| 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 Julian Cunningham, Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor Tony Hunter, 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 Revenues, Benefits & IT, Head of Leisure & Environmental Services, Accountancy Manager, Environmental Health Manager, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Parks & Countryside Development Manager, Revenues Manager, Senior Estates Surveyor, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, Acting Corporate Legal Manager and Committee & Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Councillors John Booth (Vice-Chairman of Finance, Audit & Risk Committee), Judi Billing, David Leal-Bennett, David Kearns and Deborah Segalini. 20 Members of the Public. |
| Meeting attachment |
Agenda Front Pages |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 69 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. The Chairman announced that Councillor R.L. Shakespeare-Smith (Chairman of Overview & Scrutiny Committee) had submitted his apologies for absence due to illness. Apologies for absence were also submitted by Councillor Fiona Hill (Chairman of Royston and District Committee). |
Noted | ||
| 70 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 24 November 2014 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. In respect of the interest declared by the Cabinet Chairman (Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham) at the meeting held on 24 November 2014 regarding the North Hertfordshire Local Plan - Preferred Options (Minute 67), she acknowledged that what she had stated may have inadvertently created confusion with Councillor Hone's declaration of interest. Councillor Needham clarified that she was present during Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation's general Local Plan discussions, but left the meeting prior to any site specific deliberations and votes, as had Councillor Hone. She apologised for any confusion caused and confirmed that at all times she had followed the advice of the Monitoring Officer and would continue to do so in the future. |
Agreed | ||
| 71 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no notification of other business. |
Noted | ||
| 72 |
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 | ||
| 73 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Cabinet was addressed by the following: (a) Ms Julie Morris (Secretary, Hitchin Lawn Tennis Club) re: Item 13 - Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin Ms Morris advised that she was the secretary of Hitchin Lawn Tennis Club (HLTC) and had been a Club member for over 12 years. She provided a brief overview of the Club. Ms Morris stated that HLTC was established in 1920 and had been a tenant of NHDC in Bancroft Gardens since 1985. HLTC had 3 well maintained, floodlit, all weather courts with a small clubhouse. Its membership was a cross section of age groups and backgrounds. Some members just wished to play socially, for instance the weekday members, made up of predominantly retired people who paid just £50 per annum. Around 65% members were full/family members and about half of those wished to play a little more competitively, so as a club the HLTC participated in Hertfordshire league competitions for men, ladies and mixed teams throughout the Summer and on a slightly smaller scale throughout Autumn and Winter. Ms Morris explained that HLTC's top teams were going from strength to strength, with two consecutive league wins in the Datchworth mixed league and also the men's firsts gaining Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) league promotion this Summer. In addition to their membership fees, competitive players contributed a match fee each time they participated. There was, at present, some public usage on a book-ahead-proof-of-address basis, so that temporary membership was conferred with associated insurance coverage and some level of risk reduction for members not trained nor expecting to deal with members of the public. Ms Morris commented that the Club was registered with Her Majesty's Revenues and Customs (HMRC) as a community and amateur sports club (CASC). HLTC was run by volunteers, so had quite low overheads, and funded all aspects associated with running a small club from liability insurance to jet washing. The Club received no direct support or funding from NHDC and costed relatively little to join. Ms Morris advised that the Club made a modest surplus each year. In 2014, in the region of £1,400, with an historic average of £3,000, which was accumulated within what the LTA called a sinking fund, to pay for regular capital expenditures such as ten yearly court resurfacing (next due in 2020 costing in region of £45,000) and floodlight/fencing refurbishment, both of which were likely to need addressing in the mid-term. Ms Morris hoped that NHDC could view the Club as an asset to the people of Hitchin, a source of stability in the park, and a stream of income from committed local people. However, that should not be taken for granted - rights and responsibilities go hand in hand and the courts did not look after themselves. A too onerous level or overly defined public access risked killing the golden goose by restricting HLTC's court access and ability to run competitive teams, likely to drive away those that play and pay most. Ms Morris stated that the Club wished to have a long term future in Bancroft Gardens, and would like to work in co-operation with NHDC to secure that future. The existing master-plan foresaw 3 shared courts being sufficient. HLTC would argue that 4 or 5 courts would enable all concerned to strike a better balance between guaranteed usage/funding from its members and more availability for public pay and play with, for example, the club continuing to maintain 3 and NHDC to fund the other one or two courts. Public access would need to be thought through and managed to ensure HLTC's members were not put at risk by having to deal with the public. Once a long term lease was secured HLTC could work jointly to pursue potential LTA funding to fund these extra courts for grass roots park based tennis. Ms Morris concluded by making three respectful requests: - Firstly, that the Council considered granting a minimum of 8 months or a year extension to terms of current lease, during which time both parties committed to a deadline for agreeing a new lease, meaning that this could be a full membership year April 2015 to March 2016; - Secondly, that any new lease took into account the fine balance of court usage and did not drive away the 25-30% of our membership that contributed the surplus that allowed HLTC to continue as a successful and self-sufficient Club; and - Thirdly, and finally, that HLTC and NHDC worked together to secure a jointly beneficial relationship to secure the next 30 years of club and public tennis in Bancroft Recreation Ground. The Chairman thanked Ms Morris for her presentation, (b) Dr Mike Clarke (Hitchin Forum and Bancroft Users Group & Supporters) re: Item 13 - Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin Dr Clarke advised that he had been keenly interested in the schemes to improve the Bancroft recreation ground, having attended the consultations in 2010 and then signed up to be involved in whatever voluntary group was envisaged, and then devoting significant time over the past 18 months to initially investigate concerns about Bancroft Hall, and then the issues raised by other users of the area. That led to the formation of an informal network - the Bancroft Users Group and Supporters. That group focussed particularly on the public tennis courts, the future of the bowls club, and the possible alternative uses of the pavilion. Through these groups he was involved in liaison with BDP as they developed a bid to the Lottery Fund, organising two public meetings for BDP to do presentations and discuss the initial concepts, as they were called, and had done some historical research to be included in the submission. Dr Clarke stated that he was addressing Cabinet as many Bancroft users felt disappointed with aspects of the report before Members, starting with the recommendations: 2.1 That Cabinet agree to a phased approach to deliver limited incremental affordable improvements based on the previously approved master plan, using section 106 and other limited internal and external financial resources. Dr Clarke assumed that the master plan referred to was that listed as ‘original' in the 28 January 2014 Cabinet minutes (ie. not moving the tennis club and not changing the river)? 2.2 That subject to the approval of a revenue growth bid of £15K pa, Cabinet agrees to the inclusion of a water splash park and associated toilet / baby changing provision for Bancroft Recreation Ground in the capital programme for 2015/16. Dr Clarke commented that there was no dispute on this recommendation, if it was what local families wanted. He added, however, that the ‘original masterplan', which was in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 28 January 2014, did not include mention of a water feature and it was clear for various reasons that the ‘original masterplan' could not be regarded as definitive. 2.3 That the limited incremental improvements for Bancroft are incorporated into the green space management strategy work programme and in consultation with relevant portfolio holders are managed by officers without the need of a project board. Dr Clarke highlighted the areas which proved contentious and/ or which would require continuing consultation: - Tennis - The Council made a case to remove 4 public courts so that it might gain Parks for People funding. The use of the public tennis courts had never been properly assessed. The best assessment he knew of, so far, was from the Sainsbury's manager. His office overlooked the courts and he said they were well used. The Council wanted to move and modify the operation of the tennis club, particularly to open its courts for public usage. No viable plan for that had ever been presented. He emphasised viable. It was good to hear that the tennis club had thoughts about what they could do, as presented by Ms Morris. The original ‘masterplan' did include the combination of a MUGA and a tennis court, but that did not gain credibility. This issue needed to be looked at again and a way forward agreed with local consultation; - The Bowls Club - had been concerned about the removal of parking, saying that this was very likely to cause the club to fold. There was a covenant on Bancroft Car Park, that it should be used for the Recreation Ground, and so the Council could find a reserved space there for the bowls club, or maybe use one of the public tennis courts? This should be resolved by involving the club and other recreation ground users; - The pavilion - the idea of extending the pavilion was supported - it was part of the ‘original masterplan'. Funds were going to be tight. The Lottery did offer an alternative option - ‘Power to Change' had monies for community buildings, and the pavilion could qualify for that. But it would need community involvement; and - Play areas - the ‘original masterplan' included more play areas. The Council should be consulting with parents, and their children, in the area to find out what would work best on this site. In respect of consultation, Dr Clarke considered that the Lottery application was flawed by the Council not consulting with the public from December 2010 until mid 2013. To now apparently exclude the need for Ward Members and external organisations to be consulted suggested that no lessons had been learnt. The Council should think about forming a Bancroft Friends Group, as it half promised in 2010, as the Lottery Fund expected to exist. Such a group could be useful if there was an opportunity for further Lottery bids. The Council stated that it had consulted in Hitchin on Churchgate and car parking charges. Dr Clarke applauded the changes that had now been adopted by the Council in these matters, but urged it to continue that good practice and ensured that future developments in Bancroft Recreation Ground were always following consultation and discussion, with external organisations and with Ward Members. The Chairman thanked Dr Clarke for his presentation. (c) Mr Bernard Eddleston (Charnwood Community Management Association) re: Item 21 - Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, Hitchin Mr Eddleston began by querying why were the decisions on the future of these important public buildings to be made in Part 2, in a closed session? He considered that there was nothing remotely commercially confidential to justify this course of action. What was written in the Part 2 documents? The condition surveys and feasibility study referred to were carried out at tax payers' expense and the public had a right to see these documents. Officers often complained that they spent too much time answering freedom of information requests, but if the Council was open and transparent in the first place such requests would be avoided Mr Eddleston advised that there was a covenant requiring Charnwood House to be used for public purposes as provided in the gift of the property. He asked what the legal advice to officers was on this matter? The Council published the Churchgate legal advice, why not this? Why was this also in Part 2? Mr Eddleston maintained that NHDC did not currently own the freehold of the Museum, despite what was written in the report. It was currently held by Hertfordshire County Council (HCC). It had been agreed that it would be transferred back to NHDC, but that had not happened because Officers had failed to agree matters with HCC despite knowing about this for years. Mr Eddleston asserted that one of the reasons given for NHDC refusing to work with the Charnwood Community Management Association (CCMA) in recent months was because it might show they were giving the Association preferential treatment. However, Officers had actively canvassed two charitable groups to move from their current location in Thomas Bellamy House into Charnwood House. These groups had not registered any interest in Charnwood House, so how could this not be preferential treatment. Mr Eddleston advised that Thomas Bellamy House had been used by Community Groups for many years and the groups currently occupying the building carried out vital work for the residents of North Hertfordshire. More groups could use the building and the CCMA believe the building should remain in public use for the community. This review of the future of Charnwood House offered the Council a real opportunity to do something worthwhile for the people and community groups in the town. Mr Eddleston referred to the commentary in the report on the various options considered, which stated that the building was surplus to NHDC requirements (when the new District Museum opened) and appeared to rule out use commercially. A sale of the freehold was suggested as a possibility, but the covenant required public use. Therefore, he considered that there were only really two options, either; (1) NHDC continued to own and manage the building, but rented it out to community groups. NHDC needed to consider how this would be done without showing preferential treatment to selected organisations. It would be necessary to invite all community groups to make suggestions and offers. NHDC would still have ongoing management costs, in addition to the repair and maintenance of the building. NHDC would have the cost of refurbishment and other changes which were estimated at £327,000 plus £97,000 maintenance over a 10 year period; or (2) NHDC carried out an asset disposal and leased the building on a 99 year lease to Community Groups, such as CCMA, who would have responsibility for the management, maintenance and repair of the building. Such organisations had the ability to bid for external funding to cover the £325,000 for refurbishment. Mr Eddleston considered that since the building was unlikely to be vacated until later in 2015, the Council had nothing to lose by declaring the building surplus to requirements now (with a condition that any transfer could not happen until the Museum service vacated the premises). The Council could then spend the next few months investigating with community groups if operation of the building by them under this second option was viable and whether they would be able to obtain external funding. If this did not prove viable then the Council could revert to the first option. If it was viable the Council would save over £400,000 and the District would have a refurbished community building operated by and for the community of which they could be proud. The Chairman thanked Mr Eddleston for his presentation. (d) Senior Pastor Matthew Summerfield (Hitchin Christian Centre) re: Item 21 - Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, Hitchin Senior Pastor Summerfield stated that the Hitchin Christian Centre (HCC) operated out of the building which was co-joined to Thomas Bellamy House. HCC was an outward-looking, community church that had served in Hitchin for over thirty years. HCC was committed to support all people in the local community, regardless of whether they had a faith or not. This commitment had been borne out in a number of ways including the following: - For over 20 years HCC had run a highly successful Ofsted-approved, Playgroup and Toddler group; - For over 6 years HCC had provided a pastoral mentoring service for students in all three Hitchin Secondary Schools; - In 2014, HCC started to provide a life coaching and pastoral support service for local Secondary School teachers and business leaders; - HCC took the lead in 2013 to establish the Hitchin Food Bank, which was now a partnership across a number of Hitchin churches; and - In November 2014, HCC launched a debt support service in partnership with Christians Against Poverty. This service aimed to free people from their debts by developing a structured payment plan, supported by a befriender. Senior Pastor Summerfield referred to letters of support to the work undertaken by HCC from Hitchin Boys School, the Hitchin Priory School and Hitchin Partnership CIO. Senior Pastor Summerfield advised that HCC would like to offer more community activities during the daytime, but that this was not possible within its existing building because the Playgroup and Toddler group used most of the facility Monday to Friday, and for safeguarding reasons other members of the public were not able to use the building. Senior Pastor Summerfield concluded by stating that HCC would be interested in acquiring Thomas Bellamy House (subject to finance and planning), as it would help it extend its range of options to serve the community and was a natural fit with it being physically joined to its existing building. To this end, HCC would be prepared to contribute towards the costs of bringing this aspiration to fruition. The Chairman thanked Senior Pastor Summerfield for his presentation. (e) Councillor Judi Billing (Ward Councillor) re: Item 13 - Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin Councillor Billing advised that she felt that the residents of Hitchin preferred incremental change, rather than development through masterplans. Councillor Billing welcomed the notion of the proposed Children's Water Facility/Splash Park in Bancroft Recreation Ground, as she had been lobbied on this on numerous occasions by parents with young families. She felt that it was high time that the Council resolved its relationship with Hitchin Lawn Tennis Club and, to this end, she was delighted that the Portfolio Holder for Leisure would shortly be meeting with the Club. She also hoped that NHDC would be positive to a proposal from a community group (Hitchin Hack Space) who wished to convert the toilet block in the Recreation ground into a community space, taking out a short-term lease. On a general matter, Councillor Billing commented that every NHDC report has a section entitled "Consultation with External Organisations and Ward Members". She considered that the Council was very poor at proactively consulting Ward Members on local matters. She was aware that other Members had expressed similar views, and she therefore implored that processes be put in place to ensure that proactive consultation with Ward Members took place prior to reports being submitted to Cabinet for consideration. The Chairman thanked Councillor Billing for her presentation. (f) Councillor David Leal-Bennett (Chairman of Hitchin Committee) re: Item 13 - Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin and re: Item 21 - Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, Hitchin Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin Councillor Leal-Bennett considered that, to date, there had been: - A Project Board without any Terms of Reference; - A consultation process that had not been fit for purpose; - Three Master plans; and - Work on a Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) bid where the Council was unsuccessful to the tune of £2.1m. Councillor Leal-Bennett referred to the HLF's reasons for the unsuccessful bid, which stated: "1. NHDC is an experienced applicant and there was potential for this project, which included redesign of the public space and new capital works, to reach out to new and diverse audiences. However, this element appeared weak and there was a low budget for activity costs. 2. Consultation with all parks users and potential audiences also needed strengthening, together with more detail of the long term management requirements. 3. HLF trustees queried the proposals regarding the tennis courts and the wider concerns regarding their removal and sought more detail." Councillor Leal-Bennett did not wish to see a 'pass the buck' culture, and refuted any attempt to blame the Community Groups in Hitchin who had worked hard to discuss options with those who were prepared to listen. Councillor Leal-Bennett accepted the need to start again, and this time work with the assets available, and by this he was referring to the community and any available funding. The proposal in the report referred to a Master Plan, but which one? This needed to be clear. Councillor Leal-Bennett also suggested to Cabinet that the Project Board should be retained, that it should have some clear terms of reference to consider a rolling 5 year plan, and work with the Community Groups, some of whom should be represented. That way, the Council and the community could work together to take this project forward. Councillor Leal-Bennett considered that democracy and consultation was need not autocracy and confrontation. After all, "Working with our Communities" was one of NHDC's strategic objectives. Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, Hitchin Councillor Leal-Bennett stated that he had read the Part 1 report and had taken great exception to section 6 - Consultation with External Organisations and Ward Members. As Chairman of Hitchin Committee, he had been requesting an update on this item for many months, but had continually been rebuffed, being told that it was for Cabinet only. He felt that to now make such a statement, was at best misrepresentation and at worse - he would let others decide. Either way, he felt it was not acceptable. The first time he saw the report was when it was completed. Councillor Leal-Bennett advised that he had also been refused access to the Part 2 papers until this evening, and so he had been unable to read them and was unable to pass any constructive comment. These 'rules' were adopted a couple of years ago and he considered that they must now be reversed, as he felt that there was absolutely no reason why councillors should not have access to Part 2 papers. Councillor Leal-Bennett commented that he had written to the Chief Executive on 15 December 2014, as follows: "It is the interpretation of the legal advice that I wished to review and clearly I will not be able to do that now. I have been granted 2 and a half minutes to talk on each of two subjects and with item 21, I will not have access to the papers prior to speaking. I find this totally unacceptable. Furthermore I am extremely concerned at the practice of placing information in Part 2 that in reality is not for Part 2, a cynic might say to 'cover up information'." Councillor Leal-Bennett stated that councillors were elected to represent the residents and in that role it was their duty to question and challenge. Their ability to do this was being stifled and, in the process, so was democracy in North Hertfordshire. He reminded Cabinet of his earlier comment that democracy and consultation was need not autocracy and confrontation. He felt that things needed to change. The Chairman thanked Councillor Leal-Bennett for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 74 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: 9 DECEMBER 2014 - THE COMMUNITY TRIGGER - ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING ACT 2014 Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 11 (see Minute 83 below). |
Noted | ||
| 75 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM ROYSTON AND DISTRICT COMMITTEE: 10 DECEMBER 2014 - 0.33 HECTARE SITE, MEADOW WAY, THERFIELD Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 20 (see Minute 92 below). |
Noted | ||
| 76 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM FINANCE, AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE: 11 DECEMBER 2014 - RISK MANAGEMENT UPDATE Referral Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C The Vice-Chairman of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee presented the following referral from that Committee, made at its meeting held on 11 December 2014 in respect of a Risk Management Update (Minute 40 refers): "(1) That the proposal to reduce the likelihood score for the Cabinet Top Risk ‘Waste and Street Cleansing Contract Renewal' be endorsed; (2) That the proposal to increase the likelihood score for the Cabinet Top Risk ‘North Hertfordshire Museum and Hitchin Town Hall Project' be noted, with the proviso that Cabinet should be aware that there was insufficient information provided on the mitigation of risks was provided to allow the Committee to agree the increase of the likelihood score; (3) That the proposed changes to the Risk and Opportunities Management Policy (Appendix B) be endorsed; (4) That the proposed changes to the Risk and Opportunities Management Strategy (Appendix C) be endorsed." The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that he accepted the Committee's recommendations. RESOLVED: (1) That the proposal to reduce the likelihood score for the Cabinet Top Risk ‘Waste and Street Cleansing Contract Renewal' be endorsed; (2) That the proposal to increase the likelihood score for the Cabinet Top Risk ‘North Hertfordshire Museum and Hitchin Town Hall Project' be noted, with the proviso that Cabinet should be aware that there was insufficient information provided on the mitigation of risks was provided to allow the Committee to agree the increase of the likelihood score; (3) That the proposed changes to the Risk and Opportunities Management Policy (Appendix B) be endorsed; and (4) That the proposed changes to the Risk and Opportunities Management Strategy (Appendix C) be endorsed. REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with the requirements of the Risk and Opportunities Management Strategy. |
Agreed | ||
| 77 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM FINANCE, AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE: 11 DECEMBER 2014 - SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL MONITORING 2014/15 Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 10 (see Minute 82 below). |
Noted | ||
| 78 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM FINANCE, AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE: 11 DECEMBER 2014 - CORPORATE BUSINESS PLANNING - DRAFT BUDGET 2015/16 Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 18 (see Minute 90 below). |
Noted | ||
| 79 |
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 the economic development Strategy; Government announcements on roads; Government consultations; Neighbouring authorities' plans; North Hertfordshire Local Plan; and Neighbourhood planning. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Productive North Herts (Economic Development Strategy). The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise updated Cabinet on the following matters: - Economic Development Strategy - this contained 11 strategic priorities, as listed in the report. Consultation on the Strategy would take place in February/March 2015. The intention was for the Strategy to be in place prior to the appointment of an Economic Development Officer (either full-time with NHDC or shared with another Local Authority); - Government announcement on roads - A £15 billion plan to increase the capacity and condition of England's roads, was announced at the start of December 2014 to Parliament by the Transport Secretary and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Of specific interest to North Hertfordshire was the project which identified the stretch of the A1(M) between Junction 6 (Welwyn North) and Junction 8 (Hitchin) and its upgrade to a smart motorway, including widening of the two lane section to dual three lane and hard shoulder running; - Government consultations - The Government was consulting on measures to encourage people to build their own homes ("custom build"). The consultation suggested that local authorities would be required to make plots of land available to prospective custom builders. This therefore raised several significant questions about how the scheme would work, particularly for local authorities which did not own significant land themselves. Whilst the overall aim of encouraging custom builders was to be encouraged, the currently proposed method could have the effect of diverting limited public resources away from other services. Evidence appeared not to have been given as to whether there were sufficient aspirant custom builders for such a scheme to be successful, or the overall complexity of the whole process. The Council would be responding to the Government on this consultation; - Neighbourhood plans - St Ippolyts Parish Council had submitted a request to designate their parish as a neighbourhood planning area. This was now being consulted upon and would be reported back to a future Cabinet for decision; - North Hertfordshire Local Plan - Following Full Council on 27 November 2014, arrangements were being made for the consultation on the Local Plan Preferred Options paper. The consultation would run from 18 December 2014 to 6 February 2015. In respect of Neighbouring Authorities' Plans, the Principal Strategic Planning Officer advised that the Examination Inspector had decreed that Uttlesford District Council's Local Plan should not proceed, as the housing figures should be 10% more than that quoted, and a doubt over how one of the larger sites had been chosen. Uttlesford Borough Council therefore had to start the process afresh. With regard to the Central Bedfordshire Council Local Plan, the Principal Strategic Planning Officer stated that this was scheduled for Public Examination in February 2015, but that the appointed Inspector had already expressed concerns over that Council's duty to co-operate, principally with Luton Borough Council. The Principal Strategic Planning Officer also referred to the Greater London Plan, which had just been found to be sound following a Public Examination, although the Inspector had asked that the Plan be immediately reviewed in terms of housing numbers. In respect of the consultation on "custom build" homes, it was agreed that the three local Members of Parliament should be copied in to the Council's response to the Government on this matter. RESOLVED: (1) That the report be noted; (2) That the proposed Economic Development Strategy ("Productive North Herts") attached at Appendix A to the report, be approved for consultation purposes; (3) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development and Building Control, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enterprise, to make any minor amendments, typographical corrections and presentational formatting changes to the Strategy as may be necessary before the consultation period begins; and (4) That the three local Members of Parliament be copied in to the Council's response to the Government regarding its consultation on "custom build" homes. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Cabinet is aware of current developments. |
Agreed | ||
| 80 |
SECOND QUARTER REVENUE MONITORING 2014/15 Report Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented the report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of the Second Quarter Budget Monitoring 2014/15. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - General Fund Summary. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT referred to the Executive Summary and the various tables of information contained in the report, as follows: - Net General Fund expenditure for 2014/15 (Table 1) - Forecast net expenditure at second quarter was £15.996million. This was £111,000 (0.7%) lower than the working budget, and £360,000 (2.3%) higher than the original budget; - Budgets Carried Forward from 2013/14 (Table 2) - Of the £351,000 of carry forward budgets into 2014/15, £116,000 (33%) had been spent by the end of the second quarter. There were two carry forwards at amber status that may not be spent by the end of the year; - Achievement of Efficiencies (Table 3) - It was expected that £1.510million (99%) of agreed efficiency proposals would be achieved in 2014/15; - Key Financial Indicators (Table 4) - One indicator was at amber status, the rest were at green status; - General Fund Reserve Balance (Table 5) - The General Fund reserve was now forecast to have a balance of £4.7million at 31 March 2015. This was £2.7million higher than the originally approved minimum balance of £2million; - Allowance for financial risks (Table 6) - The budgeted minimum General Fund balance of £2million included an allowance of £1.2million for known financial risks. As at the end of the second quarter, £139,000 of these risks had been realised; - Earmarked Reserves (Table 7) - As at 1 April 2014 there was a balance of £4million in other useable earmarked reserves. The balance was forecast to be £4.3million at 31 March 2015; and - Funding of Net Expenditure (Table 8) - A net total of £2.495million was anticipated to be receivable in the general fund with regard to Business Rates. This was slightly lower (£15,000) than the budgeted amount of £2.510million. RESOLVED: (1) That the report be noted; (2) That the changes to the 2014/15 General Fund Budget, as identified in Paragraph 8.1, Table 1 of the report, and involving a decrease in net expenditure of £111,000, be approved; and (3) That the changes to the 2015/16 General Fund Budget, as identified in Paragraph 8.1, Table 1 of the report, and involving an increase in net expenditure of £56,000, be approved; and REASON FOR DECISION: To monitor and request appropriate action of Directorates who do not meet the budget targets set as part of the Corporate Business Planning process; and to ensure that changes to the Council's balances are monitored and approved. |
Agreed | ||
| 81 |
TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID YEAR REVIEW 2014/15 Report Addendum Report 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 Treasury Management Mid Year Review 2014/15. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Annual Treasury Management Mid Year Review - September 2014. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT referred to an erratum report which had been circulated to Members, detailing some amendments that were required to Appendix A to the report. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that the Council had operated within the treasury and prudential indicators set out in the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and in compliance with the Treasury Management Practices. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that the Council had generated £0.255M of interest during the first six months of 2014/15. The average interest rate agreed on new deals during the quarter by the cash managers (Sterling and Tradition) was 0.92%. The average interest rate on all outstanding investments (including in-house deals) at 30 September 2014 was 1.53%. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT explained that the amount of investment interest expected to be generated during the year was £0.49M. He also referred to the recent Government Bill on Banking Reform, which meant that financial institutions would no longer be able to rely on Government support if they encountered difficulties and would need to adopt a protocol for a "bail-in" from their creditors. In light of these developments, the Council may wish to consider the impact on the relative level of risk in the Council's investment strategy and whether or not this strategy was still appropriate for 2015/16. This issue would be considered in the formation of the proposals for the 2015/16 Strategy, which would be considered by Cabinet at its January 2015 meeting. RESOLVED: That the Mid Year position of Treasury Management activity as at the end of September 2014, as set out in the report, and as amended by the erratum report circulated to Members, be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure the Council's continued compliance with CIPFA's Code of Practice on Treasury Management and the Local Government Act 2003, and to ensure the Council manages its exposure to interest and capital risk. |
Noted | ||
| 82 |
SECOND QUARTER CAPITAL MONITORING 2014/15 Report Appendix A Appendix B The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented the report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of the Second Quarter Capital Programme Monitoring 2014/15. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Capital Programme Summary 2014/15; and Appendix B - Capital Programme Detail 2014/15 onwards. The Vice-Chairman of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee presented a referral from that Committee, made at its meeting held on 11 December 2014, in respect of Second Quarter Capital Monitoring 2014/15 (Minute 45 refers). Cabinet considered the following recommendation from the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee: "That Cabinet be requested as a matter of urgency and as a priority allocate resources to implement the Cycle Strategy in the Capital Programme (Table 1 refers)." The Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues replied that he would be prepared to investigate, with Hertfordshire County Council, the situation with regard to the Cycling Strategy, to ascertain whether or not there could be elements of the Strategy that could be progressed. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT drew attention to the tables in the report with regard to the Scheme Timetable Revision and Changes to Capital Schemes commencing in 2014/15. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that the balance of useable capital receipts available at the start of the year to fund capital expenditure for 2014/15 and onwards was £1.339million. The 2014/15 Capital Programme of £9.6million required a total of £7million from the Council's capital resources. As a result, it would be necessary to draw down approximately £4.9million from the Council's set aside receipts to fund the current programme. Council land had been identified for disposal, and it was hoped that completed sales would generate approximately £4.75million in the current financial year. In 2014/15, a total of £2.4million of third party contributions and grants was expected to be applied, including £316,000 of Section 106 receipts. RESOLVED: (1) That the changes to the projected Capital Programme for 2014/15 onwards arising from the re-profiling of schemes, as identified in Paragraph 8.3, Table 1 of the report, and totalling a decrease in expenditure in 2014/15 of £1.634million, be approved; (2) That the changes to the projected Capital Programme for 2014/15 arising as a result of changes to the capital schemes, as identified in Paragraph 8.4, Table 2 of the report, and totalling an increase in expenditure of £74,000, be approved; (3) That expenditure of £95,000 be approved for telephony infrastructure, a new scheme in the Capital Programme, as detailed in Paragraph 8.5 of the report; and (4) That the Portfolio Holder for Policy, Transport and Green Issues investigate, with Hertfordshire County Council, the situation with regard to the Cycling Strategy, to ascertain whether or not there could be elements of the Strategy that could be progressed. REASON FOR DECISION: To approve revisions to the Capital Programme, and to ensure that the Capital Programme is fully funded. |
Agreed | ||
| 83 |
THE COMMUNITY TRIGGER - ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING ACT 2014 Report The Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs presented a report of the Head of Housing and Public Protection in respect of the Community Trigger relating to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. In the absence of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Cabinet Chairman presented the following referral from that Committee, made at its meeting held on 9 December 2014, in respect of the Community Trigger - Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (Minute 54 refers): "(1) That Cabinet adopt the following as the community trigger for North Hertfordshire: "Three reports from an individual about separate incidents within a six month period or three individuals have separately reported anti-social behaviour within a six month period"; (2) That Cabinet approves the North Hertfordshire Homes Co-option onto the North Hertfordshire Community Safety Partnership with statutory responsibility for conducting anti-social behaviour case reviews; (3) That the Head of Housing and Public Protection be delegated responsibility to approve the case review procedures, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder; (4) That the Head of Housing and Public Protection be delegated responsibility to represent the Council in relation to any case review applications." The Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for its support in this matter. The Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs stated that the current Government had committed to the reform of the methods for dealing with anti-social behaviour (ASB), and which had resulted in the passing of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (The Act). This included new tools and powers to replace existing provisions, including the introduction of ASB case reviews, also known as the ‘community trigger'. The Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs commented that the Act provided a statutory framework for ASB case reviews, but allowed some discretion amongst agencies to agree local processes and procedures to ensure that they met the needs of their communities. Under the Act, the community trigger threshold must be regarded as being met where: - an application for an ASB case review was made, and - at least three qualifying complaints had been made (or if a different number was specified in local review procedures, at least that number). - To be a qualifying complaint, a complaint must be made within one month of the alleged incident and applications for a case review must be made within six months of the complaint. The Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs advised that North Hertfordshire had a strong community safety partnership overseen by the Responsible Authorities Group, with a Joint Action Group responsible for delivery of the Community Safety Action Plan. There was also an operational partnership called the Joint ASB Team, made up of Hertfordshire Police and ASB officers from the Council and North Hertfordshire Homes that met weekly to review and tackle the most complex and longstanding ASB cases. The Portfolio Holder for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs explained that the consensus arising out of discussions across the County was that Hertfordshire's trigger should be based on that outlined in The Act. Hertfordshire Police were particularly concerned that implementation of different triggers in different areas would be operationally very difficult. Given that ASB was low in general terms and that there was support amongst the Council's partner agencies for this approach, the proposed trigger set out below was considered appropriate: "Three reports from an individual about separate incidents within a six month period or three individuals have separately reported anti-social behaviour within a six month period". Members asked a number of questions, which were answered by the Portfolio Holder and Environmental Health Officer. The Portfolio Holder undertook to provide Cabinet Members with a document detailing the process for dealing with complaints through the community trigger. Members also suggested that details of the scheme be publicised via the Council's Outlook magazine. RESOLVED: (1) That the following be adopted as the community trigger for North Hertfordshire: "Three reports from an individual about separate incidents within a six month period or three individuals have separately reported anti-social behaviour within a six month period"; (2) That North Hertfordshire Homes' co-option onto the North Hertfordshire Community Safety Partnership, with statutory responsibility for conducting anti-social behaviour case reviews, be approved; (3) That the Head of Housing and Public Protection be delegated responsibility to approve the case review procedures, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio; and (4) That the Head of Housing and Public Protection be delegated responsibility to represent the Council in relation to any case review applications. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Council is compliant with the anti-social behaviour case review elements of the Act. |
Agreed | ||
| 84 |
COUNCIL TAX REDUCTION SCHEME 2015/16 Report Appendix 1 Appendix 2 The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Head of Revenues, Benefits and IT in respect of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2015/16. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Council Tax Reduction Scheme Values; May 2013 to October 2013 by Category; and Appendix 2 - Proposed Discretionary Council Tax Payments Policy. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that Cabinet had already stated that its preferred option was to make no changes to the Scheme for 2015/2016, and this would be subject to final ratification by Council in January 2015, once all the Final Government Settlement figures were known and applied. On the basis that the Scheme would continue to be based on the old Council Tax Benefit Scheme, with an across the board percentage reduction for the non-protected claimants, a recommendation would also need to be made to the Council in January 2015 on what the percentage reduction should be. The Portfolio Holder recommended that this should be 25% (instead of 33.13%) for 2015/16. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT proposed that, for reasons of transparency, it was suggested that the Council had a fund (suggested at £50,000) for Discretionary Council Tax Payments, which would be administered on the same lines as those for Discretionary Housing Payments. The same policy would be used, with the exception that whilst Discretionary Housing Payments could only be claimed by those in receipt of Housing Benefit, Discretionary Council Tax Payments could be claimed by any Council Tax payer that met the criteria. A Discretionary Council Tax Payments policy based on that for administering Discretionary Housing Payments was set out at Appendix 2 to the report. Members supported adoption of this policy, subject to a clarification of the wording in Paragraph 7.1 of the document. A recommendation would also need to be made to the Council in January 2015 on the level of funding to be delegated to the Local Precepting Authorities. The Portfolio Holder recommended that this should be reduced by the same percentage as the Council's own Funding Settlement, which would not be known until just before Christmas 2014. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT explained that, as there would not be an opportunity for a further Cabinet meeting before the papers for the Council meeting in January 2015 had to be published, it was recommended that these decisions be delegated to the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT, taking into consideration Cabinet's stated view that any changes in these amounts should reflect any changes in the final financial settlement. RESOLVED: (1) That the current position of the 2014/15 Scheme be noted; (2) That the implementation of a Discretionary Council Tax Payments Scheme be approved; (3) That, subject to clarifying the wording in Paragraph 7.1, the policy for administering Discretionary Council Tax Payments, as attached at Appendix 2 to the report, be approved; (4) That it be noted that a provision of £50,000 was suggested to meet the requirements of the Discretionary Council Tax Payments Scheme; (5) That it be recommended to Council that there be no changes to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2015/16; (6) That it be recommended to Council that the percentage reduction to be applied to claims in the non-protected groups be 25% for 2015/16; (7) That it be recommended to Council that the amount of Council Tax Reduction Scheme Grant distributed to the Local Precepting Authorities should be reduced by the same percentage as the Council's own Funding Settlement, which will not be known until just before Christmas 2014; and (8) That the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT, be delegated authority to: - review the funding available for the Council Tax Reduction Scheme following the announcement of the Final Settlement, including the recommendation at (5) above; and - calculate the actual amount referred to in (6) above following the Final Settlement figures. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Council complies with the requirement to ensure that a Scheme is in place by 31 January 2015. |
Agreed | ||
| 85 |
BANCROFT RECREATION GROUND, HITCHIN Report and Appendix The Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Environment presented a report of the Strategic Director of Customer Services and Project Executive in respect of Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Bancroft Recreation Ground - Future Options for its development. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure referred to the options listed in Appendix A to the report. For each of the options listed there were a number of connected issues in respect of the tenancy arrangements of existing lease holders and the former toilet block which would need to be considered and reported to Cabinet in due course. However, as the recommendations in the report suggested proceeding in accordance with the previous Master Plan principles, these issues were not considered in detail in the report. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure stated that, of the four options considered, the view of officers was that the option for incremental improvements provided the best overall outcome for the Council in achieving refurbishments to the Recreation Ground. This pragmatic approach allowed development as opportunities arose and would meet the Council's overall vision of the park, as described in the approved master plan. Any new developments would be restricted to the Council's financial ability to fund the capital and revenue requirements of any proposals. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure commented that, if Cabinet approved the option for incremental improvements, the works would be delivered by a number of minor projects that could be incorporated into the green space management strategy work programme. Such projects, in consultation with relevant portfolio holders, were normally managed by officers and, hence, a project board would not be required. If Cabinet decided to resubmit a lottery bid or if NHDC fully funded the approved master plan, Cabinet would need to consider the formation of a project board to manage the project. In recommending a phased approach to deliver incremental affordable improvements to the Recreation Ground, the Portfolio Holder for Leisure stated that, due to their popularity at other sites using Section 106 and other limited internal and external financial resources, she further recommended that the first phase of the improvements should include the construction of an interactive water play feature and associated toilet and baby changing facilities. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure confirmed that she would be pleased to meet with Hitchin Lawn Tennis Club and Hitchin Hack Space to discuss their views and their proposals on the future of the Recreation Ground. Cabinet supported the phased approach recommended by the Portfolio Holder and officers, and during the debate it was confirmed that this would be based on the principles outlined in the most recent version of the master plan set out in the report to Cabinet on 28 January 2014. RESOLVED: (1) That a phased approach to deliver incremental affordable improvements to Bancroft Recreation Ground based on the principles outlined in the most recent version of the master plan set out in the report to Cabinet on 28 January 2014 be agreed, using Section 106 and other limited internal and external financial resources; (2) That, subject to the approval of a revenue growth bid of £15,000 per annum, the inclusion of a water splash park and associated toilet/baby changing provision for Bancroft Recreation Ground in the Capital Programme for 2015/16 be agreed; and (3) That the limited incremental improvements for Bancroft recreation ground be incorporated into the Green Space Management Strategy Work Programme and, in consultation with relevant Portfolio Holders, be managed by officers without the need of a Project Board. REASON FOR DECISION: To provide new facilities in a town centre recreation ground that meets the needs of local residents and the wider community. |
Agreed | ||
| 86 |
POOLING OF BUSINESS RATES FOR 2015/16 ONWARDS Report Appendix 1 Appendix 2 The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of the proposed pooling of Business Rates for 2015/16 onwards. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Letter of application; and Appendix 2 - Memorandum of Understanding. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that, earlier in the year, the Government had called for Chief Finance Officers from authorities wishing to form a Business Rates pool for the 2015/16 financial year to make applications by 31 October 2014. LG Futures had undertaken financial modelling to determine the optimum combination of Hertfordshire councils to form a pool. This exercise was completed in October 2014 and initially resulted in an optimum pool for 2015/16 of Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) plus four district authorities (Broxbourne, Hertsmere, Three Rivers and Welwyn Hatfield). Cabinet noted that all Authorities were asked to review their estimates and willingness to form a pool, and this exercise resulted in a revised optimum pool of HCC, Broxbourne, North Hertfordshire, Stevenage, Three Rivers and Welwyn Hatfield. This resulted in a levy rate for the pool of 0.06%, a levy payment of £473,000, a levy saving of £3.123m and the potential for the pool members to share the net pool gain of £2.65m. The NHDC share of this pool gain would be approximately £239,000. These figures were based on the latest forecasts for business rate collection in 2015/16. The actual net gain to NHDC could be more or less than £239,000, as it would be dependent on the actual performance of business rate collection of each Authority in the pool. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT explained that membership of a pool meant that the authority lost the protection of the safety net provision, whereby if business rates income fell below 7.5% of the baseline need, the Government would provide support. Instead, the support was provided by other members of the business rates pool. The risk was mitigated by the modelling which resulted in the optimum pool of 5 Districts plus the County Council. The pool Members would need to see a reduction in their combined business rate income of around 7% (or £9.9million) before they would be any worse off through pooling. RESOLVED: (1) That the "in principle" decision to enter into a business rates pool with Hertfordshire County Council and four other Districts within the County be endorsed; and (2) That, following a review of the position to confirm the financial benefit to the Council of remaining in the pool once the outcome of the Local Government Finance settlement is known, the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT, be delegated authority to confirm entry or withdrawal from the business rates pool. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure the Authority is able to access the potential benefits of pooling; and to enable the Authority to determine whether pooling of business rates remains financially beneficial once the Settlement figures are announced and to take appropriate action. |
Agreed | ||
| 87 |
PROPOSED SHARED ANTI-FRAUD SERVICE Report and Appendix The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of a proposed Shared Anti-Fraud Service with five other Hertfordshire Local Authorities. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Anti-Fraud service report. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT reminded Cabinet that a number of Hertfordshire Chief Finance Officers (CFOs) had jointly worked to create a Shared Internal Audit Service (SIAS), which has been in operation since July 2011. SIAS was set up to ensure resilience in internal audit provision and has developed successfully under the oversight of the SIAS Board of CFOs. The development of a Shared Anti-Fraud Service was a natural extension of this collaborative working and a robust response to the national developments in the counter fraud landscape triggered by the creation of the Single Fraud Investigation Service (SFIS) within the Department for Work and Pensions. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that the vision was to develop a Shared Anti-Fraud Service for Hertfordshire which would provide a robust and resilient fraud prevention, detection and investigation service to partners, in non-welfare benefit and corporate fraud. Creation of the new service would enable Section 151 Officers and senior leaders to continue to meet their duties in relation to safeguarding of public funds, and minimising the loss to fraud, so that Councils could spend the maximum possible on delivering local services, and providing a return for the investment made. As well as NHDC, it was noted that Hertfordshire County Council, Broxbourne Borough Council, East Hertfordshire District Council, Hertsmere Borough Council and Stevenage Borough Council had agreed to participate in the new service. Cabinet was advised that a number of options were explored for delivery of the proposed new service: Option 1 - Services delivered locally; Option 2 - Informal collaboration - informal partnership working; and Option 3 - Partnership approach - shared service model. Option 3 was selected as the preferred approach, the rationale for which was set out in the final pages of Appendix 1 to the report. In response to a question, it was confirmed that NHDC Member oversight of the new Shared Anti-Fraud Service would be carried out by the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee. RESOLVED: (1) That (a) the proposal that North Hertfordshire District Council becomes a partner in the Shared Anti-Fraud Service for non-welfare benefit and corporate fraud between the Councils, as identified in Paragraph 1.1 of the report, be approved; (b) the Strategic Director, Finance, Policy and Governance be authorised to make the detailed arrangements to establish the Shared Anti-Fraud Service; (2) That it be noted that the key recommendations of the Business Case are: - The set-up of a partnership approach to deliver a Shared Anti-Fraud Service, using common systems and standardised processes as far as possible; - The establishment of the Shared Anti-Fraud Service as a separately distinguished team of counter fraud experts within the partnership framework currently in place for the Shared Internal Audit Service (SIAS); - That the Shared Anti-Fraud Service be created on the basis of a team which will deliver sufficient capacity to work at upper quartile performance levels, specialise and build new service offerings; and (3) That it be noted that it was anticipated that the new service will go live on 2 March 2015, and be in place in its original form in terms of staffing structure and numbers for a period of five years, subject to review during this period. REASON FOR DECISION: To enable work to continue on the setting up of a Shared Anti-Fraud service in advance of the April 2015 roll out of SFIS; to enable Hertfordshire Authorities to tackle in a more structured way the many forms of fraud faced by Local Authorities; and to ensure that there is a strong message to any potential fraudsters that fraud will not be tolerated and that there will remain adequate and professional capacity to investigate fraudulent activity. |
Agreed | ||
| 88 |
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE LEISURE CENTRE (NHLC) Report Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Leisure presented a report of the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services in respect of proposed improvements to North Hertfordshire Leisure Centre (NHLC). The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - B3 Architects proposed Extension and alterations to North Herts Leisure Centre. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure explained that the proposal was in two parts, the first of which concerned the refurbishment of North Hertfordshire Leisure Centre in order to prolong its life span as a cost effective alternative to allowing the facility to deteriorate and ultimately replacing it with a new building; and secondly, the development of a learner pool and other facilities to improve the revenue generating potential of the Centre and benefiting NHDC by an increase in the payments guaranteed from the current leisure management contractor, Stevenage Leisure Limited. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure stated that the Leisure Centre had a ‘leisure' pool which, whilst being capable of being used for competitions, was not primarily designed for this purpose. The assessment of need, set out in the NHDC Sports Facility Strategy, would not require the development of additional water space in North Hertfordshire using standard methodology, but there was a clear economic reason why this would be beneficial, primarily a very high demand for swimming lessons and the enhancement of the service in the long term. She also stressed that the reason there was some urgency in developing this scheme was to ensure that NHDC's financial risk was minimised. By seeking to implement the scheme as part of an extended contractual arrangement with Stevenage Leisure Limited, the Council would receive a guaranteed payment regardless of the actual performance of the proposed teaching pool. If work was complete by April 2016 this would allow 8 years additional payments to NHDC by the contractor. In terms of refurbishment works, the Portfolio Holder for Leisure advised that, as set out in the appendix to the report, consideration had been given to replacing major items of plant etc where it could be reasonably forecast that such a replacement was warranted. As was the case with North Hertfordshire Leisure Centre and the operated by NHDC, it was not practical to pre-plan a replacement programme for all plant and machinery and so there would be reliance instead on a limited replacement programme and on a reactive basis to replacing items whose lifespan was not predictable. Nevertheless, taking together with the other improvements being proposed, the refurbishment works would extend the previously estimated lifespan of the building and should make it viable for at least the next 25 years. These improvements would cost in the region of £1.7m,compared with an estimated cost for the demolition and replacement of North Hertfordshire Leisure Centre with a similar facility of approximately £15-20m. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure referred to an addendum to the report, which had been tabled at the meeting. This stated that the largest issue was the completion of the proposals by April 2016. Although Hitchin Swim Centre was completed in a year, there were further complications with the North Hertfordshire Leisure Centre that was likely to extend the current proposed completion from April 2016 to as late as September/October 2016 - this included formal landlord's consent, the need to procure the design team and, due to the size and nature of this project, the possibility of tendering via the OJEU " Official Journal of the European Union". These additional processes and time delay could reduce the amount of payments the Council received from the extension to contract, equivalent to a loss of revenue from the contractor of £18,000 per month (£216,000 per annum). Consequently, the Portfolio Holder now proposed the following revised recommendations: (1) "That the proposals relating to North Hertfordshire Leisure Centre, as set out in Resolutions (2) to (6) below, be agreed; (2) That the proposed improvements to the existing services and facilities, as stated in Paragraph 10.1 of the report, be agreed, subject to the agreement of Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation and the Council's 2015/16 Capital budgets; (3) That the extension to the Leisure Management contract for a further five years (2019 to 2014) be approved in principle, as per the terms outlined in the report, which will be more specifically determined following detailed consideration of Stevenage Leisure Limited's submission of a revised tender by the Strategic Director of Customer Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Leisure; (4) That, on completion of the works (more particularly on the opening of the teaching pool for lessons, provided that the café and dance studio works are progressing reasonably), Stevenage Leisure Limited shall pay NHDC an additional £18,000 per month for the entire length of the contract; (5) That the changes to the swimming lesson charges and the leisure pool programme, as discussed in Paragraph 7.8 of the report, be supported, to ensure there is an opportunity to further improve the financial performance of the Letchworth Leisure Management contract; and (6) That the next stage of procuring of the design team be progressed, on the basis that this will have no additional cost but will save valuable time in the event that the Capital Programme and contract extension is approved." Cabinet supported the above recommendations, subject to the addition of the words "in principle" to Recommendation (2), regarding the proposed improvements to the existing services and facilities. RESOLVED: (1) That the proposals relating to North Hertfordshire Leisure Centre, as set out in Resolutions (2) to (6) below, be agreed; (2) That the proposed improvements to the existing services and facilities, as stated in Paragraph 10.1 of the report, be agreed in principle, subject to the agreement of Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation and the Council's 2015/16 Capital budgets; (3) That the extension to the Leisure Management contract for a further five years (2019 to 2014) be approved in principle, as per the terms outlined in the report, which will be more specifically determined following detailed consideration of Stevenage Leisure Limited's submission of a revised tender by the Strategic Director of Customer Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Leisure; (4) That, on completion of the works (more particularly on the opening of the teaching pool for lessons, provided that the café and dance studio works are progressing reasonably), Stevenage Leisure Limited shall pay NHDC an additional £18,000 per month for the entire length of the contract; (5) That the changes to the swimming lesson charges and the leisure pool programme, as discussed in Paragraph 7.8 of the report, be supported, to ensure there is an opportunity to further improve the financial performance of the Letchworth Leisure Management contract; and (6) That the next stage of procuring of the design team be progressed, on the basis that this will have no additional cost but will save valuable time in the event that the Capital Programme and contract extension is approved. REASON FOR DECISION: To obtain approval and support in principle to the improvements and capital investment into the North Herts Leisure Centre to ensure long term financial sustainability and to make improvements to meet current and future needs of our customers and communities. |
Agreed | ||
| 89 |
POSSIBLE JOINT WORKING ON WASTE AND STREET CLEANSING CONTRACT WITH EAST HERTFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL (EHDC) Report and appendices The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment presented a report of the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services in respect of possible joint working on the Waste and Street Cleansing Contract with East Hertfordshire District Council (EHDC). The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Indicative Timetable; Appendix B - Scoping Document for Joint Procurement of Waste and Street Cleansing; and Appendix C - Map of EHDC and NHDC, showing major settlements and road/rail networks. The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment advised that waste collection and street cleansing services represented a significant proportion of a District Council's expenditure. NHDC and EHDC, for example, together spent in the region of £10m per annum on these services. Both authorities would need to commence their procurement process to develop new contracts in the next 18 months and this presented an immediate opportunity to consider whether to proceed separately or in partnership. In order to establish whether there was a sound Business Case, the Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment commented that the following steps were proposed: - A mandate from both authorities to undertake the project to actively consider the scope and opportunities for a joint service; - Setting up of governance arrangements for managing a joint project. This would include a Project Board made up of Members and Senior Officers to oversee the development of the Business Case, consider policy issues and report back to their respective Councils. A draft project timeline was shown in Appendix A to the report; and - Development of a Business Case to quantify the benefits, costs, savings and risks to establish whether a joint authority service was justified. This would need to include an assessment of the options for integration, with it being likely that higher levels of integration would provide greater opportunities for efficiency. Indicative areas for savings were set out in the report. Cabinet noted that officers had carried out an initial comparative assessment of the respective waste services policies and delivery systems of the two authorities, as shown in Appendix B to the report. This showed that there was a strong alignment between approaches to service provision and many similarities from a policy perspective. The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment explained that a key challenge was the different contract end dates. While it was theoretically possible to let a contract where one partner joined at a later date, this could present a risk of an overly complex contract which resulted in higher tendered prices. It was therefore recommended that contract start dates were aligned and that this was best achieved by NHDC seeking a contract extension of just over 9 months (1 August 2017 to 8 May 2018). This also had the advantage of a longer time period to develop a joint contract specification and determine how the back office function would be performed. The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment advised that NHDC would require a contract extension to allow sufficient time to develop and agree a Business Case with EHDC. As NHDC's existing contract had already been extended to the full amount under the original OJEU notice, any further extension needed to be advertised. NHDC would therefore need to publish a Voluntary Ex-Ante Transparency (VEAT) notice, which was a means of advertising the intention to let a contract without opening it up to formal competition. The VEAT notice would need to include justification for the short extension proposed, which would be based upon the ability to further explore the joint procurement opportunity, and that the extension length and value were low value and not substantial when compared to the original contract. The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment proposed that a joint Project Board be set up consisting of senior officers and Members to oversee the project and give guidance to officers on service policy issues during the development of the detailed Business Case. RESOLVED: (1) That an outline Business Case be produced with EHDC for Waste and Street Cleansing Contracts that will provide: - Potential additional savings in joint contracts; - Potential savings in client overheads; - Governance and management proposals; - Project and change management proposals; and - Jointly agreed policies that will inform the development of a joint Specification; (2) That the current Waste and Street Cleansing contract be extended to 8 May 2018, subject to advertising in OJEU using a VEAT notice and no valid legal or procurement challenges being received; (3) That an outline Business Case be reported back to Cabinet in Spring 2015, with the objective of a decision being made whether to approve the joint procuring of these services and specifically on how this joint project will be controlled and managed and the governance arrangements once the joint contract has been awarded; and (4) That the use of the existing budget from the Alternative Financial Model (AFM) to resource the delivery of the outline Business Case and Specification be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To consider different ways of working to improve efficiencies. |
Agreed | ||
| 90 |
CORPORATE BUSINESS PLANNING - DRAFT BUDGET 2015/16 Report Addendum Report Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Correct Page 3 of Appendix 6 Appendix 7A Appendix 7B Appendix 7C Appendix 7D Appendix 8 Appendix 9 The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented the report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of Corporate Business Planning - the Draft Budget for 2015/16. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - General Fund estimates (Council Tax freeze); Appendix 2 - General Fund estimates (1.9% Council Tax increase); Appendix 3 - Expenditure reduction proposals; Appendix 4 - Income generation proposals; Appendix 5 - Revenue investment proposals; Appendix 6 - Capital investment proposals; Appendices 7a to 7d - Notes of November 2014 Member Budget Workshops; Appendix 8 - Medium Term Financial Strategy extract - budget assumptions; and Appendix 9 - Description of earmarked reserves. The Vice-Chairman of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee presented a referral from that Committee, made at its meeting held on 11 December 2014, in respect of Corporate Business Planning - Draft Budget 2015/16 (Minute 47 refers). Cabinet considered the following recommendation from the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee: "(1) That Cabinet be requested to consider the comments made by this Committee concerning Efficiency E6 - Replace Area Committees at with Informal Area Forums where it was clear at Members Workshops that debate was sought on the NHDC policy concerning Area Committees and that there was no support by Members for this efficiency saving as it was un - democratic, it should be a policy decision and not part of the budget setting process; (2) That Cabinet be requested to consider the removal of Efficiency Saving E6 from the budget proposals for 2015-2016 as this proposal should be subject to a policy decision and that excess savings had been made to date for 2015-2016 that would accommodate the removal of this item; (3) That Cabinet be requested to consider the concerns of the Committee concerning the lack of budget forecasts for IT investment beyond 2015-2016 and that IT investment forecasts should be considered for at least three more years to 2018-2019; and (4) That Cabinet be requested to ensure that there was a good and detailed IT Strategy at NHDC." The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT replied that Recommendations (1) and (2) of the Committee would be dealt with when Cabinet considered the list of efficiency and investment proposals. In relation to recommendations (3) and (4) of the Committee, the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance commented that the Council operated a rolling programme of investment in IT equipment and that the Council had an IT Strategy in place, which could be accessed via the NHDC website. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that the report outlined the draft budget proposals based on information available to date. He stressed that these were provisional figures and that further work remained to be done to refine the estimates before the final budget recommendation in January/February 2015. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT invited Cabinet to consider each of the Efficiency, Income Generation, Revenue Investment Proposals and Capital Investment Proposals set out in Appendices 3 to 6 of the report. The following amendments were made: - Efficiency Proposal E5 - Cease grant funding to the Letchworth Arts Centre - £9,000 - clarification required on whether 50% of this saving should be returned to the Letchworth Committee budgets, and whether funding for the Arts Centre had been top sliced in the past; - The deletion of Efficiency Proposal E6 - Replace Area Committees with informal Area Forums - £50,000; - The deletion of Efficiency Proposal E7 - Reduce operation hours for Broadway fountain by 50% - £7,000; - The deletion of Efficiency Proposal E8 - The removal of dog bins in the District - £40,000; and - Efficiency proposal (income increase) I4 - Increase in parking tariffs £33,000 - inclusion in the "Anticipated Impact" column of a statement that any future increases would be subject to consultation with Area Committees. The Cabinet supported the Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT's desire that a 1.9% increase should be recommended as an appropriate level of Council Tax for 2015/16. RESOLVED: (1) That it be noted that the provisional finance settlement for 2015/16 is expected on 17 December 2014; (2) That the estimated position on the Collection Fund and the impact of the general fund for 2015/16, as set out at Paragraph 9.1.7 of the report, be noted; (3) That the position relating to the Council's General Fund balance be noted, and that due to the risks identified in Paragraph 9.2.3 of the report, a minimum balance of £1.673million is recommended; (4) That the position of the Council's other reserves and provisions, as identified in section 9.3 of the report, be noted; (5) That the inclusion of the efficiencies and investment Proposals, as set out at Appendices 3 to 5 to the report, in the budget estimates for 2015/16, be noted, subject to the following amendments: - Efficiency Proposal E5 - Cease grant funding to the Letchworth Arts Centre - £9,000 - clarification required on whether 50% of this saving should be returned to the Letchworth Committee budgets, and whether funding for the Arts Centre had been top sliced in the past; - The deletion of Efficiency Proposal E6 - Replace Area Committees with informal Area Forums - £50,000; - The deletion of Efficiency Proposal E7 - Reduce operation hours for Broadway fountain by 50% - £7,000; - The deletion of Efficiency Proposal E8 - The removal of dog bins in the District - £40,000; and - Efficiency proposal (income increase) I4 - Increase in parking tariffs £33,000 - inclusion in the "Anticipated Impact" column of a statement that any future increases would be subject to consultation with Area Committees; (6) That, subject to the removal of the first sentence in the "Anticipated Impact" column relating to Capital Investment Proposal C21 - Water Splash facility in Bancroft Recreation Ground, Hitchin, the intended inclusion of the capital investment proposals, as set out at Appendix 6 in the Capital Programme, and the subsequent implications on the general fund budget estimates, be noted; (7) That the report be referred to all Members of the Council, via the Members' Information Service (MIS) for comment; (8) That the comments on the proposals from the November 2014 Member Budget Workshops, as set out in Appendices 7a to 7d to the report, be noted; (9) That it be noted that the budget estimates, and hence the provisional Council Tax requirement, may be subject to change before the Cabinet meeting to consider the Final Budget for 2015/16 on 27 January 2015; and (10) That a 1.9% increase be recommended as an appropriate level of Council Tax for 2015/16. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that all relevant factors are taken into consideration when arriving at the proposed Council Tax precept for 2015/16; and to ensure that the Cabinet recommends a balanced budget to Council on 12 February 2015. |
Agreed | ||
| 91 |
LETCHWORTH MUSEUM, TOWN LODGE AND ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY Report The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of Letchworth Museum, Town Lodge and Associated Properties, Letchworth Garden City. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that NHDC owned the long lease of its main offices in Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City. Funding was approved by Full Council on 18 July 2013 for refurbishment of the building. The works were planned to take place during part of 2016. Investigations had confirmed the need to replace the curtain walling (including the windows) and this was included in the approved budget. The existing curtain walling had not been replaced since it was installed when the offices were constructed in the 1970s. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that the refurbishment works would have a negative impact on the day to day operation of the District Council's offices, including access by the public and meetings provision. Consultants had been employed to look at the various options for providing office space during the refurbishment, and had identified that the most economical solution was to relocate all the staff out of the District Council Office into Town Lodge and Letchworth Museum. Letchworth Museum was due to become vacant in 2015 when the Museum Service relocated to the new District Museum currently under construction at Hitchin Town Hall. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT explained that it was proposed to explore options for Town Lodge and some of the other adjacent buildings once a date had been finalised for relocating the decanted staff from Town Lodge and the Museum back into the District Council Offices. This review was currently estimated to be able to start in late 2016 or early 2017. A report would then be brought to Cabinet about the District Council's property interests at Gernon Road and Broadway, Letchworth Garden City. RESOLVED: (1) That the temporary arrangements for use of Town Lodge and Letchworth Museum for decanting office space, as part of the arrangements for alternative office accommodation during the refurbishment of the District Council Office in Gernon Road, Letchworth, be approved; and (2) That, at a later date, an options appraisal report be brought to Cabinet to review alternatives for the District Council's property interests at Gernon Road and Broadway, including Town Lodge, the print and store buildings and Letchworth Museum. REASON FOR DECISION: To provide temporary Council offices during the 2016 refurbishment of the District Council offices; and to indicate to Cabinet that an assessment of long term options for this site will be brought forward subsequently. |
Agreed | ||
| 92 |
0.33 HECTARE SITE, MEADOW WAY, THERFIELD Report Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of the proposed disposal of a 0.33 Hectare site in Meadow Way, Therfield. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Location Plan (illustrative only). In the absence of the Chairman of the Royston and District Committee, Councillor Tony Hunter presented the following referral from that Committee, made at its meeting held on 10 December 2014, in respect of a 0.33 Hectare Site in Meadow Way, Therfield (Minute 42 refers): "(1) That the proposal to declare the land at Meadow Way, Therfield surplus to requirements by North Hertfordshire District Council be agreed; and (2) That the Howard Cottage Housing Association using the aforementioned land for the development of affordable housing be agreed. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that Howard Cottage Housing Association's proposals were for 2 bungalows and 6 houses and reflecting the tenure mix of 5 affordable rent and 3 shared ownership properties. A disposal of the land at discounted value would enable Howard Cottage Housing Association to deliver an affordable housing scheme to meet the identified local affordable housing need. RESOLVED: That the report be noted, and a decision be deferred in order to consider the issues raised within the Part 2 exempt report included later in the agenda (see Minute 95 below). REASON FOR DECISION: To facilitate the provision of new affordable social housing through the use of Council-owned land that might otherwise remain of limited benefit to the community. |
Agreed | ||
| 93 |
THOMAS BELLAMY HOUSE AND HITCHIN MUSEUM, HITCHIN Report The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, Hitchin. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT referred to a revised Recommendation 2.3, which had been tabled at the meeting, and which had been moved from the Part 2 report on Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, Hitchin, and which now stated: "2.3 That it be confirmed that Hitchin Museum has not yet been declared surplus, and that access to the building by third parties to carry out surveys and condition reports may only be offered after the Museum Service has vacated the building and after a further report on the preferred option has been presented back to Cabinet." The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that he would like to see community groups and the existing occupiers of Thomas Bellamy House operating in both buildings, once they became available. Details of which community groups would be based in which building would need to be decided by Cabinet. If necessary, and in order to progress matters, he would be prepared to call for a special Cabinet meeting for this purpose. However, a number of influencing factors, such as the completion of the new District Museum and Community facility project at Hitchin Town Hall, would dictate the timing of when the Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum buildings would become available. In response to members' questions, it was confirmed that NHDC owned the freehold to Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, and Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) owned the freehold of the Hitchin Library adjacent to the Museum. There was an outstanding issue regarding the associated car park, but this was the subject of ongoing negotiations with HCC, and still had to be resolved with the Land Registry. RESOLVED: (1) That the report be noted, and an in principle decision on which option to progress be deferred to in order to consider the issues raised within the Part 2 exempt report included later in the agenda (see Minute 96 below); (2) That, subject to the decision on the Part 2 report, it be noted that a further report will be presented to Cabinet in due course; and (3) That it be confirmed that Hitchin Museum has not yet been declared surplus, and that access to the building by third parties to carry out surveys and condition reports may only be offered after the Museum Service has vacated the building and after a further report on the preferred option has been presented back to Cabinet. REASON FOR DECISION: To carry out an options appraisal of Council property that will become vacant. |
Agreed | ||
| 94 |
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended). |
Agreed | ||
| PART II | ||||
| 95 |
0.33 HECTARE SITE, MEADOW WAY, THERFIELD Report [Note: Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillor David Levett declared that he had been nominated by the Council to serve on the Board of Howard Cottage Housing Association, but that he had not yet been appointed to the Board. He therefore remained present in the meeting for the debate and vote upon this item.] The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a Part 2 report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of the proposed disposal of a 0.33 Hectare site in Meadow Way, Therfield. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that the report contained the Valuation Office Agency's independent valuation of the land, based upon the Howard Cottage Housing Association's proposals for 2 bungalows and 6 houses and reflecting the tenure mix of 5 affordable rent and 3 shared ownership properties. RESOLVED: (1) That the land of approximately 0.33 hectares at Meadow Way, Therfield, as coloured green on the plan attached to the Part 1 report, in principle be declared surplus to the Council's requirements, and the sale of the land to Howard Cottage Housing Association for the provision of 8 affordable dwellings be agreed; and (2) That, subject to consideration of the responses to the notices that will be published in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks by the District Council's of its intentions to dispose of open space, authority be delegated to the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT, to agree the terms of disposal of the 0.33 hectares of land to Howard Cottage Housing Association for the provision of 8 affordable dwellings. REASON FOR DECISION: To facilitate the provision of new affordable social housing through the use of Council-owned land that might otherwise remain of limited benefit to the community. |
Agreed | ||
| 96 |
THOMAS BELLAMY HOUSE AND HITCHIN MUSEUM, HITCHIN Report Appendix A Appendix B1 Appendix B2 The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a Part 2 report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, Hitchin. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Spreadsheet showing estimated costings of options; and Appendix B - Legal Counsel's advice. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT referred to the financial details associated with Options A to F outlined in the report. Following debate, it was agreed that Option F should be the preferred option, and that a further report on this preferred option be presented to Cabinet in late summer/early autumn 2015. Cabinet further agreed that discussions should take place with the two existing occupiers of Thomas Bellamy House and all other parties interested in occupying/managing the two properties. RESOLVED: (1) That, having considering the contents of the previous Part 1 public report and the Part 2 report, Option F be agreed as the preferred option for the future of Thomas Bellamy House and Hitchin Museum, and that a further report on this preferred option be presented to Cabinet in late summer/early autumn 2015; and (2) That discussions take place with the two existing occupiers of Thomas Bellamy House and all other parties interested in occupying/managing the two properties. REASON FOR DECISION: To carry out an options appraisal of Council property that will become vacant. |
Agreed | ||