| 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: | Strategic Director of Finance, Policy & Governance, Strategic Director of Customer Services, Head of Finance, Performance & Asset Management, Head of Revenues, Benefits & IT, Head of Policy & Community Services, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, Contracts and Projects Manager, Services Manager - Waste & Recycling, Senior Estates Surveyor, Policy Officer, Acting Corporate Legal Manager, Acting Senior Lawyer, Democratic Services Manager and Committee & Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Councillors Cathryn Henry (Chairman of Overview & Scrutiny Committee). 9 Members of the Public. |
| Meeting attachment |
Agenda Front Pages |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 22 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. |
Noted | ||
| 23 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 16 June 2015 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 24 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no notification of other business. |
Noted | ||
| 25 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question; (2) The Chairman asked that, for the benefit of any members of the public present at the meeting, Officers announce their name and their designation to the meeting when invited to speak; and (3) The Chairman advised that, at the Council Meeting held on 16 July 2015, the Council's Constitution was updated, including procedures in relation to members of the public addressing committees. The new procedure allowed, if required, for a maximum of three questions of clarification (in total) to be asked to each speaker at the conclusion of their presentation. These questions must be put to the Chairman, who would decide whether or not the question was valid. The Chairman could decline questions that they considered to be irrelevant or if they had already been covered during the presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 26 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (i) Mr Brian Foreman (Arts Council for North Hertfordshire) re: North Hertfordshire Museum - Exhibitions Mr Foreman advised that the Arts Council for North Hertfordshire had serious concerns over the planned exhibition programme for the District Museum. The Arts Council had a responsibility to promote the arts throughout the District. Mr Foreman stated that, on the last organised visit to the Letchworth Museum prior to closure on 2 December 2014, a member of staff mentioned plans for national and touring exhibitions which rang alarm bells. It was soon after that the Cultural Services Manager, the NHDC representative, confirmed this with more specific information at the December 2014 meeting. Hitchin Art Club, in particular, had experienced great difficulty in finding suitable alternative space for the annual exhibition since the closure of Hitchin Museum. They were expecting to be able to hire the Exhibition Gallery in the new District Museum. As the result of a letter requesting the Arts Council's help from the President of Hitchin Art Club, Mr Foreman arranged some meetings in Baldock for the four District Arts Clubs/Societies, namely Hinxworth, Hitchin, Letchworth and Royston, and local artists. Everyone who attended felt angry about what appeared to be an exclusion of local artists' work in the new exhibition gallery. Mr Foreman wrote a number of letters, including ones to the NHDC Strategic Director of Customer Services and NHDC Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs. They considered that the matter should go to the Arts, Museums and Heritage Forum, but this was not a decision making body. The President of Hitchin Art Club had already tried this and, whilst a future meeting was proposed to discuss the matter, the meeting had not taken place since the last Forum meeting on 22 June 2014, nor had been arranged. Mr Foreman explained that the Arts Council Constitution requires liaison with the appropriate Council committee, but in this case it was difficult because there was no such committee. Whilst the Arts Council was very supportive of national and touring exhibitions there needed to be a balance struck so that the work of local people could be included in the programme from November 2016. The former users of the local museums had not been written to, no procedure was in place for applications, and there was no information about hire fee charges and commission fees. With the local museums, organisers or individuals would apply to the museum, together with proposed dates. It appeared that local initiatives had been replaced with a centralised managed programme. Mr Foreman commented that, unless museum staff were willing to accept bookings from the locality, there would not be any NHDC dedicated exhibition space anywhere in the District available for use by groups or individuals. He considered that empty shops and places where other activities took place in the same room were not satisfactory. Multi-purpose venues usually meant very short exhibitions, as for Hinxworth and Royston, where there were also expensive hire charges. Mr Foreman was of the view that a revenue stream would be lost unless District exhibitions were included, as there appeared to be no plans to charge for national and touring exhibitions, which could be costly to mount. This did not imply that the Arts Council would like to see charges introduced. To hire the Letchworth Arts Centre, Hitchin Art Club was charged £350 for their two week exhibition in 2014, plus commission on paintings sold. Mr Foreman stated that the Arts Council fully understood that to encourage more visitors national and touring exhibitions may be of value (if not in an income sense), especially in the first year of opening. Local arts clubs/societies may be denied dedicated space when the Letchworth Arts Centre was refurbished for national and touring exhibitions almost exclusively. There would be a certain amount of competition, however, well managed, from November 2015. The actual quality of work on local exhibitions included some of the highest standard. Mr Foreman had purchased eight paintings, now on his house walls, from NHDC local museum exhibitions. Mr Foreman concluded by thanking NHDC for supporting a museum culture in providing what should be a magnificent new District Museum at a time of cutbacks, and when local authorities did not have to statutorily provide museum facilities. The Chairman thanked Mr Foreman for his presentation, and asked if Members had any questions of clarification. A Member asked if the £350 fee quoted for hire of the Letchworth Arts Centre was comparable with other local galleries. Mr Foreman replied that, whilst no or low hire charges would obviously be preferred, he was not implying that the £350 charge was extravagant, and indeed the event had been successful. (ii) Mr Andrew Wearmouth (local resident) re: Item 15 - Land at Radburn Way/Baldock Road, Letchworth Garden City Mr Wearmouth advised that he had asked to address cabinet because, in his view, the officer report did not tell the full story of the buffer strip, nor refer to the information he had supplied to officers about it on numerous occasions. He was of the further view that the report contained serious factual errors. Mr Wearmouth stated that the Council was only the owner of this land because of its promise never to develop it. That promise was embodied in the Minister's letter of consent to the original Compulsory Purchase Order for the Jackmans Estate, and the Council gave up the land in perpetuity in order to safeguard the greater prize of 1,000 acres of the Jackmans Estate. Mr Wearmouth commented that, in the knowledge that they could never develop the buffer strip, the Council built the four storey block of flats on Radburn Way, just 10 metres from the boundary. Some 65 houses and flats backed on to the land and enjoyed the amenity it provided, but its maintenance had never cost the Council anything, because it had been left to individuals to look after it over the years. Sadly, the area behind Mr Wearmouth's own house was now somewhat neglected, but this was because his neighbour, who tenanted it for many years, had to give up the tenancy. Officers wrote to Mr Wearmouth inviting him to take it on, but when he confirmed he would, he never heard anything more. He was of the view, therefore, that the land's current sad state was down to the Council's own inaction. Mr Wearmouth advised that the Council's draft local Plan contained a policy that there should be a buffer strip left between old and new developments. He felt that it could not be the intention that such areas should be left as a green lung for residents, only for the Council to seek to develop it later. Indeed, he felt it would be wrong for the Council to suggest a policy only to seek exemption for its own land. He added that some years ago the Council had accepted the position and had reaffirmed that the land should not be developed in the foreseeable future. For Mr Wearmouth, and many of the other residents backing on to the land, they were still there, and it was still the foreseeable future. He commented that Letchworth was supposed to be a Garden City - the buffer strip was a wonderful amenity for many people, and home to a diverse range of wildlife, both birds and animals. Mr Wearmouth stated that the parcel of land was one of those identified in the draft Local Plan which went out for consultation earlier in 2015. The results of that consultation were as yet unknown, but the Council had been at great pains to encourage the public to give their views, and to reassure the public that their submissions matter and would be taken seriously. Submissions had been made regarding this buffer strip, including from Oliver Heald MP, but a report such as the one now before Cabinet, brought to Members while the consultation process had not been completed, suggested a complete disregard for any public opinion, and in his view made a mockery of the entire consultation process of the Local Plan. Mr Wearmouth concluded by asking the Council to not break its promise to the residents by selling this land for development. Instead, he asked that the Council accepted the alternative option contained in Paragraph 4.1 of the report, to retain the land as a buffer strip for the future. The Chairman thanked Mr Wearmouth for his presentation, and asked if Members had any questions of clarification. A Member asked when it was that the Council had reaffirmed its promise that the land should not be developed in the foreseeable future. Mr Wearmouth replied that it was about 10 years ago. (iii) Mr Colin Dunham (local resident) re: Item 7 - Recording of Council Meetings Mr Dunham advised that, some months ago, he had noticed a councillor recording the proceedings of a meeting in the NHDC Council Chamber. He was subsequently informed that members of the public and the press now had a right to record Council and committee meetings. He had written to the Council on numerous occasions asking when and how the public would be advised about their rights to record such proceedings, but had not received a satisfactory reply to his enquiry. The Chairman thanked Mr Dunham for his presentation, and it was agreed that the issue of the publicity to be given to the new recording arrangements would be discussed under Agenda Item 7 (see Minute 29 below). |
Noted | ||
| 27 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: 21 JULY 2015 - CORPORATE PLAN 2016-2021 Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 9 (see Minute 31 below). |
Noted | ||
| 28 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: 21 JULY 2015 - THE PUBLIC SERVICES (SOCIAL VALUE) ACT 2012 - IMPLEMENTATION Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 15 (see Minute 35 below). |
Noted | ||
| 29 |
RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS Report Appendix A - Draft Protocol Appendix B - Draft Notice Appendix C - Extract from DCLG Guidance The Cabinet Chairman presented a report of the Acting Corporate Legal Manager in respect of the recording of Council Meetings. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Draft Protocol; Appendix B - Draft Notice: and Appendix C - Extract from DCLG Guidance "Open and accountable local government: A guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government"; August 2014. The Cabinet Chairman summarised the Government guidance and Regulations issued in relation to the recording of Local Authority meetings over the past two years, as set out in Section 7 of the report. Accordingly, in order to provide consistency of approach and ensure compliance with the legislation, a draft Protocol had been drawn up setting out how the Council would deal with requests to record Council and committee meetings. During consultation on the proposed Protocol, officers were asked to investigate the cost of the Council broadcast meetings on its website; and the cost of recording meetings so that the Council would have its own record of the proceedings. The Cabinet Chairman outlined the three different options set out in Paragraph 8.8 of the report, namely Audio only (£50,000); Audio and Visual for showing presentations, documents etc (£60,000); and Audio and Visual including filming of proceedings (£64,000). The report also provided a further option (with costs) of web streaming, and the possibility of obtaining two Portable Recording Devices (at £1,500 each) for use in other committee rooms or in other venues around the District. The Cabinet Chairman recommended the Audio and Visual including filming of proceedings (£64,000) option, together with the purchase of the two Portable recording devices (total cost £3,000). The Acting Corporate Legal Manager confirmed that Democratic Services Team had been involved in the report and drawing up the draft Protocol. In terms of publicity in respect of the proposed arrangements, the Acting Corporate Legal Manager advised that he would consult the Communications Team on this matter, but that as well as an item on the Council's website, he would expect that an article would be included in the next edition of the Council's "Outlook" magazine. The Cabinet supported the Chairman's recommendation, which Members considered should apply to all meetings which a member of the public could record. It was felt that neither web streaming of meetings nor the recording of Part 2 business should be introduced at the present time, although these could be "add ons" to the system in the future, if desired. The Acting Corporate Legal Manager was further requested to amend the proposed Notice on Recording of Meetings to be placed on the entrance door to the room in which each Council meeting was held, to stress the fact that the use of flash photography could also be detrimental to attendees with medical conditions exacerbated by strobes/flashing lights. RESOLVED: (1) That the Protocol for the Recording of Council Meetings, as set out at Appendix A to the report, be adopted and placed on the Council's website; (2) That Option 3 set out in Paragraph 8.8 of the report - Audio and Visual, including filming of proceedings, together with the purchase of 2 Portable Recording Devices for committee meetings held in rooms other than the Council Chamber or off-site, be approved as the level of service required for the recording of Council meetings; (3) That, a sum of £64,000 be included in the 2015/16 Capital Budget to progress Option 3 and £3,000 in the 2015/16 Revenue Budget for the 2 Portable Recording Devices; and (4) That the Monitoring Officer be requested to report to Full Council with any necessary consequential amendments to the Council Procedure Rules following the adoption of this Protocol. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Council has a consistent approach and complies with its legal requirements. The Acting Corporate Legal Manager left the meeting at this point, and was not present for the remainder of the business discussed. |
Agreed | ||
| 30 |
STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS Report The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise presented a report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise informing Members of the current position regarding strategic planning matters, with particular reference to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Update; Stevenage Local Plan consultation; and North Hertfordshire Local Plan. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise updated Cabinet on the following matters: - The update to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), jointly commissioned by North Hertfordshire District Council and Stevenage Borough Council and undertaken by Opinion Research Services, had concluded that the objectively assessed need for housing attributable to North Hertfordshire was 14,400 dwellings over the period 2011-2031 (an increase of 2,300 on previous figures). Most of the increase was due not to demographic changes, but to the new requirement to include an uplift for market signals. The figure of 14,400 homes would need to be considered in the preparation of the Local Plan. It did not automatically follow that it would be the housing target for the plan, as it would need to be tested against the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), notably through the sustainability appraisal process. It was also important to note that this figure of 14,400 was solely for needs attributable to the administrative area of North Hertfordshire under the NPPF's methodology. It made no allowance for needs arising from the other housing market areas affecting North Hertfordshire; - Following the revised Strategic Housing Market Assessment referred to above, Stevenage Borough Council was conducting a single issue consultation purely on housing numbers for the borough. Stevenage's figures from the SHMA update suggested that it needed to accommodate 7,300 dwellings rather than the 5,300 they were previously basing their draft plan upon. Stevenage Borough Council believed that it would possible to accommodate 7,300 homes within their administrative boundaries, but that this would necessitate releasing some of the last remaining pieces of green belt land within the borough. The current consultation presented two choices: A. Keep to the figure previously being considered of 5,300 dwellings so as not to have to amend green belt boundaries, but formally ask neighbouring authorities to take the 2,000 shortfall on their objectively assessed need; or B. Amend the green belt to allow for up to 7,600 dwellings within the borough and thereby meet its own needs. (This is said to be the Borough Council's preferred option.) The consultation closed on 27 July 2015. A response in support of Option B would be prepared and agreed under the Executive Member's delegated powers. - On 10 July 2015, the Treasury published a ‘productivity plan' called "Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation". This covered a variety of subjects, and included proposals for a number of reforms to the planning system. In particular, it proposed: - introducing a ‘zonal system' to automatically grant permission for housing on suitable brownfield sites; - taking tougher action to ensure local plans were put in place, including intervening to arrange for local plans to be written where local authorities were failing to write them quickly enough; - revisions to compulsory purchase procedures; - planning powers for the elected mayors of London and Manchester; and - extending the right to buy to housing association tenants. The detail of how these reforms were intended to work and how they would be brought in was awaited. On the arrangements for intervening in local plans, the Government had stated that it would confirm a set deadline by which time they expected local authorities to have put local plans in place within the next month. It would also publish league tables of local authorities' plan-making progress. - The representations made to the North Hertfordshire Local Plan should be available shortly. They would be placed on the Council's website and information on how to access them would be published in the Members' Information Service. The Principal Strategic Planning Officer confirmed that it had been indicated that the Government's deadline for the publication of all Local Plans would be by no later than the early part of 2017. RESOLVED: That the report on Strategic Planning Matters be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Cabinet is kept informed of developments on strategic planning matters. |
Noted | ||
| 31 |
CORPORATE PLAN 2016-2021 Report Appendix A - Corporate Plan 2016-2021 The Executive Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues presented a report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of a proposed Corporate Plan for 2016-2021. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Corporate Plan 2016-2021. The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee presented the following referral from that Committee, made at its meeting held on 21 July 2015, in respect of the Corporate Plan 2016-2021 (Minute 34 refers): "(1) That due to the various redrafts of the document affecting the flow of the document, consideration be given to rewriting parts of the Corporate Plan 2016-2021 to aid clarity; and (2) That consideration be given to whether the document is forward looking enough due to the inclusion of projects that have already been started." The Executive Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues stated that, in order to aid clarity, he had no problem with moving the bullet points in each section from the beginning to the bottom of each Objective. However, he felt that mention of projects which had already started should remain in the document, as many of these were not scheduled to be completed until after the Plan came into operation. The list of projects was not considered to be exhaustive, but rather an indication of the types of projects pertinent to each Objective. The Executive Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues advised that the Council's budget and its objectives were inextricably linked. There was no point in having a key project that could not be funded and no point in spending limited resources if they were not achieving the objectives that had been set. The Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), which informed the Council's budgetary position, was also to be considered at this Cabinet meeting to ensure policy and budget, especially at times of increasing financial constraint, were aligned (see Minute 32 below). The Executive Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues stated that he wished to strengthen the document in relation to rural communities. He therefore proposed that the following paragraph be added to the narrative under Objective 1: Attractive and Thriving: "We are aware of the threat that the changing demographics present to our rural communities. We will work with them to ensure appropriate development will allow them to remain attractive and thriving." Cabinet supported this addition, but asked the Executive Member to not limit support for rural communities to just Objective 1, and to look at reflecting this support throughout the document as a whole. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the Corporate Plan 2016-2021, as attached at Appendix A to the report, and as amended, be adopted. REASON FOR DECISION: To put in place a suitable high level strategic policy document to inform the Council's Corporate Business Planning process. |
Agreed | ||
| 32 |
MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2016-2021 Report Appendix A - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016-2021 Annex A to Appendix A - Fees and Charges Policy Annex B to Appendix A - Reserves Policy Appendix 1 to Appendix A - General Fund Summary 1 Appendix 2 to Appendix A - General Fund Summary 2 Appendix 3 to Appendix A - General Fund Summary 3 The Executive Member for Finance and IT presented a report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2016-2021. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016-2021 and General Fund Estimates 2015-2021. The Executive Member for Finance and IT advised that Financial modelling undertaken for the MTFS currently projected that the overall budget gap for the period 2016/17 to 2020/21 would be £2.6 million, assuming no council tax increase. The Executive Member for Finance and IT commented that the contents of the Strategy was the Council's response to the significant financial and service challenges that it faced and the need to plan ahead for the future with far fewer resources. However, it was not simply about saving money, it was also about all the things the Council needed to do to make it financially and organisationally stable so that it could continue to deliver its Corporate Objectives and thrive as a resilient council. Having reduced its size and capacity over a number of years in response to reductions in resource levels, the Council's ability to continue to make efficiencies without impacting on services, or affecting its performance, was now extremely limited. However, the need to address the ongoing and widening gap and maintain a sustainable financial position was unavoidable. A solution was needed that would address the financial reality, but would continue to protect residents and the approach would be to increase efficiencies and income generation, underpinned by service transformation activities. The Executive Member for Finance and IT explained that a number of changes to the MTFS, as detailed in Paragraph 8.7 of the report, had been implemented in recent years to further improve the Council's financial management strategy. This year, the MTFS made further explicit proposals to continue advancing the following themes from previous years: o That discretionary fees and charges were increased by CPI plus 2%; o The Council would set the level of Council Tax increase year on year at no more than 0.1% below the Referendum threshold imposed by Government. If no Referendum threshold was imposed, the Council would ordinarily set the level of Council Tax increase year on year at no more than 2%; o Introduction of specific policy papers for Reserves and Fees and Charges; o Introduction of a specific Asset Management section; o That, as part of the annual budgetary process, Full Council may approve that unallocated Area Committee budgets could be carried forward from one year to the next and not be subject to the normal rules for carry forward budgets; and o The potential to utilise social media for budget consultation and/or an externally facilitated participatory budget exercise. The Executive Member for Finance and IT advised that, at this stage, a figure of 0% Council Tax increase had been used in the estimates and it had been assumed that a Council Tax freeze grant would apply. A 1.9% increase in Council Tax (Government confirmed the threshold for a referendum remained at 2% for 2015/16 and this had also been used as an assumption for later years) would generate approximately £190,000 and would amount to an increase of around 8 pence per week for a Band D property. The Executive Member for Finance and IT referred to a number of key risks in the assumptions after 2015/16 due to uncertainty around the overall impacts of ongoing Government funding reductions including the localisation of Business Rates; Universal credit under the Welfare Reform Act; Possible changes to new Homes Bonus; changes to existing funding streams; the costs of waste management and disposal; and the provision of a long-term waste disposal site. The Executive Member for Finance and IT concluded by stating that, if a 0% Council Tax increase was maintained over the review period and no efficiency measures were put in place, the special reserve and balances would erode from £8.2 million in 2016/17 (£6.5m in balances and £1.7m in special reserve), to a negative figure of £290,000 in 2020/21 and the Council would not have a balanced budget. Balances were maintained for a number of reasons, including to provide some protection against the cost impacts of the major risks the Council faced, and to fund invest to save projects and address unavoidable fluctuations in contract prices when contracts were renewed. A negative balance of under £300,000 would leave the Council in an extremely exposed position. However, by combining continued efficiency savings with modest Council Tax increases, the Council should be able to deliver services and maintain relative stability and resilience. RESOLVED: That the content of the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016-2021 and the key strands of efficiency savings, development opportunities and income generation, be noted. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016-2021, as outlined in Appendix A to the report, be adopted and communicated to officers as the medium term financial framework for the Corporate Business Planning process. REASON FOR DECISION: To assist in the process of forward planning the use of Council resources and in budget setting for 2016/2017 to 2020/2021 culminating in the setting of the Council Tax precept for 2016/17 in February 2016. |
Agreed | ||
| 33 |
NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE LOCAL PLAN: REVISED STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Report Appendix A - Amended Statement of Community Involvement - 2015 Appendix B - Schedule of representations and responses to the consultation The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise presented a report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise in respect of the proposed revised Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Amended Statement of Community Involvement - 2015; and Appendix B - Schedule of representations and responses to the consultation. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise advised that the draft revised SCI had been published for consultation alongside the Local Plan Preferred Options in December 2014. It was considered that the SCI should be revised to set out how the Council would deal with electronic petitions in light of the increasing use of social media and to update some minor factual details. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise reported that representations to the draft SCI were received from 11 individuals and organisations. A full response to each of the representations was set out in the schedule of representations and responses set out at Appendix B to the report, and summarised in Paragraph 8.4. The Principal Strategic Planning Officer advised of a minor amendment to the SCI document at Paragraph 6.1, with the addition of the words "and any adopted Neighbourhood Plans that exist in the District,…" after the words "…Saved Local Plan 2007,…". RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (1) That the revised Statement of Community Involvement, as attached at Appendix A to the report, and as amended, be adopted; and (2) That delegated authority be given to the Head of Development and Building Control, in conjunction with the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise, to approve minor amendments or typographical corrections to the documents as may be necessary. REASON FOR DECISION: To set out how the Council consults with the local community in preparing the Local Plan and in determining planning applications. |
Agreed | ||
| 34 |
ST. PAULS WALDEN AND WYMONDLEY NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING AREAS Report Appendix 1 - Map of area to be designated as St Pauls Walden Neighbourhood Area Appendix 2 - Map of area to be designated Wymondley Neighbourhood Area Appendix 3.1 - Application Letter from St.Pauls Walden Parish Council Appendix 3.2 - Map from St Pauls Walden Parish Council Appendix 4.1 - Application Letter from Wymodley Parish Council Appendix 4.2 - Map from Wymondley Parish Council The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise presented a report of the Strategic Director of Planning, Housing and Enterprise in respect of the proposed St. Pauls Walden and Wymondley Neighbourhood Planning Areas. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Map of the area to be designated as the St. Pauls Walden Neighbourhood Plan Area; Appendix 2 - Map of the area to be designated as the Wymondley Neighbourhood Plan Area; Appendix 3 - Application Letter and Plan from St. Pauls Walden Parish Council; and Appendix 4 - Application Letter and Plan from Wymondley Parish Council. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained that the Neighbourhood Planning (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 had amended the way in which the local planning authority must determine an application for the designation of a neighbourhood planning area. Once a local planning authority had received an application, it must publicise it for not less than four weeks after the application was publicised on its website and invite comments. Once the application had been publicised, the local planning authority must determine the application within eight weeks. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise stated that St Pauls Walden and Wymondley Parish Councils applied for the designation of a neighbourhood plan area in July 2015. Consultation for each neighbourhood planning area designation started on 17 July 2015. The applications had been publicised on the Council's website and letters or emails had been sent to statutory consultees, local community organisations, landowners and developers and interested individuals asking them for their views. The consultation period would conclude on 17 August 2015. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise advised that, in principle, there were no reasons why the application from St Pauls Walden should be refused. The Parish Council had requested that the whole of the parish area should be designated for neighbourhood planning purposes. Unless there were any significant objections raised during the consultation process, officers would recommend that the whole parish should be designated as the neighbourhood planning area for St Pauls Walden. However, the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise considered that the neighbourhood area proposed by Wymondley Parish Council was not the most appropriate to be designated as a neighbourhood planning area for the purposes of preparing a neighbourhood plan. The Local Plan Preferred Options consultation paper included an area of land to the west of Stevenage which was to be allocated as safeguarded land for future long term housing needs. The safeguarded site fell within the parishes of Knebworth, Langley, St Ippolyts and Wymondley, as well as part of Stevenage Borough. If a development proposal came forward for the site, it was anticipated that a masterplan would be prepared for the whole site in conjunction with Stevenage Borough Council. It was considered that it was appropriate to exclude the area to the west of Stevenage that was in Wymondley Parish from the neighbourhood plan area designation. This approach was taken when designating the St Ippolyts neighbourhood planning area in March 2015. The Parish Council had been consulted on the suggested neighbourhood planning area, but at the time of writing no response had been received. The Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise explained that, due to the timescales required for designating a neighbourhood planning area, which did not easily sit with local authority reporting deadlines and schedules of meetings, Cabinet was asked to approve the designations in principle and to delegate the final decision (post-consultation). This approach would allow the Council to comply with the timetable in the regulations. RESOLVED: (1) That the designation of the St Pauls Walden Neighbourhood Planning Area, as shown in Appendix 1 to the report, be approved in principle; (2) That the designation of the Wymondley Neighbourhood Planning Area, as amended, and as shown in Appendix 2 to the report, be approved in principle; and (3) That authority be delegated to the Head of Development and Building Control, in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise, to consider the results of the public consultation and determine the two neighbourhood planning areas for St Pauls Walden and Wymondley. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow St Pauls Walden and Wymondley Parish Councils to formally prepare neighbourhood plans. |
Agreed | ||
| 35 |
THE PUBLIC SERVICES (SOCIAL VALUE) ACT 2012 - IMPLEMENTATION Report The Executive Member for Finance and IT presented a report of the Head of Policy and Community Services in respect of the implementation of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee presented the following referral from that Committee, made at its meeting held on 21 July 2015, in respect of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 - Implementation (Minute 35 refers): "(1) That Cabinet approve the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 Policy for application to all relevant procurement and contract management; (2) That the Policy apply to all procurement contracts above the EU threshold (of £172,514), including capital works and goods supply; (3) That Cabinet approve a "Go Local Policy" for all applicable procurement below a £50,000 threshold; (4) That Cabinet consider including the following Paragraph within the "Go Local" Policy: "The Council would expect competitive pricing, but will take into account demonstrable benefit to the Community of North Hertfordshire"; (5) That Cabinet recommend that the Contract Procurement Rules be updated (to the extent required) to reflect the updated Policy under existing delegated powers of the monitoring officer as detailed in the constitution." The Executive Member for Finance and IT thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for its support, and had no difficulty with the suggested change outline at (4) above, provided the word "but" was changed to "and". The Executive Member for Finance and IT advised that the application of a "Go Local" policy to any purchase or contract below £50,000 was intended to increase NHDC's spending in the local community, supporting local business and entrepreneurship, whilst maintaining the principles of "best consideration" in procurement. The Executive Member for Finance and IT stated the overarching principle of the "Go Local" policy would be that, for appropriate procurement, NHDC would aim to use local suppliers for the provision of goods, services and works, having full regard for the principles of "best consideration". The clear social benefits of a "Go Local" policy to businesses and trades in the NHDC area had the potential to be far reaching. The knock-on effects in terms of increased local spending were difficult to quantify, but there existed a possibility to inject a very reasonable sum into the local economy each year. RESOLVED: (1) That the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 Policy, as set out in the report, be approved for application to all relevant procurement and contract management; (2) That the Policy be applied to all procurement contracts above the EU threshold (of £172,514), including capital works and goods supply; (3) That a "go local" policy be approved for all applicable procurement below a £50,000 threshold, inclusive of the addition in the policy of the following paragraph: "The Council would expect competitive pricing, and will take into account demonstrable benefit to the community of North Hertfordshire"; and (4) That the Contract Procurement Rules be updated (to the extent required) to reflect the updated Policy under existing delegated powers of the Monitoring Officer, as detailed in the Constitution. REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with the provisions of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 and extension of the principles under the Act for pragmatic and local community benefit reasons. |
Agreed | ||
| 36 |
CHANGES TO THE COLLECTION ARRANGEMENTS FOR NON-HAZARDOUS (NON-CLINICAL) HEALTHCARE WASTE Report Appendix 1 - Policy on the provision of Extra Waste Capacity Appendix 2 - Process for implementation - Phase 1 The Executive Member for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment presented a report of the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services in respect of proposed changes to the collection arrangements for non-hazardous (non-clinical) healthcare waste. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Policy on the provision of Extra Waste Capacity; and Appendix 2 - Process for implementation - Phase 1. The Executive Member for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment advised that new customers requesting a collection of healthcare related waste were already directed to use their purple bin where their waste was not clinical waste. They could receive a larger bin, if required, under the Extra Waste Capacity Policy set out in Appendix 1 to the report. However, historically, hazardous clinical waste and non-clinical health care waste had been collected on a separate collection round from approximately 480 households in North Hertfordshire. This collection round had continued in order to collect clinical waste separately. Separate non-clinical healthcare waste collections had not been offered to new non-clinical waste customers since February 2015. The Executive Member for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment stated that the collection of non-clinical healthcare waste in sacks from the kerbside would cease from 1 April 2016. A healthcare professional would need to confirm the likely waste generation needs of existing customers and would confirm if the waste was hazardous in nature and therefore specialist clinical collections were required. The non-clinical healthcare waste produced by customers currently receiving a separate collection service would be placed in the purple residual bin and a larger bin provided to the resident if required. The Executive Member for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment explained that the changes would be in two phases. Existing service users would receive a letter and form requesting information regarding their waste that would need to come from a healthcare provider. This enables the Council to ensure the correct waste remained in the hazardous stream and that only non-clinical healthcare waste was targetted. NHDC had a duty to ensure waste was disposed of correctly and this audit would facilitate this requirement. It was likely that some hazardous waste other than sharps (needles) would be identified and the Council could therefore satisfy its duty by ensuring this waste transferred to a specialist disposal route. It was noted that the initial phase in July/August 2015 would be in line with the NHDC policy for the provision of extra waste capacity. Residents would be offered a larger purple bin where their healthcare waste was confirmed as non-clinical and there was a need for additional capacity. This would be on a voluntary basis, with telephone and face to face support, if required. It was anticipated that a proportion of residents would choose this option as they would no longer need to place the yellow and black Tiger bags out for collection and the bin provided a more discrete method of disposal. The Executive Member for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment stated that Phase two would be implemented in January 2016 for completion prior to 1 April 2016. Those residents whose waste was identified in the audit as being non-clinical and who did not change over to a larger bin, would be informed of the Council's need to change its service by letter. Any concerns raised would be considered on a needs basis, with the Council offering both telephone and face to face advice. RESOLVED: (1) That the collection of non-clinical healthcare waste from households be included in standard waste collection services (purple bin); and (2) That a two phased approach to this service change as proposed, being implemented by 1 April 2016, be agreed. REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with best practice for the collection on non-clinical healthcare waste produced in the home. |
Agreed | ||
| 37 |
LAND AT RADBURN WAY / BALDOCK ROAD, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY Report Appendix A - Location Plan [Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillors T.W. Hone and Tony Hunter, as Hertfordshire County Council Members, stated that they had not been involved with this site in their role as County Councillors and that, as they considered there was no prejudice to the public interest, would be remaining in the meeting and participating in the debate and vote upon the matter.] The Executive Member for Finance and IT presented a report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of the proposed disposal of NHDC owned land between Radburn Way and Baldock Road, Letchworth Garden City. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix 1 - Location Plan; The Executive Member for Finance and IT advised that, in the past, NHDC had identified the land located between 15-45 Radburn Way and 167-189 Baldock Road for housing. On a number of occasions over the years local residents had claimed that the land to the rear of their Baldock Road houses was subject to a "covenant" that required the maintenance of its existing use. The existence of the "covenant" had never been established by the District Council. Officers had carried out research of the District Council's records and also reviewed documentation relating to the 1950's Compulsory Purchase Order. No "covenant" had been found that restricted the land to its current use nor was there any legal restriction found that would prevent residential development. The site was currently included in the Local Plan Preferred Options document which had been the subject of recent public consultation. The Executive Member for Finance and IT stated that Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) owned Freeman House, immediately adjacent to the District Council's land. HCC had declared Freeman House surplus to requirements, approved its disposal and had recently carried out public consultation for the site that included outline proposals for residential development on just HCC's land. The Executive Member for Finance and IT commented that the recent availability of the Freeman House site had prompted the District Council to review the options for its own land. One of the issues for development of the District Council's land had been establishing suitable highway access. By marketing two publicly owned sites together it would be possible to provide vehicular access to the District Council's land via HCC's land and then Radburn Way. HCC had been approached about this proposal and had expressed willingness to work with the District Council, subject to first obtaining planning permission, joint marketing and agreeing terms on how the proceeds would be split. HCC had obtained advice from Transport Consultants that the most feasible option for gaining access to the District Council's land would be via the Freeman House site. The Executive Member for Finance and IT acknowledged the comments made by Mr Wearmouth earlier in the meeting, but stressed that Mr Wearmouth had referred to a "promise" made to not develop the land, rather than any legal documentation. Cabinet debated the matter and, whilst it agreed, in principle, that the site should be offered for sale on the open market, it was not fully convinced that all alternative options had been considered. Accordingly, in agreeing to work in partnership with Hertfordshire County Council on the joint sale of the District Council's land and the adjacent HCC's property, Cabinet further agreed to the further exploration of a possible "land swap" with HCC; the possibility of NHDC purchasing Freeman House from HCC; and the possible use of Freeman House on a temporary basis for the housing of homeless persons and families (once the existing occupants are relocated) to alleviate the use of bed and breakfast accommodation. Cabinet agreed that, once the ongoing discussions with HCC had been concluded, the outcome be reported back to a future meeting. RESOLVED: (1) That, subject to the Letchworth Committee raising no substantive objections to the proposal, it be agreed, in principle, to offer for sale on the open market the Council's freehold property as shown on the plan attached to this report outlined black, shaded light grey and marked "NHDC land" that is located between Radburn Way and Baldock Road, Letchworth Garden City; (2) That it be agreed to work in partnership with Hertfordshire County Council on the joint sale of the District Council's land and the adjacent HCC's property; further exploration of a possible "land swap" with HCC; the possibility of NHDC purchasing Freeman House from HCC; and the possible use of Freeman House on a temporary basis for the housing of homeless persons and families (once the existing occupants are relocated) to alleviate the use of bed and breakfast accommodation; and (3) That, after discussions with Hertfordshire County Council, the outcome be reported back to Cabinet. REASON FOR DECISION: To provide a financial receipt to help fund the 2016-2021 Capital Programme. |
Not Agreed | ||
| 38 |
NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE MUSEUM AND COMMUNITY FACILITY AT HITCHIN TOWN HALL Report Annexes 1 & 2 - Indicative Programme of Events and Projected Utilisation & Income figures [Prior to the consideration of this item, Councillors Bernard Lovewell, Peter Burt and Julian Cunningham declared that they would be withdrawing from the Chamber, as they were Members of the Cabinet Sub-Committee (Council Charities), which was responsible for making decisions on the North Hertfordshire Museum and Community Facility on behalf of the Hitchin Town Hall: Gymnasium and Workmans Hall Trust. Accordingly, they withdrew from the Chamber for the duration of this item.] The Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs presented a report of the Strategic Director of Customer Services and Project Executive in respect of a request to approve the necessary revenue budget for the operation of the community facility at Hitchin Town Hall. The following annexes were submitted with the report: Annex 1 - Indicative Programme of Events; and Annex 2 - Projected Utilisation and Income Figures for Hitchin Town Hall. The Executive Member for Community Engagement and Rural Affairs reminded Members that the contractual dispute between NHDC and Hitchin Town Hall Ltd in respect of the North Hertfordshire Museum and Community Facility project at Hitchin Town Hall had been reported on a number of occasions and the current status was subject to a detailed report to Council on 16 July 2015. Following consideration of that report, the current report was presented to Cabinet to consider Council's request to approve the necessary revenue budget to run the community facility element of the project, subject to a review of the operating model within three years of opening. The report also provided further detail of the operating model currently being developed to allow the opening of the Town Hall in the late autumn of 2015. The Cabinet supported the approach recommended in the report, including the revenue budget of £67,000 in 2015/16 and that £251,500 be built into the base budget for future years. RESOLVED: (1) That the revenue budget for operating the Hitchin Town Hall, as detailed in Paragraphs 8.1, 8.2 and 10.3 of the report, of £67,000 in 2015/16, be agreed, and that £251,500 be built into the base budget for future years; (2) That the approach to the operational model be endorsed, and that it be noted that this will be subject to review within three years of opening; and (3) That it be noted that any variation to the agreed approach would be subject to approval by Cabinet or Council. REASON FOR DECISION: To accord with the decision of Council made on 16 July 2015 in respect of the North Hertfordshire Museum and Community Facility at Hitchin Town Hall. [As this was last Cabinet meeting to be attended by Mr Richard Kelly, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, prior to him leaving the Council's employment, the Chairman and Executive Member for Planning and Enterprise both thanked him for all his hard work and support over the past few years. They wished him well in his future career.] |
Agreed | ||
| 39 |
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 item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended). |
Agreed | ||
| PART II | ||||
| 40 |
BUSINESS RATES AND HOUSING BENEFIT OVERPAYMENTS WRITE OFFS Report Appendix 1 - Details of accounts to be written off The Executive Member for Finance and IT presented a Part 2 report of the Head of Revenues, Benefits and IT in respect of Business Rates and Housing Benefit Overpayments Write Offs. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Details of accounts that require Cabinet authority to be written off. RESOLVED: That the accounts detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, totalling £73,808.38, be written off as irrecoverable. REASON FOR DECISION: To write off debts regarding which all avenues of recovery have been explored, and which it is not anticipated that any further action would result in the recovery of the outstanding debts. |
Agreed | ||