THE RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL

You are hereby summoned to attend an ORDINARY MEETING of the Rugby Borough Council, which will be held in the TOWN HALL, RUGBY, on Wednesday 15th December 2010 at 7.00 p.m.

A G E N D A

PART 1 – PUBLIC BUSINESS

1. Apologies for absence.

2. To approve the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 19th October 2010.

3. Declaration of Interests.

To receive declarations of -

(a) personal interests as defined by the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors;

(b) prejudicial interests as defined by the Council’s Code of Conduct for Councillors; and

(c) notice under Section 106 Local Government Finance Act 1992 - non-payment of Community Charge or Council Tax.

4. To receive the Mayor’s Announcements.

5. Questions pursuant to Standing Order 10 .

6. To receive the reports of the undermentioned committees which have met since the last meeting of the Council and to pass such resolutions and to make such orders thereon as may be necessary:

(a) Cabinet – 18th October 2010

(1) Medium Term Financial Strategy - Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council.

(2) Amendments to Financial Standing Orders - Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council.

(3) Rugby Borough Council Investment in Warwickshire College Rugby Site Economy Development & Culture Portfolio Holder

(4) Grants - Sustainable Inclusive Communities Portfolio Holder

(b) Cabinet - 22nd November 2010

(1) Finance & Performance Monitoring 2010/11 – Leader & Deputy Leader of the Council

(2) Crematorium Project – Option Appraisal – Sustainable Environment Portfolio Holder

(3) Treasury Management 2010/11 – Progress Report - Leader & Deputy Leader of the Council

(4) Statement of Licensing Policy – Sustainable Environment Portfolio Holder

(5) Sex Encounters Licences - Sustainable Environment Portfolio Holder

(6) Draft Calendar of Meetings 2011/12 - Resources and Corporate Governance Portfolio Holder

(c) Overview and Scrutiny Management Board - 9th August 2010 Chairman of the Board

(d) Overview and Scrutiny Management Board - 11th October 2010 Chairman of the Board

(e) Standards Committee – Chairman of Standards Committee

7. To receive and consider any Reports of Officers

(a) New Executive Arrangements – to receive the report of the Executive Director

(b) Review of the Council’s Corporate Management Arrangements - to receive the report of the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Resources) and the Monitoring Officer (Legal and Elections Manager)

(c) Proposals for changes to Planning Application Fees - to receive the report of the Executive Director

(d) Proposal s for a New Homes Incentive Bonus Scheme – to receive the report of the Executive Director

(e) Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places – to receive the report of the Executive Director

(f) Boundary Commission Review - to receive the report of the Executive Director (report to follow)

8. Notices of Motion pursuant to Standing Order 11.

To consider the following Motions of which notice has been duly given under Standing Order 11.

(a) This Council notes that one of the highest priorities identified by local residents is investment into activity for young people, the Council further recognises the clear evidence that this investment stops anti social behaviour and nuisance issues in local community's, these issues can only be successfully dealt with by a concerted cross service approach. The inability in the future to deal with these issues will have a consequent detrimental impact on local residents, the wider community and Borough Council services.

Whilst recognising the need for budget cuts, due to the current financial climate, other service cuts being put forward by the County Council, Police Authority and the NHS Warwickshire may also, when taken in isolation, have a detrimental impact on the Borough Council to provide the services that local residents demand.

Council therefore asks for an urgent report to be prepared by the Strategic Directors to assess the combined impact on local residents and the wider community of the proposed changes to policing and the County Council service reduction proposals, including the loss of the youth centres and local libraries. Further the report should also consider the impact of any proposed Health service reductions. The report to include the subsequent potential impact on Rugby Borough Council services.

The report should be presented either to Cabinet or Council by January 2011.

Signed Cllr J Roodhouse Cllr N Sandison

(b) This Council resolves that as a matter of courtesy and of principle councillors be notified when a licensing application is made for premises within their ward and the rural areas Parish Councils also be notified. Signed Cllr Leigh Hunt Cllr Helen Walton

9. Correspondence.

10. Common Seal

To order the affixing of the Common Seal to the various orders, deeds and documents to be made or entered into for carrying into effect the several decisions, matters and things approved by the Council and more particularly set out in the Committees’ Reports adopted at this meeting.

11. Motion to Exclude the Public under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

To consider passing the following resolution:

“under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of information defined in paragraphs 2 & 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act and that in all of the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.”

PART 2 – EXEMPT INFORMATION

1. To receive and consider the Private Reports of Officers

(1) Voluntary Redundancy Requests - to receive the report of the Head of Resources

DATED THIS 7th day of December 2010.

Executive Director

To: The Mayor and Members of Rugby Borough Council

QUESTIONS AT COUNCIL

A Councillor may ask a Question at the meeting by giving notice in writing of the Question to the Chief Executive no later than midday on Friday 10th December 2010. The rules relating to Questions are set out in Standing Order 10 of Part 3a of the Constitution.

AGENDA ITEM 6(a)

REPORT OF CABINET

18th October 2010

PRESENT:

Councillors Humphrey (Chairman), Leigh Hunt, Mrs Timms and Dr M Williams.

Councillors Cranham, Gillias, Hazelton, Miss Lawrence, Mahoney (substituting for Councillor Shera), Roodhouse, Sandison, Sewell and Spiers were also in attendance.

1. MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY

Cabinet considered the following report. Members are requested to bring their copies of the Medium Term Financial Strategy to the meeting.

This report follows on from that reported to Cabinet on 28th June 2010. The purpose of that report was to identify the financial pressures faced by the Council and those yet to be faced in light of recent Government announcements regarding Public Sector funding.

At the time of preparing this report the outcomes of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review were unknown, however for the purpose of continuing with the 2011/12 draft budget preparation process some assumptions have had to be made which will be updated once further information is known. The 2011/12 draft budget preparation process is currently ongoing.

As part of that process information is also gathered on the anticipated budget changes from one year to the next to enable consideration of the Council’s resource requirements over the medium term.

The Council's refreshed Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2011 – 2015, which sets out the key principles and assumptions that lie behind the Council's medium-term financial planning process and includes an executive summary is included within the MTFS, which sets the scene for the medium term. Appended to the MTFS is a Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), which identifies the anticipated resources requirement for each year. The Table below summarises the anticipated funding gap over this period.

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total Net Expenditure (£ 000’s) 13,870 12,180 12,050 11,940 Anticipated Funding Gap (£ 000’s) 1,422 0 0 0 Anticipated Funding Gap (%) 10.3% 0% 0% 0%

The Council continues to face pressure locally and nationally to change the shape and level of service provision. Therefore it is clear we will face significant challenges to deliver a balanced budget over the medium term that enables us to meet our corporate priorities.

The MTFP will be updated throughout the budget preparation process to reflect the latest position with a view to forming a target budget for consideration for future years. It is critical to ensure the key principles are adopted as early as possible and therefore during the year progress on this implementation and the 1 implications resulting from it will be reported to Cabinet.

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that the Medium Term Financial Strategy 2011 – 2015 be approved and adopted.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

2. AMENDMENTS TO FINANCIAL STANDING ORDERS

Cabinet considered the following report.

Within current Financial Standing orders Cabinet’s role enables them to approve supplementary budgets up to £20,000. Any amounts exceeding this, whether supplementary requests or virements are recommended by Cabinet to Council for approval. The Chief Financial Officer is able to approve virements up to £20,000 and no supplementary budgets.

Annually there are approximately 10 Cabinet meetings within a financial year compared to 5 Council meetings. The relatively low financial limits as stated above result in many decisions being referred to Council for approval, which in turn results in delays (approximately 2-3 months on average) before they can be actioned.

The common problem caused by the delay is the awarding of contracts for urgent works, in turn causing operational difficulties for services.

A proposed solution to this problem is to increase the financial limits enabling Cabinet to;

- approve proposed virement of budget amounts over £20,000 and up to £50,000. - Approve requests for supplementary budgets up to £50,000.

Council in turn would approve any requests in excess of £50,000 for supplementary budgets or virements and is in line with the current Key Decisions criteria of £50,000, which prevents urgent decisions being taken which are in excess of £50,000. There is no proposed change to the authority of the Chief Financial Officer’s role.

There is also a review of Contract Standing Orders underway currently and the Urgency Decision process. Findings will be reported to Cabinet & Council in due course.

A copy of the revised Financial Standing Orders amended for the above mentioned changes and general house-keeping has been placed in the Members’ Room.

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that the amendments to Financial Standing Orders as detailed within the report be approved with effect from 1st January 2011.

2

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

3. RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL INVESTMENT IN WARWICKSHIRE COLLEGE RUGBY SITE

Cabinet considered the following report.

Background

The new Rugby Site of Warwickshire College opened in September 2010. At the present time the old site in Hillmorton Road is still being used and activities will be progressively moved to the new college over the forthcoming academic year.

The college forms the centrepiece of the Leicester Road redevelopment and regeneration area. The new road, linking Mill Road to Leicester Road and serving the college in particular and the site in general is now open. Surrounding land is being remediated and prepared and it is understood the first phases will be marketed for residential and commercial development in 2011.

The college is arguably one of the most significant developments to take place in Rugby over decades. It will not only provide a high quality environment for the education of current and future generations of young people but it will also work closely with Rugby’s manufacturing sector – particularly in the field of renewable energies – via the Power Academy. It will provide a superb setting for on going vocational and non-vocational training for all ages and it its excellent sporting, artistic and social facilities will benefit the community at large.

Rugby Borough Council is probably too reticent in promoting and celebrating its achievements. In relation to the college all Members should feel proud of what the Council has done to bring the scheme to fruition and maximise its benefits to the community. From the earliest inception of the idea of a new college the Council has worked with the college authorities and developers to secure a site, support and facilitate Government funding for core facilities and also, via the Regional Development Agency, to obtain additional funding for the Power Academy. The Power Academy will provide specialist training for the renewable energy cluster in Rugby and work with those companies in the development of their technologies.

Also, in 2006, Council agreed in principle to invest a one –off capital sum of up to £1 million in the college to secure arts, sports and civic facilities for the wider community.

Community Access

During the intervening 4 years since the in principle decision to invest, the Council has worked closely with the college to ensure that the appropriate facilities were included in the college and subsequently to enter into a written agreement that secures community access to those facilities.

3 A copy of that, of necessity, somewhat lengthy agreement document has been placed in the Members’ Room but its key points are as follows.

1. Overall Objectives

* to provide community access and engagement with the communities in Benn, Brownsover and Newbold in particular and the wider Borough of Rugby through the proper use of the college facilities; * develop and engage the community to engender local pride and a sense of place * embrace the aspirations of the Sustainable Community Strategy; * promote upskilling and engagement in the work place; * increase participation in physical activity to promote healthy living.

2. Facilities to be Included

 Multi purpose hall for music, drama and dance, large community meetings, community events, associated “green room” and box office  Artificial sports pitch suitable for league standard games.  4 court sports hall for basketball, 5 a side etc  Associated changing facilities  14 station multi gym  Bistro  Informal community space for exhibitions, displays etc  Learning Resource Centre – library, computers, quiet areas etc  Use of meeting rooms  Shop  Car parking

3. Terms of Community Use

Obviously those wanting to use the majority of the facilities above cannot just turn up (though they can in relation to Learning Resource Centre and Bistro) and the pre-booking is required.

The Agreement defines, in accordance with banding to define peak use periods and Community Core Periods, that there will be a minimum of 30 hours per week of actual community use throughout the year with higher levels during holidays. In relation to charges, the Council has 4 hours per week “protected, dedicated and free of charge” use (details to be agreed). Members of the public using the facilities will pay “no more than the charges levied by the Council for similar facilities and the Leisure Pass will apply, as appropriate.

The college will also promote and establish a structured programme of sports and arts development aimed at Target groups with at least 8 hours of activity per week.

Conclusions

1. The college is now open with a phased transfer from its former site throughout the academic year. 2. The Council has played a major role in facilitating the development 4 3 In 2006 the Council agreed in principle to make a one off payment of up to £1 million towards the provision of college facilities which could also be used by the community 4 It has been subsequently agreed with the college that the appropriate payment towards those facilities is £800,000. 5. An agreement has been drafted that identifies those facilities and defines the purpose and terms of community access. A full copy is available in the Members’ Room.

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that -

(1) a capital supplementary budget of £800,000 in 2010/11 as a one-off payment to Warwickshire College towards the provision of facilities at the Rugby site that will be available to the wider community be agreed; and

(2) the written agreement between the Council and the College which describes and secures the terms of that community access be endorsed, subject to officers being given delegated authority to make minor amendments to the details of the agreement as may be required.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

4. GRANTS

Cabinet considered the following report.

Background

In recent months the Council has advertised and invited applications to a number of its grant funds. Due to the Council’s spending review, final decisions on grant awards from a number of the grant funds have not yet been made. This report provides a summary of the recommendations that have been made to Cabinet by the Council’s Grants Working Party, in order to inform a decision on grant awards.

At its meeting on 28 June 2010, Cabinet resolved that ‘all applications submitted under the Capital Partnership Fund be reconsidered as part of the Council’s spending review as a matter of urgency’ (minute 31(2), 2010/11).

At its meeting on 23 August 2010, when considering the Rural Development Fund and Parish Capital Spending Fund, Cabinet resolved that ‘grant funding be awarded as recommended by the Grants Working Party, subject to final confirmation of the budgets available following the Council's spending review’. (minute 50, 2010/11).

Therefore the following grant funds have yet to be finally allocated for 2010/11:

 Rural Development Fund  Parish Capital Spending Fund.  Capital Partnership Fund

5

Rural Development Fund

The Rural Development Fund is open to Parish Councils and also to other voluntary and community groups looking to deliver projects in the parished areas of the Borough.

The maximum amount of finance made available by the Council from this fund towards any project is £10,000. The percentage of the total project cost that the Council will award is based on the parish population.

Including funds carried forward from 09/10, a budget of £104,400 is available for new grant allocations under the Rural Development Fund. (Please note this is drawn from both a capital and revenue budget for this grant fund.)

Applications to a total value of £43,333 were received. The Grants Working Party has recommended that grants to the value of £43,333 be awarded. A summary of the proposed grant awards is included in Appendix 1.

This would leave a total of £61,067 from the Rural Development Fund that would be unallocated and could be taken as a budget saving. (£22,749 – revenue, £38318 capital)

Parish Capital Spending Fund

The Parish Capital Spending Fund is open only to Parish Councils. However the criteria were amended (Cabinet minute 171, 2009/10) to enable Parish Councils to apply on behalf of community organisations such as village hall trusts, where the Parish Council has a formal relationship with such a trust.

The maximum amount of finance made available by the Council from this fund towards any project is £50,000. The percentage of the total project cost that the Council will award is based on the parish population.

Including funds carried forward from 09/10, a budget of £164,900 is available for new grant allocations under the Parish Capital Spending Fund.

Applications to a total value of £229,560 were received. The Grants Working Party has recommended that grants to the value of £163,585 be awarded. A summary of the proposed grant awards is included in Appendix 1.

This would leave a sum of £1,315 from the Parish Capital Spending Fund that would be unallocated and could be taken as a budget saving.

Capital Partnership Fund

The Council established the Capital Partnership Fund in 2001/02 for one-off projects, maintenance or improvement schemes or for larger purchases in the Borough area. This was to include shop front improvements and sports and arts match funding schemes. This was later amended to only include projects in the urban area.

6 The maximum amount of finance towards any project eligible for a grant is 50% of the estimated or actual cost, whichever is the lesser, up to a maximum of £10,000 (inclusive of VAT).

A budget of £30,000 is available for new Capital Partnership Fund grants for 2010/11.

Applications to a total value of £78,613 were received. The Grants Working Party has recommended that grants to the value of £29,100 be awarded. A summary of the proposed grant awards is included in Appendix 1.

This would leave a sum of £900 from the Capital Partnership Fund that would be unallocated and could be taken as a budget saving.

A summary of the total proposed grant awards for each budget is attached at Appendix 2. Where applicable this is broken down into revenue and capital budgets.

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that the revenue and capital underspendings totalling £63,282 as shown at Appendix 2 to the report be considered as part of the current year’s spending review.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

COUNCILLOR C HUMPHREY CHAIRMAN

7

8 CAB18OCT2010 GRANTS – APPENDIX 1

2010/11 GRANT APPLICATIONS

The Grants Working Party has considered grant applications to the following funds: Capital Partnership Fund Rural Development Fund Parish Capital Spending Fund The proposed grant awards are summarised below:

Summary of grant awards recommended by Grants Working Party (2010/11):

Rural Development Fund (2010/11) Organisation Purpose / project Grant amount Cap / recommended by Revenue Grants Working Party (£) Thurlaston Village Electrical health & safety 700 Rev Hall Committee works at the village hall Leamington New bowls green mower 3000 Cap Hastings Bowls Club Old Laurentian Improvements to create 4306 Cap Mini & Junior RFC abetter / safer environment for young people at the RFC facility Pailton Village Hall Refurbishing the entrance 1102 Cap porch at the village hall Dunchurch & Induction loop at the WI hall 312 Rev Thurlaston Womens Institute Stretton under Kitchen renovation and new 6255 Cap Fosse Village Hall fire door at village hall Brandon & Refurbishment of war 1950 Rev Bretford PC memorial Shilton Lane Installation of fencing at 8000 Cap Allotment allotment site Association Marton War Installing multi media 6038 Cap Memorial Village equipment at the village hall Hall Shilton Silver Provision of IT skills 2990 Rev Surfers Brinklow Tables / chairs and power 900 Cap Community Hall points for the village hall Clifton Play Group Creating an external 5290 Cap teaching area Withybrook Village Installing a child’s swing 2490 Cap Hall Committee TOTAL £43,333 Revenue £5,952 Capital £37,381

Parish Capital Spending Fund (2010/11) Organisation Purpose / project Grant amount recommended by Grants Working Party (£) Wolston PC All weather sports pitches 39000 Long Lawford PC Play area / recreational field 31805 improvements Wolvey PC Replacement boiler and gas 4765 supply Willoughby PC Create a car park at village hall 0 Brandon & Bretford PC Resurfacing driveway / entrance 2974 to Bretford Village Hall Pailton PC Establish a community allotment 4636 garden Churchover PC Village hall improvements 39000 Clifton PC Audio visual system at Townsend 2405 Memorial Hall Stretton on Dunsmore PC Rebuilding village hall 39000 TOTAL £163,585

Capital Partnership Fund (2010/11) Organisation Purpose / project Grant amount recommended by Grants Working Party (£) Newbold on Avon Rugby Improvements to access and 6000 Club facilities Rugby Town Junior 3 new astro turf pitches 6000 Football Club St Andrew’s Church New toilet facilities (part of wider 6000 refurbishment to enable wider community use) Empowered Project Improvement to Methodist 0 Community Buildings for community use Old Laurentian Mini & Improvements to create abetter / 0 (referred to Rural Junior RFC safer environment for young Development people at the RFC facility Fund) Enchanted Services Ltd Minibus purchase to enable trips 0 for young people Overslade Community Establishment of community 6000 Association sensory garden to be managed by a community gardening club Rugby Sikh Community Lift installation in the Gurudwara, 5100 Association to provide improved access to first floor for users of the facility. TOTAL £29,100

AGENDA ITEM 6(b)

REPORT OF CABINET

22nd November 2010

PRESENT:

Councillors Humphrey (Chairman), Leigh Hunt, Poole, Mrs Timms, Dr M Williams and Wright.

Councillors Cranham, Francis, Gillias, Hazelton, Miss Lawrence, Mistry, Mrs O’Rourke, Sandison, Shera, Spiers were also in attendance.

Simon Bowers, Corporate Manager (Development and Property), Daventry District Council attended for Ppart 1 of the meeting, in particular the item relating to the Crematorium Project – Options Appraisal.

1. FINANCE AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING 2010/11 – QUARTER 2

Cabinet considered a report concerning an overview of the Council’s spending and performance position for 2010/11. All Members received a copy of the report as part of the Cabinet agenda and are asked to ring it to the meeting.

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that -

(1) supplementary revenue budgets totalling £755,170 (see 2.1.1 below) funded from various revenue income streams for 2010/11 be approved;

(2) virements totalling £145,720 between GF services (see 2.1.1 below) be approved;

(3) a total carry forward of £387,140 for General Fund capital schemes from 2010/11 to 2011/12 be approved as detailed within the report and the 2010/11 capital programme be amended accordingly;

(4) a carry forward of £769,990 on Viaduct Cycleways from 2010/11 to 2012/13 and an adjustment of £100,000 from 2011/12 to 2012/13 on this scheme be approved and the capital programme be amended accordingly;

(5) a supplementary General Fund capital budget of £86,200 be approved for Renovations Loans to be met from external funding and the 2010/11 capital programme be amended accordingly;

1

(6) a return of £100,000 budget on Energy Efficiency Loans be approved and the 2010/11 capital programme be amended accordingly; and

(7) a transfer of balances from the Housing & Planning Delivery Grant (HPDG) reserve and the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive (LABGI) reserve to General Fund balances in 2010/11 be approved.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

2. CREMATORIUM PROJECT – OPTION APPRAISAL

Cabinet considered the following report.

Introduction

Members will recall that during the last municipal year a Task and Finish Group investigated the general business case for the development of a crematorium facility in Rugby. The papers from the task group are available on the intranet or from democratic services. The task groups report was subsequently considered by Cabinet, who endorsed the project in principle, subject to a more detailed exploration of the delivery models and financial case for this investment.

The project would involve the creation of a crematorium facility and cemetery on agricultural land, owned by the Council, off Onley Lane. This is obviously subject to securing the appropriate planning permission for the development. It is estimated that the development of the crematorium would involve an investment of around £2.8 Million with additional costs for the cemetery, of less than £1 Million.

Refreshed Business Case / Viability Assessment

As part of the scrutiny review, a consultant was commissioned to prepare a feasibility study on a crematorium facility. As this piece of research was almost 2 years old, this has been refreshed in order to ensure that Cabinet have the most reliable data available before making a significant investment decision. The refreshed assessment concludes that:  A throughput of only 600 cremations a year (the demand from Rugby alone) would generate a marginal operational surplus.  By 2031, the combined Rugby and Daventry demand could be in the region of 1,500 cremations a year.  Based on 1,000 cremations charged at £500, an annual operational surplus of £250,000 is quite achievable.  Memorialisation income would be in addition to the operational surplus  The costs of building a single chapel crematorium is in the region of £2.8 Million (excluding land values)

2  A single chapel facility would create a theoretical maximum capacity of over 2,500 cremations per year, based on 9 to 5, Monday to Friday operations.  The annual operational costs for the crematorium facility should be in the region of £250,000 per annum excluding capital and financing charges  A 3 hectare cemetery facility would provide burial capacity for around 100 years and the development costs for this could be less than £1 Million.  Careful design and management would reduce operational costs but a figure of £50,000 is suggested as being reasonable, although in practice these costs are already part of normal revenue budgets for the operation of other burial sites around Rugby  A competitor facility on the eastern side of Daventry is unlikely to be viable  There is no capacity for both the Onley Lane and Willoughby facilities, however there is clearly a viable market for one crematorium facility serving the combined

Options to secure delivery

There are 4 principle methods that we could follow to deliver this facility; 1) A 100% Rugby Borough Council funded and owned facility 2) A Joint venture with a third party, which could be a private company or another local authority 3) A 100% private venture where we sell or part sell the land to a developer. 4) We allow the private sector to determine if such a facility should be developed

Option 1.

A wholly Rugby venture could expose the Council to a high level of risk both financially and in terms of project delivery. In the current economic climate to commit to fund a project of this magnitude could have significant repercussions regarding the Council’s capital programme. Members will have to balance this project with the other schemes that this Council may also have desires or aspirations to deliver in the coming years. However, in the current economic climate capital balances will not generate any significant investment income and as such may be more effectively utilised to deliver projects that either create longer term revenue savings or offer the realistic potential to generate income streams for the future.

Although the Council does not have the capacity or expertise to effectively project manage the delivery of the project, without subcontracting this to a private company, with the appropriate procurement and project management controls, the risks associated

3 with the delivery of the project to time and budget can be reasonably controlled. It is, however, clear from the research undertaken that the financial viability of the project is secure and should realistically generate an operational surplus of at least £250,000 per annum, which can be used to offset other expenditure associated with the upkeep and maintenance of burial facilities and other activities.

There is the ability and experience within existing staff resources to provide operational direction and management of the facility, although there would be a need to recruit additional staff to assist in the actual operations on the site. These additional staffing costs would be in the region of £100,000 for 4 members of staff, although not all may be required from day 1 of the facility becoming operational. These costs together with other maintenance and associated costs have been included in the operational estimates when predicting reasonable surplus levels of approx £250,000 a year. However, the operating costs of £50,000 per year for the cemetery would also fall on RBC, in practice the majority of these costs are already covered within current revenue budgets for the operation of existing burial grounds in Rugby.

At some point in the future if the Council wished to dispose of its interest in the facility, it would be highly likely that a number of private operators would be interested in bidding to purchase the facility from the Council for a significant capital receipt.

Option 2. A joint venture may be a more attractive prospect, as the risks and costs are shared and if the right partner is selected, we would be assured that they can bring the expertise and experience for delivery of such major projects. Daventry District Council has indicated a willingness to partner Rugby in a joint venture for the development of the crematorium facility. Their strategy group and Council have approved the principle of working in partnership with Rugby on this project. Daventry have a strong record in the delivery of large scale commercial developments and their involvement would reduce the risk that there would be competitor facility built in the immediate area, although it is unlikely that such a facility would be economically viable for them, unless they were able to attract a significant customer base from Rugby residents.

The attractiveness of this as an option will very much depend upon the commercial terms that may be negotiated and to this end officers have begun discussions around some heads of terms and are planning to meet with legal and financial experts to explore the most tax efficient and effective potential governance arrangements for any joint venture project. Obviously as well as sharing the costs a joint venture would result in the operational surplus potential also being shared and possibly reduced to £125,000 a year.

4 The potential agreement between DDC and RBC is based on the concept of a genuinely shared service, with costs, risks and income shared proportionately. The split is to be confirmed but could be 50:50 as this is most straightforward and avoids one party having more control than the other. The outline heads of terms, which officers are currently negotiating, do however, provide a mechanism to adjust this in the event of certain contingencies such as a cost escalation which one party did not wish to share in. Other key features of the proposed agreement are as follows: a) Given its established major project delivery capability, DDC would project manage the project. The costs of so doing would form part of project costs and thus be shared. b) RBC would provide the land, the opportunity cost of which would also form part of the project costs. c) RBC needs to provide a cemetery on the site. It is considered unlikely that many residents of Daventry District would wish to be buried there and accordingly this would be excluded from the joint venture. However, as the site needs to be planned as a whole it is likely DDC would project manage the whole, its costs in relation to the cemetery being met by RBC. (The space for ashes would, however, be part of the crematorium and thus form part of the joint venture.) The operating costs of £50,000 per year for the cemetery would also fall on RBC. d) Once operational, the crematorium itself is expected to make a surplus. This, after allowing for routine costs and a sinking fund for larger items of maintenance and renewal would be returned to the Councils. e) Provisions allowing for the sale of a Council’s share in the completed facility to a suitable person (with a right of pre- emption for the other Council). f) A range of contingency provisions dealing with, for example, the enforced closure of the facility.

One of the early questions the project would need to address would be the best legal form for the joint venture. Options include a joint committee, a pure contractual arrangement between the two councils, with one (presumably RBC) acting as host or the creation of a new, jointly-owned legal entity such as a company, limited partnership or limited liability partnership. Factors to be considered would include costs, transparency, tax efficiency and administrative (particularly accounting) issues. These issues are being explored further by officers and external advisors and are likely to influence the details of any heads of terms that would be negotiated. If Cabinet wish to pursue a joint venture approach, officers will need to have delegated authority to conclude these negotiations and provide a further report upon the conclusion of these negotiations.

5

Option 3. There are principally two major private crematoria operators in the UK, both of whom have expressed some interest in developing a crematorium in or around Rugby. This option would see all or the majority of risk transferred from the Council to the private sector, however this would also see transfer of the revenue generation away from the Council. It is clear from the narrative above, that there is a viable commercial opportunity which would be of interest to private sector. In order to attract realistic interest it would necessary to have obtained a valid planning consent for the crematorium facility. Once this was achieved, it is estimated that we may be able to sell the freehold or leasehold for the facility for around £500,000 or accept a lower capital receipt, say £250,000, and accept a modest “profit share” revenue stream of circa £25,000 per annum. The associated burial ground on part of the site might then still be developed at the cost of around £1million but would still attract operational costs of £50,000.

Option 4. Notwithstanding that the Task and Finish Group and Cabinet have articulated the desire to actively facilitate the delivery of a crematorium facility to serve Rugby residents, at that stage there was no other formal interest from the private sector to deliver a facility. This situation has since changed with the current active submission of a planning application for a private facility in Willoughby. This will determined in due course through the planning process, it also may not be ever be realised in to an operational facility for a variety of commercial reasons.

This option should therefore be considered to be a high risk as there is no certainty of delivery. This option would also create difficulty in that the requirement for essential additional burial capacity for Rugby would still need to be considered by this Council, there is only around 5 years of capacity available in our existing cemeteries. If we were to follow this option however, we would be able to retain the existing agricultural tenancy for the land off Onley Lane, which does generate an annual income of around £11,000 per annum and might still develop part for the burial ground.

On balance, it is considered that either a wholly owned, operated and funded Council facility or some form of joint venture with Daventry to develop a jointly owned and operated facility is the best way forward.

Financial Implications Current project cost and income estimates are reasonable estimates and should be considered to be sufficiently robust, until the precise design and tender prices are known. However, the surplus anticipated is sufficiently large that it is unlikely that the favourable financial outcomes would be significantly diminished.

6 If the Council went ahead on its own, the crematorium would require approx. £2.8million capital investment in addition to the £1million for the cemetery and would generate a net income of £250,000 for the cremations, the operating costs and income for burial facilities are already considered within existing revenue budgets.

The current joint project estimate would require a capital (cash and/or kind) input from each Council of around £1.75 million and would generate net income of £125,000 per year once the service was fully established. Including the spend of up to £1million on the required burial ground would also incur some operational costs which would slightly reduce this return, however the majority of these costs are contained within existing revenue budgets. In order to progress the project as quickly as possible, and in line with our aspirations, it is likely to be necessary to incur expenditure during the current financial year and as such a supplementary budget is being sought for these preparatory works. The current spending review will generate in year savings that can be subject to a virement to fund these activities. It is anticipated that the figure required in 2010/11 to initiate this project would be in the region of £75,000.

The future costs for this project will be considered and built in to the budget setting process for 2011/12, and in to the development of the medium term financial plan

The financial risks to the Council through engaging in this project come in two areas.

Firstly, the costs of the project may exceed estimates and/or delivery of the project may be slower than planned. This would increase costs and/or delay the receipt of income. These risks can be minimised through DDC managing the project and using its experience to adopt methods of procurement and contract management such as use of ‘target costs’. In the worst case, it may be identified that the site is not developable due to a protected species being present which cannot be relocated. If the scheme were aborted, any capital costs incurred would then be charged to revenue. This is considered highly unlikely but the risk would be mitigated through early ecological survey work.

Secondly, income may be less than anticipated. This would arise in the highly unlikely event of a significant change in the death rate or the propensity of people to opt for cremation, or if for some reason the new crematorium was not attractive to users. The latter factor would be in the control of the development; good design and construction would make it a low risk.

7

Conclusions

Given the circumstances which actually exist, Cabinet and Council need to consider which is the best mechanism to deliver improved burial and cremation services to the residents of Rugby and how to use the Council’s resources most effectively to create an asset of value for the Borough. Whilst this project has significant benefits and financial rewards, there are clearly also significant risks arising from the development. In the current economic climate and with increasing pressures on existing staff resources it is recommended that on balance some from of “joint venture” model with Daventry District Council presents the most appropriate option.

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that –

(1) officers pursue the approach of a joint venture model of delivering a crematorium facility, with an associated burial ground, in partnership with Daventry District Council resulting in the region of £125,000 dditional annual income;

(2) officers be authorised to pursue commercial negotiations with Daventry District Council on the governance and financial aspects of a joint venture, including the appointment of a project management team;

(3) the proposed capital scheme for the crematorium Project at an estimated cost of up to £2.8million with a further £1million for the associated burial ground be supported as a committed project in the 2010/11 capital budget setting process;

(4) a supplementary capital budget of £75,000 to be met from capital receipts in 2010/11 to allow initial works on the project to commence, be approved; and

(5) a report be brought back to Cabinet and Council in due course on the proposed delivery option, business plan, project costings and revenue implications for inclusion in the Council’s capital and revenue budgets for 2011/12 onwards.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

8

3. TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT 2010/11 – PROGRESS REPORT

Cabinet considered a report concerning progress on the Treasury Management Report for 2010/11. All Members received a copy of the report as part of the Cabinet agenda and are asked to bring it to the meeting.

Recommendation of Cabinet Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that -

(1) the report be noted;

(2) the monitoring and the review of the Treasury Management indicators be agreed; and

(3) the amended Investment Strategy for the remainder of 2010/11 be approved.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

4. STATEMENT OF LICENSING POLICY

Cabinet considered the following report.

Introduction

Licensing and Safety Committee on 26th October 2010 considered the following report.

Section 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 requires the Council to prepare and publish a statement of its licensing policy every three years. The existing policy was last reviewed in 2008 and has now been reviewed again in line for publication in 2011.

Consultation on Statement of Licensing Policy

The document has been circulated for consultation to all Members, all Responsible Authorities as prescribed by the Licensing Act 2003, members of the County Licensing Group and placed on the Council‘s website as a consultation document accessible to trade representatives and interested parties. There have been no written responses to the consultation document. A copy of the Statement of Licensing Policy has been placed in the Members’ Room for information.

9 Recommendation of Licensing and Safety Committee

The Committee decided that it be recommended to Cabinet to recommend to Council that the Licensing Act 2003 Statement of Licensing Policy be approved.

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that the Licensing Act 2003 Statement of Licensing Policy be approved.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

5. SEX ENCOUNTER LICENCES

Cabinet considered the following report.

Background.

Licensing and Safety Committee on 26th October 2010 considered the following report.

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Section 2 and Schedule 3, sets out the provisions for dealing with sex establishments, which at that time were sex shops and sex cinemas only.

No premises have been licensed in the Borough under this legislation.

Legislation.

The Government introduced the Policing and Crime Act 2009, and Section 27 amends Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, to permit the licensing authority to licence sexual entertainment venues.

These venues are where relevant entertainment is provided before a live audience, for the financial gain of the organiser or the entertainer. Relevant entertainment is clearly defined in the Act.

Implications.

This would bring the licensing of lap dancing, pole dancing and similar venues under the regime set out in the 1982 Act.

There is one such establishment, in the Borough at the moment, licensed under the Licensing Act 2003. There are no grandfather rights available for existing operators, so they would have to apply to the

10 Council for a sex encounter licence, within a prescribed time, should the Council adopt the new provisions.

The Council can set a reasonable charge for the licence, and this will have to be determined.

Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, came into force on the 6th April 2010. Following this date, local authorities were able to resolve to adopt Schedule 3 to the 1982 Act, as amended by the 2009 Act, so that it had effect in their area.

If the Council fails to adopt Schedule 3 in the way described above, within 12 months of the new legislation taking effect, i.e. by the 6th April 2011, it must then carry out a full public consultation exercise before formally adopting.

The adoption of Schedule 3, as amended, would also enable the Council to determine a Policy in relation to applications for sexual entertainment venues, sex shops and sex cinemas, covering, for example, a maximum number, the suitability of the applicant or area, the operation and management of the premises, and standard licence conditions.

If the Council resolved to adopt Schedule 3, as amended, it would have to specify the date, within one month, on which the resolution would come into effect, and publish two notices of the resolution, not later than 28 days before it would take effect.

Policy framework.

The Council does not currently have a Policy which deals with sex encounter establishments of any kind. A new Policy regarding sex encounter establishments may be introduced.

Recommendation of Licensing and Safety Committee

The Committee decided to recommend to Cabinet that -

(1) IT BE RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL THAT Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 be adopted; and

(2) a policy be formulated that clearly states the position of the Council with regards to sex encounter establishments.

11

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided that it be recommended to Council that Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 be adopted.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

6. DRAFT CALENDAR OF MEETINGS 2011/12

Cabinet considered the following report.

The draft calendar of meetings for 2011-2012, set out at Appendix 1, was submitted to Cabinet for approval.

The timetable takes into account the following:

(i) the requirement for 5 cycles of meetings per year;

(ii) the requirement for 5 ordinary meetings of Council, and for 2 special meetings of Council to be held in June 2011 to consider the approval of the statement of accounts, and in February 2012 for budget-setting;

(iii) the need for Planning Committee to meet on a 3/4 week cycle throughout the year;

(iv) the Annual Council meeting avoiding the Annual meeting of the County Council.

Appeals Committee would meet on an ad hoc basis.

Every effort has been made to avoid scheduling meetings during the weeks of the political party conferences in 2011. However, due to the large volume of meetings to be incorporated in the calendar, it has not been possible to keep those weeks entirely free of meetings.

Recommendation of Cabinet

Cabinet decided to recommend to Council that the draft calendar of meetings for 2011/12 be approved.

Recommended that – the recommendation of Cabinet be approved.

COUNCILLOR C HUMPHREY CHAIRMAN

12 Calendar of Meetings 2011/12 Appendix 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Mon NOTE: Ordinary May 23 Aug 1 Oct 3 Jan 2 Bank Holiday Mar 12 Cabinet Meetings of the Council Tues * 24 2 C 4 3 13 commence at 7.00pm. Wed 25 Planning 3 C 5 4 14 Planning Thur Meetings of Cabinet 26 4 6 5 15 and Committees Mon 30 Bank Holiday 8 OSMB 10 OSMB 9 OSMB 19 OSMB commence at 5.30pm. Tues 31 Special Licensing 9 11 10 20 Wed An updated list of all June 1 10 * 12 11 Planning 21 meetings open to the Thur 2 * 11 13 12 22 public is available on Mon 6 Cabinet 15 17 Cabinet 16 Cabinet 26 the Council’s web site at www.rugby.gov.uk Tues 7 16 18 COUNCIL 17 27 Licensing Wed 8 OSMB 17 Planning 19 Planning 18 Crime&Disorder 28 Thur 9 18 20 19 29 Standards Mon 13 22 Cabinet 24 23 Apr 2 Tues * 14 23 25 Licensing 24 Licensing 3 Wed 15 Planning * 24 Scrutiny * 26 Scrutiny * 25 Scrutiny 4 Planning Thur 16 25 27 26 Standards * 5 Scrutiny Mon 20 29 Bank Holiday 31 30 9 Bank Holiday INTERNAL USERS can Tues 21 30 Nov 1 31 10 find an updated list of all Wed meetings, including pre- * 22 Crime&Disorder 31 2 Feb 1 Planning 11 meetings and working Thur 23 CUSP Sept 1 CUSP 3 CUSP 2 CUSP 12 CUSP parties, as well as Agenda Mon 27 Cabinet 5 7 6 Cabinet 16 Cabinet dispatch dates and report Tues deadlines in the calendar of 28 Audit 6 * 8 7 17 Audit meetings which is available Wed 29 Spec Council 7 Planning 9 Planning 8 Spec Council 18 in the Public Folders through Thur 30 CORP 8 CORP 10 CORP 9 CORP 19 CORP Microsoft Outlook. Mon July 4 12 14 13 23 Tues 5 13 Licensing 15 14 Audit 24 COUNCIL Wed 6 Planning * 14 16 15 25 Planning C = Conservative Party Thur 7 15 Standards 17 16 26 Conference: 02.10.11 – Mon 11 LD 19 Cabinet 21 Cabinet 20 30 05.10.11 Tues * 12 LD 20 Audit 22 Audit 21 May 1 L = Labour Party Wed 13 LD 21 * 23 22 Planning 2 Conference: 25.09.11 – Thur 14 Standards 22 Crime&Disorder 24 Standards 23 COUNCIL 3 29.09.11 LD = Liberal Democrat Mon 18 26 28 27 7 Bank Holiday L Party Conference: Tues 19 Licensing L* 27 29 Special Licensing 28 8 17.09.11 – 21.09.11 Wed 20 L 28 Planning 30 Planning Mar 1 9 Thur 21 L 29 Dec 1 2 10 * = Seminar Room Mon 25 5 5 Borough Elections – 3 May reserved for possible Tues 26 COUNCIL 6 6 2012 Member events, ie, Wed 27 Planning 7 7 Annual Meeting – 17 May Workshops, Briefings, Thur * 28 8 8 2012 at 11am etc. Scrutiny – dates Mon 12 reserved for special Tues * 13 Wed 14 COUNCIL Thur 15

AGENDA ITEM 6(c)

REPORT OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT BOARD

9 August 2010

PRESENT: Councillors Shera, Mrs Bragg, Butlin, Cranham, Day, Miss Lawrence, Mistry, Ms Robbins and Roodhouse

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY ANNUAL REPORT 2009/10

The Board considered the following report.

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The council’s constitution requires scrutiny committees to report annually to full Council on their work. It is in any case good practice for councils to produce an annual report on their overview and scrutiny work, to promote the activity and demonstrate its value.

2. ANNUAL REPORT

2.1 The Board considered a draft annual report for 2009/10. It described the work of the committees and task groups and key achievements.

2.2 Board members were asked to consider the report and to make any amendments before its submission to Council. The Board made several amendments (Minute 16 – 2010/11 refers).

2.3 The review action plans, which formed an important part of the annual report, were being updated so that an up-to-date position statement might be presented to Council. The annual report referred to the 2009/10 action plans being viewable on Covalent. This was true for the drainage and town centre economy reviews, but the Covalent action plans for the involvement of young people and risk management of play reviews had not yet been published.

3. PUBLICATION

3.1 The last three annual reports had been printed in a compact A5 format in the council’s print room. The appendices, showing Cabinet decisions and implementation action plans, had not been printed and had instead been published on the website and referred to in the report. It was suggested that this approach should be repeated with the current report.

1

3.2 As in the past, the report should be distributed to partners and community groups and made available in public places to promote overview and scrutiny work externally and encourage greater community engagement.

[Note to Council – The updated action plans referred to in 2.3 above were subsequently reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board on 11 October and the most recently updated version of the Annual Report is available for inspection in the Members’ Room.]

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

The Board resolved that the report be submitted to Council.

COUNCILLOR J M SHERA CHAIRMAN

2 AGENDA ITEM 6(d)

REPORT OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT BOARD

11 October 2010

PRESENT: Councillors Shera, Mrs Bragg, Butlin, Cranham, Day, Miss Lawrence, Mistry, Ms Robbins and Roodhouse

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY HANDBOOK

The Board considered the following report.

1. BACKGROUND

Council on 22 July 2008 approved an Overview and Scrutiny Handbook as part of the package of changes to the structure and practice of overview and scrutiny (minute 27 – 2008/09 refers). In July 2009, Council made further minor procedural amendments following a review of the first year of operation of the new structure. A new handbook was not formally approved, although an updated working version was maintained.

Overview and scrutiny continued to evolve and there were consequently a number of instances of changing practice that needed to be formalised. Also, in some cases existing procedure required clarification.

A revised Overview and Scrutiny Handbook is available for inspection in the Members’ Room and a copy will be sent to members following approval by Council.

2. CHANGES

The principal changes are as follows:

Section Change Reason for change 2.3 Removal of reference to Council decision, July 2009. portfolios in defining the remit of each committee. 2.4 Task groups ideally to be Council decision July 2009. The made up of an odd number of word ‘ideally’ is used to enable the councillors and have between odd number rule to be relaxed if the five and nine members subject matter of the review is non- contentious or the composition of the task group is not finely balanced politically.

1 Section Change Reason for change 2.4 Deleted reference to keeping a This was difficult to assemble and record of members’ areas of maintain and the quality of expertise and interests information was variable. The current practice of asking members to state their expertise and experience when inviting them to join a task group seems to be working well. 3.1 Removal of aim to have a Although this originally seemed a three-year work programme responsible thing to do, councils are increasingly finding that they need to programme over shorter periods in order to be responsive to current concerns. 3.5 Removal of statement that In practice it has been found that reviews normally last around reviews may last considerably less six to nine months. than six months and still do a good job. It is best not to build in an expectation of a longer duration. 3.5 Removal of reference to In practice, the parent committees OSMB setting the terms of have agreed one page strategies, reference of task group and this has created no problems of reviews. control or co-ordination. 3.6 Clearer presentation of call-in The procedure agreed by Council in procedure to show difference June 2008 is sometimes between the two different misunderstood. types of call-in. 3.7 Statement of procedure for The constitution is unclear on this dealing with referred motions because it refers to the former on notice. panels and does not distinguish between OSMB and committees. This is a ‘holding’ procedure to follow till the constitution is formally revised. 3.8.3 New section on review action OSMB decision August 2010 plans. 4.3 Removal of statement that This is no longer the case each committee chairman is one of the nine members of the OSMB.

2 Section Change Reason for change Former Removal of section on pre- In practice, this provision has never 6.1.4 committee meetings been used. However, the fact that it is no longer mentioned does not prevent a committee chairman from convening a pre-committee briefing meeting if it is considered useful. 6.2.1 This is not a change but a This section was included before the point to consider. It says that working relationship between OSMB at least one member of and executive officers had been Leadership Team attends established in practice, and at a time each meeting of OSMB. when the Leadership Team consisted of four people rather than the present two. A member of Leadership Team has not always been present at OSMB. The Board was asked to consider whether this requirement was still necessary and reasonable, and agreed the requirement that an Executive Director or their representative attend each meeting of OSMB. App C Largely cosmetic changes to Clarity the one page strategy format

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

The Board resolved to recommend to Council that the amended Overview and Scrutiny Handbook be approved.

COUNCILLOR J M SHERA CHAIRMAN

3

4 AGENDA ITEM 6(e)

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE

16th SEPTEMBER 2010

PRESENT :

Mr A Stothard (Chairman), Mrs C Truelove (Vice Chairman)

Borough Councillors: - Mrs Bragg, Mrs Roodhouse and Helen Walton.

Parish Councillors: - Galsworthy, Owen and Mrs Wyatt

Independent: - Mrs Heather Thornton

APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES TO CONSIDER THE DETERMINATION OF HEARINGS

Introduction

At the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 16th September 2010, the Committee considered the report of the Head of Democratic and Legal Services regarding the appointment of sub-committees to consider the determination of hearings.

Under the Council’s Constitution, the Standards Committee was already allowed to refer any case involving a parish councillor to the Committee’s Parish Standards Sub- Committee, comprising of at least one independent member, four parish representatives and two Borough Councillors.

The Local Government Act 2000 and the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 gave discretion to the Standards Committee to appoint sub-committees to consider determination hearings that a councillor or co-opted member had failed to comply with their code of conduct.

It was proposed to amend the Council’s constitution to allow the Standards Committee to form a Standards Sub-Committee to discharge functions under Regulations 17 to 20 of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008. For a meeting of the Sub- Committee to be valid, at least three of the Standards Committee must be present throughout. These members must include one independent member as Chairman (a statutory requirement), one parish council member and one borough councillor.

The Committee supported the recommendation; however, the Chairman commented that he would prefer as many members as possible to be present at a Hearing.

1 Recommendation of the Standards Committee:

IT BE RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL THAT: the Constitution be amended to allow the Standards Committee to form a Standards Sub-Committee to discharge functions under Regulations 17 to 20 of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008, as detailed in the officer’s report.

Recommendation - the recommendation of the Standards Committee be approved.

MR ALAN STOTHARD CHAIRMAN

2 AGENDA ITEM 7(a)

Council 15 December 2010

Report of the Executive Director

New Executive Arrangements

BACKGROUND

On 19 October, Council resolved to publicise proposals to adopt the Leader and Cabinet Executive (England) governance model, as set out in the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended). Council also resolved that a report making recommendations to put the proposals into effect be submitted to the meeting on 15 December.

PUBLICITY

As required by the legislation, notice of the proposals has been advertised in the local press. The proposals have been made available for public inspection at the Town Hall and have also been published on the council’s website together with the documents published in support of the consultation undertaken between June and August 2010.

The recommendation set out below follows the requirements of the legislation for the model which the Council will be adopting.

Recommendation

1. The Leader and Cabinet Executive (England) model of executive arrangements, as set out in the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000 (as amended) be adopted with effect from the third day after the May 2011 elections;

2. the Leader be elected by full Council at its post-election annual meeting or, if the Council fails to elect a leader at that meeting, at a subsequent meeting of the Council;

3. the Leader’s term of office shall start on the day of election as Leader and end on the day of the next post-election annual meeting unless the Leader is removed from office or resigns, or ceases to be a councillor, or is disqualified from being a councillor before that day;

4. the Leader shall determine the size of the Cabinet and appoint between two and nine members of the Council to the Cabinet in addition to him or herself;

5. the Leader may allocate any areas of responsibility (known as portfolios) to Cabinet members;

1 6. the Leader may remove members from the Cabinet at any time, and add new members, subject to the maintenance of the minimum of two and maximum of nine members in addition to the Leader;

7. the Leader determine the scheme of delegation for the discharge of the executive functions of the Council;

8. the Leader report to Council on all appointments and changes to the Cabinet;

9. the Leader appoint one of the members of the Cabinet to be his or her deputy, to hold office until the end of the Leader’s term of office, unless, before then, the Deputy Leader resigns from that role, or ceases to be a councillor or is disqualified or removed from office by the Leader;

10.the Leader be entitled to remove the Deputy Leader from office, but must then appoint another person in his or her place;

11.if for any reason the Leader is unable to act or the office of Leader is vacant, the Deputy Leader shall act in the Leader’s place;

12.Cabinet act in the Leader’s place or arrange for a member of Cabinet to do so in the event of neither the Leader nor the Deputy Leader being able to act or their offices being vacant;

13.Council be empowered to remove the Leader by way of resolution by a simple majority;

14.in the event of Council passing a resolution to remove the Leader, a new Leader be elected at the meeting at which the leader is removed from office, or at a subsequent meeting;

15.the present Leader remain in office, provided he or she is still a councillor, until the Annual Meeting after the 2011 elections, at which the new Leader will be elected;

16.the allocation of local choice functions specified in the Local Government Act 2000 (S13(3)(b)) continue as currently set out in Part 2a(3) of the Constitution until such time as they may be revised by the Leader or Council under the new governance arrangements; and

17.detailed changes to the Constitution, to include the provisions hereby resolved, be agreed by the Council prior to the date on which the proposals come into effect.

2 Agenda Item 7 (b)

Review of the Council’s Corporate Management Arrangements

Report of the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Resources) and the Monitoring Officer (Legal and Elections Manager)

Council 15th December 2010

1. Background

The council’s current corporate management arrangements were approved by Full Council at its meeting of 27th July 2010, subject to a review being carried out before May 2012.

In the meantime there has been a review of members allowances carried out by an Independent Review Panel. As part of that review some aspects of the current management arrangements were called into question. Although Council approved the key details of the review at its special meeting of 30th September 2010, it also made the following resolution:

Whilst the Council considers that the management arrangements approved on 27th July 2010 complied with all statutory provisions and were most appropriate in the current economic circumstances, it recognises that they have been the subject of concern in the media and in the Panel’s report. In these circumstances it intends to commission an independent review of:

a) the compliance of the arrangements with statutory provisions; b) the value for money and sustainability of the arrangements; c) their suitability under the governance arrangements prescribed by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; and d) the need for any additional checks, balances and amendments to the council’s governance arrangements.

The review to be commissioned as soon as possible.

2. The Review

In late October 2010 the council commissioned Tribal Consulting at a cost of £4,975 to carry out an independent health check of the council’s corporate management arrangements in line with the terms of reference specified by Full Council on 30th September.

The full report is reproduced at Appendix 1.

Tribal’s report outlines much of the background which has led to public and media challenge of the council’s member and officer structures, roles and responsibilities.

1 Tribal interviewed the Leader of the Council and relevant senior officers and carried out high-level benchmarking of corporate management arrangements in a number of similar and neighbouring councils.

3. Main Findings and Conclusions

Overall Tribal concluded that in their view there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the decision made by the council to delete the post of Chief Executive. In allocating the duties and responsibilities of the former Chief Executive to the two Executive Directors and broadening the role of the Leader to a more ambassadorial role, there is no evidence to suggest that the Leader has taken on, or intends to take on, responsibility for any statutory responsibilities, which must be carried out by paid council employees, nor is he to become involved in day to day management of the council. There has clearly been confusion and misunderstanding amongst some stakeholders as to the nature of the Leader’s broadened role.

Tribal do however point out that more robust performance management/ appraisal arrangements are required for the two Executive Directors and Heads of Service to offer reassurance that the current management arrangements can deliver our corporate priorities. A robust performance framework would also offer more evidence to inform the review of the council’s management arrangements scheduled for May 2012.

In summary, Tribal believe that the council’s corporate management arrangements:

a) do comply with statutory provisions; b) do provide value for money and can be sustainable; c) are suitable under the governance arrangements prescribed by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; but d) would benefit from some additional checks and balances being introduced as detailed in Section 9 of the report.

4. Recommendation

The findings of the independent healthcheck of the council’s corporate management arrangements carried out by Tribal be endorsed.

2

Rugby Borough Council

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

‘

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

© Insert text or de- select this option 2010 https://connect.tribalgroup.com/Image%20library/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder= %2FImage %20library %2F8%2E0%20Corpora te %20f unc ti ons %2F8%2E01%20Bus iness %20d eve lopmen t https://connect.tribalgroup.com/Image%20library/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder= %2FImage %20library %2F8%2E0%20Corpora te %20f unc ti ons %2F8%2E01%20Bus iness %20d eve lopmen t

23rd November 2010

CONFIDENTIAL Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Contact Details Sheila Whelan Assistant Director

Telephone: 07855 148196 [email protected]

Jo Pitman Senior HR Consultant

Telephone: 07824497362 [email protected]

Contact Address 154 Great Charles Street, Queensway, Birmingham B3 3HN T: +44 (0)1212 332 000, F: +44 (0)1212 337 070

This report is for the benefit of Rugby Borough Council only and has been released to Rugby Borough Council on the basis that it shall not be copied, referred to or disclosed, in whole or in part, without our prior written consent. We have not verified the reliability or accuracy of any information obtained from third parties in the course of our work. Any party that obtains access to this Report or a copy (under Freedom of Information Act 2000 or otherwise) and chooses to rely on this Report (or any part of it) does so at their own risk. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Tribal do not assume any responsibility and will not accept any responsibility in respect of this Report to any party other than the original addressee. Clients should note that Tribal are not tax advisers, financial advisers or lawyers and do not assume any responsibility or accept any liability for any tax, financial or legal advice that may be given by or on behalf of Tribal. If such advice is required, advice from a relevant professional adviser should be sought. Tribal Consulting Limited. Registered office: 87-91 Newman Street, London W1T 3EY. Company registered in England and Wales No. 4268468.

Rugby Borough Council

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. Background ...... 2

3. Methodology...... 5

4. Findings of benchmark research...... 7

5. The compliance of Rugby Borough Council’s management structure arrangements with statutory provisions ...... 10

6. The Decentralisation and Localism Bill...... 16

7. Value for money and sustainability of the current structure...... 18

8. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 ...... 24

9. Any other issues for consideration...... 26

10. Conclusions...... 30

Rugby Borough Council

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

1. Introduction

Tribal has been commissoned by Rugby Borough Council (the Council) to conduct an independent health check of its corporate management structure, and to determine whether it is lawful in composition. The decision to commission an external review of its management structure was prompted by concerns expressed privately and publicly by various internal and external stakeholders about the decision, in particular, to delete the post of Chief Executive. This concern was further underpinned by the fact that in accordance with a decision by Full Council, the Leader of the Council has, as part of the new structure, taken on additional responsibilities, some of which would traditionally fall to the role of Chief Executive.

Consequently the Council set the following terms of reference to guide the report: � To review the compliance of the arrangements with statutory provisions; i.e. whether there is an obligation to appoint a Chief Executive, and whether there is any reason why the political Leader of the Council may not assume some of the leadership functions of the Chief Executive � To review the value for money and sustainability of the arrangements � To review the suitability of the management structure under the governance arrangements prescribed by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 � To consider the need for any additional checks, balances and amendments to the Council’s Governance arrangements (recognising that no management structure has the capacity to endure “all time”).

Rugby Borough Council 1

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

2. Background

2.1. Council decision to remove the post of Chief Executive from the organisation structure A special meeting of the Council was held on 10th February 2010 to consider an Exempt report of the (now former) Chief Executive, Simon Warren, the purpose of which was to recommend interim management arrangements in order to cover his departure from the Council, due to take effect on 26th February 2010. Within that report it was recommended that: � The two Deputy Chief Executives; Andrew Gabbitas and Ian Davis, should cover the responsibilities of the Chief Executive role between them � Andrew Gabbitas be appointed Returning Officer and Acting Head of Paid Service � Both Andrew Gabbitas and Ian Davis’ salaries be accelerated to the top point of their current grade in order to reflect the additional duties and responsibilities that they would pick up, and that � These arrangements continue until 1st September 2010, or the appointment of a new Chief Executive, whichever came first. The recommendation that the arrangements should be interim was a reflection of the fact that the Council was, at that time, in discussions with its neighbouring council, Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council regarding the possibility of a shared Chief Executive arrangement. Like many Council’s up and down the country at the time, and indeed at present, Rugby Borough Council was considering many options as to how it could best position itself to meet the forthcoming financial constraints of the public sector. The proposal to delete the role of Chief Executive presented an opportunity to deliver £122,160 full year savings (less the cost of any additional salary increases for the officers), in one single action, with limited impact upon the delivery of the council’s front line services, and its workforce. It is also important to note that there was not, at that time, any specific recommendation contained within the report in relation to the Leader of the Council taking on any specific responsibilities of the Chief Executive. The report did, however, comment upon the fact that the Leader had recently been appointed to the role of Vice Chairman of the West Midlands Leaders Board and the Public Service Board. The report similarly acknowledged that the Leader was a member of the Coventry,

Rugby Borough Council 2

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Solihull and Warwickshire Partnership Board, and it was felt that he would be in a good position to continue to represent the Council at regional, sub-regional and county level without extensive officer support i.e. from the Chief Executive, because of his experience. There was no further mention of the extent to which the Leader would be affected by the proposed interim arrangements. The minutes of the Council meeting reflect the fact that the recommendations and arrangements outlined within the report of the former Chief Executive were approved by Full Council. There is no record of abstentions or recorded votes in relation to the decision. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to assume that there was no strong opposition to the recommendations at that time. 2.2. Local Government Conference 2010 On 6th July 2010 the Local Government Conference took place. It was here that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, made the following statement: “Now, over the past few weeks, it's been clear that there are various things we can learn from the German nation. And various phrases have entered our language. Deutschland vier, Argentinien null. I want to add another one. Doppelspitze. It's one they came up with when starting their local government reorganisation. And a question which we didn't address in the move towards executive members. Doppelspitze means 'identical authority'. Where you have Chief Executives and elected leaders responsible for the same thing. It's both expensive and pointless. Couldn't chief execs bring more to the table by working across boundaries, rather than replicating what the leader should be doing? But I know, if I'm going to ask you to be more transparent and careful with money, it's only right that I set the pace.” It was following this speech that concern regarding the management arrangements within the Council began to be voiced by internal and external stakeholders. A second report relating to the management structure of Rugby Borough Council was subsequently put forward to Full Council on 27th July 2010 confirming that there was no prospect of the shared Chief Executive arrangement with Nuneaton and Bedworth Council being realised. Consequently, the report also detailed seven options for the Council to consider for the structure and composition of its corporate management team. Of the seven options within the report, it was recommended that the arrangements agreed by Council in February 2010 be extended permanently (with an appropriate review in July 2012).

Rugby Borough Council 3

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Again, this report was approved by Full Council with no recorded votes. Notwithstanding this decision, the perception that the Leader of the Council had taken on the role and responsibilities of the former Chief Executive gathered further momentum. Consequently, it was felt necessary to commission Tribal to conduct a health check of the Council’s management structure and arrangements in order that the Council can be satisfied that there is nothing wrong with the approach that it has implemented.

Rugby Borough Council 4

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

3. Methodology

We have used the following approach to develop this report: Interviews with stakeholders: a series of face-to-face meetings were held with the two Executive Directors, the Head of Resources, the Legal and Elections Manager and the Human Resources Manager. We also conducted a telephone interview with the Leader of the Council. High-level benchmarking and trend analysis: In order to build upon the intelligence acquired through our meetings with members of the Corporate Management Team and the Leader of the Council, we also undertook to benchmark Rugby Borough Council’s corporate management/leadership structure with that of other councils. The councils selected for benchmarking purposes were either neighbouring councils based on location i.e. those within the West Midlands region, “CIPFA near neighbours”, as typically used for organisational benchmarking, or local authorities who are known to have recently looked at their corporate management structures and have adopted a more creative approach to their structures. In order to inform our research we approached 24 councils between the period 10th and 18th November 2010. Table 1: CIPFA “near neighbours” approached for benchmarking purposes Pos. Neighbour Authorities Braintree District Council Colchester Borough Council St. Edmundsbury Borough Council Stroud District Council Maidstone Borough Council Taunton Deane Borough Council High Peak Borough Council Wyre Forest District Council Stafford Borough Council Mendip District Council South Kesteven District Council Newark and Sherwood District Council Lichfield Council

Rugby Borough Council 5

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Pos. Neighbour Authorities Tewkesbury Borough Council Kettering Borough Council

Table 2: Other local authorities approached for benchmarking purposes Other benchmark Authorities Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Worcester City Council Wychavon District Council Stratford on Avon District Council Bromsgrove and Redditch Councils East Northamptonshire District Council North West Leicestershire District Council Daventry District Council Adur and Worthing Councils

Rugby Borough Council 6

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

4. Findings of benchmark research

Perhaps unsurprisingly we were unable to secure data from all of the identified comparators for various reasons; whether due to a reluctance to share information or commit time to us as external consultants, or whether simply due to the inability within the timescale to gain access to the appropriate contact within the identified comparator organisation. However, we were successful in talking to thirteen councils and we have used the data from those discussions as the basis for our report. Of the fifteen CIPFA benchmark comparators we were able to collect data from five. We were also successful in collecting data from a further eight local authorities in order to add weight to our research. It should be noted that all of those authorities we spoke to were very helpful and we are indebted to them for their time and input. Table 3 below illustrates in summary form the size and composition of the management structures of the thirteen benchmark authorities. Table 3: Summary of composition of comparator local authority management teams Director/ Total size of Deputy Executive/ Assistant Corporate Local Chief Chief Strategic Chief Assistant Group/Service Head of management Authority Executive Executive Director Executive Director Manager Service team

A 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 7 B 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 C 0 0 3▲ 0 0 0 6 9 D 1▲▲ 0 2 0 0 0 9 12 E 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 7 F 1 0 2 1 0 0 7 11 G 1 0 2 0 0 10 0 13 H 1 0 2 0 0 0 5 8 I 1* 0 2 0 7 0 0 10 J 0** 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 K 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 10 L 1 0 4 0 0 0 17 22*** M 1 1 2 1 0 0 10 15***

Source: Data collection process by Tribal between 10th and 18 th November 2010

* retiring in December 2010 – post not being replaced for an initial period of 6 months to monitor the ongoing need and success of the structure without a Chief Executive. ** To reinstate the post of Chief Executive following two years without one. It was found that the Executive Director with Head of Paid Service responsibility was effectively the Chief Executive with a different post title.

Rugby Borough Council 7

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

*** Shared management team with another council. ▲ED’s – rotating responsibility for Head of Paid Service ▲▲shared with another Council Through our research it was clear that without exception, the authorities we spoke to were either developing, or implementing, strategic plans to deliver significant financial savings in order to prepare for, or to respond to the effects of the 2010 Coalition Government Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). It was also clear that such strategic planning had, or would, include to a greater or lesser extent some form of restructuring of their management teams. One of the many questions that we asked the benchmark authorities as part of our research was whether there was still any such thing as a “typical” management structure for local government. It was no surprise that none of the respondents felt that there was. All were of the opinion that every Council had to develop structures that worked best for itself, providing that it enabled the delivery of the Council’s priorities. It became clear, as illustrated in Table 3 above that this perception is being translated into practice with some Councils retaining a Chief Executive, some moving towards shared Chief Executive arrangements, one adopting a rotating “Head of Paid Service” amongst its Executive Directors, and others having recently considered deleting the post of Chief Executive – as Rugby Borough Council has already done. Some Council’s still choose to have Deputy and/or Assistant Chief Executives – others do not. The principle of shared management teams is also being adopted in an increasing number of local authorities/public services up and down the country in a bid to demonstrate greater efficiencies. It was also interesting to note that there are variances in the positioning of the Chief Finance Officer/Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer. Some Council’s have these posts located at second tier/Director level, whilst others locate them at third tier/Head of Service level. It was also evident that some Council’s split the location of the two roles between second and third tier officers. Of particular interest is the fact that there does appear to be a move towards either retaining a Chief Executive and deleting Executive Director posts, or, as with Rugby Borough Council, retaining the Executive Director posts and deleting the Chief Executive post. What is perhaps most striking about the latter option is that the evidence would suggest that the three employing authorities who have moved to such an arrangement have done so in agreement with their Chief Executive

Rugby Borough Council 8

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

because it is mutually convenient to do so, i.e. because they have been offered another post elsewhere, or, because they wish to take early retirement. None of the employing authorities appear to have considered making the post of Chief Executive redundant whilst the postholder is effectively in situ.

Rugby Borough Council 9

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

5. The compliance of Rugby Borough Council’s management structure arrangements with statutory provisions

It is important to begin this section of the report by acknowledging that whilst it has been traditional for local authorities to have both a political leader (“the Leader of the Council”), and a non political leader (the Chief Executive/Managing Director) in post at any one time, there is not a specific statutory requirement to have both posts. There are however specific statutory requirements in respect of the need to ensure the appointment of certain non political statutory posts, and the way in which those appointments are made. We will address the detail of this further within the report. However, as a starting point it may be helpful to reflect upon the traditional roles of the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive. 5.1. The Leader of the Council Typically the role of Leader of the Council has been, and is, associated with providing a public figure head for the Council; to ensure political policy direction; to provide political leadership to his/her Group, and to the whole Council. The Leader of the Council is of course an elected member and is therefore elected to the Council by local constituents. He or she is then in turn appointed to the role of “Leader of the Council” by the Council itself. 5.2. The role of Chief Executive / Managing Director The role of the Chief Executive/Managing Director has conversely been to ensure the effective management and operation of the Council; to be the interface between the political groups of the Council and the paid staff; to ensure that the political direction of the Council is effectively translated into the every day work of the Council’s officers, and to serve the whole Council. The Chief Executive/Managing Director is the most senior paid officer within a Council, and is typically also the “Head of Paid Service”. (We will address the role of the Head of Paid Service further within this report as it is central to the question of whether Rugby Borough Council has put in place a management structure that is lawful in its composition). The duties and responsibilities of the post of Chief Executive are determined by the individual employing authority. They include the

Rugby Borough Council 10

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

statutory responsibilities of the Head of the Paid Service and such other duties as determined by the Authority which should include the following: (i) Responsibility for: Leading the management team or equivalent, in particular in: (i) Securing a corporate approach: � securing the provision of advice on the forward planning of objectives and services � ensuring the efficient and effective implementation of the Council’s programmes and policies across all services and the effective deployment of the authority’s resources to those ends. For these purposes the Chief Executive has authority over all other employees of the council. (ii) Advising the Council, its Executive, and its Committees on all matters of general policy and all other matters upon which his or her advice is necessary, with the right of attendance at all committees of the Council and all sub-committees and working parties. (iii) Advising the Leader or Elected Mayor of the Council, or, where appropriate, the Party Group Leaders on any matter relevant to the council’s functions. (iv) Representing and negotiating on behalf of the Council on external bodies and networks. (v) Advising or making suitable arrangements for advising the Lord Mayor, Mayor or Chair of the Council on all matters within the duties of that office. 5.3. Statutory Officers In accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 (Financial Administration) and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 every local authority is required to ensure the appointment of a Chief Finance Officer (commonly known as the “Section 151 Officer”), Head of Paid Service and a Monitoring Officer. Each of these three statutory appointments has specific responsibilities to the Council and must be occupied by “paid officers” of the Council, as opposed to elected members. 5.4. Head of Paid Service The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 placed a duty upon every relevant local authority to designate one of their officers as the Head of their Paid Service; and to provide that officer with such staff,

Rugby Borough Council 11

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

accommodation and other resources as are, in his/her opinion, sufficient to allow his/her duties to be performed. It is the duty of the Head of Paid Service, where s/he considers it appropriate to do so, to prepare a report to the authority (and to ensure that every member of the authority receives it as soon as practicable after it has been prepared) setting out his/her proposals in relation to: i. the manner in which the discharge by the authority of their different functions is co-ordinated; ii. the number and grades of staff required by the authority for the discharge of their functions; iii. the organisation of the authority’s staff; and iv. the appointment and proper management of the authority’s staff. It is then the duty of the relevant authority to consider any such report by the Head of the Paid Service at a meeting held not more than three months after copies of the report are first sent to members of the authority. 5.5. How has Rugby Borough Council addressed this duty? In February 2010 Andrew Gabbitas was appointed acting “Head of Paid Service” by the Council, and then subsequently confirmed as “Head of Paid Service” in July 2010. There is no evidence that the Leader of the Council has taken on, or intends to take on, any of the responsibilities associated with such a role. The appointment of Andrew Gabbitas as the Head of Paid Service will provide the clarity amongst staff, members and other key stakeholders as to who is ultimately responsible for the internal management of the Council. It may also be helpful to comment upon the fact that there is no evidence of dissent or opposition to this appointment by the second Executive Director, Ian Davis. These arrangements are further strengthened by the adoption of a protocol detailing how the Leader of the Council and two Executive Directors should conduct themselves, and ensure appropriate separation of duties between them. The protocol was agreed by Full Council on 27th July 2010. The Council can therefore be satisfied that it has met this statutory requirement.

Rugby Borough Council 12

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

5.6. Monitoring Officer Similar to the Head of Paid Service, it is the duty of every relevant authority to designate one of their officers as “the Monitoring Officer” and to provide that officer with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in his/her opinion, sufficient to perform their duties. Where a relevant authority operates under Executive arrangements, the Monitoring Officer of that Authority has specific responsibilities for preparing a report to the Executive of the Authority with respect to any proposal, decision or omission, in the course of the discharge of functions of the relevant Authority, by or on behalf of the relevant authority’s Executive, that may constitute, gives rise to, or is likely to or would give rise to any of the following: � a contravention, by the relevant authority’s Executive or any person on behalf of the Executive, of any enactment or rule of law; or � any such maladministration or injustice as is mentioned in Part III of the Local Government Act 1974. 5.7. How has Rugby Borough Council Officer met this duty? The Council has appointed Mark Neale, Legal and Elections Manager, to the role of Monitoring Officer. Again, there is no evidence that the Leader of the Council has taken on, or intends to take on, any of the responsibilities associated with the role of Monitoring Officer. The Council can therefore be satisfied that it has also met this statutory requirement. 5.8. Chief Financial Officer/ “Section 151 Officer” The 1972 Local Government Act placed a duty upon every local authority to make arrangements for the proper administration of their financial affairs, and in doing so, ensure that one of their officers has responsibility for the administration of those affairs. The reference to Section 151 manifests itself from the relevant section of the Act itself; notably section 151. 5.9. How has Rugby Borough Council Officer met this duty? The Council has appointed Adam Norburn, Head of Resources, to the role of Chief Finance Officer for the purposes of meeting its statutory duty under the 1972 Local Government Act. Whilst the concerns regarding the additional duties and responsibilities of the Leader of the Council are principally connected to the traditional functions of the Chief Executive, it is worth commenting again, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is no evidence that the Leader of the

Rugby Borough Council 13

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Council has taken on, or intends to take on, any of the responsibilities associated with the role of Chief Finance Officer. Having detailed the specific statutory obligations placed upon local authorities, and having also had the opportunity to discuss the operating arrangements of Rugby Borough Council with the Leader, the two Executive Directors, the Head of Resources, and the Legal and Elections Manager it is clear that Rugby Borough Council has put appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that it meets its statutory responsibilities for the appointment of these three posts, as set out in the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. It is also clear that the Leader of the Council does not, and is not, intended to perform any of these statutory responsibilities. Table 4 below illustrates in summary form how the three statutory appointments have been met within the Council: Table 4: Allocation of Statutory Responsibilities Statutory Officer Assigned to Head of Paid Service Executive Director (Andrew Gabbitas) Chief Finance Officer/Section 151 Officer Head of Resources (Adam Norburn) Monitoring Officer Legal and Elections Manager (Mark Neale) Source: Interviews with Senior Officers and the Leader of the Council, November 2010, and Council reports dated February and July 2010. 5.10. To what extent have the duties and responsibilities of the former Chief Executive been apportioned between the Executive Directors and the Leader of the Council? It is clear that by far and above the majority of duties and responsibilities of the former Chief Executive have been divided between the two Executive Directors; Andrew Gabbitas and Ian Davis. Indeed, the February 2010 report of the former Chief Executive makes it clear that they should both cover the responsibilities of the (now former) Chief Executive. In its most simplistic form, Andrew has taken on lead responsibility for the internal operation of the Council, including overall responsibility for the management of the Council’s workforce, and Ian has conversely taken on lead responsibility for the externally facing aspect of the Council’s business – the public facing services, partnerships and

Rugby Borough Council 14

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

community engagement. There is however also cross over into one another’s “home” portfolio. This is an arrangement that suits both Andrew and Ian, and plays to their respective strengths and professional backgrounds. Both officers are unequivocal that they are equals and there is no intention that Andrew, as Head of Paid Service, should be a “first amongst equals”. From this it will be seen that the key employee management responsibilities remain with Chief Officers and not with the Leader. The Leader’s role has expanded to act as an Ambassador, advocate and external voice for the Council in relation to the regional, sub-regional and local working groups, committees and activities, and engaging with the local constituents of Rugby, as would be expected of a political Leader. The most significant differential between the role of Leader before the post of Chief Executive was deleted, and the Leader now, is that the Leader is able to attend those meetings independently, as opposed to relying upon the Chief Executive for support and advice in those meetings. This is in no small part due to the independence, knowledge and capabilities of the current Leader of the Council. The development of a protocol for how the Leader of the Council and the two Executive Directors are expected to conduct themselves and ensure appropriate separation of duties between a Council political leader, and the non political leaders is a sensible way of ensuring effective and appropriate governance arrangements within the Council. It is noted and has already been commented upon that this protocol was agreed by Full Council on 27th July 2010.

Rugby Borough Council 15

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

6. The Decentralisation and Localism Bill

The forthcoming Decentralisation and Localism Bill will devolve greater powers to councils and neighbourhoods, and will give local communities control over housing and planning decisions. The Government has stated that it “believes that it is time for a fundamental shift of power from Westminster to people. We will promote decentralisation and democratic engagement, and we will end the era of top-down government by giving new powers to local councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals” The main benefits of the Bill would be: � Empowering local people � Freeing local government from central and regional control � Giving local communities a real share in local growth � A more efficient and more local planning system. The main elements of the Bill are: � Abolish Regional Spatial Strategies � Return decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils � Abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and replace it with an efficient and democratically accountable system that provides a fast-track process for major infrastructure projects � New powers to help save local facilities and services threatened with closure, and give communities the right to bid to take over local state-run services � Abolish the Standards Board regime � Give councils a general power of competence � Require public bodies to publish online the job titles of every member of staff and the salaries and expenses of senior officials � Give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue and the power to veto excessive council tax increases � Greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups � Create Local Enterprise Partnerships (to replace Regional Development Agencies) – joint local authority-business bodies brought forward by local authorities to promote local economic development. � Form plans to deliver a genuine and lasting Olympic legacy � Outright abolition of Home Improvement Packs � Create new trusts that would make it simpler for communities to provide homes for local people � Review the Housing Revenue Account

Rugby Borough Council 16

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Whilst by no means a certainty, there have been indications that there will also be some reference within the Bill to the roles of Leaders and Chief Executives of local authorities. The timing of the Localism Bill is too late for the purposes of this report; however, if the indications are correct, Rugby Borough Council will need to keep a watching brief to ensure that it takes account of the Coalition Government’s position in respect of any regulation regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Leader and Chief Executive and the impact that it may have upon the arrangements in place at Rugby.

Rugby Borough Council 17

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

7. Value for money and sustainability of the current structure

7.1. Value for Money We have taken the view that the question of whether the new management structure within Rugby Borough Council offers value for money (VFM) can be measured in a number of different ways, but for the purpose of this report is best measured by looking at the Council’s response to the findings of the Audit Commission Organisational Assessment (December 2009), in which the Council performance was scored as “performing adequately”, and to identify the extent to which the Council has taken on board, and acted upon the report recommendations. The Council will of course be very familiar with the Audit Commission report but, by way of a simple reminder, Table 4 below illustrates how the Council was scored at that time: Table 5: Organisational Assessment Assessment/Measure Score Managing Performance 2 out of 4 Use of Resources 2 out of 4 Managing Finance 2 out of 4 Governing the Business 2 out of 4 Source: Audit Commission “organisational Assessment” Report December 2009 Within its report the Audit Commission stated that the Council: “needed to continue to keep its financial planning up-to-date, regularly manage within its budget in the future, do more work on comparing itself with others and use this information better”. It went on to further say that: “Rugby scores 2 out of 4 on use of resources. It uses public money adequately to deliver its priorities. It manages its finances within budget and is starting to link costs to performance. A programme of service reviews has started, and services like Planning and Housing are improving. The Council saves money by getting some of its products jointly with other councils but more could be done in this area. It needs to do more work on comparing itself with others and use this information better. It needs to keep its financial planning up-to-date regularly and ensure

Rugby Borough Council 18

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

that it continues to manage within its budget. It also needs to develop a workforce plan alongside its workforce planning processes and make sure there is ownership of risks at all levels”. The fact that Rugby Borough Council has acted proactively, and utilised to good effect the opportunity to review the corporate management structure arising from the resignation of the former Chief Executive would signal that it is committed to responding to the advice of the Audit Commission for managing its budget, and preparing for what was at the time of the restructure proposal, the impending CSR. The emphasis of the proposal to delete the post of Chief Executive was clearly upon delivering significant financial savings, whilst at the same time, minimising the effect upon the delivery of services to the public, and protecting jobs at the lower end of the workforce. Together, these factors would indicate that the Council is committed to ensuring that it provides value for money to its constituents and is prepared to be creative in the way in which it plans to deliver this. The new management structure has delivered in excess of £100,000 savings with little or no impact upon staff (save for the members of the corporate management team, and particularly the two Executive Directors). That said, whilst Rugby Borough Council should be applauded for its bravery in thinking the unthinkable and leading the way for change, it is not enough to simply remove a top tier post from the organisational structure and assume that value for money will automatically follow. Other factors should be taken into account. There are arguably advantages to employing a Chief Executive. From one single paid officer you can be sure of strong and clear leadership, and the provision of a consistent point of contact. Equally, it is clear to all (internal and external stakeholders alike) that a single figurehead in the shape of a Chief Executive is the person who holds ultimate accountability and responsibility for the management of the organisation. Consequently, if Rugby Borough Council is to prove that its new management structure is capable of being both sustainable and demonstrating value for money then it is critical that it is able to demonstrate to all of its stakeholders that these factors are not compromised. Based upon the meetings that we held with the Executive Directors, the Head of Resources, the Legal and Elections Manager and the Leader of the Council we believe that the Council has taken steps to ensure that the leadership of the Council has not been compromised.

Rugby Borough Council 19

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

The clear separation of responsibility for the internal and external aspects of the business, and the associated responsibility for the respective Heads of Service between Andrew Gabbitas and Ian Davis are just two examples. Others include: � the appointment of Andrew Gabbitas as Head of Paid Service � the daily meetings that the two Executive Directors hold with one another to ensure that they are both equally alert to the issues facing the Council, which in turn facilitates the allocation of resources to changing priorities and provides for the joining up of the internal and external services so that Rugby Borough Council is seen as “one Council”. � the frequency with which two Executive Directors meet the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet � the frequency with which the two Executive Directors meet all Political Group Leaders, thus ensuring that they are serving the whole Council. � the structure and operation of the corporate management team – including the Heads of Service (meetings structured to focus upon strategic and operational issues on alternative weeks) � the visibility of both Executive Directors internally and externally � The one-to-one meetings that each Executive Director holds with the Heads of Service that report to them The Council must also ensure that it has a robust approach to performance management across all services and its staff if it is to continue to demonstrate, and be capable of measuring the extent to which it offers value for money. Our research has illustrated that this is currently an area of weakness for the Council, and our specific concerns in relation to this are detailed in section 9 of this report. 7.2. Sustainability of the new structure It was noticeable during the course of the research process that without exception, all of those representatives from Rugby Borough Council who were interviewed felt that the new arrangements offered considerable benefits to the management of the Council and was therefore capable of being sustained. It was commented upon in particular, that whilst there was to be absolutely no inference of criticism of the former Chief Executive, the fact that the Leader of the Council was able to meet with the Executive Directors (and to a lesser extent the Heads of Service) and discuss any issues directly, rather than through the Chief Executive was particularly valuable in that it saved time, provided for clarity in relation to political direction and had helped to develop the relationship between the Leader and the Management Team. It was also considered to be a useful strategy in support of organisational succession planning and career development as the Heads of Service are felt to be gaining

Rugby Borough Council 20

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

considerably more exposure to the issues facing Executive Directors, along with the opportunity to enhance their political management skills. However, notwithstanding the benefits that the Council appears to be reaping from this arrangement it is clear that it is working so effectively because of the individuals who are in post – notably the Leader and the two Executive Directors. Between them they have accumulated extensive knowledge of the Council and have established working practices that enable them to work as an effective joint leadership team. It is evident that they share excellent relationships with one another, which is strengthened further by an equally strong commitment to making the arrangements work in practice for the good of the Council and its constituents. We were reassured to learn of the daily meetings that Andrew and Ian have to ensure that they both have a high degree of awareness of all that is going on across the Council. We were also impressed by the absolute trust that they appear to have in one another. If the sustainability of the management structure is thus threatened by anything it is the risk that the Leader, or either of the two Executive Directors may at some stage in the period leading to 2012 (when the structure is next due to be reviewed) leave, or become unable to continue with the current arrangements. However, this is a risk that any employer can face at any time when it has a successful team, or person in post and it would be unwise to allow this to hold the Council back. The question of sustainability of the corporate management team structure must not be viewed in isolation to wider organisational issues. At the time of making the recommendation to delete the post, the overriding argument for doing so was to take the opportunity of a vacancy as it arose, and use it to deliver significant financial savings. It cannot go unsaid that the budget for 2011/12 is currently in the process of being set, and assumes a salary saving of £122,000 for the new financial year. In the event that the current arrangements collapse (for whatever reason), the Council would clearly need to identify an appropriate source from which it could ensure that this budget gap was met. In such circumstances the Council would clearly need to take advice from its Executive Directors and Chief Finance Officer as to what implications this may have for the organisation, and upon service delivery. In order to further test the question of the extent to which the current structure is sustainable we have analysed the potential advantages

Rugby Borough Council 21

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

and risks of deleting the post of Chief Executive. Tables 6 and 7 below illustrate in summary form the findings of that assessment. Table 6: Summary of the advantages of deleting the role of Chief Executive Advantages Significant salary savings √

Minimal noticeable impact upon the local √ constituents, service delivery and workforce Direct access to the Leader of the Council for √ other members of the corporate management team Quicker decisions √ Developed relationships between the Leader √ and the Corporate Management Team Succession planning and career development √ for Heads of Service

Table 7: Summary of potential risks associated with the deletion of the role of a Chief Executive Action taken by Rugby Borough Risks Council Ensuring due process is followed in respect of the redundancy of the Chief N/A – Chief Executive resigned Executive Capacity of the Corporate Management Team as a whole e.g: Will be tested at such time as it may ill health, long term absence of either Executive Director occur. Likely response would be to “act-up” one of the existing Heads of Resignation, retirement or otherwise departure of the three critical postholders Service.

The Council consulted the affected Time and competence of the whole Corporate Management Team staff upon the proposals before they were implemented. Ensuring that the statutory function of Head of Paid Service is appropriately Addressed in reports to Full Council covered elsewhere within the management structure dated 10th February and 27th July 2010. Executive Director has been appointed as Head of Paid Service. Ensuring that the Council is represented by the appropriate person at external The Leader attends political meetings. meetings (i.e. The Leader or one of the Executive Directors) The Executive Directors attend Officer meetings, save for when “Leader and Chief Executive” would typically attend together. Organisational Leadership and strategic planning may be diluted due to The role of the Executive

Rugby Borough Council 22

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

Action taken by Rugby Borough Risks Council frequency of Leader re-election Directors/SMT will ensure organisational leadership and strategic planning during re-election periods. Confusion between the separation of political and officer leadership New protocol between the Leader and Executive Directors recommended and approved by Council on 27th July 2010 provide clarity and job profiles. Performance Management is diluted: Arrangements for appraising and � Delivery of Council priorities compromised monitoring the performance of the Executive Directors and Heads of � Appraisal and performance management of Executive Directors Service need to be put in place, as per report to Council 27th July 2010. Ensuring proper remuneration for those officers who take on additional Acceleration of salary, within current responsibilities following the deletion of the post grade for Executive Directors. Independent salary benchmark review of Heads of Service and Executive Directors commissioned. Political impartiality of Executive Directors is compromised Regular meetings between both Executive Directors and the Cabinet, the Leader and Leaders of the Opposition Groups are in place to ensure that the Executive Directors serve the whole Council, and their political impartiality is not compromised. New protocol between the Leader and Executive Directors recommended and approved by Council on 27th July 2010 states the requirement for political impartiality and to serve the whole council. Effective communication strategy with internal and external stakeholders to Budget planning meetings with the communicate the decision to delete the post of Chief Executive Leader, and Opposition Group Leaders in which the proposal to delete the post of Chief Executive was discussed. Corporate communications strategy in place. Whilst the tables above illustrate that there may be more risks associated with deleting the post of Chief Executive than advantages, Table 7 also illustrates that the Council has taken appropriate steps to mitigate those risks.

Rugby Borough Council 23

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

8. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 requires every local authority to adopt one of the two following corporate governance models by 31st December 2010: � Directly elected Mayor and Cabinet Executive or � Leader and Cabinet Executive At a meeting on 19th October 2010 Rugby Borough Council resolved to adopt a Leader and Executive Cabinet model of governance. We understand that the Leader is currently considering the structure and composition of his Cabinet and that he is expecting to report upon this in the New Year. There is no specific requirement within the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 for the Council, Leader, and/or Executive Cabinet to review the Council’s management structure immediately following the decision as to which political governance model to adopt. It is for the Leader to determine the structure of his/her Cabinet and the respective portfolios of his Cabinet members. Given that the 2007 Act does not detail any specific requirements in relation to the management structure underpinning a chosen political governance model it is impossible for us to comment in any absolute way as to the suitability, or not, of the Council’s new management structure upon its chosen governance model. However, what we are able to comment upon is our awareness that some Council’s choose to structure their corporate management team and Cabinet in such a way that the portfolios of the Cabinet and the Management Team mirror one another. That is to say, any Director/Heads of Service with responsibility for, say, Resources (or any single service area that may fall within Resources i.e. Finance, Legal, HR, ICT etc.), would be accountable to the Cabinet member with portfolio responsibility for Resources. It has become clear to us during the course of our interviews with the Executive Directors and the Leader of the Council that both Executive Directors currently fulfil the role of primary adviser to the Leader of the Council, depending on their particular area of expertise, professional background and current “portfolio” of responsibility i.e. the internal or external side of the business, and that this has been operating

Rugby Borough Council 24

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

successfully. The Executive Directors and Leader are of course further supported by the Heads of Service and this also appears to be working successfully. Consequently it seems to us that there is no reason why this current arrangement could not continue to operate successfully into the future with the Leader and Executive Cabinet model. As so typically happens within this style of governance model, the Cabinet Member with portfolio responsibility for a particular area of the Council’s services would expect to be supported and advised appropriately by the lead officer, with the Cabinet member taking responsibility for any reports/recommendations being made to meetings of the Cabinet/Council. Clearly there may be occasions when the work of the two Executive Directors overlaps but again we would not expect this to present any organisational difficulties. We have already commented upon the strength of the relationship between the two Executive Directors and their commitment to making the new management arrangements work for the good of Rugby. The only thing to add to this is that we would in any event expect to see a much stronger approach to cross working between both Executive Directors, Heads of Services, and the Cabinet in order to remove the silos that have traditionally been associated with local government structures, and deliver a much more open, joined up, and performance driven council for the benefit of the residents of Rugby.

Rugby Borough Council 25

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

9. Any Other Issues for Consideration

The terms of reference for this report asked Tribal to comment upon any other issues found during the course of our research that might be relevant to the success of the management structure and indeed of Rugby Borough Council. We have given due regard to this particular element of the brief throughout the course of our research and have four issues to raise: � Performance management/appraisal of the Executive Directors and Heads of Service � Constitutional review � Job Descriptions for the Executive Directors and Heads of Service � Contractual implications 9.1. Performance Management/Appraisal As indicated within the main body of our report, there was clear reference made to the need to ensure the ongoing appraisal of the Leader of the Council and the two Executive Directors within the report to Full Council dated 27th July 2010. We understand from our interviews with the Leader of the Council and other officers, that the Council is currently in the process of reviewing its appraisal process, but that the emphasis of those arrangements is for staff on NJC (National Joint Council) conditions of service, and does not currently extend to the JNC (Joint National Council) Officers; they being members of the Corporate Management Team. Consequently the detailed arrangements for appraising and monitoring the performance of the Council’s most senior paid officers have not yet been put in place and this should be of some concern to the Council. Therefore whilst we acknowledge that the Council has recognised the need to ensure that such arrangements must be put in place, we would recommend that action is taken to address this as soon as possible. This will help the Council measure the extent to which it is providing value for money to its constituents. It will also enable senior elected members to monitor the performance of the two Executive Directors, and ensure the delivery of the Council priorities. 9.2. The case for appraisal of the Executive Directors The need to undertake a regular annual appraisal and to monitor the performance of any employee is critical, but arguably none more so than for that of the Council’s most senior officers as it is from here that the “golden thread” between the Council’s political priorities is

Rugby Borough Council 26

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

cascaded down to the rest of the workforce, and so ensures their implementation. An effective corporate performance management framework is underpinned by an effective employee appraisal process. The absence of an appraisal and performance management framework has the potential to cause confusion about how the Council’s staffing resources should be managed (and numbers thereof) and can also dilute the delivery of the council priorities. Conversely, clear targets and priorities provide direction and enable those responsible for managing the performance of staff to do so effectively, and within a proper framework. In order to ensure effective performance management throughout the Council it should be possible to see the link between the Council’s strategic plan and the performance targets of the Chief Executive – or in this case, the two Executive Directors. This link is then cascaded between the Executive Directors and the Heads of Service, Heads of Service and their team leaders/managers and so on. Such an approach is recognised as representing best practice, but is nevertheless critical during times when organisational capacity is reduced, and expectations in respect of service delivery and organisational performance management increased. 9.3. The process for appraising the Executive Directors Section 4 of the JNC conditions of Service for Chief Executives makes it clear that the responsibility for appraising the Chief Executive lies with senior elected members, and that it is a contractual obligation on the part of both the Chief Executive and the employing council to engage in a regular process of appraisal. It also clear within the JNC Conditions of Service for Chief Executives that it is a matter of local decision as to the composition of the appraisal panel, providing that due regard is given to the fact that the Chief Executive is employed to serve the whole council, not just the controlling group. Clearly the absence of a Chief Executive within the organisational structure of Rugby Borough Council makes such arrangements impracticable. However, it is nevertheless important that the spirit of this requirement is mirrored as far as possible for the Executive Directors, particularly as the Executive Directors are employed under JNC Chief Officer conditions of service. For obvious reasons the arrangements for appraising Chief Officers within the JNC conditions of service are not the same as those for a Chief Executive. Consequently it is recommended that the Council considers the introduction of a hybrid arrangement in order to ensure that the appraisal process is sufficiently robust to hold the confidence

Rugby Borough Council 27

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

of the Council and its two Executive Directors, and to ultimately ensure their accountability to the Council. Naturally, both Andrew and Ian should be consulted on any such proposals before the Council agrees the process to be followed. 9.4. Constitutional review During the course of our research it became clear that the Council constitution still makes reference to the role of Chief Executive. We would therefore recommend that it is reviewed to consider the implications of this viz. a viz the deletion of the post. In order to ensure effective corporate governance the constitution should also be amended to reflect any delegations in respect of the appraisal of the Executive Directors and Heads of Service. 9.5. Job descriptions There is very little to be said here other than the Council should take action to ensure that the two Executive Directors and the Heads of Service all receive up to date job descriptions for their new roles. 9.6. Contractual implications Within Table Seven we have identified some potential risks associated with deleting the post of Chief Executive. However, it is also important to highlight a further potential employment risk to the Council. By virtue of the decisions made at Full Council in February and July 2010 the Council has entered into amended contractual relationships with both Andrew Gabbitas and Ian Davis. As we have already discussed within the report, the Council has already made the decision to delete the post of Chief Executive in order to deliver in excess of £100,000 worth of savings. In the event that the Council decided that it wished to reverse that decision consideration would need to be given to where the equivalent savings would be generated from in order to deliver a balanced budget for 2011/12 and beyond. However, the possibility of retracting the decision to delete the post of Chief Executive does not only have immediate financial implications upon the budget, but it would also have potential legal and financial implications upon the employment relationship that the Council has with its two Executive Directors. This would clearly need to be given due consideration. Both Andrew and Ian have effectively moved from being second tier officers in the role of Deputy Chief Executive, to having full and equal responsibility for the management and operational delivery of the

Rugby Borough Council 28

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

council’s services (save for the responsibility of being “Head of Paid Service” which falls solely to Andrew). The effect of this decision is that they are now first tier officers. In addition, the Council has decided to accelerate their salary progression within their existing grade in recognition of the additional duties and responsibilities that they have both agreed to take on following the deletion of the role of Chief Executive. Therefore any potential decision to reinstate the role of Chief Executive would need to be made in the context of the current contractual relationship that exists with Andrew and Ian in order to ensure that the Council executed such changes lawfully. 9.7. Standing Orders Regulations 2001 No 3384 – Appointment and Dismissal of Senior Staff Whilst the terms of reference for this report do not require us to go into the detail of the arrangements for the appointment and dismissal of senior staff, it is nevertheless pertinent to refer to them at this stage, and note that they should of course, be duly followed by the Council at such time as they may be required, in order to ensure ongoing effective governance arrangements. It is particularly important to draw out the distinction that would apply between the two Executive Directors in this respect. The effect of this Regulation is such that the Head of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and Chief Finance Officer are all afforded statutory protection from disciplinary action, except with the involvement of an Independent Person. Clearly, the effect of the decision to have a management structure with two Executive Directors, one of whom is appointed as the Head of Paid Service means that only one of the two postholders (in this case Andrew Gabbitas) would benefit from such statutory protection in the event of disciplinary action becoming an issue.

Rugby Borough Council 29

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

10. Conclusions

Overall our findings are such that we believe that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the decision made by Rugby Borough Council to delete the post of Chief Executive. The Council has reallocated the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Executive to the two former Deputy Chief Executive’s, and, by extension, has broadened the role of Leader of the Council to adopt a more independent approach to being an external Ambassador for the Council. We have found no evidence that the Leader has taken on, or is intending to take on responsibility for any of the statutory responsibilities that must be performed by paid employees of the Council, nor is he to become involved in any of the day-to-day management of the Council. The Council does, however, clearly need to make arrangements for the performance management/appraisal of the two Executive Directors and we assume that the Council will recognise the value of the Leader’s role in this. The measurement of success of the new structure and the extent to which it affects the delivery of council services and organisational performance is currently limited due to the absence of an effective performance management/appraisal framework for the Executive Directors and Heads of Service. Consequently such arrangements must be put in place. If the priorities of the Council are effectively translated into measurable performance targets for the Executive Directors, and they, in turn, are able to demonstrate that those targets are being delivered, it will undoubtedly offer reassurance to those who may question whether the Council made the right decision in deleting the post of Chief Executive. It will also provide evidence at the time of reviewing the structure in 2012. What is clear however is that there has been confusion amongst various stakeholders as to the precise nature of the broadening of the Leader’s role following the deletion of the post of Chief Executive. Had there been greater understanding amongst all stakeholders of what was actually intended it is possible that the Council would not be in the position that it now finds itself. It is also clear that whilst Rugby Borough Council has demonstrated itself to be a forward thinker in relation to the composition of management structures within local government, it is not alone in its desire to think more creatively and “outside the box”.

Rugby Borough Council 30

Review of the Corporate Management Structure of Rugby Borough Council

As our report has illustrated, many of the benchmark Councils that we spoke to during this project either have, or are, in the process of redesigning their management structures in pursuit of the need to demonstrate greater efficiencies and deliver financial savings. There is an acceptance that the scale of the savings that need to be delivered within most local authorities is now such that options for change must take account of a “top to bottom” approach. There is equal acceptance that there is no single model for management structures. What is most important is that all Councils are able to demonstrate that they are delivering their stated priorities, and are capable of measuring their performance in pursuit of those aims. During the course of our research we have identified four areas that we would recommend the Council takes action to address in order to complete the decision to move to a management structure without a Chief Executive. Together they will strengthen the Council’s position and will provide for greater corporate governance. Table 8 below provides a summary of our findings respect of the project brief that was set by the Council. Table 8: Summary of Health-check findings Indicator Met Not Met Additional Considerations The compliance of the √ arrangements with statutory provisions; i.e. whether there is an obligation to appoint a Chief Executive Value for money and √ sustainability of the arrangements Suitability under the √ governance arrangements prescribed by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 Additional checks, √ balances and amendments to the Council’s Governance arrangements Source: Brief of Rugby Borough Council November 2010

Rugby Borough Council 31

Agenda item 7(c)

COUNCIL - 15TH DECEMBER 2010

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION IN RESPECT OF PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO PLANNING APPLICATION FEES IN ENGLAND

Introduction

The Department of Communities and Local Government is currently undertaking a consultation with Local Planning Authorities, developers, businesses, householders and anyone else involved in the planning application process, in respect of proposed changes to the current planning application fees regime in England. The consultation period ends on 7th January 2011. If accepted and approved by parliament, the proposed changes would be implemented from April 2011 with a six month transition period until October 2011. This Council’s proposed response to the consultation is attached as Appendix 1.

Nationally, Local Planning Authorities processed more than 450,000 planning applications in 2009/10. It is a resource intensive activity and each application has to be carefully and appropriately considered. Local Planning Authorities charge fees in order to recover the costs of processing most types of applications. These fees are currently set nationally by the Government and as such, it is argued, that they cannot take into account local circumstances or market conditions. Recent research suggests that the majority of Local Planning Authorities are failing to recover their costs from fee income whist some are actually generating more income than it costs to process applications.

Proposed Changes

The consultation paper proposes changes to the existing planning application fees regime which would decentralise the responsibility of setting fees to Local Planning Authorities. This would enable planning authorities to set their own charges to recover their own costs but not exceed them. This would result in applicants being charged the full cost of the application where they are paying a fee, rather than being subsidised by the general tax payers, as is the case in the majority of cases at present. It is argued that setting fees locally provides a stronger incentive for Local Planning Authorities to run a more efficient service since it will be more transparent and directly accountable to local residents.

1 It is also proposed to widen the scope of planning application fees so that authorities can charge more for their services. This would enable (but not compel) authorities to charge for resubmitted applications and would also allow authorities to charge higher fees for retrospective applications.

In light of the above, the consultation paper sets out two options for change. Option one would decentralise the responsibility of setting fees for planning applications to Local Planning Authorities. The government would set out in regulations the principal requirements for authorities (including establishing a charging schedule) and exemptions from fees. Local Planning Authorities would have to establish a charging scheme which reflected the full cost recovery and the principal that the user should pay for the actual service they receive.

The second option would be to maintain the current fee system of setting fees at the national level (subject to a 10/15% increase in fee levels).

Conclusions

As set out above, the consultation paper advances three key changes to the existing fees regime. In respect of the principal that Local Planning Authorities should be able to set their own, non-profit making, charge, it is considered that authorities should be allowed to set fees that would achieve the recovery of the full costs incurred by Local Planning Authorities in processing applications. Currently any shortfall in fees is subsidised by the general tax payer and whilst it is generally established that Local Authorities should pay for activities that are largely for the public good (and Development Management is generally seen as promoting the public good) it is also recognised that planning decisions often bring private benefit to the applicant as well, particularly as it usually adds value to the land or property that benefits from a planning permission. It is therefore considered only reasonable that a Local Planning Authority should be able to set fees that reflect the actual costs associated with processing a particular application.

Similarly, depending on the circumstances of each case, it is considered that the Local Planning Authority should be able to, where appropriate, recover the costs associated with processing a re-submitted application following withdrawal or refusal (currently free under the current fees regime). The resources taken in processing a re-submitted application to a satisfactory conclusion are often the same, if not more, when compared to processing the original application.

In addition, it is considered that Local Planning authorities should be able to set higher fees, where appropriate, for retrospective planning applications as a significant proportion of these submissions will have inevitably attracted an element of enforcement investigation which is a real cost to the Local Planning Authority that should be capable of being recompensed.

2 Recommended that - the consultation response attached as Appendix 1 to the report be submitted to the Department of Communities and Local Government as representing the formal views of this Council.

3 Appendix 1

Consultation response form - Proposals for changes to planning application fees in England

We are seeking your views on the following questions on the Government’s proposal for changes to planning application fees in England.1 If possible, we would be grateful if you could please respond by email. Alternatively, we would be happy to receive responses by post.

Email responses to: [email protected]

Written responses to:

Julian Wheeler Communities and Local Government Zone 1/J1 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

(a) About you

(i) Your details

Name: Nick Freer

Position: Development and Enforcement Manager

Name of organisation (if applicable): Rugby Borough Council

Address: Town Hall Rugby CV21 2RR

Email Address: [email protected]

Telephone number: 01788 533767

1 CLG (2010) Proposals for changes to planning application fees in England: Consultation document (see: www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyimplementation/plannin gfeesconsultation) (ii) Are the views expressed on this consultation an official response from the organisation you represent or your own personal views?

Organisational response x Personal views

(iii) Please tick the one box which best describes you or your organisation: Private developer or house builder Housing association or RSL Land owner Voluntary sector or charitable organisation Business Parish council Local government (i.e. district, borough, county, unitary, etc.) x Regional government National Park Other public body (please state) Other (please state)

(iv) What is your main area of expertise (please tick as many boxes that apply)? Planning x Legal Housing Economic or commercial development Environment Transport Other (please state)

(v) Do your views or experiences mainly relate to a particular geographical location? South West South East East of England East Midlands West Midlands x North West Yorkshire and The Humber North East London All of England Other (please comment)

(vi) Would you be happy for us to contact you again in relation to this consultation? Yes x No

(b) Consultation questions

Question 1:

1. Do you agree that each local planning authority should be able to set its own (non-profit-making) planning application fee charges?

Strongly Agree x Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Explanation/Comment:

It is considered that planning application fees should seek to achieve the recovery of the full costs incurred by Local Planning Authorities in processing applications.

Question 2:

2. Do you agree that local planning authorities should be allowed to decide whether to charge for applications that are resubmitted following withdrawal or refusal?

Strongly Agree Agree x Neither agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Explanation/Comment

: It is considered, depending on the circumstances of each case, that the Local Planning Authority should be able to recover the costs of such applications, where appropriate, as the determination of many of these applications still carries a real cost to the Authority. (eg processing a resubmitted application that has previously been refused towards an approval, often involves greater time and work in achieving an acceptable solution).

Question 3:

3. Do you agree that local planning authorities should be able to set higher fees for retrospective planning applications?

Strongly Agree Agree x Neither agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Explanation/Comment:

A significant proportion of retrospective applications is a direct result of, or often involves, enforcement investigations, which carries a real cost for the LPA that should be capable of being recompensed.

Question 4:

4. Are there any development management services which are not currently charged for but should require a fee?

Yes x No

ItExplanation/Comment: is considered that all of the integral arms of the Development Process such as Section 106 and condition monitoring should be capable of being charged for. Similarly, it should be possible to recover the costs of specialist advice where appropriate (eg. specialist agricultural/listed building/conservation advice) Although linked to the response to question 3, it should also be possible, where appropriate, to seek recovery of enforcement and policy formulation costs.

Question 5:

5. Are there any development management services which currently require a fee but should be exempt from charging?

Yes No x

Explanation/Comment: NA

Question 6:

6. What are the likely effects of any of the changes on you, or the group or business or local authority you represent?

On a positive note this scheme should allow for an appropriately Comments:resourced planning team that can adapt to the demands placed on it. If the fees were to be structured and assessed over a 5 year period rather than annually then this would allow for alignment with the traditional policy formulation cycle and forecasting of land supply. Planning authorities would then be able to directly relate resource planning to anticipated levels of development. This link would reinforce the requirement to accurately assess development needs and land supply and work in partnership with the development

industry. This link would also reinforce the need for fee income to cover the cost of development plan production.

The ability to operate the planning service on a business model will improve the value for money for applicants and ensure an appropriate level of service for each demand made. The operation of a fee would reduce the burden on tax payers in general and other sections of local authorities.

Question 7:

7. Do you think there will be unintended consequences to these proposals?

Yes x No

Comments:

It will be difficult for all LPA’s to accurately assess their overheads and clearly identify and establish actual costs so as to be consistent

with each other.

Ensuring transparency of the fee setting process, particularly with the establishment of costs and overheads will involve additional

audit/accounting costs for LPA’s

Question 8:

8. Do you have any comment on the outcomes predicted in the Impact Assessment, in particular the costs and benefits (See Annex B)?

Yes No x

Comments: NA

AGENDA ITEM 7(d)

COUNCIL 15 DECEMBER 2010

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION IN RESPECT OF PROPOSALS FOR A NEW HOMES BONUS SCHEME.

INTRODUCTION

The Department of Communities and Local Government is currently undertaking a consultation in respect of the introduction of a New Homes Bonus Scheme. The consultation period ends on 24th December 2010 and as such is being reported to Council rather than to Cabinet. This Council’s proposed response to the consultation is attached as Appendix 1.

Housing supply has now fallen to a historic low even though demand for housing is strong. Previous Government housing targets have failed to deliver the amount of housing required. A series of independent reviews have highlighted the role that local incentives can play in driving housing delivery.

Recognising that a new approach was needed, the Coalition Agreement set out to provide incentives for local authorities to deliver sustainable development, including for new homes and businesses. The proposed scheme which is the subject of the current consultation will provide the incentive by returning the benefits of growth back to communities.

PROPOSED SCHEME DETAIL

The scheme will incentivise local authorities to increase housing supply by rewarding them with a New Homes Bonus, equal to the national average for the council tax band on each additional property paid for the following six years as an unringfenced grant. There will be an enhancement for affordable homes.

Unit of reward

The proposal would see a grant being paid to local authorities which was equal to the national average of the council tax band for the following six years. This would be measured by analysing the change in dwellings on council tax valuation lists. Currently this would mean that the amount of grant relating to an additional council tax band D property would be about £1,439 per annum (Rugby Band D 10/11 = £1,516). This would be reviewed if council tax rises.

1 Affordable Housing Enhancement The proposal includes an enhancement of £350 per annum for each affordable home supplied. This is about 25 per cent of the current average Band D council tax and would be reviewed if council tax rises.

Affordable Housing Definition

The proposal uses the definition of affordable homes set out in Appendix B of Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) and also includes Gypsy and Traveller sites owned and managed by local authorities or registered social landlords.

Empty Homes

Through the New Homes Bonus, the Government proposes to strengthen the incentive for local authorities to identify empty properties and work with property owners to find innovative solutions that allow these properties to be brought back into use.

Tier Split

The proposal is to split the payment of the New Homes Bonus between tiers outside London: 80 per cent to the lower tier and 20 per cent to the upper tier, as a starting point for local negotiation. The Government recognise that the incentive needs to be strongest where the planning decision sits but also wishes to recognise the role of the upper tier in the provision of services and infrastructure and the contribution they make to strategic planning.

The proposed tier splits are a point for local debate. The consultation document makes specific reference to using the bonus to fund infrastructure and of pooling resources through the Local Enterprise Partnership for shared benefit.

Grant Calculation

The proposal would use the council tax base form to calculate the grant. This has the advantage of bringing together data on additions, demolitions and empty homes in one place and it is already used to calculate formula grant. The grant would be payable for the relevant year and the five financial years following that year. This process would be repeated each financial year with each new amount of grant being added to the amount of grant payable in the preceding financial year. The total would not be less than zero.

Timing of grant allocations and payments

The proposal is to pay the New Homes Bonus alongside the local government finance timetable. This means that provisional allocations would be announced in early December and final allocations in early February. Grant for houses built

2 between successive Octobers would be paid in the following April. Using this approach means that there is a potential time lag for payment of the grant.

Affordable Homes

The proposal is to use the Department for Communities and Local Government official statistics on gross additional affordable housing supply to calculate the affordable homes enhancement. Local authorities would receive an additional £350 for the following six years for all additional affordable homes reported in this statistical release. These statistics measure additional affordable supply on a gross basis. They do not deduct demolitions or other losses to stock. The statistics also measure acquisitions. Acquisitions increase the availability of affordable homes and so would receive the £350 enhancement. They would not receive the council tax element as they are not new supply and would not be included in the data set from the valuation list.

RECOMMENDATION

That the consultation response attached as Appendix 1 to this report be returned to the Department of Communities and Local Government as representing the formal views of this Council.

3 1. Do you agree with our proposal to link the level of grant for each additional dwelling to the national average of the council tax band?

No. Whilst linking the level of grant for each additional dwelling to the national average of the council tax band would be easier to administer from a national perspective it will not provide an equal incentive across the country. In Warwickshire the council tax for Band D is currently £1,516 compared to £1,439 nationally.

2. The Government proposes an affordable homes enhancement of £350 for each of the six years – what do you think the enhancement should be?

The enhancement for affordable homes should be at least £350 for each of the six years. Any affordable housing scheme that relies on the commitment of public land into the bargain should attract a higher payment as incentive – over and above the £350 + council tax. The pressure to realise best value on disposal of assets is extreme at a time when the preferred mechanism for delivering affordable is through utilising public land. Any Local authorities that are prepared to go this extra mile to get affordable housing schemes off the ground deserve to be rewarded over and above those that do not (or are potentially just relying on existing opportunities via S106’s).

3. Do you agree with the proposal to use PPS3 and also include pitches on Gypsy and Traveller sites owned and managed by local authorities or registered social landlords to define affordable homes?

Yes It is correct to include Gypsy and Traveller pitches when defining affordable homes. This should not be limited to just Gypsy and Traveller pitches on sites owned and managed by local authorities or registered social landlords. It is very difficult, however, to see a situation whereby the incentive outweighs the other considerations involved in decisions around provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites.

4. Do you agree with the proposal to reward local authorities for bringing empty properties back into use through the New Homes Bonus? Are there any practical constraints?

Yes. This is important to aid regeneration. If the New Homes Bonus Scheme did not consider the reuse of empty properties it could lead to a worsening of the preference for new build over recycling and leave many areas with severe gaps in occupation of existing housing stock.

5. Outside London: Do you agree with the proposal to split the payment of the New Homes Bonus between tiers: 80 percent to the lower tier and 20 percent to the upper tier, as a starting point for local negotiation? If not, what would the appropriate split be and why?

No. The New Homes Bonus Scheme needs to incentivise the delivering authority which in two tier areas is the Borough or District Council. It is the council’s view that this should be the entire allocation rather than a proportion. The Bonus is a reward to the Local Planning Authority to be spent locally in partnership with the local community. However, in relation to 2-tier areas there is suddenly mention of the possibility of the Bonus being shared with other organisations, specifically County Councils and the emerging LEPs and there is even reference to it being used to fund infrastructure. To take a different approach in two tier areas introduces an obvious inconsistency, it raises the spectre of the Government interfering in how the money should be spent and it waters down any incentive for the Local Planning Authority to promote growth in the first place.

6. Do you agree with the proposal to use the data collected on the Council Tax Base form as at October to track net additions and empty homes?

Yes. This would be the most appropriate way of collecting the data as it is a well understood and consistently produced form, splitting dwellings over each Band. This would make the calculation easy and transparent.

7. Do you agree with the proposal for one annual allocation based on the previous year’s Council Tax Base form, paid the following April?

Yes

8. Do you agree that allocations should be announced alongside the local government finance timetable?

Yes

9. Do you agree with the proposal to reward local authorities for affordable homes using data reported through the official statistics on gross affordable supply?

Yes. The fact that the scheme is looking at gross increase in supply rather than net is encouraging – particularly at a time when there is a need to be looking more closely at opportunities to re-profile stock to meet identified need.

10.How significant are demolitions? Is there a proportionate method of collecting demolitions data at a local authority level?

Demolitions are not currently a significant issue for Rugby but the general effect of netting off demolitions would be to reduce the incentive to improve the housing stock. On the assumption that this relates to just social housing, the demolition data can be extracted from interpreting existing data – RSR return for registered providers and HSSA for councils.

11.Do you think the proposed scheme will impact any groups with protected characteristics?

No

12.Do you agree with the methodology used in the impact assessment?

Yes

AGENDA ITEM 7(e)

Council 15th December 2010

Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places

Report of the Executive Director

1. Introduction

As part of the Borough Council’s statutory requirement to keep the polling places within its area under review the Executive Director has conducted a limited review for the polling districts listed in (2) to (5) below.

In carrying out the review the Executive Director invited ward and county councillors, election agents, parish representatives and other interest groups to comment on the proposals. Included in the consultation letters was the commitment that any electors affected by approved changes will be offered the opportunity to vote by post.

2. Rugby JC and JD (Overslade Ward) and Rugby KD and KE (Bilton Ward)

The family room at the Three Cranes public house is currently designated as the polling place for districts JC, JD in Overslade Ward and KD and KE. In Bilton Ward.

The Three Cranes has ceased trading and the building is boarded up. There is no indication as to the immediate or long term plans for the premises. This is the third time in less than four years that there has been serious concern surrounding the availability of the building for polling.

In the absence of any other new premises that are both suitable and available for polling the proposed solutions rely on the use of existing premises.

Proposal for Polling Districts JC and JD (Overslade Ward)

Map 1 Appendix 1 shows ward and polling districts for Overslade ward. The proposal is to allocate the electors of polling districts Rugby JC and Rugby JD to vote at a second polling station in Bawnmore Infant School, Bawnmore Road.

County Councillors Vereker and Wright support this proposal. No other representations have been received.

Proposal for Polling Districts KD and KE (Bilton Ward)

Map 2 Appendix 1 shows ward and polling districts for Bilton ward.

Consideration was given to the use of Bilton Evangelical Church in Main Street, Bilton. As major refurbishments are planned for the building during next spring it was agreed to visit the premises again in the summer of 2011.

The proposal is for :

1. the electors of polling district Rugby KD to vote with the electors of Rugby KA at the existing polling station in the Bilton Methodist Church Hall, Lawford Lane,

2. the electors of polling district Rugby KE to vote at a second polling station in Bilton Infant School, Magnet Lane, Rugby. These electors would join with the electors of Rugby KC who already vote at the school.

County Councillors Vereker and Wright support this proposal. No other representations have been received.

3. Polling District Brandon NE1 (Earl Craven Ward)

A mobile security office sited on the side car park of the Royal Oak, Station Road is used for polling in Brandon village. The ramp needed to enter and leave the unit does not meet the legal requirement for providing safe access for disabled and elderly persons. The effectiveness of the ramp is dependant on how well the mobile unit is sited on the uneven car park. Bad weather in May 2010 also highlighted a slip hazard caused when the floor in the unit became wet. In addition, it is always difficult to recruit staff who are prepared to work in the mobile unit especially when they have to accept that the toilet facilities in the Royal Oak may not be readily available out side licensing hours.

The Brandon Club was considered as an alternative but discounted because the room that was offered for polling also has unsatisfactory access for disabled and elderly voters. This decision was taken on the advice of the Council’s Access Officer.

Brandon and Wolston village hall in Main Street, Wolston is an existing polling place that is only 0.5 miles from the Royal Oak, Brandon. The building can accommodate an additional polling station and offers satisfactory access for voters and improved facilities for polling staff.

This proposal has received the support of the Brandon Parish Council. No other representations have been received.

4. Polling District Rugby BC (Brownsover South Ward)

Map 1 Appendix 2

The electors of Polling District Rugby BC currently vote some distance outside the polling district at the Brownsover Information and Community Centre in Hollowell Way. In addition to voters having to travel to the Brownsover estate this also presents the additional problem of having three polling stations in one room with the potential for confusion and delays at peak voting times.

The opening of Warwickshire College Rugby Centre on Technology Drive provides the opportunity to move the polling place for Polling District Rugby BC to suitable accommodation that is within the boundary of polling area. It has provisionally been agreed that a foyer with access directly on to the pavement area near the front of the Rugby Centre can be secured to provide exclusive use as a polling station. Polling District Rugby BC is one of continued residential development and it is considered moving the polling place to the Rugby Centre will prove beneficial to existing and future electors.

Councillor Ms Claire Edwards has confirmed her support for this proposal. No other representations have been received.

5. Clifton upon Dunsmore (Avon and Swift ward)

The C of E School in Station Road Clifton upon Dunsmore is currently designated as the polling place for the parish. On polling day the Head Teacher takes the decision to close the school. Because of their concern over the loss of schooling the Head Teacher, Chair of the School Governors and Councillor Leigh Hunt have all requested that the polling place for Clifton upon Dunsmore be moved to the Townsend Memorial Hall in Lilbourne Road.

Problems relating to access for disabled electors at the Townsend Memorial Hall have now been resolved and it is proposed that the polling place for Clifton upon Dunsmore should be moved from the C of E School to the Townsend Memorial Hall, Lilbourne Road

Additional support for this proposal has also been received from County Councillor Morris-Jones. No other representations have been received.

Recommendations

(1) The polling place for polling districts Rugby JC and Rugby JD be designated as Bawnmore Infant School, Bawnmore Road, Rugby;

(2) The polling place for polling district Rugby KD be designated as Bilton Methodist Church, Lawford Lane, Rugby

(3) The polling place for Rugby KE be designated as Bilton Infant School, Magnet Lane, Rugby

(4) The polling place for Brandon NE1 be designated as Brandon and Wolston Village Hall, Main Street, Brandon

(5) The polling place for Rugby BC be designated as the Warwickshire College Rugby Centre, Technology Drive, Rugby

(6) The polling place for Clifton upon Dunsmore NK be designated as the Townsend Memorial Hall, Lilbourne Road, Clifton upon Dunsmore

(7) These changes be implemented with immediate effect, and

(8) The Electoral Registration Officer be instructed to write to all electors in polling districts listed in (2) to (5) above informing them of the change of polling place and offering them the opportunity to vote by post.