Public Document Pack Cabinet
Tuesday, 18th November, 2014 at 4.30 pm PLEASE NOTE TIME OF MEETING Council Chamber - Civic Centre
This meeting is open to the public
Members
Councillor Simon Letts, Leader of the Council Councillor Stephen Barnes-Andrews, Cabinet Member for Resources and Leisure Councillor Daniel Jeffery, Cabinet Member for Education and Change Councillor Mark Chaloner, Cabinet Member for Children’s Safeguarding Councillor Satvir Kaur, Cabinet Member for Communities Councillor Jacqui Rayment, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport Councillor Dave Shields, Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care Councillor Warwick Payne, Cabinet Member for Housing and Sustainability
(QUORUM – 4)
Contacts Cabinet Administrator Judy Cordell Tel. 023 8083 2766 Email: judy.cordell@southampton.gov.uk
Head of Legal and Democratic Services Richard Ivory Tel: 023 8083 2794 Email: [email protected]
BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT INFORMATION
The Role of the Executive Executive Functions The Cabinet and individual Cabinet The specific functions for which the Cabinet Members make executive decisions relating and individual Cabinet Members are to services provided by the Council, except responsible are contained in Part 3 of the for those matters which are reserved for Council’s Constitution. Copies of the decision by the full Council and planning and Constitution are available on request or licensing matters which are dealt with by from the City Council website, specialist regulatory panels. www.southampton.gov.uk
The Forward Plan Key Decisions The Forward Plan is published on a monthly A Key Decision is an Executive Decision basis and provides details of all the key that is likely to have a significant executive decisions to be made in the four • financial impact (£500,000 or more) month period following its publication. The • impact on two or more wards Forward Plan is available on request or on • impact on an identifiable community the Southampton City Council website, Decisions to be discussed or taken that are www.southampton.gov.uk key
Implementation of Decisions Procedure / Public Representations Any Executive Decision may be “called-in” Reports for decision by the Cabinet (Part A as part of the Council’s Overview and of the agenda) or by individual Cabinet Scrutiny function for review and scrutiny. Members (Part B of the agenda). Interested The relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panel members of the public may, with the may ask the Executive to reconsider a consent of the Cabinet Chair or the decision, but does not have the power to individual Cabinet Member as appropriate, change the decision themselves. make representations thereon.
Mobile Telephones – Please switch your Fire Procedure – In the event of a fire or mobile telephones to silent whilst in the other emergency, a continuous alarm will meeting. sound and you will be advised, by officers of the Council, of what action to take. Use of Social Media If, in the Chair’s opinion, a person filming or Smoking policy – The Council operates a recording a meeting or taking photographs is no-smoking policy in all civic buildings. interrupting proceedings or causing a Access – Access is available for disabled disturbance, under the Council’s Standing people. Please contact the Cabinet Orders the person can be ordered to stop Administrator who will help to make any their activity, or to leave the meeting necessary arrangements.
Southampton City Council’s Priorities: Municipal Year Dates (Tuesdays) 2014 2015 • Jobs for local people 17 June 20 January • Prevention and early intervention 15 July 10 February* • Protecting vulnerable people 19 August 17 February • Affordable housing 16 September 17 March • Services for all 21 October 21 April • City pride 18 November
• A sustainable Council 16 December (* Budget)
CONDUCT OF ME ETING
TERMS OF REFERENCE BUSINESS TO BE DISCUSSED The terms of reference of the Cabinet, and its Only those items listed on the attached Executive Members, are set out in Part 3 of the agenda may be considered at this Council’s Constitution. meeting. RULES OF PROCEDURE QUORUM The meeting is governed by the Executive The minimum number of appointed Procedure Rules as set out in Part 4 of the Members required to be in attendance to Council’s Constitution. hold the meeting is 3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS Members are required to disclose, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, both the existence and nature of any “Disclosable Pecuniary Interest” or “Other Interest” they may have in relation to matters for consideration on this Agenda. DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS A Member must regard himself or herself as having a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter that they or their spouse, partner, a person they are living with as husband or wife, or a person with whom they are living as if they were a civil partner in relation to: (i) Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain. (ii) Sponsorship: Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from Southampton City Council) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expense incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. (iii) Any contract which is made between you / your spouse etc (or a body in which the you / your spouse etc has a beneficial interest) and Southampton City Council under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed, and which has not been fully discharged. (iv) Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of Southampton. (v) Any license (held alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of Southampton for a month or longer. (vi) Any tenancy where (to your knowledge) the landlord is Southampton City Council and the tenant is a body in which you / your spouse etc has a beneficial interests. (vii) Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where that body (to your knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of Southampton, and either: a) the total nominal value for the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body, or b) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which you / your spouse etc has a beneficial interest that exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class. Other Interests A Member must regard himself or herself as having an, ‘Other Interest’ in any membership of, or occupation of a position of general control or management in: Any body to which they have been appointed or nominated by Southampton City Council Any public authority or body exercising functions of a public nature Any body directed to charitable purposes Any body whose principal purpose includes the influence of public opinion or policy Principles of Decision Making All decisions of the Council will be made in accordance with the following principles:-
• proportionality (i.e. the action must be proportionate to the desired outcome); • due consultation and the taking of professional advice from officers; • respect for human rights; • a presumption in favour of openness, accountability and transparency; • setting out what options have been considered; • setting out reasons for the decision; and • clarity of aims and desired outcomes. In exercising discretion, the decision maker must: • understand the law that regulates the decision making power and gives effect to it. The decision-maker must direct itself properly in law; • take into account all relevant matters (those matters which the law requires the authority as a matter of legal obligation to take into account); • leave out of account irrelevant considerations; • act for a proper purpose, exercising its powers for the public good; • not reach a decision which no authority acting reasonably could reach, (also known as the “rationality” or “taking leave of your senses” principle); • comply with the rule that local government finance is to be conducted on an annual basis. Save to the extent authorised by Parliament, ‘live now, pay later’ and forward funding are unlawful; and • act with procedural propriety in accordance with the rules of fairness.
AGENDA
1 APOLOGIES
To receive any apologies.
2 DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL AND PECUNIARY INTERESTS
In accordance with the Localism Act 2011, and the Council’s Code of Conduct, Members to disclose any personal or pecuniary interests in any matter included on the agenda for this meeting.
NOTE: Members are reminded that, where applicable, they must complete the appropriate form recording details of any such interests and hand it to the Democratic Support Officer.
EXECUTIVE BUSINESS
3 STATEMENT FROM THE L EADER
4 RECORD OF THE PREVIOUS DECISION MAKING (Pages 1 - 6)
st Record of the decision making held on 21 October 2014, attached.
5 MATTERS REFERRED BY THE COUNCIL OR BY THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOR RECONSIDERATION (IF ANY)
There are no matters referred for reconsideration.
6 REPORTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES (IF ANY)
There are no items for consideration
7 EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS
To deal with any executive appointments, as required.
8 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS TO CABINET MEMBERS
To consider any questions to the Executive from Members of the Council submitted on notice.
MONITORING REPORTS
9 CORPORATE REVENUE MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD TO THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2014 (Pages 7 - 40)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Resources, detailing Corporate Revenue Financial Monitoring for the period to the end of the September 2014, attached.
ITEMS FOR DECISION B Y CABINET
10 COURT LEET PRESENTMENTS 2014 (Pages 41 - 66)
Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services detailing the presentments accepted at Court Leet, attached.
11 EXECUTIVE'S COMMITMENTS (Pages 67 - 74)
Report of the Leader of the Council detailing the Executive's commitments, attached.
12 SAFE CITY AND YOUTH JUSTICE STRATEGIES (Pages 75 - 134)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Communities detailing the Safe City and Youth Justice Strategies for Southampton 2014-17, attached.
13 CONCESSIONARY FARE SCHEME 2015 (Pages 135 - 144)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport detailing the concessionary fare scheme that will operate in Southampton for the year 2015/16, attached.
14 LICENSING SCHEME FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMOS) (Pages 145 - 150)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Housing and Sustainability detailing the Licensing Scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation, attached.
15 SOUTHAMPTON LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (Pages 151 - 156)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Housing and Sustainability seeking approval of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Southampton, attached.
16 RESIDENTS PARKING POLICY (Pages 157 - 188)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport seeking approval for a revised Residents’ Parking Policy, attached.
17 GENERAL FUND REVENUE BUDGET 2015/16 TO 2017/18 (Pages 189 - 234)
Report of the Chief Financial Officer setting out the General Fund Revenue Budget proposals for Consultation for 2015/16 to 2017/18, attached.
18 THE FUTURE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SOUTHAMPTON LIBRARY SERVICE (Pages 235 - 570)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Resources and Leisure outlining options for the future transformation of the Southampton Library Service, attached.
NOTE: The appendices to this item are placed in the Members’ room. Members are reminded of their obligations under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. This section contains the Public Sector Equality Duty which is a duty to be discharged personally by Members. As with all appendices placed in the Members’ room, Members are required to read them prior to the Cabinet meeting and, on this occasion, are advised to pay particular attention to the Needs Assessment and Equality Impact Assessments, to read them in full and to familiarise themselves with their legal obligations under s149.
19 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC - CONFIDENTIAL PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE FOLLOWING ITEM
To move that in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, specifically the Access to Information Procedure Rules contained within the Constitution, the press and public be excluded from the meeting in respect of any consideration of the confidential appendix to the following Item.
Appendix 1 of this report is not for publication by virtue of categories 3 (financial and business affairs), and 7A (obligation of Confidentiality) of paragraph 10.4 of the Council's Access to Information Procedure Rules as contained in the Council's Constitution.
It is not in the public interest to disclose this information as the Appendix contains confidential and commercially sensitive information supplied by the Council’s Service Provider. It would prejudice the Council’s ability to operate in a commercial environment and obtain best value in contract re-negotiations and would prejudice the Council’s commercial relationships with third parties if they believed the Council would not honour any obligation of confidentiality.
20 *SOUTHAMPTON PERMIT SCHEME FOR MANAGEMENT OF ROADWORKS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ON THE ROAD NETWORK (Pages 571 - 580)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport to implement the Southampton Permit Scheme, attached.
21 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC - CONFIDENTIAL PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE FOLLOWING ITEM
To move that in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, specifically the Access to Information Procedure Rules contained within the Constitution, the press and public be excluded from the meeting in respect of any consideration of the confidential appendix to the following Item.
Appendix 2 of this report is not for publication by virtue of category 3 of paragraph 10.4 of the Council’s Access to Information Procedure Rules as contained in the Council Constitution. It is not in the public interest to disclose this information because to do so
would prejudice further negotiations on cost reductions between the Authorities and the Contractor contrary to the Council’s duty to achieve best value.
22 *TO EXTEND THE WASTE DISPOSAL CONTRACT WITH VEOLIA UNTIL 2030 (Pages 581 - 592)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport seeking approval to extend the Waste Disposal Contract, attached.
Monday, 10 November 2014 Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Agenda Item 4
SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DECISION MAKING RECORD OF THE DECISION MAKING HELD ON 21 OCTOBER 2014
Present:
Councillor Letts Leader of the Council Councillor Barnes-Andrews Cabinet Member for Resources and Leisure Councillor Jeffery Cabinet Member for Education and Change Councillor Chaloner Cabinet Member for Children’s Safeguarding Councillor Kaur Cabinet Member for Communities Councillor Rayment Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport Councillor Shields Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care Councillor Payne Cabinet Member for Housing and Sustainability
28. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS TO CABINET MEMBERS
The following questions were submitted:-
1. Traffic Study – Grove Road/Firgrove Road
Question from Councillor Moulton to Councillor Rayment – Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.
Will the Cabinet ask officers to carry out a detailed traffic study for the area of Freemantle around Grove Road and Firgrove Road? A considerable number of residents have over many years asked that Firgrove Road be made a one way. A great deal of concern is being expressed in the ward about the impact of the new mosque at the corner of Firgrove Road and Grove road. As well as parking there are concerns about visibility for drivers. Issues have been raised with officers who have responded by saying that any proper analysis and potential changes would require a full traffic study to be carried out.
Answer
We have previously been asked to investigate issues with the level of commercial vehicle traffic and traffic speeds in Firgrove Road. From the sample traffic count and observations it was not evident that there was a problem with commercial traffic in this area.
Another concern was that traffic uses Firgrove Road as short-cut to avoid the traffic signals at the junction of Shirley Road/Howard Road. The sample traffic count shows a higher traffic flow north-westbound, though to invest in a traffic study and prospective measures, we would need some evidence of significant road safety or other issue that would require Firgrove Road to be prioritised for funding.
To help focus the available funding for road safety measures we map all injury accidents across the city and where there are clusters of accidents these will then
- 16 - Page 1
be reviewed to assess whether are related underlying causes that could be addressed through highway improvements or regulation. Localities are ranked on a cost-benefit ratio resulting in a number of possible schemes for funding as part of the Annual Safety Review. Firgrove Road would currently not merit consideration under this process, given the low level of recorded injury accidents relative to other sites in the city.
If Firgrove Road was made one way we could expect the following impacts:
* Reduced traffic levels (by removing one flow of traffic, though there may be some increase in the direction of the permitted flow due to reduced journey times). * An increase in traffic speeds (by increasing the available carriageway in direction of permitted flow) and therefore a possible increase in the number and severity of traffic accidents. * Increased traffic on other road(s) * A small increase in journey times to access adjoining roads * Little or no impact on parking as the road is too narrow for parking on both sides and already saturated.
Whilst an extensive traffic study would be required as part of designing any traffic management scheme in Freemantle, this would need to be funded. On the current evidence and for the reasons outlined above, it is difficult to argue that a traffic study in Firgrove Road would merit such funding when compared to other sites across the City.
2. South Stoneham Cemetery
Question from Councillor Moulton to Councillor Rayment – Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.
In September it was reported that a due to an administrative error a family plot was unprepared for a burial at South Stoneham Cemetery. It was reported that the City Council would carry out an investigation. Can the cabinet member provide an update on the progress of the investigation?
Answer
Both the Council and the Co-op have carried out full investigations into this matter. The Co-op did make an enquiry regarding the availability a burial on the day in question, however no confirmation that the burial was going ahead was received by the Council. There is no evidence that the Co-op submitted the documentation required for us to carry out a burial.
This meant that we were not aware that the burial party were going to arrive at the cemetery on the day in question and therefor no preparations had been made. As the burials team was attending to another burial in a different cemetery, logistically there was no way that a grave could be prepared on that day.
- 17 - Page 2
The Co-op have put additional measures in place to ensure that this very unfortunate incident does not happen again. Obviously our thoughts were very much with the family and an alternative date was arranged for the burial.
3. Regents Park Community Centre
Question from Councillor Galton to Councillor Jeffery, Cabinet Member for Education and Change.
Can the Cabinet Member outline what steps they are taking to resolve the ongoing issue with the relocation of the Regents Park Community Centre as a result of the school merger and future expansion plans of Tanners Brook Primary School?
Answer
A consultation meeting with local residents was held on 3 October 2014, at the school, with a view to looking at the issues of concern in detail and formulating mutually agreeable solutions. At the meeting, the only issue of concern that was relevant to the planning application was that of potential noise pollution from the proposed new development, once occupied. The Council is looking to address this concern in the following two ways:
• The relocation of the proposed development site, to move it further away from neighbouring residential properties. This relocation will be reflected in the future planning application. • The undertaking of an acoustic survey to assess the potential for any noise pollution from the new development and any impact that this may have on neighbouring properties. If the survey identifies that the proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties, the Council will look to build suitable acoustic mitigation measures into the design.
The acoustic survey is scheduled to be completed by the end of October. It is intended to bring the scheme back to the Planning Panel for consideration in January 2015, which allows sufficient time to make any necessary adjustments to the design of the building.
4. Tanners Brook School, Parking and Associated Traffic
Question from Councillor Galton to Councillor Jeffery, Cabinet Member for Education and Change and Councillor Rayment, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.
Can the Cabinet Members fully review the issue of car parking and associated traffic in the roads immediately around Tanners Brook School ahead of the further school expansion?
- 18 - Page 3
Answers
Councillor Jeffery : The matter of car parking and associated traffic will be considered as part of any planning application for the expansion of the school, should it be deemed necessary to do so. The question of whether it is necessary to undertake a Transport Assessment (or similar) is ultimately determined by the Planning Department and/or the Planning Panel, upon receipt of an application.
Councillor Rayment : The need and requirements of such issues are fed into the planning application process as in this case. The Council does not have the resources to undertake these studies and the emerging guidance on residents parking areas will outline this process further.
The Centre for Sustainable Travel Choices team are working with the school to promote the “Bike-It” scheme to encourage children to travel to the school by cycle. We are also hoping to implement the parking pledge campaign ready for the new school year so pupil’s start off with 'good habits”. We are aware of the needs of the school to increase the parking for cycles and are working with the school on this. We shall of course monitor the situation.
29. EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS
Cabinet appointed Councillor Rayment to the Local Access Forum.
30. LOCAL SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT FUND
DECISION MADE: (Ref: CAB 14/15 13456)
On consideration of the report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Cabinet agreed the following:
(i) To accept LSTF revenue grant of £996,500 from the Department for Transport (DfT); (ii) To add £996,500 to the 2015/16 revenue estimates of the Environment and Transport Portfolio funded by the DfT grant (subject to approval of the budget strategy at full Council in February 2015); (iii) To increase by £105,000 the Sustainable Travel capital scheme, contained within the Environment and Transport Portfolio capital programme, funded by £65,000 of 2015/16 Local Transport Plan government grant and £40,000 of site specific ‘Section 106’ developer contributions; (iv) To increase by £140,000 the Integrated Transport Systems capital scheme, contained within the within the Environment and Transport Portfolio capital programme, wholly funded by 2015/16 Local Transport Plan government grant; and (v) To approve capital expenditure in 2015/16 of £105,000 on the Sustainable Travel capital scheme and £140,000 on the Integrated Transport Systems capital scheme, which form part of the Council’s match funding for the LSTF bid
- 19 - Page 4
31. PLANNING ENFORCEMENT POLICY
DECISION MADE: (Ref: CAB 14/15 13605)
On consideration of the report of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and having received representations from a member of the public Cabinet agreed to remove the bold formatting in paragraph 4.2 of the policy. Cabinet also considered recommendations from OSMC from their meeting on 16 October 2014 and accepted that the Planning Enforcement Policy enabled recurring and cumulative breaches be taken into consideration when enforcement action was determined. The Committee also recommended that the use of letters threatening Section 215 notices be increased and that this role should not be undertaken by specialist Enforcement Officers. Cabinet cautioned issuing too many Section 215 notices and suggested a review of how many had been issued before any decision to increase was made.
Having taken the above into consideration, Cabinet then agreed the following:
To approve the revised Planning Enforcement Policy, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.
32. RESPONSE TO SCRUTINY PANEL A RECOMMENDATIONS - MAINTAINING BALANCED NEIGHBOURHOODS THROUGH PLANNING
DECISION MADE: (Ref: CAB 14/15 13603)
On consideration of the report of the Leader, and having received representations from Members of the Council and members of the public, Cabinet also considered recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee meeting held on 16 October 2014 and agreed the following:
a) the Leader considered the inclusion of a timescale for implementing the response to recommendation (vi) “Homes in Multiple Occupation SPD – To-Let Signs” on Page 2 of the Appendix; (Cabinet confirmed that in the light of current funding difficulties this would not take place until the end of March 2015).
b) the Leader considered amending the response to recommendation (i) “Educate, Engage and Enforce” on Page 5 of the Appendix, to reflect a more positive response and clarifying that the Council would continue to support communities in developing neighbourhood plans; and
c) the Leader considered incorporating parking implications as part of the proposed review of Houses in Multiple Occupation.
The following recommendation was rejected, with a view to reviewing after the next General Election:
d) the Executive reconsidered their position in relation to the development of an Article 4 Direction to remove Permitted Development Rights for Houses in Multiple Occupation.
- 20 - Page 5
Having taken the above into consideration, Cabinet then agreed the following:
To receive and approve the proposed responses to the recommendations of Scrutiny Panel A, attached as Appendix 2.
33. *SOUTHAMPTON PERMIT SCHEME FOR MANAGEMENT OF ROADWORKS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ON THE ROAD NETWORK
A decision on this item was deferred to the Cabinet meeting on 18 November 2014.
34. *CHAPEL RIVERSIDE - APPOINTMENT OF A DEVELOPMENT PARTNER
DECISION MADE: (Ref: CAB 14/15 13380)
On consideration of the report of the Leader, Cabinet agreed the following:
(i) To approve the sale of the site to the recommended bidder, Developer A, as set out in confidential Appendix 2 and to delegate authority to the Head of Development, Economy and Housing Renewal to negotiate the final terms and conditions, and; (ii) In the event that Developer A withdraws or does not complete a Development Agreement with the Council within an agreed timescale to approve the sale of the site to the reserve bidder, Developer B, set out in confidential Appendix 3, provided that the Head of Development, Economy and Housing Renewal, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, considers this to be in the Council’s best interests; and to delegate authority to the Head of Development, Economy and Housing Renewal to negotiate the final terms and conditions. (iii) To authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and the Head of Property Services to make all necessary arrangements to make the site available for sale and to enter into the required legal documentation. (iv) To authorise the Director of Place to take any further action necessary to give effect to the decision of Executive in relation to this matter.
- 21 - Page 6 Agenda Item 9
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: CORPORATE REVENUE FINANCIAL MONITORING FOR THE PERIOD TO THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2014 DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR RESOURCES CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Stephen Fitzgerald Tel: 023 8083 4897 E-mail: [email protected] Chief Financial Name: Andrew Lowe Tel: 023 8083 2049 Officer: E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY N/A BRIEF SUMMARY This report summarises the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) revenue financial position for the Authority for the six months to the end of September 2014, and highlights any key issues by Portfolio which need to be brought to the attention of Cabinet. RECOMMENDATIONS: General Fund It is recommended that Cabinet: i) Note the current General Fund revenue position for 2014/15 as at Month 6 (September), which is a forecast over spend at year end of £0.8M against the budget approved by Council on 12 February 2014, as outlined in paragraph 4. ii) Note that the forecast over spend for portfolios is just over £2.7M after draws from the Risk Fund are taken into account. iii) Note that portfolios plan to take remedial action to manage a number of the corporate and key issues highlighted in this report and that the financial impact is reflected in the forecast position. iv) Note that the Risk Fund includes £3.1M to cover service related risks (following the allocation of £1.3M to portfolios) and that the estimated draw at Month 6 is £1.9M. v) Note that it has been assumed that the contingency balance, which now stands at £242,000, will be fully utilised by the end of 2014/15. vi) Note the performance to date with regard to the delivery of the agreed savings proposals approved for 2014/15 as detailed in Appendix 9. vii) Note the performance against the financial health indicators detailed in
Page 7 Appendix 10. viii) Note the performance outlined in the Quarterly Treasury Management Report attached as Appendix 11. Housing Revenue Account It is recommended that Cabinet: ix) Note the current HRA budget monitoring position for 2014/15, as at Month 6 (September). There is a forecast over spend at year end of £310,000 against the budget approved by Council on 12 February 2014, as outlined in paragraph 31. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1 To ensure that Cabinet fulfils its responsibilities for the overall financial management of the Council’s resources. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 2. Not applicable DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 3. Heads of Service, Budget Holders and Directors have been consulted in preparing the reasons for variations contained in the appendices. Financial Summary 4. Appendix 1 sets out a high level financial summary for the General Fund, and shows that the overall forecast outturn position for the Council is an over spend of £0.8M, as shown below: Forecast Forecast Outturn Outturn Variance Variance £000’s % Baseline Portfolio Total 4,604.0 A 2.5 Draw From Risk Fund 1,901.5 F Portfolio Total 2,702.5 A 1.3 Capital Asset Management 1,000.0 F Non-specific Government Grants 897.5 F Net Total General Fund 805.0 A 0.9
Page 8 5. As shown in the above table, the forecast portfolio revenue outturn on net controllable spend for the end of the year compared to the working budget is an over spend of £2.7M and this is analysed below: Portfolio Baseline Risk Fund Forecast See Forecast Items Outturn Appendix Outturn Variance Variance £000’s £000’s £000’s % Children’s Services 3,073.9 A 795.0 F 2,278.9 A 5.7 2 Communities 165.2 A 165.2 F 0.0 0.0 3 Environment & Transport 290.6 A 90.0 F 200.6 A 0.8 4 Health & Adult Services 1,480.4 A 645.0 F 835.4 A 1.3 5 Housing & Sustainability 206.3 A 206.3 F 0.0 0.0 6 Leader's 238.5 F 0.0 238.5 F 5.0 7 Resources & Leisure 373.9 F 0.0 373.9 F 0.8 8 Portfolio Total 4,604.0 A 1,901.5 F 2,702.5 A 1.3
6. The corporate and key issues affecting each portfolio are set out in Appendices 2 to 8, as per the previous table. Remedial Action and Likely Favourable Movements 7. Portfolios plan to take remedial action to manage a number of the corporate and key issues highlighted in this report. Specific actions are included within Appendices 2 to 8 where applicable and the financial impact is reflected in the forecast position. Please note that at this time over recent financial years a Portfolio adverse variance of a similar magnitude was predicted, but following remedial actions taken by officers and other factors the actual Portfolio outturn position was a significant favourable variance. Whilst there is clearly no guarantee that this year will see the same outcome, the Council’s management team will put in place remedial action and will be working to ensure that the financial position is brought within budget by year end. Capital Asset Management 8. The favourable variance of £1.0M is due to forecast interest payable being below that originally estimated, because of lower than anticipated borrowing costs, and forecast interest receivable being above that originally anticipated. 9. The cost of financing the authority’s long term and short term debt in 2014/15 is currently forecast to be £1.4M less than budgeted, of which approximately £0.6M benefits the General Fund. This is mainly a result of variable interest rates being lower than estimated, no new long term borrowing being undertaken since 2013/14 and to deferring any new borrowing to later in this financial year than initially planned. 10. Investment income for the year is currently forecast to be around £0.5M higher than originally estimated.
Page 9 Non-Specific Government Grants 11. Additional non-specific Government grant income not included in the budget is anticipated resulting in a forecast favourable variance of £897,500 as follows: 12. The amount of Education Services Grant that the Council receives is based on the number of pupils in maintained schools in the city. This number is continually updated as schools convert to academies. Based on known academy conversions this financial year, the amount forecast to be received in 2014/15 is expected to be £800,000 more than budget. 13. Remands allocation of £97,500 has been received from the Ministry of Justice. Risk Fund 14. Potential pressures that may arise during 2014/15 relating to volatile areas of both expenditure and income are being managed through the Risk Fund. A sum of £4.4M was included in the budget to cover these pressures and is taken into account during the year as evidence is provided to substantiate the additional expenditure against the specific items identified. 15. The Risk Fund, which originally stood at £4.4M, now totals £3.1M following the allocation of £1.3M. The funding allocated is shown below: Portfolio Service Activity £000’s Health & Adult Social Care Learning Disability 800.0 Health & Adult Social Care Independent Living 400.0 Resources & Leisure Active Nation Utilities 83.0 Funding Allocated From the Risk Fund 1,283.0
16. At Month 6, it is estimated that pressures within Portfolios will require the allocation of a further £1.9M from the Risk Fund, as shown in the table below, leaving a balance of £1.2M: Portfolio Service Activity £000’s Children’s Services Looked After Children & Resources 430.0 Children’s Services Divisional Mgt & Legal 200.0 Children’s Services Infrastructure – Transport 165.0 Communities Youth Remand 165.2 Environment & Transport Waste Disposal 90.0 Health & Adult Social Care Adult Disability 400.0 Health & Adult Social Care Continuing Care 245.0 Housing & Sustainability Sustainability CRC 206.3 Portfolio Draw From Risk Fund 1,901.5
Page 10 17. At this stage of the year it has been prudently assumed that the remainder of the Risk Fund will be fully utilised in 2014/15 but this position will be actively reviewed. The provision made within the Risk Fund will be reviewed as part of the development of the budget for 2015/16 to ensure that a sufficient allocation is included for such pressures in the future. Contingency 18. The contingency originally totalled £250,000 but now stands at £242,000 following the allocation of £8,000 to Resources and Leisure for Music in the City. It has been assumed that the balance will be fully utilised by the end of 2014/15. Approved Carry Forward Requests 19. Full Council has agreed to automatically carry forward any surplus/deficit on Central Repairs and Maintenance at year-end subject to the overall financial position of the Authority. Furthermore, Cabinet has approved the delegation of authority to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources and Leisure, to allocate premises related resources (revenue and capital) in order to maximise the efficient use of resources in respect of general repairs and maintenance, major works to civic buildings and the implementation of the accommodation strategy. Potential Carry Forward Requests 20. One potential carry forward has been identified within Resources and Leisure of £84,200 for the New Arts Centre which is detailed in Appendix 8 (RES5). Key Portfolio Issues 21. The corporate and other key issues for each portfolio are detailed in Appendices 2 to 8. 22. It is good practice to recognise that any forecast is based on assumptions about key variables and to undertake an assessment of the risk surrounding these assumptions. Having done this a forecast range has been produced for each corporate and key issue, where applicable, which represents the pessimistic and optimistic forecast outturn position. This range is included within the detail contained in Appendices 2 to 8.
Page 11 Corporate Adverse Variances 23. Portfolio Corporate Issue Adverse After Risk See Forecast Fund Appendix £000’s Draw & £000’s Reference Children’s Services Looked After Children 2,070.0 1,640.0 2 / CS1
Children’s Services Education and Early 247.3 82.3 2 / CS2 Years Children’s Services Divisional Mgt & Legal 509.6 309.6 2 / CS3 Children’s Services Quality Assurance 127.9 127.9 2 / CS4
Communities Prevention & Inclusion 187.6 22.4 3 / COMM1
Environment & Waste Disposal 640.5 550.5 4 / E&T1 Transport Environment & Domestic Waste 294.7 294.7 4 / E&T2 Transport Health & Adult Social Long Term 1,850.5 1,205.5 5 / Care H&ASC1
Resources & Leisure Galleries & Museums 289.5 289.5 8 / RES1
Corporate Favourable Variances 24. Portfolio Corporate Issue Favourable After Risk See Forecast Fund Draw Appendix £000’s £000’s & Reference Environment & Off Street Car 359.7 359.7 4 / E&T3 Transport Parking
Environment & Regulatory Services 244.5 244.5 4 / E&T4 Transport - Commercial
Implementation of Savings Proposals 25 Savings proposals of £14.5M were approved by Council in February 2014 as part of the overall budget package for 2014/15. The delivery of the savings is crucial to the financial position of the authority. Below is a summary of the progress as at the end of the first quarter to highlight the level of risk associated with delivery and Appendix 9 contains further details: % Implemented and Saving Achieved 76.4 Not Yet Fully Implemented and Achieved But Broadly on Track 13.1 Saving Not on Track to be Achieved
10.5
26. Where savings are not on track to be achieved and a high level of risk is associated with delivery then this is due to non implementation in some cases
Page 12 but also due to the impact of factors such as rising demand for services which have meant that despite being implemented the estimated level of financial savings have not materialised. 27. The overall financial shortfall in the delivery of the savings proposals is currently forecast as £1,516,000 or 10.5% of the total to be delivered which is shown by Portfolio in Appendix 9. 28. The financial implications of the delivery of these proposals are reflected in the current forecast position, areas of ongoing concern have been fully reviewed, and appropriate action plans put into place. In addition, any implications for the budget for 2015/16 and future years will be addressed as part of the development of the budget. Financial Health Indicators 29. In order to make an overall assessment of the financial performance of the authority it is necessary to look beyond pure financial monitoring and take account of the progress against defined indicators of financial health. Appendix 10 outlines the performance to date, and in some cases the forecast, against a range of financial indicators which will help to highlight any potential areas of concern where further action may be required. Quarterly Treasury Management Report 30. The Council approved a number of indicators at its meeting of 12 February 2014 and Appendix 11 outlines current performance against these indicators in more detail, along with an economic update and key information about the Council’s borrowing and investments. Housing Revenue Account 31. The expenditure budget for the HRA was set at £75.1M and the income budget at £75.1M, resulting in no net draw from balances. The forecast position for the year end on income and expenditure items shows an adverse variance of £310,000 compared to this budget. 32. There are no corporate variances to report but the detail is set out in Appendix 12. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 33. The revenue implications are contained in the report. There are no capital implications. Property/Other 34. None.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report :
Page 13
35. Financial reporting is consistent with the Chief Financial Officer’s duty to ensure good financial administration within the Council. Other Legal Implications : 36. None. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 37. None.
Page 14 KEY DECISION? Yes WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: All
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices 1. General Fund Summary 2. Children’s Services Portfolio 3. Communities Portfolio 4. Environment & Transport Portfolio 5. Health & Adult Social Care Portfolio 6. Housing & Sustainability 7. Leader’s Portfolio 8. Resources & Leisure Portfolio 9. Implementation of Savings Proposals 10. Financial Health Indicators 11. Quarterly Treasury Management Report 12. Housing Revenue Account Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. None Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact No Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. General Fund Revenue Budget Report 2014/15 to 2016/17 (Approved by Council on 12 February 2014)
Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 AppendixAPPENDIX 1 1
GENERAL FUND 2014/15 - OVERALL SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 2014 Working Forecast Forecast Budget Outturn Variance £000's £000's £000's Portfolios (Net Controllable Spend) Children's Services 39,801 42,875 3,074 A Communities 2,458 2,624 165 A Environment & Transport 26,239 26,530 291 A Health & Adult Social Care 63,858 65,339 1,480 A Housing & Sustainability 1,735 1,941 206 A Leader's Portfolio 4,795 4,557 239 F Resources & Leisure 48,269 47,895 374 F Baseline for Portfolios 187,155 191,759 4,604 A
Net Draw From Risk Fund 1,902 0 1,902 F
Sub-total (Net Controllable Spend) for Portfolios 189,057 191,759 2,703 A
Non-Controllable Portfolio Costs 21,989 21,989 0
Portfolio Total 211,046 213,749 2,703 A
Levies & Contributions Southern Seas Fisheries Levy 31 31 0 Flood Defence Levy 40 40 0 Coroners Service 560 560 0 631 631 0
Capital Asset Management Capital Financing Charges 11,988 10,988 1,000 F Capital Asset Management Account (24,513) (24,513) 0 (12,525) (13,525) 1,000 F
Other Expenditure & Income Direct Revenue Financing of Capital 100 100 0 Net Housing Benefit Payments (758) (758) 0 Contribution to Transformation Fund 3,000 3,000 0 Non-Specific Government Grants (70,721) (71,618) 898 F Business Rates (40,456) (40,456) 0 Collection Fund Deficit (1,782) (1,782) 0 Open Space and HRA 436 436 0 Risk Fund 1,216 1,216 0 Contingencies 242 242 0 (108,724) (109,621) 898 F
NET GF SPENDING 90,429 91,234 805 A
Draw from Balances: To fund the Capital Programme (100) (100) 0 Waste Bid 135 135 0 Marlands IT (60) (60) 0 SALT Funding (57) (57) 0 Health & Social Care Transfer Funding (4,587) (4,587) 0 IER Funding (22) (22) 0 Carry Forwards (5,067) (5,067) 0 Draw from Strategic Reserve (Pensions & Redundancies) (234) (234) 0 Draw from Balances (General) (6,970) (7,775) 805 A (16,962) (17,767) 805 A COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENT 73,467 73,467 0
Page 17 APPENDIX 2
CHILDREN’S SERVICES PORTFOLIO
KEY ISSUES – MONTH 6
The Portfolio is currently forecast to over spend by £2,278,900 at year-end, which represents a percentage over spend against budget of 5.7% . This forecast is constructed from the bottom up through discussions with individual budget holders and is then adjusted to take into account the wider Portfolio view and corporate items as shown below:
£000’s %
Baseline Portfolio Forecast 3,073.9 A 7.7
Risk Fund Items 795 .0 F
Portfolio Forecast 2,278.9 A 5.7
Potential Carry Forward Requests 0.0
The CORPORATE issues for the Portfolio are:
CS1 – Looked After Children and Resources (forecast adverse variance £2,070,000)
This budget funds the cost of children that have to be taken into care. The number of children in care has increased during the year. In particular, there has been an increase in the number of fostering and residential placements with external providers, and a reduction in fostering placements with SCC foster carers from budgeted levels. Forecast Range £2.5M adverse to £1.5M adverse The increasing number of children requiring specialist support packages has led to a forecast overspend of £388,200 on residential placements. These placements can cost up to £785 per day, and, therefore, a small increase in the number of children requiring such intensive support can have a significant impact on the financial position. Placements are only used therefore, as a last resort measure, and as such are difficult to predict with any certainty. The forecast overspend of £1,797,500 on fostering has arisen as a result of using more placements from Independent Fostering Agencies (IFA’s), and less from SCC foster carers than originally anticipated. IFA placements tend to cost between 2 and 3 times as much as an SCC foster placement. An increase in the number and average cost of staying put placements for young people over 18 has led to an overspend of £194,000 on leaving care services. This overspend is after the Staying Put Implementation Grant income has been applied. There are several new and existing placements across Tier 4 that will attract additional funding from Education or Health. However, based on observed trends a favourable adjustment of £300,000 has been included at this stage. Page 18 A draw of £430,000 is forecast to be made from the Risk Fund reducing the over spend on Looked After Children and Resources to £1,640,000. The table outlines the changes in activity levels for 2014/15:
Service Children Numbers Daily Rate Range Budget Budget July Aug Sep Year End
Plus Risk
Fund Provision Fostering up to 18 £22 -£90 321 321 304 306 307 285 Independent Fostering Agencies £85 - £275 88 98 123 131 136 134 (IFA) IFA Parent and Baby Placements £176 - £324 3 3 4 5 8 6 Inter Agency Fostering Placements £58 - £126 3 3 1 1 1 1 Supported Placements or Rent £9 - £54 1 1 5 4 5 5 Residential - Independent Sector £257 - £785 9 9 12 13 13 13 Civil Secure Accommodation £720 - £820 1 1 1 1 0 0 Sub-total: Children in Care 426 436 450 461 470 444
Residential (Not Looked After) £108 - £333 3 3 2 2 4 4 Supported Placements or Rent (Not £9 - £54 5 5 2 2 1 1 Looked After) Over 18's £11 - £236 21 21 26 30 31 30 Adoption Allowances £3 - £38 102 102 93 88 86 100 Special Guardianship Allowances £2 - £44 115 115 95 96 100 115 Residence Order Allowances £7 - £22 13 13 15 15 16 16 Total 685 695 683 694 708 710
Figures for CIC exclude disability placements, UASC's and children placed at nil cost (e.g., w ith parents)
CS2 – Education and Early Years (forecast adverse variance £247,300) Additional surplus income from the introduction of Universal Infant Free School Meals from September offset by additional home to school transport and disability costs. Forecast Range £300,000 adverse to £200,000 adverse. st The Government will introduce Universal Infant Free School Meals from 1 September 2014. Schools will receive additional funding to meet the cost of providing these meals. The Catering Service forecast has been updated to reflect anticipated increases of surplus income of £100,000 resulting from the provision of these additional meals. Home to school transport for children attending Special schools is currently forecast to overspend by £165,300. This will be reviewed once contracts are set for the new academic year in September 2014. An allocation of £200,000 has been included within the Council’s Risk Fund for this purpose. It should also be noted that there is likely to be an additional pressure resulting from an agreed increase in places from September 2014 at Great Oaks and Springwell Special Schools. This has resulted in a further forecast overspend of £68,000.
Page 19 The requirement for packages of care for children with disabilities is difficult to predict with any certainty due to the volatility in the cost of care and the individual needs of each child with a disability. In particular, two new residential placements commenced after the budget had been set has contributed towards an adverse variance of £114,800 on care packages for children with disabilities. Provision for High Needs and Early Years has been reviewed. This has resulted in a net forecast underspend of £1,259,000 on Early Years. As these services are funded by Dedicated Schools Grant this has been offset by an assumed carry forward of grant into 2015/16. High Needs has a forecast overspend of £289,500 and this has been offset against the DSG carry forward from 2013/14. This will be updated as further information is available.
CS3 – Divisional Management & Legal (forecast adverse variance £509,600) The over spend on this budget is due to the cost of interim and agency workers currently required to support the safeguarding and management functions. Forecast Range £750,000 Adverse to £0 This adverse variance is due to additional costs of agency and interim workers that are currently being required to support the Safeguarding and management functions. These include costs for posts covered by temporary placements during the Children Services restructure, and posts identified to address the Ofsted action plan. The over spend is being partially offset by a forecast under spend on legal of £64,800 which has arisen from a reduction in court fees. It is assumed that this saving will not be offset by a compensating reduction in grant income. A draw of £200,000 is forecast to be made from the Risk Fund reducing the over spend on Divisional Management and Legal Services down to £309,600.
CS4 – Quality Assurance Business Unit (forecast adverse variance £127,900) The over spend on this budget is due to the cost of agency workers currently required to support the independent reviewing officer function. Forecast Range £200,000 Adverse to £0 This adverse variance is due the costs of additional agency workers required to cover the independent reviewing officer function and child protection conferences to meet current caseloads. The pressure on this service area has been resolved in the longer term through the implementation of phase 2 of the Children’s Services restructure.
OTHER KEY issues for the Portfolio. There are no other key issues for the Portfolio. Summary of Risk Fund Items
Service Activity £000’s Looked after Children & Resources 430.0 Divisional Mgt & Legal Services 200.0 Infrastructure – Transport 165.0 Risk Fund Items 795.0
Page 20
APPENDIX 3
COMMUNITIES PORTFOLIO
KEY ISSUES – MONTH 6
The Portfolio is currently forecast to break-even at year-end. This forecast is constructed from the bottom up through discussions with individual budget holders and is then adjusted to take into account the wider Portfolio view and corporate items as shown below:
£000’s %
Baseline Portfolio Forecast 165.2 A 6.7
Risk Fund Items 165.2 F
Portfolio Forecast 0.0 0.0
Potential Carry Forward Requests 0.0
The CORPORATE issue for the Portfolio is:
COMM 1 – Prevention & Inclusion Service (forecast adverse variance £187,600) Responsibility for young offenders in remand Forecast Range £350,000 adverse to £200,000 adverse Due to the volatile nature of the need for remand and the range of costs at specific facilities (ranging from £158 to £555 per night), provision for this has been made in the Risk Fund and an amount of £165,200 is currently being claimed up to the forecast overall overspend for the portfolio.
Summary of Risk Fund Items
Service Activity £000’s
Youth Remand 165.2
Risk Fund Items 165.2
Page 21 APPENDIX 4
ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO
KEY ISSUES – MONTH 6
The Portfolio is currently forecast to over spend by £200,600 at year-end, which represents a percentage over spend against budget of 0.8% . The forecast is constructed from the bottom up through discussions with individual budget holders and is then adjusted to take into account the wider Portfolio view and corporate items as shown below:
£000’s %
Baseline Portfolio Forecast 290.6 A 1.1
Remedial Portfolio Action 0.0
Risk Fund Items 90.0 F
Portfolio Forecast 200.6 A 0.8
Potential Carry Forward Requests 0.0
The CORPORATE issue for the Portfolio is:
E&T 1 – Waste Disposal (forecast adverse variance £640,500) There are various forecast changes with an adverse overall variance. Forecast Range £750,000 adverse to £550,000 adverse The Waste Disposal Contract has increased rates from January 2014, which are anticipated to increase overall costs by £90,000 in this financial year. This is a forecast draw on the Risk Fund. In addition, there are forecast additional disposal costs of £234,000 for the Civic Amenity Waste Centres and £195,000 for general collected household waste, due to increased volumes of waste collected. Both of these variances are in line with neighbouring authorities within the County. There is a forecast shortfall of £80,000 in recycling income and the savings proposal to charge for school waste disposal cannot be implemented, due to legislative reasons, at a cost of £100,000. However, there are reduced recycling centre contract incentives of £20,000 and a Marchwood site rent saving of £17,000, both of which partly offset this position.
Page 22 The OTHER KEY issues for the Portfolio are:
E&T 2 – Domestic Waste Collection (forecast adverse variance £294,700) There is a forecast adverse variance on employee costs. Forecast Range £350,000 adverse to £250,000 adverse The Domestic Waste Collection service is forecast to be £269,000 adverse, due to the additional agency costs required to cover front line staff absences mainly due to sickness, being above the budgeted base level. The Service is working to implement actions to reduce the level of absences requiring temporary agency cover arrangements.
E&T 3 – Off Street Car Parking (forecast favourable variance £359,700) Parking income is favourable and rates expenditure is lower than originally estimated. Forecast Range £300,000 favourable to £500,000 favourable There is a favourable forecast variance for off street car parking, due to forecast higher parking income of £342,000 and rates expenditure being lower than originally anticipated by £38,000. The favourable income variance could, in part, be attributed to the introduction of evening charges. Thus, at present, there is not forecast to be a draw on the Risk Fund in respect of a previously anticipated shortfall in Off Street Car Parking income across the whole of the city.
E&T 4 – Regulatory Services - Commercial (forecast favourable variance £244,500) There is a forecast of additional income and employee savings Forecast Range £200,000 favourable to £300,000 favourable In Port Health there are forecast additional Border Inspection Post (BIP) Fees of £116,000 and other specialist income relating to imports from China/ Japan of £55,000. There are additional external contributions received to fund Trading Standards work of £11,000 and employee savings across the service of £28,000. Also, there are forecast savings on supplies and services of £21,000.
Summary of Risk Fund Items
Service Activity £000’s Waste Disposal Contract 90.0 Risk Fund Items 90.0
Page 23 APPENDIX 5
HEALTH & ADULT SOCIAL CARE PORTFOLIO
KEY ISSUES – MONTH 6
The Portfolio is currently forecast to over spend by £835,400 at year-end, which represents a percentage over spend against budget of 1.3%. This forecast is constructed from the bottom up through discussions with individual budget holders and is then adjusted to take into account the wider Portfolio view and corporate items as shown below:
£000’s %
Baseline Portfolio Forecast 1,480.4 A 2.3
Risk Fund Items 645.0 F
Portfolio Forecast 835.4 A 1.3
Potential Carry Forward Requests 0.0
The CORPORATE issues for the Portfolio are:
H&ASC 1 – Long Term (forecast adverse variance £1,850,500) The volume of care provision that caused an over spend in 2013/14 for this service activity has continued into 2014/15. In addition there will be slippage in the achievement of savings agreed in February 2014 for reductions in volume of care. To mitigate this pressure a recovery plan has been drafted to achieve these savings for 2015/16 and to identify compensating savings from within the portfolio for 2014/15. Forecast Range £1.5M adverse to £2.0M adverse There are projected over spends of £2,525,800 on Domiciliary and £316,300 on Nursing, partially offset by an under spend on Residential of £137,200 and Direct Payments of £88,300. There is also a projected over spend of £693,800 within the Residential and Nursing and £24,200 within Direct Payment elements of Learning Disability, this is partially offset by a reduction in Transition clients of £337,700 and Domiciliary of £28,700. A non-recurring contingency to fund additional costs expected from S117 mental health clients transferring to the City Council from the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) is no longer required. These clients have transferred and the costs have been managed within the ongoing budget envelope. This sum has been identified within the recovery plan as available to offset the over spend in 2014/15. The volume of activity included in the forecast outturn position is comparable to the actual levels for 2013/14, which has led to the underlying pressure from 2013/14 being carried over into 2014/15. The sum of £645,000 is held within the Risk Fund to offset this underlying pressure, it is assumed that this will be utilised in full.
Page 24 In addition a number of savings initiatives were agreed for 2014/15 to reduce the volume of care provided, subsequently the budget was reduced. However, to date it is been difficult to ascertain sufficient evidence that these initiatives will deliver the required savings, therefore causing the adverse forecast position. It should be noted that the Reablement Service is currently achieving a rate of 67% of clients leaving care with no further long term care requirements. Should this level be maintained it is anticipated that the underlying pressure will reduce as the year progresses. This will be monitored carefully in future months. Whilst a voluntary suspension has now been removed from a block provider of nursing care there is still a delay placing clients. As a result of the suspension there are plans to seek recompense for 23 vacant beds for a period of 10 weeks which would equate to £151,000. It should also be noted that this forecast position is based on an assumption that a further local savings target currently set at £225,000 from a combination of Operational and Commissioning savings within Learning Disability will be fully achieved.
The table below outlines the activity and forecast position for Adult Disability Community Care Net Unit Budgeted Forecast Forecast Difference Variance Budget Prices Units £000’s Units (Units) to Budget £000’s £000’s Day Care 145.7 60.78PD 2,397 149.3 2,456.4 59 3.5 Direct Payments 3,232.6 11.85PH 272,738 3,144.2 265,279.8 (7,458) (88.3) Domiciliary 4,123.8 14.36PH 287,076 6,650.4 462,965.4 175,889 2,525.8 Nursing 2,260.9 67.44PD 33,525 2,577.2 38,214.7 4,690 316.3 Residential 4,728.2 51.13PD 92,474 4,591.0 89,789.4 (2,685) (137.2) Other 1,100.0 0 1,100.0) Total 15,591.2 17,112.1 1,520.1
There are several posts within the Long Term and Review teams that are being covered by locums either due to vacancy or maternity cover, this has led to a forecast over spend of £40,000. In addition there is an issue regard the funding of staff by Health partners, it is currently forecast this will be an additional adverse variance but long term will need to be resolved or alternative funding sought.
The OTHER KEY issues for the Portfolio are:
H&ASC 2 – Reablement (forecast adverse variance £264,000) Increase in the use of Locum’s to cover maternity and sick leave within the Hospital Discharge team. Forecast Range £200,000 adverse to £300,000 adverse. This forecast over spend is due to the use of Locum’s covering vacant posts and posts that are subject to requiring maternity cover within the Hospital Discharge team. The cost of a Locum is currently 30% greater than the cost of a Council Social Worker. Agency levels within Brownhill are forecast to be 21% of staffing budgets compared to a budgeted figure of 18%; this is due to an increase in the number of staff on long term sickness.
Page 25 H&ASC 3 – Adult Services Management (forecast favourable variance £281,100) Savings resulting from vacant posts. Forecast Range £200,000 favourable to £300,000 favourable. There are currently 20 FTE vacant posts within business support. As a result of the business support review these posts will not be filled this year, creating an overall saving of £340,000. This is offset in part with the recruitment of Locum Service Manager’s to cover vacant posts until the end of the financial year at a cost of £257,000. Furthermore, included within the recovery plan are non-recurrent savings of £198,000. This is possible due to the associated activity already being undertaken and funded by existing budgets.
H&ASC 4 – Provider Services (forecast adverse variance £217,600) Increase in the use of locum staff to cover sickness, vacant posts and to support clients with more complex needs. Forecast Range £200,000 adverse to £250,000 adverse. Agency levels within the Residential homes are forecast to be 24% of staffing budgets compared to a budgeted figure of 18%; this is due to an increase in the number of staff on long term sickness. There is additional use of agency staff at Kentish Road due to an increase in clients with more complex needs and staff vacancies, there is also an increase in overtime due to requirement to cover shifts while posts remain vacant.
H&ASC 6 – ICU Provider Relationships (forecast favourable variance £171,100) An agreement to reduce the number of nursing beds has resulted in an overall saving. Forecast Range £150,000 favourable to £200,000 favourable. An agreement to reduce the number of nursing beds currently purchased within a block contract has resulted in an overall saving of £120,000. In addition £200,000 of recovery plan savings have been identified through renegotiation of contract price against the Supporting People block contract. There has been an increase in demand for equipment from the Joint equipment store resulting in a forecast overspend of £271,000. There are various minor contract and staffing savings which total £122,000.
H&ASC 7 – ICU System Redesign (forecast favourable variance £207,100) Contract reviews and the tendering of the new Adults Carers Service has resulted in an overall saving. Forecast Range £200,000 favourable to £250,000 favourable. The tendering of a new Adults Carers service has resulted in an overall savings in year of £41,000. In addition there are various small savings and in year slippage from contracts, which total £166,000, including £100,000 for peer support.
Page 26 H&ASC 8 – Safeguarding AMH & OOH (forecast favourable variance £188,100) Savings resulting from vacant posts. Forecast Range £150,000 favourable to £200,000 favourable. There are currently 13 FTE vacant posts within the Mental Health and Substance Misuse teams, the overall forecast savings are offset in part with the recruitment of Locum’s to cover vacant posts until the end of the financial year.
Summary of Risk Fund items
Service Activity £000’s Adult Disability 400.0 Continuing Care 245.0 Risk Fund Items 645.0
Page 27 APPENDIX 6
HOUSING & SUSTAINABILITY PORTFOLIO
KEY ISSUES – MONTH 6
The Portfolio is currently forecast to break-even at year end. This forecast is constructed from the bottom up through discussions with individual budget holders and is then adjusted to take into account the wider Portfolio view and corporate items as shown below:
£000’s %
Baseline Portfolio Forecast 206.3 A 11.9 A
Remedial Portfolio Action 0.0
Risk Fund Items 206.3 F
Portfolio Forecast 0.0 0.0
Potential Carry Forward Requests 0.0
There are no CORPORATE issues for the Portfolio at this stage.
The OTHER KEY issue for the Portfolio is:
HOUS1 – Sustainability (forecast adverse variance £223,000) Forecast Range £250,000 adverse to £200,000 adverse. There is a variance due to the cost of purchasing Carbon Reduction Certificates. It is estimated that the cost of purchasing Carbon Reduction Certificates (CRCs) for the authority in 2014/15 will be £216,100. This is covered by a provision in the Risk Fund for which an amount of £206,300 is currently being claimed up to the overall level of forecast overspend for the portfolio. In addition, there are minor variances across Sustainability that produce a net adverse variance of £6,900.
Summary of Risk Fund Items
Service Activity £000’s Sustainability – CRC purchases 206.3 Risk Fund Items 206.3
Page 28 APPENDIX 7
LEADER’S PORTFOLIO
KEY ISSUES – MONTH 6
The Portfolio is currently forecast to under spend by £238,500 at year-end, which represents a percentage variance against budget of 5.0%. This forecast is constructed from the bottom up through discussions with individual budget holders and is then adjusted to take into account the wider Portfolio view and corporate items as shown below:
£000’s %
Baseline Portfolio Forecast 238.5 F 5.0
Remedial Portfolio Action 0.0
Risk Fund Items 0.0
Portfolio Forecast 238.5 F 5.0
Potential Carry Forward Requests 0.0
There are no CORPORATE issues for the Portfolio at this stage.
The OTHER KEY issues for the Portfolio at this stage are:
LPOR 1 – Land Charges (forecast favourable variance £140,000) Additional income / reduced spend on Supplies & Services Forecast Range not applicable The value and volume of Land Charges income received is directly affected by conditions in the housing market and wider economy and is therefore difficult to predict. A £100,000 favourable variance is forecast based on a considered projection of income received to date and will continue to be reviewed on a quarterly basis throughout the year. In addition an in-year one-off under spend on supplies & services budgets is forecast of £40,000.
LPOR 2 – Democratic Representation and Management / Licensing (forecast favourable variance £90,000 Under spends on Salaries / Supplies and Services Forecast Range not applicable The favourable variance has arisen primarily due to staff vacancies, for which recruitment is ongoing, an in-year one-off under spend on supplies and services, together with reduced spend on members allowances following a reduction in the number of Cabinet members, an on-going saving for which was approved by Council in July.
Page 29 APPENDIX 8
RESOURCES & LEISURE PORTFOLIO
KEY ISSUES – MONTH 6
The Portfolio is currently forecast to under spend by £373,900 at year-end, which represents a percentage variance against budget of 0.8%. This forecast is constructed from the bottom up through discussions with individual budget holders and is then adjusted to take into account the wider Portfolio view and corporate items as shown below:
£000’s %
Baseline Portfolio Forecast 373.9 F 0.8
Remedial Portfolio Action 0.0
Risk Fund Items 0.0
Portfolio Forecast 373.9 F 0.8
Potential Carry Forward Requests 84.2
The CORPORATE issues for the Portfolio at this stage are:
RES 1 – Gallery and Museums (forecast adverse variance £289,500) Shortfall in venue income due to lower visitor numbers than anticipated Forecast Range £400,000 adverse to £100,000 adverse Visitor numbers to SeaCity and Tudor House were lower than anticipated for the first six months of the year. Based on this, the forecast for visitor numbers for the remainder of the year has been adjusted, resulting in a forecast shortfall in income of £44,500 for Tudor House and £301,800 for SeaCity. A provision for this has been made in the Risk Fund but is not currently being claimed as the portfolio has on overall forecast under spend. A new exhibition opens in Sea City Museum in October (Soldiers’ Journey), part of the joint work with Hampshire and Winchester. Joint marketing and promotion of the exhibitions will be taking place across the County. Special events such as Halloween and at Christmas are planned for Tudor House.
The adverse variance in income is partially offset by a favourable variance on staffing across the two venues of £34,400. This is due to vacant catering posts which are not expected to be filled during the current financial year.
Page 30 RES 2 – Corporate Management (forecast favourable variance £37,700) Income from Strike Deductions Forecast Range not applicable The favourable forecast variance reflects the total value of strike deductions received to date. These deductions have been captured centrally and may be required to offset any costs incurred by those Council services affected by strike action.
The OTHER KEY issues for the Portfolio at this stage are:
RES 3 – Property Portfolio Management (forecast favourable variance £575,000) Additional Investment Property income offset by additional one-off costs Forecast Range not applicable A favourable income variance of £600,000 has arisen within the Investment Property account primarily as a result of delayed property disposals pending a review of the wider Property Strategy and future disposal / investment plans. This is offset by £200,000 one- off additional expenditure relating to the property management costs for current Investment properties to address essential maintenance / potential health & safety issues. In addition a £175,000 forecast under spend against the Property Portfolio Management budgets is anticipated pending the outcome of the Property Strategy and Service Property reviews. Current activity, the majority of which is undertaken by Capita Property, is less than originally anticipated but is expected to ramp up once the impact of a revised disposal strategy is known (see note above re Investment Property income).
RES 4 – Leisure Client Team (forecast adverse variance £45,600) Contractual utility inflation on the Active Nation contract Forecast Range £60,000 adverse to £40,000 adverse Under the contract with Active Nation to run the Council’s sports provision, the Council bears the risk of cost inflation on utilities over and above the Consumer Price Index. This is currently estimated to be £45,600 and provision has been made in the Risk Fund but is not currently being claimed as the portfolio has an overall forecast under spend.
RES 5 – Major Projects (forecast favourable variance £6,000) Under spend on funding for the new arts complex, partially offset by additional business rates for Oaklands Pool Forecast Range £50,000 adverse to £100,000 favourable
Council funding of £160,000 along with Arts Council England (ACE) funding of £153,300 was originally budgeted to transfer to the operating company of the new arts complex this financial year.
The project has been delayed substantially and subsequently the process for appointing an operating company has taken longer than anticipated. This has led to a predicted underspend of £165,000, £84,200 of which is Council funding.
Page 31 There remain considerable challenges for the revenue budget of the arts complex and it is proposed that funding should be carried forward into 2015/16 for the purpose of establishing a sound basis for its business operation, programme and marketing ensuring the best possible preparation for future financial viability. If this funding is not carried forward, it is highly likely that ACE will reduce its grant funding in line with the Council’s.
Partially offsetting this favourable variance is an adverse variance of £67,400 due to expenditure on Oaklands Pool. This includes business rates totalling £51,000, £34,000 of which relates to 2013/14 and £17,000 for the current financial year, until September when the building is due to be handed to the community group. This expenditure was not previously anticipated as the building has been unoccupied. However, as refurbishment work has been carried out on the building over the past year, it is not eligible for S44a relief for business rates.
RES 6 – Audit and Risk Management (forecast favourable variance £66,000) Under spend on Insurance Premiums and Audit Fees Forecast Range not applicable An in-year under spend of £55,000 against the insurance premiums budget is forecast. However it is not anticipated that this will generate an ongoing saving for future years as the premiums contract is currently out to tender and an ongoing pressure is anticipated; this potential pressure will be built into the future budget position. In addition an in-year under spend of £11,000 is also forecast against the HCC Audit Partnership based on SCC’s share of the Partnership costs for the current financial year.
Summary of Risk Fund Items
Service Activity £000’s
0.0
Risk Fund Items 0.0
Page 32
APPENDIX 9
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAVINGS PROPOSALS
Implemented and Saving Not Yet Fully Implemented and Saving Not on Track to be Total Savings 2014/15 Forecast Shortfall Achieved Achieved But Broadly on Track Achieved 2014/15 Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Forecast £000's £000's £000's % % £000's £000's % £000's £000's % £000's £000's Portfolio Savings Children's Services (140) (140) 0 0.0% 100.0% (140) (140) 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Communities (166) (166) 0 0.0% 100.0% (166) (166) 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 Environment & Transport (1,978) (1,868) 110 5.6% 78.8% (1,558) (1,558) 21.2% (420) (310) 0.0% 0 0 Health & Adult Social Care (6,811) (5,753) 1,058 15.5% 57.9% (3,945) (3,945) 19.8% (1,350) (1,350) 22.3% (1,516) (458) Housing & Sustainability (52) (52) 0 0.0% 80.8% (42) (42) 19.2% (10) (10) 0.0% 0 0 Leader's Portfolio (310) (310) 0 0.0% 100.0% (310) (310) 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0
Page 33 Page Resources & Leisure (2,574) (2,574) 0 0.0% 95.8% (2,466) (2,466) 4.2% (108) (108) 0.0% 0 0 Sub-Total (12,031) (10,863) 1,168 9.7% 71.7% (8,627) (8,627) 15.7% (1,888) (1,778) 12.6% (1,516) (458)
Corporate Savings Capita "Relaunch Savings" (1,500) (1,500) 0 0.0% 100.0% (1,500) (1,500) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 People Transformation (920) (920) 0 0.0% 100.0% (920) (920) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Total (14,451) (13,283) 1,168 8.1% 76.4% (11,047) (11,047) 13.1% (1,888) (1,778) 10.5% (1,516) (458)
APPENDIX 10
FINANCIAL HEALTH INDICATORS – MONTH 6
Prudential Indicators Relating to Borrowing
Maximum Forecast Status
Maximum Level of External Debt £M £750M £379M Green As % of Authorised Limit 100% 50.5% Green
Target Actual YTD Status
Average % Rate New Borrowing 5.00% 0.0% Green Average % Rate Existing Long Term Borrowing 5.00% 3.20% Green
Average Short Term Investment Rate 0.41% 0.55% Green
Minimum Level of General Fund Balances
Status Minimum General Fund Balance £5.5M Forecast Year End General Fund balance £22.0M Green
Income Collection
2013 /14 Actual Status Outstanding Debt: YTD
More Than 12 Months Old 29% 27% Amber Less Than 12 Months But More Than 6 Months Old 9% 7% Green Less Than 6 Months But More Than 60 Days Old 21% 11% Green Less Than 60 Days Old 41% 55% Green
Creditor Payments
Status Target Payment Days 30 Actual Current Average Payment Days 21 Green
Target % of undisputed invoices paid within 30 days 95.00% Actual % of undisputed invoices paid within 30 days 93.64% Amber * including schools 85.17% * Red *
Tax Collection rate
Target Month 6 Collection Rate Status Collection Rate Last Year This Year
Council Tax 94.90% (tba) 53.90% 53.30% Amber National Non Domestic Rates 98.70% 61.40% 58.01% Amber
Page 34 APPENDIX 11
QUARTERLY TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT – MONTH 6
1. Borrowing Requirement and Debt Management As at the 30 September 2014, the council’s overall outstanding long term borrowing was £258M, at an average rate of 3.20% and an average maturity of 23.6 years, this has fallen by £6M since the 1 April due to maturing debt which has not yet been replaced. The total long term debt portfolio is made up of loans from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) of £249M and market loans of £9M. Included within the PWLB portfolio is £35M of variable rate loans, which are currently averaging 0.58% and are helping to keep overall borrowing costs down. Whilst in the current climate of low interest rates this remains a sound strategy, the Council need to review these regularly and if appropriate switching into fixed rate loans. The Council does not have any temporary borrowing at present having repaid outstanding balances at year end and whilst the rates on temporary borrowing have remained affordable and attractive, due to our higher than expected level of cash (and subsequent investments) no need has arisen for further temporary borrowing.
As at the 31 March 2014 the Council used £73M of internal resources in lieu of borrowing which has been the most cost effective means of funding past capital expenditure to date. This has lowered overall treasury risk by reducing both external debt and temporary investments. However, this position will not be sustainable over the medium to long term and the Council will need to borrow to cover this amount as balances fall. Following the latest update of the Capital Programme, approved by Council in September 2014, the Council is expected to borrow up to £74M between 2014/15 and 2016/17. Of this £40M relates to new HRA capital spend (GF has no new requirement at this stage) and the remainder to the refinancing of existing debt and externalising internal debt to cover the expected fall in balances.
No new borrowing has been taken to date and none is expected to be taken until the third quarter of the year and will be assessed in conjunction with the development of the capital programme, cash balances and advice from the Council’s treasury advisor.
Budgeted Expenditure The interest cost of financing the Authority’s long term and short term loan debt is charged corporately to the Income and Expenditure account. The interest cost in 2014/15 of financing the Authority’s loan debt is currently expected to be £9.8M compared with an approved estimate of £11.2M, a saving of £1.4M, of which £0.8M relates to the HRA. This is mainly due to variable interest rates being lower than those estimated, no new long term borrowing being taken in 2013/14, slippage on the HRA capital programme to 2015/16 and deferring any new borrowing to later in the year.
2. Investment Activity
The Authority holds significant invested funds, representing income received in advance of expenditure plus balances and reserves held. The Guidance on Local Government Investments in England gives priority to security and liquidity and the Council’s aim is to achieve a yield commensurate with these principles. Security of capital has remained the Council’s main investment objective. This has been
Page 35 maintained by following the Council’s counterparty policy as set out in its TM Strategy Statement for 2014/15. Counterparty credit quality is assessed and monitored with reference to: Credit Ratings. The Council’s minimum long-term counterparty rating is A- (or equivalent across rating agencies Fitch, S&P and Moody’s); credit default swaps; financial statements, information on potential government support and reports in the quality financial press. Internally Managed investments The Authority has internally managed investments amounting to £78.5M and are shown below:
At 30th September 2014 Yield Date of Investments £’000 Maturity % Rating
Lloyds Bank Plc 2,000 15/12/2014 0.65 A
Lloyds Bank Plc 2,000 15/12/2014 0.57 A
Nationwide Building Society 5,000 15/12/2014 0.50 A
Nationwide Building Society 1,000 01/10/2014 0.74 A
Nationwide Building Society 1,000 15/10/2014 0.76 A
Nationwide Building Society 1,000 17/11/2014 0.78 A
Money Market Funds 23,967 Call Average 0.41 A+ to AA-
Santander UK Plc 10,000 Call 0.80 A
Bank of Scotland Plc 2,951 Call 0.40 A
Svenska Handelsbanken – A SHS 4,401 Call 0.40 AA-
HSBC Bank PLC 9,093 Call 0.80 AA-
Barclays Bank PLC 9,790 Call 0.65 A
European Investment Bank - Bond 1,000 15/04/2025 5.27 AAA
European Investment Bank - Bond 1,000 07/06/2025 5.16 AAA
European Investment Bank - Bond 1,000 07/06/2025 5.49 AAA
Yorkshire Building Society Covered 3,333 12/08/2018 2.034 AA+ Bond
There has been an increase in balances since the beginning of the year (£66M), peaking at £125M in mid- May. Based on previous years balances this is expected to fall around Page 36 December when we have traditionally needed to borrow short term from the money markets due to uncertainty on the capital programme and need to borrow long term. Projected balances to the end December indicate that on present levels of spend we should have about £20m more than this time last year, around £60M, so unless there is significant capital spend between now and then, there should be no need to borrow short term unless we feel this is prudent to protect our investments in the higher returning call accounts The rolling programme of yearly investments has been stopped due to lower balances last year and the difficulty in placing at attractive rates, plus we are preparing for lower investment limits as part of the TM strategy for 2014 in anticipation of “bail in”.
Following advice from our advisors, Arlingclose, enquires on options for longer term deposits with covered bonds / Floating Rate Note’s are ongoing with a view of investing up to our £30M limit for long term investments (currently £11M, plus commitment to invest another £7M in October) to optimise investment income. These deals will generate around £125k in a full year and about £59k for 2014/15.
External Managed investments On the 1 April the Council invested £5M in property funds which offer the potential for enhanced returns over the longer term, but may be more volatile in the shorter term. These funds are managed by professional fund managers which allows the Authority to diversify into asset classes other than cash without the need to own and manage the underlying investments. This investment has returned an average of £20k per month, which will generate an additional £200k for the year. Consideration is also being given on whether to invest an additional £1M in the fundth as the yield is attractive but this will increase our risk. The value of the fund at 30 September was £4,947,879, a “loss” of £52k against initial investment. Even allowing for this the fund still returned a yield of 3.67%. Budgeted Income The Council does not expect any losses from non-performance in relation to its investments by any of its counterparties. The UK Bank Rate has been maintained at 0.5% since March 2009 and is not expected to rise this year. As a consequence short- term money market rates have remained at relatively low levels with new deposits being made at an average rate of 0.55%, investments in Money Market Funds and call accounts generated an average rate of 0.49%. Average cash balances were £102.5M during the quarter; these are expected to decline towards the end of the financial year as the incidence of government grant income and council tax income is skewed towards the earlier part of the year.
The Authority’s budgeted investment income for the year was estimated at £0.3M, the Authority currently anticipates an investment outturn of £0.8M for the year based on current and committed deals. However following advice from our treasury advisors and our continued high investment balances the Authority has estimated it will have sufficient cash balances over the medium term to consider investing in further longer term financial instruments which will generate a better return.
Authority Banking Arrangements – Co-operative Bank / Lloyds: As reported previously following the downgrading of the Co-op bank and the end of our contract with them, the Authority isst in the process of moving its banking arrangements to Lloyds Bankst with effective from 1 October 2014 with a cross over period of 3 months up to the 31 December 2014 when all banking with Co-op will cease. Until this time we will continue to mitigate our exposure to credit risk as reported in the review of Prudential Page 37 Limits and Treasury Management Outturn 2013/14 submitted to council on the 16 July and can be found as item 13 via the following link: http://www.southampton.gov.uk/modernGov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=122&MId=2832&Ver=4
3. Compliance with Prudential Indicators The Council can confirm that it has complied with its Prudential Indicators for 2014/15, approved by Full Council on 12 February 2014. The table below summarises the Key Prudential Indictors and performance to date:
Actual at th 30 Sept Indicator Limit 2014 Authorised Limit for external debt £M £760M Operational Limit for external debt £M £750M Maximum borrowing year to date £274.2M Limit of fixed interest debt % 100% 83.2% Limit of variable interest debt % 50% 16.8% Limit for Non-specified investments £M £38M £11M
Page 38
APPENDIX 12 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT
KEY ISSUES – MONTH 6
The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is currently forecast to over spend by £310,000 on income and expenditure items at year-end, which represents a percentage variance against budget of 0.4%.
The CORPORATE issues for the Portfolio are:
HRA1 – Responsive Repairs (adverse variance £2,000,000)
The volume of repairs has increased largely as a result of severe weather last winter.
Forecast range £2,500,000 adverse to £1,800,000 adverse
The volume of repairs has increased due to the exceptional and stormy weather conditions last winter and the decision to reduce the backlog of repairs that was carried forward from the last financial year. The weather related repairs will involve a significant amount of complex work, to the fabric of approximately 200 properties and will reduce the draw on the capital programme for this stock in futures years. This work is currently estimated to cost £500,000 and will be funded from a reduction in Direct Revenue Financing (DRF) for the capital programme. In addition, a significant amount of weather related responsive repairs work is being carried out by transferring internal staff resources from the capital programme to work on responsive repairs. The cost of this work is estimated as £700,000 and will be funded from a reduction in DRF, as it is moving cost from the capital programme to revenue.
In addition to the weather related expenditure detailed above, and in order to deal with the backlog of jobs, there will be additional costs for materials and contractors. The contractors’ costs have increased largely as a result of the additional scaffolding that has had to be bought in. This additional expenditure will have to be funded from savings found elsewhere in the responsive repairs and wider HRA budget. Savings of £280,000 have been identified within the responsive repairs - estate improvement plan budget. In addition, the £742,700 saving in interest payments (HRA 3 below) will also contribute.
HRA2 – Direct Revenue Financing of Capital (DRF) (favourable variance £1,200,000)
Reduction in DRF as a result of work transferred from capital to revenue.
Forecast range £1,000,000 favourable to £1,500,000 favourable
Page 39 As a result of the increased volume of weather related work that is being funded as part of the responsive repairs revenue budget, DRF has been reduced to balance the HRA budget. The additional work, that is now being treated as revenue will result in improvements to the fabric of a number of the HRA properties which in turn will lead to reductions in demand on the capital programme going forward. Not all of this reduction will be seen in the current financial year so, in order to fund the capital programme, capital receipts bought forward from last financial year will be used to compensate for the reduction in DRF.
HRA3 – Interest Payments (favourable variance £742,700)
Reduction in borrowing requirements.
Forecast range £740,000 favourable to £900,000 favourable As a result of re-phasing in the capital programme, as detailed in the September capital update, the borrowing required to fund the capital programme has been reduced fromst £23M to £16M. The budget assumption was that the borrowing would take place on the 1 October
2014. As a result of recent analysis of the overall stCouncil cash position, the date for borrowing to take place has been revised to the 1 January 2015. The combined effect of the changes to the borrowing assumptions has resulted in a reduction of £742,700 in interest payments.
The OTHER KEY issue for the Portfolio is:
HRA4 – Housing Investment (forecast adverse variance £161,900)
There are a number of variances which produce an overall adverse position.
Forecast range £200,000 adverse to £100,000 adverse
Water Quality Testing and Treatment (£83,000 adverse) – In order to maintain water quality within Council walk-up bocks to current legislation, it has been necessary to implement a programme of water monitoring and testing across the city.
TV Aerials (£38,000 adverse) – The Digital TV aerials installed in 2011/12 are now out of warranty, and are proving expensive to maintain and repair. A procurement process is under way for a new maintenance contract. In addition, there are costs for the removal of tenants’ satellite dishes from some blocks.
Ventilation Duct Cleaning (£42,000 adverse) – A programme has been introduced to clean ducts in our tower blocks and this has also included a replacement programme of internal vents with fire-rated boxes.
Page 40 Agenda Item 10
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: COURT LEET PRESENTMENTS 2014 DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: HEAD OF LEGAL AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Judy Cordell Tel: 023 8083 2766 E-mail: [email protected] Director: Name: Mark Heath Tel: 023 8083 2028 E-mail: [email protected] STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY Not applicable BRIEF SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to bring to the Executive’s attention the Presentments accepted by Court Leet, the action taken to date and to identify Lead Officers and Members for future actions. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) That the initial officer responses to the Presentments approved by the Court Leet Jury as set out in Appendix 1 to the report be noted; and (ii) That individual Cabinet Members ensure that responses are made to Presenters regarding presentments within their portfolios as appropriate and as soon as practically possible. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Executive has agreed that Court Leet Presentments will be reported to the Executive for consideration and ultimately determination. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 2. The decision was previously made by the Executive to proceed in this manner; therefore, this is the only approach considered appropriate. DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) th 3. Appendix 1 lays out in brief the Presentments received by Court Leet on 30 September 2014 with details of Lead Officers and Cabinet Members responsible, together with an initial response to each of the Presentments. 4. The Presentments, once received, have been shared with Lead Officers and Lead Members; responses (and any action required) will be subject to the Council’s normal decision-making processes and therefore, consultation at this time. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue
Page 41 1
5. None. Property/Other 6. None. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 7. Court Leet is maintained as a valid Court Leet, but only for purpose of taking Presentments on matters of local concern under the Administration of Justice Act 1977. Any proposals to implement any Presentm ents will be considered in due course by the appropriate decision-maker, and at that point legal issues will be taken into account. Other Legal Implications : 8. None. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 9. None at this stage, but as stated above, any pr oposals that are considered for implementation will be considered in the context of, inter alia, Policy Framework implications.
KEY DECISION? No WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: Potentially all. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Appendices 1. Summary of Presentments and details of Lead Officers and Members Responsibility and Initial Response of Presentments. Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. None. Integrated Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Integrated Impact No Assessment (IIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Integrated Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Not applicable. Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. Not applicable.
Page 42 2 COURT LEET PRESENTMENTS 2014
No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER 1 Young Governors at St Mary’s Primary School Make St. Mary’s Mitch Councillor Do you know that last year there was 22.6 million tonnes of waste sent to Better for the Future Sanders Rayment landfill in the UK with only a small percentage of this recycled? 54% of waste is still being sent landfills and my question is what happens when the landfills are full? In Southampton we have a 5 year plan to reduce the amount of waste we are sending to landfills yet in the year 2010/2011 we actually recycled less than in previous years. We know that homes are being encouraged to recycle but we believe we can do extra to improve this number further and help reduce the amount of waste we are producing as well as help improve our local area. What do we want?
Page 43 Page We want to help improve this area so it is much better for the people who live here. We want to make visitors feel welcome and leave this area with pride. We have thought about how by simply improving the litter in the area will help people have a much more positive view of St Marys. This local area has changed for the better and we just want to make sure that people can appreciate their local area more and enjoy the facilities that have been provided for them and their children. We believe that changing our local bins to recycling bins in St Mary’s and the school will help raise the profile of recycling and encourage more
families to recycle at home. We have also found when we talked with local Agenda Item 10 residents that they feel more dog bins would be appropriate and hopefully encourage people to use them so children can visit the parks and walk the streets safely. We would like bins with lids to prevent seagulls and the wind
spreading the litter around the area as this happens a lot at the minute and Appendix 1 means people are reluctant to enjoy our beautiful local area. We would also appreciate more frequent bin collections both on the streets and at the houses as at present the bins become overfull and this encourages people to throw litter on the floor. We feel this would help improve our local area by keeping it clean and tidy and producing less waste for landfill. Although extra bins especially recycling ones will help improve the local area we do feel that people need posters to remind them that littering and No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER dog litter and have fines attached to them. We thought to help raise the profile further we could hold a competition with local schools to design posters to encourage people to recycle, use bins and to clear up their dog litter and these could be added to the bins. What we have done to help? This is such an important change for our local area that at St Mary’s primary school we have tried to improve the situation ourselves. We have done this by litter picking in St Marys with the local Junior Wardens and designing our own posters which are displayed around the school. Although this has helped it still means that the rubbish is going to landfills rather than being recycling. With your help we feel we could encourage even more people not to litter and to recycle their waste. Page 44 Page Why will it make it better in St Mary’s? We are proud of where we live but want it to be clean and safe for us and our families to live in. At the minute the local parks and streets are littered with dog poo, rubbish and smashed glass. By cleaning the area we may attract visitors and make more people want to work here. We think there will be more space for children to play and parents will make the most of their facilities because there won’t be rubbish blocking the area. Thank you for considering our proposal we hope you can make these simple improvements to the local bins and area and help us reduce the amount of waste we are sending to landfill.
1 RESPONSE:
Local authorities have been set targets to reduce the amount of bio-degradable waste they send to landfill by 2020. The target is to landfill no more than 29% of the 2001 figure.
Southampton’s 2020 target figure is 20,129 tonnes which the council has easily exceeding with only 12,247 tonnes of waste being landfilled in 2013/14. Bio-degradable waste are types of waste that when landfilled deteriorate to produce gas and liquids.
2 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER Southampton has one of the lowest levels of waste sent to landfill in the country.
Any waste that residents put out for disposal is sent to the Marchwood Incinerator where it is burnt to recover energy in the form of electricity. The ash produced is recycled into an aggregate substitute with any metal items being separated and sent for recycling. This also applies to all the waste street bin litter collected from the St Mary’s area, and also to an increasing percentage of the street sweepings that the local street cleansing team remove every day. The council is also trialling some very new technologies to improve the percentage of road sweeping waste that is recycled, and to turn waste that people take to the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) into a fuel.
The council’s mobile street cleaning teams visit the St Mary’s area once a day to empty the bins and clean up the litter. If the team spent any more time in the area, this would mean other areas of the city would receive less attention. This is why the work St Mary’s Primary School is carrying out to keep their neighbourhood clean and encourage people not to drop litter is so important. The street cleaning team will be contacting the Young Governors as they are very interested in the work the School Page 45 Page is doing to keep the neighbourhood clean, and are keen to provide more information about the work they carry out, and see how everyone can work better together to keep the area clean, including making sure there are enough bins of the right type and the right position. Not everyone realises that they can also use normal street litter bins to dispose of dog poo, and the street cleansing team find it is more effective to provide these ‘dual use’ bins rather than separate bins for street litter and dog waste.
The council has recently introduced a recycling reward scheme “Bin it to Win It” and collections of mixed glass bottles and jars which has increased the councils recycling rate to 30%.
The council has set a target of increasing its recycling to 36% by 2017 and is looking at a range of new recycling initiatives such as adding additional materials into the kerbside recycling bins and separating our more material at the HWRC.
3 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER 2 Portswood Primary School
Improving Our School Theresa Councillors At our school, Portswood Primary, we aim to improve our surroundings. We Environment Leavy Chaloner plan to do this by decreasing the amount of litter in and around the school. Jeffery and In addition we would like to promote more gardening and allow the children Rayment of Portswood Primary be more connected with nature. The first issue that we would like to resolve is about litter. One of our ideas to support this is to place more recycling bins on the school grounds and also the surrounding streets and recreational areas. Also, we would carry out a school competition to find the best ‘Keep Portswood Tidy’ poster which we were hoping that you could turn into a sign that could go up in the
Page 46 Page local area. As a school we will introduce litter monitors to make sure that the school is kept clean. Another thing that we would like to improve is our Environmental Area and our display of plants. First we would like to point out that our school intends to have a gardening club. However the children do not have many gardening tools or plants to grow. That is why we will do some fundraising to increase the amount of resources that the children have. We would appreciate it if you could also contribute some tools, equipment and plants. Moreover we would like a council gardener to teach us some skills that we could use in our gardening club. To aid our budding gardeners we feel that a small plastic greenhouse would help them to be successful. To protect the plans being grown in the club we would ask that you contribute some raised beds. In summary we aim to improve our environment by reducing litter and increasing the amount of gardening. We kindly and respectfully request from you the following: more recycling bins in the local area, signs to promote the use of these bins that would be generated by a school poster competition. For our gardening club we would appreciate donations of tools and equipment, plants, raised beds, a small greenhouse and some time spent with a council gardener for them to share their skills and expertise
4 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER with us.
2 RESPONSE: The understanding of our pupils regarding the environment and their impact upon it is of vital importance. Additionally, the added value to children’s learning cannot be underestimated. The local authority is committed to ensuring that we are able to support schools in developing inspirational environments for learning, both indoors and beyond formal learning spaces. As a Council we would be delighted to work across those services within and out with the local authority who may be able to fulfil the wishes of pupils in bringing this project to life.
3. Mrs Jean Velecky, Southampton Commons and Parks Protection Society (SCAPPS) Page 47 Page Blechynden Terrace Barbara Councillor Blechynden Terrace Public Open Space runs uphill from the railway station Public Open Space Compton Letts to the Civic Centre, alongside the path Kingsbridge Lane. It contains several grass areas with seating, enclosed by old brick walls which are the remains of warehouses destroyed in the Blitz. The published plan of the Station Quarter (North) regeneration shows the Blechynden Terrace green space retained. However, this open space is not on the list of works for which the City Council has secured funding. Nevertheless, inclusion of the existing green space in the plan indicates the intention to retain it substantially intact and to renovate and improve it when funding becomes available. SCAPPS is therefore concerned at rejection of our demand that the City Centre Action Plan should reflect this intention to retain, renovate and improve this open space. The City Council is seeking to include in the City Centre Action Plan the wording ‘The public open space at Blechynden Terrace can only be redeveloped as part of a comprehensive scheme on the northern side of the Central Station which provides a greater overall amount of enhanced public open space’. This wording gives no protection at all to the present green space which as a character of its own derived from the survival of standing walls from bomb-damaged buildings.
5 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER The open space is close to Southampton University’s new Mayflower Halls. Its standing walls provide ready-made sheltered areas ideal for outdoor relaxation for residents from the nearby Wyndham Court as well as for students from the Mayflower Halls. It also provides a pleasant walk for anyone walking up from the station to the City Centre. My presentment therefore asks the City Council to give a clear statement of its intention to keep the Blechynden Terrace public open space substantially intact and to prepare plans for its renovation and improvement, which would protect and enhance its special character. Also to actively seek funding so that the work can proceed in step with the public realm improvements in the Station Quarter North.
Page 48 Page 3 RESPONSE: The City Council intends to keep the Blechynden Terrace public open space intact. Its renovation depends on the availability of funding. To date that funding has not been available. The council will continue to explore all available options for financing improvement to this area.
This issue was discussed during the hearing sessions for the City Centre Action Plan examination held in March/April 2014. Prior to these hearings the Council proposed a change to strengthen the policy for the development of the Station Quarter area with regards to Blechynden Terrace. The open space is safeguarded unless it is reprovided elsewhere within the development as part of a comprehensive redevelopment on a key gateway city centre site.
The Planning Inspector is currently considering the submissions and discussions on the City Centre Action plan in order to decide whether the Council’s proposed policies need amending. We expect to receive the Inspectors Report in mid December.
4 Mr Graham Linecar, Secretary, Southampton Commons & Parks Protection Society Revenue from events Mitch Councillor My presentment asks the City Council to review its current practice and in parks Sanders Rayment arrangements for the spending of revenue it receives from events in parks and on Southampton Common. Numerous events take place each year in the City’s parks and on The Common. Some par commercial, some community and charity fund-raising events. The biggest are the Southampton Boat Show and on The Common,
6 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER the fair as at Easter and August Bank Holidays and this year, Let’s Rock Southampton, which may become an annual event. In the Central parks there are events like the circus, Mela Festival and Sky Ride. There are also sporting and charity events like Race for Life. All bring benefits to the City and are enjoyed by residents and visitors. My understanding is that contractual arrangements, at least with commercial users, include provision for reimbursement of cost of repairing damage caused by the event. What isn’t covered is wear and tear. Parks provide convenient locations accessible to large numbers of people, but commercial enterprises and event organisers wouldn’t be so eager to book the parks and The Common if they were no longer attractive and well- maintained.
Page 49 Page At present, money received by the City Council for use of open spaces for events is treated as corporate income. No automatic contribution is made toward maintenance of the open space where the event took place. My presentation asks the Cabinet and City Council to review that practice and replace it with an arrangement that provides for part of the payments made by organisations holding events in parks and on The Common to be automatically used to help fund maintenance work coping with wear and tear in these green spaces. Budget cuts have reduced the money available to deal with wear and tear – simple, small things like replacing worn out seats or keeping paths in good repair. My presentment asks the Cabinet to put in place a new protocol so that some of the money paid to the City Council by organisers of events in parts and on The Common is automatically dedicated, without further internal administrative procedure, to enhancing the budget for maintenance of the open spaces where the majority of these events take place. It would seem a straightforward proposition to devote some of the revenue to make sure these parks and open spaces stand-up to wear and remain attractive venues which commercial users and event organisers will want to continue using. 4 RESPONSE:
7 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER The City Council recognises that the city of Southampton is favoured by some particularly high quality parks and green spaces. This green infrastructure provides both a readily accessible and inexpensive resource for local community events and activities and, within the larger green spaces such as Central Parks, Southampton Common, the Sports Centre, and the Central and Mayflower Parks, an excellent staging for large scale sporting and commercial events that attract many new visitors to the city and boost the local economy.
The City Council’s parks team and events team work closely together in the planning phase for larger events in our green spaces, and are vigilant to ensure the site management plans, transport plans etc are developed to protect as far as possible the 'host' green spaces. Event licensing arrangements and pre-event discussions with the organisers will generally ensure that the cost of reinstatement of specific areas of damage to the park will be covered by the event organisers, as will the costs of marshalling, stewarding and clean-up activities during and after the event. In respect of dealing with general wear and tear, and Page 50 Page keeping the principal parks in a condition that continues to put the city at a competitive advantage when it comes to attracting large scale events, these requirements are currently expected to be funded out of the annual revenue budgets of the parks service.
The present corporate position is that it is not considered appropriate for an element of events income to be specifically and automatically allocated to help with the ongoing maintenance of parks and open spaces and mediation of general ‘wear and tear’. Events income is regarded as a corporate resource, and to a large extent is required to support the Events Team as a specialist unit, and ensure the Council retains the capacity to attract and help stage both local and major regional and national events in the future. The parks team is however enfranchised to make claims against this income where a justifiable need can be demonstrated. 5 Mr Simon Hill Alteration to the City Barbara Councillor Last year I made a Presentment requesting a policy be included in the City Centre Action Plan Compton Letts Centre Action Plan (CCAP) to secure the creation of public areas with views of Southampton Water from the city if ABP were to dispose of land in the Eastern Docks. Officers advised Cabinet that such a policy was unnecessary as they considered disposal of port land to be unlikely, existing policies to be adequate and new ones to be capable of being prepared in time if necessary. In my view that advice was and remains fundamentally flawed. I say that as a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute of 35 years; with extensive
8 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER experience of development plan preparation and of success at major planning appeals. I have been also a local authority Director of Planning and Environment and a Planning Inspector. My concerns stem from the lack of public access to the waterside and views of the sea in Southampton in general and lamentable quality of waterside re-development achieved at Ocean Village/Pacific Close in particular. The failure to create attractive waterside public spaces exploiting the unique setting of the oldest dock and historic riverside within a framework of high quality urban design and architecture is palpable. If Southampton wants to be certain of a better outcome next time – think of reconnecting the City to the sea as it was before 1832, or Gunwharf Quay - it will need adequate statutory planning policy in place before any future disposal is announced. It did not have that last time and does not have it Page 51 Page now. Doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result is irrational. Achieving the objective of creating sizeable public areas with views of the sea will mean restricting development on a significant part of the available land, with consequent downward effect on its value. Such a requirement must be contained in statutory planning policy, as only that can set the secure basis for determining planning applications with that outcome. The Council’s existing generalised criteria-based policy CS12 on waterside development is unspecific on the likely effect on land values. It is thus wholly inadequate to secure more than marginal improvements on the low standards of public waterside environment achieved to date. The idea that revised statutory policy could be adopted before planning applications have to be determined is fanciful. Statutory policy takes 2-3 years to adopt. By law planning applications must be determined within weeks, after which deemed refusal can be appealed. Informal policy can be prepared more quickly but lacks the force to secure any public benefit that would substantially depress the value of land. In that context, to say that my suggested policy is not needed because ABP is unlikely to dispose of land is akin to failing to take out building insurance because a fire is considered unlikely. ABP disposals may not be likely, but
9 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER if they do happen it will be too late to adopt the required statutory policy.
That situation is foreseeable and preventable by promoting my suggested “insurance” policy as soon as possible. In practice that will mean a ‘one-off’ alteration to the CCAP, as soon as it is adopted later this year, to extend its boundary and to include the following policy: In the event that any land currently in port use is no longer required for that use, its redevelopment shall incorporate at least 50% of the land area as public open areas, with a design that incorporates available public viewpoints of Southampton Water and Rivers Test and Itchen. If failure to do that were followed by an unexpected ABP disposal of land,
Page 52 Page resulting in planning applications having to be determined without a policy adequate to deliver a step change in the quality of Southampton’s connection with the sea, that would amount to corporate incompetence. Council officers have suggested that the policy could be considered in a forthcoming revision of the City-wide Local Plan. However the Eastern Docks promontory is wholly detached, being bounded by the water and the CCAP southern boundary. It is geographically more remote from the parts of Southampton outside the CCAP than it is from the New Forest Local Plan area. Its inclusion in the City-wide Local Plan rather than CCAP would thus be functionally and presentationally incongruous. It also risks being delayed for the indeterminate time involved in reviewing that wide-ranging plan. There is some expectation that improvement of Mayflower Park will enhance the City's connection with the sea. However, that Park's character will always remain somewhat bleak whilst subject to the limitations on landscaping imposed by the requirements of the annual Boat Show. Also, its outlook to the southeast will become even more restricted by proposed multi-storey development jutting far into the water on its southern side as the alternative to restoration of the Royal Pier. The southwest outlook will, if ABP and the Council realise their ambitions for Dibden Bay, comprise container wharves/ships and/or the rear of car transporter ships using the Marchwood Military Port when released for civilian use. The outlook to the
10 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER northwest will be, as now, of the existing Western Dock wharves and ships. Improvement of Mayflower Park will undoubtedly be beneficial in its own right. But no amount of optimistic illustration should hide the fact that it will look over no more than a visually contained, increasingly industrialised, river/dock pool with little semblance of a sea view. My proposed statutory planning policy therefore offers the only prospect of Southampton restoring its sea views from attractive public areas. I therefore urge the Council to pursue its adoption with all due speed if Southampton is ever to be worthy of its self styled Sea City sobriquet. 5 RESPONSE: The situation remains unchanged and the City Council disagrees with Simon Hill’s main arguments. As set out in the Council’s Planning Policy Group’s response to his submission on the City Centre Action Plan last year, the Council is supportive of port Page 53 Page growth and there is no evidence that the port will have surplus operational land by 2026. The Port Masterplan 2009-2030 plans for significant future growth in port activities and the port has invested in future port growth. It has intensified its use of land with measures such as multi-deck car storage.
This issue was discussed during the hearing sessions for the City Centre Action Plan examination held in March/April 2014. In these hearing sessions ABP confirmed that it has no plans for disposal of safeguarded port land. Irrespective of ABP’s intentions, National Ports Policy places emphasis on planning for major port growth and its importance to the national economy. Therefore the port land should be safeguarded for port use irrespective of the needs of one particular operator.
The Planning Inspector is currently considering the submissions and discussions on the City Centre Action plan in order to decide whether the council’s proposed policies need amending. We expect to receive the Inspectors Report in mid December. This will set out the final position on the issue and the council sees no need for a quick review of the approach.
The Royal Pier development will see a substantial upgrade and extension of Mayflower Park and provide an enhanced waterfront for the city with views across the Solent including its industrial landscape. Plans are also underway for the development of Chapel Riverside (the former council owned town depot site). This Council owned site extending to 3.6ha and 500m of water frontage, its future use will include residential and marine employment use with the opportunity to provide waterside access.
11 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER 6 Mr Arthur Jeffery th The Mayflower Mitch Councillor We are only six years away from celebrating the 400 anniversary of the Memorial Sanders Rayment sailing of the Pilgrim Fathers from Southampton to found the New England States of America. In preparation for these celebrations, I request that the large plane trees adjacent to the Mayflower Memorial are generously pollarded to allow the monument to be seen more easily. I believe these trees were planted in 1913 when the monument was unveiled by the US Ambassador. Their prolific growth is currently obscuring the memorial to a degree that some visitors have been unaware that it is there!
Page 54 Page 6 RESPONSE: Although London Plane trees have often been maintained as pollards, these are typically formed when the tree is young so that a branch structure can be established to pollard so that decay is minimised. Usually trees in urban situations which have been pollarded have been done so that the tree can be maintained at a small size in a compact situation, e.g. next to a highway, or occasionally for historical architectural reasons e.g. pollarded limes in an avenue in a park. These two trees have had good space to grow and have as a result grown to good shape and form with full crowns. It would not be good arboricultural practice to attempt to place them under a pollard regime at this point in their life. However, it is recognised that they do somewhat obscure the monument and the Council will undertake to prune back the trees, both by reducing lateral branches growing towards the monument and by crown lifting the trees to give a clearance under them so that the monument is better framed and more visible for the public. This will be undertaken before the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Pilgrim Fathers.
7. Mrs Starks Closure of All Hallows Richard Councillor The friends of All Hallows has had no success in persuading the Parochial Church Ivory Barnes- Church Council, Vicar of Bitterne Park Parish and the Archdeacon, that the Andrews daughter church of All Hallows should never have been closed, against the wishes of the community and congestion, so has turned its attention to saving the building. In 1960 the people of Midanbury asked for a church of their own as they felt “remote from Bitterne Park Triangle and the parish church of Ascension”.
12 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER Winchester Diocese contributed £2,000 to the final cost of £21,000 and the £19,000 was raised by the community. Solicitor has advised us that this gives the community a ‘beneficial interest’ in the property. We tried to register it as an Asset of Community value but the Council declined to do this on the grounds that the licence for worship was withdrawn by the Bishop of Winchester on the day after the final service. We feel that the attached summary of lettings (32 in total) proves that the hall has been well used by the community and we feel that the entire building could be used by the community without the need for a license to be in place. The architecture for the building was Roger Pinckney, an associate of Sir George Gilbert Scott. Mr Pinkney oversaw the building from his home in
Page 55 Page Lymington, although his offices were in Gray’s Inn Square in London. Just before he started work on the All Hallows he oversaw the building of the All Saints Church in Redbridge which is now a Listed Building. We applied for listed building status for All Hallows, but were told by Southampton City Council’s Conservation Officers that no building are being listed for the foreseeable future due to Government cutbacks. We are about to apply to English Heritage in the hope that they will agree to listed building status. During the construction of All Hallows the Borough Architect, Leon Berger, dealt with the matter himself and insisted on samples of bricks etc. so we feel that this lends some significance to the project. Bitterne Local History Society will try to salvage items of interest and the City of Southampton Society has asked to be kept informed of All Hallows proposed fate. I have managed to have a conversation with the site foreman who says the church was built to a very high specification and expected to last much more than 49 years. The Hampshire and the Islands Historic Churches Trust is unable to help as their prime objective is to help to keep historic churches open (including those built in the 1960s) rather than to reopen closed churches.
13 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER 7. RESPONSE: All options for community use at All Hallows Church have been examined. Unfortunately, as the licence to hold worship was withdrawn it has become difficult to find a sustainable business plan. 8. Mrs Marian Hubble Delapidated buildings Kevin Councillor During the past year there have been murmurings regarding the poor in the old town White Rayment condition of certain listed buildings in the Old Town. I should like to draw to the attention of the jury the run down state of The Red Lion and the old Royal Southern Yacht Club. (I am pleased to note that a banner on the front of The Star Hotel states that refurbishment is to be started there shortly).
Page 56 Page The Red Lion, a building of significant interest, dating from 1148, is a mediaeval house on Norman foundations. Its frontage is scruffy as is the rear. It looks very uninviting and does no credit to itself or the Lower High Street. The former Yacht Club is an imposing building in the neo-classical style. It is a land mark visible from the Isle of Wight Ferry and from ships passing down the River Test. The white paint is peeling from the walls. The area in front of the stepped entrance is overrun by weeds and serves as a dump for rubbish including empty bottles. It is a most unattractive sight. As a civic society that cares for the beauty and character of our city, Southampton, we would urge members of the jury and the Council to go and see for themselves the state of these buildings. They would agree that urgent intervention is required to restore these examples of the City’s architectural gems.
8. RESPONSE: The Red Lion is on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register. The Council have been working closely with the Landlord on two recent planning applications. These are 12/01756/FUL and 12/01755/LBC. The applications relate to proposals for a two-storey extension to the rear to provide bed and breakfast accommodation. The Landlord’s intention is to use income from
14 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER the extension to fund repairs needed for the rest of the building. Planning Condition 03 states:
03.APPROVAL CONDITION -Phasing Plan [pre-commencement condition] Prior the he commencement of the development hereby approved, a detailed Phasing Plan for the repair works identified in the Seymour and Bainbridge Condition Survey and the Paul Tanner Associates Structural report shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The repair works shall be carried out in accordance with the Phasing Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Once the details requested in the above planning condition have been received work on the extension can start. It is to be hoped that this will generate the income required to re-invest in the building.
Page 57 Page The former Yacht Club has been vacant since the relocation of the Southampton University Air Squadron to premises in Carlton Place. The Council have been in contact with the Landlord regarding the state of the building, and he has commissioned his consultant to produce a planning and listed building application for conversion of the building, possibly to flats. These works would include repairs to the external facades.
To date the application has not been lodged. The City of Southampton Society are a consultee on all applications relating to Listed Buildings, and will be consulted once any applications are lodged. 9. Mr Clive Trowbridge Council Cutbacks This presentment was rejected by the Jury.
10. Mr Clive Trowbridge Extra Time at Court This presentment was rejected by the Jury. Leet
11 Mrs S Chorley Public Toilets Mitch Councillor There are a totally insufficient number of public toilets throughout the city. Shirley is just one example where there is no provision at all. In Woolston
15 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER Sanders Rayment the toilets are more often out of use than available. A reliance on pubs, shops and cafes is unacceptable, for instance, since few shops have a toilet for other than staff use and there are fewer pubs these days other than in the city centre. The city centre is a particularly worrying desert late at night, crowds of people overfull of liquid and unable to hold it, who in desperation urinate in public places for lack of an alternative. To expect any other behaviour is unrealistic and the result is unsanitary and unpleasant. For the elderly, the pregnant and those with small children in tow and those with medical problems, the difficulties can be so insurmountable that they do not go to the places or events which they may wish to attend. There is an urgent need to provide solutions for an urgent need. Page 58 Page
11. RESPONSE: Southampton City Council continues to provide daytime public toilet provision within the city’s district hubs where no suitable alternative private sector or partner provision currently exists. In Shirley district centre public toilets are provided within the Sainsbury’s store complex located on Shirley Piazza. These facilities are available to customers and non-customers alike. The new Sainsbury’s development in Portswood also offers public toilet provision, and in this centre there are also currently SCC facilities in the car park in Westridge Road. In Bitterne District Centre there are SCC provided Public Conveniences at the heart of the Precinct, in Maytree Road.
The SCC Public Conveniences in Woolston have been closed a number of times in the past year due to vandalism, abuse and an arson attempt. Unfortunately these problems afflict all SCC’s self-standing public toilets, as in the past these premises were often located in positions of poor oversight, and cannot be monitored by City Council staff 100% of the time. This is why facilities associated with and integrated into existing developments, e.g. supermarkets and retail centres, now prove more resilient and customer-friendly. A robust alternative to the traditional brick Toilet Blocks are the Automatic Public Conveniences (APC’s) located currently in Pound Street (near the bus stops) in the city centre and on Bitterne Triangle, near Cobden Bridge. These units have the advantage of being available 24 hours a day, are very resilient to vandalism, and self-wash after each use, therefore presenting good standards of cleanliness and hygiene at all times. The Council is currently working hard to secure another APC for Woolston Centre near the Itchen Bridge bus lane, to overcome recent problems with misuse and vandalism to the existing Toilet Block.
16 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER
Within the city centre there is daytime SCC public toilet provision within the city centre building, and there is also private sector provision within the West Quay retail centre. The SCC provided APC in Pound Street is open to the public night and day. In areas of the city centre where there are concentrations of pubs and clubs that open late into the night, these premises provide toilet facilities for their patrons.
In addition to Public Toilets within the city centre and district centres, the City Council or its partners also provide toilet facilities for users of the city’s principal parks, i.e. Central Parks, Mayflower Park, St James’ Park, the Sports Centre, Riverside Park, Mayfield Park, the Weston Shore.
The City Council will continue to look for opportunities to work with partners and the private sector to bolster current public toilet provision both in terms of range and quality. Regrettably however, in the current budgetary context it is unlikely that the Council Page 59 Page will be independently investing in new SCC public toilet infrastructure in the foreseeable future.
12. Rev. Christopher Cain Use of Hollybrook Mitch Councillor I would like to write on behalf of “The Liberal Catholic Church” to request the Cemetery Chapel on Sanders Rayment opportunity to celebrate the Holy Eucharist on a Sunday at Hollybrook a Sunday Morning Cemetery Chapel. In other towns and cities where there are cemetery chapels, they have kindly granted use of the chapel to us as a charitable organisation (all of our clergy are non-stipendiary and so give their time freely) either without charge or at a token payment. In return we offer an open inclusive service which anyone can attend and take part in, often members of the public who are tending graves will come in and pray for their departed loved ones. Often people who feel they can’t access the bigger ecclesiastical denominations feel at ease attending our services as we have a so called “open altar” policy and welcome all. We would of course make sure to pray for the souls of the departed buried in Hollybrook Cemetery, remembering especially the service men and women who gave their lives for our nation.
The Liberal Catholic Church (LCC) is a registered charity number 1155952.
17 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER The LCC is an autocephalous jurisdiction which came into existence as a result of the reorganisation, in 1916, of the Old Catholic Church in Great Britain. That Church derived its orders from the Old Catholic archiepiscopal see of Utrecht in Holland. The LCC has carefully preserved this succession of orders. Its first presiding Bishop, James Ingall Wedgwood, was fired with a vision of a renewed Christianity liberated from authoritarianism and dogma.
The LCC is an independent and autonomous body, not dependent on Rome or any other see or authority outside its own administration. It is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. It is called “Liberal Catholic” because its outlook is both liberal and catholic (universal). It is catholic because it Page 60 Page reveres all that is authentic to the Christian tradition; and it is liberal in that it encourages people to think for themselves.
12. Mr Graham Linecar
RESPONSE:
Following representations from a number of organisations the matter of permitting free use of SCC cemetery chapels for services, both at weekends and during the evenings, was given our full consideration in October 2013. The decision taken at that time was that it was not appropriate for the council to enter into long term agreements for the use of these chapels.
This decision was taken following an incident in respect of a service that had been booked in Hollybrook Chapel and advertised widely by a third party. Unfortunately this was cancelled without any notification of those attending. This incident led to complaints to the Council and highlighted the reputational damage that can result due to the use of the chapels by thirds parties beyond the council’s control.
Following this adverse publicity concerns were raised by regular, fee paying, users of the chapels about the fairness of the Council allowing free use of the Chapels during evening and weekends.
Additionally, the Chapels generate a small income which contributes towards the costs of securing, maintaining and cleaning
18 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER the buildings; costs which could increase significantly considering the demand for the free use of the chapels during evening and weekends.
The Council will therefore only consider, on a case by case basis, the appropriate use of the cemetery chapels for individual events.
13. Mr Graham Linecar
Funding for Mitch Councillor My presentment asks the City Council to seek sponsorship and partnerships improvement works in Sanders Rayment for projects in the Central Parks. the Central Parks Southampton is fortunate in having 5 linked parks at the heart of the city centre. They give the city centre much-needed character and identity and Page 61 Page provide an opportunity for relaxation and escape from the bustle of city life. They are a well-preserved example of an early municipal park, deserving grade II* listing in English Heritage’s register of historic parks and gardens. There’s a list of ideas for projects in the Parks. Some aim to strengthen the Parks’ ability to withstand changing demands and growing pressure of use by providing, for example, all-weather multi-games areas. Other projects aim to adapt the layout to take account of new developments on surrounding sites. For example, the new Arts Complex in Guildhall Square includes a gap between the buildings giving an axial vista from within Andrews Park lined up on the Guildhall portico and clock tower. Extending the axial vista into the Park will involve altering paths, seats, lighting and planting. Although the developer made a section 106 payment, its not sufficient to fully fund this work. Southampton Solent University is currently building a new teaching block in East Park Terrace that will result in changed patterns of pedestrian movement across Andrews Park. The University of Southampton has just completed Mayflower Halls bringing over a thousand students to live next to Watts Park, with no outdoor space for relaxation or active recreation. My presentment asks the City Council to be proactive in seeking help to
19 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER fund much-needed improvement project in Central Parks. The Parks Team may lack skills and experience in searching out sponsorship and partnership arrangements. My presentment asks the City Council to consider using skills and experience in other parts of the organisation to see if some at least of these ‘wish-list projects’ could go ahead with funding help from partners and sponsors drawn from businesses and organisations who benefit from having these wonderful parts on their doorstep. 13. RESPONSE: The parks team is currently developing a new master-plan for central parks with the aim of ensuring that these historic and highly-treasured parks that lie at the very heart of the city are resilient to the challenges of a changing city centre demographic, and able to retain their essential character while also catering to new recreational and leisure needs. The master-plan is being Page 62 Page developed with a view to consulting on new development proposals with parks users and stake-holders through the coming winter months but, as the presentment suggests, there is likely to be a significant funding gap between the capital provided by recent developments adjacent to the parks, and the range of new facilities and installations required to adequately address the future needs and aspirations set out in the presentment.
The parks team has a strong track record of bidding for and securing additional funding from public and charitable funding streams, as evidenced by the regeneration of Central Parks through Heritage Lottery funding in 2000, and the more recent and highly successful re-development of St James’ park. There is less of a history within the parks service in securing funding to initiate or sustain parks improvement projects in partnership with partners within the private or higher education sectors.
The City Council recognises the importance of sustaining the character, appeal and relevance of its city centre parks for all of Southampton’s communities, and is also aware of the huge impact these green spaces have on visitor perceptions of the city centre, and the synergies between the leisure and recreational offer of Southampton’s city centre parks and that of the developing new cultural quarter. There also exists a range of other significant organisations and businesses in Southampton with a vested interest in sustaining high quality and resilient city centre parks offering a diverse palette of leisure and recreational opportunities. The City Council expects and encourages other relevant council teams (e.g. Development Management, Marketing & Communications, Leisure and Culture, City Centre Development, Events Team) to make their skills, contacts and experience available to the parks service to ensure potential funding and sponsorship opportunities with suitable organisations and businesses are identified and rigorously explored The council also has the capability to draw on the national reservoir of skills and experience of its strategic service partners in unlocking new funding opportunities on behalf of the city’s
20 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER parks.
14 Mr Simon Hill Traffic Safety and Paul Councillor On the urgent need for traffic safety and calming measures on Highfield calming measures on Walker Rayment Road, which is a narrow road heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists Highfield Road travelling alongside The Common, who are regularly put at risk by vehicles making unlawful moves and/or travelling at speeds of up to 50mph.
1. Highfield Road is a narrow road that runs along the edge of The Little Common, which is open to the west side of the road save for grass banks
Page 63 Page to prevent vehicle incursion. There is a pavement only on the west side, along most of which there is restricted on-street parking much used by those visiting The Common and the doctors’ surgery. 2. It carries very high numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, being part of a route into the city centre and Shirley from Highfield and Bassett and between Southampton University’s two main campuses. It is also the route for northbound U2 Unilink buses. 3. The bulk of pedestrians and the narrow pavement mean that they often spill into the road. There are many pedestrian movements across the Road on and off the Little Common. The Road has an informal feel of a ‘lane’, rather than an urban road. Consequently people often walk along the side next to the Common rather than the pavement and skateboarders and children on scooters and bikes commonly use it. 4. It is an important and heavily used cycle link. Southbound cyclists have to move into the northbound carriageway to pass parked cars, bringing them to face northbound vehicles, which have to slow to let cyclists finish passing the parked cars. Northbound cyclists are often trailed by vehicles for much of the length of the road because the parked cars leave no room to overtake the cyclists. 5. In this context there is no place for fast moving vehicles or for intolerant
21 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER driving by those who feeling they have top priority on the use of road space. With speeding and or other threatening driver behaviour there is a very high risk of serious injury to those unprotected by the metal cage of a vehicle. Yet I regularly observe, several times a day, excessive speeds, mainly by northbound vehicles, some no doubt having set themselves the challenge of beating a northbound queue of traffic on The Avenue. At times there are platoons of vehicles travelling at 40-50 mph attempting to save time if The Avenue is blocked. 6. This is a toxic mix. Effective measures to keep vehicle speeds to no more than 20mph and to prevent the illegal moves southward through the no entry throttle and unlawful northbound right turns into Omdurman and Khartoum Roads are needed urgently to prevent a tragedy and to make Page 64 Page the use of the road safer and more 14. RESPONSE: As part of the Lovers Walk pedestrian and cycle scheme consideration is being given to reducing the speed limit in Highfield Rd to 20 mph. The Council will be collecting traffic speed data to investigate the possible speed limit change and will report to the Police for enforcement where appropriate. Highfield Road has limited highway width making improvements challenging due to the proximity of the Common land and on street parking. However, physical measures being proposed as part of the Lovers Walk cycleway include improvements to the junction of Highfield Road and Highfield Lane – to assist crossing of the road, improvements to the bus stop in Highfield Road to allow passengers space to await and transfer to the bus, and restricting the corners of the junction of Highfield Road and Khartoum Rd so as to reduce turning speed.
15 Mr Arthur Jeffery Storm damage at Mitch Councillor In January and February this year, severe storms eroded away a significant Weston Point Sanders Payne section of the shoreline at Weston Point, Woolston. So much so that a length of the Solent Way National Footpath collapsed into Southampton
Water. The City Council has temporarily fenced off the affected area to ensure public safety. However no restoration of the sea defences and the coastal path has taken place this summer. I submit that the SCC should take immediate action to rectify this problem, in
22 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER the words of the hymn, “Ere the Winter Storms Begin”.
15 RESPONSE: There are currently no formal coastal defences along the section of Weston Shore referred to, although remnants of former defences are still visible on the foreshore. The footpath remains intact and open at present and the erected fencing was put in place for public safety. Coastal erosion is a natural process and any action to slow this process would need to be a formal engineered solution with full consideration given to the potential implications of such works. The Council are currently assessing the feasibility of different engineering options for managing the erosion in this location. Any future coastal defence scheme will be subject to gaining the relevant approvals (including planning permission) and securing the required funding to take the scheme forward. It is also important to note that the mudflats in front of this location form part of the European
Page 65 Page designated Solent & Southampton Water Special Protected Area which places restrictions on works occurring between September – March due to the presence of overwintering birds.
16 Mr Clive Trowbridge Housing for the Nick Cross Councillor Southampton City Council has a policy to use ground floor flats for the disabled Payne elderly and disabled, I respectfully ask that the new flats at the base of block 37-60 St James Close, Shirley, Southampton to be turned over to such people when each flat becomes vacant on a permanent basis. Also I wish to add recently that I witnessed a Lettings Officer from the Homeless Department showing both an adult man and woman with two children being shown around a flat in which afterwards the Lettings Officer boarded a waiting taxi which I know from past experience to come from the Civic Centre and to go back would cost the sum of over £10.00 and if this is the case for the other five flats, this would have been in excess of £60.00. Having said that I understand the Council is cash strapped says the media. But as I have said at past Court Leet hearings that Council Officers to use public transport and in this case it would have come to the sum of £3.00 for both trips. After all, money is money!
23 No. SUBJECT LEAD LEAD PRESENTMENT OFFICER MEMBER 16 RESPONSE: The conversion of properties at 37-60 St James Close has been the subject of a previous Cabinet Decision and full planning consultation specifically for the use as temporary accommodation and not exclusively for the elderly. The Council does not plan to review the use of the properties at this time. Staff are asked to use Public Transport where possible and taxis are only use in exceptional circumstances.
Page 66 Page
24 Agenda Item 11
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE’S COMMITTMENTS th DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: LEADER OF THE COUNCIL CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Suki Sitaram Tel: 023 8083 2060 E-mail: [email protected]
Director Name: Suki Sitaram 023 8083 2060 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY N/A BRIEF SUMMARY The Executive wish to adopt a number of commitments against which progress will be monitored. This approach supports the decision by the Council to adopt the City and Council Strategies. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) That the commitments set out in Appendix 1 be adopted and progress against them be monitored alongside the Council and City Strategies. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The public should be aware of the commitments that the Executive have committed to. They should be aware what they are, progress against them, and what has (and what has not) been delivered. This is also a legitimate matter for all members to be aware of, and for the Council’s Scrutiny function to also hold the Executive to account against. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 2. Not to adopt the commitments. DETAIL 3. In July 2014, the Council endorsed the City Strategy which has been developed by Southampton Connect (the partnership comprising leaders of key public, private and voluntary organisations in the city). This identifies the top City priorities for the next ten years. The partnership believes that through collaborative action, implementation of the strategy will help to maximise opportunities and address challenges for the city. As a key member of Southampton Connect, the Council, with other main partners, was requested to endorse the draft City Strategy 2015- 2025 and to contribute to delivering the priorities and outcomes contained within the strategy. This is what the Council agreed to in July 2014.
Version Number: 2 Page 67 1 4. In addition, also in July 2014, the Council approved the Council Strategy 2014 - 2017. This is a key strategic document, setting out what we will do, how we will work and how we will contribute to the City Strategy (2014 – 2025). It sets out our priorities for the next three years, the outcomes we expect to achieve by 2017 and the measures we will use to monitor our progress. It will influence all other strategies and policies developed during this period, as well as spending decisions; directorates and services will also use it to plan service delivery. 5. It is clearly important the Executive are clear with the public, partner organisations and to those within the Council as to their commitments. It is right that we should state those, and be held to account for delivery of those. 6. As part of the process of adopting the City and Council Strategies, the Executive have identified a number of commitments set out in Appendix 1 that they intend to adopt and to which they intend to be held to account on. Many of these commitments are reflected in the Council Strategy and some relate to ongoing work of the council. These commitments set out specific outcomes that the Executive intend to commit to deliver the Council and City Strategies. The purpose of this report is to enable that decision to be made, so that the commitments are formally adopted and placed on a proper footing. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 7. There are no capital resource implications. 8. There are minimal revenue resource implications from the adoption of the commitments, and the monitoring of them. Additional revenue costs of carrying out this activity will be met from within existing budgets associated with the delivery and monitoring of the Council and City Strategy. Property/Other 9. None. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 10. Local Government Acts 1972, 2000 and Localism Act 2011 Other Legal Implications : 11. None. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 12. None.
2 Version Number 1 Page 68 KEY DECISION? Yes WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: All
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices 1. Executive Commitments 2. Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. 2. Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at Elections Office: Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. 2.
3 Version Number 1 Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank Executive’s Commitments
Council Executive’s commitments priority 1. Work with private businesses to bring new jobs for local people to the City . 2. Support the growth of small businesses by providing low cost, flexible sta rt -up units in the City Centre. 3. Offer an apprenticeship , or extended work experience opportunity , to all young people l eaving C ouncil care. 4. Increase the number of apprenticeships in the city, where possible prioritising local people Jobs for 5. Ensure m ajor developments in our City lead to jobs and apprenti ce ships for local people. local people 6. Invest to ensure good local school s. 7. Promote Southampton schools by encouraging closer working between schools, and championing their achievements. 8. Sign up to the L iving Wage for all Council employees and encourage other Southampton employers to sign up, and publicise those that do. 9. Inve st in play equipment 10. Invest in the cycle network to improve the environment and health of residents. 11. Offer a ‘health MOT’ , to all people aged over 40, will through the NHS health check scheme. Page 71 Page 12. Reduce the high levels of health inequality in the city for issues such as accidents, obesity, teena ge pregnancy, poor dental health and alcohol misuse. 13. Work with p olice to investigate the introduction of a Late Night Levy . Agreed by Cabinet in September 2014.
Prevention 14. Work with the P olice and other agencies to tackle community safety problems including anti -social behaviour, dangerous and early drinking behaviour and domestic violence. (Safe City Strategy 2014 – 2017)
intervention 15. Work with our most vulnerable families to help them back into work, i mprove school attendance and reduce youth offending 16. Keep Sure Start Children’s Centres open. 17. Work with health professionals to increase th e services delivered in Sure Start Children’s Centres. 18. Help senior citizens stay in their own homes longer by building high quality purpose built housing schemes with on -site Agenda Item 11 support. 19. Increase the number of individuals in receipt of direct payments , giving them more freedom and put ting them in charge of their care plans.
20. Support advice services and credit unions throughout Southampton that offer vital support and guidance to our poor and most Appendix 1 vulnerable. 21. Support individuals affected by the under occupation of social housing.
Protecting 22. Invest in the protection of children. 1
Executive’s Commitments
Council Executive’s commitments priority vulnerable 23. Work with partners in health and housing associations to join up and impr ove services to support senior citizens sta y in their people own homes as long as possible. 24. Build one affordable home in the City every day . 25. The Council’s allocations policy requires a 3 year local residency period so that priority is given to local people. This will be kept under review so that the policy objective of giving priority to local people is maintained. Good 26. Improve the insulation and fit better heating systems to thousands of Council homes to kno ck hundreds of pounds off bills. quality and 27. Build over 500 new Council homes and wherever possible retain the ownership and management of the Council’s housing affordable stock. housing 28. Void and empty properties will not be sold on the open market, but brought back into use.
29. Encourage landlords to make properties more fuel efficient to save money for tenants and help the environment
Page 72 Page 30. Consider extending the HMO licensing scheme to ensure all Southampton private rented homes are safe and secure. 31. Double spending on roads and pavements to £2.7m per year for three years. T his will mean an additional 7.5 miles of ro ads and pavements to be surface-treated over the next three years. 32. Invest in improving pavements and dangerous junctions to reduce accidents and encourage the NHS to also invest to save Services for 33. Keep weekly bin collections and drive up recycling rates by co llecting glass from every house or block of flats. all 34. Freeze or reduce all parking charges including permi ts for the next three years. 35. Work with residents to find solutions to the parking problems they face by increasing the number of available spaces. 36. Work with bus companies to ensure residents’ priorities are delivered. 37. Secure funding for the next two years to the voluntary groups already receiving funding . 38. Hold planning meetings in the areas affected by applications and preferably during evenings when more people can attend. 39. Continue to work with ‘friends of groups’ and allotment representatives to improve the quality of our green spaces. 40. Set up a People ’s Panel which will have representatives from all age groups and areas to help plan the City’s future. 41. Establish a Southampton Youth Forum to give young people a real say in the City. City Pride 42. Roll out the ‘ Your Health, Your Community, Your Vote’ scheme where l ocal people decide on the public h ealth priorities and grant funding in their area. 43. Invest in the cultural life of the City . 44. Create a Heritage Trust to bring investment into our buildings and collections. 45. Provide a series of family -friendly events and activities to celebrate Southampton’s 50 th Anniversary.
2
Executive’s Commitments
Council Executive’s commitments priority 46. Desig n and deliver a new Council website. 47. Ensure that when the council spends money with private businesses, Southampto n companies get a chance to bid. A 48. Keep service reductions to a minimum. sustainable 49. Promote the Council’s Ethical Procurement Policy amongst Council suppliers to promote improved staff welfare and fairer council business practices. 50. Review Council land, offices and depots to identify which ones it would be prudent to sell.
Page 73 Page
3
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET COUNCIL SUBJECT: SAFE CITY AND YOUTH JUSTICE STRATEGIES DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 19 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITIES CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Caronwen Henderson Tel: 023 8083 2524 E-mail: [email protected]
Director Name: Suki Sitaram Tel: 023 8083 2060 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY Not applicable. BRIEF SUMMARY Southampton Safe City Partnership is responsible for reducing crime and disorder and has a statutory duty under the Police and Justice Act 2006 to meet established national minimum standards which includes producing an annual Strategic Assessment to inform the Safe City Strategy. This Strategy is included in the council’s Policy Framework and hence requires Full Council approval. The Strategy provides, at a high level, the performance in 2013/14 and feedback from residents on community safety issues as well as top priorities and outcomes for the next 3 years. The Safe City Partnership will work on detailed actions to ensure the delivery of the outcomes and links with the 10 year City Strategy and the Council Strategy 2014 - 2017. The council is a key member of the Safe City Partnership and has a pivotal role in working with partners to make Southampton a safer city.
The priorities are: • Reducing crime and anti-social behaviour • Reducing the harm caused by drugs and alcohol • Protecting vulnerable people • Reducing youth offending
The council has responsibility for the Youth Offending Service, which makes a significant contribution to the priorities and work of the Safe City Partnership and therefore, the two documents are presented together for Cabinet and Council consideration and approval. This report seeks support for the council’s contribution towards the implementation of the Safe City Strategy and the Youth Justice Strategic Plan within existing budgets.
Page 75
RECOMMENDATIONS: CABINET (i) To delegate authority to the Assistant Chief Executive to agree any final amendments to the Safe City Strategy 2014/17 (Appendix 2) and the Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2014/15 (Appendix 3 and 4) following consultation with the Safe City Partnership, Cabinet Member for Communities and the Council’s Management Team. (ii) Subject to (i) above, to recommend the Safe City Strategy 2014/17 (Appendix 2) and the Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2014/15 (Appendix 3 and 4) following consultation with the Safe City Partnership, Cabinet to Council for approval. COUNCIL (i) To approve the Safe City Strategy 2014/17 (Appendix 2) and the Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2014/15 (Appendix 3 and 4). REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Police and Justice Act 2006 places a duty on Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to meet established national minimum standards. This includes producing an Annual Strategic Assessment to inform the Safe City Plan. This Plan is included in the council’s Policy Framework and has to be approved before publication. 2. The Youth Offending Service is required to publish a Youth Justice Strategic Plan in line with the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, Part iii, Section. 40. The Youth Justice Strategic Plan is also included in the council’s Policy Framework and has to be approved before publication. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 3. As it is the council’s statutory duty to approve the Safe City Strategy and the Youth Justice Strategic Plan, no other options were considered. DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 4. The statutory strategic assessment summary attached at Appendix 1 provides the evidence base for the Safe City Partnership to identify priorities objectives and targets for crime, anti-social behaviour, substance and alcohol misuse and offending behaviour to inform the Community Safety Strategy for 2014 – 2017. The main headlines are: • Southampton remains a safe city where 93% of people safe in their area during the day and 63% feel safe in their area after dark • 62% of people agree that the police and other local public services are successfully dealing with crime in their areas • Reduction in some crime types of including: o 1.8% reduction in all crimes o 17% reduction in ASB incidents o 9.9% reduction in criminal damage incidents
Page 76 o 22% reduction in alcohol related and public place violence o 26.8% reduction in Drug Related Violence o 6% reduction in dwelling burglary o 18% reduction in robbery o 18.85% reduction in the actual rate of re-offending (cohort size – 3,537) o 7% reduction in the no of First Time Entrants into the Youth Justice System o Reduction in the rate per 100,000 10 – 17 year olds from 1,001 to 925/ 826 • Increase in people who completed drug and alcohol treatments: o 10.7% increase in the number of alcohol users successfully completing treatment o 17.5% increase in successful completion of treatment for opiate users • However, there were significant issues to consider: o Increase in reports of incidents and crimes and reports of crimes relating to sexual violence (rose by 33%), domestic violence and abuse (rose by 5%), thefts from and of motor vehicles (rose by 13% and 12% respectively). o Protecting vulnerable people with regard to missing persons and child sexual abuse • It is also important to note that Southampton’s comparative position in relation to the 15 most similar group (of cities) as defined by the ONS has either worsened or not improved for the major categories of crimes. The ranking shows that the city’s comparative position has: o Worsened from 11 to 12 for all crime rates o Has not improved for criminal damage where the city’s rank remains 15/15 o Has not improved for violence with injury where the city’s rank remains 14/15 o The city’s ranking has worsened for rape (from 10/15 to 11/15), Burglary (non-dwelling) (from 12/15 to 14/15), possession of drugs (from 9/15 to 11/15) and vehicle offences (from 7/15 to 9/15). • Of particular concern is the significant negative impact of domestic violence and abuse in the city. The exceptionally high volume of cases identified at highest risk in Southampton continued with an upward trend in 2013/14:
Page 77 o Domestic violence increased by 5% o However, more than 2.5 times the national average of cases were referred to the city’s Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) reflected by the increase in the number of cases per 10,000 of adult female population referred to MARACs from 49.6in 2012/13 to 63.7 in 2013/14 o This also reflects the success of multi-agency efforts to increase non-police referrals doubled in 2013/14 which went up from 14% to 22%. o Figures suggest that Domestic Violence and Abuse is a factor in 80% of child protection conferences. o The percentage of repeat referrals (returning to MARAC in 12 months) is the primary performance indicator for Domestic Violence and Abuse, as it effectively measures the percentage of violence ceasing after intervention. Here, in spite of increasing volumes of cases, Southampton matches the national, Most Similar Group and Hampshire averages showing a drop in performance results of 4.5% in 2013/14.
5. The 2013/14 priorities were included in the 2014 Community Safety survey where opinions were sought on whether the residents of Southampton and those that visit or work in the city think whether these are the most appropriate areas of work for the partnership to focus on. The full results are included in the Strategic Assessment and the draft Safe City Strategy 2014- 2017 takes into account the results. The main feedback was that crime and anti-social behaviour should be addressed in all areas of the city and not just key locations. This has been taken into account in revising the priorities.
6. The strategic assessment and residents feedback has been used to develop the priorities for the next 3 years, reflected in the draft Strategy attached at Appendix 2: • Reduce crime and anti-social behaviour • Reduce the harm caused by drugs and alcohol • Protect vulnerable people • Reduce youth crime 7. The performance of youth offending services show improvement but comparison with others shows the need for continued improvement: • The re-offending rate by prolific young offenders has reduced by 2% but the overall re-offending rate remains higher than both national and regional averages. • First time entrants into the criminal justice system rates have reduced but remain higher than both national and regional average figures. • Despite consistent improvements in custody rates in Southampton
Page 78 improvements need to continue to align with national performance.
8. The Youth Offending Board have developed the Southampton Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2014 -2017 (Plan on a Page attached at Appendix 3) and the action plan (detailed plan attached at Appendix 4).
9. The Local Government Association (LGA) were invited to undertake a Peer Review of community safety in the city and after completing this in February 2014. They made recommendations on new ways of working strategically with partners across the city, to learn from best practice and to implement changes.
10. This scope for the review was set against the challenges of continuing to sustain effective partnership working in a climate of reduced resources and significant change. Combined with this expectations on the Partnership’s services is increasing to levels that has the potential to impact on services delivered by each of the partners if expenditure is diverted to meet the level of demand. Despite year on year reductions for well over a decade, the financial prospects look bleaker than ever.
11. The financial challenges are combined with resulting structural changes. The local police restructure and the nationally led changes to the Probation Service will both alter the partnership landscape over the next year. Whilst the continuing reductions in council funding mean the co-ordinating role the council have played over and above that of other partners may need to be scaled back. It will be important to maintain commitment from all partners to joint working through these changes.
12. A Partnership Action Plan has been developed and is being implemented to put in place the changes the report recommended under the five headings of: • Strategic priorities, governance and leadership • Improve performance • Youth Offending • Section 17 • Golden thread • Reduce custody rates in Southampton by building on recent improvements
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 13. None. Property/Other 14. None.
Page 79
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 15. The Police and Justice Act 2006 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Part iii section 40. Other Legal Implications : 16. None. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 17. None.
KEY DECISION? Yes/No WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED:
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Appendices 1. Community Safety Strategic Assessment Summary 2. Draft Safe City Strategy 2014-2017 3. Southampton Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2014 -2017 (Plan on a Page) 4. Southampton Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2014 -207 (full Plan) Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. None. Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact Yes/No Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. None
Page 80 Agenda Item 12 Southampton Safe City Strategy|2014-17 Appendix 1 Southampton is a safe city…we are working to make it a safer city Our priorities for 2014-17
• All crime in Southampton reduced by 1.8% which is in line with the national average. However in comparison to our most similar group of authorities Reduce crime Southampton is 12/15* for all crime. and anti-social • Serious sexual offences has risen 21% nationally and 33% in Southampton. behaviour EARLYAND INTERVENTION FOCUS PREVENTION ON • Southampton is 14/15* compared with our most similar group for violence with injury.
• Total numbers of service users in effective drug treatment has increased, however re-presentations to treatment for opiate users remains high. Reduce the harm • The admission rate of people under 18 to hospital, 75.8 per 100,000 because they have a condition wholly related to alcohol is higher than caused by drugs the England average of 42.7 and alcohol • Tackling the consequences of drugs and drug addiction including crime and antisocial behaviour, health issues and family breakdown remain a priority for the city.
• Domestic violence has increased by 5%. Protecting • The number of repeat cases of domestic violence referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference has increased by 4.5%. Vulnerable • Need to continue to focus on better identification and management of repeat missing persons cases because of the links with child sexual People VICTIM SUPPORT exploitation. Reports of missing persons have increased by 21%.
Reduce • The re-offending rate by prolific young offenders has reduced by 2% but the overall re-offending rate remains higher than both national and regional averages. Youth • First time entrants into the criminal justice system rates have reduced but remain higher than both national and regional average figures. Crime • Despite consistent improvements in custody rates in Southampton improvements need to continue to align with national performance.
*ONS comparison group: Trafford, Coventry, Hillingdon, Exeter, Plymouth, Hounslow, Northampton, Crawley, Portsmouth, Cardiff, Bristol, Lincoln, Oxford, Welwyn and Hatfield. Crime in Southampton in 2013-14 Reduce crime and Reduce the harm caused Reduce Repeat Reduce re-offending Other important anti-social behaviour by drugs and alcohol Victimisation Reduce youth Crime issues in key locations
All crime rates have remained Alcohol related public place violence Domestic violence repeat offences rose First time entrants to the Going missing from home has stable with a 1.8% reduction. reduced by 22%. by 5%. youth justice system reduced been identified nationally as one by 7% by the end of 2013/14. of the most significant factors Violent offences have remained 10/77 premises tested sold alcohol to Repeat domestic violence offences in identifying children at risk of stable. under age persons. represent 24% of all DV crime recorded in Overall there has been Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE). the city (26% in 2012/13). a reduction in youth re- Anti-social behaviour incidents Presentations to Emergency Department offences by 12% over 1,683 missing person reports reduced by 17.4%. as victims of assault reduced by 16%. The total number of DV cases considered 2 years. However, it still were recorded by the police in at Multi Agency Risk Assessment remains 13% higher than the 2013/14 an increase of 277 on Criminal damage reduced by 9.9%. Drug related violence reduced by 27%. Conference (MARAC increased by 28%. national average. 2012/13. Theft of a vehicle rose by 12% and Successful completions of opiate users Domestic Vulnerable and Abuse cases There was a 58% reduction Around 25%of missing person theft from a vehicle rose 13%. who did not re-present to treatment within presentation at MARAC per 10,000 of in the number of offences cases were repeats. 6 months rose to 10.2% from 6.2% in 2010. adult female population is 63, over twice committed by the developed Dwelling burglary fell 6%. the national figure. priority young people Almost 2/3 of all missing Non opiate users who successfully scheme group. persons reports were related to Robbery fell 18%. Repeat Vulnerable Victims of anti-social completed also rose from 40.7% (2010) under 18s. to 49.5%. behaviour went down from 276 to 227.
The City Survey 2014, the Community Safety Survey 2014, the LSCB Young People’s Survey 2014, and the Safe City Partnership Community What do residents say? Safety event in September 2014 gave many opportunities for residents to give their views:
Most people feel safe in their local area during the day (93%) but this figure falls to two in three (63%) for safety in their local area at night.
Two thirds of young people feel safe in Southampton. Those that felt unsafe stated, fear of bullying, attacks, drunk people on the street made them feel unsafe.
Three in five (62%) agree that police and other local public services are successfully dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour in the local area.
The level of crime in residents’ local area is widely seen as being unchanged in the last twelve months: 60% say it has stayed the same, while roughly equal numbers say it has increased or decreased (14% and 16% respectively).
Some of our successes in 2013/14
Reduce crime and Reduce the harm caused by Reduce repeat victimisation Reduce re-offending and anti-social behaviour drugs and alcohol The provision and commissioning of Domestic Youth Crime Violence and Abuse Services was reviewed and in key locations Following a complex tendering procedure, The Reducing Re-offending Action Plan was as a result the Southampton Against Violence Southampton City Council has now awarded implemented contributing to a 17.7% reduction We focussed on ASB hotspot areas and and Abuse Plan 2014-17 has been developed. contracts for our new substance misuse over 2 years. neighbourhoods and we exceeded the 5% services. The new services see drug and alcohol Services are currently being re-commissioned reduction target of anti-social behaviour, treatment combined into a single pathway and with a greater focus on prevention/early We implemented a project as part of conditional achieving a 17% reduction to 13,401 will commence in December 2014. intervention. caution for Domestic Violence perpetrators. crimes. Delivered by the Hampton Trust this links the 69 people were referred to a new alcohol awareness As part of the commitment to develop multi- perpetrators to an awareness program on the An Action plan has been developed course run alongside the Red Card scheme. agency responses to protect vulnerable victims impact of Domestic Violence and abuse to following the Local Government of ASB and crime, the Youth Offending Scheme victims. 112 participants, took part and 92% Association Community Safety Peer Operation Fortress continued to restrict the developed a restorative justice programme have been positively impacted by the course Review to ensure priorities reflect the city supply and demand for Class A drugs and supporting 122 victims of crime in 2013/14. reduced re-offending. need, the most effective operation of the rebuild affected communities. Between May Safe City Partnership, improve links with 2012 and April 2014, 381 suspects were arrested The Youth Offending Sscheme delivered Families the youth offending service and learn from for drug related crimes with 76 people convicted Matter support to 62 families over the year. There best practice. and the Proceeds of Crime Act was used to was a 58% reduction in the number of offences remove morePage than £150,000 81 in assets from committed by the young people supported as criminals. In addition approximately £245,000 part of the priority young people scheme. worth of drugs were taken from the street. Southampton Safe City Strategy|2014-17 How we are going to make Southampton safer
Lead Lead How we will measure success in Priorities Key actions Agency Partners March 2016?
Develop and implement an active plan to ensure victim support General and and prevention early intervention are central to the delivery of All All All overarching this strategy
Deliver the Safe City Partnership Strategy and support the All Safe City Partnership Improve our MSG position in relation to all crime rates. Reduce delivery of the Southampton City Strategy. crime and Develop the ‘Keep it Safe Southampton’ brand All Safe City Partnership Increase the percentage of people in the city who feel anti-social safe in their local area at night and maintain the number of people feeling safe during the day. behaviour Set three publically agreed ‘ Community Priorities’ in all Police Safe City Partnership Reduce all crime and anti-social behaviour incidents. Neighbourhoods to target issues (crime and ASB) that most significantly impact communities. Respond to Community Trigger requests received so that agencies Southampton City Safe City Partnership Reduce all crime and anti-social behaviour incidents. work collectively to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour and Council criminal damage. Police Develop a strategy to respond to the rising incidents of rape and Police Serious Sexual Offences Reduce serious sexual offences. serious sexual offences across the city focused on prevention, Group education and enforcement. Maintain a close assessment of crime patterns and emerging Police Safe City Partnership Reduce all crime rates by xxx issues specifically focussed on Victim, Offender and Location and Reduce assaults by xxx develop prevention intelligence and enforcement plans to tackle Reduce theft of motor vehicles offences, specifically problems. Specific focus on assaults and vehicle offences. moped and motorbikes by xxx Deliver the Prince’s Trust Team and ‘Get Started’ programmes, Hampshire Fire and Safe City Partnership 80% attendees achieving a Princes Trust Qualification or for 16-25 year olds, targeting long term unemployed, Rescue Service accreditation. educational under-achievers, ex-offenders and care leavers. 70% of attendees achieving a positive progression to employment, education or training within 3 months of course completion. Ensure effective use is made of the funds obtained from the Late All Safe City Partnership Reduce alcohol and drug related violence rates by xxx Reduce the Night Levy from April 2015 to sustain appropriate activities to Reduce admissions to the Emergency Department as harm caused reduce the harm caused by drugs and alcohol in the night time victims of assault in peak times by xxx economy. by drugs Focus on key locations in the Night Time Economy where and alcohol a disproportionate levels of incidents occur. Implement the newly commissioned drug and alcohol treatment Integrated Health and Well Being Improve % completion of drug and alcohol treatments of services combined single pathway. Commissioning Unit Board/DASH all in treatment (NDTMS) by xxx Southampton City Reduce the rate of under 18 year olds admissions to Council hospital due to conditions wholly related to alcohol by xxx Development of a city wide Alcohol Strategy, to include both Public Integrated Health and Well Being Reduce alcohol related public place violence rates by xxx Health and Community Safety issues. Commissioning Unit Board/ Safe City Reduce the overall level of alcohol consumption in the Southampton City Partnership population. Council Maintain Operation Fortress to restrict supply and demand for Police Safe City Partnership Increase in convictions for drug related crimes. Class A drugs and to rebuild affected communities. Prosecutions obtained under the Proceeds of Crime Act. Target under age sales in the city leading robust action against Southampton City Safe City Partnership Reduction in failures of under- age sales from 13%. offending premise and continue the ‘Reducing the Strength’ Council Reduction in alcohol related violent crime. campaign working with off-licences to voluntarily agree not to sell Police Number of voluntary agreements from off-licenses in super-strength alcohol. place. Develop the PIPPA model to assist the focus on prevention and early All Local Safeguarding Reduce repeat domestic violence offences by xxx Protecting intervention of domestic violence and abuse via education and public Children Board vulnerable awareness and the provision of access to advice through a co- people ordinated community response model. Develop a multi-agency team to provide interventions for Domestic All Local Safeguarding Reduction in repeat attendances at DV MARAC by xxx Violence and Abuse at high, medium risk levels. Children Board Ensure all lessons from domestic homicides, serious case reviews All All Regular monitoring of the implementation of agreed and critical incidents are identified and recommendations are actions. implemented. Introduce a new referral pathway for home safety visits identifying Hampshire Fire and Safe City Partnership Reduction in the number of fire deaths and serious high, medium and low risk visits through partner agencies with the Rescue Service injuries by xxx introduction of revisit policy. Increase in public awareness. Increase re-visit rate to high, medium and low risk homes. Continue to support the Prevent agenda and maintain routes for Police Safe City Partnership Increase number of public engagements across the city. safeguarding people. Increase number of partnership training and awareness sessions. Increase confidence in and volume of referrals received for the support of vulnerable persons. Co-ordinate responses to children and young people going Southampton City Local Safeguarding Support the delivery of the LSCB CSE strategy and missing, being exploited or trafficked (MET). Council Children Board ( ensure a full understanding of the current risk and harm Police to young people, supporting safeguarding, education/ awareness and enforcement. Develop further the triage work between YOS and the police. Youth Offending YOS Management Board Reduction to of First Time Entrants from 954 to under Reduce youth Referrals into the Families Matter programme will be made directly Service 460 young people per 100,000 young people aged 10-17 crime from our Joint Decision Making Panel; ensure robust interventions years over 3 years. for young people and families who need the most help. Develop membership of the YOS management board to include All YOS Management Board Custodial sentences will reduce from 18 to 9 per year YCM as key partner. There will be increased scrutiny of sentencing over 3 years. recommendations for youths at risk of custody. The Youth Offending Service will contribute to and benefit from the Southampton City Employment, Skills and 10% increase in education, training and employment new Southampton Employment, Skills and Learning Partnership. Council (Youth Learning Partnership engagement per year, from a baseline of 59.8%, for 3 Offending Service) years. The YOS will continue to work closely with the Youth Justice Board Southampton City YOS Management Board The youth re-offending rate will reduce from 48.3% to to analyse local re-offending data and implement its reducing re- Council (Youth Page 82 35% over 3 years. offending plan. Offending Service) Agenda Item 12
Appendix 2
Draft Summary of the Crime and Disorder Strategic Assessment 2013/14
This assessment is based primarilyst on data sourcesst from partner agencies, particularly Police performance data from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. These include:
• Hampshire Constabulary Record Management System crime and incident data • Southampton City Council data from: o Children and Families Services o Housing o Regulatory Services o Drug Action Team (DAT) o Youth Offending Service o Transformation and Performance (City Survey and Community Safety Survey) • Ministry of Justice • National Drug Treatment Management Services
0 Page 83 Confidential
1. Southampton Safe City Partnership is responsible for reducing crime and disorder and has a statutory duty under the Police and Justice Act 2006 to meet established national minimum standards, including completion of an annual Strategic Assessment to inform the Safe City Plan.
2. Crime and anti-social behaviour rates continue to show decreases for the reporting period of 2013/14, with the exception of increases in: a. Sexual violence b. Domestic Violence and Abuse c. Vehicle crimes – especially theft of motor vehicles
3. The City’s comparative position in the Most Similar Group (MSG) of Community Safety Partnerships is not favourable: (Comparison figures are in relation to the 15 most similar cities as defined by ONS where 1 is the best)
We need to improve our Relative Relative Relative comparative position for position position position 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 All crime 14 11 12
Criminal damage 14 15 15
Violence with injury 15 14 14
Rape 14 10 11
Burglary (non-dwelling) 14 12 14
Possession of drugs 8 9 11
Vehicle Offences 9 7 9
4. This strategic assessment is an analysis providing an overview of crime and disorder issues for the City including performance against the Safe City Partnership’s priorities as set out in the Partnership Plan. The strategic assessment provides the ‘evidence base’ for Southampton Safe City Partnership to identify priorities, objectives and targets for crime, anti-social behaviour, substance and alcohol misuse and offending behaviour to inform the Safe City Partnership Plan for 2013-14.
5. Residents feedback that has been taken into account incudes the City Survey feedback (April 2014) and the community safety survey (August/ September 2014). Feedback from residents highlights the following:
• Most people feel safe in their local area during the day (93%) but this figure falls to two in three (63%) for safety in the local area at night. • Two thirds of young people felt safe in Southampton. Those that felt unsafe stated, fear of bullying, attacks, drunk people on the street made them m feel unsafe. • Three in five (62%) agree that police and other local public services are successfully dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour in the local area.
1 Page 84 Confidential
• The level of crime in residents’ local area is widely seen as being unchanged in the last twelve months: 60% say it has stayed the same, while roughly equal numbers say it has increased or decreased (14% and 16% respectively). • Residents identify a number of antisocial issues as being problematic in their local area, especially rubbish/litter lying around, people being drunk/rowdy in public places and groups hanging around the streets. • Residents were unsure why the reduction of crime and anti-social behaviour has been targeted in key locations rather than the whole city.
6.
2 Page 85 Confidential
An overview Types of 2012/13 2013/14 % change Trend 2013/14 National crimes target comparison Priority 1: Reduce crime and anti -social behaviour in key locations
All crimes 22,047 21,650 1. 8 ↓↓↓
Violent crimes 6,022 6,046 0.4 ↓↓↓
Serious sexual 230 307 33 ↑↑↑ 21% violence ↑↑↑sexual violence ASB Incidents 15,221 12,566 17.4 ↓↓↓ Below 15,230 6% ↓↓↓ (by 5%) Criminal 3,707 3,377 9.9 ↓↓↓ Improve 20% ↓↓↓ Damage comparable incidents positon to 13/15 Dwelling 1,009 947 6 ↓↓↓ Burglary Burglary Non- 1,290 1,255 2. 8 ↑↑↑ 2% ↓↓↓ Dwelling Robberies 313 256 18 ↓↓↓ Thefts from 1,113 1,258 13 ↑↑↑ 6% ↓↓↓ Motor Vehicle Thefts of Motor 443 496 12 ↑↑↑ 3% ↓↓↓ Vehicle Priority 2: Reduce the harm caused by drugs and alcohol Alcohol related 22 ↓↓↓ and public place violence Drug Related 49 26.8 ↓↓↓ Below 45 (by Violence 10%) Alcohol related 2,060 (by hospital 5%) admissions Total number of 997 1,113 12 ↑↑↑ assaults presentation to the Emergency Department Total number of 357 308 15 ↓↓↓ clients dealt with by the ICE Bus Number of Test 10/ 77 Purchases with sale of alcohol to underage persons Number of 34.2% 44.9% ↑↑↑ alcohol users successfully completing 3 Page 86 Confidential
Types of 2012/13 2013/14 % change Trend 2013/14 National crimes target comparison treatment Successful 35.1 % 52.6% ↑↑↑ In the upper completion of quartile treatment for opiate users % criminal 60% justice service users who completed treatment successfully for non-opiates % criminal 51.5 justice service users who completed treatment successfully for alcohol Priority 3: Repeat victimisation DV offences 1521 1601 5 ↑↑↑ DV repeat 391 393 offences DVA repeat 94 149 ↑↑↑ Below 76 (by attendances at 20%)) MARACs % of DVA 19.5 24.0 ↑↑↑ MSG 25% repeat referrals National 24% (primary indicator) Agency referrals 14% 22% ↑↑↑ MSG 36% for DVA National 40% Cases per 49.5 63.7 ↑↑↑ MSG 25.5 10,000 of adult National 27.4 female population referred to MARAC Total number of 84 222 164% ↑↑↑ referrals through PIPPA Repeat ASB 121 45 ↓↓↓ Callers Repeat 276 227 ↓↓↓ Vulnerable Victims of anti- social behaviour Reduce Re -offending Actual rate of 8.14% - 18.85% ↓↓↓ Portsmouth re-offending from baseline -5.41% cohort size – Hampshire 4 Page 87 Confidential
Types of 2012/13 2013/14 % change Trend 2013/14 National crimes target comparison 3,537) -5.80% Predicted rate 10.03% of re-offending Priority 5: Reduce youth offending Youth offending 46.8% 46.2% 2.1% ↓↓↓ From 47% to rate (cohort of 42% (by 5%) 319 young people) No of custodial 27 sentences Rate per 1,000 1.79 1.12 .67 ↓↓↓ 10 – 17 population Total 9.4% (by 3%) reoffending rate No of FTE into 190 155 7% ↓↓↓ the YJS Rate per 1,011 826 ↓↓↓ 925,000 per 100,000 10 – 17 100,000 10 – year olds 17 year olds
Priority 1: reducing crime and ASB in key locations
1. The key developments in 2013/14 for crimes in ley locations are: a. While Above Bar remains the location with the most all crimes, it has remained the same level as last year with only 10 more crime reposts. However, b. Bedford Place and Portland Terrace have dropped out of the top 10 list after being in the list for over 5 years as a result of effective policing approaches and coordinated multi agency working. c. Increased levels of reporting in Portswood Road (23.4%), West Quay Road (18.3%) and West Quay Shopping Centre (10.9%) d. Shirley High Street and Tremona Road are new on the top 10 streets (More analysis is needed as complaints about street drinking have been a focus in Shirley Tremona Road also features in the top 10 streets for ASB.
2. Police data indicates Serious Sexual Offences in Southampton during this year total 241, with 88 victims under 18. Southampton has seen an increase in Serious Sexual offences overall by 33% (77 offences). The most common relationship between the victim and offender in the under 18 category is acquaintance. An emerging trend across the Hampshire districts (including Southampton) is apparent from Police reports where girls under 18 are attending house parties and are intoxicated and an increase in offences where victims and perpetrators link using social media or the internet.
3. The main features of the top 10 streets for ASB are a strong link to convenience stores and shops and the focus in the centre of the city around the Grosvenor Road car park and the Railway Station. The top 10 streets for ASB are: • Bedford Place (Sainsbury Supermarket) • Cranbury Avenue (Two Saints Day Centre) • Lennox Close • Lordshill District Centre (Sainsbury Supermarket) • Hinkler Road 5 Page 88 Confidential
• Tremona Road (Southampton General Hospital) • Grosvenor Square (Car park) • Southampton Central Railway Station • Redcar Street (Sainsbury Supermarket) • Nelson Gate (Spar Stores @ Frobisher House) • Tebourba Way (Tesco Supermarket)
4. The highest number of ASB MARAC cases during 2013/14 took place in the month of July and Bitterne and Townhill, Thornhill and Weston areas presented the highest number of cases. These areas also had the highest number of vulnerable victims identified. The number of resolved cases have increased year on year over the three year period showing that anti-social behaviour is being addressed in a timelier manner. 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 No of ASB actions taken 1939 1556 1847 No of new/reopened ASB cases 1820 1463 1510 No of resolved ASB cases 1012 1308 1419 No of open ASB cases per 1,000 Council tenancies 24.95 28.07 14.5 Housemark benchmark (annual) * 18.7 18.8 18.7 % of residents satisfied with how ASB case dealt with 64% 78% 65%
5. Enforcement actions taken by housing shows that the total number of Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSPs) - both Introductory & Secure, reduced in the last year. This shows that addressing of anti-social behaviour is being more effective and resolutions are found before legal action is required in the form of a NOSP.
Priority 2: Reduce the harm caused by drugs and alcohol
6. Alcohol related crime and ASB: • There is a flattening of the rate of alcohol admissions, showing a reduction of 4% • Compared to the same period last year there is an increase of assaults presentations to ED of 12%. • The main locations for assaults recorded at ED happen in post code S014 • There was a 20% reduction in assaults in the SO14 area (which account for 43% of all recorded assaults) compared to the same period last year. • The busiest period for assaults remains the weekend, with men being 72% of the victims and 63% of the offenders.
7. Victim and Offender profile: • 31 of the male victims (8%) and 21 of the female victims (15%) were under 18. • 34% did not report the assaults to the Police and nearly 1 in 5 (18%) of female victims were assaulted by a partner/spouse of ex-partner. • Alcohol was a factor in 61% of recorded cases. • Since 2010/11, there has been a steady reduction in the number of clients using the services of the ICE Bus.
8. Enforcement: • Operation Fortress arrested 381 suspects, convicted 76 people for drug related crimes and took out around £245,000 worth of drugs off the streets. • Regulatory Services carried out 77 Test Purchases were carried out, identifying 10 premises supplying alcohol to children.
Drug and alcohol treatment: 6 Page 89 Confidential
• Total number of service users in effective drug treatment has increased. • Of the 1,140 young people who received specialist drug or alcohol treatment, 81% have a planned exit from treatment and overall performance of the young people’s substance misuse services was better than national averages. • The admission rate of young people under 18 who are admitted to hospital because they have a condition wholly related to alcohol in the 2010/11-2012/13 period is higher than the England average. • The total number of service users in effective treatment has continued to increase over the last recorded rolling year, especially those who are using drugs other than opiates and crack. • Crack cocaine remains the most widely reported secondary drug of choice with alcohol as the next most reported secondary drug of choice. • Successful completions for opiate and non-opiate users as well as Criminal Justice service users completed treatment successfully continue to improve steadily maintain Southampton within the top quartile range for the cluster. • The number of alcohol users successfully completing treatment also rose in 2013/14, from 34.2% in the baseline period to 44.9% on 2013/14. • However, re-presentations to treatment for opiate users and alcohol users remain high and the treatment outcome profiles show that reduced drug use, housing and employment outcomes are all within the expected ranges. • Overall performance by the Young Peoples substance misuse service is generally above national and comparator areas In 2013/14 the service met the majority of the local key performance indicators.
9. The broad measure considers alcohol-related conditions coded in the primary diagnosis or any secondary diagnosis positions; the narrow measure considers alcohol-related conditions coded in the primary diagnosis position or any external cause code in the secondary diagnosis positions. This broad definition shows a steep rise up until 2011/12, a rate of 2,224/100,000 population in a year, and a flattening thereafter.
10. Assaults Presentations to Southampton General ED (April 2013 to March 2014) show the total number of assaults (total number assaults presentations to ED 13/14) as 1,113. The main locations for assaults recorded at ED happen in post code S014 (225) which account for 43% of all recorded assaults. There was however a 20% (- 59) reduction in assaults in this area compared to the same period last year. There were 80 cases of assaults recorded as having an association with a pubs or clubs and over half of all recorded assaults take place between Friday night and Sunday morning. 78% of all assaults take place between 9pm and 5am.
11. Since 2010/11 the ICE bus has seen a reducing number of clients in need of its services but the percentage requiring hospital admission has remained the same for the past two years at 13%. Street Pastor volunteers have continued to offer patrols every Friday and Saturday night to offer reassurance, safety and support to those involved in the Night Time Economy (NTE). They run one patrol on Friday nights and two patrols most Saturday and since May 2013, a fortnightly patrol in the early evening on Saturdays, from 6pm to 10pm, to provide support in Hoglands Park and the surrounding areas. Their schools work continues with two schools in the city, running patrols once a week.
12. Regulatory Services worked with the police to carry out test purchasing to identify businesses supplying alcohol to children. 77 Test Purchases were carried out, identifying 10 premises supplying alcohol to children. Applications for review of the premises licence led to the suspension or revocation of the licence to supply alcohol.
13. Between May 2012 and April 2014, the Operation Fortress team arrested 381 suspects and saw 76 people convicted for drug-related crimes. More than £150,000 in assets was seized 7 Page 90 Confidential
from criminals through the Proceeds of Crime Act and around £245,000 worth of drugs taken off the streets.
14. The total number of service users in effective treatment has continued to increase over the last recorded rolling year, especially those who are using drugs other than opiates and crack. Crack cocaine remains the most widely reported secondary drug of choice with alcohol as the next most reported secondary drug of choice. Of all those starting a new treatment episode, 86% are retained in treatment for 12 weeks and over.
15. Successful completions for opiate users and non-opiate users continues to improve steadily and allowed Southampton to remain within the top quartile for Local Authorities in the same cluster. The percentage of criminal justice service users who completed treatment successfully places Southampton within the top quartile for the cluster. However re- presentations to treatment for opiate users and alcohol users have gone up and remain high. • Opiate users: 29.1% (from 23.1% last rolling 12 month period) • Non opiate users: 3.4% (from 10.5% last rolling 12 month period) • Alcohol: 21.8% (from 18.4% last rolling 12 month period)
16. Overall performance by the Young Peoples substance misuse service is generally above national and comparator areas In 2013/14 the service met the majority of the local key performance indicators: • 1,140 young people who received specialist alcohol or drug brief interventions • 5,558 young people were contacted through targeted outreach • All young people had e a wait of less than 3 weeks to start first intervention • 94% offered Hep B vaccination - compared to 83% nationally • 81% have a planned exit from treatment (i.e. successful completion) - compared to 79% nationally • 4% of planned exits re-presented within 6 months - compared to 6% nationally.
8 Page 91 Confidential
Priority 3: Reduce repeat victimisation
17. The recording and monitoring of repeat victimisation is improving for some types of crimes and rise in figures may reflect better practice rather than a big increase in issues Police figures how that the majority of reported crimes considered highest risk of ‘vulnerability’ have seen an increase in the last 12 month period, with the exception of hate crime and domestic violence and abuse which have seen a decrease. During this period Hampshire Police has appointed three vulnerability researchers whose role is to identify vulnerable victims and offenders. The recording and monitoring of repeat victimisation for ASB is improving for some types of crimes and rise in figures may reflect better practice rather than a big increase in issues.
18. Domestic violence accounts for around 20% of all violent crimes in the city and continues to be a significant issue for Southampton. Children who live in homes where they are exposed to violence are at increased risk of physical and emotional harm. A small number of women have been killed by a violent partner in the last 2 years. The number of cases at the Domestic Violence MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference) is double the national average and a recent audit of children subject of a Child Protection plan defined 80% of the families as having domestic violence as a feature. 117 GP referrals were made to IRIS – a domestic abuse service linked to GP surgery’s in 2013-14.
19. Peak days for domestic violence and abuse are Saturday and Sunday with an obvious decrease seen on a Wednesday. This may be due to the increase consumption of alcohol over a weekend compared with week days. The largest levels of reporting of Domestic Violence and abuse in the west of the City are seen in Shirley South with 36% and in the east of the city the largest levels occur in Bitterne South with 37.9%. The peak months for Domestic Violence are July (East) and December (West), followed by June across the city. This varies from the same period last year where the peak months were January and August.
20. Police figures show that while there is expected to be a clear correlation for areas in the city where there are domestic incidents and domestic crimes, the top 4 areas for repeat domestic crimes are not within the top 10 areas for domestic incidents and crimes.
21. Going missing from home has been identified nationally as one of the most significant factors in identifying children at risk of CSE. This is because whilst missing the child is vulnerable to becoming involved in criminality, substance misuse, homelessness and developing mental health issues. All of these factors are themselves further identified precursors to CSE. The key element of sexual exploitation is the fact the child receives something as a result of them performing sexual acts. CSE victims in Hampshire are predominantly white females with a peak age of 14-16 years.
22. There was an increase of 21% in missing person occurrences. Of the total missing person reports (1683): • 25% were repeat Mispers • Almost 2/3 of all reported Mispers were under 18, with the peak age group between 12 to 17 years.
23. Hoglands Park continues to be a favourite location for Mispers to congregate and it is still reported that older males attend the area to meet females. More recently the use of Kebab/Pizza shops is becoming more common for females to meet males, in one occurrence the males exploiting them were employees of the Pizza shop
9 Page 92 Confidential
Priority 4: Reduce re-offending
24. The latest data from the Ministry of Justice covers the 12 month period from January 2013 to the end of December 2013. These figures show an improved position against the predicted rate of re-offending in the city during this time.
Probation Local Cohort size Actual Predicted % Trust Authority (combining rate of re- rate of re- difference four quarters offending offending from
of probation baseline[2] caseload
data)[1] Hampshire 15,577 9.51% 10.10% -5.80% Hampshire 8,103 9.31% 9.54% -2.44% Isle of Wight 1,225 9.63% 10.37% -7.07% Portsmouth 2,413 11.07% 11.70% -5.41% Southampton 3,537 8.14% 10.03% -18.85%
25. There are a large proportion of Serious Acquisitive Crime offences which occur within Southampton West District which are committed by repeat offenders. Dwelling burglaries and vehicle crime in Shirley and Central account for a large proportion of these crimes, jewellery is an attractive commodity as items are often non-identifiable and companies such as ‘Cash for Gold’ make it easy to dispose of these goods.
26. Criminogenic families and a lack of family intervention can also be seen as a contributing factor, many of the offenders have family members who are also known offenders, or do not enforce school attendance or encourage them to find gainful employment resulting in a ‘career’ criminal lifestyle. These offenders are often arrested and charged with offences, but conviction sentences can be short and they are released back into the same community amongst fellow offenders. They are not deterred by imprisonment and almost always re-offend, despite high level intervention from the IOM team. The IOM Team proactively inform the Tasking & Coordination Directorate of problem nominals who are released and if there are any changes in their behaviour which is likely to affect their offending pattern. It is those who refuse to engage however who pose the biggest risk.
Priority 5: Reducing Youth Offending
27. Key factors for children and young people in the city include: a. high levels of child poverty (26.1% of the city’s children living in poverty) b. Some marked differences in educational attainment outcomes by equality strands with socio-economic deprivation being an underlying factor. c. Increases in both risk of abuse and neglect and numbers of children and young people in care have risen faster than has been the case nationally or for similar
authorities.
28. The re-offending data shows a reduction from the rolling cohort of the previous equivalent period by 2.1%. Although, there has been an increase in cohort size. Local analysis of re- offending by the 2012 / 13 cohort in 2013 / 14 also puts the re-offending rate at 46%, within a cohort of 319 young people. Whilst the downward trend is positive, significant improvement is still required. More analysis is required of the local data and by the next board meeting we will be in a position to be able to give real time updates. One area of exploration will be re- offending by 18 year olds in the young adult cohort as this appears high and would impact upon youth re-offending figures. The conviction level in the Priority Young People cohort is 14, in comparison to a quarterly average of 19 pre-PYP. 10 Page 93 Confidential
29. Although the custody level has reduced in comparison to the equivalent period in the previous year, it is up slightly from the last rolling cohort, where we achieved a green RAG status. The increase is due to a high number of custodial sentences imposed in the first quarter of 13 / 14 (8). After this, the numbers reduce again.
30. The first time entrants level in Southampton is reducing and is predicted to decrease even more markedly as the impact of the joint decision making panel starts to show in the data. We know that the use of first cautions is an important indicator in respect of FTE. In 2013 / 14, prior to the panel, an average of eight first youth cautions were given by the police per month. Post panel this has reduced to 3.6; better than the target of 5.
Influencing factors
Police and Crime Commissioner Funding 31. Prior to 2012 the Home Office provided the Safe City Partnership with funding under the heading of Community Safety Fund. In 2012/13 this funding was redirected to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Bids were invited for this funding, which had to relate to his agreed priorities. Any organisation was allowed to bid for the funding and there was no requirement for the bidders to consult with or inform the Safe City Partnership. As a result the Safe City Partnership has not been aware of the extent of funding applications made by organisations and groups based and working in the city until the outcome of the bids were made public.
Reductions in Public Sector Spend
32. Add details here
LGA Peer Review
33. The LGA Peer Review Team were invited to make recommendations on new ways of working strategically with partners across the city, to learn from best practice and to implement changes.
34. This scope was set against the challenges of continuing to sustain effective partnership working in a climate of reduced resources and significant change. Combined with this expectations on the Partnership’s services is increasing to levels that has the potential to impact on each of the Partners services if expenditure is diverted to meet the level of demand. Despite year on year reductions for well over a decade, the financial prospects look bleaker than ever.
35. The finance challenges are combined with resulting structural changes. The local police restructure and the nationally led changes to the Probation Service will both alter the partnership landscape over the next year. Whilst the continuing reductions in council funding mean the co-ordinating role the council have played over and above that of other partners may need to be scaled back. It will be important to maintain commitment from all partners to joint working through these changes.
36. A partnership Action Plan has been developed to put in place the changes the report recommended under the five headings of: • Strategic priorities, governance and leadership • Improve performance • Youth Offending • Section 17 11 Page 94 Confidential
• Golden thread
12 Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Southampton Youth Justice Strategic Plan | 2014-2017 Appendix 3 Priorities
Reduce the number of first time entrants Reduce Custody to the youth justice system
Reduce Re-offending Reduce Youth Crime
Our successes in 2013-14
Our priorities Actions Outcomes
We worked with the police to agree and implement a triage 7% reduction in First Time Entrants by the end of 2013. pilot for youth cases in the city. YOS and police managers now meet on a weekly basis to discuss the best ways to address Reduce the number offending by children and young people who have committed of first time entrants low level crime. A number of YOS officers now regularly attend to the youth justice Southampton Central police station to start working with young 77 young people attended victim impact and risk taking system people swiftly, after they have been dealt with by the police. behaviour sessions over a twelve month period. With funding from the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner and support from Southampton University, the YOS developed its ‘Take a Risk?’ programme; designed to The re-offending rate of a sample of young people who attended reduce risk taking behaviour and increase victim empathy. has been tracked and the results show a favourable impact upon their offending behaviour. The YOS works with partners from Southampton University Hospital Trust, HM Prison Service, Rewind ex-offenders project The Youth Justice Board have identified the programme as and Headway acquired brain injury charity to deliver sessions to ‘emerging’ effective practice. young people.
The YOS successfully contributed to the Families Matter The YOS exceeded its annual target to work with 51 families; programme; working with families who have some of the highest offering support to 62 families over the year. needs in the city.
The YOS developed its restorative justice strategy; with a The YOS supported 122 victims of crime in 2013/14. specific focus this year on young people serving custodial Reduce re-offending A second group of social work students from Solent University sentences; alongside developing its early intervention work. volunteered to support the delivery of restorative interventions. The Priority Young People scheme, for high risk offenders, was launched successfully and progress reviewed at the end of the There was a 58% reduction in the number of offences reporting year. committed by the 29 young people identified.
Work with the Southampton magistrates and continued quality There was a 30% reduction in custodial sentences over the assurance work contributed to a further reduction in custodial reporting period. sentences. A bail support officer was recruited to work with young people at risk of remand.
Reduce Custody The YOS worked with local partners including Children and The Youth Justice Board has identified the work as ‘emerging’ Families, housing and training providers to sign a local effective practice. partnership agreement to support a robust approach to the resettlement needs of young people leaving custody.
The YOS completed the inspection improvement plan developed in The Youth Offending Service Management Board was refreshed; 2013 and also participated in a Local Government Association Peer with new partners joining and a robust schedule of work agreed Review of Community Safety and Youth Offending, which found that: to continue improvements in local Youth Justice Provision. • The multi-agency team are highly motivated and partners Reduce youth crime were pulling their weight The number of re-offences committed by Southampton young • There is an increasing recognition of effective risk management people has reduced by 12% over two years. • Good quality data is available to underpin service development • A quality assurance framework is in place • The YOS is correctly positioned as part of council’s safeguarding function
The YOS worked with partners to develop its education panel; Education, Training and Employment engagement increased by which has the remit of improving education, training and 10% in 2013/14. employment outcomes for young people. Six young people completed Bronze Arts Awards. The Supported by ArtsworkPage and the 97 Hampshire Police and Crime programme achieved Artsmark status and was identified by the Commissioner; the YOS further developed its accredited arts programme. Youth Justice Board as ‘emerging’ effective practice. Our challenges
Custody rate remains higher than the national At 954 per 100,000 young people aged 10-17, the average, despite improvement in 2013/14, with 18 First Time Entrants rate remains higher than the young people receiving a custodial sentence national average, despite improvement in 2013/14
At 48%, the re-offending rate is 13% higher than 40% of young people involved with the Youth the national average, despite improvement in the Offending Service are not engaged in full time Priority Young People group education, training or employment
What are we going to improve
Our priorities Actions Outcomes
The YOS will further develop its triage work with police. Referrals Reduction to of First Time Entrants to under 460 young people into the Families Matter programme will be made directly from per 100,000 young people aged 10-17 years over three years. our Joint Decision Making Panel; ensuring robust interventions Reduce the number for young people and families who need the most help. of first time entrants The YOS will ensure that its prevention work is robustly Young people and families will be able to access effective to the youth justice integrated with the Southampton Multi Agency Safeguarding support as easily as possible; to support the best outcomes. system Hub (MASH) and the Early Help 5-19 service. The YOS will work with Southampton City Council, the police, The YOS will promote opportunities for Restorative Practice local schools and other partners to explore ways that Restorative in Southampton. Practice can support prevention and inclusion work in the city.
The YOS will continue to work closely with the Youth Justice The youth re-offending rate will reduce to 35% over three years. Board to analyse local re-offending data and implement its reducing re-offending plan.
Reduce re-offending The service Restorative Justice strategy will continue to develop; Victims of crime; across all areas of youth justice work; will be with specialist training for YOS staff. offered support and the opportunity to participate in Restorative Justice interventions.
The YOS will work with the statutory and voluntary sectors Instance of young people becoming involved in serious violence implement a plan to prevent serious youth crime. or drug related crime will remain low and reduce further.
Youth Court Magistrates will become key partners at the Custodial sentences will reduce to nine per year by 2017. YOS Management Board. There will be increased scrutiny of sentencing recommendations for youths at risk of custody.
Reduce Custody The service will recruit a greater number of qualified staff and Supervision of young people will be of consistently high quality implement a new training and development package for the and robust, to meet the needs of young offenders in the city. entire team.
The Youth Offending Service will contribute to and benefit from Education, Training and Employment engagement will increase the Southampton Employment, Skills and Learning Partnership. by 10%, per year, for three years.
The education, training and employment pathway for young More ex-offenders will access accredited provision, traineeships Reduce youth crime people involved with the YOS will develop; with increased and apprenticeships. opportunities for engagement. More ex-offenders will access accredited provision, traineeships and apprenticeships.
Page 98 Agenda Item 12 Appendix 4
Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2014 – 17
1 Page 99
Contents
Page
Forward 3
Section 1: Our Vision, Purpose and Principles 4
Section 2: Progress against 2013 – 14 Priorities 5
Section 3: Service Priorities 2014 – 17 6
Section 4: Contribution to Partner’s Strategies 8
Section 5: Performance and Practice 9
Section 6: Resourcing and Value for Money 19
Section 7: Risks to Future Delivery 20
Section 8: Structure and Governance 21
Appendices:
1. Youth Justice Board Effective Practice Grant: Summary of Proposed Expenditure
2. Reducing Re-offending Action Plan
2 Page 100 Forward
Fair and effective youth justice is a key priority for Southampton and in introducing the Youth Justice Strategic Plan for 2014 – 17 we welcome the opportunity to share some key ‘headlines’ with you:
We are committed to improvement and providing an excellent service:
In 2014, we thought that it was important to check how the Youth Offending Service was developing. We commissioned a Peer Review which found that:
• The multi-agency team are highly motivated and partners were pulling their weight • There is an increasing recognition of effective risk management • Good quality data is available to underpin service development • A quality assurance framework is in place • The YOS is correctly positioned as part of Council’s safeguarding function
The Youth Offending Service was also pleased to be able to participate in a Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (CJJI), which assessed the contribution of six Youth Offending Teams to the government’s Troubled Families agenda. We await the publication of the report, which is due later this year. Feedback from both inspections has fed into a robust action plan; which is monitored as part of the YOS participation in the Youth Justice Board reducing re-offending project. In August 2014, the service will contribute to a further CJJI: in respect of the quality of service provision for young people released from custody.
Strong partnerships underpin service delivery:
All partners contributing to youth justice service provision have to adapt, in an ever changing environment. In Southampton we have strengthened YOS governance arrangements and secured the robust involvement of all partners in setting our local priorities for the next three years. In our city, youth offending service development clearly contributes to and benefits from the wider partnership vision, which will improve outcomes for our residents.
Ensuring the effectiveness of youth offending work: As a reasonably new service, now entering its third year, Southampton Youth Offending Service has a clear commitment to benchmarking its offending behaviour work so that we are sure that it is of high quality. Currently, four pieces of work are either endorsed by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) as ‘emerging’ effective practice or awaiting further classification.
The people of Southampton are central to what we do:
Work with young people, families and the victims of crime has developed strongly in Southampton and will continue to do so, as we drive forward a youth justice agenda that contributes to improving outcomes and creating safe and cohesive communities.
On behalf of the Management Board we are pleased to endorse the Southampton Youth Justice Strategic Plan for 2014 – 17 and look forward to another exciting and successful period of service development.
Theresa Leavy Councillor Kaur Head of Children and Families Cabinet Member for Communities
3 Page 101 Section 1: Our Vision, Purpose and Principles:
Vision:
Southampton Youth Offending Service is committed to contributing to a fair and effective Criminal Justice System which will provide justice for victims and local communities, rehabilitation, punishment and positive opportunities for young people and value for money. We are a service that aspires to provide the best for our children and young people: we want them to achieve and succeed and we recognise that they will need robust support and supervision along the way in order to do this.
Purpose
Our purpose is to prevent young people offending and once in the Criminal Justice System to accurately assess and offer high quality interventions to young people to reduce crime and to protect victims, in order to increase public safety in Southampton.
We will do this by:
• preventing offending
• reducing re-offending
• improving outcomes for young people
• protecting the public from the harm that young people can cause to individuals, communities and the public and
• working to ensure custody is limited only for those young people whose risk cannot be managed in the community
Principles:
The principles underpinning our service are:
• Regard for the safety of the public as a priority • Provision of a fair and equitable service to young people, staff, victims and the wider public • Respect for young offenders as young people • Respect for diversity in terms of race, gender, disability, age and sexual orientation • Promotion of the rights of victims and the rights and responsibilities of children, young people and their families • Valuing staff as our most important resource • A robust partnership approach, based on effective analysis of local data • Actively promoting appropriate interventions and sentencing • Provision of a quality service which is effective, efficient and gives value for money
4 Page 102 Section 2: Progress against 2013 – 14 Priorities
• Youth justice governance arrangements were strengthened with all statutory partners signing a joint working agreement to support the youth justice partnership. The Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner supported the service through a Protecting People and Places grant and an enhanced Community Safety fund allocation, leading into 2014 / 15.
• To ensure that consistently high quality work is developing, the YOS completed the improvement plan developed from the 2013 HMIP Short Quality Screening Inspection.
• To reduce re-offending and first time entrants’ rates, the YOS secured agreement from Hampshire Constabulary to implement a triage pilot for youth cases in the city. The service also implemented robust screening arrangements for out of court disposals; supported by a weekly YOS clinic at Southampton Central Police Station. The Priority Young People scheme, for high risk offenders, was launched successfully and progress reviewed at the end of the reporting year.
• Work with the Southampton youth bench and the YOS pre-sentence report forum contributed to a further reduction in custodial sentences. A bail support officer was recruited to address remands into Youth Detention Accommodation. Local authority responsibilities in relation to Detention Placement Planning for remanded children were reviewed.
• To support work with custody leavers, a local resettlement partnership agreement was signed by key agencies. This supports the South East Regional Resettlement Consortium and has been identified by the Youth Justice Board as emerging good practice.
• Contributing to better education outcomes for young people; the YOS further developed its accredited arts programme. Six young people achieved their Bronze Arts Award in 2013. Engagement in education by children working with YOS has increased in comparison with the previous year’s figures. The YOS launched its ‘Have Your Say’ young people’s forum to support greater use involvement in service development and delivery.
• The YOS has been a key player in wider work with vulnerable groups; contributing to local and regional responses to offending by children looked after; alongside local developments in respect of the Southampton Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), the Missing, Exploited and Trafficked (MET) children strategy and Families Matter (Troubled Families) provision.
• Work with victims has developed through the implementation of the service restorative justice strategy; with a specific focus on young people serving custodial sentences. The YOS recruited a second cohort of students from Solent University to support the delivery of restorative interventions. The YOS participated in local Street Cred and seasonal Safe City Partnership campaigns.
• The service has developed its quality assurance systems and benefitted from participation in the YJB effective practice forum. Three further pieces of work have been successfully submitted to the YJB effective practice library as emerging good practice: the resettlement partnership agreement, accredited arts programme, victim impact and risk taking behaviour work.
• Staff have benefitted from restorative justice and group work training. Provision for young people who sexually offend has been reviewed. The service continues to work with the Youth Justice Board in respect of adopting the new assessment framework, Asset Plus.
5 Page 103
Section 3: Service Priorities 2014 – 17
1. Strong performance and resilient service delivery
• Re-offending, first time entrants and custody rates in Southampton will reduce over the three year period.
• Performance improvement will be underpinned by a clear understanding of local themes and trends. Real time data will be used to show the effectiveness of local youth justice provision.
• Southampton is an early intervention city. The YOS will develop its prevention and diversion work; with a strong focus on targeted youth support. A resilient service model will produce outstanding results for its young people, their families and the local community.
• Youth Community Resolutions will be used more effectively to divert young people from crime and support victims through restorative interventions. Strong partnerships will respond to those young people subject to statutory intervention, because of the persistence or severity of their offending.
• Education, employment and health outcomes for young people will significantly improve. The YOS will actively contribute to the city’s Employment, Skills and Learning Partnership. Innovative opportunities will be created and co-ordinated to better engage with young people. We will support a culture that inspires and empowers young people to make positive change.
2. Delivery of high quality work
• Youth justice work with young people, families and victims will be based on a commitment to best practice and research proven interventions. Evaluation of our work will be commissioned through the local universities.
• A skilled, stable, well-managed workforce will undertake assessments that are of consistently high quality; underpinning offending behaviour work that is routinely recognised as ‘effective’ by the Youth Justice Board.
• Local families who meet the Troubled Families criteria will receive robust and effective interventions, delivered through a strong local partnerships.
• Local service delivery will develop robustly to meet the impending changes and challenges in youth justice system i.e. Asset Plus, the implementation of unpaid work and attendance centre provision.
• We will retain a focus on particularly vulnerable groups: Offending by children looked after will be addressed through the establishment of a Hampshire-wide protocol with police. The YOS will contribute effectively to Southampton’s Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) and local responses to missing, exploited and trafficked children and serious youth crime prevention. We will fully implement our Resettlement Partnership agreement.
• We will develop and implement an action plan to effectively link our young people with local Education, Employment and Training provision, and support them to achieve their goals.
6 Page 104 • Public protection and safeguarding work will consistently be of a high standard. The service will review provision against the findings of the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection in August 2014 and work with the YJB to undertake a self-assessment in 2015. A Youth Justice Board Peer Review will be requested to assess the quality of service provision in 2016.
3. Supporting victims through restorative practice
• Restorative justice interventions will become a core component of every young person’s intervention plan, with the wishes and needs of victims being considered in every case. Restorative justice interventions will be supported by high quality victim impact work.
• Restorative approaches will be promoted across a range of partners in Southampton to underpin effective prevention work. The vision of a ‘restorative network’; offering training, support and embedding restorative justice further into local practice and service delivery will be developed.
4. Ensuring that service users are central to youth justice development
• Young people will be empowered to make a contribution to local youth justice services through the ‘Have Your Say’ group.
• Parents and young people will be more actively involved in interventions planning through a review of Referral Order arrangements and the development of planning meetings for all other statutory Orders.
• Victims will be routinely consulted regarding the service that they have received and their feedback used to shape future provision.
• Community engagement work will ensure that Southampton residents are better informed about service delivery and have the opportunity to participate.
5. Effective governance
• A review of youth justice governance arrangements was commissioned in 2014 and the management board was reinvigorated through partnership development work and shared target setting.
• Local governance arrangements, which are underpinned by a joint working agreement, will be based on a culture of shared understanding and a commitment of learning from others.
• The YOS management board will ensure that strategic development is supported though robust consideration of local data. In doing so, effective service alignment and commissioning opportunities will be identified and partners’ priorities will be achieved.
Southampton youth offending partnership will be dynamic in ensuring that youth justice resources meet local need and that services provide value for money.
7 Page 105 Section 4: Contribution to Partner’s Strategies
8 Page 106 Section 5: Performance and Practice
Summary:
This section summarises service performance against national and local performance indicators during 2013 / 14. ‘Examples of Effective Practice’ are also included throughout the section to give an overview of service development throughout the year. Data for the national performance indicators is from the most recent available period.
Performance against National Indicators:
Reducing Custody
Example of Effective Practice: Resettlement Partnership Agreement
A local partnership arrangement to respond to the often complex needs of young people leaving custody in Southampton, in order to reduce offending risks and improve outcomes for this group of young people in the city. The local partnership arrangement replaces previous operational arrangements made within the remit of the now defunct Wessex Resettlement Consortium. The Youth Justice Board has assessed the agreement as emerging effective practice.
The agreement aims to:
• Reduce re-offending • Promote better practical arrangements for Education, Training and Employment (ETE) and accommodation for custody leavers • Improve the resettlement experiences for young people leaving custody • Improve collaboration at an operational level between statutory and voluntary partners • Clarify joint working arrangements between partners in connection with young people leaving custody.
Agencies who have signed the partnership agreement include statutory partners: the Youth Offending Service, Leaving Care Service, and Housing Needs Service; alongside local resettlement, accommodation and youth contract providers.
RAG Rating for 2013 / 14
Green < 1.00 Amber < 2.50 Red > 2.50 (per 1000)
Measure
This indicator measures the number of custodial sentences given to young people per 1,000 young people (10 to 17 years) in the locality. It is drawn from Child View and uses population data taken from the Office of National Statistics midyear estimates.
9 Page 107 Table 1: Custody Rate in Southampton – Comparator and Core Cities
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Rate per10-17 1000 population 0.50
0.00
Jan 11 - Dec 11 Jan 12 - Dec 12 Jan 13 - Dec 13
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50 Rate per 1000 10-17 population
0.00
Jan 11 - Dec 11 Jan 12 - Dec 12 Jan 13 - Dec 13
10 Page 108 Commentary
Although there is still some way to go before Southampton’s custody rate aligns with the national average, there has been consistent improvement over the past year, with a reduction of 30% from the previous year’s figure. The YOS met its target for 2013 / 14 to reduce the custody rate to >1.00 per 1,000 10 to 17 years population.
Work to further improve the custody rate in 2014 will involve the implementation of the recommendations made after a YJB review of custodial sentences in 2013 and the inclusion of the lead youth magistrate on the YOS Management Board.
The custody performance improvement target for 2014 – 17 is to be better than the national average. Based on current data, this would require a reduction of custodial sentences to a maximum of nine per year over three years.
Reducing Re-offending
Example of Effective Practice: Priority Young People Scheme
In June 2013, Southampton Youth Offending Service implemented its Priority Young People Scheme. PYP is designed to robustly address offending in a high risk cohort of just under thirty young people, who are responsible for a disproportionately high level of youth crime in the city. Each young person has an individual intervention plan which is reviewed on a monthly basis by a group comprising of staff from YOS, police, children’s services and community safety. Local data shows that proven re-offences in this group reduced by 58% in 2013 / 14.
RAG Rating:
Green <35% Amber <45% Red >45%
Measure
This indicator measures re-offending using data drawn from the Police National Computer (PNC) – the graph shows the proportion of young people who re-offend. A 12 month rolling cohort starting every quarter measures the number of offenders that re-offend and the number of re-offences that they commit, over the following 12 month period. It is an identical methodology to that used for adult offenders – and covers all young people in a cohort who have received a substantive pre- court or court disposal.
11 Page 109 Table 2: Reoffending Rate in Southampton – Comparator and Core Cities
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0 PercentageRe-offending
10.0
0.0
Apr 09 - Mar 10 Apr 10 - Mar 11 Apr 11 - Mar 12
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0 PercentageRe-offending
0.0
Apr 09 - Mar 10 Apr 10 - Mar 11 Apr 11 - Mar 12
12 Page 110 The re-offending rate in Southampton has remained stubbornly above the national average at around 49%, based on historic PNC data. Real time data is more positive. Local analysis of re-offending by the 2012 / 13 cohort in 2013 / 14 puts the re-offending rate at 46%. Whilst the downward trend is positive, significant improvement is still required.
The YOS participation in the Youth Justice Board Re-offending Pilot has been the basis for a comprehensive action plan that is subject to quarterly review by the YOS management board (see appendix two).
Five key areas of work for the YOS are:
Data analysis to identify areas for improvement: We are clear on key local trends and have initiated change to service delivery and core business practice.
Building the effectiveness of the team: We are restructuring the service to increase qualified, front line capacity. In 2015, we will implement a comprehensive re-training plan, leading into the adoption of Asset Plus.
Practice development: We understand where our practice needs to improve. We are developing our quality assurance systems; so that we can be sure that our YOS officers assess risk of re-offending robustly and deliver good quality interventions, across all tiers of youth justice interventions
Effective early intervention work: We have reviewed our prevention work with Hampshire Constabulary and have implemented a Joint Decision Making Panel, a Youth Community Resolution Clinic and more robust screening processes which better align with the local early help offer.
Robust ‘high risk’ partnership work: Our Priority Young People scheme was implemented and reviewed in 2013 / 14 to address re-offending by a small group of persistent young offenders. Within the PYP cohort the number of re-offences reduced by 58%.
From 2014, the YOS will use the YJB reoffending tool to monitor re-offending levels in real time. We will track any re-offending by the 2013 / 14 cohort on a quarterly basis.
The re-offending performance improvement target for 2014 – 17 is to be better than the national average. Based on current data, this would require a reduction in offending by over 13%. There is also a local performance indicator in respect of re-offending in the 2013 / 14 youth cohort in 2014 / 15 of 35% (the national average).
Example of Effective Practice: Victim Impact and Risk Taking Behaviour Group Work
Southampton Youth Offending Service victim impact and risk taking behaviour work involves group work delivered in partnership with Southampton University NHS Trust, Headway acquired brain injury charity, Rewind ex-offenders group and HMP Winchester. Sessions are designed to develop moral reasoning and enhance an understanding of victim issues. A victim empathy measurement tool, designed with Southampton University, is used to measure the impact of the sessions. The sessions are supported by the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner through the Community Safety fund. The Youth Justice Board assess the sessions as emerging effective practice.
13 Page 111 First Time Entrants
RAG Rating
Green < 925 Amber <1000 Red >1000 (per 100,000)
Measure
This indicator measures First Time Entrants (FTE) using data drawn from the Police National Computer – the graph displays the number of FTEs as a rate per 100,000 young people (10 to 17 years) locally. It uses population data taken from the Office of National Statistics midyear estimates.
The cohort represents young people who have received a first ‘substantive outcome’ in the period i.e. Reprimand, Final Warning or court outcome .
The YOS target for reducing first time entrants in 2013 / 14 was 10%; the final reduction was 7%, based on historic PNC data. Southampton’s rate is still significantly higher than both the national and regional averages – and is the highest of any of its comparator YOTs.
In 2013 / 14, through work with Hampshire Constabulary, the YOS identified that many young people receiving Youth Community Resolution (YCR) were not being referred to YOS by police officers. Assessed in conjunction with the YJB re-offending Project outcome that the re- offending rate in the Southampton out of court tier was high; this prompted the YOS to revise its out of court disposal screening arrangements. The YOS Police Officer now reviews all relevant cases; which will increase the number of YCR receiving intervention.
For those cases on the cusp of formal disposal: a Joint Decision Making Panel, with YOS and police representation, meets on a weekly basis to decide if diversion is appropriate. Young people are bailed for a period no longer than two weeks pending the decision. A YOS clinic at Southampton’s central police station operates to ensure swift contact with young people after the disposals have been administered. It is strongly assessed that, as a result of these developments, the PNC data will show a notable reduction in the FTE rate towards the end of 2014 / 15.
The first time entrant’s performance improvement target for 2014 – 17 is to be better than the national average. Based on current data, this would require a reduction to under 460 young people per 100,000 young people aged 10 – 17 years. There will be a local target of a 30% increase in the use of YCRs during 2014 / 15.
14 Page 112
Table 3: First Time Entrants Rate in Southampton – Comparator and Core Cities
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
Rate per100,000 10-17 population 200
0
Oct 10 - Sep 11 Oct 11 - Sep 12 Oct 12 - Sep 13
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Rate per 100,000 10-17 population 400
200
0
Oct 10 - Sep 11 Oct 11 - Sep 12 Oct 12 - Sep 13
15 Page 113 Local Indicators
Example of Effective Practice: Kri-8 Arts Award
Southampton Youth Offending Service delivers its accredited arts programme, Kri-8 Arts, in partnership with the John Hansard Gallery. Young people work towards a Bronze Arts Award. The programme is supported by the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner through the Community Safety Fund. The Youth Justice Board assess the programme as emerging effective practice. SYOS is applying for Artsmark status in 2014; which will further acknowledge the quality of delivery.
To maximise the opportunities for children and young people in Southampton, performance indicators of accommodation suitability and access to education provision have been retained locally and performance is reported to the Management Board. The local targets are that 95% of young offenders are in suitable accommodation and 75% of young offenders are in full time education, training or employment (rising to 90% by 2017). For the local indicators, data for April 2013 to March 2014 is available.
Table 4: Accommodation Suitability
Accommodation Q4 2013/14, Q3 2013/14, 96.05% 95.50%
2012/13 baseline, 2013/14 Overall, 94.15% 93.91%
Q1 2013/14, 92.56% Q2 2013/14, 91.95%
Accommodation suitability has reduced slightly on the previous annual figure and consequently the annual target has not been met. 6.9% of children had unsuitable accommodation during the period. Unsuitable home circumstances accounted for the results in 5.75% of cases. Children’s services were involved in all these cases. Alternatively, the use of bed and breakfast and other emergency accommodation, as a short term intervention was a further factor accounting for accommodation unsuitability (1.15%). The YOS participated in a review of accommodation provision in Southampton in 2014 to ensure that the needs of young people who offend are considered in future re-commissioning arrangements. There is consistent children and families and housing input on the YOS management board.
16 Page 114 Table 5: Engagement in Full Time Education, Training and Employment
ETE Combined Q1 2013/14, Q3 2013/14, 64.40% 63.26% Q2 2013/14, 2013/14 Overall, 58.76% Q4 2013/14, 59.80% 55.17% 2012/13 baseline, 49.14%
The YOS education panel and the appointment of a full time personal advisor have supported an improvement in ETE engagement in 2013 / 14. The panel’s remit is to increase young people’s engagement in education, training and employment, and their provision through a monthly partnership review of active YOS cases. Representatives from YOS, the local Pupil Referral Unit, Education Welfare, Early Help and a local college attend. Membership will be reviewed for wider representation of services. A the end of the 13 / 14 , 62% of school age young people finishing YOS interventions were engaging in full time provision and 59% of young people above school age were engaged in full time provision.
There is still some way to go before the local target is met. In 14 / 15, the panel’s remit will be extended to cover year 12 and 13 students. In addition, the YOS will work with other services across Southampton City Council to develop a joint strategic response and action plan to improving ETE outcomes for young people.
Remands into Youth Detention Accommodation
In 2013 - 14, 14 young people were remanded into Youth Detention Accommodation. Seven were remanded to the more expensive STC / LASCH placements; equating to £138,925 or 59.6% of the total expenditure. The appointment of the bail officer did reduce costs after quarter three. However, the total expenditure for 13 / 14, was £242,793, which is £14,793 above £228,000 allocated by the local authority at the beginning of the year The YJB award for 2014 / 15 has reduced by approximately one third, which will put further pressure on the local authority. Southampton City Council is working the local remand bed provider in response to this challenge.
17 Page 115 Table 6: Remand Spend in 2013 / 14.
Total Cost per Total Cost of Placements Placement Placement night (£) (£) Days
Secure Children’s 124 577 71,548 Apr 2013 to Home
Mar 2014 Secure Training 111 607 67,377 Centre
YOI 532 177 94,164
TOTAL 233,089
Children Looked After
Offending by children looked after by Southampton City Council for more than one year has reduced consistently since 2008. The figure for 2013 / 14 was 7.1%. Although this is in part explained by an increase in the size of the overall CLA cohort, the YOS has better data, using the Police National Computer. This has provided a clearer picture of children accommodated outside of the city. As the majority of children looked after are accommodated locally, the Southampton triage arrangements will have a positive impact on CLA offending in 2014. Southampton contributes to the SE7 regional forum in respect of reducing offending by children looked after and is working with Hampshire Constabulary to finalise a local protocol.
Table 7: Offending by Children Looked After
18 Page 116 Section 6: Resourcing and Value for Money
Table 8 : Funding Contributions 2014 - 15:
Partner Funding Contribution (£)
2013 / 14 2014 / 15 Southampton City Council 627,100 558,500
Health 57,000 57,000
Police and Crime Commissioner 28,600 63,500
Police 68,800 68,800
Probation 74,000 74,000
Youth Justice Board 249,200 249,200
Total 1,109,700 1,071,000
Partner financial contributions to the core YOS budget for 2014 / 15 are broadly stable; with an enhanced award from the Police and Crime Commissioner noted. A reduction in local authority funding has been addressed through a restructure and reduced staffing overheads. Elsewhere, the reduction in Youth Justice Board remand funding is considered in Risks to Future Delivery .
Table 9: Southampton Youth Offending Service Disposals 2012 – 13
Type No. % of Total Young People 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14 12/13 13/14
Prevention (Youth Community Resolutions) 106 99 23 23 106 99
Final Warning Interventions 93 8 19 2 93 8 Formal Out of Court Disposals - 71 - 16 62 1st Tier sentences 104 96 21 22 97 93 (Referral Orders / Reparation Orders)
Community Sentences 157 139 32 32 105 97 (All other Community Sentences) Custodial sentences 28 19 5 5 23 16 Total 488 432 100 100 424 375
19 Page 117 In 2014/ 15, the number of young people working with the Youth Offending Service reduced from 424 to 375. The reduction of 49 young people represents 11.5%. The total number of disposals also reduced by 11.5% from 488 to 432.
Numbers have decreased across the range of YOS interventions and statutory caseloads average 15 young people. The reduction in custodial sentences is clearly positive and indicative of the valuable work that the service is undertaking in respect of this national indicator; through the offer of robust community-based interventions as sentencing proposals to the Court.
In addition to their case work, YOS officers also provide a consistent presence in Court and staff the offending behaviour programme. 124 young people attended 227 group work sessions in 2013 / 14; with two areas of group work being acknowledged by the Youth Justice Board as emerging effective practice.
The value of the YOS bail support officer has yet to be fully realised due to the appointment being midway through the financial year. However, since November 2013, bail support packages have been successfully offered to 22 young people over 35 Court appearances.
The YOS contribution to the Priority Young People scheme has been robust and the reduction in offences committed by this high risk cohort is notable (58% in 2013 / 14). YOS staff are pro- actively engaging in the Youth Justice Board Reducing Reoffending Project and this commitment will be channelled into a review of offending behaviour work, supported by extensive training in 2014 / 15.
The reduction in Youth Community Resolutions has been responded to by a robust review of diversion cases. Working in partnership, the YOS and Hampshire Constabulary have established that police officers were not referring cases to YOS consistently. The YOS police officer now screens all YCR and this revised process, alongside the Joint Decision Making Panel, is a significant YOS contribution to reducing first time entrants.
Section 7: Risks to Future Delivery
The core YOS budget has remained stable this year and the service has seen an increased award by the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner. Strategically, the youth justice partnership is developing, with a wider focus. Nevertheless, maintaining robust support from the statutory partners, remains the key issue for effective youth justice provision. For Southampton City Council, as the principle financial contributor, the remand budget creates an additional pressure.
The Southampton City Council Transformation Programme will support an increase in the compliment of qualified staff in the service to support consistent, high quality service delivery. Youth justice provision will develop with clear alignments to early help services; whilst maintaining a focus on the ‘critical few’ responsible for the highest proportion of offending. In 2014, the service will be required to supervise unpaid work interventions; whilst developing plans for taking on attendance centre responsibilities in 2015.
Effective preparation for the introduction of the ASSET Plus assessment tool will also be essential. Finally, it will be important that service delivery progresses with Youth Justice Board expectations in respect of effective practice grant requirements in mind.
20 Page 118
Section 8: Structure and Governance
The Youth Offending Service is a statutory service, positioned within the People’s Directorate of Southampton City Council. The team is multi-disciplinary with each statutory partner contributing staff. There are 18 full time and 8 part time members of staff within the team. Youth Offending Service Officers are seconded from Southampton City Council and Hampshire Probation Trust. Specialist workers include a seconded police officer, a personal advisor, and health and substance misuse workers.
Southampton Youth Offending Service management board is chaired by the Head of Children and Families. Statutory Partners are represented by senior officers of Southampton City Council People’s Directorate, Southampton Primary Care Trust, Hampshire Constabulary and Hampshire Probation Trust. In 2014, the statutory partners signed a joint working agreement to support effective governance. In addition, the management board includes representation from Housing, Community Safety and the Courts on an ad-hoc or permanent basis as mutually agreed. The management board is linked to the relevant local authorities including Children’s Trust arrangements, Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, Local Criminal Justice Board and Safe City Partnership.
The board provides strategic direction and support to the YOS manager; ensuring that planning is undertaken to reduce re-offending safeguard children and young people. Meetings are convened on a quarterly basis. Further sub-groups of the management board may be set up from time to time. The Management Board oversees and contributes towards the Youth Offending Service’s statutory aim of reducing re-offending. It fulfils the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and YJB guidance by ensuring that Southampton Youth Offending Service has sufficient resources and infrastructure to deliver youth justice services in its area in line with the requirements of the National Standards for Youth Justice Services .
The management board also ensures that relevant staff are seconded to the Youth Offending Service in line with the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and that the Youth Offending Service has sufficient access to mainstream services provided by partners and other key agencies. In exceptional circumstances, where consideration is being given to derogating from a particular National Standard; the board will inform the relevant YJB Head of Business Area of the decision, rationale and the action plan and timelines to reinstate compliance. The board would monitor the action plan on a regular basis and progress reported to the YJB Head of Region or Head of YJB for Wales and YJB Head of Performance on a regular basis.
The board agrees the funding arrangement and ensure that arrangements are in place for a pooled budget. It ensures that information is exchanged between partner agencies in line with relevant legislation and in particular the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Finally, the board receives quarterly performance reports and works with the Youth Offending Service Manager to improve and sustain performance and quality standards. It also considers reviews of serious incidents (as defined by the YJB).
21 Page 119 YOS Structure:
Page 120 Page
22
Staffing of YOS by Gender and Ethnicity
Total Total Student Strategic Strategic Volunteer Volunteer Sessional Sessional Managers Managers Managers Operational Operational Practitioners Practitioners Administrative Administrative
M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F
White British 1 2 5 13 4 1 2 16 8 36
White Irish 1 1
Other White 1 1
White & Black Caribbean 3 3
White & Black African 2 4 2 4
White & Asian 1 1
Other Mixed
Indian 1 1 2
Bangladeshi 1 1
Any other ethnic group 2 2
TOTAL 1 2 6 14 4 1 4 29 11 50
Staffing of YOS by Contract Type
(FT) (FT) (FT) (PT) (PT) (PT) (PT) (PT) Total Total trainees Students/ Students/ Volunteer Sessional Practitioners Practitioners Strategic Manager Administration(FT) Administration (PT) OperationalManager OperationalManager Strategic(FT) Manager Fixed-term 3
Temporary 0.6
Secondee Children’s Services 1 2 0.6 9 1 1
Secondee Probation 2 0.8
Secondee Police 1 1
Secondee Health (Substance misuse) 1
Secondee Health (Mental health) 0.5
Secondee Health (Physical health) 0.4
Secondee Education 1
TOTAL 1 2 1.5 17 1.4 2 1 25.9
23 Page 121
Page 122 Page Appendix One: Youth Justice Board Effective Practice Grant: Summary of Proposed Expenditure.
Financial Year: 2014 – 15
Responsible Officer: Stuart Webb, YOS Manager
24
Component Detail Grant Requirement Achieved by Measured by Amount(£)
Service development and performance Management implementation of Completion of YOS performance Improvement in the quality of work across the 137,895 improvement quality assurance and improvement (reducing reoffending) plan. team, against appraisal targets set at the performance improvement beginning of the year. Evidenced through the (reducing re-offending) plans (1x Embedding a rigorous quality assurance results of the monthly managers audits. YOS manager; 2x senior process within the service. practitioners. Completion of the inspection improvement Implementation of the service training plan plan. Staff contribution to quality which is based on an analysis of training assurance and performance needs across the team. Completion of service training plan. improvement (9x YOS officers; 7x specialist workers). Participation in and contribution to Performance monitoring by YOS management
Page 123 Page regional effective practice and board against National and Local Performance Management review and management forums and wider Indicators: development of quality assurance arrangements. processes. • Reducing Re-offending. Management quality assurance • Reducing First Time Entrants. audits. • Reducing Custody. Quality improvement work undertaken by senior • Increasing accommodation practitioners, linked to appraisal. suitability.
Attendance at YJB effective • Improving Education, Training and practice forum and dissemination Employment outcomes. of information at local meetings. • Increasing the number of appropriate Staff training as identified Community Resolutions. through Training Needs Analysis • Reducing re-offending within the and plan. Priority Young People Cohort YOS Manager AYM membership • Reducing remands into Youth Staff contribution to reducing Detention Accommodation National Indicators.
25
Component Detail Grant Requirement Achieved by Measured by Amount(£)
Development of Restorative Justice Extension of provision this year to Further embedding high quality work Evidence of extension of provision to all 20,000 Strategy so that victim support and within the team, with a particular focus statutory cases. restorative justice is considered this year on developing all case holders use for all cases. of restorative justice Increase in volunteer numbers.
Work with Solent University and Extending and enhancing the volunteer Evidence of volunteer appraisal. other partners regarding base. Evidence of engagement with community volunteer recruitment and partners in respect of wider provision training.
Volunteer development and appraisal.
Page 124 Page Development of community provision.
Development of Service User Work with Solent University / Ensuring that the service strategy receives Evidence that the SU strategy is being 15,000 Involvement Strategy critical friend. rigorous critique and challenge during implemented through young people’s implementation. participation events. Service user involvement events. Ensuring strong user voice in shaping the Critical comment and shaping of key areas of Work with YJB, early service. work through partnership with Solent implementation of new self- University. assessment tools. Adopting new methods of working to improve and develop service user focused Evidence of liaison with YJB in order to adopt practice. revised self-assessment tools.
Administration of the Management Provision of strategic guidance, Review of performance and quality of YOS management board minutes. 11 ,267 Board challenge and monitoring as per provision. the board terms of reference. Ensuring a partnership approach to the continued development of the service in Southampton.
26
Component Detail Grant Requirement Achieved by Measured by Amount(£)
Development of the Priority Young Ongoing development and review The development of a partnership Offending within cohort measured on a 30,000 People Scheme of PYP strategy in Southampton. response to high risk offenders in quarterly basis. Southampton. PYP forum to meet monthly to Performance reports to YOS management action plan in respect of young This work component works to support board and Southampton Safer City Partnership. people at high risk of re- service performance against the re- offending. offending National Indicator.
Work to reduce custody and remands Management quality assurance of Reduction in the numbers of custodial Performance report to YOS management 20,000 into Youth Detention Accommodation. pre-sentence reports. sentences and remands, supporting service board. performance against the custody National Staff training in respect of court Indicator Feedback from magistrates and crown court work user groups
Page 125 Page Saturday and Bank Holiday Court provision.
Attendance at magistrates training events and production of quarterly report to magistrates by service manager.
Management attendance at court user groups.
27
Component Detail Grant Requirement Achieved by Measured by Amount(£)
Work with Hampshire Constabulary to Implementation of Joint Decision Reduction in the number of First Time Performance report. 15,000 reduce FTE numbers Making Panel and YOS triage Entrants in Southampton, supporting clinic at Southampton Central service performance against this National Feedback from Hampshire Constabulary Police Station. Indicator. Community Resolution Panel.
YOS training of police staff. Increased use of community resolution First Time Entrants analysis.
YOS participation on Hampshire Community Resolution Panel. Local quality assurance work in respect of Youth Community Resolutions.
Page 126 Page
TOTAL £249,162
28
Appendix Two: Southampton Youth Offending Service – Reducing Re-offending Plan Page 127 Page Overview:
General:
Southampton YOS has agreed to be part of the national Youth Justice Board (YJB) Reoffending Project which aims to:
– gain a greater understanding of the reoffending cohort and – subsequently reduce reoffending across England and Wales.
To enable this greater understanding, two YJB data tools (one national and one local) have been used to analyse Southampton YOS reoffending data. These will be used alongside the Assess and Improve Document to explore local performance. All data was for the April 10 – March 11 period.
The YJB report gives key findings from the data tools and makes recommendations based on these findings. The YOS Manager has subsequently created a Reducing Re-offending Plan. The action plan addresses the general recommendations made by the YJB and also focuses on specific areas of analysis: Ethnicity, Assessment, Interventions, and Transfer. These will be the subject of ‘themed’ audits, which will be undertaken by the YOS management team and the YJB Local Partnership Advisor between February and October 2014.
The plan is endorsed by the YOS Management Board.
29
Recommendation Action By Who By When Progress 1. To conduct a review of those Revised Youth Community Stuart Webb / Sgt Matthew January 2014 Embedded into local practice children and young people who re- Resolution (YCR) process starts. Wake / PC Lorraine Barry – see below, QA exercise. offended at pre court level and assess whether the LASPOA out of Present reoffending paper to YOS Court provisions would have had Mgt Board and Safe City Stuart Webb Completed an ameliorative impact. partnership End January 2014
Review 11 / 12 and 12 / 13 YCR Stuart Webb Probation information now data February 2014 obtained. Waiting for FM information.
Revised YCR arrangements Stuart Webb / Sgt Matt Wake / Rescheduled to May due to Quality Assurance exercise Debbie Hordell / Insp Lee Fryatt April 2014 staff availability.
Page 128 Page
2. To conduct an audit of those cases Review local Priority Young People Stuart Webb / Sgt Al Dineley / January 2014 Completed where prolific offenders had only arrangements Derek Stevens received Standard or Enhanced intervention ‘Themed’ Audit – assessments. Stuart Webb / Paula Williams March 2014 Started – see below
3. To review the QA system to ensure YJB Local Partnership Advisor Stuart Webb / Paula Williams / January 2014 Started – see below, training processes are in place to check attending January YOS Managers’ Mandy Brosnan recommendations that: Audit
• assessments are of sufficient ‘Assess and Improve’ document to quality, be used to further explore the above areas identified as an issue. • trigger the appropriate level and type of intervention and that
• reviews are carried out quickly on those who reoffend early
30
4. To conduct “real time” monitoring Meeting with performance officer. Stuart Webb / Debbie Blythe January 2014 Work with YJB undertaken. of the current cohort using the YJB When real time tracker is local tool. released SYOS will begin using it. 5. To undertake analysis of the next Co -ordinate data collection Stuart Webb / Paula Williams June 2014 Delay in data release from available cohort (April 11 – March YJB. SW liaising with PW. 12) in the next financial year to compare and see if similar issues are raised.
6. Share the analysis and findings Shared with management team Stuart Webb / Paula Williams December 2013 Completed with the YOT management team, and possibly with the whole team Presentation in Team Meeting Stuart Webb / Mandy Brosnan End January 2014 Completed 7. Share the analysis and findings at SCP and YOS Mgt Board Stuart Webb / Paula Williams January 2014 Completed – quarterly the next YOT Management Board review of action plan agreed. meeting for discussion and agreement for the action plan. Page 129 Page 8. Carry out any further analysis as YOS manager and LPA to liaise Stuart Webb / Paula Williams End April 2014 Ongoing recommended in the next 3 months (book meeting to review) Report to board 9. Following further recommended YOS manager and LPA to liaise Stuart Webb / Paula Williams End April 2014 Ongoing analysis develop a 12 month action plan Report to board 10. The YJB to support and monitor YOS manager and LPA to liaise Stuart Webb / Paula Williams October 2014 / April 2015 Ongoing implementation of the action plan (review points at 6 months and 12 Report to board months). 11. The 4 Hampshire PCC YOTs to meet Meeting arranged Stuart Webb / Paula Williams End January 2014 SW attended meeting to explore re-offending trends / YOT Managers February 2014 across the area and to look at possible collaborative work; including analysis of re-offending by CLA
31
Specific Areas of Analysis :
Area Of Analysis Recommendation Action By Who By When Progress Ethnicity 12. Ethnicity (rate) YOT to audit the cases falling into ‘Themed’ Audit. Stuart Webb / Paula February 2014 Completed Mar – Apr these two ethnic groupings to Williams / Mandy Brosnan 2014 better understand the case history and pattern of re-offending. Assessment 13. Asset bands (rate) YOT to establish whether ‘Themed’ Audit. Stuart Webb / Paula March 2014 Completed Mar – Apr assessments are accurate or Williams / Mandy Brosnan 2014 whether there are children and young people being supervised at standard or enhanced level that would have benefitted from a higher level of intervention.
Page 130 Page 14. Frequency by level YOT to dip sample the ‘prolific’ As above As above By July 2014 Date amended of intervention children and young people in order to satisfy themselves that the assessments were accurate and took in to account all available information. 15. Time to further YOT to further investigate as to As above As above By July 2014 Date amended offence (rate) whether assessments and interventions were reviewed in a timely fashion on the basis of further offending. 16. Seriousness YOT to satisfy themselves whether As above As above By July 2014 Date amended (numbers) assessment, planning and intervention with cohort is effective as it might be in reducing both the overall likelihood of re- offending and the risk of serious harm. 17. Spread of YOT to investigate how many of As above As above By July 2014 Date amended reoffending these ‘prolific’ young people had (numbers) been assessed as requiring intensive level of intervention.
32
Interventions 18. Age (rate) YOS to review programmes of ‘Themed’ Audit. Stuart Webb / Paula October 2014 Date amended intervention in particular to Williams / Mandy Brosnan ensure that these meet the / Dawn McCormick developmental needs of younger children and young people and ensure that staff are well equipped to work with this age group 19. Gender (rate) YOS to review programmes of As above As above October 2014 Date amended intervention with boys to ensure that they engage them effectively and meet their specific needs.
Page 131 Page
20. Type of offences YOT to review interventions to As above As above October 2014 Date amended (number) ensure the availability of suitable and effective programmes of work. YOT to also ensure that assessments identify risk appropriately irrespective of nature of initial offence. 21. Tier of intervention YOT to review available As above As above October 2014 Date amended (rate) interventions for the community group and their effectiveness in addressing the likelihood of re- offending. Transfers 22. Cases with transfers YOT to audit these cases involving ‘Themed’ Audit. Stuart Webb / Paula October 2014 Date amended (numbers) a transfer to identify specific Williams / Mandy Brosnan learning. / Dawn McCormick
33
Post Inspection / Audit Improvement:
Recommendation Action By Who By When Progress First meeting has taken 23. Strengthen YOS / Early Help interface Ensure that YOS assessment Stuart Webb / Mary Johnson July 2014 place. around safeguarding (ASSET) is robustly aligned with Universal Help / Single Assessments; in order to strengthen family assessment and safeguarding analysis / response.
Quality assurance exercise to review joint working– specifically: case notification, alignment of Stuart Webb / Mary Johnson
Page 132 Page planning processes, step down July 2014 Set for May 2014 arrangements to effectively manage risk.
Development of formal quality assurance process for Families Stuart Webb / Mary Johnson July 2014 Matter cases. Template under development.
Review YOS Safeguarding policy. Stuart Webb July 2014
24. Training Needs Review Families Matter Training Stuart Webb May 2014 Team Meeting for YOS staff.
Level 3 safeguarding training Stuart Webb / Inspire / June 2014 Planning Meeting arranged. Barnadoes Costing exercise: Leading into Asset Plus Stuart Webb July 2014 training. Assessment, Planning, Intervention Training.
Manager’s quality assurance and effective supervision training.
34
Page 133 Page
35
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: CONCESSIONARY FARES SCHEME 2015 DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Simon Bell Tel: 023 8083 3814 E-mail: [email protected]
Director Name: Stuart Love Tel: 023 8091 7713 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY None. BRIEF SUMMARY The report seeks agreement on the Concessionary Fare Scheme for 2015-16, subject to the publication of any revised guidance from the Department for Transport. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) to approve the scheme in Appendix 1, subject to the calculations in recommendation (ii) below; (ii) to reimburse bus operators at a percentage rate plus an amount per generated journey, in accordance with the guidance given by the Department for Transport using their reimbursement calculator; and (iii) to delegate to the Director, Place following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport to agree the final reimbursement rate for bus operators and to do anything necessary to secure participation in the Scheme including the service of Notices, including but not limited to Participation Notices, and the management/determination of Appeals either to the Council or the DfT as appropriate. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To enable the Council to comply with the statutory requirement to serve bus operators with the minimum 4 months notice of the proposed Concessionary Fares Scheme for 2015-16. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 2. It is statutory requirement that the Council has to publish details of its proposed scheme in advance of the scheme introduction on 1 April 20 15. The final decision on any changes to the local enhancements will be made at Council in February 2015 following the Council setting its budget.
Version Number: Page 135
DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 3. The Council is required by law to give bus operators 4 months notice of the proposed Scheme it will operate. This report will allow the Council to issue this notice to bus operators. The 4 month notice period allows operators to make representations to the Council in relation to the Scheme methodology, content and reimbursement arrangements. Should a bus operator refuse to participate in the concessionary fare scheme the Council would need to issue a participation notice requiring them to do so. In order for participation Notices to be effective, final confirmation of additional local enhancements to statutory minimum i.e. travel from 0900 rather than 0930 and between 2300 and 0030 for Southampton residents must be given to bus operators 28 days in advance of the Scheme coming in to operation. The proposed scheme for 2015/2016 is the same as that which operates in 2014/2015. 4. Final confirmation of the reimbursement rates to bus operators (as opposed to the methodology to be used) must be given 28 days in advance of the scheme coming in to operation. A decision on the reimbursement rate will be made by the Director of Place in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. Bus operators then have 56 days from the start of the scheme to appeal to the Secretary of State on the proposed reimbursement arrangements. 5. Appendix 1 shows the details of the proposed scheme for 2015. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 6. It is currently projected that the outturn for the concessionary fare scheme in 2014/15 will be £4,905,000. Revised guidance from the Department for Transport may be issued and this will be used to confirm the final reimbursement rate 28 days prior to commencement of the scheme which is currently 50p in the pound. The number of trips on the scheme since the national scheme was introduced in 2008 has been between 4.7m and 5.1m pa. The cost of the scheme has increased each year as a result of increases in bus fares which impacts on the average bus fare which is used to calculate the reimbursement to bus operators. Property/Other 7. There are no property or other implications. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 8. Concessionary fares are governed by the Transport Acts of 1985 and 2000, and the Concessionary Fares Act of 2007. If it is agreed that in the future, no enhancements over and above the statutory minimum will be offered, then the 1985 Act does not apply as all local enhancements are made under this Act. Other Legal Implications : 9. The provision of a concessionary travel scheme in accordance with the national minimum is a statutory duty. A discretionary power exists to provide a scheme that extends entitlement of services over and above the national
Version Number: Page 136 minimum. Any scheme must be made having regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 (with which any national minimum scheme will be deemed to comply). Statutory notice of the amendments to the 2015/2016 scheme must be given by 1 December 2014 and any representations received in accordance with this Notice considered and determined in accordance with the Act and Regulations. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 10. The provision of concessionary travel accords with the policy direction of the City’s adopted Local Transport Plan 2011 – 2016 by helping the Council meet its targets for increasing the use of sustainable transport modes (and bus travel in particular) and also increasing accessibility and promoting social inclusion.
KEY DECISION? Yes WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: ALL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices 1. Scheme details for 2015 Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. None Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact No Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. None
Page 137 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Appendix 1
SOUTHAMPTON CONCESSIONARY FARES SCHEME 2015 (‘the Scheme’)
Introduction
The Concessionary Fares Scheme agreed by Southampton City Council will come into effect on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 and continues until 31 March 2016. This Notice and Scheme replaces the Southampton Concessionary fares Scheme 2014 and supersedes all previous Schemes and Notices
Legislation
The scheme is made in accordance with the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007, the Transport Act 2000, the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002 and the discretionary powers contained in the Transport Act 1985 (‘the Acts’).
Responsible Authority
The responsible authority for the Scheme shall be Southampton City Council. The Scheme shall be funded by Southampton City Council. The Scheme shall be administered by either Southampton City Council or its appointed agent(s).
All enquiries regarding the Scheme and all Notices required to be served upon the responsible authority under the Acts should be addressed to:
Paul Walker, Head of Transport, Highways and Parking, One Guildhall Square, Southampton, SO14 7FP.
A copy of the Scheme will be supplied to any person on request by post from the person specified above and is available on the Council website at www.southampton.gov.uk .
Operator Eligibility
Operators of registered bus services running within the City which are also eligible for bus service operators grant.
User Eligibility
Residents of Southampton who meet any of the following criteria will be eligible for a free concessionary fares pass:
• men and women aged 62 years and older; • blind people; • partially sighted people; • deaf people;
Page 139 • people without speech (in any language); • people with a disability, or who have suffered an injury, which, in the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner, seriously impairs their ability to walk; • people without the use of both arms; • people with a learning difficulty; • people who would be refused the grant of a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle under Section 92 of Part III the Road Traffic Act 1988; • people with a long term mental health problem; and • travelling companions/escorts of disabled people.
For those under the age of 62, applicants must either provide confirmation that: i) They are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (mobility component); or ii) They are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (care component); or iii) They are in receipt of War Pensions Mobility Supplement; or iv) The have a valid registration card for their disability; or v) Certification of Vision impairment; or vi) Have learning difficulties and attend Southampton Day Services or registered with Southampton Learning Disabilities team; or vi) They have a signed form (MQ14) from their doctor confirming eligibility.
Hours of Operation
The Southampton concessionary fares scheme will be based on bus travel alone. Concessionary travel available all day on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays and declared public holidays and between 09:00 and 00:30 on other days for residents of Southampton and between 0930 and 2300 for all others. Blind persons will be permitted to travel at any time.
Area of Travel
Any journey that starts within the boundary of Southampton (NOTE: funding of such travel shall be subject to any inter-authority boundary/funding agreements which may be entered into and shall be deemed to be part of this Scheme. This will not affect user eligibility or operator reimbursement).
Level of Concession
The proposed scheme provides free travel on presentation of a valid pass:
Administration
The administration of the issue of concessionary fares scheme passes will be carried out by the Public Transport and Operations Team. A database of all
Page 140 people who are issued with a bus pass will be kept. The City Council will be responsible for meeting the statutory requirements for data protection.
Reimbursement
Operators will submit monthly returns to the City Council unless otherwise agreed in advance. Payment of 85% of the estimatedth figure for the month will be agreed with the operator be made on the 15 of the month. The outstanding figure paid once exact figures are known and the claim should identify the number of journeys undertaken and the average fare payable.
The City Council will require all information required to be produced in support of claims under the scheme to be certified as accurate by a “responsible person”.
The returns will be subject to periodic audit by the City Council or its nominated representatives. Bus operators will be expected to provide information reasonably required for this purpose.
The City Council will reimburse you at (xx%). An additional amount of (£x.x) per generated trip will also be paid to recognise operators’ additional costs in providing the concession.
Guidelines on evidence required to substantiate Additional Capacity Cost claims to the Concessionary Fares Scheme The Southampton Concessionary Fares Scheme makes provision for operators to claim specific additional costs “to cover the costs of providing additional vehicle capacity to cope with growth in patronage brought about by concessionary travel”, in addition to the standard marginal additional costs allowance. Such Additional Capacity Costs are considered on a case-by-case and service-specific basis, on submission of written evidence of the circumstances together with a statement of the costs incurred and may comprise claims for marginal capacity costs calculated in accordance with any prevailing DfT guidance and/or Peak vehicle Requirement Costs if evidenced to the satisfaction of the City Council. The following checklist gives guidance on the nature of information which is considered necessary to substantiate Additional Capacity Cost claims. It should be appreciated that the amount and detail of information required will increase with claims of greater scope: one duplicate journey will require much more limited evidence than that to support a general increase of service frequency. The claimant should demonstrate, with auditable evidence for each affected service:
Page 141 a) The extent of the capacity increase which is deemed necessary, itemising the resources entailed in its provision. b) The rationale for the increase, including – u the average distribution of capacity and utilisation by day / time and direction, and the scale and frequency of peaks in each; u the decision thresholds applied; and u any constraints on those decisions (e.g. maintaining clockface frequency). c) The proportions of concessionary passengers using the service at relevant times, and the contribution towards costs made by commercial passengers generated by the additional capacity. d) The relevant costs, clearly distinguishing – u marginal costs of operation (e.g. driver’s time, fuel, tyres); u semi-variable costs (e.g. maintenance); u attributable overheads (if any); and u capital / financing costs and profit margin (if capital investment is involved). Account should be taken of the standard Additional Marginal Costs allowance, either by netting off the cash sum or the exclusion of relevant cost headings. On request, the operator must make available historic boarding data for affected services; this will normally be in the form of unprocessed data from electronic ticket machine systems. To enable the timely and efficient operation of the scheme and consideration of claims, claims should be submitted by the end of the calendar year to which they relate and relate to the preceding 12 months operation of the scheme. Additional claims submitted in accordance with the Limitation Act 1980 will be considered on a case by case basis. Any challenge to any decision by the Authority in relation to any claim for additional capacity costs must be brought in accordance with the paragraph below headed “Operator Representations and Complaints”.
rd Reimbursement arrangements will be determined annually by 3 March following discussions with operators and determined in accordance with the Acts and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Operators will be notified of finalrd determination of reimbursement arrangements as soon as possible after 3 March each year. Any newly determined reimbursement arrangements will comprise part of this Scheme and replace Schedule 1 accordingly.
Page 142
Right to Survey
The City Council has the right to carry out surveys on vehicles on which concessions are given. Bus operators will be consulted as to how and when the survey will be carried out and operators will be given reasonable prior notice of the City Council’s intention.
Variations
Southampton City Council reserves the right to vary the Scheme or to offer discretionary enhancements to the Scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Transport Act 1985 and any reimbursement arrangements relating to and forming part of the Scheme at any time in accordance with the provisions of the Acts, upon relevant Notice. Southampton City Council shall give 28 days notice in writing to Operators of any proposed variations or changes to the Scheme, save where changes relate to reimbursement arrangements in relation to which the Authority shall give 4 months notice of any proposed changes reimbursement arrangements, but the period of such notice may be shortened by mutual agreement or variations to the scheme required to give effect to a decision of the Secretary of State for Transport’s determination of any application under the Transport Acts in relation to which the Authority shall give notice in writing to apply with immediate effect .
Right of Participation
Notwithstanding the mandatory participation of Operators in accordance with the Transport Act 2000 and the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007, Southampton City Council may require and notify any Operator to participate in the Scheme or any variation of the Scheme in accordance with the Transport Act 1985, and such participation will commence not less than 28 days after receipt of such written notification. At the date of notification the Operator will be supplied with a copy of this Scheme and any Variations thereto.
Operator Representations and Complaints:
If an Operator participating in this Scheme wishes to make any representations in relation to this scheme or reimbursement under this scheme (including any challenge, complaint, concern or grievance in relation to the Scheme) such a representation should be made in writing to the Responsible Authority at the address set out above. Representations will be considered by the Council on their merits and without prejudice to the Operators rights of Appeal under the Acts. Operators also have the right to avail themselves of the Authority’s Corporate Complaints Policy, details of which may be found on the Authority’s website at www.southampton.gov.uk
Page 143
Right of Appeal
Any Operator has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the terms of reimbursement of the Scheme under the Transport Acts 1985 and 2000 or against participation in any discretionary element of the Scheme under the Transport Act 1985 on the grounds that:-
(a) There are special reasons why their company’s participation in the scheme in respect of any of the services to which the notice applies would be inappropriate (under both the 2000 Act and the 1985 Act); or
(b) Any provision of the scheme or of any of the scheme arrangements are inappropriate for application in relation to any operators who are not voluntarily participating in the scheme (1985 Act only).
Prior to making such an application, notice in writing must be given to the person and at the address specified under the ‘Responsible Authority Heading above.
NOTE Those sections shaded include elements that are local enhancements and may be amended or removed following the Council budget setting meeting in February 2015.
Page 144 Agenda Item 14
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: LICENSING SCHEME FOR HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMOs) DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING AND SUSTAINABILITY
CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Janet Hawkins Tel: 023 8083 2617 E-mail: [email protected] Director Name: Stuart Love Tel: 023 8091 7713 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY NOT APPLICABLE BRIEF SUMMARY To outline the proposals for a further Designation in Southampton of a Licensing Scheme for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) for the electoral wards Freemantle, Shirley, Millbrook and Bassett. This would be for all HMOs and is considered to be a proportionate response to proactively improving property standards and management in HMOs in this area. Approval is sought to initiate a twelve week consultation on these proposals with residents, landlords and others. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) To approve the proposals for a public consultation for an additional
HMO Licensing Scheme inth Freemantle, Shirley, Millbrook and Bassett wards; to start 27 November 2014 for twelve weeks. st (ii) To consider the outcome of the consultation at its meeting on 21 April 2015 and, if appropriate, designates the proposed area as
beingrd subject to additional licensing, which would come into effect on 3 August 2015. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Evidence shows that there are significant problems associated with Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Southampton, including poor property conditions, poor management and anti-social behaviour, which are not being adequately addressed through the Council’s Mandatory Licensing Scheme (which covers HMOs comprising three or more storeys and occupied by five or more people) and other enforcement and regulatory measures. 2. An Additional Licensing Scheme covering smaller HMOs, including those consisting of two storeys and those occupied by three or more unrelated people, was introduced in July 2013 in four wards in the City (Bevois, Bargate, Portswood and Swaythling). This is ensuring the improvement in the condition and management of these properties for the tenants. It is also addressing community concernsPage about 145 the local impact of HMOs, for example through effective enforcement of licence conditions and working with landlords and letting agents to address concerns such as letting boards and waste collection. This is to ensure safe, good quality, privately rented accommodation is available to meet housing needs. To date there have been 1855 applications received, almost 1600 HMOs inspected and over 900 licences issued. The HMO warden is also making an impact in the local communities working with landlords and letting agents to tackle issues such as letting boards. The scheme has also enjoyed support from several residents’ groups and other bodies in terms of providing extra powers to mitigate the impact of poorly managed HMOs in the wider community. 3. The evidence gathered to date identifies an area including Freemantle, Bassett, Millbrook and Shirley Wards to propose a further designation for an additional licensing scheme for all HMOs. It is not lawful to extend the existing designation; a new designation would need to be made. The data collation for these wards is ongoing and the Council now needs to move into a period of consultation with landlords, tenants, local residents and other interested parties. 4. The Housing Act 2004 requires a public consultation on proposals for an Additional Licensing Scheme before any designation is made. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 5. That the Council manages issues associated with HMOs in these four wards without an Additional Licensing Scheme. The Article 4 Direction now means that planning permission is required for all new HMOs in the City, but this does not apply to existing HMOs. The proposed further designation would enable a more proactive and comprehensive approach and will significantly assist the Council in dealing with HMO issues in the identified areas. 6. That an Additional Licensing Scheme be implemented without public consultation. This has been rejected as it would be unlawful. The General Consent given by the Secretary of State o n 30 March 2010 to local authorities to designate an area or areas does not apply unless consultation has taken place for a minimum of ten weeks. DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 7. Southampton City Council values its very large private rented sector (at around 24,000 properties comprising at least 24% of the whole housing stock) and wants to see a strong, healthy and vibrant market. The sector has an important role in providing often reasonably priced housing for those not wishing or able to consider home ownership, or for those to whom social housing is not an option, as well as providing housing for the City’s student population. The sector offers flexibility and capacity that is key to addressing housing need in the City. Historically, the Council has been keen to ensure that HMOs are improved. In 1995, the Council established the Freemantle and Polygon HMO Registration Scheme, since April 2006 it has administered a City-wide Mandatory HMO Licensing Scheme and in July 2013, introduced an additional HMO Licensing Scheme for all HMOs in Bevois, Bargate, Portswood and Swaythling wards. 8. The Council is keen to ensure that the housing needs of a wide range of private rented tenants are m et through well managed, quality accommodation. However, the private rented sector has some significant problems for which statutory regulation, particularly licensing, is required. The City has a large number of Houses in MultiplePage Occupation 146 (HMOs) estimated at 7,000 properties. These are amongst the more difficult to manage properties in the sector. In some HMOs, the standards of management and living conditions are very poor. A licensing scheme that covers all HMOs in the proposed area would allow the Council to proactively identify and engage with landlords, particularly with the less responsible landlords, to drive up standards in the sector. High densities of HMOs in some areas of the City have also led to community concerns, including: noise, antisocial behaviour, crime, letting signs, waste and recycling, which licensing of all HMOs would also help to tackle. 9. Licensing has significant social and financial benefits to the general economy of the City. It maintains the buoyancy of the r ental market by ensuring that the better landlords are not disadvantaged by non-compliant landlords. Evidence in other cities with additional licensing, such as Oxford, Brighton and Bristol, has shown that some of the worst landlords are being driven out of the market. 10. Mandatory HMO licensing (which applies nationally) is aimed at those HMOs that present the highest safety risks to occupiers, namely those of three storeys or more and occupied by five or more unrelated people. 392 properties are currently licensed under the Mandatory Licensing Scheme in Southampton. 11. In addition to these larger HMOs, research suggests that there are potentially 6,500 smaller HMOs and there is evidence in some of them of unsatisfactory management, disrepair, inadequate safety standards and community harm. 12. The consultation therefore proposes that an Additional Licensing Scheme be implemented to cover smaller HMOs containing three or more people, regardless of the number of storeys, in the four wards of Freemantle, Shirley, Millbrook and Bassett. It is estimated that around 2,200 such properties are within these four areas, with around 4,000 estimated to be in the four areas already covered, where licensing is currently in progress. 13. It is proposed that the designation will apply to any building which is an HMO as defined by section 257 of the Housing Act 2004, relating to certain converted blocks of flats. Resident landlords with up to two lodgers are not defined as HMOs. 14. Applications for a licence in the proposed area would involve the following checks: determining that the landlord or manager is a ‘fit and proper person’, making sure that the property is free from serious housing hazards, checking gas, electrical and fire safety certificates and waste disposal arrangements. It is proposed to ensure that the property is suitable for housing people to whom the Council owes a duty under homelessness legislation. This will include asking for carbon monoxide detectors and an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC). Licence conditions would deal with antisocial behaviour, waste in gardens and lettings signs. 15. The costs of the Scheme, including costs associated with monitoring and enforcement of licence conditions, will be paid for by the licence fee which is expected to be set per property for a five year licence. Inspections can be carried out by Council officers or approved professionally qualified surveyors. A revised fee structure will be proposed and would apply to any new application received in any of the HMO Licensing Schemes It is important for the council to work with landlords to aim for a common understanding of the development and rationale forPage the fee 147 structure. For the existing scheme, a five-year licence costs £290 for a property of three unrelated people, £390 for four, and £490 for five or more. The potential costs of the new scheme would be finalised as part of the proposed upcoming consultation. 16. Persistent failure to apply for a licence or comply with licence conditions could result in prosecution, an application for a Rent Repayment Order and, in very serious cases, for the Council to take over the management of a property. 17. The consultation will include landlords, letting agents, residents and tenants groups, universities, Shelter, local agencies (including Hampshire Fire and Rescue and Hampshire Constabulary) involved with housing and the general public. Public meetings will be planned and presentations will be made at local branch meetings of the National Landlords Association (NLA) and the Southern Landlords Association (SLA). There will be paper and online questionnaires. 18. It is proposed that the Scheme be reviewed after five years, which will include an evaluation of its impact on housing conditions, community concerns, health and wellbeing and supply of good quality, affordable housing.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 19. There are no capital implications. 20. The HMO licensing fees will be set at a level that is reasonably expected to cover the costs of providing the service based on estimated officer time and associated costs involved in processing the applications, inspections, monitoring and enforcement as well as relevant overheads. The final cost a licence will depend on the outcome of the public consultation and will be submitted for approval by Cabinet in April 2015. 21. Income from the Scheme would be ring-fenced for spending on regulating HMOs, including inspecting each property, ensuring compliance with licence conditions and administering the Scheme. Property/Other 22. Accommodation for staff will be considered as part of the Council’s overall accommodation strategy. This will make the most effective use of flexible working arrangements. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 23. Before introducing an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme, the Council must comply with the specific requirements set out within sections 56 and 57 of the Housing Act 2004. This includes being satisfied that a significant proportion of the HMOs proposed under the additional scheme are being managed sufficiently ineffectively. The Council must also consider whether there are any other courses of action available to them that might provide an effective method of achieving the objectives of any proposed designation and how the making of the designation will significantly assist the Council in achieving its objectives. The Council must also consider the Departmental guidance document “Approval Steps for Additional and Selective Licensing Designations in England”. Consultation must also take place and the Scheme must be consistent with the Authority’s overall housing strategy.
Page 148 Other Legal Implications : 24. Designation of the wards subject to additional licensing cannot come into force unless the designation has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, or falls within a general approval. The proposed designations fall within the 2010 General Approval. If a designation is made, section 59 of the Housing Act 2004 provides for publication of a notice confirming the fact of designation. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 25. The recommendations are consistent with the Housing Strategy 2011-2015.
KEY DECISION? Yes WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: ALL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Non-confidential appendices are in the Members’ Rooms and can be accessed on-line Appendices None Integrated Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Integrated Impact Yes/No Assessment (IIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Integrated Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule NONE 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable)
Page 149 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: SOUTHAMPTON LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (2014 – 2019) DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR HOUSING AND SUSTAINABILITY CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Bernadine Maguire Tel: 023 8083 2403 E-mail: [email protected]
Director Name: Stuart Love Tel: 023 8091 7713 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY NOT APPLICABLE BRIEF SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the adoption of the Southampton Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2014-2019) (the “Strategy”) which provides a high level basis for decision making and action for managing potential flood hazards within the City over the next five years. The Strategy outlines how the risk management authorities for Southampton will manage the various sources of flooding that pose the greatest risk across the City. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) To adopt the Southampton Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2014-2019). (ii) To endorse development and implementation of the actions within the Strategy that will need to be taken forward over the duration of the plan period. (iii) To note that further reports will be brought for approval to proceed with individual projects once funding has been identified. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To enable a strategic and risk-based approach to management of flooding in Southampton which is co-ordinated across the relevant risk management authorities for the area. 2. Endorsement of development and implementation of the actions outlined in the Strategy will provide a mechanism for managing flooding on a risk based approach whilst preparing the City to adapt to climate change and sea level rise as it is realised in the future. 3. The Strategy will provide clarity and direction, to all interested parties, on the co-ordinated approach to be taken by the risk management authorities in
Page 151 managing the various sources of flooding across the City over the next five years. 4. Adoption of the Strategy will facilitate future applications for external funding towards delivery of individual projects to reduce flood risk. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 5. An alternative option is to do nothing. However, this option was rejected because the Council, as the Lead Local Flood Authority for Southampton, has a statutory duty to develop, maintain, implement and monitor a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for the area. Failure to make provision for the Authority to fulfil this statutory duty could incur legal, financial and reputational implications. DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 6. The Southampton Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2014 -2019) provides a high level overview of the potential flood hazard from all sources of flooding (tidal, river, surface water, sewer and groundwater) and identifies a co-ordinated approach to managing these hazards where the greatest impacts are likely to occur. The aim of the Strategy is to better understand, communicate and manage the risk of flooding in Southampton through viable, sustainable and coordinated approaches, for the benefit of people, property, land and the environment, both now and in the future. 7. The Strategy represents a move from the historical position of looking at different types of flooding separately towards trying to implement an integrated approach to managing the different types of flooding in a more co- ordinated manner with involvement from the relevant risk management authorities. The Strategy outlines several actions for the management of flooding in the City. Each has been developed to help deliver the aim and objectives of the Strategy whilst providing a cost-effective and risk-based approach to managing flood risk in Southampton. Existing actions undertaken by risk management authorities… • Investigate incidents of flooding • Establish and maintain a register of assets (physical structures of features) that are likely to have significant effect on flood risk • Maintain and regulate activities on main rivers • Regulate work on ordinary watercourses City-wide actions… • Develop and implement the priority schemes identified in existing flood plans and strategies to manage tidal and surface water flooding where the risk is considered greatest • Strengthen the targets for the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) on new developments • Partnership working • Improve our knowledge and understanding of flood risk, in particular from smaller watercourses and groundwater • Raise awareness of flooding hazards and their potential impacts • Improve existing drainage infrastructure and rivers/watercourses with available resources
Page 152 • Designation of structures/features on private land that contribute to managing flooding to mitigate the risk of their alteration or removal Localised actions… • Work with other risk management authorities to seek opportunities to retrofit SuDS schemes • Support establishment of local community flood groups • Promote property level protection where traditional flood alleviation schemes are not feasible 8. To date the Council and other risk management authorities have been working on various flood risk management specific activities across the City, including: What had already been done? ••• Plans/strategies to highlight the potential flood risk and possible mitigation options for different source of flooding: o Southampton Surface Water Management Plan completed in 2011 (which will become superseded by the Strategy) o Southampton Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Strategy (FERMS) completed in 2012 (priority schemes have been included in the Strategy but the FERMS will still be relevant) ••• Southampton Golf Course Flood Alleviation Scheme completed by the Environment Agency in 2013 to help reduce flooding to the areas adjacent to the Holly Brook within Bassett. What are we currently doing? • Undertaking the Belsize Flood Resilience Project, working with the residents in the significant flood risk area within St Denys, to help reduce their individual flood risk and develop community resilience to future flood events; • Undertaking a preliminary study on the River Itchen Flood Alleviation Scheme (identified as a priority in the Southampton Coastal FERMS) to identify an outline scheme design which can be taken forward for implementation over the next five years (subject to funding availability); • Undertaking feasibility work on the possible mitigation options for reducing surface water flood risk to the hotspot catchments within the City; • Assessing the options to assist with recovery from the winter 2013/14 storms. 9. The Strategy was prepared in conjunction with the relevant risk management authorities (Environment Agency and Southern Water) along with Associated
British Ports and Network Rail. Theth draft Strategy was subth ject to a formal public consultation period from 17 January 2014 until 11 April 2014. The draft Strategy was available to view electronically on the Council website, with a hard copy available in Gateway and Central Library. The consultation was publicised via the Stay Connected email alert system. Limited comments were received during the consultation but there was general support expressed. 10. The attached Strategy has been shared with key partners at the Joint
Page 153 Southampton Flood Board including the Environment Agency, Southern Water and Associated British Ports, who have helped to develop the document and raised no concerns about its content when the joint flood board last met on 22 October 2014. 11. The Strategy has been developed to comply with the requirements set out for a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy in the Flood and Water Management Act (2010). RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 12. There are no capital implications arising from adoption of the Strategy. Identified flood management schemes to be taken forward will be the subject of future funding bids and spending approvals, in accordance with Financial Procedure Rules. 13. There are no additional revenue implications arising from adoption of the Strategy. Property/Other 14. There are no immediate property implications arising from adoption of the Strategy but reduction of potential flooding to existing and future developments would be anticipated through implementation of some of the actions. 15. Should property implications be identified as implementation of the Strategy develops, these will be brought to members after consultation with relevant interested parties. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 16. The statutory power to undertake proposals to manage flood and erosion risks are held by Southampton City Council under the Coast Protection Act 1949, the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, although these are permissive powers only. Other Legal Implications : 17. There are no additional identified legal implications. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 18. The Strategy is consistent with the flood risk management elements/policies within the series of existing documents comprising the Local Development Framework and will inform development of the flood risk management elements/policies within the future Local Plan.
KEY DECISION? Yes
Page 154 WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: ALL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices 1. None
Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. Southampton Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (2014-2019)
Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact Assessment No (EIA) to be carried out.
Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: http://intranet.southampton.gov.uk/place/plantranssustain/green- southampton/lfrms.aspx Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. Southampton Local Flood Risk Management Not applicable Strategy Summary Document 2. Southampton Local Flood Risk Management Not applicable Strategy Strategic Environmental Assessment: Environmental Report 3. Southampton Local Flood Risk Management Not applicable Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report 4. Southampton Local Flood Risk Management Not applicable Strategy Water Framework Directive Assessment Preliminary Screening Report
Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 16
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: RESIDENTS PARKING POLICY DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Richard Alderson Tel: 023 8083 2725 E-mail: [email protected] Director Name: Stuart Love Tel: 023 8091 7713 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY Not Applicable BRIEF SUMMARY This report seeks to approve the adoption of a new residents parking policy. The policy will provide a clear guide on where parking restrictions in residential areas are appropriate, a consistent framework for implementing, amending or removing these restrictions, design considerations for new parking restrictions, eligibility for permits in resident parking schemes and the Council’s approach to enforcement of parking restrictions. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) To adopt the proposed Residents Parking Policy. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Southampton City Council’s existing parking policies relating to residential areas are drawn from the existing document (as published in 2008). With the benefit of views expressed through the 2014 consultation, there is an opportunity to update the policy to address the needs of residents. The proposed Residents Parking policy provides a consistent framework for resolving residential parking issues and identifying which groups should be eligible for parking permits. There are also some policy issues where residents would benefit from greater clarity. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 2. To continue with the existing policy document. This will make it difficult for the public to engage with parking issues in their area and leave some issues open to interpretation. DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 3. The administration requested that an extensive review of Residents Parking Schemes be carried out in 2014. The three stages to this review were as follows; • A consultation of residents on the existing Residents Parking
Page 157 schemes; • The development of a new Residents Parking Policy to underpin any changes; • The implementation of any changes to Resident Parking Schemes as requested by residents. 4. In March 2014, a consultation of all households eligible for parking permits in Resident Parking Zones was carried out. Over 14,000 surveys were posted to residents with 3186 responses received. The survey asked a range of questions in respect of the operation of the Resident Parking Zones (such as preferred days and hours of operation) and also whether the various zones should be retained, amended or removed. The majority of residents in all zones requested that the parking restrictions be retained, although there were some requests for amendments in specific areas or even individual roads. The council subsequently undertook to promote changes to the parking zones where they had been requested. 5. The consultation of eligible households was followed by an internal consultation in May of council departments who have a related interesting in Resident parking (including finance, legal, city development, planning policy, parking services). 6. The final stage of the consultation process was a city wide consultation in July/August on the resident parking schemes which was a web based survey hosted on the council website. The survey asked questions about the basic principles of Resident Parking Zones (such as what issues should be taken into consideration during the design phase and who should be eligible for permits). There was also an opportunity for resident groups to highlight a need for new resident parking zones (or extensions to existing ones). 114 responses were received to this survey. 7. A summary of the consultation feedback and officer response is attached as Appendix 2. 8. A new policy framework is required to ensure that a consistent approach is adopted to implementing any new parking restrictions or making amendments to or removing existing ones. Other issues related to resident parking such as the eligibility of households in new developments and access to parking permits for landlords also need to be clarified. A new Residents Parking Policy has therefore been developed which seeks to address these requirements. This is attached as Appendix 1. 9. The main topics addressed by the proposed Residents Parking Policy are as follows; • That SCC will not seek to initiate the process of implementing, amending, or removing parking restrictions in residential areas unless there is a need to address highway access or safety issues; • That SCC will however respond to a request from a representative group of residents to investigate the implementation, amendment or removal of parking restrictions in residential areas;
• The circumstances in which SCC consider H Bars, Keep Clear or No
Page 158 Waiting Restrictions an appropriate solution to parking issues in residential areas; • The circumstances in which SCC consider a Resident Parking Scheme an appropriate solution to parking issues in residential areas; • The process for introducing or making changes to parking restrictions in residential areas is established as below:- i) The Trigger Phase – A request from a representative group of residents to resolve parking issues is received; ii) The Design Phase – SCC will work with the group to design the new parking arrangements (including specifying the days/hours of operation, parking bay design, limited waiting periods etc.); iii) The Implementation Phase – All affected residents are consulted on the final design with a significant majority in favour required for the scheme to be implemented. • The criteria by which properties/vehicles are considered eligible for a parking permit and visitor permits in Resident Parking Scheme; • The non-resident individuals/groups/organisations who qualify for access to parking permits for use in Residents Parking Schemes; • The enforcement of parking restrictions in residential areas; • The circumstances in which parking permits may be cancelled or withdrawn. 10. Following the consultation on parking restrictions in residential areas, an action plan to resolve issues as highlighted by the residents has been drawn up and is attached as Appendix 3. This is not part of the Cabinet decision, but is included to highlight the key outcome of the Resident Parking Review. The action plan will be implemented over a 12 month period. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 11. There are no direct financial implications inherent in the policy. It is intended that Resident Parking Schemes should be self-funding. Minor parking restriction changes are funded through the Councils capital programme. Property/Other 12. There are no property implications inherent in the policy. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 13. Southampton City Council is the Local Transport Authority for the City and as such has the powers to implement Traffic Regulation Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 enables the introduction of permit charges as part of a Traffic Regulation Order. Other Legal Implications : 14. None. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS
Page 159
15. The Residents Parking Policy is compatible with the Local Transport Plan (LTP) and also the Local development Plan (LDP), these being the statutory planning documents for the City, and form part of the Council’s Policy framework.
KEY DECISION? Yes WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: All Wards
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices 1. Appendix 1 – Residents Parking Policy 2. Appendix 2 – Consultation Feedback and Officer Response 3. Appendix 3 – Residents Parking Action Plan Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. None Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact Yes Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. None
Page 160 Agenda Item 16 Appendix 1
Residents Parking Policy 2014 The policy framework for implementing, amending or removing parking restrictions in Southampton residential areas
Page 161 Contents
Section 1 – Parking Restrictions in Residential Areas Page 2
Parking Issues
Section 2 – Obstructive Parking Page 4
Section 3 – Parking Availability Page 6
Parking Solutions
Section 4 – Resident Parking Schemes Page 10
Section 5 – Permit Eligibility Page 14
Section 6 – Enforcement and Permit Abuse Page 19
Section 7 – Other Issues Page 20
Section 8 – Related Documentation Page 21
1 | P a g e Page 162 1. Parking Restrictions in Residential Areas This policy has been developed to provide a consistent framework for implementing, amending or removing parking restrictions in Southampton residential areas outside of the City Centre Pay and Display Zone. Note - Throughout this document, where the text refers to ‘significant’ or ‘reasonable’ what shall or constitute such shall be determined by the Council, at its sole discretion.
Policy Statement A The policy statements outlined in this document apply to Southampton residential areas which are defined as follows;
• Roads where the highway is publically maintained; • Roads that are outside of the City Centre Pay and Display Zone; • Roads where properties are predominantly residential.
Southampton City Council accepts that with the current levels of car ownership that parking in many residential areas can best be managed informally by local communities and therefore does not actively seek out areas where parking restrictions can be implemented. Residential roads should therefore generally remain as unrestricted, so that the available on-street parking can serve a range of needs for residents, visitors and other community service providers. As the Highway Authority the Council may however consider proposing parking restrictions if; a) There are access issues for service and/or emergency vehicles; b) There is a significant risk of accidents or; c) Significant traffic delays or congestion is occurring - and these matters have arisen as a consequence of vehicles being regularly parked in specific locations on the highway (which includes the footway).
Policy Statement RP1 Southampton City Council will not seek to initiate the process of implementing parking restrictions in residential areas unless such restrictions are necessary to resolve highway access or road safety issues (see Policy Statement RP3).
Issues may also arise where an increased demand for on-street parking either leads to obstructive parking or significantly impacts on the availability of parking for residents within a reasonable distance of their property. The Council will therefore respond to requests to investigate areas where residents feel there are parking issues occurring, provided there is evidence that this view is held by a significant group of residents within the locality. Requests should therefore ideally come from a formal residents association or other similar community group, although a petition from a representative sample of residents that is submitted in accordance with the Council’s published Petition Scheme will also be an appropriate means to trigger an investigation. In the case of residents having difficulty accessing their property due to obstructive parking, the Council will obviously respond to individual representation provided there is evidence supplied by the resident that it is a problem that occurs regularly.
2 | P a g e Page 163 Policy Statement RP2 Southampton City Council will undertake to investigate the implementation, amendment or removal of parking measures when; • A formal request is received from a residents association, community group or representative sample of residents to resolve parking issues occurring within an residential area; • A formal request is received from a residents association, community group or representative sample of residents to remove or amend parking restrictions within a residential area which are perceived to no longer serve the purpose for which they were implemented.
3 | P a g e Page 164 2. Obstructive Parking Excess demand for on-street parking may lead to difficulties accessing off-road parking, problems for service vehicles and road safety issues. Obstruction of the highway generally takes place where parked vehicles prevent; • vehicles from passing along the carriageway; • pedestrians or wheelchair users passing along the footway; • vehicles or pedestrians using dropped crossings; • vehicles parking so as the limit the swept path of vehicles turning at junctions; • vehicles accessing a property from the highway.
Highway Access and Road Safety The primary purpose of the carriageway is for the passage of traffic (including pedestrians), though it is recognised that in residential areas vehicle traffic may be reduced to single flow over lengths of road by unavoidable demands for loading/unloading or resident parking. This would be generally accepted where traffic flow is still possible and any tailbacks are localised and of short duration. Obstructive parking tends have most impact on wider service vehicles which may lead to failed waste collections or more seriously the obstruction of emergency services. In these circumstances the Council may consider appropriate measures including no waiting at any time restrictions or restrictions that apply at peak traffic times (e.g. no waiting restrictions). Persistent obstructive parking can also increase risk of accidents. Where clusters of injury accidents arise, with related causes, the Council will consider what measures may be appropriate to promote safety. An annual safety review assists in prioritising sites and measures based on cost and benefit analysis. Where no waiting at any time (double yellow lines) are requested to address road safety concerns, the history of injury accident data for the locality will be reviewed.
Policy Statement RP3 Southampton City Council will c onsider the introduction of parking restrictions (such as double yellow lines, single yellow lines or no loading at any time ) in residential areas where the following circumstances have arisen; • Service and/or emergency vehicles cannot gain access to a road due to parked vehicles; • There are significant road safety issues arising due to the location of parked vehicles; • Significant traffic delays and/or congestion is occurring due to the parked vehicles.
Access to Property Where vehicles park (without invitation of the owner) so as to obstruct vehicles from entering or exiting off-street parking over a legal vehicle crossing, the Council has the power to and will issue penalty charge notices for obstruction. Enforcement tends to be more effective where vehicles are parking in this manner for an extended period. Solutions can include; • Bar Markings which are white lines that can be marked across the extent of a dropped kerb to highlight an access with a useable off-road parking area or a pedestrian crossing area; • Keep Clear Markings which are intended to assist traffic entering and exiting accesses.
4 | P a g e Page 165 These markings are advisory on ly and do not affect the powers of enforcement. The Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers may enforce obstruction of a dropped crossing providing it is not marked within a parking bay. Markings are intended for exceptional circumstances only, though with the increasing issues arising from obstructive parking in certain areas they are becoming more prevalent.
Policy Statement RP4 Where access to a property is being regularly obstructed by parked vehicles, Southampton Council will consider providing Bar Markings in the following circumstances;
• for medical or other essential service providers requiring access at all times; • for blue badge holders; • where there is restricted parking and evidence of obstruction of an access within a marked parking bay or; • where there unrestricted parking and evidence of frequent obstruction that the Council has not been able to resolve through enforcement. Applications for bar markings would not be expected to be approved where residents intend to park across their own access or for part of a dropped kerb. A charge to cover the cost of the provision and maintenance of a bar marking may be applied. As an alternative to Bar Markings (and where the circumstances outlined above apply) Southampton City Council will only consider providing Keep Clear Markings where there are high levels of traffic requiring access and frequent periods of prolonged obstruction from queuing traffic. A charge to cover the cost of the provision and maintenance of a Keep Clear marking may be applied.
•
5 | P a g e Page 166 3. Parking Availability Where there is excess demand for on-street parking community concerns may arise over the availability of parking for residents. The Council approach to these issues will be guided in part by whether the excess demand is arising from residents or from non-residents (e.g. commuters). Excess Resident Parking With increasing levels of car ownership, residential development, home-based business vehicles and reductions in off-street parking there are many localities where the demand for on-street parking from residents exceeds the available on-street capacity. Vehicles parking may then extend over footways, verges or in closer proximity to junctions. In these circumstances a Resident Parking scheme intended to deter non-resident parking would not generally be of assistance. Households may themselves consider creating or extending off-road parking, which will require a legal vehicle crossing. Though this may increase parking capacity, it can impact on the overall appearance of the locality, if front gardens are removed to facilitate this. Initial measures are likely to be targeted on assisting residents with significant mobility issues, that would be most affected by the inability to park in close proximity to where they live. It is therefore Council policy to assist Blue Badge holders where needed by the provision of disabled persons parking bays. Whilst the Council is not able to take responsibility for or make provision for parking for residents, where external funding becomes available for highway improvements consideration may be given to any cost-effective measures that may assist resident parking in areas where there is excess demand. This may include verge hardening or the provision of lay-by parking. The scope for this work is however increasingly limited with the pressure on public finances. Whilst the current Resident Parking Zones in the city have been predominantly requested and designed to address non-resident parking issues, technically it would be possible to introduce a permit parking scheme to manage the demand for resident parking as an alternative to parking on first-come first-served basis. A permit scheme may constrain vehicle parking by limiting the number of permits available per property or by encouraging the use off-road parking. As this would likely to be contentious, due to the need for some residents to reduce the number of vehicles they park on- street, there would need to be evident and convincing community support before it would be considered.
Policy Statement RP5 In areas where there is shortage of o n-street parking due to excess demand by residents in the immediate locality, Southampton City Council will only consider implementing a Resident Parking scheme if all of the following circumstances apply; • A significant number of properties do not have off street parking provision; • There is sufficient on-street capacity for a scheme to be practical; • Formalisation of the on-street parking does not lead to access or safety issues (as outlined in Policy Statement RP3); • Significant support for the proposal from residents has been demonstrated before investigations are carried out based on the understanding that the availability of parking permits will be extremely limited;
6 | P a g e Page 167 Policy Statement RP5 cont. • Where parking issues may be displaced to neighbouring streets, these residents will also be consulted over any prospective permit scheme and boundary.
Excess Non Resident Parking The Councils policy and practice in relation to non-resident parking is guided by the duration and purpose of parking, with particular differences between long stay commuters and short stay local community or business parking. Long Stay Parking Southampton has a quality public transport system with key hubs around the major attractions in the city (City Centre, the University of Southampton and the General Hospital) and there is an expanding network of cycle routes linking these hubs and residential areas. It is Council policy to support and promote sustainable transport as a means of reducing congestion, carbon emissions and air pollution. The main area-wide resident parking schemes across the city have therefore been introduced at the request of communities to address long stay non-resident parking (e.g. commuter parking) around major attractions such as the City Centre, the University of Southampton and the General Hospital. These schemes are generally effective in deterring long stay parking, as the extended parking duration increases the likelihood off enforcement, which encourages a higher level of compliance. Also for people working or studying for an extended period the use of alternative modes of travel becomes more attractive. This is particularly evident for the University of Southampton where permit parking in areas where students live and study has been a contributory factor in the growth in the Uni-Link bus service, which is also providing a wider community service.
Policy Statement RP6 In areas where there is limited on -street parking capacity due to excess demand by non - residents (e.g. commuters), Southampton City Council will consider implementing a Resident Parking scheme if all of the following circumstances apply; • There is sufficient on-street capacity for a scheme to be practical; • It can be demonstrated that the non-residents parking in the area are doing so for extended periods; • Formalisation of the on-street parking does not lead to access or safety issues (as outlined in Policy Statement RP3); • Where parking issues may be displaced to neighbouring streets, these residents will also be consulted over any prospective permit scheme and boundary; • Initial support for the proposal from a representative group of residents has been demonstrated before investigations are carried out. Consideration will also be given to; • The proximity of local shops and businesses and the impact of the proposal on customer parking.
7 | P a g e Page 168
Short Stay Parking Short stay non-resident parking can be less intrusive, as the turnover of parked vehicles allows residents, visitors and service vehicles access to on-street parking. There can also be a range of local business and community service providers that depend on available on-street parking for customers or visitors. Where difficulties arise from excessive demand for short stay parking, particular in the vicinity of business or community service providers, consideration may initially be given to whether proposing parking places with limited waiting may be appropriate to provide a higher turnover of customers/visitors and thereby reduce the extent of wider displacement. Where the demand for short stay parking is generated over a wide area by a major attractor, permit parking restrictions may be appropriate, though the design would need to take into account how and if it could balance the range of local community needs for short stay parking, whilst still providing an effective means of assisting in increasing the availability of parking for residents. Where the demand for parking is for the purpose of picking up and dropping-off passengers (e.g. around schools), whilst the Council accepts that this can be highly intrusive, the difficulties of enforcement could significantly undermine the effectiveness of any parking scheme and would therefore be considered as a low priority for investigation.
Policy Statement RP7 In areas where on -street parking capacity is affected by short stay parking by non-residents (e.g. shoppers, parents dropping children at school, visitors to GPs, visitors to community/faith centres) Southampton City Council is unlikely to consider implementing a traditional Resident Parking scheme. Permit restrictions may be proposed if the following circumstances apply; • Roads are significantly affected by non-resident parking for extended periods of time even if those non-residents are only staying for short periods; • A large trip attractor (e.g. football stadium) results in regular significant non-resident parking over a wide area; • There is sufficient on-street capacity for a scheme to be practical; • Formalisation of the on-street parking does not lead to access or safety issues (as outlined in Policy Statement RP3); • Where parking issues may be displaced to neighbouring streets, these residents will also be consulted over any prospective permit scheme and boundary; • Initial support for the proposal from a representative group of residents has been demonstrated before investigations are carried out. Consideration will also be given to; • The proximity of local shops and businesses and the impact of the proposal on customer parking.
8 | P a g e Page 169
Trigger Phase As it is Council policy to introduce RPS schemes only at the request of communities, the initial trigger for an investigation of the viability of scheme will be a substantive request from a representative resident’s group or association or a valid petition submitted under the Council’s published Petition Scheme to address significant resident issues over the shortage of available parking generally arising from excessive non-resident parking (as outlined in Policy Statement RP1).
Policy Statement RP8 Once a request is received to investiga te the implementat ion of an RPS, Southampton City Council will undertake an initial assessment of whether a RPS scheme would be viable in the locality. This may include; • Whether the ongoing management and enforcement of the scheme can be carried out at no cost to the council e.g. via permit charges or funding provided through a planning agreement; • Whether the roads affected are adopted (i.e. maintainable at the public expense); • The extent and duration of non-resident parking occupancy; • The attraction(s) for non-resident parking; • The impact on the local community (e.g. in terms of road safety, waste collection and availability of parking)A viable area over which a scheme might be introduced to minimise the impact from displacement and to justify the relatively high cost of introducing new restrictions; • What expectations there may be for promoting an alternative sustainable mode of travel; • What alternative measures may be more appropriate; • Ward Councillor views; • Whether a prospective scheme would be an extension to an existing RPS Zone or a new Zone. Where a residents parking scheme is considered as a possible and appropriate measure, a survey may then be undertaken of residents and other interested parties to; • Ensure residents are aware of the any permit charges that would apply, prospective permit entitlement and conditions that would apply to the scheme; • Confirm within the viable scheme area that there is a convincing and sustainable majority of residents in favour of the scheme, taking into account both resident preferences and the survey response rate; • Subject to appropriate community support, help to shape the scheme design to meet the balance of needs of residents, community services and any appropriate local business needs (e.g. short stay parking for customers. If a prospective scheme is recommended through this process, then a scheme design will be finalised. Any final scheme approval will then still be subject to the requisite legal and public consultation.
9 | P a g e Page 170
4. Resident Parking Schemes Resident Parking Schemes provide a means by which parking places or restrictions can be introduced for use by permit holders within an area defined as a Zone (e.g. Zone 1 around the Polygon). In order to make full use of the available on-street parking and for effective operation, it is Council policy that any permit holder for a specified Zone may park anywhere within the Zone. By restricting permit entitlement the demand for available parking can be managed to assist eligible residents and other appropriate service providers in finding parking within a locality during the period restrictions apply. In order to fund the cost of this managed parking (e.g. introducing, administering, maintaining and enforcing a scheme), a scale of charges will apply, except where they fulfil and essentially medical or community needs. Design Phase Once Southampton City Council considers that the implementation of a Residents Parking Scheme may be an appropriate solution to the parking issues identified by local residents, the scheme will need to be designed. The main factors that need to be considered are as follows; • Hours/Days of Operation – During which periods will the parking restrictions apply; • Limited Waiting Periods – What short stay periods will be allowed to facilitate everyday access for visitors; • Parking Bay Design – How will the on-street parking arrangements be formalised? It is important (although not compulsory) to have strong community input into the design phase. If a representative group of residents can agree on how the scheme will work, then it is more likely to be accepted by all affected residents at the implementation stage. Hours and Days of Operation The period when parking restrictions apply can be defined in terms of the months, days and hours, taking into account the practicalities of signing. The standard operating period for a RPS scheme is based on weekday commuter parking (8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday), though this may be reduced or extended e.g. 8am to 10pm or Monday to Sunday, where there this reflects community needs and views. Whilst the period should be guided by the peak periods of non-resident parking, consideration may also be given where appropriate to assisting permit holders in accessing available parking, subject to the cost and practicalities of enforcement. It may also be worth considering having restricted hours of operation only when there is parking demand by non-residents e.g. 8am – 10am when commuters are arriving for work. Some variation of restriction periods may be possible within some Zones to reflect more localised parking issues and needs. This may not however be possible where the times of operation are defined by Entry and Exit signs, rather than the signing of individual parking bays. Limited Waiting Periods A scheme design should take into account a range of community needs and may therefore require a balance of different restrictions including: • Permit Parking (for permit holders to park) • Limited Waiting (short stay parking for non-permit holders) • Pay & Display Parking • No Waiting at Any Time (double yellow line) • No Waiting during a restriction period (single yellow line)
10 | P a g e Page 171 • Disabled parking bays • No Loading or Loading restrictions • Unrestricted parking
Any provision for limited waiting should also take into account the maximum stay period and return period, with consideration of public interest and the practicalities of enforcement. Most parking restrictions include an exemption for essential works or activities. Vehicle owners are advised to seek further guidance from SCC Parking Services where this may be required. Parking Bay Design
All signing and on street markings need to be compliant with the Department for Transport’s (DfT) The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and introduced through due process by a Traffic Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act. In general resident parking restrictions are lined with marked parking places on the carriageway, with signs stating the regulations applying and restriction period. The restriction period may alternatively for certain zones be signed through Entry/Exit signs as part of Controlled Zones. Within Controlled Zones all kerbside has to be restricted. Where properties have vehicle crossovers, it is Council practice to propose continuous restrictions, across accesses. This maximises the available parking capacity and thereby allows residents to make most use of the available kerb side Within zones, where there roads or an area of roads with cul-de-sacs within which it would be difficult to mark parking places due to the narrow width or curvature, there is an option to introduce a signing only permit restrictions as a variant of the Controlled Zone, subject to the restrictions being permit holder parking only. Development and Independent Resident Parking Schemes Whilst there are benefits and some cost-savings from more standardised resident parking schemes, it is accepted that circumstances may require a more customised scheme design with specific restriction periods, permit entitlement and permit charges. Development Resident Parking Schemes The St Mary’s Stadium scheme is an example of a development Resident Parking Scheme, with the following features; • The scheme being introduced as a consequence of the development; • All set-up and life time costs being met by the development through a Planning agreement; • The scheme boundary being defined by the impact of the development, with related permit entitlement; • Restriction period defined by the impact of the development (e.g. Stadium events). Independent Resident Parking Schemes In certain circumstances the Council may consider proposing an independent Resident’s Parking Scheme, where requested by a specific community, where the following criteria would apply; • The scheme boundary would be fixed, rather than open to extension; • The scheme would have a dedicated Zone; • The charges for permits would need to cover the cost of introduction, administration, maintenance, enforcement and any other related costs. Permit entitlement and any other terms of use would be designed for the specific circumstances of the scheme.
11 | P a g e Page 172 Policy Statement RP9 In designing the parking restrictions that would apply in a Resident Parking Scheme, Southampton City Council will; • Recommend hours and days of operation that reflect the periods when there is demand for parking by non-residents unless the primary (or supplementary) purpose of the scheme is to manage the residents ’ demand for parking; • Recommend a limited waiting period that reflects the demand for parking by visitors to the residential properties unless there is insufficient parking capacity or this would undermine the hours of operation; • Recommend that parking bays provide the maximum possible parking capacity in the road space available but will instruct that the parking bay design does not obstruct the highway or significantly increase the risk of accidents; • Identify that in some roads, lining parking bays may not be possible due to the lack of available road space and restrictions where practical; • Review parking provision for reviewed for disabled residents; • Design parking restrictions for roads/streets in their entirety (unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated).
Decision Phase Southampton City Council will consult all residents within the proposed area on the design of the scheme to see if the proposal is accepted by a significant majority of residents to allow for people moving into and out of the area. Subject to community approval for the design and available funding, the Council will then agree a timetable for drafting the relevant legal documentation and formally proposing the restrictions. As well as statutory notices in a local newspaper the Council will place public notices in the locality of the scheme and engage other known interest groups through appropriate media where practical. If there objections are received in response to the public notice, these will be considered in the context of this policy. Whilst minor concerns may be accommodated, any fundamental objections will ultimately have to be decided upon through the relevant Council decision making process. If a Residents Parking Scheme is approved through due process, an implementation plan will be agreed and communicated allowing for: • Communication of the outcome to residents and other interest groups • Contracting any related requirements for signing and lining • Time for eligible permit holders to apply for permits, once the permit entitlement register is finalised • Sealing the legal regulations. Overall the process from the initial community request through to implementation may take 12-18 months.
12 | P a g e Page 173 Policy Statement RP10 Once a prospective scheme has been designed to introduce, amend or remove a Residents Parking Scheme, Southampton City Council will consult all affected residents on the proposal with the following options;
1. This household is in favour of the proposal 2. This household is not in favour of the proposal 3. The implementation of the proposal would not affect this household
In order for a scheme to be formally proposed, there will need to be a significant response rate and a convincing majority of households which are in favour of the scheme (The households rd who have stated the 3 option are not included in the total).
Note that the level of the majority required will be determined at the discretion of the Council but as a general guideline the Council would expect evidence that at least 60% of residents supporting the proposal as an indication that the change will be sustainable.
The Council will also consider the overall percentage of residents responding to a survey as a general indication of the level of community interest and priority for prospective funding.
Removing a Residents Parking Scheme In some cases, residents within an existing Residents Parking Scheme may decide that it no longer serves the purpose for which it was implemented and they wish to see the parking restrictions removed (Note that this will not apply to restrictions implemented for the reasons outlined in Policy Statement RP3). The process for removing a Resident Parking Scheme is similar to that for implementing or amending parking restrictions of this nature. Before a formal consultation is carried out, residents will need to demonstrate that there is a reasonable support for doing so (as outlined in Policy Statement RP2). Southampton City Council will then carry out an investigation to see what impact removing the Residents Parking Scheme or part of the Residents Parking Scheme will have on the neighbouring areas. In most cases, any impact will be to the area which is proposing to remove the parking restrictions, particularly if they are adjacent to areas which have parking restrictions in place and wish to retain them. If there is no impact to neighbouring areas, Southampton City Council will carry out a formal consultation of all affected households (normally those eligible for a parking permit) with the outcome assessed as per the method outlined in Policy Statement RP10.
Policy Statement RP11 Provided there will be no significant impact to other residential areas, Southampton City Council will propose the removal of any parking restrictions not implemented for highway access or safety purposes if sufficient support for the proposal is demonstrated using the methodology outlined in Policy Statement RP10 (Note that this process will be applied to roads/streets in their entirety unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated).
13 | P a g e Page 174 5. Permit Eligibility Resident Permits enable residents to park within the area with permit restrictions during the restriction periods. To assist in managing demand and to support sustainable travel, Council policy is to define eligible properties, limit permit entitlement and to set requirements for eligible classes of vehicle. There is provision for either an annual resident’s permit or a temporary resident’s permit. The temporary resident’s permit is only intended as a short term provision for residents, for example whilst vehicle registration changes are arranged, otherwise eligible for an annual resident’s permits. They are not available for use by visitors or by people staying at properties which are not their primary residence. Eligible Properties and Permits per Property/Household The entitlement boundary will generally be defined when a RPS scheme is introduced and on the basis of eligible properties with qualifying households using on-street parking within the Zone boundary prior to the introduction of permit restrictions.
Policy Statement RP12 Properties within Residential Parking Schemes are normally eligible for parking permits if; • The property has a discrete postal address within the defined boundary of the zone; • An eligible vehicle (see Policy Statement RP13) is registered to the property; • Where the qualifying property either is within a Zone without deduction in entitlement for Off-Road parking, or where an entitlement remains after any appropriate deduction for Off-Road parking; • The primary or dominant purpose of the property is residential and not commercial or business use; • The property is not ineligible on the basis that it was built or subdivided after a set date (see Policy Statement RP14).
Vehicle Requirement In order to help increase the on-street parking capacity within RPS Zones permit entitlement will restricted to certain classes of vehicle, unless an exceptional provision is agreed. In order to avoid misuse, a Resident permit will only be issued for specific vehicles, as defined by the vehicle registration, registered for an eligible household. UK law requires that vehicles operating on UK roads for longer than six months, register with the UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), pay the appropriate Road Fund License and be specifically insured as a UK vehicle. For this reason permits for non-UK registered vehicles may only apply for Temporary (3 month permits) Residents permits until the vehicle is UK registered.
Vehicles over 3.5 tonnes require an Operating Licence, which is dependent on the provision of appropriate off-road parking. These vehicles should not therefore be parked in residential roads other than for operational purposes (e.g. loading and unloading).
14 | P a g e Page 175 Policy Statement RP13 To make most use of the available on -street parking Resident permits will be limited to vehicles as follows: • Passenger vehicles with a maximum of 8 seats under 5m in length • Goods vehicles under 3.5 tonnes and under 5m in length
New Developments In March 2001 the government published Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13), which introduced maximum parking standards for new developments, ‘ as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices’. PPG13 also stated that the ‘availability of car parking has a major influence on the means of transport people choose for their journeys’ . This is also in accordance with Policy F of Southampton City Council’s Local Transport Plan which states, ‘It is important that parking management measures are implemented alongside improvements to sustainable travel modes to help increase the attractiveness and viability of these alternatives over private car trips, to support widening travel choice.’ There is also a need to be consider that many Resident Parking Schemes have capacity issues at times of peak demand. New developments create additional demand for parking for which there may be no available on-street capacity. For these reasons, developments built or subdivided after March 2001 are not eligible for parking permits unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Policy Statement RP14 Southampton City Council will exclude properties with planning approval (for build or sub - division) post to 31st March 2001 from entitlement to resident and visitor permits unless agreed on an exceptional basis. Any assessment of a request for an exceptional provision for permit entitlement for new developments may take into account the following; • Whether the exclusion from permit entitlement was included within a S106 agreement; • The size of the development relative to the available parking in the locality; • Any preceding entitlement that may have applied to the curtilage of the property prior to development; • The likelihood of demands for similar properties in the locality; • The support and promotion of sustainable travel in the locality; • Whether an applicant was residing in the property prior to the introduction of a resident parking scheme. The issue of any form of permit entitlement will remain at the discretion of the Council.
Visitor Permits (for residents visitors) In many localities within RPS schemes there is a provision for short stay parking, which together with unrestricted parking outside of hours/days the schemes operate can meet the needs of residents’ visitors. Where the needs for residents’ visitor parking cannot be met (e.g. where there is an extensive area of permit holder only parking) the Council provides three types of visitor permit to assist residents. The permits may not be used as an alternative to Resident Permits and are only to be used for the purpose of visiting the permit holder. The same class of vehicle requirement will apply as for resident permits, unless agreed on an exceptional basis.
15 | P a g e Page 176 Visitors permits may only be used by ‘genuine’ visitors to residential premises (i.e the dominant purpose of the visit must be to spend time with the resident themselves). Visitor’s permits may not be used by those commuting for work or business or ‘visiting’ but then (before or after such a visit) using the permit whilst working or undertaking business related activity elsewhere. (Day) Visitor Permits There is generally an entitlement and allocation of (day) Visitor Permits for households eligible for resident permits. These are currently high quality scratchcards designed to avoid fraudulent reproduction. A charge is applied to offset the cost of printing and issue, and to assist in deterring misuse. The Visitor Permit allows a visitor to park a qualifying vehicle for the day that the permit is required. The Visitor Permit may be used within a maximum distance of the permit holder’s property. Annual Visitor Permits Where households have a high level of visitors during the restriction period, there is an alternative of an Annual Visitors Permit. A charge for these permits will apply to deter misuse and additional conditions of use may apply including: • For use within a maximum distance from holders property • Maximum stay of hours per day • Maximum continuous period of daily use without prior notification There will be a limit of one Annual Visitors Permit per household, and the overall number of these permits on issue within a Zone may be limited, if there is a significant shortage of resident parking. Essential Visitors Permit As part of a Council policy of supporting care in the community, a permit may be issued to an eligible resident in need of regular essential visits to provide care in the home. The permit will be issued to the person requiring care, and then may be used for visitors providing care and support. There is a limit of one Essential Visitor’s Permit per household. There is no charge for the permit, though issue is subject to qualifying criteria and successful application. The permit may be used within 200m of the permit holder’s property.
Policy Statement RP15 Properties within a Residents Parking Scheme that are eligible for Resident Permits (as per the guidelines outlined in Policy Statements RP12 to 14) will in most cases be eligible for a range of visitor permits. A limit may however be placed on the number of visitor permits issued, in order to assist in managing demand for on-street parking within the zone. This will be outlined in the proposal for the Resident Parking Scheme. Southampton City Council will regularly review Visitor Permits to ensure they are meeting the needs of residents and are not open to abuse. Southampton City Council will remove the right to Visitor Permits from any property where it is found that Visitor Permits have in the opinion of the Council been misused.
Other Permits and Blue Badge Holders Other Permits The Council recognises local business and service providers may provide important support for the communities in which they work. A range of permits are therefore available, subject to meeting the qualifying criteria, and the following general principles: • The issue or reissue of permits will be at the discretion of Council
16 | P a g e Page 177 • A limit on the number of permits available per provider subject to annual review • Any appropriate Permit charges may be reduced for non-profit making organisations • That the permit may not be used for any other purpose including residential parking in place of a resident’s permit • The limit of entitlement to specific classes of vehicle (e.g. passenger vehicles with a maximum of 8 seats, goods vehicles under 3.5 tonnes and motorcycles) or length of vehicle (e.g. 5m in length) appropriate to a residential area.
Policy Statement RP16 Southampton City Council will make a range of permits available, subject to limits on issue, for businesses, services and community groups to operate in areas where Residential Parking Schemes are in effect including: • Business / Temporary Business Permits – These permits allow Businesses to make deliveries, provide services etc, in a Residential Parking Zone. A charge shall apply to these permits. Business Permits may not be available in zones with a significant shortage of weekday resident parking. • Landlord Permits – This permit shall apply strictly to Resident Permit Zones where the Landlord owns properties to allow maintenance work and other service work to be carried out at those properties. A charge shall apply to these permits. • Medical Permits – This is a permit that allows eligible medical staff to park in Resident Parking Zones and make health visits to residents in those zones. These permits are issued free of charge. • Community Support Permits – This is a permit that allows community work to be carried out in within defined Resident Parking Zones. These permits are issued at the discretion of Southampton City Council, without charge. Southampton City Council will regularly review the charges and conditions of use for these permits to ensure they are meeting the needs of the user groups and are not open to abuse. Southampton City Council will remove the right to permits from any user where it is found that permits have been misused.
Blue Badge Holder Parking Under the Council’s Inclusion policy and in compliance with The Equality Act (see below) it is Council practice to allow vehicles displaying Blue Badges and being used for the purpose of transporting Blue Badge holders to park in residential permit parking places without the need for a resident’s permit.
Policy Statement RP17 Southampton City Council allows Blue Badge Holders to park in Resident Parking Zones free of charge. Parking by Blue Badge Holders in Resident Parking Zones is subject to the normal conditions of use that applies to Blue Badges.
Disabled Persons Parking Bays In some circumstances, disabled users will require access to a parking space close to their property, particularly if they have restricted mobility. In these circumstances, the Council will investigate the potential for implementing a disabled parking bay outside or close to the Blue Badge Holder’s property.
17 | P a g e Page 178 Policy Statement RP18 Southampton City Council will consider providing disabled parking places to assist access for Blue Badge holders to their residence or community facilities, taking into account a range of criteria including; • The Driver is a resident disabled person with a valid Blue Badge; • Where the applicant is not the driver, but a driver lives at the same address, a bay may be considered, providing that the vehicle is used as a regular means of transport for the disabled person; • There is no useable or accessible off-road parking; • A car is registered and kept at the residence; • There are significant problems in accessing on-street parking; • There are no conflicting road safety requirements or other overriding interests. The Council will carry out periodic reviews to ensure that the qualifying requirements for the provision of disabled persons parking bays are still met. If not, the bays may be removed, if it is in the public interest to do so. Under the Equality Act 2010 it is unlawful for service providers to treat disabled people less favourably because they are disabled. Service providers have to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people in the way they deliver their services. This is so that a disabled person is not put at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people in accessing the services .
Provisional permit provision The Council has the discretion to issue an exceptional provisional permit subject to review. Any assessment of a request will generally take into account; • The individual merits of the request; • The availability of on-street parking in the locality and time when parking is most likely to occur; • Whether other similar requests would be expected to be fulfilled (e.g. from households in the same development); • The support and promotion of sustainable travel in the locality.
Policy Statement RP19 Where an exceptional circumstance is not met by an existing permit provision, a provisional permit to meet this need may be issued at the discretion of Southampton City Council. Requests of this nature will be judged on their own merits and will be subject to review. Southampton City Council will remove the right to permits from any user where it is found that permits have been misused.
18 | P a g e Page 179
6. Enforcement and Permit Abuse Enforcement Whilst the Council encourages all road users to comply with highway regulations, it is accepted that the level of compliance is increased and sustained through enforcement. The aims of the Council’s parking enforcement team are therefore to: • Enforce parking restrictions in a fair and consistent manner for the benefit of all parking users • Provide safe parking places with clear markings and signage • Keep streets clear to enable smooth traffic flow and protect public safety In order to cover the parking regulations across the city, patrols are organised to provide both geographical coverage as well as relating the frequency of coverage to the level of contravention. The Council publishes an Annual Report covering the operation and performance of its Civil Parking Enforcement.
Policy Statement RP20
Southampton City Council will carry out regular enforcement of parking restrictions in residential areas and have powers to issue a Penalty Charge Notice to any vehicle in breach of the parking restrictions. If evidence of a persistent/recurring parking offence is received, Southampton City Council will allocate resources accordingly to resolve the issue.
Permit Abuse and Cancellation It is recognised that minority of residents and other permit holders may misuse the permits that they have been allocated. The Council will actively investigate any reported instances of permit abuse and will subsequently take appropriate action.
Policy Statement RP21 Southampton City Council will cancel and/or withdraw p ermits in a ra nge of circumstances including; • if the qualifying criteria is no longer met; • permits are misused by the permit holder or their visitors; • permits are given to other non-qualifying drivers; • permits are expired; • payment is not cleared; • Enforcement or other Council staff are subject to any form of intimidation or violent behaviour. Further access to resident/visitor permits may be blocked to those properties/users/groups where misuse has occurred. The length of the ban will be at the discretion of Southampton City Council.
19 | P a g e Page 180
7. Other Issues Unadopted Highway Certain roads are “unadopted”, which means that they are not maintained at the public expense (the landowners are therefore responsible for maintenance). Current Council practice is not to propose parking regulations on roads that are unadopted. Parking in a private road without permission or a legal right to do so may be trespassing, and is a civil wrong for which redress may be obtained. Residents are advised to take their legal advice in these circumstances. Vehicle crossovers With increasing demand for on-street parking residents may wish to create or extend an area of off- road parking on their property, for which a vehicle crossover is required. This means that the kerbs are dropped from their normal height and the pavement or verge is strengthened to take the weight of the vehicle crossing it. It is not legal for vehicles to drive over a pavement or verge unless a vehicle crossover has been authorised and installed. This is because vehicles may otherwise damage the pavement or any pipes or cables that are buried underneath it. Planning permission is required if the vehicle crossover is to be installed on a Classified road and may be required for creating an extensive area of hard standing over a garden area. The removal of garden walls and gardens in conservations areas may also be restricted. Otherwise further details and costs are available through the application process.
20 | P a g e Page 181
8. Related Documentation The legal regulations, permit charges and rules applying to resident parking schemes will be stipulated in a Traffic Order(s), available on request from the Council. The required documentation and any other relevant terms and conditions are stipulated in the relevant application forms for permits, dropping crossing, bar markings and disabled person’s parking bays. A guide for residents on how permit parking schemes operate, current scheme criteria, and how communities may request such schemes will also be available from the Council. The Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides more detail on how the Council will apply the contents of existing Core Strategy policy CS19 (Car & Cycle Parking) and other policies in the determination of planning applications for residential and non-residential developments.
21 | P a g e Page 182 Summary of Consultation Feedback and Officer Response
Details of Consultation Feedback Officer Response Survey of all The majority of respondents requested that the The requested amendments have been reviewed and households eligible for residents requested that the Resident Parking Schemes have been put into an action plan to be implemented a permit - Over 14,000 be retained, with some zones or individual roads over a 12 month period. All affected residents will be surveys sent out with requesting minor amendments to days/hours of consulted before any changes are implemented. 3186 responses operation, length of limited waiting period and the received by the closing number of available permit bays. date of 10/04/2014 The majority of respondents in Sandown Road in Zone Residents in Sandown Road will be consulted on 16 requested that the Resident Parking Scheme be whether parking restrictions on their road should be “amended or removed” or “removed”. removed. The majority of respondents did not agree or did not A discount on permits for low carbon vehicles will not be Page 183 Page have a view that a discount on permits should be applied. provided for low carbon vehicles. In the additional comments section of the survey, Regular enforcement is currently carried out in all some residents expressed the view that the level of Resident Parking Zones and this undertaking is enforcement was insufficient in their area. reinforced in the Residents Parking Policy. In the additional comments section of the survey, There is a cost to implementation and operation of some residents expressed the view that there should Resident Parking Zones and it is the view of the not be a charge for resident parking permits. administration these should be self-funding. The council will remove any parking restrictions not implemented Agenda Item 16 for highway access or safety reasons if the majority of affected residents vote to do so (using the process outlined in the new Resident Parking Policy). Survey of all Council Housing requested that landlord permits were made A landlord permit will be made available for use in Appendix 2 departments with an available to allow access to Council properties for the Resident Parking Zones. A charge will apply to this interest in parking purpose of service and maintenance. permit. policy (i.e. legal, Parking Services requested that the abuse of permits, The policy now specifically states that abuse of permits, finance, planning, blue badges and intimidation of Civil Enforcement blue badges will be investigated and may result in the housing, parking Officers was addressed in the policy. permit being withdrawn. It is also made clear that services etc). intimidation of Civil Enforcement Officers will not be tolerated and subsequent action will be taken. The ineligibility of properties built/subdivided Post The policy allows for officer discretion in respect of 2001 for parking permits was discussed with Highways issuing permits to properties built/subdivided Post 2001 Development Control. if there is available on-street capacity. It is unlikely that this would be applied to large developments as the council would seek to avoid setting a precedent that could not be subsequently managed. A city wide The majority of respondents agreed that the parking These issues are highlighted as being key factors where consultation hosted on restrictions to deter non-residential parking in resident parking schemes are proposed in the new the council website – residential areas were an appropriate solution. They Resident Parking Policy. Page 184 Page 109 responses were also agreed that the following factors were relevant received when a resident parking scheme is being proposed;
• The availability of on-street space for parking; • The number of non-residents parking in the area; • The level of traffic flow along the street; • The proximity of local shops/businesses which may rely on parking being available for customers; • The extent to which might be displaced to another area. There was no clear majority on whether properties This issue has been addressed in the Residents Parking built/subdivided post 2001 should be eligible for Policy (see above). parking permits There was no clear majority on whether Landlords This issue has been addressed in the Resident Parking should have access to permits in order to service or Zone. It is considered reasonable to allow Landlords maintain properties in Resident Parking Zones access to parking outside their properties provided that this is managed. The majority of respondents felt that staff working in Permits will not be made available for employees of nearby businesses should not have access to permits. local businesses to park near to their place of work. The majority of respondents felt that motorcycles Owners of motorcycles will still be required to have a should not be able to parking in resident parking zones parking permit for Resident Parking Zones. without a permit. A slim majority of respondents felt that Blue Badge On balance it is considered reasonable for blue badge holders should not be able to park in resident parking holders to have access to parking close to their property zones without a permit. and/or intended destination. Abuse of blue badges will be investigated. The majority of respondents felt that parking permits Permits will continue to be not available for vehicles be restricted to vehicles which are less than a specified above a specified size/weight in order to deter size and/or weight commercial vehicles from being parked in residential areas.
Page 185 Page The majority of respondents agreed that where there is The council will consider this solution when appropriate limited space for parking bays, the council should although affected residents will be consulted before any consider marking bays over part of the footway if the such scheme is implemented. footway is wide enough Some respondents suggested that that their street or Requests for new resident parking schemes will be area would benefit from being included within a investigated once it is demonstrated that there is a clear Resident Parking Zone demand from residents as per the process outlined in the resident parking policy.
This page is intentionally left blank RPS REVIEW - INITIAL RANKING AT RPS AND ZONE LEVEL Level / Category Description Possible Proposals Priority 1. RPS Permits Landlord Permits Requested by SCC Estates Management. Will need to offer single and multi-zone options, with caveats on misuse. Pricing to be determined.
Community Service Permits Formal replacement of Faith Permit with wider scope of use . Supported by the Policy Survey. Visitor Permits and Annual Visitor Permits Survey highlighted some concerns over misuse of Visitor Permits particularly around the General Hospital. There is currently no distance limit on Visitor Permits. Annual Visitor Permits currently 250m from permit holders property and Essential Visitor Permits 200m. Suggested reduction to 100m for Visitor and Annual Visitor Permits. Vehicle Class Extend Z1 exclusion of vehicles over 5m in length from General concern over increase in commercial vehicles in residential exclusion entitlement to resident permits to Z2-12 & 16. areas. High-sided vans also may obscure visibility of pedestrians. May require some exemptions for existing permit holders.
Page 187 Page Foreign New limit of entitlement to only 2 x Temporary UK law requires that vehicles operating on UK roads for longer than six Vehicles Resident’s Permit (i.e. 2 x 3months = 6 months) until months MUST register with the UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing vehicle is registered and insured as a UK vehicle. Authority (DVLA), must pay the appropriate Road Fund License and must be specifically insured as a UK vehicle.
Post 2001 Mainly a requirement to provide more detailed Any refinemen ts may however need to be part of RPS amendment Entitlement statement in RPS policy regarding smaller developments which do not trigger an automatic S106 agreement. Staff abuse Request from Parking Services To include within RPS Order reference to removal of permit if Council
staff are subject to intimidation or abuse. Agenda Item 16 Independent There are existing unique schemes that were approved There is question of whether this should now be applied to the anomaly RPS schemes by the Council (e.g. Rockstone Place). It is intended to of the Z3 Centenary Quay permit allocation at £150 per year, which formalise this type of scheme where there is discrete would require a TRO amendment. There is also an long standing RPS
community, where an independent RPS scheme could be scheme request from Alexandra Quay that would be dependent on the Appendix 3 introduced without any scope for future expansion and approval of the RPS policy on independent RPS schemes. with dedicated permit charges and entitlement. 1. Removal Z16 Sandown Preferences from survey in favour of removing scheme A further survey would be appropriate given retention of permit Road restrictions in Medina Road and Sydney; then propose removal as appropriate.
Level / Category Description Possible Proposals Priority 2. Zone Z1, Z4 & Z5 Review of provision for short stay parking Survey responses and scheme design would allow for increased level of short stay parking, with a reduction medium term signing and lining costs by standardising longer lengths of restrictions. For Z1 should also be linked to congestion and parking issues around Springhill School. Z5 (Request Question of whether cost of over -laying stadium As part of resident communication check on continued requirement for from Parking restrictions are still required in Z5. Stadium Event restrictions and signing Services) Z2, Z3 & Z4 Survey highlighted shortage of parking for residents Technical review to see whether t here is any scope for creating additional parking capacity or usage.
Z7 Review of options to reduce impact of non -resident Range of possible options, which will need further work with SGH, Ward parking in the vicinity of SGH. Cllrs and residents including: • Possible Zone division • Extended days and hours of operation Page 188 Page • Possible permit holder only parking • Possible better offering for Blue Badges holders parking on site and more no loading /unloading restrictions around the SGH. Z6, Z7 & Z9 Review of issues around visitor parking for residents in Signing only schemes do not have a permitted variant by the DfT signing only schemes allowing short stay parking. May prove only to be a communication requirement Z13,14, & Z15 Main issues highlighted around communication Communication of how and when scheme operates, with fixture list and web pages for updates 3. Locality Z4 Derby Road and Northumberland Road Trial of marking parking bays and with related management of DPB locations Rockstone Place & Onslow Road Change of restrictions and times of operation
General Review of community clusters where requested by Ward A small number of proposals may emerge from this. Councillors and linked to requests from individual roads 4. Roads General Assessment of viability of individual road amendments A range of minor amendments may be surveyed and propo sed. (e.g. in context of Controlled Zone). Review of survey and other historical requests for minor changes in restrictions on roads within scheme areas. 5. New RPS General RPS policy will guide how future requests will be Generally a more structured approach will assist in target funding where requests assessed, designed and decided upon. schemes will have most benefit and community support
Agenda Item 17
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: GENERAL FUND REVENUE BUDGET 2015/16 TO 2017/18 DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR RESOURCES CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Melanie Creighton Tel: 023 8083 4897 E-mail: [email protected] Director Name: Andrew Lowe Tel: 023 8083 2049 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY None
BRIEF SUMMARY This report summarises the current budget position and outlines the initial draft budget and Council tax proposals of the Executive for 2015/16 which will be used as the basis for consultation with a range of stakeholders over the coming months. The results of the consultation exercise will be reported alongside the Executive’s final budget proposals that will be presented to Cabinet on 10 February and recommended to Council on 11 February 2015. The report deals with General Fund revenue services only and there is a separate timetable and consultation process for the Housing Revenue Account which deals with services to Council tenants. Proposals for capital expenditure will be presented early in the new year. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) Note the formal staff consultation on the Executive’s draft budget
proposals commenced on 11 November and public consultation will commence on 19 November and note the consultation proposals and methodology set out in paragraphs 4 to 10 and Appendix 1 of this report. (ii) Note the high level forecast for the General Fund for 2015/16 and the underlying assumptions contained in Appendix 2. (iii) Note the pressures which have been included in the forecast and which are set out in Appendix 3. (iv) Note the Executive’s initial savings proposals put forward for consultation in Appendix 4 which amount to £9.7M net of implementation costs.
Page 189 (v) Note that the Executive’s initial savings set out in Appendix 4 propose the deletion of 137.18 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) posts, of which 8.96 FTE are vacant, leaving 128.22 FTE at risk of redundancy or TUPE transfer. (vi) Note that the Executive’s budget proposals for consultation are based on the assumption that they will recommend a Council Tax increase of 1.99% to Full Council. (vii) Note the medium term financial forecast for 2015/16 to 2017/18 contained in Appendix 5. (viii) Approve the updated budget setting timetable contained in Appendix 6. (ix) Note the progress on the implementation of the new pay and allowances framework. (x) Note that alongside the budget process, there are a number of service reviews underway which are subject to separate Statutory Consultation processes and which, dependent upon the final options taken forward, may impact on the Council’s future budget position. (xi) Note that work is in train to develop the Council’s Target Operating Model and to also deliver significant service transformation across the Council, which will aid the formulation of proposals for future service provision to support the Council’s medium term budget position (xii) Delegate authority to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources, to do anything necessary to give effect to the proposals contained in this report. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The production of a financial forecast and an outline timetable are a requirement of the Council ’s Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules. 2. In addition, it is good practice for the Council to consult with a range of stakeholders on its proposals for developing the budget. The recommendations in this report have therefore been put forward to allow this process to formally begin. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 3. The proposals presented in this report represent the Executive’s draft budget for 2015/16 that is being published for consultation. Clearly there are a huge number of variables and alternative options that could be implemented as part of the budget. The budget will be set by Full Council in February 2015. DETAIL BUDGET CONSULTATION 4. Where new proposals have been put forward these have been subject to consultation with the Council Management Team (CMT) and relevant Cabinet Members.
Page 190 5. The Executive will undertake an extensive consultation process on their initial draft budget proposals following the production of this report. The Leader and the Cabinet are keen to listen to new ideas on how to reduce costs and to receive feedback on the potential impact of the proposals to help to finalise the Executive’s budget to be recommended to Full Council in February 2015. 6. The consultation process has taken into consideration the feedback from last year. As was the case for last year all consultation activity will be supported by an easy to read background to the Council’s budget position and the pressures it faces. 7. Consultation will be undertaken with Trades Unions and staff affected by the proposals in line with the agreed Human Resources (HR) policies. 8. Public consultation will be undertaken with any people or organisations affected by the proposals to ensure all options have been considered. 9. Appendix 1 outlines the process, including the methods of consultation that will be employed. 10. As the budget proposals mean that more than 128 members of staff are at potential risk of redundancy, a minimum 45 day statutory consultation period is required. The consultation commenced on 11 November 2014 and will continue until 21 January 2015 for the main budget proposals, a period in excess of the minimum requirement. 11. In line with the compact with the Voluntary Sector the public consultation will run for 12 weeks commencing on 19 November 2014, following the approval of the draft budget proposals by Cabinet. Initial consultation will close on 21 January 2015 in order to inform the executive budget proposals. Any feedback received after that date will be verbally informed at Cabinet. BACKGROUND 12. As a result of central government’s policies on deficit reduction the public sector as a whole is experiencing a continued period of expenditure restraint. Within this environment, as a sector, local government is experiencing a greater proportion of the reduction in funding when compared with Health, Education and Police. This national picture is reflected locally, as the City Council continues to experience a significant decrease in government grant funding. It is against this background and the need for a further reduction in expenditure that the 2015/16 budget will be set. 13. The City Council is required by law to ensure that residents benefit from a wide range of local services and to set a balanced budget each year, albeit against a backdrop of limited resources, greater demand for services and higher expectations from stakeholders on the range and quality of services provided within the City.
Page 191 14. At this stage in the process the draft budget does not yet represent a balanced financial position but work will continue to develop further proposals in the coming months. The initial proposals in this report are put forward by the Executive as a draft budget that aims to take account of the priorities of the Executive, and in the context of the challenging financial environment in which the Council finds itself, allocate limited resources to priority areas of need and ensure key services are protected. THE EXECUTIVE’S PRIORITES 15. The Council strategy sets out the priorities for 2014 - 2017, these are: • Jobs for local people • Prevention and early intervention • Protecting vulnerable people • Good quality and affordable housing • Services for all • City pride • A sustainable Council 16. It is within the context of the delivery of this strategy that the 2015/16 budget is being set. 17. The Council is funded by a combination of grants from central Government, Council tax, business rates and charges for services. The economic downturn has led to significant reductions in the funding we receive from central Government. At the same time, there has been increased demand for some of our most important services, including those to protect vulnerable children and adults. We have been proactive, recognising that we need to radically change the way we work, so that we can continue to deliver high quality services with less funding in the future. 18. Budget setting is about the allocation of resources to priority areas and in making difficult decisions the Council will have to focus on the above priorities and what is most important for the City. In making these decisions, the Cabinet are keen to hear what residents have to say to inform its priorities. TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMME 19. A key part of the development of the Council as a sustainable organisation is its transformation programme and the current work in progress to design the Council’s future Target Operating Model. The Council is working with KPMG on the Target Operating Model, and this will be the subject of a separate report to December Cabinet. 20. Through implementing a significant programme of Transformation, the Council is seeking to be: • More self-reliant – over time becoming less dependent on central government funding and increasing income generation. • Quicker to respond – more able to adapt to changing circumstances and customer needs including delivering a better digital offer to customers.
Page 192
• Equipped to work in new ways – including new ways of working for staff, procurement and asset management. • Providing a range of different approaches to delivering services - taking ideas from all sectors as well as our own. • Focused on outcome-based services - regularly commissioning the services we need based on outcomes, and making evidence based decisions on those services we need to stop or change 21. Transformation work is split into three overarching work streams; Customer, Infrastructure, and Service Design, with each work stream led by a Director. There is also be an assurance board that is chaired by the Chief Financial Officer, and a Strategy Board which is chaired by the Assistant Chief Executive. 22. As part of the programme the Council is developing its Target Operating Model which will be the model for future operations. Additionally, the initiatives arising from transformation are designed to make a fundamental contribution to meeting the budget savings agenda in the medium term. COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW 23. The Comprehensive Spending review (CSR), which deals with the totality of Government spending, was announced in 2010 for the four year period 2011/12 to 2014/15, and in December 2012 the settlement set out the funding position for Local Government for the final two year period of the CSR, 2013/14 and 2014/15. Over this period government grant received by the Council reduced by circa 35% 24. In June 2013, CSR 2013 was announced and provided high level funding assumptions for 2015/16 which show a further reduction of central government grant support to local government of circa 15%. Various professional bodies and associations quote the potential loss of grant funding between 25% and 40% over the next three to four years, although the exact timings of these further reductions are unknown at present. The potential impact of this anticipated further reduction in grant for Southampton will form part of the thinking necessary around the sustainable changes that will need to be made in the next few years to ensure the long term viability of service provision. 25. A further consultation on the 2015/16 settlement was undertaken in July 2014, but at the time of writing the outcome of the consultation has yet to be published. The current assumption remains for a further reduction in government grant of 14.6% for 2015/16, but further clarity will be gained once the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement is announced in December 2014. 26. The next CSR period starts in 2015 and is likely to contain a further round of significant cuts to Local Authority funding 27. More information is contained in Appendix 2 which provides details of the financial forecasts and the assumptions that have been used in determining the overall base position, together with other factors relevant to the overall budgetary position.
Page 193 SAVINGS PROPOSALS 28. The Executive’s initial savings proposals put forward for consultation in Appendix 4 total £9.7M, £8.54M, net of implementation costs of £0.45M, in 2015/16 with further in year savings 2014/15 of £1.133M. They have been proposed in order that the Council can reduce its cost base whilst seeking to continue to deliver those services which it considers a priority in the face of unprecedented reductions in local government funding and a difficult economic outlook. 29. The savings proposed in this report for 2014/15 and 2015/16 are in addition to the savings approved by Full Council in September of £1.3M for the current year and £6.8M for 2015/16 (the total savings proposed in this report and the September report amount to £2.433M in 2014/15 and £15.3M in 2015/16, an overall reduction of £17.733M). The implications on staff of the new proposals and the proposals already approved are set out in the Staffing Implications section below. 30. Over the next few months, Cabinet Members will continue to explore other ideas for savings and efficiencies that could contribute to the 2015/16 budget Position and future years. STAFFING IMPLICATIONS 31. The City Council employs 3,803 of non-school employees and their staffing costs constitute a significant element of overall expenditure. Given that this is the case, it is inevitable that when the Council is faced with such a significant funding shortfall, the savings proposals put forward, (as set out in Appendix 4), will have an impact on staff cost and staff numbers. 32. Aware of this fact, the Council has continued to have in place a carefully planned approach to recruitment, ensuring that vacant posts have only been recruited to where absolutely necessary. 33. This proactive approach has meant that the Council has been able to hold a number of posts vacant which can now be deleted in order to make savings as part of the budget process. The deletion of vacant posts reduces the impact on staff in post and reduces the actual number of employees who will be made redundant. 34. Based on the current savings proposals put forward by the Executive it is anticipated that, subject to the outcome of the consultation process, 128.22 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) posts are impacted. The post holders will either be at risk of being made redundant or be subject to TUPE transfer, and up to 170 individuals are impacted. 35. This is in addition to the proposed staffing reductions already approved for 2015/16 as set out in the report agreed by Full Council on 17 September. Taken together with the staffing proposals set out in this report, the potential total reduction in FTEs arising from savings which impact in 2015/16 is 222.48 FTEs.
Page 194 36. Through the consultation process the Executive is keen to explore all avenues with the Trade Unions and staff to identify wherever possible alternative options for delivering savings, in order that the level of proposed staffing reductions and redundancies can be reduced. 37. The Executive will also continue to ensure that impacted staff are aware of all the available options which can be used to avoid compulsory redundancies and this will include: • Early retirement, • Flexible retirement, • Voluntary redundancy and • Reduced hours 38. In addition, the City Council has an excellent past record of using its redeployment policies to minimise any compulsory redundancies arising out of the budget proposals and the Executive will seek to support employees who find themselves on the redeployment register as a result of savings implemented as part of the 2015/16 budget. SERVICE REVIEWS 39. There are a number of service reviews either in progress or subject to Statutory Consultation which, depending on their outcome may impact on the Council’s budget position. Further information is set out below: Adult Social Care Provider Services 40. There are currently a number of proposals out to consultation which will potentially impact on the way services are delivered within Provider Services. The services subject to consultation are: • Day Services including provision at Kentish Road • Provision at Woodside Residential Home The outcome of these consultations and recommendations for preferred options will be set out in a report to Cabinet in December 2014. If any options agreed by Cabinet impact on the 2015/16 budget, then this will be reflected in the updated budget position and report to Full Council in February 2015 Business Support 41. It should be noted that the forecast position for 2015/16 onwards includes £0.8M savings from the redesign of the Business Support service. Approval was given to proceed with the implementation of this proposal in September
2014. The employee consultation on theth proposed changes to the Business Support delivery model ended on the 29 October 2014 and the conclusions drawn from this consultation process will be taken into consideration in achieving the saving. Library Service 42. Elsewhere on today’s Cabinet agenda, the Cabinet are set to approve the commencement of Statutory Consultation for a minimum of 12 weeks with both service users and staff on The Future of the Southampton Library Service. The report recommends a preferred option for consultation which is Option D.
Page 195 43. Following the outcome of consultation and the approval of any preferred option by Cabinet, there may be an impact on the budget in the medium term. COUNCIL TAX 44. The original assumption in the Council’s financial forecast for 2015/16 was for an increase in Council Tax of 1.99% and this assumption has been maintained in light of the current position as set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) that a referendum will be required for increases of 2% or more. DETAILED FINANCIAL PROPOSALS 45. Appendix 2 to this report sets out the high level financial position for the General Fund for 2015/16 including the provision required in the Risk Fund for possible risks and the unavoidable pressures that have been signed off by the CMT. These pressures are set out in detail in Appendix 3. 46. Appendix 2 shows that after taking into account base changes, inflation, changes in the Risk Fund, revenue pressures, assumptions for Government Grant and savings already agreed, there is a roll forward gap in 2015/16 of £14.0M at an assumed increase in Council Tax of 1.99%. 47. This position has been signed off by the CFO and Chief Executive and will effectively be the same for all Political Groups subject to the amount of additional resources they wish to put into specific initiatives and the level of Council Tax rise they wish to set. 48. Appendix 4 sets out the Executive’s initial detailed proposals for efficiencies, income and service reductions respectively and it is these proposals that are put forward for consultation with stakeholders. The detailed savings proposals in Appendix 4 total £9.7M. This constitutes £8.54M, net of £0.45M implementation costs in 2015/16, with further in year savings in 2014/15 of £1.133M. 49. The overall current draft budget position therefore put forward by the Executive is shown in the following table : £M £M Original Gap 31.4 2015/16 Budget Pressures 1.1 One off Funding (9.9) 2015/16 Savings already agreed Sept (8.1) budget report Future Year Impact of 2014/15 (0.5) Pressures & Savings Budget Gap @ 1.99% Council Tax 14.0 2015/16 Proposed Efficiencies & (9.7) Service Reductions (9.7) Net Deficit 4.3
Page 196 50. Even allowing for the draft proposals, the Executive’s proposed draft budget position does not yet represent a balanced budget. 51. The Council is required to set a legally balanced budget no later than 10 March. It is, therefore, an imperative that further work is undertaken to identify further options for delivering savings which can be utilised to close the budget shortfall and ensure that a balanced budget can be set. MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL FORECAST 2015/16 TO 2017/18 52. It should be noted that even after allowing for the draft budget proposals there remain significant budget shortfalls in the medium term, with a forecast gap currently of £35.080M in 2016/17 rising to a cumulative gap of almost £54.242M in 2017/18. Significant further work is required to ensure that savings can be delivered to balance the budget for these future years. The plans for future years do not need to represent a balanced position by the time that Full Council set the 2015/16 budget in February 2015. However, Members should not lose sight of the need to ensure that work is ongoing to develop savings proposals for future years. 53. The medium term financial position is shown in Appendix 5 and illustrates both the financial challenge facing the Council in the coming years and also the impact of the draft budget proposals contained in this report. OPTIONS FOR CLOSING THE 2015/16 BUDGET GAP 54. As shown in the table above – based on the assumption that all the savings proposals shown in this report are approved the funding gap for 2015/16 will be £4.3m. Between now and Council tax setting in February that gap will need to be bridged to enable the Council to set a balanced budget as required by law. 55. There are several ways in which the gap can be closed, as set out below. These options are not mutually exclusive, and the final budget proposal may include a mix of the options. In seeking to close the budget gap, in the first instance the Executive recognise the need to deliver and favour options which can deliver recurrent savings as opposed to simply finding additional one off budget contributions. This is particularly important as the current budget position already utilises significant one off funding. 56. Identification of Additional Savings - The Council’s Management Team will be actively considering further proposals with the Cabinet between now and February to identify additional savings which can be brought forward for 2015/16. 57. 2014/15 Budget Underspend - The Chief Executive has recently put in place further arrangements to stop unnecessary expenditure in year, with the aim of delivering an overall budget underspend in 2014/15 (see paragraph 63). There is the option to apply any benefit accruing from these arrangements to the 2015/16 revenue budget on a one off basis to further bridge the gap. 58. Transformation Programme - The Council is moving ahead with its Transformation Programme and implementation of a new Target Operating Model, and further detail will be set out in the report to Cabinet in December. Whilst full year benefits of the agreed programme may not be delivered until
Page 197 2016/17, it is anticipated that savings will be delivered during 2015/16 and may therefore help assist in balancing the 2015/16 budget 59. Underlying Financial Position - The opportunity may exist for there to be changes to the strategic finance position which will help the budget position. This may include benefits of work in the area of management of the Council’s debt and investment portfolio, and also in year projections suggest that there is likely to be additional income arising from improvements in business rates income which can be used to contribute to the budget gap – the full position on which will be reported in the February budget report 60. Draw From Reserves – There remains the option to draw from reserves and make a one off contribution to the budget position in 2015/16. However, the level of usable General Fund reserves remains relatively low, and a draw from reserves would only be made if the combination of all other available options was not sufficient to balance the overall budget. 2014/15 IN YEAR ACTION 61. In view of the difficult financial picture for next year and the medium term, it is imperative that remedial action is put in place in the current financial year to seek to deliver savings as soon as possible. 62. With that in mind, savings have already been identified in the current year in the sum of £1.133M and set aside to contribute towards closing the budget shortfall in 2015/16. These savings are as set out in Appendix 4a. 63. In addition to this, CMT and Cabinet have agreed to put in place a recruitment freeze on all but the most essential posts, as well as a spend moratorium on all non-essential spend for the remainder of the 2014/15 financial year. This position has been agreed in order that expenditure can be minimised for the remainder of the financial year to ensure that the maximum support can be given to managing the challenging financial position which the Council faces in 2015/16 and future years. STATEMENT ON GENERAL FUND BUDGET STRATEGY BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 64. The CFO must exercise a professional responsibility to intervene in spending plans in order to maintain the balance of resources so that the authority remains in sound financial health. 65. Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 imposes a specific duty on the CFO to report formally to Council at the time that the budget is considered and the Council Tax is set on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of financial reserves. 66. In advance of the report to Cabinet and Council in February 2015 it is important to set the whole of the 2015/16 budget process in the context of the exceptional financial circumstances that Local Government finds itself. 67. Given the continuing uncertainties of the economic environment and the scale of expenditure reductions required year on year, there will inevitably be significant risks involved in delivering a balanced budget. Whilst considerable pressure exists on the Council’s budget because of the severely reduced level of resources available for local authorities in the
Page 198 future, further advanced forward planning to deliver the future year’s budget savings is in preparation and is absolutely essential. 68. Whilst therefore the basic methodology for putting the budget together has not changed, it must be recognised that the scale of the changes and some of the measures which are proposed do increase the risk built into the budget for 2015/16 and beyond. 69. Consideration of the utilisation of balances will be undertaken and will involve an assessment of both the risks the Council is facing and the position across the medium term planning horizon as set out in paragraphs 52 to 53, and as set out in Appendix 2. In view of the financial challenge facing the Authority, the Council must not lose sight of the need to ensure that work is ongoing to develop sustainable savings proposals for future years and must be mindful of the need to carefully consider the extent to which one off funding is utilised in order to deliver a balanced budget in any one year. 70. In February 2015 Council is required to have regard to the report provided by the CFO under Section 25 in approving the budget and the Council Tax and at that time an assessment of the final proposals will be set out to inform decision making. EQUALITY AND SAFETY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 71. The Equality Duty is a duty on public bodies which came into force on 5 April 2011 and requires the Council to show that it has 'had regard' to the impact of its decisions on its equality duties and the need to advance equality of opportunity between people who have protected characteristics and those who do not. 72. While the Equality Duty does not impose a legal requirement to conduct an Equality Impact Assessment, it does require public bodies to show how they considered the Equality Duty and that they have been consciously thinking about the aims of the Equality Duty as part of the process of decision- making. To comply with these requirements as well as the Community Safety legislation, the Council has used its existing Impact Assessment framework so that it can ensure the use of a consistent, Council wide mechanism to evidence how decision making took into account equality and safety considerations. In addition, in light of the potential impact of the welfare reforms on some residents, the assessments also take into account the impact on poverty. 73. Draft individual Equality and Safety Impact Assessments (ESIAs) have been completed by Directors and Heads of Service for those proposals contained in Appendix 4 that they identified require such an assessment, as they could have an adverse impact on a particular group or individuals. The draft individual ESIAs are available in Members’ Rooms. 74. The individual ESIAs will be analysed to consider the cumulative impacts the draft budget proposals may have on particular groups and the mitigating actions that could be considered. In order to give the right perspective to the draft budget proposals, the Cumulative Impact Assessment has to be considered in light of the available information on the City’s profile, service user and non-user information and staffing profiles as well as the proportion of the Council’s budget that is currently spent on targeted groups or
Page 199 communities. The first draft of the Cumulative Impact Assessment will be completed by a central team of officers within the Council, based on the initial ESIAs completed by service managers. NEXT STEPS 75. This report represents an important step in the process leading to the setting of the 2015/16 budget and signals the start of an extensive consultation programme. 76. The budget timetable from this point forward is detailed at Appendix 6. 77. Further proposals for the budget will continue to be developed and will be prepared for presentation to Cabinet and then full Council in February 2015. PAY & ALLOWANCES REVIEW 78. On 19 November 2013 when the Council considered the plans for the 2014/15 revenue budget it was reported that a period of consultation had started on the future approach to Pay and Allowances. In particular this aimed to address issues of Pay, Equality and Fairness across the Council’s service, and mitigating any risk of claims against the Council for operating in a differential fashion. This has been an issue for local government as a whole and most Councils have completed reviews to address inequality in pay and allowance or are in the process of doing so. 79. Over the past year the Council has been formulating its proposals so far as pay and allowances are concerned which have been consulted on with the relevant trade unions and reported regularly to Council members. In order to implement these proposals by agreement a vote giving approval is required by the staff side trade unions. If this is not accepted or does not take place the option is available for the Council to dismiss and re-engage staff on revised contracts based on the new arrangements. 80. At the time of writing negotiations have concluded but discussions are still taking place with the trade unions about the holding of the relevant ballots. The financial implications of the ultimate position will be relevant to the 2015/16 budget and the financial position for future years and will form part of the final budget report that will be considered by the Council when it sets the Council tax for next year in February 2015. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Revenue 81. This report is concerned with the revenue forecasts for the General Fund for 2015/16 and beyond Capital 82. The revenue implications of financing the approved General Fund capital programme are included within the forecasts presented in this report Property/Other 83. None
Page 200
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report: INTRODUCTION 84. It is important that Members are fully aware of the full legal implications of the entire budget and Council Tax making process, when they consider any aspect of setting the Council’s Budget. Formal and full advice to all Members of the Council protects Members, both in their official and personal capacity, as well as the Council. If Members have received the appropriate professional legal and financial advice and act reasonably, generally the courts will not interfere in their decisions. GENERAL POSITION 85. The first and overriding legal duty on Members is their fiduciary duty to weigh the needs of service users against the interests of local taxpayers. In planning the budget, Members are under a fiduciary duty to act prudently, responsibly, in a businesslike manner and in their view of what constitutes the best interests of the general body of local taxpayers. In deciding upon expenditure, the Council must fairly hold a balance between recipients of the benefits of services provided by the Council and its local taxpayers. Members should note that their fiduciary duty includes consideration of future local taxpayers as well as present local taxpayers. 86. There is a general requirement in administrative law that a local authority decision must be rational, authorised by law and must take account of all relevant considerations, whilst ignoring any irrelevant ones. It should also be noted that the concept of proportionality, given great emphasis in the Human Rights Act 1998, is also becoming a relevant factor for determining the reasonableness of any decision and should be borne in mind by Members. 87. An authority commits an illegal act if it acts beyond or in abuse of its statutory powers or in breach of its fiduciary duty. It will also act illegally if it fails to take relevant considerations into account or acts in outrageous defiance of reason. OBLIGATION TO MAKE A COUNCIL TAX 88. The legal significance of the Annual Budget derives from the Council's duty under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (the 1992 Act) to set a balanced budget. This is achieved by calculating the aggregate of: i. the expenditure it estimates it will incur in the year in performing its functions in the year (including an allowance for contingencies), ii. the payments it estimates it will make in the year in defraying expenditure already incurred and iii. expenditure it will incur in funding costs before a transfer of funds is made from the Collection Fund and then deducting such sums as will be paid into the General Fund, (i.e. income). Calculations made under this section must be made before 11 March in the preceding financial year.
Page 201 89. In order to fulfil this duty, the Council must prepare detailed estimates of its expenditure for the coming year and of the resources which will be available to meet this expenditure. Account must be taken of any deficit brought forward from a previous year and the amount needed to cover contingencies. The resources include income from rents, fees and charges and any available balances. All of these issues must be addressed in the budget report. The estimation of the detailed resource and expenditure items is the main reason for the budget process. The budget must balance, i.e. proposed expenditure must be met from proposed income from all sources, with any shortfall being the precept on the Collection Fund. 90. Failure to make a lawful Council Tax on or before 11 March could have serious financial results for the Council and make the Council vulnerable to an Order from the Courts requiring it to make a Council Tax. 91. Section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972 places a general duty on local authorities to make arrangements for "the proper administration of their financial affairs'. 92. Information must be published and included in the Council Tax demand notice. The Secretary of State has made regulations, which require charging authorities to issue demand notices in a form and with contents prescribed by these regulations. 93. There is also a duty under Section 65 of the 1992 Act to consult persons or bodies appearing to be representative of persons subject to non-domestic rates in each area about proposals for expenditure (including capital expenditure) for each financial year.
DEFICIT BUDGETING 94. A deficit budget, one which does not cover all anticipated expenditure with resources reasonably expected to be available, is unlawful. Any Council Tax which rests on such a budget will be invalid. Councils are constrained to make a Council Tax before all the separate elements, which will constitute available resources or anticipated expenditure, have been identified and quantified fully. Best estimates have to be employed. 95. Where these best estimates include sums for unallocated savings or unidentified expectations of income, extreme care must be taken to ensure that the estimates are reasonable and realistic and do not reflect an unlawful intention to incur a deficit. It might be appropriate at budget setting time to require regular monitoring throughout the financial year of such estimated savings or income. Prompt action to reduce spending must be taken, if at any stage it seems likely that a balance between income and expenditure will not be achieved. BORROWING 96. The rules and regulations governing a local authority's ability to borrow money were altered significantly by the introduction of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and subsequent regulations. This has now been abolished and replaced by the self regulating Prudential Code.
Page 202 OTHER RELEVANT LEGISLATION 97. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) created the (now repealed) Community Charge and the current National Non- Domestic Rating regime and deals with grants, funds, capital expenditure and the financial administration of a local authority. 98. Under Section 114 (2) and 114 (3) of the 1988 Act, the Chief Financial Officer is required to make a report, if it appears to him/her that a decision or course of action the Council or an officer has agreed or is about to make is unlawful, or that expenditure is likely to exceed resources available. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (THE 2000 ACT) 99. The 2000 Act has had a fundamental effect on the governance of the Council and in particular has resulted in a change to the working arrangements of Council, with the requirement for a Constitution setting out executive (Cabinet) and scrutiny and overview arrangements. The 2000 Act also provides a power for Councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas and develop community strategies. In addition, the 2000 Act establishes an ethical framework. 100. Of particular importance to the Council Tax setting process and Budget Meeting of the Full Council is the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules set out in Part 4 of the City Council’s Constitution. These provide a legal framework for the decision making process whereby the Budget of the City Council is determined, and the Council Tax is set. In addition, Members need to be aware that these Rules provide a route whereby the Leader may require the Full Council to reconsider their position if they do not accept the Executive’s recommended budget without amendment. 101. In addition, the Constitution contains a range of further material relevant to the setting of the Council Tax and the Budget Setting meeting: i. Article 12 contains guidance on decision making and the law; ii. The Council Procedure Rules in Part 4 regulate the conduct of the Full Council meeting (although traditionally, some of the rules relating to the conduct of the debate are suspended to allow different arrangements during the budget debate); iii. The Members’ Code of Conduct must be followed by Members; and iv. The Officer/Member Protocol contains guidance both on pre-budget discussions, but also on how officers and Members should interact with specific guidance about budget preparation issues.
Page 203 LEGAL STATUS OF POLITICAL PROMISES AND DOCUMENTS 102. It is appropriate for Members to consider their own position as some Members may have expressed support publicly for policies that are not policies of the Council. 103. Political documents do not represent a legal commitment on behalf of the Council. To treat any political document as a legal commitment by the Council would be illegal. Where there is a valid choice before Members, then, at that stage and only at that stage, Members may take political documents into account. 104. All decisions must be taken within the framework of the formal decision making process of the Authority. Members must take into account all relevant matters and disregard all irrelevant ones. Decisions taken at a political meeting, such as a political group meeting, have no status within this process. A Member, who votes in accordance with a group decision which has been reached, having regard to relevant factors and who has addressed their mind independently to those factors and to the decision itself, will be acting within the law. 105. The Courts have also advised on the balancing exercise to be undertaken by a Council when deciding whether to pursue a particular policy: A local authority must exercise its statutory powers in the public interest and for the purpose of which those powers have been conferred. Political views, as to the weight to be attached to the various relevant considerations and as to what is appropriate in the public interest in the light of those considerations, may properly influence the exercise of a statutory discretion. A decision will not be unlawful merely because some political advantage, such as electoral popularity, is expected to flow from it, so long as the decision is made for a legitimate purpose or purposes. Because at some stage in the evolution of a policy an improper political purpose has been espoused, does not mean that the policy ultimately adopted is necessarily unlawful. However, a political purpose extraneous to the statutory purpose can taint a decision with impropriety. Where there is more than one purpose:- a) The decision will generally be lawful provided that the permitted purpose is the true and dominant purpose behind the act. This is so even though some secondary or incidental advantage may be gained for some purpose, which is outside the authority's powers. b) The decision will be invalid if there are two purposes one ultra vires and one intra vires and the ultra vires purpose is a (even if not the) major purpose of the decision. Accordingly a decision substantially influenced by a wish to alter the composition of the electorate would be unlawful. c) Where there is some evidence justifying enquiry, the Court will consider whether an apparently lawful purpose e.g. home ownership is merely a colourable device to conceal an illegitimate purpose e.g. electoral advantage.
Page 204
d) Even if those voting for a particular policy at a Council meeting have perfectly proper reasons in mind, the policy can be tainted by the improper motives of others who have taken part in the formulation of that policy although not actually present to vote. As a matter of law it is possible for a corrupt principal to cause a result through an innocent agent. Other Legal Implications: 106. The financial forecasts contained in this report have been prepared and are submitted as part of the budget process set out in the Council’s Constitution. As part of the review process by CMT, the proposals contained in this report have been checked from a legal viewpoint. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 107. The Medium Term Plan and the Budget are key parts of the Policy Framework of the Council and a Budget and Council Tax for 2015/16 must be proposed by the Executive (Cabinet) for consideration by the Full Council under the Constitution.
Page 205
KEY DECISION? Yes/No WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: ALL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices 1. Pre Budget Survey and The Budget Consultation Process 2. General Fund Financial Forecast 2015/16 to 2017/18 3 Service Pressures 4 Executives Proposals for Consultation 5 Medium Term Financial Forecast 6 Updated Budget & Consultation Timetable 2015/16 Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. None Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact Yes/No Assessment (EIA) to be carried out? Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. General Fund Revenue Budget 2014/15 to 2016/17 – Approved by Full Council on 12 February 2014 2. Report to Cabinet 16 September 2014 – Changes to Existing Revenue and Capital Budgets
Page 206 Agenda Item 17 Appendix 1
2015-16 BUDGET PROPOSALS – CONSULTATION PROCESS
Introduction
1. Many councils have been challenged on their budget or service decisions on the basis that their consultation processes were not robust enough. Therefore it is vital that the Council agrees and implements a transparent, comprehensive and co-ordinated process. This will help stakeholders understand the proposals better, the Council to get their views and help maintain the Council’s credibility and reputation. It is important to take into account the feedback we received on last year’s budget consultation process to ensure we consult and engage with our stakeholders in the best way this year.
2. Consultation on the Council’s draft budget for 2014/15 was a two phase process; a) pre budget consultation through a mainly online survey on the wider priorities and b) consultation on the draft budget proposals which was split into two broad categories – internal and external.
3. A variety of methods were used to assist a wide range of people to give their views to inform the final budget for 2014/15. Building on feedback received the previous year in addition to the budget tables, covering paper and equality and safety impact assessments that are produced every year, a more comprehensive range of budget materials were developed and made available on the Council’s website and used at consultation meetings. The additional materials included: • A pre-budget survey on residents priorities • A summary on the background to the budget position • A summary document outlining the budget proposals • A video clip from the Cabinet Member for Resources • Summary information sheets by theme with more detail of each of the proposals • A more detailed survey on the proposals
4. Cabinet revised some of their initial budget proposals as a result of extensive consultation feedback from staff, partners and residents.
5. The Council also received feedback on how the 2014/15 consultation documentation and process could be improved and held a meeting to review the consultation and identify learning points that can be put into practice this year. The key points and actions are summarised below:
Feedback points Action taken for 2015/16 draft budget consultation There was positive feedback on the Background documents and fact sheets additional supporting documentation relating to the proposals will be produced again published with the budget tables. The this year. Where relevant more detail will be background presentations and information included the information sheets and they will sheets were welcomed and it was felt that be grouped to include fewer proposals. it provided a comprehensive whilst easy to 1 Page 207 Feedback points Action taken for 2015/16 draft budget consultation understand description of the issues faced. Heads of Service will sign off the details in However, there was criticism that further each of the information sheets. detailed information was needed on some of the proposals. The Priorities Survey was welcomed and a A pre-budget priorities survey will be high number of useful responses were undertaken biennially in the year the City received. Survey is not carried out. Together these surveys will be used to help inform budget setting in the City. Area based meetings had poor attendance A single meeting will be held centrally for those and were resource intensive for the level of who are usually invited to the area meetings. feedback they generated. Councillors will also attend meetings to which they are invited to discuss the proposals. Some respondents felt that the The questionnaire will refer to the proposals in consultation questionnaire did not include smaller groupings which directly relate to the enough details and questions needed to be information sheets. more specific There was general support from partners The Council’s Management Team meets that the process had been more inclusive regularly with the Southampton Clinical with greater engagement and consultation Commissioning Group and other health with them prior to the publication of the providers in the City. There has been dialogue draft budget. with health and other partners about specific proposals as appropriate. The joint Integrated
Commissioning Unit between health and the council has been in involved in the development of the relevant proposals. Southampton Connect will also be engaged before the publication of the budget. Deadlines were met as the consultation The questionnaire will close on 21 January timetable was planned well in advance to 2015, and this is being publicised as the allow sufficient time for analysis before the deadline for feedback if it is to be included in Cabinet’s proposals are published. the written analysis in time for Cabinet to consider it before publication at the end of January 2015. Further feedback will be provided verbally at the Cabinet and Council meetings as appropriate.
Aims 6. We know there are difficult decisions to be made and through improved ways of involving staff, residents and partners in the process the council aims to: o Raise awareness of the financial situation the Council is facing and the difficult choices that have to be made; o Communicate clearly and receive feedback on the impact of the individual draft budget proposals, particularly those that could have an impact on residents and businesses; o Provide feedback on how the proposals have changed as a result of consultation.
Principles 7. Despite having limited resources to undertake consultation, every effort will be made to ensure it is:
2 Page 208 o Inclusive: so that everyone in the City’s has the opportunity to express their views o Informative: so that people have adequate information about the proposals, what different options mean, and a balanced and fair explanation of the potential impacts, particularly the equality and safety impacts o Understandable: by ensuring that the language we use to communicate is simple and clear and that efforts are made to reach all stakeholders, for example people who are non-English speakers or disabled people o Appropriate: by targeting people who are more likely to be affected and using a more tailored approach to get their feedback, complemented by a general approach to all residents, staff, businesses and partners. o Meaningful: by ensuring decision makers have the full consultation feedback information so that they can make informed decisions. o Reported: by letting consultees know what we did with their feedback.
Approach th 8. The overall approach will be to ensureth the public consultation which starts on 19 November 2014 and finishes on 11 February 2015, uses a variety of methods to
seek the views of residents, staff and partners on theth draft budget proposals. The minimum 45 day staff consultation starts on 10 November 2014.
Process 9. The consultation will involve: o Internal consultation with staff and unions – this will include formal meetings
on an ongoing basis with the Trade Unions, startingth with a meeting on the day of publication of the draft budget (Monday 10 November 2014); o Staff consultation for those who are affected directly by the proposals; o Publication of information on the City Council website, via Stay Connected and the use of social media channels throughout the process to engage a wider range of people who are more comfortable in using digital media; o An on-line and hard copy questionnaire which will be available in Gateway, Housing Offices, Libraries and GP surgeries; o Liaison with stakeholders and partners; o Consideration by Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee and Heath Overview and Scrutiny Panel; o Contact and ongoing liaison with organisations directly affected by the budget proposals to consider impacts, mitigating actions, alternatives or any new ideas; o A consultation meeting at the civic centre for invited stakeholder groups.
10. All consultation will be supported with easy to understand information on the budget background and the budget proposals.
3 Page 209 Consultees and methodology
Consultees Methods Lead Members Various Cllrs Letts and Barnes-Andrews Scrutiny Meetings Mark Pirnie/Dottie Goble Staff and Ongoing and co-ordinated dialogue Mike Watts unions with TUs on the budget process Regular meetings on service specific Council’s Management Team and proposals Heads of Service Meetings with individual members of Heads of Service - Managers are staff to consult them on proposals that empowered to decide how to affect them consult, i.e. it does not necessarily have to be face-to-face, alternative methods can be used. Residents Budget consultation questionnaire Caronwen Henderson and all available on the council’s website, stakeholders paper copies in Gateway, Local Housing Offices, GP surgeries and libraries. The questionnaire will be available between 19 November and 21 January in order for analysis to take place and be included in the final budget report in February. Consultation meeting in the first week Dottie Goble of January 2015 Partners Ongoing discussions with partners on CMT and Heads of Service proposals that have an impact on jointly provided services or where they serve a common population Partners and Letters to partners and meetings Dawn Baxendale and Directors and external those who represent the council on organisations other organisations Briefing for Southampton Connect Dawn Baxendale Letters to relevant organisations who Client/ Commissioning managers may be affected in specific ways and for contracted services, coordinated ongoing regular meetings within each Directorate Commercial Letter, meetings, discussions Client/ Commissioning managers partners and for contracted services, coordinated provider by lead Heads of Service organisations Service Meetings using a variety of existing Heads of Service users forums and user groups for relevant proposals
11. The time scales for consultation are included within the overall draft budget timetable which is at appendix 6 of the main report.
4 Page 210 Agenda Item 17 Appendix 2
GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL FORECAST 2015/16 to 2017/18
Background 1. Each year the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) prepares a financial forecast for the next three financial years that takes into account inflationary pressures, base changes, decisions from previous budgets and assumptions about council tax, grant income from the Government, and the impact of the Business Rate Retention (BRR) Scheme. 2. This forecast forms part of the base assumptions for developing the overall budget, together with unavoidable service pressures agreed by the Council Management Team (CMT) that need to be taken into account in the overall budget deliberations. 3. The purpose of this technical financial appendix is to provide details of the financial forecasts and the assumptions that have been used in coming up with the overall base position, together with other factors relevant to the overall budgetary position. Economic Outlook 4. Since the Council set its 2014/15 budget in February 2014, the economic outlook has remained challenging. While, there have been some indications of recovery the Government has failed to meet its targets so far as deficit reduction is concerned. As a result, the current constraint on public expenditure is set to continue. Although there will be a General Election in 2015, from the statements that the various political parties are making it appears unlikely that there will be any change in the current constraint in public sector expenditure generally or for local government in particular.
Additionally, the present government has prioritised Health, Education and Police which has meant that the amount available for other public services and, in particular, local government is further reduced
The main impact of government policy on public spending on the position of SCC is through:
• general revenue funding, in particular revenue support grant • capital funding through capital grants, and • constraint on council tax.
Additionally, under the changes to the local government finance system introduced in April 2014 as a result of the local government resource review, the level of the business rates tax base is a key element in determining a local authority’s overall funding position. While the partial localisation of the business rate is welcome the potential volatility and unpredictability of the movement in the business rate base is another challenge to medium term financial planning for the City Council.
Page 211 Comprehensive Spending Review 2013 5. The next CSR period starts in 2015 and it is likely that this will contain another round of significant cuts to local authority funding. Various professional bodies and associations quote the potential loss of grant funding between 25% and 40%. The exact timing of these further reductions is largely unknown at present. The potential impact of this for Southampton will inform the thinking necessary around the sustainable changes which will need to be made in the next few years to ensure the long term viability of service provision. Annual Local Authority Finance Settlement 6. In late autumn 2013 the Government announced its finance settlement that would apply for two years. A further consultation on the 2015/16 settlement was undertaken in July 2014. The results of the consultation are still to be published but presently there is no indication that there will be changes to the previously reported figures. The following table summarises the current funding assumptions over the four year period of 2014/15 to 2017/18:
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 £000's £000's % £000's % £000's % Revenue Support Grant 59,407.6 42,212.1 30,054.3 19,213.6 -36.1%
Business Rate 49,298.9 50,659.6 51,672.8 52,706.3 2.0% Baseline Funding Level
SFA 108,706.5 92,871.7 -14.6% 81,727.1 -12.0% 71,919.8 -12.0%
7. It should be noted that the figures for 2015/16 and the projection for 2016/17 are provisional and could change as a result of the provisional Local Government finance settlement announcement that is scheduled to be made by government in December 2014. The impending general election means that there will be little indication of what the nature of the next CSR will be. It Is likely there will be no detail issued until the outcome of the election is determined in May 2015. 8. It should also be noted that a rebasing of the Business Rate Retention Scheme is expected in 2017 and may have a further impact on the SFA for 2017/18. 2015/16 General Fund Financial Forecast 9. The financial forecast is continually reviewed to ensure that it reflects the most current information and, since it was published in February 2014, a number of changes have been built into the latest position. 10. Council Tax 11. The original assumption was for an increase in Council Tax of 1.99% and this assumption has been maintained in light of the current position as set out by the
Page 212 DCLG that a referendum will be required for increases of 2% or more. 12. Collection Fund 13. The Collection Fund outturn position for 2013/14 reported a Council Tax Surplus of £2.6M and an NNDR Deficit of £17.8M. 14. Council Tax - The estimated Collection Fund surplus for 2013/14 was £2.1M and this estimated surplus was taken into account in setting the 2014/15 Council Tax and is shared by the City Council and the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority in proportion to the precepts levied by each authority in 2013/14. As the actual surplus was £2.6M, an additional surplus of £0.53M was carried forward and is available to be shared between the precepting authorities in proportion to the precepts levied in this year. Southampton City Council’s element of this is £0.454M. 15. Non Domestic Rates - When setting the budget for 2014/15 in February 2014, it was estimated that there would be an NNDR deficit of £17.6M of which the Council’s Share was £8.6M to be carried forward. The outturn position 2013/14 resulted in a deficit position on NNDR of £17.8M of which the Council’s share is £8.7M. Therefore a further deficit of £0.076M needs to be taken into account when setting the 2015/16 Council Tax. 16. The net Council Tax/NNDR surplus of £0.378M has now been included in updating the forecast position for 2015/16. 17. Risk Fund 18. In previous years, the Council set up a Risk Fund to manage certain potential pressures that may arise in year. The majority of these pressures are volatile in nature and cannot be forecast accurately until data is collected during the financial year on the level of activity and costs. As in previous years, not all of the money set aside for pressures is allocated to Portfolios prior to the start of the year. In addition, the individual items are also risk adjusted to reflect the fact not all of them are likely to materialise during the year. The result is that a sum of £3.2M has been included in the forecast for 2015/16 to cover such pressures. It should be noted that this provision is £1.2M less than previously forecast in February 2014 as this sum has now been allocated to Portfolios. 19. Other Income 20. Other changes have been made to the base position to reflect the utilisation of one off funding sources over and above those previously taken into consideration including confirmation of the continuation of Housing Benefit Administration Subsidy and a further year of New Homes Bonus funding in 2015/16. In addition, savings proposals approved by Council in September 2014 have now been incorporated into the forecast position. 21. The changes since February 2014 are summarised below:
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 £'000's £'000's £'000's
Gap in February 31,385.2 55,767.2 76,224.5 Other One off Funding (5,378.8)
Page 213 Contribution from Balances - MRP (4,527.0) In Year Savings 2014/15 (1,322.5) Mini Budget Savings Proposals (Sept 14 budget) (6,810.5) (6,616.5) (6,716.5) Other Changes (491.0) (1,091.0) (1,091.0)
Updated Funding Gap 12,855.4 48,059.7 68,417.0
Unavoidable Service Cost Pressures 22. In addition to the forecast prepared by Officers shown in the table above, CMT have also been reviewing other service cost pressures and assessing whether or not these are unavoidable and should therefore be added directly to Portfolio Budgets (as opposed to those in the Risk Fund that will be held centrally). 23. These pressures total £1.165M, and include additional resources to meet the estimated cost of the implementation of the Care Act totalling £0.8M. Full details are set out in Appendix 3.
24. In addition to the identified pressures of £1.165M, there remains a further sum of £0.92M included within the Base position which is set aside to cover any further pressures which may arise.
25. When these pressures are taken into account the revised gap is £14.0M in 2015/16 as shown below:
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
£'000's £'000's £'000's Updated Funding Gap 12,885.4 48,059.7 68,417.0 Pressures Future Years (known) 1,165.0 1,165.0 765.0
Revised Gap 14,020.4 49,224.7 69,182.0 Base Position 2015/16 26. Taking all the items above into account gives a council tax requirement for 2015/16 of £88.9M. Considering the net spend that the City Council can support when setting a council tax increase of 1.99% the funding gap for the 2015/16 financial year is £14.0M as illustrated in the following table.
Page 214
BASE POSITION 2015/16
Base Original Roll Changes Portfolios Budget Forward & 2014/15 2015/16 Inflation £00 0's £000's £000's Children's Services 58,852.5 (3,504.2) 55,348.3 Communities 2,847.9 (827.7) 2,020.2 Environment & Transport 37,020.7 (795.1) 36,225.6 Health & Adult Social Care 64,045.2 2,627.8 66,673.0 Housing & Sustainability 2,254.3 25.7 2,280.0 Leader's Portfolio 4,631.9 (77.4) 4,554.5 Resources & Leisure 31,781.8 (1,230.3) 30,551.5 Add Pressure - Future Years (Known) 1,165.0 1,165.0 Add Pressures - Future Years (Unknown) 920.0 920.0 Sub -total for Portfolios 201,434.3 (1,696.2) 199,738.1
Levies & Contributions 631.2 0.0 631.2 Capital Asset Management (11,937.3) 1,247.3 (10,690.0) Risk Fund 4,400.0 (1,183.0) 3,217.0 Non-Specific Government Grants (110,827.8) 14,152.9 (96,674.9) Other Expenditure & Income (1,754.4) 2,417.2 662.8 NET GF SPENDING 81,946.0 14,938.2 96,884.2
Draw from Balances: Addition to / (Draw From) Balances (8,379.0) 445.3 (7,933.7) To Fund the Capital Programme (100.0) 100.0 0.0 COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENT 73,467.0 15,862.3 88,950.5
Budget @ 1.99% Council Tax 73,467.0 1,463.1 74,930.1
Total Gap 0.0 14,020.4 14,020.4
27. The overall revised gap that needs to be closed for 2015/16 of £14.0M represents 15.7% of net General Fund spending.
28. This position represents the ‘base’ position from which all Political Groups may develop their own budget proposals taking into account the proposals for spending and the savings options put forward.
29. In arriving at this ‘base’ position, a number of one off funding sources have already been utilised which total £9.9M and without which the gap would have been £23.9M .These include confirmation of the continuation of Housing Benefit Administration Subsidy (£1M), a further year of New Homes Bonus funding (£4M) in 2015/16, utilisation of the net remaining 2013/14 Collection Fund Surplus
Page 215 (£0.38M) and utilisation of the one off MRP adjustment (£4.5M). These one off sums, whilst contributing to reducing the gap in 2015/16, by their very nature do not positively impact on the underlying medium term financial position.
Medium Term Financial Forecast 2015/16 to 2017/18
30. To aid budget decision making the high level forecast below provides a rolled forward position for the next year and the further two financial years. The detailed forecast shown in Appendix 5 takes into account inflation and known base changes. 31. The ‘budget limit’ for each of the years is derived from assuming an indicative 1.99% increase in Council Tax for each year and a further reduction of 12% per annum in government funding for 2016/17 and 2017/18. The gap each year that results is shown below: 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 £'000's £'000's £'000's
Council Tax Requirement 88,950.5 125,648.8 147,125.8
Council Tax Increase at 1.99% (74,930.1) (76,424.1) (77,943.8)
Roll Forward Gap 14,020.4 49,224.7 69,182.0
32. This forecast provides an indication of the likely gap that will be faced by the Council each year, but this can never be an exact science and there are many variables within the Council’s budget. Nevertheless, the forecast enables Political Groups to consider their financial strategies for tackling the overall position that is presented for future years.
General Fund Balances 33. The CFO recommends that the minimum level of the General Fund Balances should be £5.5M, which has been derived by taking a risk-based approach to assessing the overall General Fund Revenue Account. This takes into account income volatility, interest rate exposure, new contracts and potential over spends in demand led areas such as social care and safeguarding for both adults and children. 34. The net effect on balances of the forecasts contained in this appendix is shown in the table below:
Page 216 35. Future 2014/15 2015/16 Years £'000's £'000's £'000's
Opening Balance 53,408.7 23,366.4 11,054.5 Draw to Support Capital (490.0) 0.0 Contributions (to) / from (17,564.3) (7,933.7) 6,506.8 Revenue Contributions (to) / from Other (3,000.0) 0.0 Reserves Draw for Strategic Schemes (8,988.0) (4,378.2) (8,740.2)
Closing Balance 23,366.4 11,054.5 8,821.1 Assumptions and Risks 36. Local Authority budgeting is by its very nature difficult to forecast with absolute certainty since there are so many variables that need to be assessed and so much of the information is not known until very late in the process. 37. It is important to note that the revised forecast represents the most realistic forecast position moving forward. However, there are a number of risks associated with these revised forecasts, the main risks being as follows: Business Rate Retention Scheme 38. The Business Rate Retention (BRR) Scheme was introduced in April 2013 and represented a major change in the way in which local government is funded. It is seen by the government as providing a direct link between business rates growth and the amount of money local authorities have available to spend on local services. 39. Councils are now able to retain a proportion of their growth in business rates and will also be taking the risk for reductions in business rates, although there are ‘safety net’ arrangements in place to protect against very large reductions. 40. The 2014/15 estimate took into account the estimated rateable value of businesses within the City, adjusted for reliefs, transitional relief, appeals and a reduction in rateable value due to the impact of for example the closure of Fords. No assumption was made of any growth. 41. The assumptions for 2014/15 have been reviewed and updated and there is currently an in year surplus as at October of which the Council’s share is estimated to be £2.9M. At the current time this has not been factored into the forecast position, as the position remains volatile and changeable. The in-year position will continue to be further reviewed and any resulting surplus, together with the impact on the business rate position for 2015/16 onwards, will be taken into account in setting the 2015/16 budget position in February 2015. Council Tax
42. The tax base for 2014/15 reflected the required adjustments as a result of the localisation of Council Tax Benefits and changes to associated funding which was implemented from 2013/14. 43. A new Local Council Tax Scheme was introduced in 2013/14 which, as a result of the localisation of Council Tax Benefits, allows the Council to set its own criteria for
Page 217 offering reduced Council Tax for those eligible.
44. The changes to discounts, exemptions and LCTS are now in place, and the LCTS administration grant has been confirmed and included in the forecast position.
Housing Benefit Administration Subsidy 45. In addition to the changes resulting from the localisation of Council Tax Benefits, Housing Benefit is to be phased out and replaced by Universal Credit. As such there was an expectation that Housing Benefit Administration Subsidy, which is funding towards the cost of administering Housing Benefit, may cease from 2015/16. 46. Confirmation has now been received from the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP) that this funding will continue into 2015/16 whilst the delivery plans for the introduction of the Universal Credit are reviewed. The funding will however exclude funding for the Single Fraud Investigation Service Project (SFIS) as this has now transferred to the DWP in 2014/15. It should be noted that there is no proposed change to the 2014/15 funding assumptions as a result of this transfer. 47. A further estimated £1M of one off grant funding has therefore been assumed in setting the forecast position for 2015/16.
Pay Inflation 48. Assumptions have been made in the forecast about the likely level of pay inflation that will apply from April 2015. As a large proportion of the Council’s expenditure is pay related, this can have a significant impact if actual rates are much higher than predicated. 49. The current assumption is for a pay award of 1% however, the current pay proposal for 2014/15 and 2015/16, which is currently being considered, if implemented would give rise to an additional pressure of 0.19% over the cumulative inflation assumptions of 1% per annum for 2014/15 and 2015/16. It is expected that this potential pressure can be managed within the existing provision for general inflation. 50. Provision has also been made for the financial impact of changes made to the national pension arrangements which no longer allow National Insurance Rate reductions to public sector employees who opt out of SERPS from 2016/17. General Inflation
51. Assumptions have been made in the forecast about the likely level of general inflation that will apply from April 2015. If inflation were to increase at a higher rate than anticipated then this would have an impact on the Council. However, current indications are that in the short term an increase is unlikely. However, the risk has been mitigated by the inclusion of amounts in the Risk Fund to cover key elements of inflation, for example in relation to fuel and energy costs, which can be volatile. 52. Beyond this provision, it is likely that this would be managed as an ‘in year’ issue and that Directorates would be expected to absorb the difference. Pension Fund Issues
Page 218 53. Employer contributions to the Hampshire Local Government Pension have been reviewed as part of the triennial revaluation process. The outcome of the review undertaken by the Actuary resulted in rates for both past and future service being set which are lower than previously anticipated. The revised position has been included within the forecast for 2015/16 to 2017/18. Treasury Management Issues 54. The Council has a large long-term debt Portfolio which includes £35M of variable rate loans, which are currently averaging 0.58% and are helping to keep overall borrowing costs down. Whilst in the current climate of low interest rates this remains a sound strategy, the Council needs to review rates regularly and if appropriate switch into fixed rate loans. In order to mitigate this interest rate risk the Council approved the creation of a Reserve in 2009 to help manage volatility in the future and ensure that there was minimal impact on annual budget decisions or council tax in any single year. In addition to interest rise risk, the Authority now has to cover the risk associated with ‘bail – in’ (following the banking regulation reform) which in future would force losses on investors before taxpayers are asked to support failing banks. Although a draw on this reserve may not be needed in the immediate future due to the likely position that rates will remain lower and security is the top propriety of any investment, this helps to mitigate these risks. 55. In addition more recently the Council has had significant cash balances available for short term to medium term investments. In order to generate additional income options are being considered for longer term investments such as covered bonds / Floating Rate Note’s (FRN’s) and similar instruments with a view of investing up to our limit to optimise investment income.
Page 219 This page is intentionally left blank SUMMARY OF REVENUE PRESSURES
Recurring or Head of Description of Item Impact / Issues One Off 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Service Portfolio Ref Service Activity (R or O) £000's £000's £000's Resources Portfolio
Anticipated increase in premiums budget Early estimate only, final budget required to cover ongoing R&L 10 Audit & Risk Management R 160.0 160.0 160.0 Andy Lowe due to retendering of Insurance contracts pressure dependent on completion of re-tendering exercise Resources Portfolio Total 160.0 160.0 160.0
Health & Adult Social Care
New to 2015/16 LA's will be required to undertake assessments for Carers. In addition LA's will need to provide assessments to new clients in readiness for the introduction of Care Accounts and change of capital thresholds in 2016/17. Care Act - Increase in assessments and Long Term care There will be a grant available for this pressure, however there R 800.0 800.0 400.0 Mark Howell impact on infrastructure to meet demand is a risk that it will be insufficient. This is still being determined, grant levels are still subject to consultation. Therefore figures quoted are indicative only at this stage, and are net of an HASC 6 assumed estimated grant of approx £1M.
Page 221 Page Health & Adult Social Care Portfolio Total 800.0 800.0 400.0
Environment & Transport Portfolio
Current legislation does not allow Schools to be charged for Mitch E&T 21 Waste Disposal Charges to schools R 100.0 100.0 100.0 waste disposal. Sanders Planning CIL Administration income Regulations have changed, reducing yield R 105.0 105.0 105.0 Mike Harris E&T 22 Environment & Transport Portfolio Total 205.0 205.0 205.0
GRAND TOTAL 1,165.0 1,165.0 765.0 Agenda Item 17 Appendix 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17 Appendix 4
Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Agenda Item 17 MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL FORECAST Appendix 5 2014/15 Base 2015/16 Base Base 2017/8 Portfolios 2016/17 Forecast Forecast Changes Forecast Changes Changes Forecast £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's Children's Services 58,852.5 -3504.2 55,348.3 55,348.3 55,348.3 Communities 2,847.9 -827.7 2,020.2 2,020.2 2,020.2 Environment & Transport 37,020.7 -795.1 36,225.6 36,225.6 36,225.6 Health & Adult Social Care 64,045.2 2627.8 66,673.0 66,673.0 66,673.0 Housing & Sustainability 2,254.3 25.7 2,280.0 2,280.0 2,280.0 Leader's Portfolio 4,631.9 -77.4 4,554.5 4,554.5 4,554.5 Resources & Leisure 31,781.8 -1230.3 30,551.5 30,551.5 30,551.5 Add Pressure - Future Years (Known) 1,165.0 1,165.0 1,165.0 (400.0) 765.0 Add Pressures - Future Years (Unknown) 920.0 920.0 1,000.0 1,920.0 1,000.0 2,920.0 Base Changes & Inflation 0.0 6,952.0 6,952.0 8,781.9 15,733.9 Sub-total for Portfolios 201,434.3 (1,696.2) 199,738.1 7,952.0 207,690.1 9,381.9 217,072.0
Levies & Contributions Southern Seas Fisheries Levy 31.4 31.4 31.4 31.4 Flood Defence Levy 39.8 39.8 39.8 39.8 Coroners Service 560.0 560.0 560.0 560.0 631.2 0.0 631.2 0.0 631.2 0.0 631.2
Capital Asset Management Capital Financing Charges 12,588.4 1,225.0 13,813.4 960.0 14,773.4 14,773.4 Capital Asset Management Account (24,525.7) 22.3 (24,503.4) (460.0) (24,963.4) (24,963.4) (11,937.3) 1,247.3 (10,690.0) 500.0 (10,190.0) 0.0 (10,190.0)
Other Expenditure & Income Direct Revenue Financing of Capital 100.0 (100.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trading Areas (Surplus) / Deficit 0.0 (1.7) (1.7) (1.7) (1.7) Net Housing Benefit Payments (758.2) (758.2) (758.2) (758.2) Non-Specific Government Grants & Other Funding (70,371.9) 21,044.2 (49,327.7) 18,097.0 (31,230.7) 11,157.9 (20,072.8) Business Rates (40,455.9) (6,891.3) (47,347.2) (937.2) (48,284.4) (956.0) (49,240.4) Council Tax Collection Fund (Surplus) / Deficit (1,781.9) 1,781.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Contribution to Pay Reserve 0.0 737.0 737.0 (737.0) 0.0 0.0 Open Spaces and HRA 435.7 0.0 435.7 435.7 435.7 Risk Fund 4,400.0 (1,183.0) 3,217.0 1,383.0 4,600.0 400.0 5,000.0 Contingencies 250.0 250.0 250.0 250.0 (108,182.2) 15,387.1 (92,795.1) 17,805.8 (74,989.3) 10,601.9 (64,387.4)
NET GF SPENDING 81,946.0 14,938.2 96,884.2 26,257.8 123,142.0 19,983.8 143,125.8
Draw from Balances: Addition to / (Draw From) Balances (8,379.0) 445.3 (7,933.7) 10,440.5 2,506.8 1,493.2 4,000.0 To Fund the Capital Programme (100.0) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (8,479.0) 545.3 (7,933.7) 10,440.5 2,506.8 1,493.2 4,000.0
COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENT 73,467.0 15,483.5 88,950.5 36,698.3 125,648.8 21,477.0 147,125.8
Council Tax 73,467.0 1,463.1 74,930.1 1,494.0 76,424.1 1,519.7 77,943.8
Roll Forward Gap 0.0 14,020.4 14,020.4 35,204.3 49,224.7 19,957.3 69,182.0
Additional one off savings 2014/15 (1,133.0) 1,133.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Savings Proposals 2015/16 (8,990.0) 1,120.0 (7,870.0) (130.0) (8,000.0) Future Years Savings Proposals - Work in Progress 0.0 (6,400.0) (6,400.0) (540.0) (6,940.0) Savings implementation costs 450.0 (325.0) 125.0 (125.0) 0.0
DRAFT BUDGET GAP 0.0 14,020.4 4,347.4 30,732.3 35,079.7 19,162.3 54,242.0
Page 231 This page is intentionally left blank UPDATED BUDGET AND CONSULTATION TIMETABLE 2015/16
Action Timescale / Date
Draft Report Published 10 November 2014
Commence Statutory 45 Day Minimum Consultation and briefings for staff affected by draft budget proposals. 10 November 2014
Formal consultation meeting with Trade Unions 10 November 2014
Officer Forecasts and Proposals distributed to Groups 10 November 2014
Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee (OSMC) Consider Budget Report 13 November 2014
Report on the Executive’s Draft Budget presented to Cabinet 18 November 2014
Commence public consultation and formal launch of budget consultation survey. 19 November 2014 Page 233 Page
Health Overview & Scrutiny Panel Consider Budget Report 27 November 2014
Provisional Local Government Settlement Mid to Late December
Review of financial position in light of settlement Mid to Late December
Consultation Meeting for Stakeholders 10 January 2015
End of Initial Consultation feedback to inform Executive’s Budget proposals 21 January 2015 Agenda Item 17
Cabinet & Opposition Groups release final budget proposals Late January
Final Budget Report Published for Cabinet 2 February 2015 Appendix 6 Final Budget Report Published for Council 3 February 2015
Cabinet meet to recommend budget to Council 10 February 2015
Council meeting to consider the budget and council tax 11 February 2015
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: THE FUTURE TRANSFORMATION OF THE SOUTHAMPTON LIBRARY SERVICE DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR RESOURCES AND LEISURE CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Tina Dyer-Slade Tel: 023 80833597 E-mail: [email protected] Director Name: Stuart Love Tel: 023 80917713 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY None BRIEF SUMMARY This report represents the start of a journey of transformation for the Library Service. The ultimate aim being to develop and deliver a comprehensive and efficient service, which is modern, creative, innovative, inclusive and affordable that reflects the changing needs of the Southampton community. In considering the future transformation of the service, it is essential to develop key priorities, shaped by the strategic context of the city and the council, but also key drivers for change including changes in customer behaviour and information technology. It is proposed that the service has five key areas of focus: Area of Focus Outcome The further development of the 24/7 A better user experience, increased Virtual Online Library convenience, availability and accessibility of online library resources. Developing a Life Long Love of To enable anyone who wish to read to be Reading able to do so and especially to introduce reading early to children, leading to improved literacy and performance at school. Getting the City Confidently On Line Improved self-reliance in the community by increasing the number of people using IT to be able to access services effectively. Helping to Meet the Information To provide support to those who most Needs of the City need it and signposting information for local people.
Delivering Library Services in Library buildings offering activities and
Page 235 Partnership services from a range of organisations offering the opportunity also for individual and community participation.
The report also seeks approval to progress beyond this first phase of proposing priorities, research and options analysis, to the next stage of consultation. Detailed research and options analysis has taken place which has resulted in the development of four savings options, which all stem from the needs assessment process. This report recommends Option D as the proposal for consultation. The next stage will consist of a minimum of 12 week consultation period seeking views on the overall proposals for the future of the library service and specifically as they affect each library.
The proposal for consultation includes the five clear areas of focus for the future of the library service, and priorities which fall under each area as outlined above. The recommendation is Option D which is the continued provision of six static city council managed libraries plus the virtual on line library and the school’s library service. The proposal is that the five remaining libraries will cease to be managed by the city council. Two of these five are owned by the city council and it is proposed that these will be offered to the community for the development of independent libraries. It is proposed that the council will cease to lease three properties that library services are currently provided from and it is proposed that the opportunity to take these leases on to provide a library service is offered to the community. It is also proposed that the Mobile Library Service will also cease.
It is proposed to run an extensive and open consultation process, giving people the opportunity to make representations on the proposal, and to offer alternatives for consideration. The feedback from the consultation will be collated and where appropriate, amendments will be made to the existing proposals and any alternatives put forward will be assessed before the final recommendations are submitted to Cabinet and Council for decision in July 2015. The implementation of the changes to the Library Service will follow thereafter. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) To approve Option D (detailed in paragraph 47 of this report) as the preferred option for consultation. (ii) To carry out public consultation for a minimum of twelve weeks to seek views on the proposal including, but not limited to: - views on the future focus for the library service and the priorities contained within - views on the decision to continue to provide a library service from six city council managed libraries plus the online virtual library and the school’s library service - views on the proposal to offer library buildings to community groups to develop independent community libraries prior to the consideration of disposing of the properties - views on the city council ceasing to lease the properties in
Page 236 which Thornhill and Millbrook Libraries are located - views on bringing the temporary provision in Weston to an end and to seek to create the opportunity for the community to develop an independent library provision within a new unit being provided in the area - views on ceasing the mobile library service - views on any alternatives or expressions of interest offered up by consultees (ii) To report on the feedback arising from the consultation, to Cabinet in 2015 with a final proposal. (iii) To seek permission to start staff consultation on the changes that would result from the proposals, if approved. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To progress changes to the Library Service, to develop and deliver a comprehensive and efficient service which is modern, creative, innovative, inclusive and affordable that reflects the changing needs of the Southampton community. 2 To respond to the need to transform the service in a way that will meet the changing needs of the Southampton community. Life is very different now compared to when the infrastructure of libraries was developed in the city a nd many people are choosing to access the services in different ways which are more convenient to them. There is a need to develop a clear focus for the future of the service with supporting priorities. The consultation is designed to attract feedback on these five areas of focus. 3 This report also outlines the results of a needs assessment which has looked at the buildings from which library services are provided and options for reducing the number of buildings to focus the service in the areas where t here is greatest need, and where the libraries are most heavily used and most cost effective. Further details are provided later in the report. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 4. The options considered are outlined in detail in Appendix 3. This report provides the detail relating to four options that were developed for the library service buildings in Southampton including:
• The description of the Option • The performance of the libraries concerned • A SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) of each Option • A description of the current service and how this could be enhanced in the future • Any changes to the hours of opening
Appendix 4 includes Equality and Safety Impact Assessments for all the
Page 237 Options and all the libraries affected.
Option D is the preferred option and will be the subject of the public consultation. This option is described in detail later in the report. The three other options not being pursued at this stage are described in detail below in paragraphs 5 - 10, they are listed in the order of the number of libraries directly provided by the city council as part of the option.
5. Option A - (Please see Appendix 3 and 4 for more details in relation to the Option and the potential impact.) Option A includes: • City council managed library services to be operated from the following buildings, Central Library, Bitterne Library and Portswood Library. • The Schools Library Service which would continue substantially unchanged. • The Virtual online library service which would continue. • The mobile library which would continue to provide services around the city to neighbourhoods and a wide variety of local community buildings such as sheltered homes and nurseries • Designated staff within the library service who would have a role to recruit, develop and manage volunteer programmes and develop partnership working to enhance the library service reach and impact around the city. • The remaining eight libraries made available for community led initiatives or for disposal. 6. Key reasons why this option is not being pursued at this stage : • There would be eight fewer city council managed libraries in the city. Shirley, Woolston, Lordshill, Burgess Road, Cobbett Road, Weston, Thornhill and Millbrook. • If no other organisations were able to take on these buildings it is possible that this may lead to the closure of up to eight libraries. • There would be no council managed libraries to the west of the city centre. • 55% of the regular users of the library service in the city only use one library. This option would remove the only libraries used by 4,393 people in Southampton. This is based on the number of regular users in the last year. (Regular users are those that have made use of the service at least six times in the last year.) • In order to continue to use a library building these 4,393 people would need to travel to another library that may be further from their home. This may incur additional cost.
• Those that do decide to travel to their next nearest library would have
Page 238 to travel up to 22 minutes longer via public transport via a direct route. However for those who would use Weston Library there is no direct bus route to Bitterne, Portswood or Central Library. • On the basis that 48 % of the users walk to libraries one might assume that 2,109 may no longer be able to walk to their local library. However this is an assumption and cannot be proved by the data. This option would lead to a reduction in the number of people’s network sessions in the city from over 223,384 to 175,050 7. Option B (Please see Appendix 3 and 4 for more details in relation to the Options and their potential impact.) Option B includes: City council managed library services to be operated from the following buildings, Bitterne Library, Central Library, Portswood Library and Shirley Library. • The Schools Library Service which would continue substantially unchanged. • The Virtual online library service which would continue. • Designated staff within the library service who would have a role to recruit, develop and manage volunteer programmes and partnership working to enhance the library service reach and impact around the city. • The remaining libraries made available for community lead initiatives or for disposal. • This service would not include the provision of a mobile library service but there would be a more limited service from a library van delivering deposit collections where required around the city. 8. Key reasons why this option is not being pursued at this stage: • There would be seven fewer city council managed libraries in the city. Woolston, Lordshill, Burgess Road, Cobbett Road, Weston, Thornhill and Millbrook. • If no other organisations were able to take on these buildings it is possible that this may lead to the closure of up to seven libraries. • 55% of the regular users of the library service in the city only use one library. This option would remove the only libraries used by 2,501 people in Southampton. This is based on the number of regular users in the last year. • In order to continue to use a library building these 2,501 people would need to travel to another library that may be further from their home. This may incur additional cost. • On the basis that 48 % of the users walk to libraries one might assume that 1,200 may no longer be able to walk to their local library. However this is an assumption and cannot be proved by the data. • This option would lead to a reduction in the number of people’s network sessions in the city from 225,000 to 187,600. 9. Option C- (Please see Appendix 3 and 4 for more details in relation to
Page 239 the Options and their potential impact.) Option C includes: • City council managed services to be operated from the following buildings: Bitterne Library, Central Library, Portswood Library, Shirley Library and Woolston. • The Schools Library Service which would continue substantially unchanged. • The Virtual online library service which would continue. • Designated staff within the library service who would have a role to recruit, develop and manage volunteer programmes and partnership working to enhance the library service reach and impact around the city. • The remaining libraries made available for community lead initiatives or for disposal. • This service would not include the provision of a mobile library service but there would be a more limited service from a library van delivering deposit collections where required around the city. 10. Key reasons why this option is not being pursued at this stage: • There would be six fewer city council managed libraries in the city. Lordshill, Burgess Road, Cobbett Road, Weston, Thornhill and Millbrook • If no other organisations were able to take on these buildings it is possible that this may lead to the closure of up to six libraries. • 55% of the regular users of the library service in the city only use one library. This option would remove the only libraries used by 1730 people in Southampton. This is based on the number of regular users in the last year. • In order to continue to use a library building these 1730 people would need to travel to another library that may be further from their home. This may incur additional cost. • On the basis that 48 % of the users walk to libraries one might assume that 830 may no longer be able to walk to their local library. However this is an assumption and cannot be proved by the data. • This option would lead to a reduction in the number of people’s network sessions in the city from 225,000 to 196,000. DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 11. The aim of the project is to develop and deliver a proposal for the future of the library service in Southampton which is comprehensive and efficient, that is modern, creative, innovative , and inclusive , which is financially sustainable and reflects the changing needs of the Southampton Community.
12. The project seeks to identify ways that would look at the options that would
Page 240 offer the City: • A comprehensive service because the Council is required to provide a library services for residents and visitors. Services need to be accessible across the city. • An efficient service because there is a need to maximise the benefit of the service, and its effectiveness with the resources that will be available. • A modern service reflecting that people wish to access library services in new ways, such as the use of technology, e-books and Wi- Fi. • A sustainable service which is fit for purpose and affordable. There have already been reductions to the library services budgets in recent years and future budget savings require the need to re-organise and re-design the service. • A creative and innovative service in the forefront of delivering services in new, exciting and stimulating ways. • An inclusive service which aims to ensure access for all especially those that most need the service across the city. 13. The options for the future of Southampton’s Library Service have been developed in consideration of the council’s statutory duty under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient library service’. 14. The buildings from which the Library Service provides a tiered service from are shown on the map in Appendix 2C . This includes: • One large Central library at the civic centre in the cultural quarter of the city. • Five District Libraries - in district centres close to shopping and public transport in Shirley, Bitterne, Lordshill, Woolston and Portswood. Woolston Library is currently being redeveloped in a new location at Centenary Quay. • Two Neighbourhood Libraries - medium sized libraries located on Burgess Road close to the University, Cobbett Road on the edge of Bitterne Park. • Three small Local Community Libraries are located in Weston, Thornhill and Millbrook. The Weston Library is currently operated from a temporary building pending the completion of a unit in a new development. In addition to the above buildings there is also: • A Mobile library (A map showing the stops in on Appendix 2e, the timetable is in Appendix 2d and Appendix 2i and 2j provide lists of the nurseries and sheltered homes visited ) • Services to the housebound and sheltered homes
• Schools Library Service.(SLS) (Appendix 2f shows the schools that
Page 241 subscribe to this service on a map and Appendix 2g shows a list of those schools that subscribe, Appendix 2h provides further information about the SLS) Currently around 26,052 children benefit from these services in around 72 schools. 15. Local people can register at any library and use the facilities across the whole of the city. The service is open to anyone who lives, works or studies in or around the city and to occasional visitors. There were 1.2 million visits to Southampton libraries in the year 2013-14. There were 43,381 active library users across the year 13/14. (Active users are those who have borrowed an item or used a People’s Network (PN) at least once in a year 13/14). This represents 14.9% of the Southampton population. 35,410 active library users are Southampton residents (82% of all active users). There were a total of 18,200 regular library users in 13/14. (Those who have made six or more uses across the year 13/14). 16. Drivers for Change There are a number of recent developments which create the environment in which a change in the delivery of the library services is essential. This project has sought to incorporate changes to the services to ensure it can adapt to the future 17. Customer Behaviour together with Technological Driven Change Although currently the biggest single activity in libraries is still book borrowing, trends have changed: there has been a significant decline in the need for reference and non-fiction material in recent years. However the demand for new fiction and children’s books has only declined slightly and there have been 330-350,000 children’s books issued each year over the last 2 years. 17.1 However since 2003 people have also been using libraries to access the Peoples Network (a network of computers in libraries across the city). This use of this network (which provides free access to the internet) has remained high and relatively consistent over the last 3 years. There is currently 56% utilisation, which represents 225,000 sessions per year. However as more services go online there has been an increase in the demand for staff to support people using computers 17.2 Since the introduction of Wi-Fi in libraries in 2009, people have also used their own devices to access the internet in libraries, whether working, studying or researching. There has been a growth in the use of Wi-Fi with 3.2 million minutes and over 120,000 sessions used in the last year. This is further outlined later in the report. 17.3 Library users are also increasingly finding it more convenient to reserve and renew their books from the comfort of their home or on mobile devices. Over 60% of all reservations (representing around 93,000 items) are carried out online with 33% of all renewals taking place in this way. This has resulted in the development of the online provision being the busiest of all “branches”. Whilst currently users do need to visit their local library to collect a book, they are increasingly choosing not to visit to reserve or renew.
Page 242 17.4 There has been a growing demand for access to information and resources on line and this has been responded to by the provision of access to free eBooks, online newspapers and audio downloads. In 2013/14 there were 35,000 accesses to eBooks, audio, magazines, encyclopaedias, language and driving test resources on line 17.5 Online access to library resources is likely to increase further in the future with customers desiring improved accessibility through easily navigated systems from a variety of mobile devices. The current limited number of eBooks available from publishers is likely to increase in response to this shift from paper to e readers. 18. Priority Driven Change As can be seen later in the report and in Appendix 1 there is a proposal for the library service to prioritise five key areas of focus. This targeted service will ultimately need to direct its support to those areas in the city where the support is most needed, however this has to be balanced with where the libraries are now and their ability to meet these needs. 18.1 One of the key areas of focus is to develop a lifelong love of reading especially in children. There is research that suggests that a love of reading developed in early years has a significant impact on literacy levels and later performance in school. Whilst there has been a significant improvement in recent years there is scope to further improve attainment in the City’s schools. Reading can also be a strong contributor to the development of confidence in English language for children for whom it is not a first language. The diversity of children in relation to having English as an additional language is much higher than is the case for the adult population. In 2013 at the Early Years Foundation Stage 57% of Southampton pupils were working at or above the expected level within the Literacy Area of
Learning. This wasth 4% below the National performance of 61%.This placed Southampton 104 out of 152 authorities. In 2012/13 Southampton’s performance at GCE A level and Level 3 results of all state-funded students aged 16 to 19 was lower than the National
average across all areas. Compared to the other 152 Local Authorities, theth best ranking achieved by Southampton for girls/ boys combined wasrd 124 in the “Average Point Score per Student”. Southampton achieved 143 out of 152 Local Authorities for “Average Point Score per Entry”. 18.2 Getting the City Confidently On line is another key area of focus and this would result in the service being targeted at those who need that extra level of help to get on line and start accessing a range of services that are increasingly being made available via the web. This includes access to the Peoples Network for activities such as job applications 18.3 Finally, the Library Service will continue to provide information, but this will be increasingly pointing users in the direction of sources of information and providing additional support for those find it difficult to source the information directly for themselves, perhaps because they do not have access to IT.
Page 243 19. Service Driven Changes All government funded services are facing challenging financial times and are exploring opportunities for maximising access for customers to their services through digital first agendas. Opportunities to engage on line with services will be welcomed by the vast majority through streamlined systems and processes however this does leave those who find it more difficult to navigate these routes potentially needing additional support and guidance. Research has found that librarians are the second most trusted source of information after GP’s in the local community and therefore it is a natural progression that those that need help are approaching libraries for support particularly with online forms and transactions. This is likely to increase in the future as further services move on line. 20. Deficit Reduction Driven Change The savings in recent years in the library service have been made by reductions in opening hours, resources budgets and modernisation. The scale of further budget reductions required within the council in the next few years, means that it is not possible to make sufficient savings by further reducing services and budgets. The proposed way is to deliver a proposal for the future which is comprehensive and efficient service that is modern, creative, innovative, and inclusive and financially sustainable is to transform the service.
21. The City Perspective The Southampton City Strategy 2014 – 2025 identifies the three priorities of the City as : • Economic growth with equality • Skills and employment • Healthier and Safer Communities The libraries are already delivering against these agendas, providing support to businesses across the city, working in partnership with a wide range of organisations to deliver an extensive range of training opportunities and providing support and access to IT for those seeking to apply for work. With strong links to health organisations, libraries not only are a source of health information such as “books on prescription” but also a base for services such as Macmillan and others to provide advice, guidance and support in a non- medical environment. The future design of the service also needs to be shaped by these priorities. 22. In addition there are four cross cutting themes identified for the City: • Tackling the negative impact of alcohol • Building community capacity • Fostering city pride, passion and identity • Delivering whole place thinking Libraries assist with the development of community capacity building in providing opportunities for volunteering, providing a base for many groups and organisations and by providing a range of learning and skill development
Page 244 opportunities. The future proposals outlined in this report provide further opportunities for development of community capacity with the potential for community libraries. 23. The Council Strategy 2014-2017 sets out the council’s vision and priorities for the next three years. The priorities are to create: • A sustainable Council • Jobs for local people • Prevention and early intervention • Protecting vulnerable residents • Affordable housing • Services for all • City pride The Library Service is, and will continue to be, available to all. However it needs to be able to provide these services within a sustainable council with reducing budgets. The Libraries will continue to get involved in campaigns and initiatives that link in with the other priorities listed above. 24. The Focus for the Future In considering the future transformation of the service it is essential to develop key priorities, shaped by the strategic context of the city and the council but also the drivers for change described earlier in the report. The proposal is for the service to have five key areas of focus: Area of Focus Outcome The further development of the 24/7 A better user experience, increased Virtual Online Library convenience, availability and accessibility of online library resources. Developing a Life Long Love of To enable anyone who wish to read Reading to be able to do so and especially to introduce reading early to children, leading to improved literacy and performance at school. Getting the City Confidently On Line Improved self-reliance in the community by increasing the number of people using IT to be able to access services effectively Helping to Meet the Information To provide support to those who Needs of the City most need it accessing and signposting information for local people. Delivering Library Services in Library buildings offering activities Partnership and services from a range of organisations offering the opportunity also for individual and community participation.
Page 245 Each of the above areas and the priorities that relates to each of these areas of focus are explained further in Appendix 1. Appendix 1 includes a number of aspirational improvements that it is hoped would significantly enhance the service for users. These, and any proposals emerging from the consultation, will, if viable be brought forward for consideration by the Cabinet in July 2015. 25. Some of the positive changes that could result from the proposed way forward include the following: • A new library to open in Woolston in 2015 (as this library is included in Option D). • Every child and literacy student in the city to receive a library card and membership. • Improved access to and more online services – the 24-7 library. • More appealing libraries with improved flexible layout and furniture. • City wide campaign to get everyone confidently on line. • Incorporation of the archives service in central library enabling improved access and longer hours. • More opportunities for volunteering through a wide range of programmes. • Opportunities for communities to develop Independent Libraries. 26. The Process A robust process was established in order to identify options for each library building. This involved the use of a needs assessment model to identify which libraries would be most effective in meeting the needs of those who would most benefit from the provision of the library service in the city. 27. There was also a review of buildings to identify their condition and suitability for the future. Opportunities have started to be explored for developing partnerships with other services within the council and other organisations. Consideration was given to the future of the library service nationally, exploring the latest initiatives and creative approaches being used to enhance and deliver services. Research was also carried out to learn from the experiences of other local authorities. 28. The Needs Assessment The aim of the needs assessment (Attached in Appendix 2) was to explore the evidence of need for the library services in the city and to establish the priority of the libraries in the city for meeting these needs. The needs assessment is based on three areas: • demographic need • library usage • the current cost of the service
Page 246 29. The demographic makeup of the community within the library catchment areas was used in the needs assessment. The following criteria were used to calculate the overall ranking for demographic need (for more details see methodology in Appendix 2a): 1) The proportion of primary school pupils deemed “low performers” within the library catchment 2) The proportion of Black or Minority Ethnic (BME) residents within the library catchment 3) The proportion of people receiving adult social care within the library catchment 4) The proportion of children aged 0-11 within the library catchment 5) The average Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) overall score 6) The average IMD education score
30. The following criteria were used to calculate the overall ranking for the use and the cost of the library service (for more details see methodology): Use 1) Number of registered library users 2) The percentage of the population within each library catchment that are active library users 3) The number of visits made to each library 4) The average number of items borrowed every hour 5) People’s Network (PN) utilisation 6) Number of regular library users at each library Cost 7) Cost per visit 8) Cost per item borrowed or PN session 31. The catchment area for each library was established using the method outlined in Appendix 2a. A map with the catchments and the libraries can be seen in Appendix 2c. An initial library ranking was then produced using the “use of library service” and “demographic need” criteria. In the context of the strategic priorities of the city council, the demographic needs of the local population was determined as the most important of the two criteria. The next stage was to apply a greater weighting to demographic need to produce an overall needs assessment ranking. This was before geography was built into the model.
Page 247 32. Priority Calculation This table reflects the needs Central Library 1 assessment ranking before geography was built into the 2 Shirley Library model. Portswood Library 3 Bitterne Library 4 Woolston Library 5 Lordshill Library 6 Burgess Road Library 7 Cobbett Road Library 8 Weston Library 9 Thornhill Library 10 33. Geography was then introduced to the model and the distances that customers would need to travel by public transport if their first library of choice did not remain open. It was this process that produced the final overall list of priority. This process is fully explained and all the results shown in Appendix 2. The model was then run again to determine which would be the priority libraries using the criteria if there were 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 libraries. The process identified a catchment area by connecting active users, the Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) they resided in, and the library they used most often, and allocating that LSOA as a catchment. Millbrook had no catchment as the majority of active library users in the area surrounding Millbrook preferentially travelled to Shirley Library. 34. The Review of Buildings In parallel to the Libraries Transformation Project, there is also a corporate property review taking place which has identified asset valuations, the status and condition of the properties and any outstanding maintenance. There is a report in Appendix 6 which outlines the issues for each property and identifies opportunities for the future. The conclusions of this exercise will be dependent on which option is pursued. There are opportunities to : - Invest and improve those buildings that will be retained as city council managed libraries. - To invest in any buildings which form part of a community asset transfer. - Explore partnerships to benefit from new or improved city council managed libraries as part of the wider corporate property review in the future. - Consider disposal of buildings if it is not possible to secure a continued library use or if it is considered important to secure investment for the improvement of the library service.
Page 248 35. The Partnership Opportunities The Library Service is keen to explore partnership opportunities : • with other agencies • with other local authorities • within the city council • with the voluntary sector and community organisations • with the commercial/business sector There are many potential benefits to partners from working together with libraries, the following list covers just a few; • libraries are a key location in communities to offer a drop in or outreach service from • there is good access to customers, a high footfall of local people • there is a positive benefit from an association with a highly regarded and trusted service • opportunities exist to create a base for officers working in localities i.e. hot desking • the library service has good experience of levering in funding by working in partnership • there is space for partners to establish an office base • libraries often act as an entry point for lifelong learning 36. The Library Service will continue to explore any opportunities with organisations which would result in an improved service for the users of the service and either an increase in revenue or a reduction in expenditure. 37. To provide enhanced and sustainable services there will be significant scope to increase the range of opportunities for volunteers. Helping users of the library service to be able to access a range of services online using library computers and also developing homework clubs are two key areas where the service would benefit from an increased number of volunteers. There is also a proposal to ensure that within a revised staffing structure there would be a member of staff given responsibility for recruiting, developing and supporting volunteers. 38. One potential partnership which has emerged as part of this review is with Capita regarding the delivery of council training courses. The libraries have a number of rooms that would be suitable for the delivery of council training courses. Currently these are carried out at a number of venues around the city where a facility hire cost is paid. There may be savings to the council if this training is carried out in city council venues. This is currently being pursued in more detail to establish the practicalities or relocating the training programme.
Page 249 39. Exploring the Future Role of the Library Service The future of library provision is a current topic of debate internationally as government funding reduces. There are 151 library authorities in this country and 3,200 libraries. There are consistent messages emerging from most authorities not only in this country but also abroad about the future of libraries. These changes which have helped to inform the future focus for the Southampton Library Service are described below. 40. The demand for e resources • In Texas the first book free library opened in 2013 which offers use of computers and eBooks on tablet for loan. • Whilst it is not proposed to develop a book free library, it is clear from the increasing demand for the limited range of eBooks available that there is an appetite for more. In 2013 the following e resources were used in Southampton. • E Newspaper uses 9,413 • E Magazines Read 5,093 • E Books Issued 2,070 • E audio issued 2,061 • E music issued 729 41. Access to the Internet • The Wi-Fi usage in libraries suggest that it is not only the People’s Network computers that attract people to the library to use the internet. During the year April 2013 to March 2014 in 5 libraries: • Average number of user devices per month – 3,863 • Total number of sessions – 122,383 • Total number of minutes – 3,225,230 • Total amount of data used (Megabytes) – 4,704,902 • Average number of sessions per month – 10,199 • Average duration time (minutes per session) – 26.35 42. Online Access and IT developments • It is clear that from the increasing use of the web for reserving (over 60%) and renewing books (33%) in Southampton that the online method is the route of choice for these activities, as this is greater than any library in the city. • Some of the developments and initiatives emerging in the library sector include using mobile phones to renew books in libraries, tablets/e readers in libraries and also with the housebound, self- service libraries and library kiosks to name a few. 43. Community Opportunities • The number of community run independent libraries around the country is increasing rapidly, with hundreds already in operation. These are being run by a wide range of different organisations including charities and social enterprises.
Page 250 • Nationally there is also an increase in the number of volunteers involved with the library service which both enhance the services available but also the volunteering opportunities for those in the community. 44. Changes to the Fabric of Libraries • Where libraries are being improved in this country and abroad consideration is being given to the quality of the environment, the flexibility of the space and the attractive and appealing nature of libraries in order to attracting users. • The libraries are increasingly being seen as a key location for the provision of a range of services by a wide range of organisations working together. • Libraries are also being recognised as a “third place”, away from the home and work where people can go without having to pay to have quality time perhaps with their family, particularly those in greatest need. • Increasingly libraries are being used for a wide range of activities beyond the book or computer where children can engage in meaningful learning activity – there are examples nationally and internationally of music, art, design technology, small scale performances etc. Some articles refer to the future of libraries being “what the community want them to be”. 45. Learning from Other Local Authority Approaches Research has been carried out to learn from the approaches taken by other local authorities, particularly where these have resulted in successful transformation of the library services. This research has been carried out online, through telephone conversations, visits to other local authorities and sharing of documentation via email. A conference was also attended where a number of other local authorities going through the same process met together to share experiences and advice. 46. The Option for Consultation Around 27 financial scenarios were originally developed initially in parallel with the needs assessment. These were refined down to four once the results of the needs assessment and the Library Priority Ranking Exercise had been completed. This report recommends that Option D is put forward for consultation. However, it should be emphasised that the Council is approaching the project with an open mind and a willingness to be guided by evidence of the consultation. Option D is outlined in more detail below. 47. Option D – (Please see Appendix 3 and 4 for more details in relation to the Options and their potential impact.) Option D involves: • City council managed services to be operated from Bitterne Library, Central Library, Portswood, Woolston Library, Shirley Library and Lordshill Library. • The Schools Library Service would continue substantially unchanged. • The Virtual online library service would continue.
Page 251 • The remaining libraries to be available for community lead initiatives or for disposal. • This service would not include the provision of a mobile library service but a more limited service would be provided from a library van delivering deposit collections where required around the City. • Designated staff within the library service would have a role to recruit, develop and manage volunteer programmes and partnership working to enhance the library service reach and impact around the City. 48. In summary the justification for this option is that: • Using the needs assessment priority calculations this option includes the top six libraries. • Over the last year these six libraries and the web will have processed 78% of all items borrowed by regular users across the service. • Over the last year these five libraries will have had 93% of all the peoples network sessions used. • This option will provide a better geographical cover across the city (compared to Options A, B or C) of city council managed libraries with one in the city centre, two on the west, one in the north and two on the east. • All six libraries are located in easily accessible locations by foot, public transport and by car. • All libraries either in or close to district centres. 49. Some of the Implications of this option (See Appendix 3 for more detail.) • There would be five fewer city council managed libraries in the city, Burgess Road, Cobbett Road, Millbrook, Thornhill and Weston. • If no other organisations were able to take on these buildings it is possible that this may lead to the closure of up to five libraries. • 55% of the regular users of the library service in the city only use one library. This option would remove the only libraries used by 891 people in Southampton. This is based on the number of regular users in the last year. • In order to continue to use a library building these 891 people would need to travel to another library that may be further from their home. This may incur additional cost. • On the basis that 48 % of the users walk to libraries one might assume that 428 people may no longer be able to walk to their local library. However this is an assumption and cannot be proved by the data. • This option would lead to a reduction in the number of people’s network sessions available in the city from 225,000 to 210,000 There would be no Mobile Library Service across the City.
Page 252 50. The Mobile Library Service The Mobile Library Service currently provides a 4 weekly timetable which is included in Appendix 2d and 2e, it serves around 40 nurseries, 20 sheltered homes and street stops. Appendix i and j list the nurseries and sheltered homes currently visited. The service costs £98,100 and whilst it is a much loved service it currently performs as shown below; • Betweenth 2013 and 2014 there were 12,684 visits to the Mobile Library this is 9 highest library above Weston, Thornhill and Millbrook Libraries. • Of all the items borrowed across all the libraries and the web, 2.7% were borrowed from the Mobile Library. This was higher only than Weston, Thornhill and Millbrook Libraries. • Of the 55% regular library users that only use one library 107 people only use the Mobile Library, this was higher only than Weston, Thornhill and Millbrook Libraries . • 287 regular users used the Mobile Library. This more than Weston and Millbrook Libraries only. th • On average 24.02 items were borrowed per hour which is 9 ahead of Thornhill, Millbrook and Weston Libraries. • Cost per visit £8.09 (This is the second most expensive behind Millbrook Library) • Cost per issue £3.15 (this was the third most expensive behind Millbrook and Weston.) 51. Equality Impact Assessments Equality and Safety Impact Assessments (ESIA’s) have been developed for all four options outlined in this report. There are also ESIA’s for each library that could cease to become a city council managed library in any of the four models. All these ESIA’s can be seen in Appendix 4. Detailed assessments will be completed once the feedback has been evaluated following the public consultation. These will help to inform the final proposals and decisions made at cabinet in July 2015. 52. Process for Consultation Consultation will be conducted both in relation to the proposals generally and targeted in relation to the likely affected libraries and services. It is proposed that the consultation will run from November 2014 for a minimum of 12 weeks. The feedback will then be evaluated and used to inform the final proposals before decisions are taken by Cabinet in July 2015. 52.1 The consultation will seek to focus the majority of feedback through an on line survey, in addition to this: • A programme will be developed where non library staff involved in the project attend the libraries across the city to explain how residents are able to feedback their views. These question and answer sessions will be open for anyone to attend and are intended to clarify any queries arising about the proposed option or the consultation process.
Page 253 • Efforts will be made to seek to encourage feedback from those people particularly identified in the ESIAs. • Existing and potential partners and stakeholders will also be targeted to encourage feedback. • The consultation process will be widely promoted to ensure that everyone affected by the proposals is aware of how to feedback their views. 52.2 In addition to the above there will be: • A frequently asked questions document available on line. • Detailed information about the proposal and the options considered. • An email address to send additional correspondence to. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 53. Around 27 financial scenarios were originally developed in parallel with the needs assessment. These were refined down to four once the results of the needs assessment and the Library Priority Ranking Exercise had been completed. 54. The four options have the potential to achieve annual savings outlined below: • Option A - £625,800 • Option B - £548,800 • Option C - £394,000 • Option D - £286,200 All the above relate to a full financial year and are based on the pay and allowances paid to staff in 2014/5 prior to the implementation of the changes to the pay and allowances in November 2014. The changes to the staff pay and allowances will mean that the figures above may change. 55. The following table outlines a breakdown of the savings anticipated from the implementation of option D.
Description of Saving Item Saving anticipated £ Employees 205,000 Premises 68,300 Transportation Costs 5,800 Supplies and Services -8,200 Internal Recharges 27,100 (Loss of Income) -11,800 Total Savings 286,200
Page 254 There is an assumption that there are no ongoing financial obligations to the Council in respect of vacated buildings. 56. The figures in para 54, could vary subject to implementation costs that cannot be determined at this stage The savings identified above do not include the following: • Costs associated with terminating the financing arrangements of the Mobile or disposal. There is a one off sum associated with the termination of around £89,000, this would apply to options, B, C and D. • Costs associated with any security needed on libraries that cease to be operated by the city council on the basis that it is hoped that there may be community organisations interested in taking on these buildings. • Any improvements proposed, these will be developed over a series of years as and when business cases can be made to demonstrate the benefits of the improvement. It is hoped that the first of these may be included in the cabinet report that follows the consultation period in July 2015 so that these proposals can reflect any feedback from the community. • Costs or income associated with the disposal of any properties as it is hoped that there may be community organisations interested in taking on these buildings. • Any costs associated with the Asset Management Transfer of any properties to community organisations, including legal fees. • Any costs associated with the properties that the city council will cease to provide a library service from such as utilities, maintenance costs, rates, equipment etc. 57. All four options will result in the reduction in the number of SCC managed libraries. It is proposed that organisations will be invited to Express an Interest in the potential transfer of city council owned assets and the opportunity to continue to operate a library service from them. It is important to note that until the buildings are transferred there will be continuing costs associated with utilities, security and NNDR etc. At the moment these costs have not been taken from the savings but they will have an impact on the savings in the first year. 58. There are a number of different models that have been used by other local authorities to create the opportunity for community independently run libraries and these are still being explored. However at this time it is proposed that those buildings that the council owns would form part of a full asset transfer under full repairing and insuring leases. As part of the asset transfer it would be proposed to develop a form of joint working agreement associated with the development of a library service within the building. Further details associated with the proposed asset transfer will be available at a later date, however the council has already developed a Community Asset Transfer Strategy and it is anticipated at this stage that this will be used for this process.
Page 255 59. Investment In order to meet the changing needs of the community and transform the library service and drive forward a continual process of change there may be a need to invest in the library service of the future. It should be noted that this is the start of the journey of the transformation of the library service and change may happen over a number of years and some of the proposals may relate to pilots which could be explored more in the future. Some of the ideas which are being considered include: • Investment in developing the 24/7 Virtual Library • Improved Children’s and Families Areas in key libraries ( including appropriate spaces for children and young people to study) • Investment in equipment and furniture to maximise the flexibility of spaces to increase the use of the spaces The detailed costs of the associated with improvements will be explored in parallel with the public consultation so that proposals can be included in cabinet report if there is positive feedback from the evaluation process. However, business cases will be needed to demonstrate the benefits of all improvements that require investment. 60. There would be human resource implications associated with all of the four options. Initial thoughts on a staffing structure, job descriptions and person specifications, have been developed to aid staff consultation for Option D. This revised staffing structure reflects the future focus of the library service as outlined in Appendix 1. Option D results in a reduction of the current staffing provision by 6.6 full time equivalents (FTE’s). The Library Service currently has 63.57 FTE’s. Property/Other 61. Option D would result in the city council continuing to manage the six libraries listed below: • Central Library • Shirley Library • Bitterne Library • Woolston Library (the new library will open in 2015) • Portswood Library • Lordshill Library • the 24/7 Virtual Library service online. • the school’s library service 62. The city council managed library service would therefore cease at the following city council buildings unless there are community groups that would consider taking on responsibility for these buildings following a community asset transfer. • Burgess Road Library • Cobbett Road Library
Page 256 63. The following libraries are not City Council properties but are currently occupied under a licence and there would be a need to bring these licences to an end or transfer them to a community group if this is possible. • Thornhill Library • Millbrook Library Weston Library is currently operating from a temporary building outside the Chamberlayne Leisure Centre pending the creation of a new library space in the development taking place in Weston Lane. Under Option D it would not be possible for the Council to take possession of this space for the purposes of a library. However, one option that could be explored is whether it would be possible for a community group to use this space for a library. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 64. The City Council has a statutory duty to provide a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ library service under section 7 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The 2009 Wirral enquiry and subsequent case law has determined that the comprehensive and efficient service that local author ities are required to provide is a balance between meeting local needs within available resources in a way which is appropriate to the needs of the local community. Section 7 encompasses a duty of enquiry. The Council has, in its Needs Assessment and other supporting documents, sought to gather as much information as it presently can on the library service, its users and their needs. Further information will be gathered in the course of the proposed consultation exercise that will inevitably lead to some revision of the analysis which has been already carried out. There is no express obligation to consult in order to discharge the Council’s duty under section 7 or indeed section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (referred to and addressed below) but it is generally regarded as being, in many case, a condition precedent to the lawful exercise of the duty. It is therefore considered that the Council is proceeding in a way which is compliant with its duty under section 7. Other Legal Implications : 65. In taking this decision to pursue the Option D for consultation, Members must be aware of their obligations under section 149 Equality Act 2010. This section contains the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). It obliges public authorities, when exercising their functions to have ‘due regard’ to the need to : • Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct which the Acts prohibits; • Advance equality of opportunity; and • Foster good relations between people who share relevant protected characteristics and those who do not. The relevant protected characteristics under the Equality Act are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
Page 257 Members are advised to read the Needs Assessment and EIAs in full and familiarise themselves with their legal obligations under s149. 66. Case law has established the following requirements for PSED to be exercised lawfully. • The equality duties are an integral and important part of the mechanism for ensuring the fulfilment of the aims of anti-discrimination legislation. • The relevant duty is on the decision maker personally. What matters is what he or she took into account and what he or she knew. The decision maker cannot be taken to know what his or her officials know or what may have been in the minds of the officials in proffering their advice; • It is important to record the steps taken by the decision maker in seeking to meet the statutory requirements in order to demonstrate that the duty has been discharged; • The decision-maker must assess the risk and extent of any adverse impact and the ways in which such risk may be eliminated before the adoption of a proposed policy. It is not sufficient for due regard to be a “rearguard action” following a concluded decision; • In order to be able to discharge the duty the decision-maker must have information about the potential or actual equality impact of a decision. This information will often be gained in part through consultation; • The duty must be exer cised in substance, with rigour, and with an open mind. It is not a question of ticking boxes; while there is no duty to make express reference to the regard paid to the relevant duty, reference to it and to the relevant criteria reduces the scope for argument; • General regard to the issues of equality is not the same as having specific regard, by way of conscious approach to the statutory criteria; • Officers reporting to decision makers, on matters material to the discharge of the duty, must not merely tell the decision maker what he or she wants to hear but they have to be “rigorous in both enquiring and reporting” to them; • Although it is for the court to review whether a decision-maker has complied with the PSED, it is for the decision-maker to decide how much weight should be given to the various factors informing the decision, including how much weight should be given to the PSED itself; • The duty is a continuing one. Members should in particular note that the duty is for them personally. It is not sufficient to rely on officers to discharge the duty by the preparation of EIAs and this report. Members must themselves read and actively take into consideration the EIAs and the consultation materials.
Page 258
POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 67. These are outlined in paragraphs 21 to 23 earlier in the report. KEY DECISION? Yes WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: All SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION Appendices These Documents have been placed in the Members’ Room 1. The Transformation of the Library Service Future Focus 2. The Needs Assessment 2a. The Needs Assessment Methodology 2b. Public Transport Information 2c Libraries Location and Catchments Map 2d The Mobile Library Timetable 2e The Mobile Library Route 2f The Map of the Schools subscribing to the school’s library service 2g The list of Schools subscribing to the school’s library service 2h Further Information in Relation to the Schools Library Service 2i The Nurseries visited by the Mobile Library 2j The Sheltered homes visited by the Mobile Library 3 The Four Options 4. Equality Impact Assessments for each option and each library affected 5. Community Asset Transfer Process 6. Property Paper 7. Organisations that Use the Libraries to provide their Service Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. Appendices listed above Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact Yes/ Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection in Appendix 4. Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. None.
Page 259 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 20
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: SOUTHAMPTON PERMIT SCHEME FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ROADWORKS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ON THE ROAD NETWORK DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: John Harvey Tel: 023 8083 3927 E-mail: [email protected]
Director Name: Stuart Love Tel: 023 8083 4428 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY Appendix 1 of this report is not for publication by virtue of categories 3 (financial and business affairs), and 7A (obligation of Confidentiality) of paragraph 10.4 of the Council's Access to Information Procedure Rules as contained in the Council's Constitution. It is not in the public interest to disclose this information as the Appendix contains confidential and commercially sensitive information supplied by the Council’s Service Provider. It would prejudice the Council’s ability to operate in a commercial environment and obtain best value in contract re-negotiations and would prejudice the Council’s commercial relationships with third parties if they believed the Council would not honour any obligation of confidentiality. BRIEF SUMMARY The Southampton Roadworks Permit Scheme (SoRPS) will ensure that future roadworks and activities on the road network are planned and coordinated under additional powers provided by The Traffic Management Act 2004. The Department of Transport are considering a request for Southampton City Council to take on these additional powers and are expected to recommend technical approval in early November 2014. This report seeks Council approval to the implementation of the Southampton Permit
Schemest so that when the approval letter is received, the scheme can be implemented by 31 March 2015. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) To approve the implementation of the Southampton Roadworks Permit Scheme (SoRPS) subject to the Department of Transport (DfT) providing technical approval of the scheme and subject to recommendations (ii) and (iii) of this report. (ii) To delegate authority to the Director, Place, following consultation
Version Number: Page 261 1 with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and the Chief Financial Officer, to formally approve the implementation of the scheme to the DfT and in doing so, ask the DfT to make a Statutory Instrument to empower the scheme. (iii) To delegate authority to the Head of Contract Management, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, the Director, Place and the Chief Financial Officer, to approve changes to the Highways Service Partnership contract to allow the Council’s Highways Service Provider Balfour Beatty Living Places Ltd to undertake works relating to the Permit Scheme on the Council’s behalf, provided that commercial close and the contract amendments are in accordance with the parameters described in Confidential Appendix 1 of this report. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Department of Transport (DfT) has agreed to carry out technical approval of the Council’s submitted proposal and make a Statutory Instrument (SI) to provide new powers to operate the scheme. 2. The technical approval letter from the DfT should arrive in early November
2014. It will be necessary to respond to this letter withst in a four week window to meet their scheme implementation deadline of 31 March 2015. 3. The scheme will require additional staff and resources to manage the new process. These will be provided by Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP). The size of the change is enough to require an amendment to the Highways Service Partnership (HSP) contract. This is covered further in the confidential Appendix 1. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 4. The Council could continue to manage the network using the existing New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA) legislation. However, this would not provide the same level of control or deliver the same benefits as the proposed Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004) Permit scheme. 5. The existing NRSWA legislation provides less coordination powers for works within the highway. Only limited information, which is subject to change without consent, is made available by works promoters. This leads to greater disruption on the network which affects all road users especially public transport services. 6. The existing scheme is currently fully funded by the Council. The new Permit Scheme seeks to be self-funding via a payment system for administration services by works promoters. 7. The Council could delay implementation of SoRPS until after March 2015. A scheme introduced after this date could be approved by the Council without the need to apply to the DfT for a SI. However, schemes that are approved by the DfT have the advantage of a robust technical appraisal by experts in the field at no cost to the promoting Council and is therefore considered less open to challenge. The submission is already with DfT and there is no benefit to delaying the scheme commencement.
Page 262
DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 8. Currently, Statutory Undertakers, primarily utility companies, have rights to dig up and place their apparatus in the street subject to compliance with the notification requirements of NRSWA. 9. The cost of the disruption caused by these essential utility works to the UK economy is estimated to be £4.3bn per year (at 2002 prices). 10. Part 3 of the TMA 2004 and associated Regulations (2007) give Councils the power to establish a new Permit Authority and operate a permit scheme requiring all works promoters, including the Council itself, to apply for permits before carrying out works or activities on the highway. 11. The proposed scheme for Southampton will impose chargeable permits on all roads with a sliding scale of charges depending upon location and nature of the works. 12. New permit fee revenue will be derived from statutory undertakers and other works promoters. This will fund the increased staff resources necessary to manage this aspect of the scheme. 13. This new revenue will enable the Council to manage road works more effectively and impose permit conditions to better control what happens, when and how it is undertaken. 14. The requirements, contents and way in which the Permit Schemes must operate are specified in the Permit Regulations and supplemented by statutory and operational guidance issued by the DfT. 15. The DfT guidance is very clear that schemes should not generate surplus revenue and that income should therefore only be used to meet allowable scheme costs. 16. The SoRPS has been the subject of consultation with interested parties during April / May / June 2014. The consultation document, comments
received and officers’ responses to these are includedst in the scheme application pack that was submitted to DfT on 31 July 2014. Copies of the pack are available in the Members Meeting Room or alternatively are available for inspection by calling at Reception at One Guildhall Square Southampton and asking for John Harvey, Highways Manager. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 17. One-off set up funding of £115,000 has been made available from the On Street Parking Reserve to design and implement the scheme. A proportion of this, approximately £70,000 will be eligible for recovery through the SoRPS during the first three years of operation. This expenditure is in accordance with the regulations that govern the use of the On Street Parking Reserve. Other set up costs will be incurred by BBLP and will also be recovered from the SoRPS over the same timescale.
18. It is intended that the SoRPS will be self-financing. Income from fees shall not exceed the total allowable costs prescribed in the Permit Scheme Regulations
Version Number: Page 263 3 set by Central Government. In the event that fees and costs do not match, adjustments are made to the fee levels for subsequent years. 19. The maximum charges for permits under the scheme are set by regulation. 20. Monitoring and permitting of the Council’s own highways work will be met from existing revenue budgets. The equivalent activity is currently carried out by BBLP under the HSP. 21. The Network Management function including all NRSWA activities are carried out by BBLP. It is proposed that BBLP will carry out most functions of the SoRPS on behalf of the Council. Accounting processes will be in place to demonstrate the level of income received and its use in delivering the service. 22. The HSP contract with BBLP for most highways functions including those associated with the Network Management function will need to be amended to take into account the SoRPS. The details of these proposed changes are shown in the confidential appendix to this report. 23. The SoRPS will have minimum risks for the Council as the service will be managed by BBLP who will have the major risks associated with covering scheme costs through income generation. Property/Other 24. BBLP will secure appropriate accommodation to run the SoRPS scheme. 25. There are no property implications for the Council. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 26. The Council as Local Traffic Authority has powers under Part 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and The Traffic Management Permit Schemes (England) Regulations 2007 (the Permit Regulations) to implement and operate a scheme subject to the Secretary of State making the necessary Statutory Instrument. Other Legal Implications : 27. Where the scheme is implemented on specified streets, and in accordance with the Regulations, the permit scheme will result in the disapplication and modification of the following sections of the NRSWA: • Sections of NRSWA disapplied: s53; s54; s55; s56; s57; s66 • Sections of NRSWA modified: s58; s58A; s64; s69; s73A; s74; s88; s89; s90; s93; s105; Schedule 3A Regulations modified: The Street Works (Registers, Notices, Directions and Designations)(England) Regulations 2007 SI 2007/1951 28. Changes to Section 58 (restrictions on works following substantial road works) and Section 74 (charges of occupation of the highway where works are unreasonably prolonged) apply only to Statutory Undertakers activities.
29. The SoRPS will include arrangements so that similar procedures are followed for Highway Authority promoted activities in relation to timing and duration, in
Page 264 order to ensure there is parity of treatment for all works promoters. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 30. The SoRPS will improve the coordination of roadworks carried out and therefore reduce the number of excavations. In addition, the charge for permits will encourage works promoters to carry out works right first time and hence avoid unnecessary permit charges. Over time SoRPS is expected to achieve a noticeable improvement in network condition 31. The SoRPS is fully in line with the Local Transport Plan. The objectives of the scheme will also reduce congestion through more robust management of the network with associated reductions on CO 2 and NOx levels. These will in turn assist general health levels. 32. The Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) for the City sets out the future investment levels for highway expenditure to maintain the network condition.
KEY DECISION? Yes WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: ALL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices 1. Confidential Appendix 1 Documents In Members’ Rooms st 1. Copy of full scheme application pack to DfT 31 July 2014 (14 documents) Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact No Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Reception One Guildhall Square Southampton – Ask for John Harvey Highways Manager. Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. None N/A
Page 265 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 20 by virtue of paragraph number 3 of the Council's Access to information Procedure Rules Appendix 1
Document is Confidential
Page 267 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 22
DECISION-MAKER: CABINET SUBJECT: TO EXTEND THE WASTE DISPOSAL CONTRACT WITH VEOLIA UNTIL 2030 DATE OF DECISION: 18 NOVEMBER 2014 REPORT OF: CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT CONTACT DETAILS AUTHOR : Name: Michael Thomas Tel: 023 8083 2466 E-mail: [email protected]
Director Name: Stuart Love Tel: 023 8091 7713 E-mail: [email protected]
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY Appendix 2 of this report is not for publication by virtue of category 3 of paragraph 10.4 of the Council’s Access to Information Procedure Rules as contained in the Council Constitution. It is not in the public interest to disclose this information because to do so would prejudice further negotiations on cost reductions between the Authorities and the Contractor contrary to the Council’s duty to achieve best value. BRIEF SUMMARY The purpose of this paper is to seek approval to extend the Waste Management Contract, in line with the existing contract provision from its current expiry in 2023/2 5 to a co-terminus date of 2030. This paper seeks to: • Provide details on current waste disposal contract arrangements; • Provide an overview of the performance of the current waste management arrangements; • Provide a synopsis of the financial and non-financial options appraisal which has been undertaken; • Provides details on Veolia’s outline offer. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) to extend the Waste Management Contract with Veolia to 2030; and (ii) to delegate authority to the Director of Place, following consultation with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport to finalise and enter into all legal documentation necessary to enable the contract extension. REASONS FOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The extension of the contract will reduce the Council’s waste disposal costs from as early as January 2015. 2. An integral part of the extension is Pagethe comm 271itment from Veolia to jointly invest with the Waste Disposal Authorities in developing and implementing efficiencies to service delivery aligned to increasing recycling and reducing landfill. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED 3. Continue the existing disposal contract to its current expiry dates of 2023-2025 and replace with a new arrangement at that point. This was rejected as a consequence of the value for money review carried out in support of this decision. 4. Terminate the contract early and move to an alternative operator and maintain contract from 2016/17 to 2030. This was rejected as a consequence of the value for money review carried out in support of this decision. DETAIL (Including consultation carried out) 5. The waste management contract represents a significant proportion, over 65%, of the waste management budget. With the need to deliver efficiency savings from 2015 a review of the waste management contract was undertaken to determine the optimal way to drive efficiencies and modernise the contract. 6. An option appraisal was undertaken to consider the medium to long term strategic benefits and efficiencies from: • Base case : the current contract arrangements up to 2023/5 • Scenario 1 : an operate-and-maintain partner or alternative delivery model to operate the facilities beyond the expiry of the current contract from 2023/5 up to 2030. • Scenario 2 : an extension to the current contract to 2030 (invoking the existing contract clause); and • Scenario 3 : early termination of the contract with Veolia, moving to an alternative operate-and-maintain partner from 2016/17 to 2030. 7. Table 1 – Summary of the Non-Financial Assessment of the Options
Scenario Pros Cons Base Case • Provides flexibility to • No opportunity to deliver Current Veolia potentially benefit from significant savings until after 2023 Contract up to new technology or • Potentially undermine the its natural innovations in the relationship with Veolia expiry 2023/5 market from 2023 • Need to procure an alternative in 10 years-time e.g. O&M extension, long term contract with new assets, JV etc.
Scenario 1 • Opportunity for a new • Greater risk sits with WDAs -3rd Veolia contract contract with tighter party income, availability of plant, (as is) up to performance KPIs and plant failure (WDAs would need put 2023, then an cultural alignment, that aside capital reserves) O&M contract promotes innovation • 9-12 month procurement process from 2023/5 to • Could have greater and related costs, transition to new 2030 tendered access to waste income provider in the open and energy income • Risk new provider is not market • Ability to optimise competent to run an efficient opportunities across service SE7 • Veolia may be the only bidder in Page 272 2023 (hold an advantage)
Scena rio 2 • Ability to ‘smooth cash • Locked into 5 year contract with Veolia contract flow’ to access benefits Veolia with • limited opportunity to extension to from 2015 transform the service delivery 2030 • Provides certainty in model. current budget process • Opportunity cost that WDAs could • Veolia hold risks of be contractually tied into contract availability, 3rd party which stops access to the future income, plant failure value of waste as a commodity. The • Veolia incentivised to waste market is rapidly changing as invest in assets and secondary raw materials are promotes joint becoming a valuable commodity WDAs/Veolia innovation albeit in a highly volatile market over the short to • WDAs contracts will not have co- medium term terminus end dates with other SE7 authorities • There is a legal risk of challenge to the extension (although the contract enables a 10 year extension)
Scenario 3 • Provides flexibility to • Termination cost and resources to Early benefit from greater negotiate the termination cost termination of income share earlier outweigh the potential benefit the Veolia • Opportunity for a new • 9-12 month procurement process contract in contract with tighter and related costs, transition to new 2015 and performance KPIs and provider procure an cultural alignment, that • Greater risk sits with WDAs -3rd O&M promotes innovation party income, availability of plant, plant failure (WDAs would need put aside capital reserves) • Market perception of WDAs as a client post termination – could drive bid costs up
8. The preferred option is Scenario 2: an extension to the contract to 2030. This option enables the council to deliver its medium term strategy and efficiencies working with Veolia to modernise services. Rational for the preferred option is:- • Certainty of financial benefit i.e. Veolia are willing to sign a deal in late 2014 without the need for a resource intensive procurement process. • Veolia take operational and maintenance risk on the plant and infrastructure costs within the extension period; costs have been assessed as being consistent with market prices. • Veolia are working with the Waste Disposal Authorities to close the contract extension within the agreed time frame and on further innovations and efficiency opportunities brought about by the contract extension. • Analysis of costs associated with the contract extension indicate that this provides comparable fees against other Energy from Waste Contracts. • The outline offer from Veolia will: o Not alter services delivered to the council under the contract, nor the Page 273 services delivered to the public; o Will not change the risk profile of the contract to the Council; o Will enable savings to be delivered from 1 January 2015. An integral part of the extension is a commitment from Veolia to jointly invest with the Waste Disposal Authorities in developing and implementing efficiencies to service delivery. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS Capital/Revenue 9. Capital – There are no capital implications. 10 . Revenue – The key revenue considerations of extending the contract are set out in detail in the confidential Appendix 2 to this report. Property/Other 11 . None LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report : 12. The Council’s waste disposal functions are carried out in accordance the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and associated secondary legislation. Power to undertake Negotiations with the Contractor, as set out in this report, derives from s. 111 Local Government Act 1972 (power to do anything calculated to facilitate, conducive to or necessary for the carrying out of any of the councils functions) and s.1 Localism Act 2011 (general power of competence). Other Legal Implications : 13. All relevant procurement legislation must be complied with in entering into any contract extension / variation. POLICY FRAMEWORK IMPLICATIONS 14. The proposals are not contrary to the Council’s policy framework.
KEY DECISION? Yes WARDS/COMMUNITIES AFFECTED: ALL
Page 274
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendices 1. Background to the Waste Disposal Contract 2. Financial Appraisal of Options (Confidential) Documents In Members’ Rooms 1. None Equality Impact Assessment Do the implications/subject of the report require an Equality Impact No Assessment (EIA) to be carried out. Other Background Documents Equality Impact Assessment and Other Background documents available for inspection at: Title of Background Paper(s) Relevant Paragraph of the Access to Information Procedure Rules / Schedule 12A allowing document to be Exempt/Confidential (if applicable) 1. None
Page 275 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 22 Appendix 1
Background to the Waste Disposal Contract
1. Contextual Information Hampshire County Council, Southampton City Council, and Portsmouth City Council as waste disposal authorities have a statutory duty for the disposal of municipal waste arisings in Hampshire. In order to fulfil this function they have each entered into a service contract with Veolia.
All 14 waste authorities of Hampshire (Disposal and Collection) are partners, along with Veolia, in Project Integra, the collective and integrated waste management system for Hampshire.
Hampshire County Council manages the contract on behalf of its unitary partners, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council under a Tripartite Agreement.
Both Portsmouth City Council and Hampshire County Council will be seeking similar approvals through their decision making processes.
The Tripartite agreement establishes a cost and income sharing mechanism based on input percentages for both the main waste contract infrastructure and the Household Waste Recycle Centre network. The agreement also establishes Service Level Agreements for the additional contract and data administration that the County Council delivers on behalf of the cities.
This integrated approach to waste management was novel for the UK when introduced by Hampshire in the early 1990’s in response to a shortage of landfill, and public demand for greater recycling. As a result of this approach, and an investment of c. £200million, a world class suite of infrastructure has been delivered through Veolia’s waste management contract. This includes:
• 3 Energy Recovery Facilities (ERFs); • 2 Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs); • 2 Composting Facilities; and • 10 Transfer Stations.
The contract with Veolia is for a period of 20 years from the commissioning of the ERFs (2003, 2004 & 2005 in DC1 (North), DC3 (West), and DC2 (East) respectively) with provision built in for an extension for a further period of up to 10 years.
The nature of the Public Private Partnership contract put a high level of risk onto Veolia. Examples of the risk held by Veolia include:
• Risk of investing and building the assets; • Operational risk (e.g. achieving availability of assets, capital, and maintenance costs); and
Page 277 • Risk of (upside and downside) income e.g. energy, recycle, profit generated by selling spare ERF capacity to other parties (i.e. commercial and industrial (C&I)). Recognising the upcoming fiscal constraints for all 3 Waste Disposal Authorities, a review of the waste management contract has been undertaken in order to establish opportunities to realise savings from 2015.
2. Southampton’s Waste Management Performance
• One of the leading authorities for landfill diversion rate • 2014/15 Recycling rate on target for 30%
Page 278 Agenda Item 22 by virtue of paragraph number 3 of the Council's Access to information Procedure Rules Appendix 2
Document is Confidential
Page 279 This page is intentionally left blank