application. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure stated that Officers were arranging to meet with representatives from the HLF in late September 2014 to discuss their decision in greater detail. Based on the information received from HLF at this meeting, officers would report on a range of future options for Bancroft Recreation Ground to a future meeting of Cabinet. The Strategic Director of Customer Services confirmed that the report back to Cabinet would include both the reasons why the HLF bid was unsuccessful, together with a range of future options for the Recreation Ground. RESOLVED: (1) That the decision of the Heritage Lottery Fund be noted; and (2) That a range of future options for Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin, be considered by officers, and reported back to a future meeting of Cabinet. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow time to prepare a report on future options following the HLF's decision not to award a lottery grant to refurbish Bancroft Recreation Ground. |
Agreed | ||
| 38 |
STORAGE FACILITIES Report [ITEM WITHDRAWN] |
Noted | ||