Head of Legal and Democratic Services and C Monitoring Officer, T W Mortimer LLB Solicitor
To the Members of the Borough Council
Dear Sir/Madam
You are hereby summoned to attend a Meeting of the Ashford Borough Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford, Kent TN23 1PL on Thursday the 19th February 2009. The Meeting will commence following the rising of the Extraordinary Council Meeting being held at 6.45 pm. The following business is proposed to be transacted.
Yours faithfully
T W Mortimer Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Agenda Page Nos.
1. Apologies/Substitutes – To receive Notification of Substitutes in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.2(iii)
2. To consider whether any items should be dealt with in private because of the likely disclosure of Exempt or Confidential Information
3. Declarations of Interest - Declarations of Interest under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council on the 24th May 2007 relating to items on this agenda should be made here. The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must also be declared
4. To confirm the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on the 18th December 2008
5. To receive any announcements from the Mayor, Leader or other Members of the Executive
6. To receive any petitions
7. To receive any questions from, and provide answers to, the public (being resident of the Borough), which in the opinion of the Mayor are relevant to the business of the meeting
8. To receive, consider and adopt the recommendations set out in the 1-8 Minutes of the meetings of the Executive held on the 8th January and 5th February 2009 (enclosed separately) with the following exception – The recommendations in Minute No 404 of the 5th February meeting regarding the item “Budget 2009/2010” be deferred for consideration with Agenda Item No 9
Page Nos.
9. To consider and the recommendations of the Executive regarding the item “Budget 2009/2010” (which includes the adoption of the budget) and the report of the Deputy Chief Executive, “Council Tax 2009/2010 Resolutions” ( enclosed separately) and to determine the Borough Council’s precept on the Collection Fund and set the Council Tax for 2009/2010. NB Members are asked to bring with them the Agenda and report for the meeting of the Executive held on the 5th February 2009
10. To receive, consider and adopt the Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on the 3rd February 2009 (enclosed separately)
11. To receive, consider and adopt the Minutes of the meeting of the 9-14 Licensing, Health and Safety Committee held on the 12th January 2009
12. To receive the Minutes of the meetings of the Standards Committee held 15-24 on the 12th and 22nd December 2008
13. Programme of Meetings 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 (report attached) 25-30
14. To consider Motions of which Notice has been given pursuant to Procedure Rule 11
15. Questions by Members of which Notice has been given pursuant to Procedure Rule 10
NOTE:- If debate on any item included within this Agenda gives rise to the need to exclude the press and public due to the likelihood of Exempt or Confidential information being disclosed the following resolution may be proposed and seconded and if carried, the press and public will be requested to leave the meeting for the duration of the debate.
That pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of this item as it is likely that in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure of exempt information hereinafter specified by reference to the appropriate paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Act
KRF/EB 11th February 2009
______
Queries concerning this agenda? Please contact Keith Fearon: Telephone: 01233 330564 Email: [email protected] Agendas, Reports and Minutes are available on: www.ashford.gov.uk/committees
C
Ashford Borough Council
Minutes of a Meeting of the Ashford Borough Council held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford on the 18th December 2008
Present:
His Worshipful the Mayor, Councillor J S Link. (Chairman); Cllrs. Bartlett, Mrs Bell, Burgess, Clarkson, Claughton, Clokie, Cowley, Davidson, Ellison, Feacey, French, Goddard, Mrs Hawes, Mrs Heaton, Heyes, Mrs Hicks, Miss Hodgkinson, Holland, Howard, Mrs Hutchinson, Kemp, Mrs Laughton, Mrs Marriott, Mrs Martin, Naughton, Norris, Packham, Smith, Taylor, Wedgbury, Wells, Wood, Woodford.
Apologies:
Cllrs. Ayres, Mrs Blanford, Davison, Mrs Heyes, Honey.
Also Present:
Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Head of Environmental Services, Member Services & Scrutiny Manager.
Prior to the commencement of the meeting Reverend Emmott said prayers.
335 Exempt or Confidential Items
The Mayor asked whether any items should be dealt with in private because of the likely disclosure of exempt or confidential information. There were none.
336 Declarations of Interest
Councillor Interest Minute No.
Kemp Code of Conduct - Personal but not Prejudicial – 346 Ex-member of REME
337 Minutes
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on the 9th October 2008 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on the 16th October 2008 be approved and confirmed as correct records.
563 C 161008
338 Announcements
(a) Mayor
The Mayor invited all those present to take refreshment with him after the meeting.
(b) Ashford’s Future
The Leader advised that he would like to take a few moments to highlight the major achievements Ashford had achieved in the last year. He advised that the new high quality shared space scheme had been completed allowing the town centre to expand beyond the old boundaries and provide a better environment for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike. The Bybrook Waste Water Treatment Plant had received a £40m upgrade; the Singleton Environment Centre had opened, providing an excellent educational and local community resource; and Eurostar had reversed their decision over the Brussels service, which would return around spring next year. Private sector investment had helped deliver the County Square extension as well as developing Eureka Business Park, and the Council and its partners had set up the Ashford’s Future Company to improve project delivery.
The Leader said to scotch one rumour, he would like to confirm that the cost of establishing and running the company did not give rise to any pressure on the Council’s finances. On the contrary Council departments had entered into a range of Service Agreements with the company as it had previously with the Ashford’s Future Board to provide a range of support services on a paid for basis; and relevant services made an appropriate charge for the time they spent in supporting the delivery of Growth Area Funded Projects.
Despite the current economic climate Ashford’s medium term prospects remained bright and had been boosted by the announcement that the Government had given the Ashford’s Future partnership an additional £4m of Growth Area Funding. Ashford had initially been awarded £21.5m in capital grants for the period of 2008-11 and Ministers had now raised that to a total of £25.6m over the three year period. The Leader believed that this reflected the Ministers positive view of Ashford’s progress.
Overall Ashford had already benefited from a total of over £50m of growth area funding since 2003, plus considerable further investment by the Regional Development Agency and English Partnerships. If bids for Community Infrastructure funding and Regional Infrastructure funding were successful there would be a further £40m invested in delivering critical infrastructure in Ashford over the next two financial years.
The Leader said that obviously it was hoped that continued public sector investment in Ashford would encourage public sector investors to continue to invest in the town. Encouragingly, private sector developers, both residential and commercial, were currently continuing to show interest in the Borough. Within a six week period recently the Council had granted planning permission for over 1600 new dwellings which was almost two years’ worth of housing supply. The Leader, however, advised that there were some worrying signs and in particular some major sites,
564 C 100708
especially brownfield sites within the existing urban area were finding it difficult to demonstrate viability in current market conditions. The developers were therefore seeking to reduce the scale of their contribution to the cost of necessary community infrastructure and the proportion of affordable homes that they must provide as part of their development. The Leader said that Members would recall that the Secretary of State had determined an appeal by ZED Homes in respect of the former Powergen site on a basis that produced a shortfall of 100 affordable dwellings and a deficit of over £4m in the scheme’s contribution to the cost of community facilities. In other cases, in an attempt to facilitate development the Planning Committee had approved a reduction in the normal level of contributions sought from developers. In some cases the Committee had agreed in principle that payments should be ‘deferred’ and should become payable if market conditions improved and actual sales prices exceeded those forecast in the development appraisal, so there was a prospect of securing at least some of the developer contributions in time. However, the Leader pointed out that if that optimistic scenario did not materialise the Borough had currently accumulated – over five major sites – a deficit of 262 affordable homes (compared with the number it should have) and a shortfall of some £9.38m compared with developer contributions to which the Council was strictly entitled. In short, the development industry in Ashford was not immune from the turmoil in the wider economy but there were reasons to be optimistic that the effects would be shorter lived in Ashford than elsewhere.
The Leader said that 2009 would be a big year for Ashford as it would see the introduction of high speed domestic rail services to London which would halve the journey time to and from the capital to Ashford. These fast services linking Kent to St Pancras would make Ashford even more attractive as a business location and a natural choice as a place to live. He explained that to mark one year before the launch of the “140mph bullet” trains on its network, Southeastern had held a special event at St Pancras International Station on Friday 12th December, attended by Lord Andrew Adonis, Minister of State for Transport, and representatives from the Council and Ashford’s Future. The Leader trusted that the publicity given to this event would lead to renewed interest in Ashford as a business location and an area in which to invest. The Leader also advised that the Newtown Road would reopen on the afternoon of 19th December 2008 following the completion of the works to the bridge and highway. In conclusion the Leader wished all colleagues a happy Christmas and prosperous New Year.
Councillor Davidson advised that his main concern with regard to the Leader’s statement was the pressure it placed upon the Council to serve the Ashford’s Future Delivery Board. He recognised that the Council did receive payment for the work, but said that pressure was being placed on the workforce because of reductions or future reductions in staff. He believed that this issue might be particularly overpowering in some departments in terms of meeting the requirements of Ashford’s Future. Councillor Davidson further commented about the deferral of payment from developers in terms of Section 106 obligations and said it was usual for payments to be put into the community as soon as it was received. If it was held back the proper community facilities would not be in place when they were required.
565 C 161008
The Leader said that the largest amount of work coming forward was the Council’s own work in any event, in particular planning and legal work. The peaks and troughs of work demands would need to be managed as it had been so in the past.
Councillor Wells advised that in his capacity as Observer on the Ashford’s Future Partnership Board he could assure Councillor Davidson that he had considered the same issues and he said that when it had been first raised he had asked the Head of Planning and Development if the Department could manage and had been told that yes it could. Councillor Wells said he was happy with the response given to him.
339 Petitions
Mr Relf advised that his Petition was regarding the policing in the Ashford and Weald area. He said that his petition read “We the undersigned wish to highlight the fact that the level of policing, particularly in rural areas is inadequate and does little to combat the increasing amount of crime experienced by the residents of the Borough. We would ask the Members ‘what action are they taking to rectify the situation?’.”
He then said that he then wished to highlight a statement by the then Area Commander, Superintendent West in 2005 that he had informed the public that their ambitions were to increase front line staff in the next three years. He said that there had actually been a 30% reduction two years ago. Mr Relf referred to discussion earlier in the meeting when Members had been advised that 1600 new homes would be built and he said that he would expect the police force to increase its size to correspond to the population of the Borough. He said that since 2005 there had been murders, stabbings, assaults, rapes an increase in drug dealing, and drug cultivation. There was also a serious problem of shoplifting in Ashford which he believed should be named ‘help yourself’. He advised that Debenhams had £5,000 worth of goods shoplifted in the previous month and he believed that they were now regretting moving to Ashford. He advised that Designer Outlet staff had been told to be vigilant and not walk to their cars alone. He considered that members of the public were fully aware of who the prolific habitual criminals were but it was known that if the police were supplied with this information it was not acted upon. He also said that he would like to point out that it was a criminal offence for landlords to knowingly allow their properties and lands to be used for criminal activity.
In conclusion he said that he had been a member of the Kent Police Citizens Board but because of events during the summer he had felt it his duty to resign.
Mr Relf then presented the petition to His Worshipful the Mayor who advised that it would be forwarded to the Chairman of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership.
340 Executive – 23rd October, 20th November and 11th December 2008
The report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, which had been tabled, clarified the procedure for consideration of the Executive Minutes.
566 C 100708
(a) Executive – 23rd October 2008
Resolved:
That (i) the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 23rd October 2008 be received and noted with the exception of Minute Nos. 245, 247 and 250.
(ii) Minute Nos. 245, 247, 250 be approved and adopted.
(b) Executive - 20th November 2008
Resolved:
That (i) the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 20th November 2008 be received and noted with the exception of Minute Nos. 276, 277 and 281.
(ii) Minute Nos. 276, 277 and 281 be approved and adopted.
(c) Executive - 11th December 2008
Resolved:
That that subject to the expiry of the period which decisions arising from the meeting of the Executive held on the 11th December 2008 may be called in i.e. 24th December 2008:-
(i) the Minutes be received and noted with the exception of Minute Nos. 303, 305, 306, 308, 313 and 314.
(ii) Minute Nos. 303, 305, 306, 308 and 313 be approved and adopted.
(iii) Minute No. 314 – Members Allowances Panel – be deferred for consideration with agenda item No. 12 – Members Allowances Panel – 20th November 2008.
In accordance with General Procedure Rule 17.5 Councillor Mrs Laughton requested that it be recorded that she voted against the motion to adopt Minute No. 305.
In accordance with General Procedure Rule 17.5 Councillor Woodford requested that it be noted that he had abstained from voting on the adoption of Minute No. 305.
567 C 161008
341 Audit Committee – 3rd December 2008
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on the 3rd December 2008 be received and noted.
342 Selection and Constitutional Review Committee – 11th December 2008
Councillor Davidson referred to Minute No. 300 – Council Appointments to Outside Bodies/Organisations and advised that Councillor Packham would be the Liberal Democrat Group nominee for the East Kent (Joint Scrutiny) Committee.
Resolved:
That (i) the Minutes of the meeting of the Selection and Constitutional Review Committee held on the 11th December 2008 be approved and adopted.
(ii) it be noted that Councillor Packham was the Liberal Democrat Groups representative on the East Kent (Joint Scrutiny) Committee
343 Standards Committee – 28th November 2008
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on the 28th November 2008 be received and noted.
344 Members Allowances – Recommendations from the Members Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel
The Council received the report and recommendations from the Members Allowances Independent Remuneration Panel which had met on the 20th November 2008. The Executive recommendations arising from their consideration of the report as set out in Minute No. 314 were also considered.
Councillor Holland queried the sum shown in the table within paragraph 13 and in particular as to whether the figure shown to be 50% of the Leader’s payment was correct. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that these figures would be checked and any necessary amendments would be made.
Resolved:
That (i) Minute No. 314 be approved.
568 C 100708
(ii) no change to the Basic Allowance and the method of annual adjustment for both Basic Allowances and SRAs continue to be linked to annual cost of living rise for staff.
(iii) the SRA for Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Community Partnership Group be paid at the same level as the Policy Advisory Group.
(iv) the Chairman of the Licensing and Health and Safety Committee’s SRA should be raised to the same level as the Chairmen of the Standards Committee and the Joint Transportation Board.
(v) Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny and Policy Advisory Group Task Groups should be paid a one off sum of £50 per Task Group (as opposed to per meeting of the Task Group) as an SRA.
(vi) any changes to the scheme of allowances be implemented from the 1st April 2009.
(vii) the Council’s IT Service be asked to consider what could be done to help Members with increased cost of and a need for IT consumables (bulk buying etc.).
(viii) a review of the Travel and Subsistence allowance payable to Members (in particular a review of the list of approved duties for claiming such allowances) take place in the future.
345 Questions by Members of Which Notice Had Been Given
(a) Question from Councillor Davidson to the Leader of the Council
“In view of the possibility that Woolworths will be closed in the near future this will add to many of the other shops that are currently closed within Ashford’s Town Centre. If you go into Park Mall just now you will see that half of Park Mall is just about closed. Can the Leader please give us some indication how this Council can attract a wider range of retail shops to enable the town centre to become more vibrant and attractive for not only the residents of the Borough but visitors to the town?”
Response by the Leader
“Thank you Mr Mayor. I have actually a longish reply and it was geared to a great extent to the press who do not appear to be here which is unfortunate. The straight forward answer to this is that we should continue to talk up the town and talk up the footfall and the advantages and benefits of the town and I think I will leave it at that Mr Mayor.”
569 C 161008
Supplementary Question by Councillor Wedgbury
“Thank you Mr Mayor. It seems some Members think the Leader can perform miracles. Does he agree with me that talking down the town centre whilst suggesting it is a limited shopping is not the thing Members should be saying during a recession particularly as they have no constructive suggestions themselves.”
Response by the Leader
“Although that is a little cruel, of course I agree.”
(b) Question from Councillor Davidson to Councillor Claughton, Portfolio Holder for Communications, Parking and Licensing, Customer Services and Community Safety
“In view of the comments made in this weeks Kentish Express in relation to the Edinburgh Road car park can the Portfolio Holder please give us the overall costing from March over the last year that it has cost this Council to maintain this car park and the loss of income by its closure. Secondly why was it not discovered prior to the contract stage that a major structure fault in the ramp had not been identified when setting out the repair requirements?”
Response by Councillor Claughton
“I have a fairly detailed reply as well Mr Mayor not for the press as they are not here but for the Councillor because I think this obviously deserves it. It is unfortunate Mr Mayor that the Edinburgh Road car park has remained closed for longer than intended. The proposed works were to replace the surfacing to the main access ramp and the top floor of the car park and these resurfacing works were due to be completed by the first week in December. It was only when the old surface was removed that the structural problems with the ramp where it connects to the main building became apparent. The pre-contract inspections could not have identified this problem until then. To date the car park has been closed for nine weeks and it is anticipated that a further 4 weeks will be necessary to complete the permanent structural works. For those Members who are not aware Edinburgh Road car park is leased and the Landlord is responsible for a third of the costs of major structural repairs. Taking that into account the costs of the repairs are projected to come within the approved budget of just over £188,000. The only other expenditure on the upkeep of the fabric in the past 12 months excluding housekeeping items, such as cleaning and replacement of expired florescent tubes etc, was the payment to the Landlord to the maintenance and repairs to the passenger lifts and a sum set aside towards the replacement of the lifts. The loss of income from the car park is estimated some £34,000.
In saying that Mr Mayor many of the season ticket holders have transferred to other Borough Council car parks as have other daily users. Following the agreement of the Landlord and Wilkinsons stores who access for deliveries under part of the ramp scaffolding is to be erected to temporarily support the ramp. As a result the contractors are confident that they can complete the temporary works in time for the partial reopening by this coming Saturday the 20th December. This is good news and
570 C 100708
will be of special assistance to those with disabilities. I apologise again Mr Mayor for the delay and inconvenience to the town but it was essential to close the car park as a matter of public safety.”
Supplementary question by Councillor Davidson
“Can I come back. Is the Portfolio Holder satisfied that the Edinburgh Car Park is a viable interest to maintain in this Council or is about time we handed it back over to the person who we rent it from?”
Response by Councillor Claughton
“As the situation is Mr Mayor, yes to the first part and no to the second.”
346 Freedom of the Borough
The Council considered a report of the Chief Executive which advised that His Worshipful the Mayor had recently raised the issue of whether the Borough Council should consider granting the Freedom of the Borough to the REME 133 Field Workshop Company based at Chart Road in Ashford, Kent. The Mayor had advised that 2008 was the TAs Centenary Year and although the Freedom could not be formerly granted until 2009 it was considered that an ‘in principle’ decision from the Borough Council would mark their centenary year. The Leader said that he believed he was very fortunate to be the Leader of the Council at this time and be in a position to promote to the Council the report on the Freedom of the Borough. He said it was an honour to be able to award such a freedom to those units who were fighting in the field. He also advised that the Ashford Local Field Unit Workshop had recently been active in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Leader also referred to a letter tabled at the meeting in which the officer in charge of the REME had confirmed that he was delighted that the Freedom was to be awarded.
Councillor Davidson welcomed the request but said he had two questions. Firstly he said that the TA Unit was never safe in an area due to modernisation of the Army and he asked whether there was any long term guarantee given as to whether the TA unit would remain as a REME detachment in Ashford. Secondly that he recalled that the honour actually went to the REME Corp itself in general terms and he sought clarification as to whether the REME Unit would receive the honour or whether the detachment based at the TA centre would receive it.
Councillor Kemp explained that he had been in Arbofield last week and had spoken to various people about whether it went to the Corp or to individual units and he advised that there were several individual units both within the UK and in the BAOR to which the Freedom had been given. He also explained that the 133 Field Workshop had existed for a considerable time and the present view within the Aldershot and Brigade in Dover was that it was permanent as it could be. He also said that if the Freedom was granted he hoped it could be done during the tenure of the current Mayor, as an ex-REME Solider.
571 C 161008
Resolved:
That (i) the Council agree in principle to granting the Freedom of the Borough to the 133 Field Workshop Unit.
(ii) the Mayor be invited to convene a special meeting of the Council in the New Year for the purpose of considering the formal resolution.
347 Seasons Greetings
His Worshipful the Mayor wished all those present a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
CXXX0851 KRF/TB/AEH
______
Queries concerning these minutes? Please contact Keith Fearon: Telephone: 01233 330564 Email: [email protected] Agendas, Reports and Minutes are available on: www.ashford.gov.uk/committees
572 E Published 14th January 2009 Decisions effective from the 21st January 2009 unless they are called in or are recommended to the Council for approval Executive
Minutes of a Meeting of the Executive held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford on the 8th January 2009
Present:
Cllr. Clokie (Chairman);
Cllr. Bartlett (Vice-Chairman);
Cllrs. Bell, Clarkson, Kemp, Wood
Apologies:
Cllrs. Claughton and Mrs Hutchinson
Also Present:
Cllrs. Burgess, Cowley, Davison, Mrs Hicks, Holland, Howard, Koowaree, Mrs Marriott, Naughton, Packham, Smith, Taylor, Wells.
Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive, Director of Community Services, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Head of Planning and Development, Head of Environmental Services, Head of Financial Services, Deputy Head of Cultural Services, Sports Operations Development Officer, Market and Community Liaison Officer, Corporate Communications Officer, Member Services and Scrutiny Manager.
360 Declarations of Interest
Councillor Interest Minute No.
Mrs Hicks Code of Conduct – Personal but not Prejudicial – 365 Member of Kingsnorth Parish Council
Holland Code of Conduct – Personal but not Prejudicial – 365 Member of Kingsnorth Parish Council
Mrs Marriott Code of Conduct – Personal but not Prejudicial – 367 Council representative on the Kent Downs (AONB) Joint Advisory Committee and Executive Committee
361 Minutes
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on the 11th December 2008 be approved and confirmed as a correct record.
593 E 080109
362 Joint Transportation Board – 16th December 2008
The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the recommendation set out within Minute No. 325 – Ashford International Station Improvements – “Preparing for 2009”.
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Transportation Board held on the 16th December 2008 be approved and adopted.
363 Forward Plan of Key Decisions – February to May 2009 Period
An update paper had been tabled which advised of a number of changes to the Forward Plan.
Resolved:
That the Forward Plan of Key Decisions for the February to May 2009 period (as appended to these Minutes) be approved.
364 Ashford Free Swimming Scheme (Minute No. 246/10/08 refers)
The report provided an update following consideration of the issue at the October meeting regarding the Government Free Swimming Scheme and sought approval for an alternative, local, focused scheme proposed by the Council and the Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust (ECKPCT). Due to potential financial implications and in accordance with the Executive’s previous recommendations, the Council had withdrawn from the Government scheme and proposed taking up the PCT’s offer of £40,000 per annum for two years to facilitate free swimming.
The Portfolio Holder advised that the £40,000 per annum would be targeted at appropriate groups and he considered that the proposal was in accordance with the Council’s social inclusion and diversity policies.
The Deputy Head of Cultural Services advised that the PCT were keen to see the scheme work via a voucher basis to ensure the targeted groups could access either pool easily without having to ‘top up’ a set priced ticket. As prices differed at the two pools and were likely to change over the year, a set price may act as a further barrier to swimming for these groups. Furthermore, it would also offer parents with two children under four years of age the option of using a voucher to pay for a crèche for one of the children whilst the adult could take the other child for a swim. He advised that the scheme would be monitored very closely in-house to ensure the funding would not be exceeded and would be fully reviewed after two months.
A Member commented that as the scheme would be aimed at “older and disabled people”, there would be a need for the Leisure Trusts to ensure that there were
594 E 080109 adequate lifeguards on duty as it was common for carers to accompany them. He considered that this might be an additional cost for the Leisure Trusts to bear. In response to further comments, the Portfolio Holder advised that matters of detail should be left for the Officers to negotiate in conjunction with the PCT and the two Leisure Trusts. He, however, confirmed that the vouchers would not be transferrable and therefore this would address the question of potential fraud which had been raised by a Member. The monitoring of the take up of the scheme would be assessed and the Portfolio Holder said that there would be no costs which would fall back to the Trusts or the Borough Council.
The Chairman suggested that recommendation 4 of the report be amended to require a report back to the Executive in three months following the commencement of the scheme.
Resolved:
That (i) the update and subsequent events since the meeting in October be noted.
(ii) the alternative scheme be approved.
(iii) the Heads of Legal and Democratic, Financial and Cultural and Project Services be granted delegated authority to agree the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement with the ECKPCT, Ashford Leisure Trust Ltd and Tenterden Leisure Centre Trust Ltd.
(iv) Officers:
(a) Communicate fully to residents the nature of the free scheme and the decisions of the Executive and
(b) Update Members on progress with the scheme three months after commencement.
365 Parish Service Level Agreement (SLA)
The report advised that a Parish Charter had been in place since 1995 but was now in need of review and updating. It was considered that replacing the Parish Charter with a more detailed Service Level Agreement (SLA) would better reflect the role that Town and Parish Councils played in empowering local communities.
Tabled at the meeting was a series of amendments which were required to be made to the SLA and report prior to the commencement of the consultation period.
The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Property and Corporate Governance commended the work undertaken by the Regeneration Projects Co-ordinator in working with both Borough Councillors and Parish Councillors on the draft document.
595 E 080109
Resolved:
That subject to the incorporation of the amendments set out within the tabled papers, the Parish Service Level Agreement be approved for consultation with Parish Councils in Ashford and the Kent Association of Local Councils (Ashford Committee) prior to its formal adoption.
366 Relocation of Ashford Street Market: Second Quarter Review (Minute No 194/9/08 refers)
The report was the second report following the move of the Ashford Street Market to the Lower High Street. It provided an update on various issues including signage, publicity, anchorage points and electricity supply which the Marketing and Community Liaison Officer was consulting with the traders upon.
Tabled at the meeting were the Portfolio Holder’s comments on the report.
The Chairman advised that the next report would be more detailed and thereafter it was likely that an update would be submitted to the Executive on an annual basis.
Resolved:
That the following progress be noted:-
• That the monitoring of the Market will continue and that a full report would be provided in the 4th quarter, which would review the trends over a whole year of trading.
• Other information had been included in this report from other Local Authority controlled Markets.
• Investigations were still being progressed by Communications and Marketing regarding signage, together with a communication plan that had been developed and suggestions to be investigated on value for money and promotion/advertising for both growing the customer base and also with a view to growing the market and increasing traders.
• Market budgets were being carefully monitored, although the period of January, February and March was an unpredictable period due to the inclement weather and the traders generally taking their holidays.
• The review of the Market management will be included in the wider evaluation of service delivery in Environmental Services.
• Reassurance needs to be given to the general Street Market traders that other Market events will not be held in areas that the traders were moved from.
596 E 080109
• Issues of power supply, anchorage points and advertising need to be determined.
367 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) – Management Plan Review 2009 - Kent Downs AONB and High Weald AONB
The report gave details of the five year review of both the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan and the High Weald AONB Management Plan. The report also set out the key steps that had been undertaken as part of the review and asked the Executive to adopt both Management Plan Reviews as part of the Council’s obligations under the Countryside Rights of Way Act (CROW) 2000.
The Head of Planning and Development confirmed that the Council was likely to continue to make a £2,000 per annum contribution towards the costs of the AONB unit.
Resolved:
That the five year revisions of the High Weald AONB Management Plan and the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan be adopted.
368 Next Steps in the Council’s Design Agenda
The report set out a series of actions that would help take forward and strengthen the Council’s strong record on design quality and also sought endorsement for the use of a design quality evaluation tool produced by the Commission for the Built Environment (CABE) and which was now widely used.
The Chairman confirmed that the Council would still be able to fine-tune design standards by the use of its own Supplementary Planning Documents.
Resolved:
That (i) the next steps proposed for the Design Agenda in the Borough be endorsed.
(ii) the use of CABE’s “Building for Life Standards” be supported as a useful means of helping to rigorously assess design quality in significant developments as they are reported to the Planning Committee.
597 E 080109
369 Electronic Document Management in the Planning and Development Unit and Opportunities for a Corporate Approach to Electronic Document Management
The report sought agreement for the purchase and implementation of EDM and Workflow software in the Planning and Development Unit in the first instance and in other Units on a timetable to be agreed. Tabled at the meeting was an amendment to recommendation 1.
The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and IT said he had reservations about the report. He believed that the UK Planning website was well used and was very popular with residents of the Borough and other people wishing to gain access to details about planning applications. He said he would not wish to see such a facility being removed. Furthermore, he considered that the business case was not fully set out and did not demonstrate to him the reasons for moving to another system.
The Head of Planning and Development advised that the change would not reduce the service available to the public and he explained that IDOX owned the UK Planning site and that the expectation was that the Borough Council would retain the same level and quality of presence on the web as currently existed. The savings accruing from bringing the scanning of documents in-house equated to in the region of £40,000 a year. He believed that the system would help both the Planning Unit and other Units within the Authority to move to a more paperless working environment and allowed the sharing of information in a more structured way. He concluded by saying that the report had been thoroughly considered by the Asset and Project Management Group.
In response to a further question, the Head of Planning and Development gave an assurance that there would be no reduction in functionality and indeed he explained that there would be enhanced facilities including the ability to measure plans on screen.
The Deputy Chief Executive advised that further financial information was set out within the Exempt Appendix to the report. He also gave the background to the current position and he considered that the proposals reflected a very thorough piece of work. He also advised that the Head of ICT and Customer Services had no reservations about hosting the hardware within his Unit. In conclusion, the Deputy Chief Executive believed that the system offered not only enhancements to the planning system but gave opportunities for other Units within the Authority as and when they wished to replace their EDM systems.
The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and IT advised that it was not clear whether there were any costs in terms of running the system in-house.
The Chief Executive commented that the original report was far longer and more detailed than the one presented to the Executive at this meeting. He drew attention to the table on Page 72 of the report which showed the proposed savings in expenditure.
598 E 080109
The Chairman advised that Officers would take note of the comments expressed by the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and IT in terms of the handling of other projects.
Resolved:
That (i) capital expenditure of £105,000 financed from earmarked reserves for the purchase and implementation of an EDM, Workflow and Web publishing system in the Planning and Development Unit be approved.
(ii) the adoption of the software purchased for the Planning and Development Unit be agreed as the corporate vehicle for EDM with a view to implementing its adoption across the Council as appropriate.
(iii) support for the additional expenditure for the provision of EDM in the Environmental Health section dependent upon the identification of appropriate revenue savings be supported.
(iv) the quotation from the Company set out within the Exempt Report for the provision of an integrated EDM solution in the Planning and Development Unit be accepted.
(v) the corporate roll out of EDM and Workflow across the Authority be implemented utilising the software.
(vi) a progress report be submitted to the Executive in one year’s time.
It was noted that Councillor Bell voted against the recommendation.
370 Revenue Budget Monitoring – November 2008
The report provided details of the General Fund Revenue position in the current year based on actual results at the end of November and provided assessments of the outturn position for the remainder of the financial year. The report also contained summary details of the Housing Revenue Account position. The picture for the current year was a further reduction in the general fund forecast overspend, which amounted to £41,980 and an underspend of £259,480 on the Housing Revenue Account.
The Portfolio Holder explained that he considered that the report showed a satisfactory position in terms of the current budget. He drew attention to the reduced income from car parks, compensated for by a reduction in the planned contribution to planning reserves and following the increase in Housing and Planning Delivery Grant. In terms of income received following investments, he referred to the Bank of England decision that day to cut interest rates further. Whilst it was good news for home owners etc, he said it did affect the Councils income as less interest would be received on the sums the Council had on deposit.
599 E 080109
Resolved:
That the Revenue and Budget Monitoring Report as at the end of November 2008 be noted. ______
(KRF/AEH)
MINS:EXXX0902
______
Queries concerning these Minutes? Please contact Keith Fearon: Telephone: 01233 330564 Email: [email protected] Agendas, Reports and Minutes are available on: www.ashford.gov.uk/committees
600 E 080109 FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS FEBRUARY TO MAY 2009
Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder February 2009 Budget Monitoring Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Bartlett Contact : Ben Lockwood Extension : 540 E-mail: [email protected]
th Revenue Budget Open Executive 4 Feb Cllr Bartlett Contact: Pauline Adams
601 2009/2010 th Extension: 545 Council 18 Feb Email: [email protected]
Cheeseman’s Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole Green/Waterbrook Area Extension 642 Action Plan – Draft Issues & Options report E-mail: [email protected] for public consultation
Adoption of Affordable Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole Housing SPD Extension 642
E-mail: [email protected]
E 080109 Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Infrastructure Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole Contributions SPD – Extension 642 Draft for consultation E-mail: [email protected]
Asset and Project Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Wood Contact: Anne Adams Management Group Extension: 269 Quarterly Progress E-mail: Report [email protected]
th 602 Land Opportunities Open Executive 4 Feb Cllr Wood Contact : Paul McKenner Study Extension : 419 E-mail: [email protected]
th Garage Review Open Executive 4 Feb Cllr Wood Contact : Paul McKenner Extension : 419 E-mail: [email protected]
th Revenue & Benefits Open Executive 4 Feb Cllr Bartlett Contact : Peter Purcell Recommended Write (Exempt Extension : 562 Appendix) Offs E-mail: [email protected]
E 080109 Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Proposed Fee Levels for Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Claughton Contact : James Hann 2009/10 for Gambling th Extension :721 Council 18 Feb Act 2005 Related E-mail: Applications [email protected]
th Review of the Hackney Open Executive 4 Feb Cllr Claughton Contact : James Hann Carriage and Private th Extension :721 Council 18 Feb Hire Driver, Vehicle and E-mail: Operator Fees [email protected]
603 Review of the Hackney Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Claughton Contact : James Hann Carriage Fare Scale th Council 18 Feb Extension :721 E-mail: [email protected]
th Options – Building Open Executive 4 Feb Cllr Kemp Contact : Tim Parrett Control Service Extension :275 E-mail: [email protected]
Swan Centre Project Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Clarkson Contact : SallyAnne Logan Extension :293 E-mail: [email protected]
E 080109 Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Concessionary Fares Open Executive 4th Feb Cllr Bartlett Contact: Pauline Adams Extension: 545 Email: [email protected]
March 2009 th Housing Quarterly Open Executive 5 Mar Cllr Wood Contact : Bob Smart Performance Report Extension :434 E-mail: [email protected] 604 Performance Indicators Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Bartlett Contact : Philip Bond Extension : 403 E-mail: [email protected]
Financial Monitoring Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Bartlett Contact : Ben Lockwood Extension : 540 E-mail: [email protected]
Submission of Town Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole Centre Area Action Plan Extension 642 for public consultation E-mail: [email protected]
E 080109 Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Arrears Recovery Policy Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Wood Contact: Rebecca Newman Extension: 233 E-mail: [email protected]
th Waste Management Open Executive 5 Mar Cllr Bell Contact : Paul Jackson Strategy Extension : 518 E-mail: [email protected]
605 th Confirmation of Open Executive 5 Mar Cllr Kemp Contact : David Hill Allocation of GAF 3 Extension : 201 E-mail: [email protected]
th SPV Business Plan – Open Executive 5 Mar Cllr Kemp Contact : David Hill Released Programme for Extension : 201 Development and E-mail: [email protected] Refresh of SPV Business Plan
April 2009 Asset and Project Open Executive 2nd April Cllr Wood Contact: Anne Adams Management Group Extension: 269 Quarterly Progress E-mail: Report [email protected]
E 080109 Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Cosmetic Piercing, Open Executive 2nd April Cllr Claughton Contact: Sheila Davison Semi-Permanent Skin- Extension: 224 Colouring, Tattooing, E-mail: Acupuncture and [email protected] Electrolysis Byelaws
Relocation of Ashford Open Executive 2nd April Cllr Claughton Contact :Alison Curteis Street Market: 3rd Extension 892 Quarter Review E-mail: [email protected]
606 May 2009 Provisional Outturn Open Executive 28th May Cllr Bartlett Contact: Pauline Adams Extension: 545 Email: [email protected]
DS/published version
E Published 11th February 2009 Decisions effective from the 18th February 2009 unless they are called in or are recommended to the Council for approval Executive
Minutes of a Meeting of the Executive held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford on the 5th February 2009
Present:
Cllr. Clokie (Chairman);
Cllr. Bartlett (Vice-Chairman);
Cllrs. Bell, Clarkson, Claughton, Kemp, Wood
Apologies:
Cllrs. Smith, Wells
Also Present:
Cllrs. Cowley, Davidson, Davison, Ellison, Holland, Howard and Naughton
Deputy Chief Executive, Director of Community Engagement, Head of Environmental Services, Head of Housing, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Head of Finance, Head of Cultural and Project Services, Revenues and Benefits Manager, Business Liaison Manager, Head of Swale Ashford Property Partnership, Senior Communications Officer (Marketing), Member Services and Scrutiny Manager.
399 Declarations of Interest
Councillor Interest Minute No. Davison Code of Conduct – Personal but not Prejudicial – 404 Director of the Julie Rose Stadium Company
Ellison Code of Conduct – Personal but not Prejudicial – 404 Council representative on the Julie Rose Memorial Athletics Stadium – Management Company
400 Minutes
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on the 8th January 2009 be approved and confirmed as a correct record.
661 E 050209
401 Overview and Scrutiny Committee – Report of the 2009/10 Budget Scrutiny
The report of the Senior Scrutiny Officer presented the findings of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group from its scrutiny of the draft budget for 2009/10. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had subsequently debated the report and was concerned that the budget, as scrutinised by the Task Group, would not be achievable, although it had asked the Executive to take into consideration the further financial information that had become available and the comments within the recommendations within the report. An extract from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on the 20th January 2009 had been distributed electronically earlier in the week and a further copy was tabled for information.
The Vice-Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered that all Members wished to see an achievable budget. He commended the report of the Task Group and advised that at the meeting the Chief Executive had indicated that if the financial situation eased the overall budget position would look more favourable.
The Chairman of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group referred to comments made by the Chief Executive at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting and in particular the Chief Executive’s comment that he feared that there had been some misunderstandings on behalf of the Task Group in undertaking their work. The Chairman of the Task Group advised that he was still unaware of what misunderstandings had taken place and clarified that the Task Group had scrutinised the budget with the information it had before it. He also referred to the comment that the Chief Executive had made about more recent and promising improvements in some areas, and he advised that in his view the only area which showed a potential improvement related to concessionary fares. In conclusion he advised that the Task Group had concerns over the overall deliverability of the budget.
The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee expressed concern that it appeared that the Task Group did not receive certain information until the last minute and this may have caused confusion as to whether the budget was sustainable. He said he was minded to consider requesting the Task Group to have a further look at the budget in light of the new information.
The Chairman (of the Executive) advised that subject to the draft budget being recommended to the Council for approval, there only remained two items which were still subject to firm decisions being made. These related to the Monitoring Centre and the Green Waste Issue. The latter would be considered by the Policy Advisory Group on the 11th February 2009.
In response to a comment from a Member about the potential impacts of changes to accountancy practice which had been reported to the Audit Committee, the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Property and Corporate Governance confirmed that they would have an effect on how information was presented and although it would be a challenge, he believed that the Officers would be able to manage the process.
662 E 050209
Resolved:
That (i) it be noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group did not regard the budget as achievable, sufficient or realistic when presented to them; the Task Group had however advised that subsequent information had become available and this should be taken into account by the Executive.
(ii) the risk matrixes and the risks identified within them, paying particular attention to those highlighted in the shaded sections of either risk matrix, be endorsed.
402 Forward Plan of Key Decisions – March to June 2009 Period
An Update Paper had been tabled which advised of a number of changes to the Forward Plan.
Resolved:
That the Forward Plan of Key Decisions for the March to June 2009 period (as appended to these Minutes) be approved.
403 Revenue Budget Monitoring – December 2008
The report provided details of the General Fund Revenue position in the current year based on actual results at the end of December and provided assessments of the outturn position for the remainder of the financial year. The report also contained summary details of the Housing Revenue Account position. The picture for the current year was now one of a higher General Fund Forecast Deficit of £167,270 although there was a possibility that the cost pressure arising from the Concessionary Fares scheme could be less than estimated. There was a potential underspend of £278,480 on the Housing Revenue Account. The Portfolio Holder advised that the biggest change since the previous report related to the reduction in income from planning applications and he considered that Management Team needed to look carefully at the impact of this reduction. He advised that he was pleased that the Deputy Chief Executive had recently written to all Service Heads reminding them of the need to keep expenditure within budget.
Resolved:
That (i) the Revenue Budget Monitoring Report as at the end of December 2008 be noted.
(ii) the release of £3,250 from the Service Pressure Reserve to fund the data collection for NI187 be approved.
663 E 050209
404 Budget 2009/10
The report presented the draft 2009/10 Budget covering the General Fund Revenue Budget, Discretionary Fees, the Housing Revenue Account Budget, the Capital Programme, Prudential Indicators, the Treasury Management and the Annual Investment Strategies, and proposals for future MTFP work for the Policy Advisory Group. The budget reflected substantial planned reductions in line with the strategy agreed in December 2008 and recommended a Council Tax increase of 4.7%, or 50p per month at Band D level. Net General Fund Service Expenditure was recommended at £16,350,300, an increase of 2.2% on the 2008/09 budget and a net budget requirement of £14,246,960, an increase of 4.1%. The budget also proposed housing rents should increase by an average of 6% in line with Government guidelines.
The full Council Tax proposals would be submitted to the Council for approval on the 19th February 2009 when the figures for other Precepting Authorities would be added to enable the overall Council Tax for 2009/10 to be set.
Additional papers dealing with Discretionary and Statutory Fees for 2009/10 had been circulated electronically earlier in the week. However, a further copy was included within the tabled papers. Also circulated at the meeting was a recommendation from the Joint Consultative Committee held that afternoon recommending that the proposal to save £5,000 on staff beverages be shelved. The Chairman of the Executive advised that the Executive was minded to agree to the recommendation of the Joint Consultative Committee.
The Portfolio Holder for Cultural Services advised that he had examined the budget proposals in terms of the Create Festival in conjunction with the Head of Cultural and Project Services and Cultural Services staff. However, he advised that the budget was very tight and there was no room to alter the recommendation relating to funding for that event.
The Portfolio Holder for Resource Management and Control said that he believed that the budget set challenging targets for the year ahead but he was in no doubt that it was deliverable. He advised that the budget setting process this year had been extremely difficult and very complex, compounded in particular by the changes in the national economy and the declining interest rates which had a direct effect on the Council’s income. He explained that the proposed 4.7% increase in Council Tax was higher than he would have liked and he indicated that Kent County Council’s proposed rise was in the region of 2.4%. However this had to be taken in the context of the fact that the Kent County Council had a 3.2% increase in Government grant compared to Ashford’s increase of only 1.8%. He said there was a direct correlation between Government grants and Council Tax increases.
A Member, who was also the Director of the Julie Rose Stadium advised that the facility was a very important amenity for the Borough. However, the budget for its operation was under considerable pressure. The current year’s budget represented a reduction of 60% in terms of funding from the previous year. He considered that the reduced funding could restrict the ability of the stadium to offer certain facilities and there was also a possibility of the loss of the ability to stage certain events such
664 E 050209 as it being used as a pre-Olympic games training camp. He advised of tentative discussions being held between the stadium and a national athletics team who were interested in using the facility.
The Portfolio Holder for Cultural Services advised that the Borough Council had offered a grant of £97,000. However, the support requested from the stadium was £142,000. He indicated that he had met with the Trustees and he understood that at that time they were in a position to agree proposals. He indicated however that that position had changed. He considered there was a need for the stadium to have a vision and to take steps to capitalise on its assets. He particularly referred to the steps being taken to lift planning restrictions which controlled the activities which could be held on the site.
The Chairman of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group also commented about the position of the Julie Rose Stadium. He said he had concerns that if the use of the stadium declined, the use of other similar assets might decline and could bring calls for requests for further funding from the Borough Council. He also commented that he understood that the budget reduction proposals contained only one compulsory redundancy.
The Portfolio Holder for Resource Management and Control clarified that the Budget Reduction Strategy included 36 staffing reductions including redundancies, which, he believed was regretful. He, however, accepted that not all were compulsory, with the first tranche being voluntary redundancies and the remainder for the most part a process of natural wastage. If the budget situation deteriorated further he advised that the Executive were under no illusion that the issue of redundancies would need to be considered.
A Member, who was also the Director of the Julie Rose Stadium Company said that the meetings between the Trustees and Officers regarding funding had taken place much too late in the day and bearing in mind that the Trust representatives at such meetings, although they had the power to negotiate, they also had a duty to clear all recommendations via the Trustees. He also gave a comparison of the levels of support compared to income for the stadium in 1997 compared to the current day, and also referred to problems the stadium had in the year in terms of their managing agent and their secondment work on the re-launch of the Stour Centre. He also commented about the lack of publicity and lack of work on the website in that particular year. He confirmed however that the Head of Cultural and Project Services and other Officers within the Authority were looking at dealing with the issues of the planning conditions imposed on the use of the facilities at the time that planning permission was granted. If these were lifted, opportunities might exist for hosting other events.
A Member commented that it was inevitable that the 36 staff reductions would put a strain on the ability of the Council to continue to deliver its services to the same standards. In terms of the proposals for the Create Festival he considered it was regretful that a growth town like Ashford could not offer such an event to its residents. The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Parking and Licensing, Customer Services and Community Safety however, referred to proposals for the two day concert in the North Park entitled “Concert in the Park”.
665 E 050209
In response to a comment from a Member about the proposals in terms of Green Waste, the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and IT advised that this was to be subject to discussion at the Policy Advisory Group on the 11th February 2009 and he encouraged Members to attend that meeting. In terms of the Council Tax increase of 4.7% he also explained that the overall Council Tax for the Ashford element of a Band D property would be £135. However for the same property in Shepway this would be in the region of over £200.
Resolved:
That (i) the updated context for the budget, including advice about the Government expectation for Council Tax increases and advice on Council Tax capping be noted.
(ii) the action taken in respect of Direct Debit payments be noted.
(iii) the Housing Revenue Account for 2009/10 be approved and the rent increase be in accordance with the Government’s guidelines resulting in an estimated average increase of 6%.
(iv) the increase to garage rents be agreed.
(v) the progress to date on ZBB review work be noted.
(vi) the remaining ZBB programme be cancelled and the Policy Advisory Group be asked to re-focus its work to looking at the implications arising from the Budget Reduction Strategy.
(vii) the Policy Advisory Group be asked to look at the issues identified within paragraph 122 of the report.
Recommended:
That (i) the Draft Revenue Budget 2009/10 be approved, subject to the deletion of the proposed saving regarding staff refreshments.
(ii) the level of Discretionary Fees to be levied as from 1 April 2009 be approved.
(iii) Council be recommended to approve a Band D Council Tax for the Borough Council’s Council Tax requirement at a figure of £135.27.
(iv) the Capital Programme 2009/10 to 2010/11 and the level of resources available to finance further projects be approved.
(v) the Repairs and Renewals Programme be approved.
(vi) new borrowing be undertaken to fund capital expenditure in 2009/10.
666 E 050209
(vii) the Prudential Indicators, Treasury Management Strategy, MRP Policy and Annual Strategy as set out in the Appendices to the report be approved.
(viii) the level of Key Decision Thresholds as set out within the report be approved.
(ix) the advice from the Chief Financial Officer on the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of reserves be noted.
(x) the use of £400,000 capital receipts for the Housing Revenue Capital Programme be delayed while balances recover.
405 Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) – Response to Consultation
The report advised that the draft SPD had been approved for consultation purposes in August 2008. It also set out the comments received during the consultation period and a detailed response to each of the comments was made. Where appropriate, amendments were put forward. The report sought the formal approval of the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document.
The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Property and Corporate Governance advised that the document still referred to the issue of a select list of nine Registered Social Landlords. However this had recently changed and had been replaced with a protocol system.
Recommended:
That (i) the responses to the comments received on the draft Affordable Housing SPD be endorsed.
(ii) subject to the amendments proposed, and subject to a change to the reference from 9 Registered Social Landlords to “protocol system”, the guidance be formally adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document.
406 Quarterly Report of the Asset and Project Management Group
The report provided Members with an update on the progress of the Capital Programme and Repairs and Renewals Reserve and information relating to key asset management issues arising since the previous report in October 2008. The Deputy Chief Executive advised that there were several pages missing from the printed version, however the version available on the web was complete. He advised that these pages related to progress on Section 106 schemes.
667 E 050209
In response to a comment from a Member, the Chairman advised that £454,000 was currently held in the Repairs and Renewals Reserve.
Resolved:
That (i) the action taken by the Group be noted.
(ii) the cost of vacating The Fairings of £20,000 be funded from the Repairs and Renewals Reserve.
(iii) the existing Management Agreement with Kent Wildlife Trust be extended to include the Warren and Hoad’s Wood and the Eureka Park Section 106 Habitat Sum be paid over to Kent Wildlife Trust in accordance with the terms set out within the report; the agreement between Ashford Borough Council and the Kent Wildlife Trust be drawn up on such terms as the Heads of Legal and Cultural Services consider appropriate.
407 Revenues and Benefits Recommended Write-Off’s Schedule
The report proposed the formal write-off of 598 debts amounting to £59,298.10. The proposals were in line with the Council’s Revenues and Benefits Service Write-Off Policy. Existing bad debt provisions already more than covered the sums involved.
The Chairman referred to the tabled papers which included an amended covering report setting out further information in terms of the table in Paragraph 4.
The Chairman advised that if any Members had any further information about any individual debtors they should approach the Revenues and Benefits Manager direct.
Resolved:
That (i) the action that accounts totalling £4,028.48 had been written-off under delegated powers (Financial Regulations 11.1) be noted.
(ii) the write-offs listed in the Exempt Appendices totalling £55,269.62 be approved.
408 LDF Task Group – 22nd January 2009
Resolved:
That the Chairman’s Report of the Local Development Framework Task Group meeting of the 22nd January 2009 be received and noted. ______KRF/VS/EB - EXXX0906 ______Queries concerning these Minutes? Please contact Keith Fearon: Telephone: 01233 330564 Email: [email protected] Agendas, Reports and Minutes are available on: www.ashford.gov.uk/committees
668 l
FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS MARCH TO JUNE 2009
Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder March 2009 Housing Quarterly Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Wood Contact : Bob Smart Performance Report Extension :434 E-mail: [email protected]
Performance Indicators Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Bartlett Contact : Philip Bond
669 669 Extension : 403 E-mail: [email protected]
Financial Monitoring Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Bartlett Contact : Ben Lockwood Extension : 540 E-mail: [email protected]
Waste Management Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Bell Contact : Paul Jackson Strategy Extension : 518 E-mail: [email protected]
E 050209
Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder th Options – Building Open Executive 5 Mar Cllr Kemp Contact : Tim Parrett Control Service Extension :275 E-mail: [email protected]
Land Charge Fee Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Kemp Contact : Tim Parrett Regulations (Cost Extension :275 Recovery) E-mail: [email protected]
670 Land Opportunities Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Wood Contact : Paul McKenner Study Extension : 419 E-mail:
Garage Review Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Wood Contact : Paul McKenner Extension : 419 E-mail: [email protected]
GAF 3 Community Chest Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Clarkson Contact: Kim Harlow Extension: 413 E-mail: [email protected]
E 050209
Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Review of Notification of Open Executive 5th Mar Cllr Kemp Contact: Martin Vink Planning Applications to Extension: 249 Neighbouring Residents E-mail: [email protected] and Parish Councils
Submission of Town Open Executive 26th Mar Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole Centre Area Action Plan
671 671 Extension 642 for public consultation E-mail: [email protected]
Designated Public Open Executive 26th Mar Cllr Claughton Contact: James Hann Places Order – Results Extension: 721 of Consultation E-mail: [email protected]
April 2009 Infrastructure Open Executive 30th April Cllr Kemp Contact :Richard Alderton Contributions SPD – Extension 239 Draft for consultation E-mail: [email protected]
E 050209
Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder th Confirmation of Open Executive 30 April Cllr Kemp Contact : David Hill Allocation of GAF 3 Extension : 201 E-mail: [email protected]
Refreshed Ashford’s Open Executive 30th April Cllr Kemp Contact : David Hill Future Programme Extension : 201 E-mail: [email protected]
672 Cosmetic Piercing, Open Executive 30th April Cllr Claughton Contact: Sheila Davison Semi-Permanent Skin- Extension: 224 Colouring, Tattooing, E-mail: Acupuncture and [email protected] Electrolysis Byelaws Asset and Project Open Executive 30th April Cllr Wood Contact: Anne Adams Management Group Extension: 269 Quarterly Progress E-mail: Report [email protected]
E 050209
Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Relocation of Ashford Open Executive 30th April Cllr Claughton Contact :Alison Curteis Street Market: 3rd Extension 892 Quarter Review E-mail: [email protected]
Adoption of the Open Executive 30th April Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole 673 673 Sustainable Design and Extension 642 Construction DPD E-mail: [email protected]
Swan Centre Project Open Executive 30th April Cllr Clarkson Contact : SallyAnne Logan Extension :293 E-mail: [email protected]
Arrears Recovery Policy Open Executive 30th April Cllr Wood Contact: Rebecca Newman Extension: 233 E-mail: [email protected]
E 050209
Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Cheeseman’s Open Executive 30th April Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole Green/Waterbrook Area Extension 642 Action Plan – Draft Issues & Options report E-mail: [email protected] for public consultation
May 2009 Provisional Outturn Open Executive 28th May Cllr Bartlett Contact: Pauline Adams
674 Extension: 545
Email: [email protected]
June 2009 Housing Quarterly Open Executive 25th June Cllr Wood Contact : Bob Smart Performance Report Extension :434 E-mail: [email protected]
HRA Business Plan Open Executive 25th June Cllr Wood Contact : Bob Smart Action Plan Annual Extension :434 Update E-mail: [email protected]
E 050209
Consultees Open and means of Principal Decision Decision Prior Means of Decision Item or consultation Background Maker Date Representation Exempt PH = Portfolio Information Holder Final Outturn Open Executive 25th June Cllr Bartlett Contact: Pauline Adams Extension: 545 Email: [email protected]
Section 106 Agreements Open Executive 25th June Cllr Kemp Contact : Minnie Ngaluafe
675 675 – Annual Progress Extension :202 Report E-mail: [email protected]
Submission of the Open Executive 25th June Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole Tenterden and Rural Extension 642 Sites DPD for public consultation E-mail: [email protected]
Submission of the Urban Open Executive 25th June Cllr Kemp Contact :Simon Cole Sites and Infrastructure Extension 642 DPD for public consultation E-mail: [email protected]
DS/published version
Agenda Item No: 9
Report To: FULL COUNCIL
Date: 19TH February 2009
Report Title: Council Tax 2009/10 Resolutions
Report Author: Paul Naylor, Deputy Chief Executive Pauline Adams, Head of Financial Services
Summary: This report presents the Executive’s 2009-2010 General Fund Budget and Council Tax recommendations for resolution by the Full Council. It also represents the full statutory resolutions, including the requirements of the Precepting Authorities and Parish Councils, for the area covered by the Borough Council as the billing authority. Excluding Parish Precepts, the Council’s net revenue spending after identifying budget reduction measures totalling some £2,213,000, is 4.% greater than the budget for 2008/09. The Borough Council’s element of the Council Tax is proposed to increase by 4.7% within the level set by the medium term financial plan. On the basis of information available from the Precepting Authorities the overall level of Council Tax, excluding Parish Precepts, is anticipated to increase by 2.96%.
Key Decision: Not applicable
Affected Wards: ALL
Recommendations: The Council is asked to:-
(1) Agree the Budget for 2009/10 as recommended by the Executive.
(2) Agree the formal Council Tax resolutions annexed to this report.
Policy Overview: The Budget is a matter for the Full Council to approve. Apart from the statutory requirement and status of the budget, the proposals for 2009/10 take forward the Council’s corporate plan objectives and the aims within its medium term financial plan
Financial The budget is in line with the aims of the medium term Implications: financial plan. The recommended net expenditure budget (£16.230 million) is after savings proposals amounting to £2,213,000 or 16.2% of the original base budget. The recommended Council Tax at Band D is £135.27, an increase of 4.7% over 2008/09.
Risk Assessment The report to the Executive contained advice about the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of the Councils reserves, as required by the Local Government Act 2003. The report concluded that while there are risks, the Council’s Members and Officers understand these, but the Council has well-developed budgetary control and monitoring procedures to address these should pressures arise
Other Material None Implications:
Background Executive Committee – 5th February 2009 – Item 7 Revenue Papers: Budget 2009/10
Contacts: [email protected] [email protected] Tel: (01233) 330436 (01233) 330545
Agenda Item No. 9
Report Title: Council Tax 2009/10 Resolutions
IMPORTANT Meetings of the Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority NOTICE and the Kent County Council will be held on February 12th and 19th respectively. These resolutions in the report, which must include the requirements of all Precepting authorities, are based on the recommendations made to these Authorities. It would be necessary to issue replacement resolutions at the Full Council Meeting if there is any change made by any of the authorities.
Figures for Parish Councils are based on the formal decisions of the parish councils.
Purpose of the Report
1. This report presents the Executive Committee’s 2009/10 General Fund Budget and Council Tax recommendation for resolution by the Full Council. It also presents the full statutory resolutions, including the requirements of the Precepting authorities and the parish councils, for the areas covered by the Borough Council as the billing authority
Issue to be Decided
2. The Full Council is required to approve the recommended 2009/10 General Fund Net Expenditure requirement of £14,950,300 including Parish Precepts and the Council Tax requirement amounting to a Band D tax for the Borough Council of £135.27. The Full Council must agree the statutory resolutions, including the implications of the Precepting Bodies requirements.
Ashford Borough Council’s General Fund Budget and Council Tax Requirement
3. The decisions of the Executive at its meeting on 5th February are set out in its Minutes reported on this agenda. A summary of the recommended budget is included as Appendix A. Members are asked to bring to this meeting the Budget Book 2009/10.
4. The report to the Executive Meeting included advice, required by the Local Government Act 2003, on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the Councils reserves.
Council Tax Requirement
5. The demand on the Council Tax Collection Fund for 2009/10 that flows from the recommendation of the Executive, and the decisions or provisional position of the Precepting Bodies totals £61,623,027 analysed is as follows: -
Authority Precept/Demand 2009/2010 Change over Band D 2008/2009 Council Tax
£% ££ % Ashford Borough Council 6,047,530 9.81 135.27 6.07 4.70 Kent County Council 45,881,556 74.46 1,026.27 24.48 2.44 Kent Police Authority 6,019,811 9.77 134.65 6.40 4.99 Kent and Medway Fire Authority 2,953,351 4.79 66.06 2.25 3.53 Parish Councils 720,779 1.17 25.76 1.41 5.81
6. Excluding Parish Precepts the overall Council Tax at Band D for 2009/2010 is £1,362.25. This compares with £1,323.05 for 2008/09, an increase of £39.20 (2.96%).
7. Attached to this report are the formal resolutions for approval by the Council as the Billing Authority. Also attached at Appendix A and B are details on the calculation of this Council’s Budget requirement and Council Tax at Band D.
Contact: Paul Naylor Pauline Adams Deputy Chief Executive Head of Financial Services
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
COUNCIL TAX RESOLUTIONS
1. That the following, as submitted in the Estimates be approved:-
The revised revenue estimates for the year 2008/2009 and the revenue estimates for 2009/2010 summarised in the attached General Fund Summary.
2. That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2009/2010 in accordance with regulations made under the Local Government Finance Act 1992:-
(a) 44,707.10 being the amount calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992, as its council tax base for the year. (b) Part of the Council’s area (i.e. taxbase for parished areas).
LOCAL LOCAL TAX TAX PARISH BASE PARISH BASE £ £ Aldington & Bonnington 544.10 Little Chart 130.80 Appledore 363.70 Mersham and Sevington 641.50 Bethersden 703.10 Molash 116.50 Biddenden 1,161.40 Newenden 108.90 Bilsington 143.00 Orlestone 568.50 Boughton Aluph and Eastwell 1,112.00 Pluckley 494.70 Brabourne 616.70 Rolvenden 698.20 Brook 152.50 Ruckinge 334.70 Challock 421.80 Shadoxhurst 502.80 Charing 1,281.30 Smarden 627.30 Chilham 763.10 Smeeth 393.40 Crundale (PM) 91.40 Stanhope 843.70 Egerton 521.60 Stone 213.60 Godmersham 171.10 Tenterden (TC) 3,714.00 Great Chart with Singleton 2,449.70 Warehorne 177.20 Hastingleigh 117.30 Westwell 330.20 High Halden 682.50 Wittersham 557.40 Hothfield 322.30 Woodchurch 866.50 Kenardington 113.30 Wye with Hinxhill 1,005.30 Kingsnorth 3,918.40
being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Regulations, as the amounts of its council tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate. 3. That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2009/2010 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:-
2009/2010 (a) £79,122,820 Being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2)(a) to (e) of the Act (i.e. Gross Expenditure).
(b) £64,172,520 Being the aggregate of amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(a) to (c) of the Act (i.e. Gross Income).
(c) £14,950,300 Being the amount by which the aggregate at 3(a) above exceeds the aggregate at 3(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the year (i.e. Net Expenditure including parish precepts).
(d) £8,181,990 Being the aggregate of the sums which the Council estimates will be payable for the year into its general fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates, revenue support grant or additional grant [increased by the amount of the sums which the Council estimates will be transferred in the year from its collection fund to its general fund in accordance with Section 97(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988] (Council Tax Surplus) or [reduced by the amount of the sums which the Council estimates will be transferred in the year from its general fund to its collection fund in accordance with Section 97(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988] (Council Tax Deficit) and [increased by the amount of any sum which the Council estimates will be transferred from its collection fund to its general fund pursuant to the Collection Fund (Community Charges) (England) Directions 1994 under Section 98(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988] made on the 7th February 1994 (Community Charge Surplus) or [reduced by the amount of any sum which the Council estimates will be transferred from its general fund to its collection fund pursuant to the Collection Fund (Community Charges) (England) Directions 1994 under Section 98(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988] made on the 7th February 1994 (Community Charge Deficit). (i.e. Government Grants plus Collection Fund Balance).
(e) £151.39 Being the amount at 3(c) above less the amount at 3(d) above, all divided by the amount at 2 above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year (i.e. Band D tax inclusive of average Parish Precept).
(f) £720,780 Being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act (i.e. Parish Precepts).
(g) £135.27 Being the amount at 3(e) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 3(f) above by the amount at 2(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special item relates (i.e. Band D tax for Borough Council only).
(h) Part of the Council’s area
PARISH
PARISH BAND D PARISH BAND D £ £ Aldington & Bonnington 544.10 Little Chart 130.80 Appledore 363.70 Mersham and Sevington 641.50 Bethersden 703.10 Molash 116.50 Biddenden 1,161.40 Newenden 108.90 Bilsington 143.00 Orlestone 568.50 Boughton Aluph and Eastwell 1,112.00 Pluckley 494.70 Brabourne 616.70 Rolvenden 698.20 Brook 152.50 Ruckinge 334.70 Challock 421.80 Shadoxhurst 502.80 Charing 1,281.30 Smarden 627.30 Chilham 763.10 Smeeth 393.40 Crundale (PM) 91.40 Stanhope 843.70 Egerton 521.60 Stone 213.60 Godmersham 171.10 Tenterden (TC) 3,714.00 Great Chart with Singleton 2,449.70 Warehorne 177.20 Hastingleigh 117.30 Westwell 330.20 High Halden 682.50 Wittersham 557.40 Hothfield 322.30 Woodchurch 866.50 Kenardington 113.30 Wye with Hinxhill 1,005.30 Kingsnorth 3,918.40
being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 3(g) above the amounts of the special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area mentioned above divided in each case by the amount at 2(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(3) of the Act, as the basic amounts of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate (i.e. Band D taxes inclusive of parish precepts).
(i) Part of the Council’s area (i.e. Council taxes across all bands inclusive of Parish Precepts but excluding County and Police Precepts)
BILLING AUTHORITY PART OF COUNCIL TAX 2009/2010 PARISH BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND A B C D E F G H Aldington & Bonnington 109.79 128.08 146.38 164.68 201.28 237.87 274.47 329.36 Appledore 105.76 123.39 141.01 158.64 193.89 229.15 264.40 317.28 Bethersden 105.59 123.18 140.78 158.38 193.58 228.77 263.97 316.76 Biddenden 115.44 134.68 153.92 173.16 211.64 250.12 288.60 346.32 Bilsington 98.34 114.73 131.12 147.51 180.29 213.07 245.85 295.02 Boughton Aluph and Eastwell 99.17 115.70 132.23 148.76 181.82 214.88 247.93 297.52 Brabourne 100.18 116.88 133.57 150.27 183.66 217.06 250.45 300.54 Brook 112.04 130.71 149.39 168.06 205.41 242.75 280.10 336.12 Challock 109.15 127.34 145.53 163.72 200.10 236.48 272.87 327.44 Charing 110.71 129.17 147.62 166.07 202.97 239.88 276.78 332.14 Chilham 103.61 120.88 138.15 155.42 189.96 224.50 259.03 310.84 Crundale (PM) 91.64 106.91 122.19 137.46 168.01 198.55 229.10 274.92 Egerton 106.09 123.78 141.46 159.14 194.50 229.87 265.23 318.28 Godmersham 105.61 123.21 140.81 158.41 193.61 228.81 264.02 316.82 Great Chart with Singleton 98.57 115.00 131.43 147.86 180.72 213.58 246.43 295.72 Hastingleigh 102.97 120.13 137.29 154.45 188.77 223.09 257.42 308.90 High Halden 104.83 122.31 139.78 157.25 192.19 227.14 262.08 314.50 Hothfield 108.79 126.93 145.06 163.19 199.45 235.72 271.98 326.38 Kenardington 103.42 120.66 137.89 155.13 189.60 224.08 258.55 310.26 Kingsnorth 98.31 114.69 131.08 147.46 180.23 213.00 245.77 294.92 Little Chart 110.50 128.92 147.33 165.75 202.58 239.42 276.25 331.50 Mersham and Sevington 103.17 120.37 137.56 154.76 189.15 223.54 257.93 309.52 Molash 104.49 121.90 139.32 156.73 191.56 226.39 261.22 313.46 Newenden 120.79 140.92 161.05 181.18 221.44 261.70 301.97 362.36 Orlestone 104.84 122.31 139.79 157.26 192.21 227.15 262.10 314.52 Pluckley 123.47 144.04 164.62 185.20 226.36 267.51 308.67 370.40 Rolvenden 108.10 126.12 144.13 162.15 198.18 234.22 270.25 324.30 Ruckinge 100.14 116.83 133.52 150.21 183.59 216.97 250.35 300.42 Shadoxhurst 105.02 122.52 140.03 157.53 192.54 227.54 262.55 315.06 Smarden 115.26 134.47 153.68 172.89 211.31 249.73 288.15 345.78 Smeeth 102.04 119.05 136.05 153.06 187.07 221.09 255.10 306.12 Stanhope 100.85 117.65 134.46 151.27 184.89 218.50 252.12 302.54 Stone 102.67 119.78 136.89 154.00 188.22 222.44 256.67 308.00 Tenterden (TC) 122.49 142.90 163.32 183.73 224.56 265.39 306.22 367.46 Warehorne 100.71 117.50 134.28 151.07 184.64 218.21 251.78 302.14 Westwell 111.79 130.43 149.06 167.69 204.95 242.22 279.48 335.38 Wittersham 109.65 127.92 146.20 164.47 201.02 237.57 274.12 328.94 Woodchurch 105.57 123.16 140.76 158.35 193.54 228.73 263.92 316.70 Wye with Hinxhill 117.01 136.51 156.01 175.51 214.51 253.51 292.52 351.02 Unparished Area 90.18 105.21 120.24 135.27 165.33 195.39 225.45 270.54
being the amounts given by multiplying the amounts at 3(g) and 3(h) above by the number particular valuation Band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, Calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands.
4. That it be noted for the year 2009/2010 the Kent County Council, the Kent Police Authority, and the Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:-
Precepting VALUATION BANDS Authority
A B C D E F G H
Kent County 684.18 798.21 912.24 1,026.27 1,254.33 1,482.39 1,710.45 2,052.54
Kent Police 89.77 104.73 119.69 134.65 164.57 194.49 224.42 269.3 Authority Kent and 44.04 51.38 58.72 66.06 80.74 95.42 110.10 132.12 Medway Towns Fire Authority
5. That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 3(i) and 4 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2009/2010 for each of the categories of dwellings shown on the next page (i.e. fully inclusive Council Taxes across all bands). COUNCIL TAX 2009/2010 PARISH BAND A BAND B BAND C BAND D BAND E BAND F BAND G BAND H Aldington & 927.78 1,082.40 1,237.03 1,391.66 1,700.92 2,010.17 2,319.44 2,783.32 Bonnington Appledore 923.75 1,077.71 1,231.66 1,385.62 1,693.53 2,001.45 2,309.37 2,771.24 Bethersden 923.58 1,077.50 1,231.43 1,385.36 1,693.22 2,001.07 2,308.94 2,770.72 Biddenden 933.43 1,089.00 1,244.57 1,400.14 1,711.28 2,022.42 2,333.57 2,800.28 Bilsington 916.33 1,069.05 1,221.77 1,374.49 1,679.93 1,985.37 2,290.82 2,748.98 Boughton 917.16 1,070.02 1,222.88 1,375.74 1,681.46 1,987.18 2,292.90 2,751.48 Aluph and Eastwell Brabourne 918.17 1,071.20 1,224.22 1,377.25 1,683.30 1,989.36 2,295.42 2,754.50 Brook 930.03 1,085.03 1,240.04 1,395.04 1,705.05 2,015.05 2,325.07 2,790.08 Challock 927.14 1,081.66 1,236.18 1,390.70 1,699.74 2,008.78 2,317.84 2,781.40 Charing 928.70 1,083.49 1,238.27 1,393.05 1,702.61 2,012.18 2,321.75 2,786.10 Chilham 921.60 1,075.20 1,228.80 1,382.40 1,689.60 1,996.80 2,304.00 2,764.80 Crundale (PM) 909.63 1,061.23 1,212.84 1,364.44 1,667.65 1,970.85 2,274.07 2,728.88 Egerton 924.08 1,078.10 1,232.11 1,386.12 1,694.14 2,002.17 2,310.20 2,772.24 Godmersham 923.60 1,077.53 1,231.46 1,385.39 1,693.25 2,001.11 2,308.99 2,770.78 Great Chart 916.56 1,069.32 1,222.08 1,374.84 1,680.36 1,985.88 2,291.40 2,749.68 with Singleton Hastingleigh 920.96 1,074.45 1,227.94 1,381.43 1,688.41 1,995.39 2,302.39 2,762.86 High Halden 922.82 1,076.63 1,230.43 1,384.23 1,691.83 1,999.44 2,307.05 2,768.46 Hothfield 926.78 1,081.25 1,235.71 1,390.17 1,699.09 2,008.02 2,316.95 2,780.34 Kenardington 921.41 1,074.98 1,228.54 1,382.11 1,689.24 1,996.38 2,303.52 2,764.22 Kingsnorth 916.30 1,069.01 1,221.73 1,374.44 1,679.87 1,985.30 2,290.74 2,748.88 Little Chart 928.49 1,083.24 1,237.98 1,392.73 1,702.22 2,011.72 2,321.22 2,785.46 Mersham and 921.16 1,074.69 1,228.21 1,381.74 1,688.79 1,995.84 2,302.90 2,763.48 Sevington Molash 922.48 1,076.22 1,229.97 1,383.71 1,691.20 1,998.69 2,306.19 2,767.42 Newenden 938.78 1,095.24 1,251.70 1,408.16 1,721.08 2,034.00 2,346.94 2,816.32 Orlestone 922.83 1,076.63 1,230.44 1,384.24 1,691.85 1,999.45 2,307.07 2,768.48 Pluckley 941.46 1,098.36 1,255.27 1,412.18 1,726.00 2,039.81 2,353.64 2,824.36 Rolvenden 926.09 1,080.44 1,234.78 1,389.13 1,697.82 2,006.52 2,315.22 2,778.26 Ruckinge 918.13 1,071.15 1,224.17 1,377.19 1,683.23 1,989.27 2,295.32 2,754.38 Shadoxhurst 923.01 1,076.84 1,230.68 1,384.51 1,692.18 1,999.84 2,307.52 2,769.02 Smarden 933.25 1,088.79 1,244.33 1,399.87 1,710.95 2,022.03 2,333.12 2,799.74 Smeeth 920.03 1,073.37 1,226.70 1,380.04 1,686.71 1,993.39 2,300.07 2,760.08 Stanhope 918.84 1,071.97 1,225.11 1,378.25 1,684.53 1,990.80 2,297.09 2,756.50 Stone 920.66 1,074.10 1,227.54 1,380.98 1,687.86 1,994.74 2,301.64 2,761.96 Tenterden (TC) 940.48 1,097.22 1,253.97 1,410.71 1,724.20 2,037.69 2,351.19 2,821.42 Warehorne 918.70 1,071.82 1,224.93 1,378.05 1,684.28 1,990.51 2,296.75 2,756.10 Westwell 929.78 1,084.75 1,239.71 1,394.67 1,704.59 2,014.52 2,324.45 2,789.34 Wittersham 927.64 1,082.24 1,236.85 1,391.45 1,700.66 2,009.87 2,319.09 2,782.90 Woodchurch 923.56 1,077.48 1,231.41 1,385.33 1,693.18 2,001.03 2,308.89 2,770.66 Wye with 935.00 1,090.83 1,246.66 1,402.49 1,714.15 2,025.81 2,337.49 2,804.98 Hinxhill Unparished 908.17 1,059.53 1,210.89 1,362.25 1,664.97 1,967.69 2,270.42 2,724.50 Area Appendix A
CALCULATION OF THE BUDGET REQUIREMENT AND COUNCIL TAX AT BAND D
£ £
Gross Expenditure - General Fund 54,246,990
Gross Expenditure - HRA 24,155,050
Parish Precepts 720,780 79,122,820
Less Gross Income (64,172,520)
NET EXPENDITURE 14,950,300
Add Deficit Distribution from Collection Fund 35,000 Less Area Based Grant (75,000) Less Revenue Support Grant (1,526,860) Less Re-Distributed National Business Rates (6,615,130) (8,181,990)
BUDGET REQUIREMENT 6,768,310
Less Parish Precepts (720,780)
Council Tax Requirement 6,047,530
Council Tax Base 44,707.10
Band 'D' Council Tax 135.27
Average including Parishes 151.39 Appendix B
REVENUE BUDGET
SUMMARY
PROJECTED ACTUALS ESTIMATE OUTTURN DETAIL ESTIMATE 2007/08 2008/09 2008/09 2009/10 £££ £
1,280,007 925,460 943,340 Corporate Core 919,340 1,236,976 1,310,630 1,323,070 Legal and Democratic Services 1,380,910 1,273,616 1,167,840 1,495,560 Planning 1,600,430 3,696,739 3,847,380 3,422,150 Financial Services 3,451,170 ( 145,278) ( 0) 26,270 ICT - 550,484 599,620 577,620 Housing 634,110 5,949,661 5,810,000 5,884,180 Environmental Services 5,807,680 3,333,360 2,335,670 2,356,460 Cultural Services 2,561,660
17,175,565 15,996,600 16,028,650 SERVICE EXPENDITURE 16,355,300 ( 3,144,034) ( 1,733,150) ( 1,733,150) Capital Charges ( 1,703,290) ( 1,296,464) ( 783,900) ( 783,900) Net Interest ( 295,500) 72,996 75,400 75,400 Concurrent Functions Grant 77,200 209,448 212,500 216,000 Drainage Board Levies 221,400 311,969 ( 87,050) ( 73,630) Contribution to (from) Balances ( 425,590) 13,329,480 13,680,400 13,729,370 ABC BUDGET REQUIREMENT 14,229,520 629,854 680,190 680,190 Total Parish Precepts 720,780 TOTAL BUDGET 13,959,334 14,360,590 14,409,560 REQUIREMENT 14,950,300 INCOME ( 7,837,000) ( 7,996,830) ( 7,996,830) Government Grant ( 8,141,990) - - ( 48,970) Area Based Grant ( 75,000) - 73,000 73,000 Collection Fund (Surplus)/Deficit 35,000 ( 629,854) ( 680,190) ( 680,190) Parish Precepts ( 720,780) 5,492,480 5,756,570 5,756,570 Council Tax 6,047,530 AU
Audit Committee
Minutes of a Meeting of the Audit Committee held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford on the 3rd February 2009
Present:
Cllr Wallace (Chairman); Cllr. Ellison (Vice-Chairman); Cllrs. Mrs Bell, Davidson, Feacey, Mrs Hicks, Smith
In accordance with Procedure Rule 1.2 (iii) Councillors Davidson, Feacey and Mrs Hicks attended as Substitute Members for Councillors Koowaree, Taylor and Honey respectively.
Apologies:
Cllrs. Honey, Koowaree, Mrs Laughton, Taylor.
Andy Mack – Audit Commission.
Also Present:
Cllr Wood
Deputy Chief Executive, Head of Internal Audit, Finance Manager, Revenues & Benefits Manager, Senior Performance & Improvement Officer, Principal Auditor.
Debbie Moorhouse – Audit Commission.
384 Declarations of Interest
Councillor Interest Minute No.
Ellison Code of Conduct - Personal but not Prejudicial – 392 Director & Trustee of the Julie Rose Stadium Management Committee
Mrs Hicks Code of Conduct - Personal but not Prejudicial – 392 Member of Kingsnorth Parish Council
Wallace Code of Conduct - Personal but not Prejudicial – 392 Director & Trustee of Ashford Leisure Trust
637 AU 030209
385 Minutes
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 3rd December 2008 be approved and confirmed as a correct record.
386 Minimal and Limited Control Assurances
The Head of Internal Audit introduced his report which provided an update on the impact of the revised reporting arrangements where limited or minimal control assurances had been found, and included reference to the results of recent audit work which he updated at the meeting. There had been a revision to the arrangements so that if the Head of Service provided a comprehensive action plan that set out timely actions, then there was no need for them to attend a meeting of the Committee, subject to the Head of Internal Audit being satisfied with the plan. However, where audit follow ups were undertaken and action had still not been taken, the Head of Service must attend. This was extended to those Managers who responded late to audit reports. He explained that the report concluded that the revised reporting arrangements had contributed to improvements to the overall audit process. They were becoming embedded in the process therefore it was recommended that they be continued.
The Chairman said he was pleased to see the general positive direction of travel. He considered that the new arrangements benefited everybody as the Committee received more assurances that internal controls were operating effectively and he hoped that Managers would plan better in advance so that less time was spent ‘fire- fighting’ and their time could be used more effectively.
In response to a question about the review of Planning Enforcement, the Head of Internal Audit explained that this was an issue that had been highlighted by this Committee as an area of concern. The procedures had been examined and whilst the process followed by Officers had been good, there were a number of organisational issues that had been raised. A response from the Head of Service was awaited (not due until 20th February) and this would come back to the Committee as part of the Annual Report to the June meeting.
Resolved:
That (i) the positive effect of the changed reporting arrangements be noted.
(ii) the existing reporting arrangements should remain in force and should form part of the ongoing Internal Audit reporting process.
387 Response to Debtors Audit Review
The report explained that an audit of Sundry Debtors had been undertaken in October 2008 and a limited assurance level had been given. The audit report identified weaknesses in relation to aged debt management and debt recovery. The
638 AU 030209 report sought to advise Members on the level of outstanding debt, the problems with aged debt and the action being taken. The action plan, which was outlined in the report, had been discussed with the Head of Internal Audit and the Council’s Management Team, who agreed that it was an appropriate response subject to a further follow-up in six months. The Finance Manager highlighted that a lot of the Council’s debt came from Section 106 monies that were still owed.
A Member said he was concerned that delivery of the action plan would be another task for the Head of Financial Services, placing more responsibility and pressure on to that role. The Deputy Chief Executive said that he understood the point but there was currently a need to manage a long term sickness absence so this was a temporary position. He hoped a more permanent solution could be found in due course. The Chairman said he understood the difficulties being faced but considered that such a critical function should have better back-up arrangements. The Deputy Chief Executive said this was a historical problem. There was now a team in place who were responding well to the challenge and they were beginning to see the right sort of actions.
In response to a question about what definitive actions were being taken as part of the action plan, the Finance Manager said that he understood there were now weekly meetings with the Debtors team looking at work plans and the file of every “old” debt had been examined to determine what action should be taken with specific action points, targets and deadlines being set. Additionally some day-to-day functions had been re-allocated to allow the two Debt Recovery Officers to be free purely to pursue debt.
A Member said that generally if a debt was more than three months old, the odds of collecting that debt were not good. He wondered if the Council’s current debt recovery protocol was sufficient enough to avoid this scenario. Another Member said that the choice of Debt Collection Agency was also important as those using Field Officer who “knocked on doors” were much more likely to get results that those who sent out letters. The Head of Internal Audit agreed that the quicker and more strongly a debt was chased, the more likely it was to be collected and this point had been made as part of the action plan. A follow up review was scheduled for six months time.
Resolved:
That the action being taken in response to the Debtors Audit be noted.
388 Freedom of Information (FOI) Act Audit Follow Up
The Head of Internal Audit explained that the Annual Internal Audit Report for 2007/08 included a summary of an audit of the Council’s Freedom of Information arrangements, where it was concluded that only a limited control assurance was in place. The Head of ICT & Customer Services had previously reported to the Committee setting out the actions that he would take to improve the FOI arrangements and Members had asked Internal Audit to carry out a further audit (a second follow up) to confirm that the actions had been implemented, with a report to
639 AU 030209 come back to the Committee. A follow up had recently been carried out which had noted a number of improvements and had reassessed the arrangements as now providing a substantial level of control assurance.
The Head of Internal Audit said that he would closely monitor the four matters that were still to be implemented to make sure that these were resolved in the coming months.
The Chairman mentioned that there may be an opportunity for a specialist FOI Officer for the four MKIP Authorities, rather than it being tacked on to the jobs of four individual Officers.
Resolved:
That it be noted that that the arrangements for the administration of the Council’s Freedom of Information responsibilities were now of an acceptable standard and provided a substantial level of control assurance.
389 Annual Governance Statement – Progress on Remedying Exceptions for 2007-2008
The report explained that under the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 the Council was required to review, at least once a year, the effectiveness of its systems of internal control and include a statement on internal control within the Council’s Statement of Accounts. In June 2008 the Council published its Annual Governance Statement which identified a number of exceptions with regard to the systems of internal control. The report provided Members with their third quarterly update on the progress that had been made so far this year in remedying the exceptions in the Annual Governance Statement.
The Deputy Chief Executive said that whilst it was strictly an issue for the Selection & Constitutional Review Committee to note, he wanted to update the Committee on the Race Equality Scheme exception. Equality Impact Assessments had been discussed at Management Team and, whilst it was taking a lot of time to understand the policies and procedures fully across Local Authorities, progress was being made. A target of the end of March had been set for it to be understood what had to be done for all Equality Impact Assessments and for the biggest policy adjustments to be made.
Resolved:
That the progress to date on resolving the exceptions identified in the 2007- 2008 Annual Governance Statement be noted.
390 Corporate Debt Recovery Policy
The report explained that a draft Corporate Debt Recovery Policy was submitted to the Committee on the 5th June 2008 and was deferred as Members requested that the third parties mentioned in the policy be consulted. Consultation had now taken
640 AU 030209 place with the two main local organisations that advised on debt in the Borough. The policy had also been amended to reflect a recent audit recommendation made on Council Tax recovery and action to provide guidance on the order in which multiple debts were targeted.
The Revenues & Benefits Manager confirmed that the Citizens Advice Bureau and Shelter had both been satisfied with the policy following the consultation.
The Chairman asked about the minimum value of any demand being £1 and said it may be pragmatic to review this in view of the costs there may be to claim it back.
Recommended:
That the Corporate Debt Recovery Policy as attached at Appendix A of the report be approved.
391 Accounting Changes: SORP 2008 and International Financial Reporting Standards
The Finance Manager introduced his report which he said whilst technical, did include some important information for Members. It examined the changes in accounting practice that would affect the production of the accounts for 2008/09 and subsequent years. The report firstly examined the changes in SORP (Statement of Recommended Practice) 2008 and the implications for the closing process. These changes were fairly minor but explained in detail in the report. Secondly, the Council’s accounts were currently prepared using UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (UK GAAP) but this was converging with International Financial reporting and would eventually disappear. There were a number of changes to the way in which accounts would be prepared and the implication of the changes were explained in detail in the second part of the report.
The Finance Manager said that it may be of particular interest to this Committee to briefly update on PFI Risk. The way the Council accounted PFIs would be radically different but advice had been received that it should not impact significantly on the Council’s bottom line and Government had said they did not intend PFIs to impact on Council Tax payers any more than they did at present. He had written to CIPFA, the Audit Commission and the DCLG to ask if they had considered the implications of this change and a response was awaited.
In response to a question about the cost to the Council of affecting the changes, the Finance Manager said it would be a difficult balancing act. It would inevitably take a lot of Officer time to gather all of the necessary data but it would be best to initially focus on the big issues such as the PFI and work backwards. The Deputy Chief Executive said Management Team recognised the pressures and this was another example of the growing complexity of financial issues Ashford had to respond to. It had been considered as part of the ongoing review of the finance team and he hoped to be able to direct some resources to these issues.
641 AU 030209
The Chairman said that given that it was well known that this was one of the Council’s weak areas, he would like to follow this issue up as a future agenda item to examine financial reporting. He asked that this be added to the 24th March meeting to allow for early consideration of some of the changes that would affect the Council, an opportunity to discuss matters of principle and a plan that would run through to the delivery date of the financial statements.
Resolved:
That the report be received and noted.
392 Strategic Risk Update
The Senior Performance & Improvement Officer explained that this was the usual quarterly monitoring update report of the Strategic Risk Register. As agreed at the last review Officers had been monitoring the economic position with particular reference to local data. The current data set included in Appendix 2 to the report provided a localised perspective of the economic situation and the recorded effects to date. It was hoped that this compendium of localised information could assist in future risk management and priority setting for the Council.
In response to a question about Strategic Risk 6 – County Square Parking Undertaking, the Deputy Chief Executive said that the concern had been the potential failure to provide the required number of spaces by the time the County Square extension opened and potential litigation. This had been a considerable risk but fortunately it did not happen and although they were still monitoring the possibilities for Park & Ride and a permanent solution, it was no longer considered a significant risk.
The Chairman said he was pleased to see the further information in the report. In his view the risk register had to look at wider areas such as the economic downturn. It would have an impact on the Council’s revenue but just as importantly it was an issue for the wider community as a whole. The Senior Performance & Improvement Officer agreed and said that traditionally the Strategic Risk Register had been internally focused but now there was a broader scope as outlined in Appendix 2 to the report. This highlighted the wider issues to Management Team and gave more information on risk issues that would place the Council in a better position for the future. For example, whilst still low, there had been a significant increase in unemployment in the Borough and this could get worse, so there would be more demand on Council services such as benefits and housing options.
Resolved:
That (i) the updated Strategic Risk Register be agreed.
(ii) the ‘local economic monitor’ provided as Appendix 2 to the report and its significance to future strategic risk management be noted.
642 AU 030209
393 Use of Resources Assessment 2007/08 including Presentation on New Criteria
Debbie Moorhouse introduced the results of the Audit Commission’s Use of Resources Assessment for 2007/08. The Council had maintained a Level 2 Use of Resources score. Improvements had been made in a number of areas and she was pleased that a number of suggestions had been taken on board. There was one area where performance was below minimum requirements (financial reporting) and one component (financial management) where one of the detailed components resulted in the overall score being downgraded. She ran through the individual scores in turn.
The Deputy Chief Executive then gave his response to the assessment. He said that being perfectly honest some of the results were unfortunately not unexpected, but it did feel as if the main problems on financial reporting and management were behind them and he looked forward to substantial improvement. He emphasised the two areas in the assessment where there had been a significant improvement in performance (management of the Council’s asset base and the system of internal control) and was pleased to see the extra effort put in by Officers in these areas recognised. He explained that Management Team took the Use of Resources regime very seriously and the change to a broader assessment in the future was a welcome challenge for this Council. They were currently gathering evidence for the self- assessment and he considered it a good opportunity for Ashford to have other areas acknowledged.
The Senior Performance & Improvement Officer then gave a presentation outlining the new arrangements for the Use of Resources Assessment from 2009. Previously the assessment had been extremely internally focussed but would now be part of a much wider framework under the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA). It would be examining areas rather than organisations – i.e. what was Ashford like, rather than Ashford Borough Council. The presentation included: - what was CAA and Use of Resources; where did Ashford Borough Council fit in; what had happened previously in the assessment; the Use of Resources Assessment for 2009 – what was it and what was different; the new scoring system; and sources of evidence. He explained that the Council would produce a self assessment and the Audit team from the Audit Commission would examine that evidence alongside information they already had about the Council and would undertake any other work required to fill the gaps.
The Chairman said he did have concerns about the self assessment. There was no specific template and he was concerned that it was a potentially difficult judgment to pitch the level of evidence and supporting statements correctly. There was a danger of under-emphasising some areas and “over-egging” others. Would there be an opportunity for the Audit Committee to have a look at the self-assessment at a draft stage? He considered Members would want that opportunity as year one of the new assessment would be critical. After that it would be easier as everybody would have an idea of what to expect, other Authorities could be consulted and systems could be embedded. The Deputy Chief Executive considered that the meeting scheduled for 24th March might be a good opportunity to feed the draft into this Committee.
643 AU 030209
With regard to the current Use of Resources assessment, the Chairman referred to the comment that the Council needed to do more to promote greater understanding of financial reports (and issues generally) by people whose principal language was not English. He asked where the Council stood on this legally, particularly in light of recent comments by Ed Balls MP about people needing to be able to speak English to get on in this Country. Officers said that there were ethnic minority groups in the Ashford Borough and being able to communicate with them was important. The position was that the Council should be able to have the facility to translate documents if this was needed, but did not have to publish everything in countless languages.
Resolved:
That the District Auditor’s Use of Resources 2007/08 Assessment and Management Team’s commentary, including improvements made or planned, be noted.
394 Report Tracker & Future Meetings
The following additions/amendments were made: -
Additional Meeting in February 2009 • MKIP Audit Partnership Proposals
Post Meeting Note: This meeting will take place on Monday 23rd February, at 7pm in the Council Chamber
Additional Meeting on the 24th March 2009 • Review of the Audit Committee • Financial Reporting • Draft Use of Resources Self Assessment • Review of Existing Internal Audit Partnership • Review of Internal Audit Service (Audit Commission)
Resolved:
That subject to the amendments above the report be received and noted.
______
Queries concerning these Minutes? Please contact Danny Sheppard: Telephone: 01233 330349 Email: [email protected] Agendas, Reports and Minutes are available on: www.ashford.gov.uk/committees
644 LHS Licensing and Health and Safety Committee
Minutes of a Meeting of the Licensing and Health and Safety Committee held in Committee Room No.2 (Bad Münstereifel Room), Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford on the 12th January 2009
Present:
Cllr Goddard (Chairman); Cllr Feacey (Vice-Chairman); Cllrs. Mrs Blanford, Mrs Heaton, Holland, Kemp, Naughton, Woodford.
Apologies:
Cllrs. Link, Norris.
Also Present:
Licensing Manager, Environmental Health Manager (Commercial), Licensing Officer (Enforcement), Senior Member Services & Scrutiny Support Officer, Member Services & Scrutiny Support Officer.
371 Declarations of Interest
Councillor Interest Minute No.
Feacey Code of Conduct - Personal but not Prejudicial – 374, 375 His company carried out work for the taxi industry
372 Minutes
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 25th January 2008 be approved and confirmed as a correct record.
373 Proposed Fee Levels for 2009/10 Gambling Act 2005 Related Applications
The Licensing Manager introduced his report which proposed fees for premises licences and temporary use notices in connection with premises used for gambling for the financial year 2009/10. He explained that the Secretary of State prescribed the maximum fee payable for gambling premises licences and temporary use notices, but that each Licensing Authority in England and Wales could determine their own fees for each category of licence. The Department for Culture, Media & Sport had asked Licensing Authorities to set fees that only ensured cost recovery and that did not generate a profit and there was case law to suggest that the Courts did take a dim view of Licensing Authorities who sought to make a profit from their fees. Income had been significantly higher in the last financial year, chiefly because of a new betting premises and four new adult gaming centres (although these were
607 LHS 120109 all in existing locations where existing centres had been split into two to comply with laws about the number of £500 jackpot machines allowed in one premises). For the financial year 2007/08 expenditure had consisted of £20,196 and income had been £22,590. Therefore it was proposed that no changes were made to the fees associated with gambling related applications for 2009/10. The Portfolio Holder had been consulted and supported the recommendation.
A Member asked what was the position if, as was inevitable, the Licensing Authority made a slight profit or loss in a year. The Licensing Manager said that it was considered reasonable to take the position over a three year period and in that case the position should be about cost neutral. A small profit would not be considered unlawful if the position was redressed in future years.
Recommended:
That the fees used for gambling applications and notices as given below be approved.
RECOMMENDED PREMISES LICENCE FEES
Premises Type New Application (£) Annual Fee (£) New Small Casino 6285 (8000) 3575 (5000) New Large Casino 7540 (10000) 7215 (10000) Regional Casino 11880 (15000) 11140 (15000) Bingo Club 2160 (3500) 670 (1000) Betting Premises (excluding Tracks) 2160 (3000) 430 (600) Tracks 1690 (2500) 670 (1000) Family Entertainment Centres 1690 (2000) 580 (750) Adult Gaming Centre 1690 (2000) 670 (1000) Temporary Use Notices 200 (500) N/A
Change Transfer Transfer Statement Provisional (provisional Instatement Copy Licence Notification of Application for Application to to Application Application forApplication Re- holders) Statement Application to Vary to Application Licence Application
£ £ £ £ £ £ £ New Small 2580 1500 1260 6285 2240 25 50 Casino (4000) (1800) (1800) (8000) (3000) (25) (50) New large Casino 3410 1760 1985 7540 3700 25 50 (5000) (2150) (2150) (10000) (5000) (25) (50) Regional Casino 5570 4055 4055 11880 5785 25 50 (7500) (6500) (6500) (15000) (8000) (25) (50)
608 LHS 120109
Bingo Club 1475 820 820 2160 890 25 50 (1750) (1200) (1200) (3500) (1200) (25) (50) Betting Premises 1245 820 820 2160 890 25 50 (excluding (1500) (1200) (1200) (3000) (1200) (25) (50) Tracks) Tracks 1130 820 820 1690 890 25 50 (1250) (950) (950) (2500) (950) (25) (50) Family 760 820 820 1690 735 25 50 Entertainment (1000) (950) (950) (2000) (950) (25) (50) Centres Adult Gaming 760 820 820 1690 890 25 25 Centre (1000) (1200) (1200) (2000) (1200) (25) (25)
Temporary Use N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A Notices (25)
Ashford Borough Council’s Licensing Authority proposes the following fees as shown in bold type in the table above. For ease of reference the maximum fees identified by DCMS that could be charged are shown in brackets.
374 Review of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver, Vehicle and Operator Fees
The Licensing Manager introduced his report which proposed fees for the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Service for the Financial Year 2009/10. He directed Members’ attention to Appendix A to the report which outlined the current fees and recommended fees for 2009/10. There were only two proposed changes and these related to a reduction in the fee for a Joint Drivers Licence (Hackney Carriage and Private Hire) and an increase in the maximum Vehicle Inspection Test Fee. The Council was proposing to issue applicants for Hackney Carriage Licences with a joint Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licence to keep administration costs down and the trade was very much in favour of this. There was also a proposal to abolish the fee for a Vehicle Inspection Missed Appointment. The Portfolio Holder had been consulted and supported the recommendation. He welcomed the fact that there were no proposals to increase the majority of fees.
In response to a question about the abolition of the fee for a Vehicle Inspection Missed Appointment, the Licensing Manager said that this was a tendered contract and ultimately this was a decision for that company. They had proposed no fee for a missed appointment when their tender had come back and the contract had been operating since October 2008 without any problems. The Licensing Officer (Enforcement) explained that these inspections took place every six months and compliance was monitored by the Council. They gave the operators a deadline and were informed if appointments had been missed and this would result in the cars being removed from the road. So it was not in their interests to miss appointments.
The Licensing Manager stated he would provide the Committee Members with the total income and expenditure figures for the last financial year for the taxi budget.
Recommended:
609 LHS 120109
That the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle, Driver and Operator Licence Fees structure as given in the table below be approved as a basis for public consultation.
PROPOSED HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE LICENSING FEES 2009/10
CURRENT FEES RECOMMENDATIONS
2008/9 2009/10
Private Hire & Hackney Carriage Drivers £49.00 £49.00 Licence (for 1 year)
Joint Drivers licences £60.00 £49.00
Additional driver’s licence (adding a licence) £16.00 £16.00
Hackney Carriage Knowledge Test & Re- £30.00 £30.00 test
Replacement badge £15.00 £15.00
Vehicle Licence - New or Renewal £290.00 £290.00 (including vehicle plate) for 1 year
Vehicle Plates or Brackets £17.00 £17.00
Internal Vehicle Plate £15.00 £15.00
Transfer of Vehicle Licence (including £25.00 £25.00 vehicle plate)
Vehicle Inspection - Test Fee max £32.00 max £38.00
Vehicle Inspection - Missed Appointment £32.00 No charge
1-3 vehicles : £73 1-3 vehicles : £73
Private Hire Operators Licence - New or 4-10 vehicles : £310 4-10 vehicles : £310 Renewal (for 3 years) 11-20 vehicles : 11-20 vehicles : £620 £620
Replacement Licence £16.00 £16.00
Transfer of any Licence (without plate or £16.00 £16.00 badge)
Fee for Returned (Bounced) Cheques £16.00 £16.00
610 LHS 120109
375 Review of the Hackney Carriage Fare Scale
The Licensing Manager introduced his report which reviewed the Hackney Carriage fare scale. He directed Members’ attention to paragraph 6 of the report which compared Ashford’s fares with the rest of Kent. It showed that Ashford was 11th least expensive of the 13 Kent Districts and below the Kent average for all categories of fare. He explained that 2008 had been a “rollercoaster” year for motorists in terms of the price of fuel, with petrol and diesel prices rising to record levels and increasing at the fastest rate since records began. However, by December the average price of fuel in the UK had reduced significantly. This was a major factor for taxi drivers. Hackney Carriage drivers and operators had been consulted with over the fare options and the responses to that consultation were detailed at Appendix B to the report. As a result the proposed increases were for a 5% increase in fares and a 10p increase in the starting fare (drop rate) for 2009/10. This would still position Ashford as 11th in the County. The Portfolio Holder had been consulted and considered that the proposals were a good balance between the needs of the Council and the trade and would ensure that Ashford remained competitive.
In response to a question from a Member the Licensing Manager explained that the increases for the last few years had been as follows: - 2003/04 - no change; 2004/05 – no change; 2005/06 – 8% increase; 2006/07 – 5% increase; 2007/08 – 5% increase (and 10p increase in the drop rate); 2008/09 – 5% increase.
Members generally felt uncomfortable with the proposed 5% increase as it was above inflation and did not take into account reducing fuel costs. It was considered that 46% of the 26% who responded was not a clear mandate for a 5% increase and there was no justification for such an increase. The Licensing Manager noted that the rates of increase since 2005 had always been above Retail Price Index. He accepted that the running costs for vehicles were maybe lower than they had been in the summer, but the cost of living was still rising. It was also emphasised that the Council’s fare was a maximum and drivers could charge less if they so wished.
After much discussion the Committee recommended a 3% increase in fares be made with no change to the drop rate.
Recommended:
That the Hackney Carriage Fares set out below be approved for the purposes of issuing a public notice: -
DELIBERATELY LEFT BLANK
611 LHS 120109
Fares for distance or time £ Rate 1 If the distance does not exceed 716.5 yards, for the 2.50 whole distance or for the first 229 seconds of waiting time For each subsequent 187.7 yards or uncompleted 0.20 part thereof Or for each subsequent period of 60 seconds of 0.20 waiting time or uncompleted part thereof (a) Surcharges for certain times and days:- Rate 2 a) For each hire commenced between 12 midnight 1½ x Rate 1 and 7 am b) For each hire undertaken on GOOD FRIDAY, 1½ x Rate 1 EASTER MONDAY, MAY DAY, SPRING BANK HOLIDAY, SUMMER BANK HOLIDAY or any other specifically declared Bank Holiday only. Rate 3 c) For each hire undertaken on a CHRISTMAS DAY, 2 x Rate 1 BOXING DAY or NEW YEARS DAY Note: When the holiday charge (b) or (c) is payable the Night Charge (a) is NOT payable. Extras - up to a maximum of £1.20 d) for each person (excluding infants in arms) carried 0.20 in excess of two persons (two children under 10 years of age count as one person) irrespective of distance. Note: For the purposes of counting the number of persons that the vehicle is licensed to carry, children under 10 years of age should each be counted as a person. A babe in arms should not be counted as a person.
e) for each article of luggage conveyed outside the 0.05 passenger compartment of the carriage f) for perambulators 0.05
g) for dogs 0.10
______
Queries concerning these minutes? Please contact Danny Sheppard: Telephone: 01233 330349 Email: [email protected] Agendas, Reports and Minutes are available on: www.ashford.gov.uk/committees
612 STD
Standards Committee
Minutes of a Meeting of the Standards Committee held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford on the 12th December 2008
Present:
Mrs C Vant (Chairman);
Mr R Butcher, Mr D Lyward – Parish Council Representatives Mr J Dowsey – Independent Member
Apologies:
Cllrs. Mrs Blanford, Mrs Hawes; Honey, Mrs Laughton, Wood
Ms J Adams, Mr M Sharpe
Also present:
Mr Barham Mr Burville, Mr Mortimer (Head of Legal and Democratic Services) - Witnesses Mrs S Foster – Solicitor – External Investigator
Deputy Monitoring Officer, Senior Legal Assistant, Member Services and Scrutiny Support Officer.
317 Minutes
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 28th November 2008 be approved and confirmed as a correct record.
318 Local Investigation and Determination Hearing - Reference SBE 17755.07 – Former Councillor Edward Barham of Rolvenden Parish Council
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. She introduced those present, to whom, Mr Barham raised no objections. The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that the meeting was quorate after which the Chairman invited the parties to say if they wished the press and public to be excluded from the hearing. All parties were content for them to remain present and the Chairman then confirmed that the hearing would be held in public and described the process for the hearing.
It was clarified that the Hearing was under the old Code of Conduct which had been in effect prior to May 2007 and reference to the new Code could not be taken into account.
529 STD 121208
When asked if he concurred with the accusations against him, Mr Barham said he did not and that he would be calling two witnesses to support his case. The witnesses would be the Ashford Borough Council Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Mr Burville, who had chaired the Parish Council meeting on the 16th January 2007.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer introduced the report of the Monitoring Officer. He then summarised the allegations of the complainant relating to ex-Councillor Mr Barham’s failure to declare interests and to withdraw from the Parish Council meeting on the 20th February 2007 and that he sought improperly to influence the outcome of decisions of the Parish Council Meeting of the 16th January 2007, in breach of the Council’s adopted Code of Conduct. The allegations were in relation to discussions and decisions at Parish Council Meetings where the planning application for a new site for the complainant’s sausage factory was being considered. It was alleged that Mr Barham had used his influence to encourage the Parish Council to reconsider their support for the planning application and, at the meeting at which it was reconsidered, he failed to declare an interest and used his casting vote to rescind the decision to support the application.
The report detailed that Mr Barham had originally returned his Pre-Hearing Enquiries Forms blank with the exception of Form D in which Mr Barham had confirmed that he did not intend to attend the hearing. In an accompanying letter he had explained that he had not completed the forms as he considered it almost inevitable that the Committee would find him guilty of breaching the “very tightly drawn Code of Conduct”. However, one working day before the hearing, Mr Barham returned a second set of forms which had been extensively completed and this had resulted in the 16th June 2008 hearing being cancelled and a new date being arranged. The Deputy Monitoring Officer gave details of the additional information that had been received and explained that in the light of the fact that the Monitoring Officer may be called as a witness, the administration and procedural management of the case had been handed to the Deputy Monitoring Officer.
In general, Mr Barham was not disputing the facts, but was critical of a couple of points in the Investigating Officer’s report. It was agreed that these points did not form part of the report findings and as such the Investigating Officer agreed not to use them as part of her case. Mr Barham agreed with this approach but reiterated that he did not agree with the allegation that he had breached the Code of Conduct. Mr Barham also disagreed with the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s use of the word “rescind” in relation to the relevant minute of the 16th January 2007. He considered that the word implied that he had engineered the change in decision, when, he argued, he had merely sought for the Parish Council to reconsider. It was confirmed that regardless of the intention merely to “review” the decision, the Parish Council Summons for the meeting to be held on the 29th January 2007 had actually contained a proposal to rescind the minute.
The Investigating Officer then introduced her report and highlighted the background to the complaint. At the time of the alleged breach, Mr Barham had been a Rolvenden Parish Councillor and Chairman, but he had not been re-elected in May 2007. The Complainant had alleged that there had been three breaches, specifically in relation to two meetings of the Parish Council. He had claimed that Mr Barham: -
530 STD 121208
(i) having declared an interest at the meeting of 16th January 2007 and having removed himself from the room during consideration of the item, he then improperly used his influence and misused his position to ensure that the decision made on the 16th January 2007 was reconsidered on the 29th January 2007; and that
(ii) he failed to declare a prejudicial interest at the meting on the 20th February 2007
(iii) he failed to leave the meeting of the 20th February 2007 and voted on the planning application despite having a Personal and Prejudicial Interest.
The Investigating Officer confirmed that the relevant Code of Conduct for Rolvenden Parish Council at the time of the allegation, was the Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils and this had been attached to the report. The report had outlined the relevant parts of the Code for the purposes of the complaint which included the test for a personal interest and when such an interest would be prejudicial.
The Investigator’s report had detailed the general support for the planning application within the village and the fact that it was accepted that the complainant and Mr Barham and their families did not get on. She had interviewed all of the relevant parties, but had not interviewed Mr Burville, (Vice-Chairman of Rolvenden Parish Council at the time of the alleged breach) who had now been called by Mr Barham as a Witness.
Some points for consideration were:
• There had been discussions between the complainant and Mr Barham regarding the appropriate piece of land for the application site. Mr Barham had promoted his land as an option, but the applicant had chosen not to pursue that option. The evidence compiled did suggest that Mr Barham considered the village would only tolerate one development and was keen to develop his land at Windmill Farm.
• The Minutes of the Rolvenden Parish Council Meeting of the 16th January 2007 implied that there had been a lengthy, detailed debate regarding the application and that Members had given it full consideration before voting by a majority to support the planning application.
• The decision to reconsider the application had been reached within a couple of days of the meeting of the 16th January 2007 despite the Parish Clerk writing to the Planning Department giving support for the application. This appeared to coincide with a statement which Mr Barham had circulated to Members of Rolvenden Parish Council confirming that he had suggested to the Vice-Chairman to reconvene the Parish Council to consider again the complainant’s application.
531 STD 121208
• There was clear evidence that the “relationship” between Mr Barham and the applicant was strained.
At the meeting on the 20th February 2007, Mr Barham had Chaired the meeting and declared that he had been advised that he no longer had an interest as he could not commercially gain from the planning application. However, the Investigator’s report highlighted that Mr Barham had sent a statement encouraging a review of the Parish Council’s support for the planning application. One of the grounds he had suggested, was that alternative sites had not been fully explored. A prejudicial interest did not need to be for financial gain, but was based on how an outsider might view the situation. It was probable that they may have concluded that Mr Barham’s plans to develop his land would affect his subjectivity. In addition, it was unlikely that that Mr Barham could have considered the application without applying some commercial consideration.
The Investigating Officer concluded that at the time of the alleged breach, Mr Barham was actively promoting his Windmill site. His undue influence over other Parish Councillors was clear and the use of his casting vote was critical in influencing the decision. In addition the relationship with the complainant was strained and on-going and would have affected his impartialness.
Mr Barham was then invited to reply to the Investigating Officer’s report and comments. He challenged all three breaches that he had been alleged to have made. He did not consider that he was commercially promoting his land, it was widely accepted that Windmill Farm was the best site for the factory and therefore the best for the village and that this opinion had been shared with several others including Councillor Mrs Hutchinson. In addition, he had considered the application to be for a poorly designed building and had the design been better, some of his other objections may have been overcome. His concerns regarding the application were not driven by a personal agenda.
The statement that he had circulated after the meeting of the 16th January 2007 had merely been to equip the Parish Council with the information he had, which was in response to Ashford Borough Council Officers seeking a clear steer from the Parish Council as to development within Rolvenden. As he had expected to be Chairing the meeting on the 16th January 2007, but had not remained present, he had not had time to brief the Vice-Chairman, as such, important information had not been circulated at the meeting as part of the discussion.
Mr Barham called Mr Burville as a witness. Mr Burville had taken the Chair at the meeting on the 16th January 2007 when Mr Barham had declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting. Mr Burville said that the meeting had been short on Members but there was a large public audience. He had not been comfortable with the way the vote had gone, and had spoken with the Clerk and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services the following day to determine if anything could be done. He considered the Parish Council had insufficient information to reach an informed decision on the application. He explained that he could not see a legitimate reason to defer the decision at the time, so it was only afterwards that he found the grounds to call an extraordinary meeting, once he had spoken to the Clerk, the Monitoring Officer, Mr Barham and Mr Wilkins (another Parish Councillor at the time). A
532 STD 121208
Member of the Committee questioned how, if there were no grounds to defer the decision on the day, a reason could be found the next day. Mr Burville said he was pressured by the meeting.
Mr Burville could not recall whether he had called the Extraordinary meeting before or after receiving Mr Barham’s circulated statement, but that it was his decision to call the meeting following advice. He explained that he had not considered it a breach of the Code of Conduct when Mr Barham returned to the chair on the 20th February 2007 as the applicant had made it clear that he had no interest in Mr Barham’s land. This point had been clarified several times by the complainant.
Mr Barham also called the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer as a witness. Mr Barham referred to advice he believed Mr Mortimer had given him a few years prior relating to Local Needs Housing. The advice had been most helpful and Mr Barham had followed it closely. He suggested therefore, that the advice he had received from Mr Mortimer with regard to resuming the Chair at the Parish Council would have been equally closely adhered to. Mr Mortimer however, was unable to recall either conversation, nor did his written telephone records include any record of a conversation with Mr Barham. It was not impossible that a conversation took place, but highly unlikely in the Monitoring Officers opinion, in the absence of any record. Further questioning confirmed that there were entries for the time period in question, indicating Mr Mortimer had been available and not away from the office.
In support of his decision to return to the Chair for the meeting of the 20th February 2007 and indeed use his casting vote to rescind the Parish Council’s previous decision to support the planning application, Mr Barham explained that he had sought advice from Mr Powell of the KAPC and the Monitoring Officer at Ashford Borough Council and considered that he had no interest to declare as the applicant had no interest in his proposed site. Unfortunately, he had no written evidence of the advice he had received.
Mr Barham considered that the statement he had circulated had been sent in good faith and was simply giving the other Members of the Parish Council information which he had, that they did not, and that this did not unduly influence them. There were many alternative sites that had not been considered and the reference in his statement to other sites did not include his own. He was keen to develop his site, but this was a long term plan.
With regards to his relationship with the complainant, he agreed that they “would never be friends” but he was not at war with him and was still able to make informed, subjective, choices and decisions.
Mr Barham concluded that he had acted in good faith on the advice he had received and, in his opinion, he had been fully and frankly advised. He had taken the actions he had, for the good of the village to ensure that the Parish Council made an informed decision. He considered as he could not gain commercially, he had no interest to declare. He had been honoured to serve as a Parish Councillor for 8 years and always worked to the best of his ability. He had never told a lie in his life and did not want this potential slur on his good character.
533 STD 121208
The Committee questioned Mr Barham further regarding his land and his commercial interests in developing it. They were concerned that any plans, no matter how long term, would affect his ability to make subjective decisions on other sites within the village.
The Committee retired to consider the alleged breeches and returned with the decision that there had been failures to comply with the relevant Code of Conduct. As Mr Barham was no longer a Parish Councillor, the only sanction that could be applied was a letter of censure. However, the Committee, after retiring, decided not to issue a letter of censure as they considered that in the circumstances their decision was censure itself.
Resolved:
That (i) the Ashford Borough Council Standards Committee, having considered the Investigator’s report and the representations of Mr Barham and evidence of all witnesses, concluded that there had been failures to comply with the relevant Code of Conduct in the following respects and for the reasons set out in the Investigator’s Report:
Paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct in the failure to declare a personal interest at the Parish Council meeting of 20th February 2007
Paragraph 10 (a) of the Code of Conduct in failing to withdraw from the room at the meeting of 20th February 2007 during consideration of a matter in which he had a prejudicial interest
Paragraph 10 (b) of the Code of Conduct by seeking to improperly influence a decision about a matter in which he had a prejudicial interest immediately following the meeting of the Parish Council on 16th January 2007.
(ii) the Standards Committee determined that no sanction should apply in this matter.
(iii) rights of appeal were to the Adjudication Panel for England within 21 days of the formal written notification of the decision. ______STDX0850
______
Queries concerning these minutes? Please contact Hayley Curd: Telephone: 01233 330565 Email: [email protected] Agendas, Reports and Minutes are available on: www.ashford.gov.uk/committees
534 STD
Standards Committee
Minutes of a Meeting of the Standards Committee held in Committee Room 1 (Fougères Room), Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford on the 22nd December 2008
Present:
Mrs C Vant (Chairman);
Cllr. Mrs Hawes (Vice-Chairman);
Cllrs. Mrs Blanford, Mrs Laughton Mr M Sharpe - Independent Member, Ms J Adams, Mr R Butcher and Mr D Lywood – Parish Council representatives.
Apologies:
Cllrs. Honey, Wood Mr Dowsey
Also Present:
Mr Murray, Monitoring Officer, Mr T Drew – External Investigator, Member Services and Scrutiny Manager.
354 Minutes
Resolved:
That the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on the 12th December 2008 be approved and confirmed as a correct record.
355 Local Investigation and Determination Hearing – Reference SBE19763.07 – Councillor Duncan Murray of Rolvenden Parish Council
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the meeting was quorate after which the Chairman invited the parties to say if they wished the press and public to be excluded from the Hearing. All parties were content for them to remain present and the Chairman then confirmed that the Hearing would be held in public and described the process for the Hearing.
The Monitoring Officer then introduced his report and advised that the case had been referred to him for local investigation by the Standards Board on the 1st October 2007 and he had appointed Mr Tony Drew to undertake the investigation on his behalf. He advised that Mr Barham, the complainant, had alleged that Councillor Duncan Murray had failed to declare a personal interest at and withdraw from a meeting of the Rolvenden Parish Council on the 28th August 2007. He advised that
581 STD 221208
the allegation centred around discussions and decisions at the Parish Council meeting in relation to a planning application for housing on a site known as Glebe Field. It was alleged that Mr Murray lived close enough to the Glebe Field site to be affected by any development. He drew attention to the Investigating Officer’s report findings set out on Page 24 of the Agenda (paragraph 5.1 refers) and indicated that the Investigator had concluded that Councillor Murray had failed to comply with paragraph 9(1) but that he had not failed to comply with paragraphs 12 (1a) and 12 (1c) of the Code of Conduct. The reasons for the findings were set out on pages 22 and 23 of the Investigating Officer’s report. The Monitoring Officer referred to Document M27 and in particular to the four photographs included within the Agenda in that section of the document. He advised that regrettably there had been a mistake in assembling the documents and he clarified that only the photograph on page 140 of the Agenda related to Councillor Murray’s case. He therefore asked the Committee to ignore the photographs on pages 139, 141 and 142 of the Agenda. The Monitoring Officer distributed a copy of a further photograph to which he had given the reference M29 which had been omitted from the original bundle of papers and he advised that the photograph had been taken from a location at the edge of the Glebe Field site, looking towards Councillor Murray’s house.
In accordance with the Procedure for Local Determination Hearings (paragraph 8(b)) refers, Councillor Murray was asked whether he accepted that there had been a breach of the Code.
Councillor Murray confirmed that the Monitoring Officer’s summary of the position was accurate from his point of view and confirmed that he did not consider that he had breached the Code.
The Investigating Officer then introduced his report and highlighted the background to the complaint. He summarised the history of the proposed development of the Glebe Field site and advised that a key fact was that prior to becoming a Councillor in May 2007, Mr Murray had been aware of issues regarding the Glebe Field site in 2004 and had campaigned against that particular development. The Investigating Officer referred to the interview notes with Mr Murray on page 54 and advised that Mr Murray had expressed concerns in terms of the residents of Monypenny’s fears. The Investigating Officer also commented that Councillor Murray’s view was the Glebe Field site was unsuitable for the development because it was a special corner of the village and the development would change the existing character of the area. The Investigating Officer also referred to extracts from the Minutes of the Rolvenden Parish Council meeting on the 28th August 2007 when the complainant, Mr Barham, had spoken from the floor and he advised that the Chairman at the meeting had invited declarations of interest. However, Councillor Murray had said he had no interest to declare and he voted on the motion. The Investigating Officer agreed that the distance between the boundary of Councillor Murray’s house and the Glebe Field development site was 80 yards. He referred to plans on page 134 of the Agenda and advised that Plot 10 shown on the drawing would be the nearest property and would in part be visible from Councillor Murray’s home. He advised that he agreed with Councillor Murray’s comment that the property shown as Plot 10 was the most relevant but he did disagree with his view that the others were not relevant. He advised that the copy of Mr Barham’s original plan was included within the Agenda papers as it had formed part of his original complaint, but he confirmed he had not
582 STD 221208 used this sketch in reaching his conclusions or assessing the impact, as this had been done using more accurate available materials. He then concluded by summarising the findings of his report set out in Section 4.
Councillor Murray advised that the summary given by the Monitoring Officer and the Investigating Officer was fair but he wished to clarify that he was not against the development at Glebe Field but was more concerned about the proposed access via Monypenny. He advised that he was pleased that the issue about the incorrect photographs included within the documents had been clarified and he said that the black canvass in Photograph M29 were newt barriers. He confirmed that it would not be possible to view the site from his living room. Councillor Murray advised that he was a new Parish Councillor in May 2007 and at the time of the issue being raised at the Parish Council, he had been unaware that he could have sought advice from Ashford Borough Council as to his position in terms of the Code. Councillor Murray advised that he had examined cases on the Standards Board website and explained that in the previous year a complaint involving a similar case, had been dismissed where the person’s property was 150 metres from the relevant site. He referred to the photograph on page 159 of the Agenda and drew attention to the fact that the property Monypenny could be seen from his property. In terms of the new development at Glebe Field he indicated that all he would be able to view from his property would be the upper elevation of a property which had a small bathroom window. He said that this issue had no significance to him. He believed on four separate occasions at Parish Council meetings he had made clear the reasons why he did not consider he had a personal or prejudicial interest. In conclusion he referred to a recent case involving Councillor Hindley of Rolvenden Parish Council who had a property the same distance from the Glebe Field site and he advised that that complaint had been dismissed.
The Chairman then offered Members of the Committee an opportunity to ask questions. A Member commented that at the particular Council meeting in August 2007 the Council was only in effect considering an issue relating to access to the site as the principle of the development had already been determined on appeal by the Secretary of State.
In response to a question, Mr Drew explained that he had not been provided with a copy of the actual Agenda for the meeting of the Parish Council on the 28th August 2007 as part of the documents that he had requested. He had also not investigated the ownership of the field lying between Councillor Murray’s property and the Glebe Fields site. Mr Murray confirmed that he had not attended training in terms of the Code of Conduct but he had asked to view a video which was available. In terms of the alternative sites for affordable housing in Rolvenden, Councillor Murray also confirmed that he had sent a copy of that document to the Parish Council.
The Committee retired to consider the alleged breach and returned with the verdict that there had been no failure to comply with the relevant Code of Conduct.
Resolved:
That the Ashford Borough Council Standards Committee, having considered the Investigating Officer’s report and the representation of the Investigator and
583 STD 221208 of Councillor Murray, concluded that there had been no failure to comply with the relevant Code of Conduct at or in relation to the Parish Council meeting on the 28th August 2007 in relation to paragraphs 9 or 12 of the Code of Conduct. The reason for the decision was that there was no personal interest in the matter under consideration at that meeting as the matter was effectively in relation to access only (not the principle of the development as a whole) and the issue of access was not something which could be reasonably regarded as affecting Councillor Murray’s personal wellbeing or interest. ______
(KRF/AEH)
MINS:STDX0852
______
Queries concerning these Minutes? Please contact Keith Fearon: Telephone: 01233 330564 Email: [email protected] Agendas, Reports and Minutes are available on: www.ashford.gov.uk/committees
584 Agenda Item No: 13
Report To: COUNCIL
Date: 19TH FEBRUARY 2008
Report Title: Programme of Meetings 2009/2010 and 2010/2011
Report Author: Senior Member Services & Scrutiny Support Officer
Summary: To agree the programme of meetings for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011
Key Decision: NO
Affected Wards: N/A
Recommendations The Council is asked to agree the programme of meetings : for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011.
Policy Overview: The programmes have been amended slightly to reflect the meeting cycle for Executive and Overview & Scrutiny. This generally provides for an Executive meeting every 4 weeks and a Planning Committee meeting every 3 weeks. Overview and Scrutiny meetings are programmed in line with the timetable for the call-in of items from the Executive. Provisional PAG meeting dates are programmed for the week after an Executive meeting has been held and provisional Overview & Scrutiny Task Group meetings are programmed for the week after the full Committee meetings.
Financial N/A Implications:
Other Material N/A Implications:
Exemption N/A Clauses: Background Nil Papers:
Contacts: [email protected] – Tel:01233 330349
Agenda Item No. 13
Report Title: Programme of Meetings 2009/2010 and 2010/2011
Purpose of the Report
1. To confirm the programme of meetings for 2009/2010 and to seek approval for the programme of meetings for 2010/2011.
Issue to be Decided
2. The programme of meetings for 2009/2010 was agreed by the Council in February 2008 (Minute 483/2/08 refers). However there have been slight amendments to this programme to reflect the Executive/Overview & Scrutiny cycle. The Joint Transportation Board meeting originally scheduled for early June 2009 has been moved to the end of the month to take into account the County Council Elections. The Council is asked to agree this programme. A copy of the programme is attached as Appendix 1.
3. The programme of meetings for 2010/2011 has been prepared on the same pattern of meetings as the previous year allowing for some minor alterations around the Election period. A copy of the programme is attached as Appendix 2.
Other Options Considered
4. N/A
Consultation
5. The draft programmes have been circulated to Group Leaders, Directors, Service Managers and the Member Services Team.
Implications Assessment
6. N/A
Handling
7. Once the programmes are approved, the meetings dates will be issued to Members. Group meeting dates will also be added once known.
Conclusion
8. The Council is asked to agree the programme of meetings for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011.
Portfolio Holder’s Views
9. N/A
Contact: Danny Sheppard Email: [email protected] U:\Member\General Administration\meetings notice\programme of mtgs report to Feb 09 Council.doc Appendix 1
DATES OF MEETINGS MAY 2009 - MAY 2010
Meetings are usually held at the Civic Centre and start at 7.00pm unless otherwise stated
MAY 2009 W 8 M 21 Th 9 Council Tu 22 Audit F 1 F 10 W 23 Planning Th 24 Executive M 4 BANK HOLIDAY M 13 F 25 Tu 5 Selection & Tu 14 ** Constitutional Review W 15 M 28 W 6 * Th 16 Tu 29 * Th 7 F 17 W 30 F 8 M 20 OCTOBER 2009 M 11 Tu 21 Tu 12 O&S W 22 Planning Th 1 JCC (2.30pm) W 13 Th 23 Executive F 2 Th 14 Council F 24 F 15 M 5 M 27 Tu 6 O&S M 18 Tu 28 W 7 Tu 19 ** W 29 Th 8 Council W 20 Planning Th 30 * F 9 Th 21 F 31 F 22 M 12 AUGUST 2009 Tu 13 ** M 25 BANK HOLIDAY W 14 Planning Tu 26 M 3 Th 15 State of the Borough W 27 Tu 4 O&S Debate Th 28 Executive W 5 F 16 F 29 Th 6 JCC (2.30pm) F 7 M 19 JUNE 2009 Tu 20 M 10 W 21 M 1 Tu 11 ** Th 22 Executive Tu 2 Audit W 12 Planning F 23 W 3 Th 13 Th 4 KCC/European F 14 M 26 Elections Tu 27 * F 5 M 17 W 28 Tu 18 Th 29 M 8 W 19 F 30 Tu 9 O&S Th 20 W 10 Planning F 21 NOVEMBER 2009 Th 11 JCC (2.30pm) F 12 M 24 M 2 Tu 25 Tu 3 O&S M 15 W 26 W 4 Planning Tu 16 ** Th 27 Executive Th 5 W 17 F 28 F 6 Th 18 F 19 M 31 BANK HOLIDAY M 9 Tu 10 ** M 22 SEPTEMBER 2009 W 11 Standards Tu 23 Audit (Statement of Th 12 Accounts) Tu 1 Joint Transportation F 13 W 24 W 2 Planning Th 25 Executive Th 3 * M 16 F 26 F 4 Tu 17 W 18 M 29 M 7 Th 19 Executive T 30 Joint Transportation Tu 8 O&S F 20 W 9 JULY 2009 Th 10 M 23 F 11 Tu 24 * W 1 Planning W 25 Planning Th 2 * M 14 Th 26 F 3 Tu 15 ** F 27 W 16 Th 17 M 30 M 6 F 18 Tu 7 O&S DECEMBER 2009 M 15 MAY 2010 Tu 1 O&S Tu 16 O&S W 2 W 17 M 3 BANK HOLIDAY Th 3 JCC (2.30pm) Th 18 Council (C Tax) Tu 4 Selection & F 4 F 19 Constitutional Review W 5 M 7 M 22 Th 6 Executive Tu 8 Joint Transportation Tu 23 ** F 7 W 9 ** W 24 Planning Th 10 Executive Th 25 M 10 F 11 F 26 Tu 11 * W 12 M 14 * MARCH 2010 Th 13 Council Tu 15 Audit F 14 W 16 Planning M 1 Th 17 Council Tu 2 M 17 F 18 W 3 Tu 18 O&S Th 4 Executive W 19 Planning M 21 F 5 Th 20 Tu 22 O&S F 21 W 23 M 8 Th 24 Tu 9 Joint Transportation M 24 F 25 CHRISTMAS DAY W 10 * Tu 25 ** Th 11 W 26 M 28 BANK HOLIDAY F 12 Th 27 Tu 29 F 28 W 30 M 15 Th 31 Tu 16 O&S M 31 BANK HOLIDAY W 17 Planning Th 18 JANUARY 2010 F 19 KEY F 1 NEW YEAR’S DAY M 22 Tu 23 ** O & S - Overview and M 4 W 24 Scrutiny – Tu 5 Th 25 W 6 F 26 Th 7 Executive * Reserved for Policy Advisory F 8 M 29 Group meeting if needed Tu 30 M 11 W 31 ** Reserved for O&S Task Group Tu 12 * meeting if needed W 13 Planning APRIL 2010 Th 14 F 15 Th 1 JCC (2.30pm) F 2 GOOD FRIDAY M 18 Licensing&H&S (10am) Tu 19 O&S M 5 EASTER MONDAY W 20 Tu 6 Th 21 W 7 Planning F 22 Th 8 Executive - School Holidays F 9 M 25 Tu 26 ** M 12 W 27 Tu 13 * Th 28 W 14 F 29 Th 15 F 16 FEBRUARY 2010 M 19 M 1 Tu 20 O&S Tu 2 Audit W 21 Standards W 3 Planning Th 22 Council Th 4 JCC (2.30pm) F 23 Executive F 5 M 26 Tu 27 ** M 8 W 28 Planning Tu 9 * Th 29 W 10 F 30 Th 11 F 12 Appendix 2
DATES OF MEETINGS MAY 2010 - MAY 2011
Meetings are usually held at the Civic Centre and start at 7.00pm unless otherwise stated
MAY 2010 Th 8 Council M 20 F 9 Tu 21 M 3 BANK HOLIDAY W 22 Planning Tu 4 Selection & M 12 Th 23 Executive Constitutional Review Tu 13 O&S F 24 W 5 W 14 Th 6 Executive Th 15 M 27 F 7 F 16 Tu 28 Audit W 29 * M 10 M 19 Th 30 Tu 11 * Tu 20 ** W 12 W 21 Planning OCTOBER 2010 Th 13 Council Th 22 F 14 F 23 F 1
M 17 M 26 M 4 Tu 18 O&S Tu 27 Tu 5 O&S W 19 Planning W 28 W 6 Th 20 Th 29 Executive Th 7 JCC (2.30pm) F 21 F 30 Council F 8 M 24 AUGUST 2010 Tu 25 ** M 11 W 26 M 2 Tu 12 ** Th 27 Tu 3 * W 13 Planning F 28 W 4 Th 14 State of the Borough Th 5 JCC (2.30pm) Debate M 31 BANK HOLIDAY F 6 F 15
JUNE 2010 M 9 M 18 Tu 10 O&S Tu 19 Tu 1 Joint Transportation W 11 Planning W 20 W 2 Audit Th 12 Th 21 Executive Th 3 JCC (2.30pm) F 13 F 22 Executive F 4 M 16 M 25 Tu 17 ** Tu 26 * M 7 W 18 W 27 Tu 8 * Th 19 Th 28 W 9 Planning F 20 F 29 Th 10 F 11 M 21 NOVEMBER 2010 Tu 22 M 14 W 23 M 1 Tu 15 O&S Th 24 Executive Tu 2 O&S W 16 F 25 W 3 Planning Th 17 Th 4 F 18 M 30 BANK HOLIDAY F 5 Tu 31 * M 21 M 8 Tu 22 Audit (Statement of SEPTEMBER 2010 Tu 9 ** Accounts) W 10 Standards W 23 ** W 1 Planning Th 11 Th 24 Th 2 F 12 F 25 F 3 M 15 M 28 Tu 16 T 29 M 6 W 17 W 30 Planning Tu 7 O&S Th 18 Executive W 8 F 19 JULY 2010 Th 9 F 10 M 22 Th 1 Executive Tu 23 * F 2 M 13 W 24 Planning Tu 14 Joint Transportation Th 25 W 15 ** F 26 M 5 Th 16 Tu 6 * F 17 M 29 W 7 Tu 30 O&S DECEMBER 2010 Tu 15 O&S W 16 MAY 2011 W 1 Th 17 Council (C Tax) Th 2 JCC (2.30pm) F 18 M 2 BANK HOLIDAY F 3 Tu 3 M 21 W 4 M 6 Tu 22 ** Th 5 Borough/Parish Tu 7 Joint Transportation W 23 Planning Elections W 8 ** Th 24 F 6 Count for Th 9 Executive F 25 Borough/Parish F 10 Elections M 28 M 13 * M 9 Tu 14 Audit MARCH 2011 Tu 10 W 15 Planning W 11 Th 16 Council Tu 1 Th 12 F 17 W 2 F 13 Th 3 Executive M 20 F 4 M 16 Tu 21 O&S Tu 17 W 22 M 7 W 18 Th 23 Tu 8 Joint Transportation Th 19 Selection & F 24 W 9 * Constitutional Review Th 10 F 20 M 27 BANK HOLIDAY F 11 Tu 28 BANK HOLIDAY M 23 W 29 M 14 Tu 24 Th 30 Tu 15 O&S W 25 F 31 W 16 Planning Th 26 Council Th 17 F 27 JANUARY 2011 F 18 M 30 BANK HOLIDAY M 3 BANK HOLIDAY M 21 Tu 31 Tu 4 Tu 22 ** W 5 W 23 Th 6 Executive Th 24 KEY F 7 F 25 O & S - Overview and M 10 M 28 Scrutiny – Tu 11 * Tu 29 W 12 Planning W 30 Th 13 Th 31 Executive * Reserved for Policy Advisory F 14 Group meeting if needed APRIL 2011 M 17 Licensing&H&S(10am) ** Reserved for O&S Task Group Tu 18 O&S F 1 meeting if needed W 19 Th 20 M 4 F 21 Tu 5 * W 6 Planning M 24 Th 7 JCC (2.30pm) Tu 25 ** F 8 W 26 Th 27 M 11 F 28 Tu 12 O&S W 13 M 31 Th 14 Council F 15 - School Holidays FEBRUARY 2011 M 18 Tu 1 Audit Tu 19 ** W 2 Planning W 20 Standards Th 3 JCC (2.30pm) Th 21 Executive F 22 GOOD FRIDAY F 4
M 7 M 25 EASTER MONDAY Tu 8 * Tu 26 W 9 W 27 Planning Th 10 Th 28 Executive F 11 F 29
M 14