Meeting documents
Cabinet
Tuesday, 30th July, 2013 7.30 pm
 |
|||||
| Date: | Tuesday, 18th June, 2013 | 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 Tom Brindley, Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Tony Hunter, Councillor I.J. Knighton, Councillor David Levett and Councillor Bernard Lovewell. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy & Governance, Head of Finance, Performance & Asset Management, Head of Leisure & Environmental Services, Service Manager - Grounds Maintenance, Parks & Countryside Development Manager, Strategic Planning & Projects Manager, Principal Strategic Planning Officer, Acting Corporate Legal Manager, Democratic Services Manager and Committee & Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Councillors Fiona Hill (Chairman of the Royston and District Committee), J.M. Cunningham, David Leal-Bennett and Mrs C.P.A. Strong. 12 Members of the Public. |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 1 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence. |
Noted | ||
| 2 |
MINUTES Minutes RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 26 March 2013 be approved as a true record of the proceedings and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 3 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS There was no notification of other business. |
Noted | ||
| 4 |
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. (3) The Chairman announced that Item 15 on the agenda - Hitchin Museum Building, Paynes Park, Hitchin and Thomas Bellamy House, Bedford Road, Hitchin - had been withdrawn. |
Noted | ||
| 5 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Cabinet was addressed by Mr Graham Swann ((representing Barkway residents and petitioners) regarding Land at Windmill Close, Barkway. Mr Swann began by thanking Members of the Cabinet for the affording the residents of Windmill Close and Royston Road, Barkway the opportunity to forward their case against the sale of land behind Windmill Close. Mr Swann stated that, on behalf of the residents, he had detailed their objections to the sale at the recent Royston and District Committee meeting. The residents' comments on the original report to Cabinet on 26 March 2013 were as follows: - There was no agreement between the Parish Council and the District Council for the full scale development of the land, only informal discussions about development at the end of Windmill Close; - The residents had requested from the Council copies of any works orders/invoices proving the erection date of January 2007 for the permission signs erected on the green. They had received a letter of reply from the Council stating that no such records now existed; - The residents did not want or need a developed park. The area would be best served by a natural, open space. The area was maintained by residents and had been for a considerable period of time; - The residents could prove over 20 years' continuous use as a social area. An aerial photograph from 1986 proved that the field was not being farmed; and - The report contained several factual errors and statements that brought into question the accuracy of the report as a whole. Mr Swann considered that, to sell the whole field would, in all likelihood, result in it being developed for maximum financial return. Any wholesale development would permanently remove an area of natural open space which provided local residents with a safe area in which to come together as a community. Mr Swann asked the Council to acknowledge the depth of local feeling that the residents had for this area, and requested that some form of compromise be reached to benefit all. Mr Swann understood that the Council needed to make difficult decisions in the current economic climate, and appreciated that some of the land could be used for a sympathetic development. However, the residents hoped that progress could be made in retaining the area backing onto the houses of Royston Road and Windmill Close as a permanent natural green open space that could be continued to be maintained and enjoyed by the residents. The Chairman thanked Mr Swann for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 6 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM ROYSTON & DISTRICT COMMITTEE: 5 JUNE 2013 - LAND AT WINDMILL CLOSE, BARKWAY Referral Appendix A The Chairman of the Royston and District Committee presented the following referral from a meeting of that Committee held on 5 June 2013 in respect of Land at Windmill Close, Barkway (Minute 12 refers): "(1) That the Royston and District Committee agreed that there were substantive reasons for requesting Cabinet to reconsider its decision on the sale of land at Windmill Close, Barkway and to ensure that at least one third of this site be retained as an amenity/green open space "pocket park"; and (2) That subject to any sale of this asset, Cabinet should apply a condition requiring the retention of land for the purpose stated in (1) above." The Chairman of the Royston and District Committee commented that the Local Ward Member, Councillor Gerald Morris, was supportive of the residents, but had been unable to attend the Cabinet meeting due him being away on holiday. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that he would wish to ascertain Barkway Parish Council's latest views on the site, and informed Cabinet that an application had been made to Hertfordshire County Council for Village Green status. Cabinet debated the issues, and a number of members expressed sympathy with the local residents. Cabinet agreed that the matter should be deferred, to enable officers to enter into discussions with Barkway Parish Council regarding their definition of a "pocket park", and the possibility of them taking over the responsibility for any future "pocket park" (including ongoing maintenance), either on part of the site or on the adjoining NHDC-owned site shown as "Outside the village boundary" on the Plan attached at Appendix A to the report. RESOLVED: That consideration of whether or not to proceed with the disposal of land at Windmill Close, Barkway be deferred, to enable officers to enter into discussions with Barkway Parish Council regarding their definition of a "pocket park", and the possibility of them taking over the responsibility for any future "pocket park" (including ongoing maintenance), either on part of the site or on the adjoining NHDC-owned site shown as "Outside the village boundary" on the Plan attached at Appendix A to the report. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that other avenues are explored before a final decision is made on this matter. |
Noted | ||
| 7 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM FINANCE, AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE: 13 JUNE 2013 - RISK MANAGEMENT UPDATE Referral Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C The Cabinet considered the following referral from the meeting of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee held on 13 June 2013 in respect of a Risk Management Update (Minute 6 refers): "(1) That Cabinet be requested to accept the recommendation that the proposal to reduce the probability assessment of Hitchin Town Centre Development (Appendix A) be agreed; and (2) That Cabinet be requested to accept the recommendation for the approval of the Annual Risk Management Report (Appendix C) and forward to Council for adoption." The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT had no problems with the above recommendations. The Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance suggested a revision to the first recommendation, regarding the addition of the word "score" between the words "probability" and "assessment". Cabinet supported this revision. RESOLVED: That the proposal to reduce the probability score assessment of Hitchin Town Centre Development, as set out in Appendix A to the report, be agreed. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the Annual Risk Management Report for 2012/13, as set out at Appendix C to the report, be adopted. REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with the requirements of the Risk and Opportunities Management Strategy. |
Agreed | ||
| 8 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM FINANCE,AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE:13 JUNE 2013 - UPDATED CONTRACT PROCUREMENT RULES Referral RESOLVED: That consideration of this referral take place in conjunction with agenda item number 11 (see Minute 13 below). |
Noted | ||
| 9 |
STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS Report Appendix A - Part 1 Appendix A - Part 2 Appendix A - Part 3 Appendix A - Part 4 Appendix A - Part 5 The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise, assisted by the Principal Strategic Planning Officer, informed Members of the current position regarding strategic planning matters, with particular reference to National and Regional planning issues; the new North Hertfordshire Local Plan; the west of the A1(M) at Stevenage planning application; Neighbouring authorities' consultations; Land east of Luton; and composition of the Local Plan Working Party. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Draft Additional Suggested Housing Sites consultation paper. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise advised that, as from 30 May 2013, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment) Order 2013 had come into force. This allowed for various changes to works which no longer required planning permission. Some of the changes were temporary, others were permanent. The changes were summarised in the report, but would be explained in more detail as part of a planning training session for Members to be held on 19 June 2013. The Local Planning Authority was not empowered to charge for the new services, but the Portfolio Holder stated that the costs of administering them would fall upon the Council. In respect of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan, the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise referred to the Housing Additional Location Options Consultation Paper attached at Appendix A to the report. He commented that it was proposed to move back the start of the consultation period a few days to 5 July 2013. Public Exhibitions would be held at Knights Templar school in Baldock on 16 July 2013 and at Little Wymondley School on 8 July 2013. In addition, the Portfolio Holder would be attending a meeting of Offley Parish Council for a discussion with local residents regarding the Crown Estates site in Cockernhoe (Site 212). The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise explained that, separately from the additional sites consultation, work was ongoing to consider all other representations made. In particular, there was a need to carry out further viability works on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which formed an important background paper to the Local Plan, and on the Local Plan itself. This was a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework and this work was already allowed for in budgets and work programmes. It was officers' intention to vary the contract with the original viability consultants who undertook this work, rather than procure viability consultancy support afresh, given the consistency benefits which arise in using the same consultants again. In terms of the Financial Regulations, and following agreement by the Strategic Director for Planning, Housing & Enterprise to vary a contract under the Contract Procurement Rules, Cabinet was asked to note that it was estimated that the variations were estimated to exceed the reporting variance of £5,000. The Principal Strategic Planning Officer added that Site 210 in the Housing Additional Location Options Consultation Paper - Land at Westmill Lane, Hitchin - had been withdrawn by the promoter of the site. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise advised that the Council had received another letter from the Planning Inspectorate, dated 10 May 2013, regarding the West of the A1(M) at Stevenage planning application for 3,600 homes. The original applicant and Stevenage Borough Council (SBC) had made it clear that they would not attend any re-opened inquiry into the application, which created a very unusual situation. The Secretary of State still had to determine the application, but with the applicant and SBC not prepared to attend there was no mechanism for meaningful negotiation or discussion. The Council had given notice that it may pursue claims for costs against the applicant for unreasonable behaviour and against the Secretary of State should he proceed to re-open the inquiry. The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise stated that Stevenage Borough Council had published a draft Local Plan for consultation. A response would be prepared and agreed with the Portfolio Holder, but the Plan envisaged 5,300 dwellings to be accommodated entirely within the Borough boundaries. There is a further option (though not preferred by SBC) for 6,600 houses outside the Borough boundaries, in both North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire. Officer would be meeting with their SBC counterparts regarding this matter on 21 June 2013. In respect of Land East of Luton, the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise commented that Bloor Homes would be preparing a revised planning application for this area. With regard to the composition of the cross-party Local Plan Working Party, the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise was recommending that this be expanded to include the Vice-Chairmen of Area Committees and the Leaders of the two opposition groups. RESOLVED: (1) That the principle of running the consultation on additional sites for the Local Plan, as described in Paragraph 8.11 of the report, and with a revised consultation start date of 5 July 2013, be agreed; (2) That the membership of the Local Plan Working Party be reconstituted to comprise: - the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Transport and Enterprise; - the Leader of the Council; - Area Committee Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen; and - Opposition Group Leaders and Shadow Portfolio Holders for Planning; and (3) That the other matters contained in the report be noted. REASON FOR DECISION: To allow the public the opportunity to comment on other parcels of land which have been put forward for consideration; to broaden the number of members involved in the Local Plan Working Party; and to ensure that the Cabinet is aware of current developments. |
Agreed | ||
| 10 |
REVENUE BUDGET OUTTURN 2012-2013 Report Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of the Revenue Budget Outturn 2012/13. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - General Fund Summary; Appendix B - Carry Forward budgets requested for 2013/14; and Appendix C - Collection Fund as at 31 March 2013. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that net expenditure in 2012/13 was £15.066million, which was £677,000 lower than the working budget estimate of £15.742million and £500,000 lower than the original budget estimate of £15.566million. The major variances to the working budget were detailed in Table 1 of the report. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT highlighted the Executive Summary in the report and made the following points: - Net General Fund expenditure for 2012/13 - this was £15.066million, which was £677,000 (or 4.5%) lower than the working budget. Of this, £498,000 was requested to be carried forward to 2013/14; - Budgets Carried Forward from 2011/12 - of the £418,000 of carry forward budgets into 2012/13, £201.000 had been spent. Three of these unspent carry forwards would be transferred to new earmarked reserves; - Achievement of Efficiencies - the £609,000 of agreed efficiency proposals were over-achieved by £44,000 (or 7%); - General Fund Reserve Balance - this had a balance of £3.160million at 31 March 2013. This was £860,000 higher than the minimum balance approved for 2013/14 of £2.3million; - Allowance for Financial Risks - the budgeted minimum General Fund balance of £1.668million included an allowance of £890,000 for known financial risks. £494,000 of these risks had been realised, leaving a remaining balance of £396,000; - Earmarked Reserves and Provisions - As at 1 April 2012 there was a balance of £2.776million in other useable earmarked reserves. The balance at 31 March 2013 was £2.713million. A total of £163,000 was held in provision at 31 March 2013 and a total of £595,000 was held as bad debt provision, not including Council Tax bad debt provision; and - Collection Fund - As at 31 March 2013, the Collection Fund had a surplus balance of £157,000. The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Environmental Health reported that it was intended to produce a Business Plan for Careline, but that this had been deferred, pending the imminent receipt of the Hertfordshire County Council's proposals for telecare. He hoped to be in a position to report on the matter to the September 2013 meeting of the Cabinet. RESOLVED: (1) That the contents of the report be noted: (2) That a decrease of £677,000 in the 2012/13 General Fund expenditure (Paragraph 8.1, Table 1 refers) to £15.066million, be approved; (3) That the amendments to the 2013/14 budget, involving a net decrease in expenditure of £95,000 (£14,000 reported at third quarter and a £81,000 further reduction, Paragraph 8.1, Table 1 refers) be approved; and (4) That the carry forward of budgets into 2013/14 of £489,000 be approved, including a transfer of £100,000 of the vacancy control underspend to the Strategic Priority fund to enable Challenge Board to undertake invest to save and/or continuous improvement projects (Appendix B refers). RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the net transfer from earmarked reserves of 63,000 (as set out in Paragraph 8.15 of the report), be approved. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure Cabinet's budget monitoring role is fulfilled before the finalisation of the Annual Statement of Accounts by 30 June 2013; and to ensure that changes to the Council's balances are monitored and approved. |
Agreed | ||
| 11 |
ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REVIEW 2012-2013 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 Outturn 2012/13. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Annual Treasury Management Review. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that Sector Treasury Services Ltd were contracted to provide Treasury advice for the financial year 2012/13 and that this arrangement had been continued for 2013/14. The service included regular updates on economic and political changes which may impact on the Council's borrowing and investment strategies, advice on rescheduling, information and prudent parameters in respect of investment counterparty creditworthiness, document templates, access to technical updates and to the Technical Advisory Group. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT explained that the Council had generated £1.8million of interest on its investments during 2012/13. However, interest rates were generally low, and the expectation was that rates would continue to fall during the current (2013/14) financial year. RESOLVED: That the position of Treasury Management activity, as at the end of March 2013, be noted. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (1) That the actual 2012/13 prudential and treasury indicators be approved; and (2) That the Annual Treasury Report for 2012/13 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 that the Council manages its exposure to interest and capital risk. |
Agreed | ||
| 12 |
CAPITAL PROGRAMME OUTTURN 2012-2013 Report Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance in respect of the Capital Programme Outturn 2012/13. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Capital Programme Summary 2012/13; Appendix B - Capital Programme Detail 2012/13; and Appendix C - Capital Scheme Funding 2012/13 onwards. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT advised that outturn Capital expenditure for 2012/13 was £2.472million. This was a decrease of £2.115million over that previously reported at the end of the third quarter. The decrease in spend was partly due to a revision in the timetable for completion of schemes, leading to the re-profiling into future years of £1.022million, and partly due to a net decrease in the expected spend on schemes of £1.073million. Details of the schemes completed in 2012/13 were set out in Paragraph 8.3 of the report. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT stated that the total Capital Programme from 2012/13 to 2015/16 of £18.7million contributed towards the Council's three Priorities for the District. He drew attention to the fact that £1.2million had been invested in 2012/13 towards investment in housing, including affordable housing. RESOLVED: (1) That expenditure of £2.472million in 2012/13 on the Capital Programme (Paragraph 8.2 refers) be approved; (2) That the changes to the Capital Programme for 2013/14 and onwards as a result of the project re-profiling detailed in Table 1, the changes in Table 2 and the further changes detailed in Paragraph 8.6 of the report, bringing the estimated spend in 2013/14 to £10.420million, be approved; (3) That the position of the availability of Capital resources, as described in Paragraphs 8.8 to 8.10 of the report, and the requirement to keep the Capital Programme under review for affordability, be noted; and (4) That the application of £0.3million of Capital receipts towards the 2012/13 Capital Programme, and the drawdown of £1.1million of cash investments, as referred to in Paragraph 8.8 of the report, be approved. REASON FOR DECISION: To approve revisions to the Capital Programme; and to ensure that the Capital Programme is fully funded. |
Agreed | ||
| 13 |
UPDATED CONTRACT PROCUREMENT RULES Report Appendix A Appendix B The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a report of the Head of Finance, performance and Asset management in respect of the updated Contract Procurement Rules. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Draft amended Contract Procurement Rules; and Appendix B - Summary of changes. The Cabinet was advised that the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee, at its meeting held on 13 June 2013, had considered the Updated Contract Procurement Rules, and had made the following recommendation to Cabinet (Minute 18 refers): "That Cabinet be requested to approve the changes to the Contract Procurement Rules (with amendments), as set out at Appendix A to the report, prior to adoption by Council". The Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance advised that the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee had recommended an amendment to the Rules, requiring written estimates to be submitted for works with a contact value below £10,000. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT had no problem with the recommendation from the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee. He commented that the proposed changes to the Rules had been made to reflect best practice. In debating the report, a Cabinet Member questioned whether or not all of the proposed track changes were shown on the version of the Rules approved in 2011. As there appeared to be uncertainty on this point, it was agreed that consideration of the Updated Contract Procurement Rules be deferred, to enable officers to undertake investigation to capture all alterations, via track changes, between the version of the Rules approved in 2011 and the proposed new version. RESOLVED: (1) That consideration of the Updated Contract Procurement Rules be deferred, to enable officers to undertake investigation to capture all alterations, via track changes, between the version of the Rules approved in 2011 and the new version; and (2) That, notwithstanding the above deferral, the following amendments be made to the document prior to it being re-submitted to Cabinet: - the amendment requested by the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee requiring written estimates to be submitted for works with a contact value below £10,000; and - the re-introduction at an appropriate place in the document of the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holder(s) being invited to attend tender opening sessions for contracts above the tender threshold, should they wish to do so. REASON FOR DECISION: To contribute towards effective organisational internal financial control, in accordance with the Council's Procurement Strategy. |
Not Agreed | ||
| 14 |
DRAFT GREEN SPACE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2014-2019 Report Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Leisure presented a report of the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services in respect of the Draft Green Space Management Strategy 2014-2019. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Draft Green Space Management Strategy 2014-2019. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure advised that the Council's existing Green Space Management Strategy for land managed by the Council was due to expire in March 2014. The Strategy provided the evidence base for the need for investment, and contained action plans to deliver improvements across a wide range of sites. The Strategy also provided the Council with the justification to apply for external grants, and over the five year period it secured in excess of £3,420,000 of external investment. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure stated that the strategy had now been updated for the next five years (2014-2019) and its objective was to maintain and improve green space for the current and future needs of the local community at reduced cost to the Council. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure supported the recommendations in the report, including that the Draft Strategy be circulated to Area Committees for their comments. He drew attention to the particular issue to a request made at a recent meeting of the Hitchin Committee, asking that the Bancroft Hall Scheme be not disassociated with the Bancroft Gardens Project, in case funding became available for a new Bancroft Hall. The Portfolio Holder for Leisure clarified that any changes to the Bancroft Hall Scheme would require Cabinet approval. In terms of the Bancroft Gardens Project, he explained that it was crucial that a bid for Lottery funding was made in September 2013, if it was to be considered by February 2014. Any significant delays to the Lottery funding bid process could mean that the Bancroft Gardens Project would need to be put on hold. RESOLVED: (1) That the provision of a Green Space Management Strategy for 2014-2019 to maintain and improve green space for the current and future needs of the local community at reduced cost to the Council, be agreed, in principle; and (2) That the Draft Strategy set out at Appendix A to the report be circulated to Area Committees for their comments. REASON FOR DECISION: To provide a sustainable investment programme for green space for the next five years that meets the needs of the local community and maximises external investment opportunities. |
Agreed | ||
| 15 |
FEASIBILITY OF A CREMATORIUM AT WILBURY HILLS CEMETERY, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY Report Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment presented a report of the Head of Leisure and Environmental Services in respect of the feasibility of a Crematorium at Wilbury Hills Cemetery, Letchworth Garden City. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Crematorium Feasibility Study. The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment advised that Wilbury Hills Cemetery was opened in 2008 in its current form, with the whole intention of meeting the future needs for burials and remembrance of the dead for the residents of North Hertfordshire as a District Wide facility for many years to come. The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment stated that, following the completion of an independent feasibility study, it had been made apparent to Officers that there was a substantial opportunity for the development of a Crematorium at Wilbury Hills. The completed research provided basic background information that could assist with the development of a detailed business case. The business case would be expected to identify the options for delivery of the project and advantages and disadvantages of each option proposed. The Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment sought confirmation from Cabinet as to whether or not the Council wished to continue to investigate the options for developing a crematorium within the District. If so, the Business Case would identify the various options for delivering the project and would identify the advantages and disadvantages of each. Upon receipt of the Business Case at a subsequent Cabinet meeting, the chosen delivery option would be identified and confirmation sought to proceed with the project. In response to a question, the Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment confirmed that £20,000 had been spent on the completed feasibility study, and that a further £30,000 would be spent on development of the Business Case. RESOLVED: That officers be authorised to undertake the development of a Business Case to follow on from the completed feasibility study and report its conclusions to a future meeting of the Cabinet. REASON FOR DECISION: To expand the existing facility at Wilbury Hills in order to provide a full profile of options for burial or cremation. |
Agreed | ||
| 16 |
MEMBER AND OFFICER INDEMNITY Report Appendix A Appendix B The Cabinet Chairman presented a report of the Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management in respect of Member and Officer Indemnity. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - "Original" Indemnity Agreement; and Appendix B - Revised Proposed Indemnity Agreement. The Cabinet Chairman advised that the Council arranged the following types of liability insurance: - Public Liability (limit £25 million - excess £5,000); - Employers Liability (limit £25 million - excess £10,000); - Officials Indemnity (limit £ 5 million in the aggregate - excess £5,000); - Professional Indemnity (run off cover for legal services provided to NHH - limit £2 million - excess £5,000); - Land Charges (limit £5 million in the aggregate - excess £5,000); and - Libel and Slander (limit £1 million - 10% excess for Members). The Cabinet Chairman explained that, following the recently concluded insurance tender, liability insurance had been arranged with Zurich Municipal from 1 April 2013. In the event of a claim, policy excesses were charged back to the relevant service area. The 10% policy excess that Members had to pay in the event of a libel and slander claim was a condition of insurers and had been in place since 1979. The Cabinet Chairman added that, to keep increased premiums to a minimum, excesses now applied to the Officials Indemnity and Land Charges policies set out above. Public Health Act cover would be covered by the Insurance Fund. These policies would, subject to authorisation by NHDC, indemnify individual Officers, Members and the Returning Officer should a claim be brought against them in person rather than against the Council as a corporate entity. The Cabinet Chairman stated that, in May 2001, the Management Board agreed that the Professional Indemnity Resolution set out in Appendix A to the report should be adopted. The re tendering of the insurance programme highlighted the need to review the Member and Officer Indemnity Agreement and provide Members with an update on the scope of insurance cover arranged by the Council. The Cabinet Chairman advised that all insurance policies contained policy terms, conditions and exclusions, so not all claims submitted to insurers would be covered. One purpose of the proposed new Agreement set out in Appendix B to the report was to cover any "gaps" in insurance policy wordings. This could include breaches of policy conditions and failure to submit claims within the policy period. It was noted that, in addition to the types of claims that were submitted to insurers, Members and Officers could be fined as individuals by the Health and Safety Executive or could have allegations of a criminal offence made against them whilst acting on Council business. At present, despite the understanding in place in May 2001, it would appear that there was no formally authorised policy in place to provide the Officer or Member with reimbursement of the cost of a fine or for defending an allegation of a criminal action. It was further noted that it was unlikely that this indemnity agreement would need to be invoked. This review had been generated following the review of the Council's insurance arrangements and to ensure open and transparent governance arrangements for the Council. The Cabinet Chairman stated that it was suggested that, with regard to criminal prosecutions, the Council would pay for the Officer or Member with legal representation until such time as the Officer or Member was found guilty of a criminal offence. If found guilty then the Officer or Member would have to repay the defence costs. It was acknowledged that fines could frequently be unlimited. There was therefore a potential risk to the Council of having to pay substantial sums by way of indemnity. In view of this, it was suggested that a financial limit be set after which each case should be individually authorised if it was estimated that costs/ fines would be over that limit. The Cabinet Chairman advised that insurance cover to Members appointed on outside bodies was restricted. Zurich Municipal covered the Council for their legal liability whilst any Member was working on outside bodies. Any claim had to be made against the Council (or be capable of). This distinction was made because Members should be operating on the advice of the Council's Officers. Members were not covered for carrying out the business of the outside body as distinct from that of the Council. It was recommended that the outside body had its own insurance cover, and that that cover included indemnity for its members. It was therefore proposed that the Agreement did not include an indemnity to Members appointed on outside bodies. The Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance commented that the revised Appendix B circulated to Members contained an additional section requiring that any requests for exceptions to this policy, including potential cases above £100,000, would be referred to Full Council for consideration. RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That the proposed Member and Officer Indemnity Agreement, as set out in the revised Appendix B to the report, be adopted. REASON FOR DECISION: To ensure that the Council has a formally adopted, updated, policy to indemnify Members and Officers in the event of any legal action that arises out of carrying out official council duties. |
Agreed | ||
| 17 |
HITCHIN MUSEUM BUILDING, PAYNES PARK, HITCHIN AND THOMAS BELLAMY HOUSE, BEDFORD ROAD, HITCHIN THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN. |
Noted | ||
| 18 |
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 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said Act (as amended). |
Agreed | ||
| PART II | ||||
| 19 |
COUNCIL TAX, BUSINESS RATES AND SUNDRY DEBTORS WRITE OFFS Report Appendix A The Portfolio Holder for Finance and IT presented a Part 2 report of the Head of Revenues, Benefits and IT in respect of Council Tax, Business Rates and Sundry Debtor Write Offs. The following appendix was submitted with the report: Appendix A - Details of accounts that required Cabinet authority to be written off. Cabinet noted the National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) write offs had been included in the NNDR3 return to the Government. However, due to legislative changes in NNDR, the write off costs would, in future, fall upon the Council's General Fund. RESOLVED: That the Council Tax, Business Rates and Sundry Debtor accounts detailed in Appendix A to the report, and totalling £93,447.51, 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 | ||
| Published on Wednesday, 3rd July, 2013 |
| 9.26pm |