SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk
You are requested to attend a meeting of the Cabinet on Wednesday, 9 February 2011, at 10.00 a.m. in the District Council Chamber at South Lakeland House, Kendal
Membership
Councillors
Clare Feeney-Johnson (Environment and Sustainability Portfolio Holder) Brenda Gray (Central Services Portfolio Holder) Brendan Jameson (Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder) Andy Shine (Deputy Leader and Policy, Performance and Resources Portfolio Holder) Hilary Stephenson (Communities and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder) Peter Thornton (Housing and Development Portfolio Holder) Graham Vincent (Economy and Enterprise Portfolio Holder)
1 February 2011
Debbie Storr, Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer)
For all enquiries, please contact:- Committee Administrator: Mrs Inge Booth Telephone: 01539 733333 Ext.7434 e-mail: [email protected]
1
2 AGENDA
Page Nos.
PART I
Standing Items/Monitoring Reports
1. APOLOGIES
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
2. EXECUTIVE DECISION NOTICES 7 - 16
To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the executive decisions made during the week ending 14 January 2011 (copy attached).
3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive declarations by Members of personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on this Agenda.
If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS
To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so before the commencement of the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic Services Manager on 01539 717440.
(1) Questions and Representations
To receive any questions or representations which have been received from members of the public.
(2) Deputations and Petitions
To receive any deputations or petitions which have been received from members of the public.
6. PROGRESS REPORT 17 - 23
To note progress in relation to outstanding Executive Decisions as at 1 February 2011.
7. FORWARD PLAN
To note the contents of the Forward Plan covering the period 1 February to 31 May 2011. (Please bring your copy with you to the meeting or refer to the electronic version in the relevant file.)
3 General Executive Matters
8. CUMBRIA PENSION FUND: 2010 ACTUARIAL VALUATION AND 25 - 31 CONTRIBUTION RATES
To inform Members of the latest valuation of the Council’s pension fund and to recommend contribution rates for April 2011 onwards.
9. INVESTMENT IN REGULARLY FUNDED ORGANISATIONS 33 - 41
To consider the continuation of Regularly Funded Organisation (RFO) status and funding of the six key arts organisations in the District.
10. THE GREAT NORTH SWIM AND THE TOUR OF BRITAIN 43 - 47
To consider the Council’s involvement in and funding of the Great North Swim (Nova International) in 2011 and the Tour of Britain cycle race in 2011.
11. CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAUX – REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CORE 49 - 62 FUNDING
To consider a formal request from the Trustees of both Citizens’ Advice South Lakeland and Cumbria Rural Citizens’ Advice Bureau to increase the annual core funding the Council provides for the Bureaux. (Please also see Part II Agenda Item No.19.)
12. 2011/12 GENERAL FUND SERVICES REVENUE BUDGET PROPOSALS 63 - 95
To consider the final draft of the budgets emerging from the 2010/11 Budget Process and reports on the progress made since last reported to the 12 January Cabinet and the changes to the taxbase for 2011/12.
13. 2011/12 DRAFT FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAMME 97 - 115
To consider an update of the proposed Capital Programme which was considered by Joint Overview and Scrutiny and Cabinet on the 11 and 12 January 2011 consecutively. This report was also considered by Joint Overview and Scrutiny on 3 February 2011.
14. PUBLIC CONVENIENCES – NEXT STEPS 117 - 123
To consider the transfer of a number of public conveniences at less than best consideration to interested parties and to start investigating the available options for the retained conveniences. (Please also see Part II Agenda Item No.20.)
15. CONSERVATION AREA DESIGNATION APPRAISAL - LEASGILL 125 - 149
To consider a Conservation Area Designation Appraisal prepared following a request from Heversham Parish Council for Leasgill to be considered for designation as a conservation area.
16. APPOINTMENTS TO OUTSIDE BODIES
To consider a replacement Council representative on South Lakes Housing, to Autumn 2011.
4 Key Decisions 17. 2011/12 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT BUDGET (KD11/002/H&D) 151 - 163 To consider the proposed budgets for the Council’s Housing Revenue Account and the rent increase for 2011/12. 18. WESTMORLAND SHOPPING CENTRE CAR PARK (KD11/001/Sev) 165 - 168 To update Members following receipt of the condition survey on the Westmorland Shopping Centre Car Park. (Please also see Part II Agenda Item No.22.) PART II Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number) General Executive Matters 19. CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAUX – REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CORE 169 - 178 FUNDING – APPENDIX 2 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). (Paragraph 3) Appendix 2 relating to Agenda Item No.11. 20. PUBLIC CONVENIENCES – NEXT STEPS – APPENDIX 2 179 - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). (Paragraph 3) Appendix 2 relating to Agenda Item No.14. 21. CONSIDERATION OF REVISED TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR DISPOSAL 181 - 185 OF LAND AT ROTHAY PARK, AMBLESIDE - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). (Paragraph 3) To consider an amendment to the approved terms and conditions for the sale of land at Rothay Park, Ambleside. Key Decisions 22. WESTMORLAND SHOPPING CENTRE CAR PARK – APPENDIX 1 (KD11/001/Sev) - Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). (Paragraph 3) Appendix 1 relating to Agenda Item No.18. (Due to its size, electronic copies of this document have been emailed to the relevant Members and submitted to the relevant file for use at the meeting. A hard copy will also be available at the meeting.)
5
6 Item No.2 175 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
EXECUTIVE DECISION NOTICE
CABINET
A record of the decisions made at the meeting of the Cabinet held on Wednesday, 12 January 2011, at 10.00 a.m.
Present
Councillors
Brenda Gray Central Services Portfolio Holder Andy Shine Deputy Leader and Policy, Performance and Resources Portfolio Holder Hilary Stephenson Communities and Well Being Portfolio Holder Peter Thornton Housing and Development Portfolio Holder Graham Vincent Economy and Enterprise Portfolio Holder
Apologies for absence were received from Brendan Jameson, (Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder) (Chairman), Clare Feeney-Johnson, Environment and Sustainability Portfolio Holder and Lawrence Conway, Chief Executive.
Also in attendance at the meeting were Shadow Executive Members Roger Bingham (Housing and Development Portfolio), Brian Cooper (Central Services Portfolio), Tom Harvey (Policy, Performance and Resources Portfolio), Janette Jenkinson (Economy and Enterprise Portfolio) and David Williams (Communities and Well Being Portfolio).
Shadow Executive Member James Airey (Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Environment and Sustainability Portfolio) and Colin Hodgson (Leader of the Opposition and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio) had tendered their apologies for absence.
Officers
Laura Bell Communications Manager Debbie Fox Interim Assistant Director Communities, Investment and Development Janine Jenkinson Assistant Democratic Services Officer Caroline Leigh Corporate Asset Manager (part) Shelagh McGregor Assistant Director (Resources) and Section 151 Officer Lucy Reynold Senior Housing Strategy Officer (part) Debbie Storr Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer)
David Sykes Interim Director (Communities)
7 176 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
STANDING ITEMS/MONITORING REPORTS
EX/186 EXECUTIVE DECISION NOTICES
RESOLVED – That the Chairman be authorised to sign, as correct records, the Executive Decisions made during the weeks ending 10 and 17 December 2011.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/187 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
RESOLVED – That it be noted that the following declarations of interest were made:-
Shadow Executive Member Roger Bingham declared an interest in - EX/194; and
Shadow Executive Member Janette Jenkinson declared an interest in – EX/195.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/188 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUDED ITEMS
RESOLVED – That the item in Part II of the Agenda be dealt with following the exclusion of the press and public.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/189 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr David Thomas, Trustee and Treasurer of Windermere Community Care Trust addressed the Committee regarding the transfer of public conveniences in Bowness and Windermere. He raised concerns relating to the public consultation that had taken place and urged Members to support the transfer of the facilities under a Social Enterprise delivery model. A full copy of his representation is available on the Democratic Services file.
RESOLVED – That
(1) the questions and representation be noted; and
(2) a written response to the questions raised be provided within 7 days.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/190 FORWARD PLAN
Consideration was given to the contents of the Forward Plan covering the period 1 January to 30 April 2011.
Particular reference was made to the following item:-
• PD10/006/C&WB – Refresh of Cultural Strategy. Cabinet was advised that the date for a decision on this item had been revised and would now be made during June /July 2011.
8 177 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
RESOLVED – That the contents of the Forward Plan covering the period 1 January to 30 April 2011 be noted.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
GENERAL EXECUTIVE MATTERS
EX/191 ENGLISH NATIONAL CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL SCHEME ARRANGEMENTS FROM APRIL 2011
Summary
Members were provided with a report that set out the arrangements for the implementation of the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) from April 2011 when responsibility for administering the scheme would be transferred to Cumbria County Council.
Following a Government led consultation in 2009, a decision had been made to transfer responsibility to upper tier authorities with effect from 1 April 2011. Local Authorities had been given discretion to add elements to the scheme such as timings and other forms of transport. South Lakeland District Council had opted not to provide an enhanced scheme as there was no resources available to fund anything other than the statutory minimum.
Decision
RESOLVED – That
(3) it be noted that responsibility for the administration of the concessionary travel scheme would transfer to Cumbria County Council with effect from 1 April 2011; and
(4) it be confirmed that there is no South Lakeland funded enhancement to the statutory scheme beyond 1 April 2011.
Reasons for Decision
The decision was in line with the national trend of more Local Authorities reverting back to the statutory scheme due to the present financial climate.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
To adopt a more generous scheme than the statutory minimum – this has been rejected due to high costs.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/192 2010/11 BUDGET REPORT 2011/12 TO 2015/16 DRAFT REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGETS UPDATE
Summary
A report was presented advising Members of a second draft of the budgets emerging from the 2010/11 Budget Process and updating on the progress made since the report to the 21 December 2010 Council meeting. The Assistant Director (Resources) and Section 151 Officer reported that since last reported, the revised
9 178 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
budget position had worsened by £257,000 due to a revision in the level of car park income expected and the impact of the VAT increase. The next report would be presented to Cabinet on 9 February 2011.
A summary of the comments that had been made at the Joint Communities and Resources and Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 11 January 2011 was provided. Issues raised related to the Public Conveniences upgrade and handover, potential changes of the Authority’s policy on Markets and options to meet the estimated savings requirements, which included Bulky Waste and the undertaking of service reviews.
Decision
RESOLVED – That
(1) the progress being made with the draft base service Revenue budgets be noted;
(2) the progress being made with the draft Capital budgets be noted;
(3) the progress with the draft Housing Revenue Account budgets be noted; and
(4) the options brought forward to meet the estimated savings requirement be noted.
Reasons for Decision
The proposals were based on forecasts that recognised the need for resources to be identified for new developments in the Corporate Plan. Setting a sound framework for the budget preparation would assist in the delivery of the Council’s Corporate outcomes.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not to accept the current position with regard to the preparation of the 2011/12 – 2015/16 Budgets.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/193 IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO HOUSING BENEFIT
Summary
The Cabinet considered the information presented regarding changes that would be made to Housing Benefit regulations and the effect these changes may have upon people in tenancies or seeking housing in the South Lakeland District and the implications for meeting housing need in the District.
The Senior Housing Strategy Officer highlighted the timescale for the implementation of the changes and reported that the anticipated consequences would differ according to the circumstances of the households concerned.
Decision
RESOLVED – That the content of the report be noted.
10 179 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
Reasons for Decision
The report was for information. The Council was adhering to legislation governing the payment of Local Housing Allowance.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Note – Shadow Executive Member Roger Bingham declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of being a member of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.
EX/194 DEFRA CONSULTATION ON THE GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE NATIONAL PARKS AND THE BROADS
Summary
The Cabinet gave consideration to the daft consultation response regarding the governance arrangements for the National Parks and Broads. The Interim Corporate Director (Communities) advised that Members’ comments had been incorporated into the draft response.
Some discussion took place regarding the length of time which local authority and parish members served. A suggestion was that the maximum term for the Secretary of State ‘national’ members be reduced from 10 to 8 years.
Members were keen to stress that their response related to the present size and composition of the National Park boundaries and that if these were to alter, they would wish for further consultation to be undertaken.
Decision
RESOLVED – That
(1) subject to an amendment regarding the reduction in the maximum term for the Secretary of State ‘national’ members from 10 to 8 years and the inclusion of a statement noting that the response comments related to the current size and composition of the National Park Authorities, the draft consultation response contained in appendix 1 be approved; and
(2) the response be submitted to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
Reasons for Decision
To provide the Council with an opportunity to influence any revisions to the governance arrangements for the National Park Authorities.
11 180 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not to send a response to the consultation – this would remove an opportunity for the Council to influence change.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Note – Shadow Executive Member Janette Jenkinson declared a personal interest in the following item of business, by virtue of her husband and son working in the nuclear processing business.
EX/195 NUCLEAR NEW BUILD AND GRID CONNECTIONS
Summary
The Cabinet was presented with a report that sought approval to develop a joint working arrangement with Cumbria and Lancashire Local Authorities to manage the planning process for forthcoming major infrastructure projects relating to nuclear build proposals and the upgrading of the National Grid.
Councillor Janette Jenkinson wished to thank Officers for the comprehensive information that had been provided to inform Members of the relevant matters.
Decision
RESOLVED – That
(1) the principle of South Lakeland District Council working with Cumbria and Lancashire Local Authorities under a Planning Performance Agreement be approved and the Interim Assistant Director (Community Investment and Development) in consultation with the Housing and Development Portfolio Holder, be authorised to continue negotiation on the formulation of a Planning Performance Agreement;
(2) Cumbria County Council be supported to act as the accountable body for the project;
(3) the principles of proposed governance arrangements for the project as described in paragraph 4.6 of the report be agreed; and
(4) participation of Council officers within a joint project team as described in paragraph 4.7 of the report be agreed.
Reasons for Decision
The Council’s full engagement with the process is central to ensuring the following Corporate Plan Outcomes are met:-
• 1.7 – South Lakeland’s development is balanced against protecting the area’s natural and built environment.
• 4.1 – the Council demonstrates value for money as a provider, commissioner and enabler of services.
12 181 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
The Council could engage individually with the process for the forthcoming major infrastructure projects – whilst this may have some advantages, such as being simpler from an administrative point of view and avoiding the need for becoming involved in complex joint working, it would be beyond the capacity of the Council to handle cases of this magnitude alone with existing staff resources.
To decline to engage with the process altogether – this option was not recommended as the Council and the communities it serves would lack any representation and the Council could miss out on the potential benefits of the projects.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/196 PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED – That, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, by virtue of the Paragraph indicated.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
STANDING ITEMS/MONITORING REPORTS
EX/197 WASTE MANAGEMENT HEALTH AND SAFETY GROUP
- Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime. (Paragraph 7)
RESOLVED - That the minutes of the meeting of the Waste Management Health and Safety Group held on 29 November 2010 be received.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The meeting ended at 11.40 a.m.
DELEGATED DECISIONS
A record of delegated decisions made by officers week ending Friday, 14 January 2011.
The reports (unless exempt under Section 100(B)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Act as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 by virtue of the Paragraphs indicated and, in all the circumstances of the case, it is considered that the public interest in
13 182 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing it) are available for inspection from the Democratic Services Manager, South Lakeland House, Kendal. EX/198 APPLICATION FOR DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF – (52590410)
(ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RESOURCES) & SECTION 151 OFFICER)
SUMMARY
Consideration was given to an application for Discretionary Rate Relief.
Decision
That
(1) 20% discretionary rate relief be awarded as under the Council’s guidelines; and
(2) relief be awarded from 21 August 2010 for an indefinite period subject to a minimum notice period of 12 months to terminate or amend the award.
Reasons for Decision
The decision would assist in the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan priority – rural communities have access to the services and facilities they need.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
To refuse the application – this would not be in accordance with the Council’s policy guidelines.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/199 APPLICATION FOR DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF – (51424461)
(ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RESOURCES) & SECTION 151 OFFICER)
Summary
Consideration was given to an application for discretionary rate relief
Decision
That 20% discretionary rate relief be awarded for a twelve-month period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011.
Reasons for Decision
The decision would assist partnership working to ensure that everyone has opportunities to participate in culture and the arts and stay healthy, safe and active.
14 183 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
To refuse the application – this is not in line with the Council’s priorities to deliver services that meet the essential needs of residents.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/200 APPLICATION FOR RATE RELIEF – PART OCCUPATION – (53001974)
(ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RESOURCES) & SECTION 151 OFFICER)
Summary
Consideration was given to an application for rate relief (part occupation).
Decision
In respect of Case Ref.53001974, application be made to the Valuation Officer to issue certificates under Section 44A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 showing the rateable values attributable to the occupied and unoccupied parts of the property from 17 October 2010 until 4 December 2010 and from 5 December 2010 to 21 December 2010.
Reasons for Decision
The application meets the Council’s policy guidelines to qualify for part relief.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
To refuse the application – this has not been recommended as the application meets current guidelines for determining applications.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
EX/201 VEHICLE AND PLANT PROGRAMME 2010-2016
(CORPORATE DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES))
Summary
Consideration was given to tenders for replacement vehicles and plant under the Vehicle and Plant Programme 2010-2016. The tender process was intended to ensure effective delivery of the waste collection and street cleansing contract by using the most environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient modern vehicles available.
Decision
That approval be given to the tender submitted by Zoeller Waste Systems Ltd and FAUN Municipal Vehicles Ltd for the supply of 1-no new DAF LF45 4x2, 12,000kgs GVW chassis with FAUN 9m3 Narrow Variopress Ribbed Refuse Collection Body and Zoeller 202.80 Comb Lift at the most economically advantageous bid as detailed in the Part ll, Agenda item 5 report.
Reasons for Decision
The decision will assist in the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities –
15 184 w.e. 14.1.2011 Executive Decisions
• 1.1 - People’s essential needs are addressed through effective public services.
• 1.2 - People in South Lakeland feel more in control of their own lives.
• 1.3 - People in South Lakeland feel safe.
• 1.8 - Rural communities have improved access to the services and facilities they need.
• 3.1 - The public realm in South Lakeland is upgraded, protecting and enhancing its special character.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
There are no other viable alternative options for purchasing at this time, although this is being explored through the shared services agenda across the Cumbrian districts, Cumbria County Council and the North West.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
16 9 February 2011 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS - PROGRESS REPORT (as at 1 February 2011) Agenda Item No.6
Executive Decision Report Title Action Required or Date Officer Progress or Outcome of Cabinet Decision Ref. Date Completed Completion Report Due (w.e.) EX/333 9.3.07 Former Nobles Rest Implement (1) and (2), David Sykes NPS unable to progress tba Bungalow and Nursery, report back on (3) [Debbie Fox] negotiations. Legal Kendal Services to take legal action. EX/019 13.6.08 Council-owned land and Endorse EX/77 (03/04) to Debbie Storr Sale provisionally agreed, N/A property - disposal of authorise in principal sale, [Matthew Neal] terms approved under vacant chapel, subject to further approval DED. Legal Services have Windermere Cemetery, of detailed terms and sent contract out and aim Rayrigg Road, conditions by Cabinet to exchange contracts in Windermere mid-February 2011.
EX/220 12.12.08 SLH Heating System New system being Debbie Storr Equipment supply delays N/A installed. [Michael Keane] prior to Christmas slowed down completion. Revised completion end of January 2011.
EX/223 26.12.08 Acre Moss Garage Site, Site to be made available David Sykes Home HA to proceed with N/A Hallgarth, Kendal for disposal to RSL partner [Debbie Fox] scheme. Design to be (KD08/040/H&D) subject to further approval drafted and viability of detailed terms and assessed. conditions and planning consent
17 9 February 2011 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS - PROGRESS REPORT (as at 1 February 2011) Agenda Item No.6
Executive Decision Report Title Action Required or Date Officer Progress or Outcome of Cabinet Decision Ref. Date Completed Completion Report Due (w.e.) EX/072 10.7.09 Public Realm Task Group Draft Position Statement David Sykes Council's approach to N/A Report having regard to Corporate [Debbie Fox] Public Realm to be Plan for consideration by considered within the Access to Services Group revised Corporate Plan and report back to O&S within 12 months
EX/080 24.7.09 School Knott Stores, Further report to be David Sykes Awaiting completion of Jun-11 School Knott Drive, presented on detailed [Debbie Fox] School Knott Sheltered Windermere terms. Housing Options Appraisal (KD09/032/H&D) by 31st March 2011.
EX/200 11.12.09 Clare House Lane Completion of Contracts Debbie Storr Work commenced on N/A Footbridge, Grange-over- for works. [Matthew Neal] contract with Balfour Sands (KD09/047/CS) Beatty on 19-11-10. Progress update meeting with Grange Town Council on 14 February 2011. On target for completion of project by mid-April 2011.
EX/201 11.12.09 Future Service Delivery to Procurement process to David Sykes [Simon PQQ issued and Jun-11 improve Bulky Household proceed. Rowley] preparation of tender Waste Collection Service documentation being to South Lakeland finalised. (KD09/045/E&S)
18 9 February 2011 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS - PROGRESS REPORT (as at 1 February 2011) Agenda Item No.6
Executive Decision Report Title Action Required or Date Officer Progress or Outcome of Cabinet Decision Ref. Date Completed Completion Report Due (w.e.) EX/212 11.12.09 Car Park Collection Extend current car park Debbie Storr Report on pay by phone tba Service cash collection [Michael Keane] arrangements to 31 March 11; undertake exercise and analysis re. Results of LDNPA and Allerdale DC trials and report back to Cabinet EX/297 5.3.10 River Bank with Fishing Detailed terms and Debbie Storr NPS requesting N/A Rights River Rawthey conditions to be [Michael Keane] clarification of instructions considered under prior to submitting terms in delegated powers accordance with Cabinet resolution.
EX/304 19.3.10 Re-development of Redevelopment project to David Sykes [Simon Determination of planning Mar-11 Part 1 Beezon Fields Skatepark, be managed in partnership Rowley] application and Kendal with NPS and Young consultation with nearby Cumbria residents awaited. EX/308 19.3.10 Short Term Extension of AD(SE) to investigate Debbie Storr 12 month extension to tba Part 2 Contract Management for commercial opportunities [Michael Keane] existing contract agreed Council Assets at the of facilities at the Glebe whilst investigations are Glebe, Bowness and and at Whiteplatts and to being undertaken. Whiteplatts, Ambleside prepare for retendering of these services, from 1.11.10, based on the findings of this investigation
19 9 February 2011 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS - PROGRESS REPORT (as at 1 February 2011) Agenda Item No.6
Executive Decision Report Title Action Required or Date Officer Progress or Outcome of Cabinet Decision Ref. Date Completed Completion Report Due (w.e.) EX/341 16.4.10 Council Owned Land and Dispose on open market, Debbie Storr NPS preparing marketing N/A Property - Stock Ghyll subject to officers [Matthew Neal] campaign. Planning and Cottage and adjacent agreeing appropriate Charity issues indicate Closed Toilets, Stock terms and conditions marketing unlikely before Ghyll Lane, Ambleside March 2011. (KD10/015/C&WB
EX/012 28.5.10 Future Direction for Car Trial of systems to Debbie Storr Trial started July 2010. Dec-11 Parking Payment Systems commence [Michael Keane]
EX/017 11.6.10 Enforcement of On-Street Negotiations to commence Debbie Storr Carlisle Executive Jan-12 Parking Regulations with CCC and Cumbrian [Michael Keane] approved plan in principle (KD10/017/EP&T) District Councils to for Parking Connect to do develop business case for on-street enforcement. countywide delivery of CCC Cabinet to consider enforcement. in March 2011. Plan is for SLDC on-street enforcement to revert to be done by Parking Connect from January 2012.
EX/020 11.6.10 Kendal Public Realm - Request CCCSLLC to re- David Sykes Draft Public Realm Apr-11 New Road affirm commitment to [Debbie Fox] Framework being updated Riverside Route and to in light of Highways consider siting of Route on advice. the highway
20 9 February 2011 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS - PROGRESS REPORT (as at 1 February 2011) Agenda Item No.6
Executive Decision Report Title Action Required or Date Officer Progress or Outcome of Cabinet Decision Ref. Date Completed Completion Report Due (w.e.) EX/044 9.7.10 Joint Marketing Proposal AD(SE) to approve details Debbie Storr Owner of adjacent land tba for Surplus Land off and eventual outcome of [Matthew Neal] has pulled out of joint Windermere Road, Kendal proposed sale to be marketing proposal - reported back for approval. alternatives being discussed with RSL. EX/099 24.9.10 Public Conveniences Implement decisions and Debbie Storr To be addressed within N/A (KD10/027/E&S) refer to Council [Michael Keane] budget process earmarking of £40,000 from 2010/11. EX/127 15.10.10 The Devolution of Implement decisions. David Sykes Work in progress - review Mar-11 Services to Local [Debbie Fox] of all partnerships Communities Task Group underway of which LAPs is a key part. Report on Partnerships Review due to be presented to Cabinet in the New Year
EX/149 12.11.10 Year 3 Transformation Report on completion of David Sykes Work in progress Jul-11 Programme - Six Monthly three year programme to [Debbie Fox] Process be presented to Cabinet in New Year EX/166 10.12.10 Revenues and Benefits AD(CF) to progress David Sykes [Simon Work in progress Jul-11 Project Update and business case. McVey] Progression to Shared Service with Eden
21 9 February 2011 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS - PROGRESS REPORT (as at 1 February 2011) Agenda Item No.6
Executive Decision Report Title Action Required or Date Officer Progress or Outcome of Cabinet Decision Ref. Date Completed Completion Report Due (w.e.) EX/169 10.12.10 Bowness Bay and the Further report to be David Sykes Ongoing. Jun-11 Glebe Framework presented outlining [Debbie Fox] Masterplan Update recommendations for the Council's future engagement in the Masterplan delivery process. EX/170 10.12.10 Kendal Canal Head Further report to be David Sykes NPS to discuss strategy N/A Regeneration - District presented detailing options [Debbie Fox] with Regeneration Officer Council-owned Property for how the Council's prior to reporting on property may be treated possibilities. within a comprehensive re- development of Canal Head.
EX/171 10.12.10 New Road, Kendal, Consultation to David Sykes Consultation ongoing. Apr-11 Common Land Project commence. [Debbie Fox] EX/177 10.12.10 South Lakeland Local Consultation to proceed. David Sykes Consultation has tba Development Framework - [Debbie Fox] commenced. Land Allocations Development Plan Document Emerging Options Consultation (KD10/020/H&D)
EX/178 10.12.10 Cultural Olympiad - Work to progress. Refer David Sykes Work ongoing. Council N/A Proposals for South to Council for approval of [Debbie Fox] has approved Lakeland Supplementary Revenue Supplementary Revenue (KD10/026/C&WB) Estimate. Estimate.
22 9 February 2011 EXECUTIVE DECISIONS - PROGRESS REPORT (as at 1 February 2011) Agenda Item No.6
Executive Decision Report Title Action Required or Date Officer Progress or Outcome of Cabinet Decision Ref. Date Completed Completion Report Due (w.e.) EX/179 10.12.10 Request for Temporary Refer to Council subject to Shelagh McGregor Council approved the N/A Loan - Ruskin Museum checks re.documentation. request in principle. Loan to be organised subject to the required information set out in the report.
EX/189 14.1.11 Public Participation Written response to be Lawrence Conway Response sent on 19-01- N/A provided to speaker within 11. 7 days.
23
24 PART I Agenda Item No: 8
South Lakeland District Council Cabinet Meeting Date: 9 February 2011 Report Author: Helen Smith, Strategic Finance Manager Portfolio: Cllr Andy Shine, Policy, Performance & Resources Report from: Shelagh McGregor, Assistant Director (Resources) & S151 Wards affected: Not applicable Key Decision: PD10/007/Sev Forward Plan: 1 February 2011 to 31 May 2011 Cumbria Pension Fund: 2010 Actuarial Valuation and Contribution Rates 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to inform Members of the latest valuation of the Council’s pension fund and to recommend contribution rates for April 2011 onwards. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Cabinet:- (1) receive this report; (2) recommend to Council that it adopts a pension fund contribution rate of 13.1% and an annual lump sum payments based on a phased movement towards a 19 year deficit recovery period, and note the inclusion of the financial implications in the Draft Revenue Budget Report elsewhere on this agenda; 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Cumbria County Council administer the Cumbria Pension Scheme on behalf of constituent authorities, including South Lakeland. The Scheme operates within a statutory framework: it is a defined benefit scheme based on final salary and length of service. Both employers and employees contribute to the costs of the scheme. 3.2 Employers rates are reviewed every three years: data for each individual authority is used so that differing rates apply across the County. The Fund has to be valued as at 1 April 2010 with revised rates applying from 1 April 2011.
25 3.3 Cumbria County Council is currently finalising its latest review base on work carried out by the Fund’s actuaries. The long-term funding objective is to achieve and then maintain assets equal to 100% of projected accrued liabilities, assessed on an ongoing basis including an allowance for projected final pay. The results of the latest valuation show the Fund’s overall accrued liabilities to be 79% covered by its current assets. This represents a reduction from the 2007 position when the funding level was 81%. 3.4 There have been significant changes to the benefits of the pension scheme since the last actuarial review. This includes an changes in employee contributions, changes to the rules on early retirement and changes in ill health retirement. The Government have also changed the inflation index applied to pensions paid from RPI to CPI. Based on history, CPI has been 0.7% p.a. lower than RPI and will therefore reduce accrued liabilities. Assumptions on life expectancy have been increased slightly. 3.5 Lord Hutton has carried out a review of public sector pensions. The interim conclusions were: • There is a need for change from the existing final salary schemes, but these changes should not be a “race for the bottom” • There is a case for short-term change & raising employee contributions may be the only effective options • The long-term direction should be: • Rule out a continuation of the final salary scheme and funded individual account defined contribution scheme • Consider a wider range of options such as career average defined benefits, notional defined contributions scheme, collective defined contributions, cash balance, capped defined benefit or combination hybrids • Any new scheme must reflect increasing longevity • Any new scheme must draw on international and private sector experience. The financial implications of the Hutton review are not included in the current proposed contribution rates. 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 A full actuarial valuation has been carried out by Mercers of the Council’s pension scheme. A number of proposed options are available for setting the contribution rate. 4.2 Cumbria County Council, as administering authority and in consultation with participating employers, has adopted the following objectives for setting the individual employer contribution rates: The fund will operate a default deficit recovery period of 19 years. However, in order to allow some flexibility for employers to maintain their current contribution rates, employers will normally have some limited options to extend the deficit recovery period. Nevertheless, in current circumstances, as a general rule, the Fund does not believe it appropriate for contribution reductions to apply where substantial deficits apply. As a result, all employers in deficit will be required to adopt a deficit recovery
26 period in line with the default period (or shorter) before any reduction in overall contributions will be allowed. A maximum deficit recovery period of 25 years will apply in any event. Employers will have the freedom to adopt a recovery plan on the basis of a shorter period if they so wish. A shorter period may be applied in respect of particular employers where the Administering Authority considers this to be warranted. Where increases in employer contribution rates are required from 1 April 2011, following completion of the 2010 actuarial valuation, the increase from the rates of contribution payable in the year 2010/11 may be implemented in steps, over a maximum period of 3 years.
Where agreed by the Administering Authority, an employer may allocate a specific reserve to cover estimated early retirement costs over the three years commencing 1 April 2011. In such cases the amount of that reserve will be taken into account in determining the employer's contribution rate from 1 April 2011. The payment of additional contributions in respect of early retirements will be required once the specific reserve has been used up.
4.2 The Council’s current contribution rate is 20.5% which equates to a recovery period of 22 years. The Medium Term Financial Plan and the 2011/12 draft budgets assume a contribution rate of 22.5%. The actuary indicates remaining with a 22 year recovery period would result in a contribution rate of 22.6% which would be around £8,000pa above the budget. 4.3 While a move to a 19 year deficit recovery period is desirable, it will significantly increase costs by around £120,000pa above the amounts included in the budget. With all the other cost pressures this is not immediately achievable. The actuary has calculated the costs of a phased introduction rates. Table 1: Contribution rates based on various recovery periods Year 19 Year Phased move 22 Year Recovery to 19 Year Recovery Recovery 2011/12 23.9% 21.6% 22.6% 2012/13 23.9% 22.8% 22.6% 2013/14 23.9% 23.9% 22.6%
4.4 The existing model for employer contributions is based on a single percentage contribution rate to cover both future service costs and the cumulative deficit on last service. This has worked effectively in the past where the salary base has been static or increasing. However, there have been decreases in staffing in many authorities over the last few years and this is likely to continue into the future. Where the salary base declines the future service costs will still be covered by the contribution to past service costs will be lower than predicted. The suggested solution is moving to a hybrid contribution rate based on a
27 percentage for current service costs and a fixed annual payment for past service deficits which will increase by 1.5% above CPI. Again, there is a choice of recovery periods: Table 2: Contribution rates based on hybrid contributions and various recovery periods Year 19 Year Recovery Phased move to 19 22 Year Year Recovery Recovery 2011/12 13.1% £981,000 13.1% £772,000 13.1% £863,000 2012/13 13.1% £1,028,000 13.1% £923,000 13.1% £904,000 2013/14 13.1% £1,076,000 13.1% £1,076,000 13.1% £946,000
This approach is preferred to the single contribution rate (as in Table 1 above) as it will reduce the likelihood of increases in rates into the future due to reduced salary costs reducing the recovery of past deficits. This approach will still allow the phased introduction of the 19 year recovery period. 4.5 Appendix 1 shows the annual contributions due under each of the options, summarised here in table 3 and the budgetary impact of these options compared to the draft budgets for 2011/12. Table 3: Annual Contributions due Year 19 Year Recovery Phased move to 19 22 Year Recovery Year Recovery Single Hybrid Single Hybrid Single Hybrid Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate (preferred option) £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 2011/12 2,065 2,113 1,866 1,904 1,952 1,995 2012/13 2,075 2,166 1,980 2,061 1,962 2,042 2013/14 2,117 2,236 2,117 2,236 2,002 2,106
5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 It is proposed the Council phases the adoption of a 19 year deficit recovery period. The Council’s current contribution rate of 20.5% equates to a recovery period of around 22.5 years. 5.2 It is also proposed that the Council moves from contributions based on a percentage of payroll to a hybrid contribution rate based on a combination of percentage of payroll for future service and a fixed contribution for past service costs. For 2011/12 this is equivalent to 13.1% and a fixed contribution of £772,000.
28 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Recovery periods of 19 or 22 years, with a single increase in rates, or a single contribution rate comprising current service and past service deficit recovery. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 The net impact on the Council’s budgets have been incorporated into the budget report elsewhere on this agenda. 7.2 Cumbria County Council will be informed of this decision and requested to amend the Council’s contribution rates accordingly. 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The pension contributions are payable from the revenue budget in relation to all staff within the pension scheme. The contribution rate is set to recover the normal costs of retirement pensions. All additional costs relating to early retirement are billed separately to employers at the time of retirement. 8.1.2 As set out at Table 3 above the preferred option would mean the changes set out below to the base budget over the next three years. The position after that will depend on the next Triennial Valuation carried out. These figures have not been included in the Service Budgets as yet. Table 4: Impact on the Revenue Base Budget
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 £ £ £ Additional/ (Reduced) Revenue (40,100) 106,800 243,400 Budget Requirement
8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 There are no direct staffing implications in this report. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 There are no legal consequences relating to this report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? No 8.4.2 This proposal is considered to have a neutral impact on sustainability. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required The pension fund incurs Higher contribution rates Realistic assumptions by future liabilities that are that may require actuary. beyond its income and diversion of finance from Adoption of a prudent lead to increasing deficits service provision deficit recovery period. 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 An equality and diversity impact assessment has not been carried out
29 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 The proposed contribution rate will be reflected in the updated Medium Term Financial Plan. 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 From 1 April the Council’s pension contributions will be based on the new contribution rates approved by this report. This should ensure that the Council’s pension fund deficit reduces to zero over a 19 year period based on the latest actuarial assumptions. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Options for pension contributions
CONTACT OFFICERS Helen Smith, Strategic Finance Manager, [email protected], 01539 717217 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Cumbria Local Government Pension Scheme Draft Funding Strategy Statement Cumbria Local Government Pension Scheme Actuarial Options TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 31/1/11 31/1/11 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 9/2/11 22/2/11 31/1/11 31/1/11 Human Resource Services Manager 31/1/11
30 Appendix 1
Options for Pension Contributions
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Budget for pension contributions based on 22.5% 1,94 3,900 1,953,800 1,992,900
22 Year Recovery Phased Recovery 19 Year Recovery Basic Contribution Rate 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Contribution rate 22.6% 22.6% 22.6% 21.6% 22.8% 23.9% 23.9% 23.9% 23.9%
Total payment due 1,952,500 1,962,500 2,001,800 1,866,200 1,979,900 2,116,900 2,064,800 2,075,400 2,116,900
Increase/(decrease) compared to MTFP/Budget projections 8,600 8,700 8,900 ( 77,700) 26,100 124,000 120,900 121,600 124,000
22 Year Recovery Phased Recovery 19 Year Recovery Hybrid Contribution Rate 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Contribution rate for current service 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% 13.1% Lump sum for past service deficit 863,000 904,000 946,000 772,000 923,000 1,076,000 981,000 1,028,000 1,076,000
Payment due for current service 1,131,800 1,137,600 1,160,300 1,131,800 1,137,600 1,160,300 1,131,800 1,137,600 1,160,300 Payment due for past service deficit 863,000 904,000 946,000 772,000 923,000 1,076,000 981,000 1,028,000 1,076,000 Total payment due 1,994,800 2,041,600 2,106,300 1,903,800 2,060,600 2,236,300 2,112,800 2,165,600 2,236,300
Increase/(decrease) compared to MTFP/Budget projections 50,900 87,800 113,400 ( 40,100) 106,800 243,400 168,900 211,800 243,400
31
32
Part 1
Agenda Item No: 9
South Lakeland District Council Cabinet Report Meeting Date: 9th February 2011 Report Author: Imelda Winters, Lewis Arts & Events Programme Manager Portfolio: Cllr Hilary Stephenson, Communities & Well-Being Report from: Debbie Fox, interim Assistant Director Community Investment and Development Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable
Investment in Regularly Funded Organisations
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report seeks Cabinet consideration to continue with Regularly Funded Organisation (RFO) status and funding of the six key arts organisations in the district and to commit to supporting those organisations over the next two financial years 2011/12 and 2012/13 through RFO partnership agreements. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: - (1) Subject to approval of funding within the 2011/12 and 2012/13 budgets, Members approve continued RFO status for 6 key arts organisations in the district and new agreements from April 2011 – March 2013 at the current combined level of investment of £95,000 per annum. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 In 2004 the council approved RFO status for six key arts organisations in the district and introduced RFO agreements. This was to formalise the way the Council funded its key arts clients. In practice this resulted in an accountable way of funding the organisations on a regular basis within a defined time period and negotiating and implementing an agreement with each organisation that is linked to the delivery of the Council’s Corporate plan and other key strategies. 3.2 Arts Council England North West and SLDC currently jointly fund six key arts organisations that have RFO status: - the Brewery Arts Centre, Lakeland Arts
33 Trust, Grizedale Arts, Lake District Summer Music, Lanternhouse, and the Wordsworth Trust. 3.3 It is proposed that the Council continue its partnership and funding of the RFO’s to enable them to deliver a quality culture and arts programme in the district and encourage accessible participation for residents and visitors. 3.4 The current three year 2008 -2011 SLDC RFO agreements with each organisation come to an end on 31st March 2011. 3.5 The table below shows the current level of investment in the RFO’s by SLDC. SLDC funding of the key arts organisations (except for the Brewery Arts Centre) has remained static for 10 years, which represents a reduction in real terms. Appendix 1 highlights the significant social and economic contribution the RFO’s make to the district. 3.6 The current spend on 6 RFO’s is £95,000 per annum. SLDC’s return on investment for every £1 invested in the RFO’s is £93 with a spend per head of population of just 92 pence. 3.7 The breakdown of current SLDC investment in the RFO’s per annum is: -
Lakeland Arts Trust (Abbot Hall) £14,500 Brewery Arts Centre £59,000 Grizedale Arts £7,500 Lanternhouse £9,000 Lake District Summer Music £3,000 Wordsworth Trust £2,000 Total £95,000
3.8 SLDC’s investment in the RFO’s acts as a catalyst for unlocking and attracting other sources of funding from the public and private sector. SLDC will work with RFOs to encourage their efforts to generate income and to be as realistically sustainable as they can be. 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Arts Council England are currently reviewing their investment in arts organisations nationally and from April 2012 will be establishing new national portfolio funding agreements. These will be based around ‘strategic’ and ‘programme’ relationships with arts organisations they consider key to enable them to achieve their 10 year strategic plan and objective of ‘Achieving Great Art for Everyone’. The new tailor made funding agreements will replace current 3- year RFO agreements and will be variable in funding terms from 2 to 6 years but on average are likely to be 3-year agreements. Over the next few months the Arts Council will be reviewing and considering a new portfolio of clients. It is clear that Local Authority commitment will be taken into consideration. The critical nature of the council’s support of arts organisations in the district will be further considered as the process between the Arts Council England and the arts organisations becomes clear.
34
5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1.1 It is proposed that the Council approve continued RFO status for the 6 key arts organisations in the district and enter into new funding agreements with each organisation from April 2011- March 2013. This will enable the new funding arrangements between the Arts Council England and the organisations to be understood, prior to the Council considering any future agreements. 5.1.2 It is recommended that the Council continue with the current level of investment in each RFO. The total amount recommended for the 6 RFO’s over the financial years 2011/12 and 2012/13 is £95,000 per annum.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1.1 An alternative option is not to enter into new RFO agreements and to cease funding the key arts organisations in the district. This would result in significant risk to each organisation. Lack of Council investment in each organisation could risk future Arts Council support and funding of the arts organisations in the district. There is a likelihood that future Arts Council support will be predicated on local authority partnership and support. It could jeopardise the funding bids each RFO has made to Arts Council England to become a National Portfolio client and funding from 2012 onwards. There would also be a threat to the delivery of the Council’s strategic objectives as culture and the arts have been identified as a key priority within the corporate plan and enabling organisations to deliver an accessible arts programme is key to achieving the Council’s objectives. 6.1.2 An alternative option could be to enter into new three year agreements with the RFO’s. This is not recommended at this stage as the new Arts Council funding arrangements need to be understood, prior to a decision to commit. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 If Cabinet agree to support the two year funding agreements and Council approves the forthcoming budget then officers will engage with each RFO to negotiate new service level agreements for 2011-2013 linked to the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan 2011-15. 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The revenue funding of £95,000 per annum currently allocated to the six RFO’s comes from the Grants to Voluntary Organisations budget. There is a proposal detailed in the grants review and recommended by the Grants Advisory Group to transfer funding for the RFO’s from the grants to voluntary organisations budget to a separate arts revenue budget. The review report states that this is because the RFO’s have a service level agreement in place and are not deemed a grant under the definition. 8.2 Human Resources
35 8.2.1 There is no additional human resource requirement. In supporting the Council’s relationship with the RFO’s and managing the partnership agreements there is an ongoing commitment of officer time which is built into existing workloads. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 New agreements have not yet been negotiated with the RFO’s or entered into. If Council agrees to the recommendation to enter into new two year agreements from 2011-2013 with the RFO’s then the agreements will be binding for the duration of the lifetime of the agreements. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? Yes. 8.4.2 This proposal is considered to have a positive impact on sustainability.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Budget is cut and RFO Significant impact on the To consider implications funding ceases or RFO’s. Loss of services. of this when discussing reduces Risk of reduction or budget setting. cessation of Arts Council
England funding.
Reduction in leverage of additional investment into the arts economy from other sources
Risk to delivery of council’s key objectives in the corporate plan RFO’s limited capacity to “create and grow accessible participation” 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 An equality and diversity impact assessment has not been carried out. Equality and diversity issues within each organisation are addressed by each RFO and Equality policies are in place. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 Culture and arts are priorities within the new Corporate plan over the next 5 years 2011-2015.This proposal to enter into new agreements with the RFO’s will help enable the Council to achieve its objectives identified in the plan. 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 This report contains proposals to continue to fund the existing RFO’s, and to enter into new two year agreements from April 2011-March 2013 requiring an overall investment by the Council of £95,000 per annum in the financial years 2011/12 and 2012/13. As culture and arts are one of the Council’s key priorities,
36 funding the RFO’s will enable the Council to achieve some of its aspirations in the Corporate Plan and 5 year strategy, building towards ‘One South Lakeland’, with the aim of and delivering economic and community well-being for the district.
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Regularly Funded Organisations - Contribution to South Lakeland
CONTACT OFFICERS Imelda Winters Lewis, Arts & Events Programme Manager ext 7385 [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE RFO agreements 2008 -2011. SLDC Grants Review Cabinet report 9th February 2011. TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to CMT Scrutiny Director Holder the Council Committee 13/1/011 13/1/011 13/1/011 13/1/011 21/1/011 24/1/011 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 13/1/011 13/1/011 Human Resource Services Manager 13/1/011
37
38 Investment in Regularly Funded Organisations– APPENDIX 1
Regularly Funded Organisations (RFO’s) contribution to the social and economic well being of South Lakeland
RFO key statistics: -
SLDC investment in 6 Regularly Funded Organisations is £95,000
Spending per head of population on the RFO’s equates to 92 pence (based on population figure of 103,800)
Leverage from Arts Council England for RFO’s from SLDC investment is £937,144.
The RFO’s provide approximately 167 full-time jobs
RFO’s joint turnover was £7.6 million of which they estimate they spent at least £2.3 million on local services and suppliers
RFO’s attracted £3.4million of inward investment into South Lakeland.
Over ¾ million people used their facilities and attended events
RFO’s rely on SLDC’s investment as a catalyst for unlocking and attracting other sources of funding from public and private sector through trusts and foundations.
SLDC return on investment for every £1 invested in the RFO’s is £93
The RFO’s represent exceptional value for money contributing to the visitor economy and regeneration of South Lakeland as well as the social and cultural life of the district.
As a useful comparator: Mintfest 2010 generated £1.5 million for the local economy, is funded by SLDC £50,000 and generates a £30 return on investment for every £1 invested by SLDC.
Other RFO facts:
As arts organisations and cultural industries the RFO’s make a very significant contribution to the economy and well-being of South Lakeland.
The cultural and creative industries are one of the principal drivers of the national and regional economy is the fastest growing sector in the UK.
39 South Lakeland has one of the three most significant creative industries clusters in the North West.
“The profile of clients within South Lakeland comprises a cluster of exceptional creative organisations that is unrivalled within comparable districts certainly across the North West and probably in the whole of England”. (Arts Council England)
Arts Council England’s investment in the infrastructure of the 6 key RFO’s of £937,144 for 2010/11 is the largest investment in any district outside Manchester and Liverpool.
Arts Council England support of the RFO’s is predicated on SLDC’s investment in the RFO’s.
SLDC invests £95,000 in 6 RFO’s in the district as follows: Lakeland Arts Trust (Abbot Hall) £14,500 Brewery Arts Centre £59,000 Grizedale Arts £7,500 Lanternhouse £9,000 Lake District Summer Music £3,000 Wordsworth Trust £2,000
Brewery Arts Centre generates 89% of its own income against a national average of 62%. It’s LA support is 3% against a national average of 22%. Lakeland Arts Trust earns 86% of its own income.
Brewery Youth Arts programme engages 700 young people per week
Wordsworth Trust provided 17,500 hours of vocational training to 40 young people and offers free advice and events throughout the year to local schoolchildren.
Lakeland Arts Trust offers free admission to young people under the age of 25. (1,300 young people have seen this year’s Lowry exhibition).
Wordsworth Trust attracted 86% of visitors from outside the North West 31% from overseas and is a key contributor to the visitor economy in South Lakes and Cumbria
Ben Nicholson exhibition at Abbot Hall was calculated to have brought in an additional spend of £700,000 to Kendal from people visiting the town.
LDSM was calculated to have brought in an additional spend of £1.75million to the local economy.
LDSM gives more money to SLDC through venue hires than it receives in RFO contribution
Grizedale Arts has an international reputation as one of the UK’s leading arts organisations recognised within its affiliation with the Tate and through its work shown
40 and exhibited worldwide. This work demonstrates the relevance and influence South Lakeland can have as a product and exporter of creative product.
In 2010 Lanternhouse increased its arts input, audience and participant figures for all its activities and are reaching out to local communities to increase engagement opportunities.
In the last 10 years there has been investment in infrastructure in South Lakeland’s RFO’s circa £10 million from sources the National Lottery, ACE, Trusts and Foundations (the Brewery Arts Centre, Lanternhouse, Jerwood Centre for Wordsworth Trust and Lawson Park for Grizedale).
Generally, other similar organisations in England receive significantly larger public investment from local authorities
These key cultural and creative industries also offer: -
A world class arts and cultural offer which is distinctive and unique
Profile raising national/international conferences
Award-winning research facilities
Development of local infrastructure and resources
Partnerships with local people and organisations to build stronger communities
Active volunteering programmes which give opportunities to people to gain confidence and valuable skills, build careers and enrich retirement
41
42 PART I
Agenda Item No: 10
South Lakeland District Council Cabinet Report Meeting Date: 9th February 2011 Report Author: Imelda Winters-Lewis, Arts and Events Programme Manager Portfolio: Hilary Stephenson, Communities and Well-Being Portfolio Report from: Debbie Fox, interim Assistant Director Community Investment and Development Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable THE GREAT NORTH SWIM AND THE TOUR OF BRITAIN 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1.1 This report seeks Cabinet consideration and support to approve SLDC’s involvement in and funding of the Great North Swim (Nova International) in 2011 and the Tour of Britain cycle race in 2011. 1.1.2 To give permission to enter into contractual negotiation and agreements with Nova International and the Tour of Britain. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended to members that they consider- (1) Funding of £20,000 for the Tour of Britain cycle race in 2011 from the LABGI reserve; (2) Funding of £10,000 for the Great North Swim for 2011 from the LABGI reserve and (3) Agree that officers progress work with Nova International and the Tour of Britain to enable the delivery of both events in South Lakeland and (4) That the Assistant Director (CID) be authorised to enter into contractual negotiations with both organisations. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 The Great North Swim and Tour of Britain cycle race are both major high profile events now firmly established on the national events calendar.
43 3.2 The Tour of Britain is a national cycle race, which has grown in stature internationally over the last few years attracting world-class cyclists and teams from around the world. With backing from the NWDA the Tour of Britain approached SLDC and invited the Council to act as a venue for the Tour and host a stage start in Kendal in September 2011. This offer was as a result of the highly successful Stage 5 finish hosted by SLDC in 2007. Members and officers have met with the Tour’s Chief Executive and senior officers and there is an ‘in principle’ support to host the Tour in 2011 subject to the required funding and resources being available. 3.3 The Great North Swim is now the biggest open water mass participation swim event in the UK which takes place on Windermere. Although still in its infancy, since the inaugural swim in 2008 the event has grown considerably and from 2,200 swimmers in 2008 will attract 10,000 participants in 2011. Last year’s 2010 event was unfortunately cancelled due to the prevalence of blue green algae on the lake. The Council has been a funding partner for the event since its inception in 2008 and has been approached by Nova International to continue its partnership work and funding to help develop the event into a national iconic event like the Great North Run. Members will recall that the original intention was for the event to be self-sustaining after 3 years but the original development plan to grow the event slowly has been accelerated to make the swim the biggest mass participation open water swim event in the UK and so the costs of staging such a big event have increased considerably in a short space of time. The Great North Swim still requires partner investment and support to successfully grow the event. Members and officers have met with senior management of Nova International to discuss proposals to enable the event to take place on Windermere in June 2011. 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 The Leader, Portfolio Holder and officers have been active in engaging with Nova International and the Tour of Britain to ensure that South Lakeland would be in a position to benefit from any opportunities that might arise from hosting two such prestigious events in South Lakeland. 4.2 In it’s 5 year strategy and Corporate Plan culture and the arts are identified as a priority with festivals and events of local, national and international repute identified as being a character of life in South Lakeland. The Council’s aspiration is to encourage the development of major high profile events that bring significant benefits to the district. 5.0 OPPORTUNITIES 5.1 Promotion of these events previously indicates there will be significant opportunities to encourage, create and grow participation in cultural and physical activity contributing to the delivery of health and well-being across the community. 5.2 Engagement with the Great North Swim and Tour of Britain events offers opportunities to create a legacy of community engagement and participation both sporting and culturally. (Reference to “within the context of a cultural Olympiad” removed from here as well as in 1.1.)
44 5.3 Activities will inspire communities to take part in and contribute to and benefit from what’s on offer and will contribute to the physical and psychological well being of individuals. 5.4 Both events also provide a positive opportunity to profile the district as the best place to ‘Live Work and Visit’. Both events will create significant interest and positive national and international media coverage for the area. The events will also be filmed by BBC and ITV and will feature on national television programmes. The Tour of Britain cycle race will be covered in a nightly race day programme on ITV and a highlights package that will be broadcast in Japan, USA, Italy, France, Holland, and Belgium. The events will have a significant economic impact on the district. In 2009, in only its second year with 6,000 swimmers the Great North Swim generated £1.5 million for the local economy and attracted a high number of visitors from outside Cumbria whose average length of stay was 2 nights. With 10,000 swimmers in the 2011 Great North Swim the economic impact figure would increase significantly. The Tour of Britain cycle race have undertaken economic impact assessments. In 2010 the stage start in King’s Lynn generated £5 million for the local economy. Investment in both events will assist the profile and reputation of the District as a visitor destination as well as the social and cultural life of the district. 6.0 PROPOSAL 6.1 It is proposed that the Council fund, support and engage as a partner with Nova International in 2011 and the Tour of Britain in 2011 to enable the delivery of two major events in South Lakeland. 6.2 The two events will form part of national sporting calendar of events in 2011 which will be training opportunities for the London 2012 games attracting some of the best international swimmers and cyclists to South Lakeland. 6.3 It is recommended that the Assistant Director (Community Investment and Development) be authorised to enter into contractual negotiations for the Tour of Britain to enable the event to come to Kendal and be authorised to sign a funding agreement with the Great North Swim as a partner on the event for 2011. 7.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 7.1 There are a couple of alternative options. An alternative option is not to fund either event. This would mean that the preparatory work and investment already made in attracting high profile events to the district would be negated. The Tour of Britain wouldn’t take place in Kendal. The Council would cease to be a partner in the Great North Swim event which, after the cancellation of the swim in 2010, could send a negative message to the organisers Nova International. Another option is that members could choose to offer less to Nova International and reduce the amount of funding for the Great North Swim. The Great North Swim is part of a series of national swim events. If there is a lack of support from local public sector partners then the future of the event on Windermere could be jeopardised. 8.0 NEXT STEPS 8.1 If Cabinet agree support and funding for the Tour of Britain and Great North Swim officers will engage with both Nova International and the Tour of Britain to
45 enter into contractual negotiations and to develop partnership working to enable the successful delivery of the events. 9.0 IMPLICATIONS 9.1 Financial and Resources 9.1.1 The total financial revenue resources required to fund the Great North Swim in 2011 and the Tour of Britain in 2011 is £30,000. This would be one off non recurring expenditure. Members are asked to consider whether they would agree that the Great North Swim be funded £10,000 in 2011 and The Tour of Britain funded £20,000 in 2011. The funds could be sourced from the LABGI reserve which has previously been used to fund contributions to these major events. The LABGI reserve is a finite pot of money that currently has £52,207 uncommitted funds. Funds of £7,500 allocated to the Great North Swim for 2010 from the LABGI reserve were refunded from Nova’s insurers because of the cancellation of the event. Use of £30,000 from this budget for the Tour of Britain and Great North Swim events in 2011 would leave £27,207 in the reserve for any other projects the Council may wish to fund. The LABGI reserve “was established to enable the delivery of projects to meet the Corporate objectives” and funding the Great North Swim and Tour of Britain meets these objectives. There will be other indirect costs in respect of staff and managerial time across Council groups to help enable the successful delivery of the events. 9.2 Human Resources 9.2.1 In supporting these events the Council needs to be aware that there will be a demand on staff resources from across the Council. Whilst staff from within the Community Investment and Development Group would lead and co-ordinate the Council role the events will require Council wide support, assistance and co- operation from other groups particularly Social Enterprise, Environment, Public Health and Licensing. 9.3 Legal 9.3.1 No contracts have been entered into. It is requested that the interim Assistant Director Community Investment and be given authority to negotiate with the Tour of Britain and Nova International with a view to agreeing a “host venue” contractual agreement with the Tour of Britain and a funding agreement with Nova International for the Great North Swim. Any legal work will be dealt with by the legal department. 9.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 9.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? No, as it will be developed when the events are confirmed and are going ahead. 9.4.2 This proposal is considered to have a positive impact on sustainability. 10.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Lack of funding Tour of Britain doesn’t LABGI funding allocated take place in South Lakeland. Officers unable to deliver the event. Great North Swim
46 relocated out of district Not engaging other Both events not delivered Early engagement partners required and partnership working Lack of adequate staff Significant risk to each Staff resource fully resource to deliver the event. Events not able to identified and committed event be fully and adequately and funded delivered
11.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 11.1 An equality and diversity assessment has not been carried out. The organisers of the events, Nova International and the Tour of Britain, will address equality and diversity issues. 12.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 12.1 This proposal to fund two major events is linked to the priorities in the Council’s Corporate Plan, Culture and the Arts and Economic Development and associated emergent targets. 13.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 13.1 The report sets out what the opportunities and benefits are from supporting two major events – The Tour of Britain cycle race and the Great North Swim. Having these two national events in the district will enable the Council to fulfil some of its aspirations in the Corporate Plan and achieved its aim of delivering community well-being and building towards ‘One South Lakeland’. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT None. CONTACT OFFICERS Imelda Winters-Lewis, Arts and Events Programme Manager. Tel: 01539 733333 ext 7385, email: [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE None. TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 13/1/011 13/1/011 13/1/011 21/1/011 24/1/011 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 13/1/011 13/1/011 Human Resource Services Manager 13/1/011
47
48 PART I *
Agenda Item No: 11
South Lakeland District Council CABINET Meeting Date: 9th February 2011 Report Author: Jayne Kendall, Implementation Group Manager Portfolio: Cllr Hilary Stephenson, Communities and Wellbeing Report from: Assistant Director, Community Investment and Development Wards affected: All Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAUX – request for additional core funding. 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to consider a formal request from the Trustees of both Citizens Advice South Lakeland (CASL) and Cumbria Rural Citizens Advice Bureau (CRCAB) to increase the annual core funding the Council provides for the Bureaux by £32,500. The CAB Service aims to provide the advice people need for the problems they face and to improve the policies and practices that affect people’s lives 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Cabinet:- (1) Receive and consider the formal request; and (2) Do not agree an increase in annual core funding for 2011/12: and (3) Agree discussions take place with the CAB to see whether specific financial support may be provided for specific services related to Homelessness advice and prevention. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 Note: This report is supported by a Part II Appendix. Most of the information contained within that Appendix is included in the Appendix to this Part 1 report. In accordance with Section 100B(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, copies of the Part II Appendix are excluded from inspection by members of the public as the report contains information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, as follows:-- Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any
49 particular person (including the authority holding that information). (Paragraph 3) 3.2 The Council provide annual core funding to both the CABSL and CRCAB. This funding totals £77,858 in the current year. The Trustees of both CABSL and CRCAB have been considering their organisations’ business plans in light of service demand and reductions in funding from other sources. The Trustees suggest that there will be significant service reductions unless additional monies can be secured. 3.2 The main areas of general advice which are supplied by the CABx include: Housing, Welfare Benefits, Consumer, Debt, Employment, relationship, legal, discrimination, immigration and other areas. In addition, specialist advice is provided under legal aid contracts in the areas of housing, welfare benefits and debt. The services are delivered through outlets in Kendal, Grange, Ulverston and Windermere as well as through outreach and home visits. 3.3 The Trustees have presented a report on their services, the changes to services and the scale and impact of reductions in funding. This report is attached as Appendix 1. Section 3 presents the main issues, which, in summary are: increasing demand for CAB services, the standstill in existing core funding, and the reduction in other sources of funding. The Trustees suggest that the implications of a reduction in CABx services are that there will be increased demand on local authority services, for both information and for service delivery. 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 The Trustees are seeking a solution by requesting uplift in core funding by £32,500 pa. Whilst their report indicates the type of sources from where they currently receive funding and where funding is being reduced or removed, the Trustees do not indicate other sources of funding that they are approaching to help in addressing their funding gap. Officers will discuss this with the CABx further to explore possibilities. 4.2 The pressures on the Council’s budget for 2011/12 and the medium term are very strong. In the current draft of the budget, growth is very severely curtailed. If the Council were to consider agreeing uplift, the resources would have to be funded through the reduction in expenditure on other areas of service. Given the cost pressures and need for reductions in expenditure across all areas of service, an area of cost reduction to fund uplift has not been identified. The alternative options section of the report provides some further information. 4.3 The Council may have some capacity through the monies it receives from CLG for Homelessness Prevention work. An uplift is expected for 2011/12. Discussions could take place with CABx to consider whether there is specific support required and justification for some funding towards the CABx work in housing and homelessness. 4.4 During 2011/12, the Council will be undertaking a fundamental review of the financial support it provides to organisations. The future funding requirements of the CABx will be further considered as part of this review. 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 It is proposed that the Cabinet receive and consider the Trustees’ request for uplift in funding. However, due to the very significant pressures on the Council’s
50 own budget, it is proposed that the request is not supported and that the level of the Council’s core funding support remains as at present. 5.2 It is further proposed that discussions take place between the CABx and the Council’s Homelessness and Housing Advice service to determine whether there is scope and justification for some specific, time limited financial support towards the CABx housing and homelessness work, utilising part of the funds the Council expects to receive from the CLG for Homelessness prevention work. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 As an alternative, Cabinet could agree to the requested uplift. Such an option would require reductions to be identified in other areas of expenditure. An option may be to reduce expenditure within the Grants to Voluntary Organisations budget. This would reduce support to a range of other community and voluntary organisations. This area of expenditure is to undergo a fundamental review during 2011/12. Removal of expenditure prior to the review could be seen as premature, being seen to favour support to one organisation over a range of others. The recommended option enables current levels of expenditure to be maintained for 2011/12 across the areas of financial support the Council provides. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 The Trustees would be informed of the Cabinet’s decision. Subject to the decision, discussion would commence in respect of the potential support of the CABx housing and homelessness work. 7.2 Further discussion and consultation will take place with the CABx during 2011/12 as part of the Council’s review of the financial support it provides to organisations. 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The Council’s existing core funding towards the CAB’s is contained within the draft 2011/12 revenue budget. From budget code GCB we currently make an annual payment of £77,858. The requested uplift of £32,500 represents a 42% increase. This is at a time when the Council is having to find a 30% saving amounting to approx £2,500,000 over the next two years, rising to c£5,000,000 over the next five years. 8.1.2 Subject to further discussion on the CABx particular work on housing and homelessness, any payment would be one off, non recurring and be met from specific funds the Council receives from the CLG. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 There are no Human Resources implications. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 The Council’s current support to the CABx is managed through a Service Level Agreement. It is the Council’s discretion whether to offer financial support to the CABx. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact
51 8.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? No. Whilst the Trustees report indicates some implications of reductions in funding to the CABx, the proposal is to retain the current level of Council support. 8.4.2 This proposal is considered to have a neutral impact on sustainability. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required The CABx face Reduction in services The CABx have identified reductions in grant offered by the CABx actions they are taking to funding. mitigate against the risk.
Residents find it more (Refer appendix) difficult to access the advisory services of the CAB 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 An assessment has not been undertaken. The Proposal is not to change the current level of support to the CABx. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 Section 7 of the Trustees request highlights how the CAB’s work meets the priorities identified by the Council. This is considered a fair assessment of how the organisations contribute to the delivery of the priorities and underpins the justification of why the Council provides core funding to the CABx. 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 The proposal is to continue the current level of core financial support to the CABx. Further consideration is to be made of whether there is scope and justification for some one off, non recurring financial support to specific housing and homelessness work for the 2011/12 financial year. 12.2 The proposal enables continued support and without detriment to other areas of Council expenditure which would have to be considered for reduction, should uplift be considered for approval. The forthcoming review of grants to organisations will enable a more fundamental consideration of the expenditure and support the Council provides to organisations, enabling the Council to re consider priorities for its financial support. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Core Grant Funding for the CAB service in South Lakeland
CONTACT OFFICERS Jayne Kendall, Development Implementation Group Manager BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE None TRACKING
52 Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 31/01 31/01 31/01 31/01 n/a Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 09/02 n/a n/a 31/01 31/01 Human Resource Services Manager n/a *
53
54 CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAUX – request for additional core funding – APPENDIX 1 PURPOSE OF APPENDIX 1 The purpose of this Appendix is to present the Trustees’ request for uplift in core funding. (save for matters covered by the Part II appendix)
55 Core Grant Funding for the CAB service in South Lakeland
Report from Citizens Advice Service in South Lakeland January 2011
1. Purpose This report sets out the business case for increased funding for the CAB Service across South Lakeland, the current and pending financial situation facing the bureaux and the implications of withdrawing or reducing grant aid and outlines the benefits of increasing the level of funding to the CAB service.
2. Background Citizens Advice South Lakeland (CASL) and Cumbria Rural CAB (CRCAB) are independent charities funded through a mixture of core grants from SLDC, parish and town councils, contract work, charitable trust grants and donations. The charities have received core grants from and held service level agreements with SLDC to provide advice and information services for many years. The service is delivered through outlets in Kendal, Grange, Ulverston and Windermere as well as through outreach and home visits.
The CAB Service aims: • To provide the advice people need for the problems they face • To improve the policies and practices that affect people’s lives
The CABx provide generalist advice in Housing, Welfare Benefits, Consumer, Debt, Employment, relationship, legal, discrimination, immigration and other areas as well as specialist advice under legal aid contracts in the areas of housing, welfare benefits and debt. The CABx provide advice and support for those suffering from cancer through contracts with the PCT (in partnership with Macmillan); debt advice under the Cumbria County Council Money Advice and Financial Inclusion Fund projects; act as an independent monitoring body for drug and alcohol services via the Cumbria Users Project; provide a common referral network between advice agencies across Cumbria via the Cumbria Advice Project and Financial Capability training to groups and individuals as well as frontline staff in relevant agencies including SLDC and South Lakes Housing.
Together the bureaux have a combined team of 36 paid staff, 34 of whom are part-time, and a team of c95 dedicated volunteers including trustees. The estimated economic value of volunteering across the two Bureaux amounts to over £351,000 (based on 95 volunteers giving 6hrs per week at £11.85/hr).
The core grants cover the cost of providing a generalist advice service, administration, training of volunteers, IT systems and other management and support costs for both bureaux including premises rental from the authority for CASL. Since 2006/7 the relative cost per client contact, when set against the core grant, has fallen from £9 to £6 and from just over £11 to £6 per issue presented demonstrating increased value for money.
56 3. The issues
1. Over recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of clients seen, issues dealt with and benefits achieved for the clients and income brought into the local area. Since 2006/7 the number of unique (new) clients seen per year has risen by over 30% and the number of contacts with clients and third parties (correspondence, home visits, telephone calls etc) has increased by 43%. 2. In 2009/10 the bureaux dealt with over 14,500 client contacts, including just under 4,000 new clients, and over 3,000 3rd parties amounting to almost 18000 client and third party contacts and responded to over 8,600 different issues. Many clients now approach the bureaux with a combination of interrelated and complex issues and these have increased by 45% (see Appendix1). Some examples of bureaux achievements are provided in Appendix 2 with further details presented in the Annual Reports (Appendix 6) and on CASL website at www.cabsouthlakeland.org.uk 3. Over the last 5 years the level of grant support has remained unchanged and the impact of government cuts, reductions in contract work, grants, donations and other income means that the resources to continue this work is now in jeopardy just when the need for the service is increasing. The bureaux have major problems in framing sustainable budgets for the coming year and will have to make substantial cuts in service provision which may result in closure of one or more bureaux outlets as a result. 4. Funding Cuts: • The Government has cut the CLG grant which enables CASL’s Housing Solicitor to attend the Magistrates Courts in Kendal and Barrow to provide advice to unrepresented plaintiffs by £10k. • The Financial Inclusion Fund (FIF) Debt Advice Project will cease on 31 March 2011 and will halve the debt advice service. Last year we negotiated for clients with personal debt totalling over £6.1m. • Legal Aid (Legal Service Commission (LSC) contracts) was cut by 33% across Cumbria in November 2010. The allocation for South Lakeland has dropped by over 50% which means the CAB consortium of CRCAB and CASL is now the only provider of legal aid advice for Housing, Welfare Benefits and Debt in South Lakeland. The LSC contract has been reduced in size and value resulting in a 66% drop in income for the bureau leading to a reduction in staff hours yet the number of enquiries and cases continues to increase with the loss of Shelter as a provider of advice under legal aid in South Lakeland. The government further proposes cutting the value of each LSC case paid to the bureaux. • Citizens Advice (National) provided funding in 2009/10 to enable CASL to open for an additional 520 hours under the Additional Hours of Advice (AHA) Project. Although the funding was extended the level was reduced by one third and will cease in March 2011. • There is uncertainty over the future of a number of health related projects including the Cumbria Users Project, a countywide project which provides an independent monitoring role for other drug and alcohol services. Bureaux contracts under the PCT funded Macmillan Welfare Benefits Project are now also at risk with proposals to disband the PCTs. • The combined effect of these mean that the CAB service to those facing increasing difficulty in the current situation is not only being cut directly, but it is also threatening the bureaux survival. The cuts amounting to over £200,000 (see Appendix 3) mean that CASL anticipates a £20,000 deficit in 2010/11 and a £60,000 deficit in 2011/12. CRCAB anticipates a deficit of £30,000 in 2011/12. The future is unsustainable
57 • In this situation the bureaux need SLDC to increase their annual grant. This will enable them to maintain a service to those who need it most and also continue to assist SLDC in the difficult economic climate ahead. • Without increased core funding from SLDC the bureaux will not be in a position to continue to provide clients with these valuable services and may even close completely.
5. Implications The implications are that more clients will turn to the local authority for assistance, may become homeless, get further into debt, suffer discrimination and abuse and in some cases may even take their own lives when they have no one to turn to. A recent study undertaken by Grant Thornton on behalf of Citizens Advice (National) demonstrated that provision of debt advice can improve mental health, promote a sense of well-being and in some cases may even prevent suicide. More detailed implications of cutting or reducing funding are given in Appendix 7.
The Trustees of both Bureaux formally request an uplift in grant support of £32,500 in 2011/12 - £20,000 for CASL and £12,500 for CRCAB.
A number of measures are being taken by the bureaux to address the situation including merger talks with other bureaux, restructuring and partnership working, the introduction of new technology and income generation activities (see Appendix 4). However, these will take time to implement and the benefits may take 12-18 months to be realised.
6. Benefits of increased grant funding Grant aid is an essential part of the local funding mix for voluntary and community organisations and remains essential for thriving local communities. The local economic and social value of CAB work is set out in their Annual Reports (See Appendix 6).
Core grants help the CAB service to forward plan and provide flexibility to deliver services in innovative ways and enable speedy responses to changes in demand. They put the bureaux in a stronger position to negotiate for other funds, providing confidence to funders, provide management capacity and stability and help bring new income to the local economy.
Grant support provides a platform which can make the difference between sustainable, successful development and failure in new services. It enables a bottom-up approach to service development, free from the constraints of pre-determined contract specifications, and allows flexibility to shift according to the changing needs and circumstances of service users.
Grants are less bureaucratic to manage and evaluate without the regulations which apply to open tenders and provide the capacity to respond to community-led initiatives and changes in local circumstances, leading to less waste in inappropriate or poorly used services.
The Bureaux can also offer a wide range of support to help SLDC improve services while coping with the government cuts by: • providing a seamless referral service between advice agencies.
58 • providing advice that prevents homelessness • promoting and improving benefit take-up to assist vulnerable clients maximise their income, which means more money coming into the local economy • having trained intermediaries to help clients engage with council departments, and provide training in Financial Capability to help council staff work more effectively with clients. • providing detailed intelligence to enable the council to design and deliver services to meet local needs. • Assisting the council to deliver its key responsibilities under the Child Poverty Act 2010, meet its public health duty and the new Public Sector Equality Duty by bringing expertise and understanding of local issues, needs and gaps in provision. • providing advice and support for those affected by redundancy and offer volunteering opportunities and skills development which are open to local authority staff. • Helping the authority meet its obligations under the National Indicator set e.g. in relation to measures of people’s overall health and well-being and the extent to which older people receive the support they need to live independently at home.
7. Links to SLDC’s existing and new Corporate Plans Supporting the Bureaux is in line with the Council’s new 5-year strategy key theme ‘One South Lakeland’ to “develop a robust partnership approach with all sectors of our communities”…and to “work with partners to achieve strategic gains and options for service delivery”.
One of the key outcomes of the Council’s Vision is that SLDC is an ‘enabling’ authority and to achieve this, the council will ‘work with a range of …voluntary organisations to deliver local services’ and ‘Ensure partnerships are the driving force behind delivering local priorities’ e.g. partnership work to address the needs of older people and to understand and address the needs of young people.
The bureaux can help SLDC deliver against its housing and economic development priorities to “ensure that everyone has opportunities to stay… healthy…”; to “…sustain and grow South Lakeland’s economy for the benefit of its residents and tackle head on the economic challenges in the area” and to reduce homelessness and the risk of homelessness.
59 8. Appendices
Appendix 1 - Bureaux Funding and Performance
CASL & Funding Individual Total Separate Cost per issue CRCAB from (new) Client Issues presented combined SLDC Clients Contacts presenting presenting 2006/07 73,900 2,700 8,300 6,500 £11 2007/08 73,900 3,259 11,670 9,454 £8 2008/09 73,900 3,431 14,207 10,849 £7 2009/10 73,900* 3,946 14,588 11,852 £6 * Plus increase in grant of £2,500 to cover increase in rent for Kendal Bureau premises in line with lease agreement with SLDC.
Appendix 2 - Bureaux Achievements
• The advice service is quality Assured under the CLS Quality Mark Scheme. • The service has assisted clients from every ward across South Lakeland during the last year. • In 2009/10 Additional Hours of Advice funding enabled CASL to extend opening by 520 hours. • CASL dealt with 2,300 new benefit issues of which one third related to local Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. CRCAB 1,046 – 25% HB + CTB. • CASL provided housing advice for 777 clients of whom half received representation from CASL’s housing solicitor. CRCAB 246. • CASL assisted local residents with more than 600 DLA/related benefit enquiries and CASL’s specialist benefit service brought benefit gains of c£0.5m for clients. • The Legal Aid contract brought almost £350k worth of legal help provision into South Lakeland. • CASL and CRCAB negotiated for clients with personal debt totalling over £6.1m • CASL provides financial capability training and delivered training to over 130 school children. It has delivered further sessions to over 140 participants in 2010/11. • Services are made available where they are needed e.g. home visits and outreach in hospitals for cancer patients restoring power to clients who feel helpless. • The services ensure substantial cost savings to other services and contribute to a better quality of life for many clients and improve health and well-being. • Both bureaux play an active role in the Cumbria Advice Network developing a common referral system between advice agencies across Cumbria. • Clients are inspired to volunteer and volunteers often secure paid work with CAB experience and can gain NVQ level qualifications. • CRCAB has held advice sessions on Saturdays at Windermere since September 2010 to enable people who are not free during working hours to access help. This service is run entirely by fully-trained volunteers and has received no additional funding. This benefits disadvantaged groups in the community, including low-paid workers and carers. • CASL is piloting evening opening for a three month period between Jan-Mar 2011. • They campaign for change to improve policies and practices that affect people’s lives.
60
Appendix 3 - Minimum Predicted Funding Cuts to Bureaux:
NB Appendix 3 – is in the Part II appendix
Appendix 4 - Measures being taken by Bureaux to address the situation:
NB Appendix 4 – is in the Part II appendix
Appendix 5 - Case Study
Our work has a significant impact on the most vulnerable people in the district, who would otherwise suffer considerably and would impose a much greater demand on Council resources. The following case study is an illustration:
Our client was in his 60s and had recently had an operation for cancer and started chemotherapy. He had previously suffered from depression for three years. His wife had a severe heart condition. He was so worried about his mortgage and other debts that he wanted to give up the chemo and go back to work. When our worker visited them at home last winter they were sitting next to the gas ring on the cooker for warmth. We were able to help him claim Pension Credit, Disability Living Allowance and Council Tax Benefit, and his wife to claim disability benefits which led to an increase in the pension credit. In addition we helped them to deal with their debts. We were also able to get them a grant to put in central heating and insulation, another for a heater and warm clothes, and a third to pay for heating costs and a new mattress. In addition, we were able to obtain a regular weekly charitable grant which did not affect their benefits. The total amount gained for the clients was over £25,000.
Appendix 6 Annual Reports
Citizens Advice South Lakeland Annual Report 2009/10 (attached)
Cumbria Rural Citizens Advice Bureau Accounts 2009/10 (attached).
Appendix 7 Implications of cutting or reducing funding:
Risks Consequences Funding is cut completely Potentially some 18,000+ clients and third parties will resulting in permanent approach the council and other organisations for
61 closure of both Bureaux assistance. and all four outlets. 36 staff will become unemployed.
Over 90 volunteers and volunteering opportunities will be lost. The Kendal and Ulverston Bureaux buildings will become vacant. Funding is reduced Reduction in the number of client and third party resulting in closure of one contacts dealt with. or more outlets, substantial Cuts to core and project staff resulting in loss of cuts in opening hours and support and training for volunteers reducing the service provision. volunteer advice base and quality of service. Clients do not receive the advice they need to resolve the problems they face and problems escalate. Homelessness cases will The Council may be called upon to provide advice and increase, employment and assistance to clients who are unable to resolve their discrimination issues will be problems. left unaddressed and Deterioration in levels of health and well-being specialist services e.g. across the district (relates to NI 119) Macmillan/CAB Welfare Benefits partnership advice Older people, cancer patients (and carers) will be service will disappear. unable to access the crucial benefits they need to remain in their homes or have the support they need at end of life (relates to NI 139). Increase in cases of mental health problems and suicides related to debt problems. Signposting and referral Clients do not get the help they need and /or are services to other advice inappropriately referred to wrong agencies. agencies will decline or cease Debt and Welfare Benefit Levels of debt significantly increase across the district. issues are not resolved and See Appendix 5 for Case Study re Benefit Gains). levels of benefit gains £millions in lost income into South Lakeland. acquired for clients are significantly reduced.
62 PART I
Agenda Item No: 12
South Lakeland District Council CABINET
Meeting Date 9 February 2011 Report Author: Sue Hill, Corporate Finance Manager Portfolio: Councillor Andy Shine Policy, Performance & Resources Portfolio Report from: Assistant Director (Resources) & Section 151 Officer Wards affected: All Key Decision: PD10/007/Sev Forward Plan: 1 October to 28 February 2011
2011/12 GENERAL FUND SERVICES REVENUE BUDGET PROPOSALS 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report provides the final draft of the budgets emerging from the 2010/11 Budget Process and reports on the progress made since last reported to the 12 January Cabinet and the changes to the taxbase for 2011/12. This proposed draft of the 2011/12 budget shows a balanced budget with the Council Tax remaining at the 2010/11 level reflecting a proposed nil increase to this charge levied.
BACKGROUND 1.2 The detailed impact of the Government’s Provisional Local Government Settlement for 2011/12 and 2012/13 on the Council’s strategic position was reported to the 21 December Council. The final settlement figure for the 2011/12 position is expected to be received by the end of January 2011 and any change will be provided verbally at the relevant committee meetings or by way of an addendum. SLDC have been notified that the final settlement figure for 2012/13 will not be provided until the end of January 2012. This report assumes the settlement figure provided is that which will apply.
1.3 Officers and Members have been considering options that will deliver the priorities set out in the South Lakeland District Council draft 5 year Strategy within the resources projected to be available. The updated options which take account of the consultation to date are set out in Appendix 3 and summarised in Table 4 below.
63 1
1.4 Work has also been undertaken on the base service budgets which reflect what the budget requirement would be if services continued as they are currently run. This base will need to then be adjusted to take account of the work set out in paragraph 1.3 above.
1.5 The Draft 2011/12 5 Year Capital Programme and Budget is set out on a separate report on this meeting’s agenda. The revenue implications of the Draft Programme have been incorporated into the Revenue Budget set out in this report.
FURTHER BUDGET WORK 1.6 The work on the 5 Year Medium Term Financial Plan is continuing and will be considered by the 16 February Cabinet and the 22 February Council. Any further changes due to Central Government announcements will be incorporated and brought back to Cabinet and Council as part of the February Reports.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 CABINET members are requested:
• To consider the 2011/12 Draft General Fund Revenue Budget and note the changes which have been made to the previous position reported to achieve a balanced budget; • To note the review of the levels of Reserves and the proposed future contributions to and call from these which will go forward to request that Council approve them; • To note that the savings proposals set out in paragraph 3.4 are estimated and that the actuals against these will be closely monitored and any changes reported to Members; • To note that further work on the savings requirement to balance the future years’ position will be undertaken and reported to Members; • Subject to any issues raised at the meeting and consideration of any matters raised by the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 February, to recommend that Council approves the Draft Revised 2010/11 and 2011/12 Revenue Budget for General Fund services.
64 2
3. PROPOSALS 3.1 Proposed Draft Revenue Estimates 2011/12 Appendix 1 provides the proposed draft of the Revenue Estimates 2011/12 General Fund Summary. A budgeted Council Tax increase of 0% is currently included in the balanced budget position for 2011/12. A General Fund working balance of £1,250k as at 31st March, 2012 is included. A summary of the first page of Appendix 1 is set out in Table 1 below: Table 1: Summary Revenue Estimates 2011/12 2010/11 2011/12 Variance 2010/11 Budget Latest 2010/11 Approved Notes with c/fs & Draft approved - Budget SREs Budget v- 2011/12 £k £k £k £k SERVICE EXPENDITURE 17,864.7 18,831.3 17,762.6 (102.1) 1 Net Interest Payable 567.3 710.1 770.3 203.0 2 Effect of Accounting Practices (3,600.6) (3,600.6) (4,214.2) (613.6) 3 SLDC EXPENDITURE 14,831.4 15,940.8 14,318.7 (512.7) Support to Capital Programme 300.0 1,448.9 815.4 515.4 4 Net (use of)/addition to General 91.1 (86.2) (3.7) (94.8) 5 Fund Working balance Net contributions to/(from) Reserves (140.6) (2,230.4) (467.0) (326.4) 6 Area Based / LABGI Grant (47.4) (38.6) 0.0 47.4 7 FORECAST EXPENDITURE 15,034.5 15,034.5 14,663.4 (371.1) Surplus / (Shortfall) 0.0 0.0 (1,454.4) (1,454.4) 8 SLDC Budget (0% Council Tax 15,034.5 15,034.5 13,209.0 (1,825.5) 9 increase 2011/12)
Note 1 – the overall reduction in budgeted service expenditure (broken down by service and Assistant Director in Appendix 2). Major variances detailed in the Appendix are summarised below along with relevant supporting information for employee budgets, pensions, capital charges and central support costs. Note 2 – increase in net interest payable reflects the reduced income from interest on investments, due to reduced rates of interest available to the Council, and the additional interest due on borrowing to fund the capital programme. Note 3 – mainly shows the reversal of capital charges shown within the service revenue budgets. Also reversal of interest charged to the Housing Revenue Account (shown in more detail within Appendix 1, Page 2) Note 4 – planned use of the Fund of Revenue Monies for Capital Purposes and Second Homes Income Reserve within the five- year Capital Programme (Appendix 1, Page 2) Note 5 –use of General Fund Working balance to maintain the balance at the target level of £1.25m by 31st March 2012 (Appendix 1)
65 3 Note 6 – planned net contribution from reserves for 2010/11 and 2011/12 (Appendix 1, Pages 3 & 4 shows more detail of planned contributions to and from reserves) Note 7 –£28.8k Area Based Grant and £18.6k Local Area Business Growth Initiative Grant expected 2010/11 but abolished for 2011/12 onwards. Note 8 –amount of savings to be incorporated into the draft budgets to balance the proposals. This is the updated MTFP position i.e. £1,454.4 compared to £1,590.0 in Appendix 3. Note 9 – the Council Tax increase proposed for 2010/11 is nil but there is a slight increase in income due to a small increase in the Council Taxbase. Reduction is due to major drop in Revenue Support Grant and Redistributed Business Rates.
3.2 Major Variances Major variances by service area are summarised below from Appendix 2, which provides detailed variances for the latest draft of the 2011/12 service budgets against the 2010/11 approved budgets with explanations for the major variances.
Community Investment & Development – Reduced income from Building Control and Development Control, budget movements and changes to capital charges and recharges budgets. Community Services – Savings on introduction of new recycling contract netted off by decreased recycling credits (£200k).Planned Maintenance budgets to be allocated from central budget. Reduced costs from closure of Public Conveniences. Changes in capital charges and recharges budgets. Corporate Vision – Increase in recharges (mainly Partnerships and Communities) and capital charges budgets. Customer Focus – Concessionary Fares transferring to County Council. Movements in budgets and changes to recharges budgets. Resources – Changes in recharge budgets (mainly increase to Corporate Administration). Social Enterprise – Reduction in base budget for car park income. Central budget for planned maintenance held here, to be allocated out. Savings for cessation of Tourist Information Centres. Changes in recharges budgets. 3.2.1 Employee Budgets Table 2 summarises the change in overall employee budgets for the Council from 2010/11 to 2011/12 Table 2: Analysis of Employee budget changes 2010/11 to 2011/12 £k 2010/11 Budget 13,634 Minus Pay Award in 2010/11 (140) Plus Increments in 2011/12 100 Plus Pay Award for low earners in 2011/12 70 Plus pension contribs increased by 2% 160
13,824
Draft 3 2011/12 budget 13,390
Overall change in Employee budgets (434)
66 4
The overall reduction in the employee budgets is due to the implementation of the approved service reductions for Public Conveniences and Tourist Information Centres. There is no vacancy allowance included in the employee budgets for 2011/12 in the services above but 2% has been included for vacancies in the MTFP calculations. The appropriateness of the level of vacancy allowance is still being reviewed. A pay award of £250 for posts with a salary of less than £21,000 per annum has been included in the base for 2011/12. This is to ensure that the Council approves a budget on a prudent basis; it has not yet been agreed and is subject to a National Agreement process. 3.2.2 Pensions There is a separate report on this agenda covering pensions. The effect of the pension adjustments on the revenue budgets are shown in Appendix 3 (ref. 3.c). 3.2.3 Capital Charges / International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Changes as a result of the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) have meant that some assets have been reclassified and depreciation no longer needs to be charged. Changes to the treatment of leases have also impacted on the budgets and the usefulness of comparability between the two years. In addition, budgets for finance interest received have been removed as required by the new standards. Revenue Expenditure Funded from Capital Under Statute (REFCUS -previously known as deferred charges) usually relates to grants to improve assets not owned by the Council. Both capital charges and REFCUS are required to be charged to services but there is an adjustment below the net service expenditure line to reverse out these charges and to replace them with the actual costs of borrowing to fund the capital programme (the Minimum Revenue Provision - MRP).
3.2.4 Central Support Costs / Recharges A new model for recharging central support costs has been developed and introduced for the 2011/12 budgets. Recharges have been thoroughly reviewed by managers and a robust basis for these has been produced. Restructure changes have also led to differences in the charging of central support costs between the two financial years. 3.2.5 Other significant variances There are also changes to the income generated by certain services which contribute to the change in this line which are discussed with the Fees and Charges paragraph (3.4) below.
3.3 2011/12 to 2015/16 5 YEAR REVENUE BUDGET Information is being collated as part of the budget process to build indicative budgets for future years based on the 2011/12 budget. The MTFP set out the projected Budget Requirement at the summary level for the future four years.
3.4 FEES AND CHARGES Fees and charges have been reviewed as a key element of the Budget Process in line with the approved Budget Strategy. This review was guided by the Corporate Charging Policy, which was introduced as part of the MTFP in 2010. Assistant Directors’ Fees and Charges reports were presented to Cabinet on 10 November 2010 and 12 January 2011 and figures based on these are included in the Revenue Budget. The Fees and
67 5 Charges Booklet setting out all the Fees and Charges approved to date as part of this budget process will be provided for Council on the 22 February. Table 3: The movement in Fees and Charges budgets from 2010/11 to 2011/12 Increased Decreased Fees & Fees & TOTAL (Net) Charges Charges (Adjusted) ££ £ Community Investment & Development (25,640) 98,300 72,660 Community Services (115,980) 0 (115,980) Resources (1,000) 1,200 200 Social Enterprise (59,660) 90,870 31,210
(202,280) 190,370 (11,910)
In Table 3 the decreased fees and charges have been adjusted for the loss of income from Public Conveniences, Commercial Waste and the TICs. The adjusted 2010/11 income from Fees and Charges budget was £8,762k which compares with the budget of £8,774k for 2011/12 (an overall net increase of £12k). Appendix 2 includes explanations of significant variances. The MTFP included an assumption that income would increase by 2% or around £175,000. The budgeted increase of £11,900 has therefore added £163,100 of additional pressure to the budget shortfall.
3.5 SAVINGS OPTIONS 3.5.1 Savings options have been produced to enable the Council to meet the projected savings needed and these are set out in Appendix 3. If the savings are approved this enables a balanced budget to be delivered for 2011/12. There are some figures, which are estimated, and the position will be carefully monitored during the year. It is recommended that the balance remaining in 2011/12 be funded from Reserves. It should be noted that work continues to identify savings required to balance future years’ budgets. The use of Reserves is only intended to be used in 2011/12 as this is not sustainable for the future.
3.5.2 Table 4 summarises the budget reduction that these options would deliver if implemented after approval by Council. This list reflects the options which are not considered to have a significant impact on the front line services the Council enables to be delivered. As can be seen from the Table future years deficit projections are significant and the reality is that options to deliver a balanced budget in future years are likely to have a greater impact on these services. Significant further changes are planned to reduce the cost of back office services to SLDC and the options will come forward as part of the planned Service Reviews. These options will include implementing efficiency savings identified as part of the reviews, sharing services, delivery through partnerships with other sectors and ceasing to allocate resources to certain areas. The work is underway and will be reported to future Committees.
68 6 Table 4: The Projected Deficit compared to the Savings proposed to date Option 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Projected Deficit from (1,590) (2,517) (3,776) (4,981) (4,981) MTFP Total Budget Reduction 1,501 2,561 3,210 3,531 3,770 (Appendix 3) Application of Reserves (89) 0 0 0 0 (Deficit) / Surplus (+) (0) 44 (566) (1,450) (1,211) Remaining
Table 4 above sets out the projected remaining deficit should the estimates in the updated MTFP and the options set out in Appendix 3 be realised.
3.6 REVIEW OF RESERVES
3.6.1 The Medium Term Financial Plan includes a section on the Council’s Reserves Policy. As part of the Budget Process a thorough review of the Reserve Policy and the levels the Council holds has been undertaken this year particularly to consider whether there is scope to reduce the call on the Revenue Budget over the next five years. Appendix 4 sets out the level of Reserves as at 31/03/2010 and the proposed levels as until 31/03/2015. The 2010/11 approved contributions to and call on the Reserves and the proposed future years form part of this Appendix. The recommended balances over the 5 year period are shown, as well as a reminder about the purpose of each Reserve. The level of Reserves has considerably reduced at this Council over the previous 3 years as shown by Table 5 below.
Table 5: The Historical Levels of Reserves
Reserve 31/03/08 31/03/09 31/03/10 £000 £000 £000 General (Un-earmarked Reserves) 4,989 5,099 3,729
Other Earmarked GF Reserves 360 317 197
Capital Reserves 2,283 1,283 222
Total Reserves 7,632 6.699 4,148
General Fund Working Balance 1,261 1,768 1,339
69 7 3.6.2 The levels proposed to be maintained as set out in Appendix 4 are summarised in Table 6 below. The levels now proposed take account of the savings required to balance the Revenue Budget position and are considered to be the minimum levels now recommended to provide a secure financial base of the Council. These levels will be reviewed again in future years as part of the Budget Process.
Table 6: The Proposed Levels of Reserves
Reserve 31/03/11 31/03/12 31/03/13 31/03/14 31/03/15 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 General (Un-earmarked Reserves) 1,820 1,890 2,175 2,475 2,775
Other Earmarked GF Reserves 132 65 45 17 17
Capital Reserves 0 0 0 0 0
Total Reserves 1,952 1,955 2,220 2,492 2,792
General Fund Working Balance 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400
3.7 GROWTH OPTIONS 3.7.1 Increases in budgets have been kept to a minimum. Appendix 3 sets out the potential Revenue items. The MTFP currently allows for £300k per annum of Growth. The bids put forward total £180k 2011/12 and £380k in 2012/13 (including the effect of the pension changes and reduced recycling credits). In subsequent years it is recommended that Growth assumed in the MTFP be reduced to £200k per annum. This assumption has been added to the Total Budget Reduction included in Table 4 above.
4. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 4.1 This report sets out the options that will enable the Priorities set out in the Corporate Plan to be delivered within the resources available. The Council could chose to increase the level of Council Tax which applies from the zero percent increase currently included.
5. NEXT STEPS 5.1 Joint Community and Resources Overview & Scrutiny and Cabinet Members considered the Draft Estimate Report on 11 and 12 January 2011. An update is to be considered by Joint O&S on the 3 February. This proposed draft budget incorporates all known adjustments and recharges. Council will be asked to approve the budget on 22 February 2011.
6. IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Financial and Resources 6.1.1 These form part of the report, the strategic aim being to safeguard the Council’s medium to long term financial position.
70 8 6.2 Human Resources 6.2.1 Officers will play an important role in working within the approved Budget. 6.3 Legal 6.3.1 This report has no direct legal implications at this stage. 6.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 6.4.1 Sustainability is the principle behind the Budget Strategy set out here which will be further developed. 7. RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Failure to create a Includes: inability to Identification of sound budget balanced and sustainable deliver corporate priorities, guidelines in an agreed strategy budget by March 2011 inappropriate spending, reduces the risk of an unaffordable reductions in services. budget, unacceptable council tax increases, and/or precipitate budget reductions. 8. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 8.1 An equality and diversity impact assessment of the options to be implemented will be carried out when the financial position is finalised. 9. LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 9.1 The proposals are based on forecasts that recognise the need for resources to be identified for new developments in the Corporate Plan. Setting a sound framework for budget preparation assists in the delivery of corporate outcomes. This strategy has been developed from the MTFP. 10. CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 10.1 This report considers the detail below the framework approved to date. This will ensure the Council directs its financial resources to delivering the priorities within the Corporate Plan.
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Draft Revenue Estimates 2011/12 General Fund Summary 2 Proposed Draft Service Budgets 2011/12 3 Savings and Growth Options 4 Reserves
CONTACT OFFICERS Sue Hill, Corporate Finance Manager Shelagh McGregor, Assistant Director (Resources) & S151 Officer Helen Smith, Strategic Finance Manager BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE 30/03/2010 Council 2010/11 Medium Term Financial Plan 12/08/2010 Council 2011/12 – 2015/16 Budget Strategy Report
71 9 22/09/2010 Cabinet 2011/12 – 2015/16 Budget Process Progress Report 08/12/2010 & 21/12/2010 Council 2011/12 Draft Revenue & Capital Budgets 21/12/2010 Council Addendum 11&12/01/2011 Joint O&S and Cabinet 2010/11 Budget Report 03&09/02/2011 Joint O&S and Cabinet 2010/11 Budget Report TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee My Report N/A 23/01/2011 03/02/2011 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer My Report 23/01/2011 HR Services Manager N/A
7210 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL APPENDIX 1 REVENUE ESTIMATES 2011/12
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 Approved Approved Budget Draft with SRE & Budget Carryforward Budget £000 £000 £000
Community Investment & Development 3,440.3 3,541.1 3,702.5 Community Services 10,123.0 11,064.9 10,073.1 Corporate Vision 531.5 822.2 1,058.4 Customer Focus 1,675.5 1,519.3 1,059.8 Resources 2,454.3 2,741.2 2,820.0 Social Enterprise (105.9) (692.2) (786.0) Management Team 0.0 (1.2) (1.2) Corporate Savings (254.0) (164.0) (164.0) Service Expenditure 17,864.7 18,831.3 17,762.6 Financing Entries (Page 2): Interest Payable 919.8 897.9 981.9 Interest & Investment Income (352.5) (187.8) (211.6) Effect of Statutory and Proper Accounting Practices (3,600.6) (3,600.6) (4,214.2)
SLDC Expenditure 14,831.4 15,940.8 14,318.7 Support to Capital Programme (Page 2) 300.0 1,448.9 815.4 Phased increase in General Fund Working Balance 50.0 50.0 50.0 (Use of)/Addition to General Fund Working Balance 41.1 (136.2) (53.7) Contributions to Reserves (Page 3) 452.6 434.0 445.0 Contributions from Reserves (Page 4) (593.2) (2,664.4) (912.0) Area Based Grant (28.8) (38.6) 0.0 LABGI Grant (18.6) 0.0 0.0
SLDC Budget Requirement 15,034.5 15,034.5 14,663.4
Less: Redistributed Business Rates (6,038.6) (6,038.6) (3,879.4) Revenue Support Grant (876.9) (876.9) (1,197.1)
SLDC Demand on Collection Fund (excl. Parishes) 8,119.0 8,119.0 9,586.9
Less: Special Expenses chargeable to relevant Parishes (36.7) (36.7) (36.7) (Surplus)/Deficit on Collection Fund 15.2 15.2 20.2
Net Expenditure to be met from Council Tax 8,097.5 8,097.5 9,570.4
(Shortfall) / Surplus 0.0 0.0 (1,454.4)
Total Council Tax Available (SLDC only) 8,097.5 8,097.5 8,116.0
General Fund Working Balance at 1 April 1,108.9 1,339.9 1,253.7 Phased increase in General Fund Working Balance 50.0 50.0 50.0 Contribution to / (Deduction from) Working Balance 41.1 (136.2) (53.7) General Fund Working Balance at 31 March 1,200.0 1,253.7 1,250.0 73
- 1 - SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL APPENDIX 1 REVENUE ESTIMATES 2011/12
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 Approved Approved Budget Draft with SRE & Budget Carryforward Budget £000 £000 £000
FINANCING ENTRIES INTEREST PAYABLE Interest payable on Decent Homes expenditure 908.4 886.5 886.5 Interest payable on finance leases 9.4 9.4 9.4 Interest payable on temporary borrowing 2.0 2.0 2.0 Interest payable on new capital investment 0.0 0.0 84.0
Net expenditure 919.8 897.9 981.9
INTEREST & INVESTMENT INCOME Investment Fund returns (286.9) (142.5) (166.3) Interest receivable on temporary investments (65.1) (44.8) (44.8) Interest received on car loans (0.5) (0.5) (0.5)
Net expenditure (352.5) (187.8) (211.6)
EFFECT OF STATUTORY & PROPER ACCOUNTING PRACTICES Reversal of charges for capital expenditure and grant (2,920.6) (2,920.6) (2,264.9) written off to General Fund services and departments 1,094.0 1,094.0 0.0 (REFCUS, previously deferred charges) Reversal of Impairment of Fixed Assets Capital grants written off to General Fund budgets 178.1 178.1 0.0 Reversal of charges for intangible assets written (55.4) (55.4) (89.9) off to General Fund services and departments 4.0 4.0 0.0 Reversal of Depreciation on General Fund assets (1,617.0) (1,617.0) (1,955.7) (Capital Charges) Minimum Revenue Provision 13.3 13.3 393.3 Interest charged to Housing Revenue Account (297.0) (297.0) (297.0)
(3,600.6) (3,600.6) (4,214.2)
SUPPORT TO CAPITAL PROGRAMME: Capital Expenditure met by transfers from: - Fund of Revenue Monies for Capital Purposes 100.0 235.0 100.0 - IT Replacement Reserve: 60.0 102.0 50.0 - General Fund Major Repairs Reserve 140.0 409.5 0.0 - Vehicle & Plant Replacement Fund 0.0 37.0 0.0 - Second Homes Income Reserve 0.0 665.4 665.4
300.0 1,448.9 815.4
74
- 2 - SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL APPENDIX 1 REVENUE ESTIMATES 2011/12
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 Approved Approved Budget Draft with SRE & Budget Carryforward Budget £000 £000 £000 CONTRIBUTIONS TO RESERVES:
General Reserve:
- Available for subsequent allocation to priority growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 items - Annual contribution 184.0 184.0 200.0
LABGI Reserve:
Distribution of annual entitlement of grant 18.6 0.0 0.0
Fund of Revenue Monies for Capital Purposes:
- Support to Capital Programme 100.0 100.0 100.0
Economic Development Fund Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0
Second Homes Reserve 0.0 0.0 0.0
Vehicle & Plant Replacement Fund 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Fund Properties Major Repairs Reserve 100.0 100.0 100.0
IT Replacement Reserve 50.0 50.0 45.0
Building Control Fee Income Reserve
- Transfer of in-year surplus 0.0 0.0 0.0
452.6 434.0 445.0
75
- 3 - SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL APPENDIX 1 REVENUE ESTIMATES 2011/12
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 Approved Approved Budget Draft with SRE & Budget Carryforward Budget £000 £000 £000 CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RESERVES: General Reserve: Club/Coach Development Project (5.0) (5.0) 0.0 To meet Early Retirement/Voluntary Redundancy Costs 0.0 (169.0) 0.0 To meet Early Retirement/Voluntary Redundancy Costs 0.0 (220.3) 0.0 Slippage from 2008/09 (38.7) (38.7) 0.0 District Wide Housing Needs Survey (20.0) (20.0) 0.0 District Wide House Condition Survey (45.0) (45.0) 0.0 Slippage from 2009/10 0.0 (538.0) 0.0
Fund of Revenue Monies for Capital Purposes: Support to Capital Programme (100.0) (235.0) (100.0)
Second Homes Income Reserve: Support to Capital Programme 0.0 (665.4) (665.4)
LABGI Reserve: Great North Swim (15.0) (10.0) 0.0 Fixed term Project Officer, Culture & Economy (27.1) (27.1) (17.0) Cultural Olympiad (50.0) (50.0) (50.0)
Vehicle & Plant Repacement Fund: Contribution to purchase of vehicles 0.0 (37.0) 0.0 Economic Development Fund: Kendal Economic Regeneration Plan Project Officer (27.4) (27.4) (4.6) General Fund Properties Major Repairs Reserve: South Lakeland House chiller system 0.0 0.0 0.0 Castle Dairy renovation (140.0) (140.0) 0.0 DDA works to Car Parks 0.0 (170.0) 0.0 Nether Bridge 0.0 (99.5) 0.0
IT Replacement Reserve: Replacement of IT equipment & software (60.0) (102.0) (45.0)
Building Control Fee Income Reserve: Offset deficit on fee income (20.0) (20.0) 0.0 Kendal Employment Development Fund: Kendal Business Start Up (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) Shop Fronts (15.0) (15.0) (10.0) Cultural Trail (2.0) (2.0) 0.0 BIDS (8.0) (8.0) 0.0 (593.2) (2,664.4) (912.0) 76
- 4 - APPENDIX 2 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL - Proposed Draft Service Budgets 2011/12 2011/12 2010/11 2010/11 Latest Draft Explanation of Major Variances Approved Budget Budget (as at Variance Budget inc c/fwds & SREs 24/1/11)
Community Invest and Dev (CID)
EUR AD Community Inv and Dev 0 5,070 0 0 GBC Building Control 209,070 209,600 318,140 109,070 Movement of budgets. Reduced Building Control income. GCB Citizens Advice Bureaux 73,900 73,900 83,216 9,316 Increase in REFCUS charges, see report section 3.2.3. Increase in recharges see report section GCV Conservation Environment 79,550 79,550 106,809 27,259 3.2.4 GDC Development Control 363,270 381,880 407,981 44,711 Movement of budgets. GDS Dangerous Structures 91,740 91,740 60,746 (30,994) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 Decrease in REFCUS charges, see report section 3.2.3. Increase in recharges see report section GED Economic Development 442,680 494,380 463,519 20,839 3.2.4 Movement of budgets. Increase in recharges see section 3.2.4. Decrease in REFCUS charges, GEN Enabling Role 259,690 272,850 507,275 247,585 finance interest received removed as per IFRS, see report section 3.2.3. GEV Events 115,880 115,880 67,560 (48,320) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GGV Grants To Voluntary Orgs 322,960 313,960 328,905 5,945 GLC Local Land Charges (9,770) (8,960) (14,814) (5,044) Movement of budgets. Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Decrease in REFCUS GLP Local Plans 454,970 456,930 481,161 26,191 charges, see report section 3.2.3. GMI Market Towns Initiative 68,310 68,310 10,175 (58,135) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GMP Market Towns Projects 21,100 21,100 0 (21,100) Programme ends 2010/11. NPS budgets held centrally under Social Enterprise. Reduction in recharges see report section GMU Museum 470,130 470,130 437,827 (32,303) 3.2.4. GPB Publications Promotions 82,570 82,570 55,113 (27,457) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GPJ Town Centre Projects 41,780 41,780 2,280 (39,500) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 Kendal Regeneration GRM 40,620 42,500 19,186 (21,434) Movement of budgets. Consultncy GRP Kendal Regeneration 240 9,170 67,616 67,376 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GSH Second Home Discounts 237,700 237,700 253,905 16,205 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. NPS budgets held centrally under Social Enterprise. Reduction in recharges see report section GTM Town Centre Management 33,010 33,010 11,831 (21,179) 3.2.4. GTN Transport Policy Planning 15,960 15,960 0 (15,960) Costs to be recovered from Cumbria County Council. GTP Tourism Promotion 54,340 54,340 56,341 2,001 TOTAL CID 3,469,700 3,563,350 3,724,772 255,072
77
1 APPENDIX 2 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL - Proposed Draft Service Budgets 2011/12 2011/12 2010/11 2010/11 Latest Draft Explanation of Major Variances Approved Budget Budget (as at Variance Budget inc c/fwds & SREs 24/1/11) Community Services (CS) ECS Asst Dir Community Service 0 0 0 0 EUN Community Services 0 46,830 0 0 Included in 2010/11 twice in EUN74 & GLE01. Corrected in 2011/12. GCL Community Leisure 60,620 60,620 28,023 (32,597) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 Increase in fees & charges. NPS expenditure held centrally under Social Enterprise. Revised GCM Cemeteries 162,610 138,657 100,567 (62,043) Grounds Maintenance split due to new contract GCN Conveniences 755,608 844,605 587,683 (167,925) Reduced costs due to toilet closures. Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GCP Coast Protection 19,200 19,200 25,274 6,074 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GCZ Contaminated Land 38,720 38,720 48,251 9,531 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4. NPS expenditure held centrally under Social GDY SLDC Depots 0 0 (73,971) (73,971) Enterprise. GFD Food Safety 295,550 295,550 222,033 (73,517) Movement of budgets. Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GFW Flood Warning 29,230 29,230 11,366 (17,864) Movement of budgets. Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GHG Gen Fund Contrib to HRA 259,810 259,810 222,019 (37,791) Revised Grounds Maintenance split due to new contract. Growth in 10/11 removed in 11/12. GHL Town View Fields Hostel 75,770 76,960 164,747 88,977 Movement of budgets. Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Increase in income. GHM Homelessness 246,890 265,800 321,120 74,230 Movement of budgets. Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 Decrease in REFCUS charges, see report section 3.2.3. Increase in recharges see report section GHN Housing Renewal Grants 1,450,950 1,454,630 1,211,430 (239,520) 3.2.4 GHP Noise Air Water Pollution 296,610 296,610 218,053 (78,557) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4.Movement of budgets. GHS Health Safety 111,540 111,540 147,070 35,530 Movement of budgets. Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GHT Housing Standards 105,940 137,200 208,862 102,922 Movement of budgets. Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GHV Housing Advice 24,220 25,000 46,890 22,670 Movement of budgets. Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 Capital finance costs removed.Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Movement of GLD Land Drainage 83,825 83,825 16,445 (67,380) budgets. GLE Leisure Centres 1,197,160 1,197,160 1,074,225 (122,935) NPS budgets held centrally under Social Enterprise. GLT Lighting 6,480 6,480 2,413 (4,067) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GMA Hackney Carriage Licences 0 (150) 33,866 33,866 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GMC Miscellaneous Licences 25,670 25,670 63,802 38,132 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GMD Licensing Act (65,900) (65,900) (58,158) 7,742 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GME Gambling Licensing 6,530 6,530 10,228 3,698 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GOT Environmental Health Other 14,680 27,070 31,863 17,183 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 Revised Grounds Maintenance split due to new contract.Increase in recharges see report section GPK Parks 555,738 690,815 773,818 218,080 3.2.4. Increase in capital charges, see report section 3.2.3. Revised Grounds Maintenance split due to new contract.Reduction in recharges see report GRG Recreation Grounds 235,910 214,148 136,031 (99,880) section 3.2.4. NPS expenditure held centrally under Social Enterprise. NPS budgets held centrally under Social Enterpirse. Reduction in recharges see report section GSN Street Furniture 31,370 31,370 13,142 (18,228) 3.2.4. Reduction in capital charges, see report section 3.2.3. GTG Street Cleansing Client 1,451,590 1,451,590 1,611,162 159,572 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Inflation added to contract price. Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Inflation added to contract price.Reduction in GWC Waste Coll Disposal Client 1,251,210 1,204,210 1,432,041 180,831 capital charges due to sale of Commercial Waste contract. GWF Dog Control 56,805 56,805 48,237 (8,568) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Reduction in capital charges, see report section 3.2.3. Reduction in recycling credits.Increased GWK Kerbside Recycling Client 1,748,740 1,748,740 1,761,473 12,733 78 income. Inflation added to contract price. 2 APPENDIX 2 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL - Proposed Draft Service Budgets 2011/12 2011/12 2010/11 2010/11 Latest Draft Explanation of Major Variances Approved Budget Budget (as at Variance Budget inc c/fwds & SREs 24/1/11) Savings from introduction of new contract.Reduction in recycling credits. Reduction in recharges GWR Waste Recycling 232,960 236,460 118,989 (113,971) see report section 3.2.4 GWS Water Supply and Pollution 76,230 76,230 66,568 (9,662) Movement of budgets. Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 Reduction in capital charges, see report section 3.2.3. Reduction in recharges see report section STG Street Cleansing Contractor 0 0 (226,084) (226,084) 3.2.4 STS Transport 0 0 (56,152) (56,152) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4. SWC Waste Collection Contractor 0 0 127,816 127,816 Reduction in recharges see section 3.2.4.Increase in capital charges, see report section 3.2.3. Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4.Increase in capital charges, see report section SWK Kerbside Recycling -Contractor 0 0 (370,975) (370,975) 3.2.3. TOTAL CS 10,842,266 11,092,015 10,100,166 (742,100)
79
3 APPENDIX 2 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL - Proposed Draft Service Budgets 2011/12 2011/12 2010/11 2010/11 Latest Draft Explanation of Major Variances Approved Budget Budget (as at Variance Budget inc c/fwds & SREs 24/1/11) Corporate Vision (CV) EXS Corporate Vision (50,000) 61,700 0 50,000 2010/11 budget not cleared to zero. EXT Transformation and Change (22,800) (22,800) 0 22,800 2010/11 budget not cleared to zero.
GCD Partnerships and Communities 213,220 271,480 740,526 527,306 Increase in recharges see section 3.2.4. Increase in REFCUS charges. GEM Emergency Planning 104,100 104,100 41,699 (62,401) Reduction in recharges see section 3.2.4. GES Eden SLDC Shared Services 50,000 50,000 0 (50,000) Programme end s 2010/11. GMY Safer Stronger 71,850 75,010 112,174 40,324 Increase in recharges see section 3.2.4. GOP Older People Programme 0 119,600 0 0 GPR Consultation 165,110 165,110 165,966 856 TOTAL CV 531,480 824,200 1,060,365 528,885
Customer Focus (CF) ECF Asst Dir Customer Focus 0 0 0 0 ERB Revenues and Benefits 0 118,420 (1) (1) ERI Information Services 0 (266,590) (1) (1) GBN Council Tax Benefits 49,780 49,780 83,135 33,355 Movement of budgets. Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GBT Housing Bens Local Scheme 15,890 15,890 23,673 7,783 GCC Corporate Communications 197,991 197,991 224,267 26,276 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GCY Concessionary Fares 774,790 774,790 2,445 (772,345) Programme ends 2010/11 - transferred to Cumbria County Council. GFN NNDR Cost of Collection (12,700) (12,700) 17,855 30,555 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GFT Council Tax Cost Collect 423,550 423,550 484,060 60,510 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GHX Rent Rebates 111,530 111,530 128,811 17,281 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GRA Rent Allowances 49,900 49,900 45,560 (4,340)
GRB Discretionary Housing Bens 2,620 2,620 0 (2,620)
GRD Discretionary Rate Relief 62,150 62,150 58,073 (4,077) TOTAL CF 1,675,501 1,527,331 1,067,878 (607,623)
Management Team (MT) EXC Management Team 0 0 0 0 TOTAL MT 0 0 0 0
80
4 APPENDIX 2 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL - Proposed Draft Service Budgets 2011/12 2011/12 2010/11 2010/11 Latest Draft Explanation of Major Variances Approved Budget Budget (as at Variance Budget inc c/fwds & SREs 24/1/11) Resources ECH Human Resources 25,000 101,950 0 (25,000) 2010/11 budget not cleared to zero. ECL Legal 0 1,330 0 0 EFS Financial Services 30,000 55,600 0 (30,000) 2010/11 budget not cleared to zero. ERA Internal Audit 0 0 0 0 ERE Asst Dir Resources 0 0 0 0 GCA Corporate Administration 569,450 569,450 1,255,625 686,175 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GCX Corporate Management 44,630 44,630 53,829 9,199 GEL Elections 152,760 152,760 110,835 (41,925) Growth budget 2010/11 removed. GER Electoral Registration 133,300 156,700 148,620 15,320 Movement of budgets. GFC Contingency Provision (124,000) (124,000) (124,000) 0 GFI Corporate Finance 59,240 59,240 31,500 (27,740) Decrease in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GFS Unapportionable PensionAdj 288,860 288,860 298,299 9,439
GGT Subscriptions Grants 23,600 23,600 22,600 (1,000) GMM Members 615,830 615,830 441,183 (174,647) Decrease in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GSE District Special Expenses 44,240 44,240 40,510 (3,730) GTH Other Items 22,500 193,014 57,000 34,500 Increase in REFCUS charges, see reprt section 3.2.3. GTV Bank Charges 125,300 125,300 103,546 (21,754) Decrease in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GTW Audit and Inspection 176,805 176,805 133,683 (43,122) Decrease in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GVR Chairmn Allow Civic Hosp 12,740 17,040 7,880 (4,860) TOTAL RESOURCES 2,200,255 2,502,349 2,581,110 380,855
Social Enterprise (SE) ECC Social Enterprise Admin 168,277 212,447 0 (168,277) Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4 EPX Offices (16,900) (16,900) 0 16,900 Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 ESE Asst Dir Social Enterprise (1,814) (1,814) 0 1,814 Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GCK Car Parks (2,160,592) (2,174,077) (2,091,101) 69,491 Movement of budgets. Base budget for car park income reduced. GCS Caravan Site (92,060) (92,060) (74,248) 17,812 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Increase in income. GGK Decriminalised Parking Enf 264,234 265,984 203,851 (60,383) Movement of budgets. Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4. GLW Lake Windermere (403,652) (404,192) (430,747) (27,095) Increase in income GMK Markets (13,977) (13,977) (13,159) 818 GPH Public Halls 451,389 451,789 514,673 63,284 Increase in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Movement of budgets. GPL Planned Maintenance 7,000 17,000 688,281 681,281 NPS budgets for all services currently held here Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4. Reduction in capital charges, see report section GSY Sundry Properties 249,066 249,066 191,474 (57,592) 3.2.3. Growth 90K 2011/12 held here GTC Tourist Info Centres 553,792 688,392 158,009 (395,783) TIC service no longer run by SLDC GTF Town Centre Facilities 104,360 104,360 97,642 (6,718) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GUL Industrial Units Landlord 30,420 30,420 (12,704) (43,124) Reduction in recharges see report section 3.2.4 GUT Indust Units Tenants 5,900 5,638 (3,679) (9,579) NPS budgets held centrally under Social Enterprise. TOTAL SE (854,557) (677,924) (771,708) 82,849
Total Service Revenue 17,864,645 18,831,321 17,762,583 (102,062) 81 Budgets 5
82 APPENDIX 3
Green highlights mean figures have changed since Version 23 (3/2 O&S Version 24 Budget Report). 2010/11 Budget Process - 5 Year Savings and Growth Options Pink highlights mean inc in the base service budgets. Updated: 31.01.2011 Target Recurring Revenue Budget Savings 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comment £ £ £ £ £ MTFP Update
This line will be verified as the work on the base budgets and the impact on the Estimated Updated MTFP -1,590,000 -2,517,000 -3,776,000 -4,981,000 -4,981,000 MTFP is progressed.
Options for reducing the Annual Recurring Revenue Budget Requirement Ref. Lead 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Timescale/comment £ £ £ £ £ 1 Service Reviews High costing or low performing per SPARSE 1.1 a SMcG/ Central Service & Corporate Management Cost D.Storr 20,000 20,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Programme of Service Reviews has been drafted and some have commenced. b Remove direct expenditure on publications and contribution to promoting Tourist Promotion Service DS 23,600 23,600 23,600 23,600 23,600 South Lakeland at travel/destination shows. c Transfer of expenditure on the Affordable Housing Officer be met from the income from the second homes money as are other housing project related Strategic Housing DS 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 posts Approval will be required from the LSP. d October to November Review to be undertaken and inc as part of the budget process. Report on the Units going back and the savings which may be obtained. 32 Mkt Place to be considered whether surplus to requirements. EconDev - Town Centres, Industrial Units MK 0 TBA TBA TBA TBA Options will be subject to leases. e Consider rationalisation of County, District and Town facilities.£40k in for Public Public Halls inc Arts and Events MK/DS 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Halls. f Recreational Grounds - Glebe and White Plts. A report on the opportunities to be drafted. Combine services or keep separate. Links to Leisure Contract. MK/SR 0 TBA TBA TBA TBA Business Case being produced. g This could form part of the package of service offered to the community. Service provides income to the council. Strategy should view market halls as EconDev - Markets MK 0 -15,000 -15,000 -15,000 -15,000 retail space with potential for significant income generation. h Environmental Protection & Public Health SR 30,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Investigate Shared Service Opportunities. i Policy & Performance DF 20,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 Service Review underway. j SLDC Management Review LC 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Review underway.
1 of 5 83 APPENDIX 3
Ref. Lead 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Timescale/comment £ £ £ £ £ 1.2 Other planned Service Reviews a Revenues and Benefits Services 2011/12 joint procurement of software only. Further savings from shared officer SMcV 70,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 resources are being investigated. b IT Services - Shared Service SMcV 20,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 Approved by Cabinet c IT - Hardware/Sofware SMcV 0 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Work in Progress. d Potential Shared Service; shared software with other districts; income from Customer Contact Centre Services SMcV 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 partners. e Development Plans & Strategy Services 15% Reduction in direct expenditure on evidence base, other specialist studies and examination in public costs. Joint commissioning of evidence bases to be considered. Shared Services opps and Income generation. DS 35,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 f Depends on viability of County wide model. If model not viable then as a minimum we will continue off-street provision Alternative is for SLDC to expand Car Park Enforcement MK 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 provision if financially sound reason to do so. g Lake Warden Service MK 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Vacancy not filled. h Review budgets as properties are sold. Anticipate a reduction of 25% of our Rationalisation of Asset Base MK 45,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 113,000 property liabilities through rationalisation of asset base. i Dog Control Service SR 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Service Review (from April) j 3 years saving of £84k included in the contract price agreed. Contract is for 3 years. In the base. There is a significant issue re Recycling Credits reduction due to less volume. This is estimated to total £200k in 11/12 less the £84k Recycling Bring Site Contract SR Inc Inc Inc Inc Inc above. k Service Review is underway to include transfer and cease as options. £20k inc Cemetery Service SR 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 in base budget - check this. l Saving will be reflected in individual services. To date - £8,200 lease savings = Procurement SMcG 70,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 to 10% current lease charge of the MFD (printer). m Any saving would not immediately be deliverable. Consultation needed. Review Terms and Conditions CMT 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Proposals to be developed in consultation with Employees and Unions. n Service Review & better use of technology - Development management, Development Management DS 25,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Building Control and Land Charges/Property records. o Development Management - Shared Service Opportunities for cost reduction through Shared Services will be explored. Alternative Delivery DS 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 p SMT have reviewed the contributions - Reserves are at the minimum level recommended. Use may be made of some balances to offset the 2011/12 Review of Reserves Contribution SMcG 0 0 0 0 0 pressures in the Base Budgets. q Cost of Democracy - £1.6m now CMT 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Reduce the Costs of Democracy. Sub-totals 538,600 1,117,600 1,207,600 1,207,600 1,207,600
2 of 5 84 APPENDIX 3
Ref. Lead 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Timescale/comment £ £ £ £ £ 1.3 Grant Support & Third Party Contract Reviews
a Payments to conservation and environmental Consider removal of contributions as funding agreements expire. Investigate management partnerships DS 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 cost liabilities. b Economic Regeneration & Arts Grants Reduce grant to orgs(£182k) by £50k 2012 onwards. Review the options in DS 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 detail. c Economic Development Fund £100k Fund Reduces the Economic Development Fund by 40% pa. Review reqd - in light available for distribution. DS 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 of LEPs & Local Growth White Paper. d Housing Renewal-Grant aided Private Sector This is a capital saving, no revenue implications investements (£450k). SR 0 0 0 0 0 e Leisure Services SR 96,000 96,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 Service Review - Targets are 10% rising to 28%. Sub-totals 149,000 199,000 373,000 373,000 373,000
1.4 Cease to Directly Provide & Other Cabinet decision taken 13.10.2010. Implementation underway. Inc in the base a TICs MK 227,800 252,800 267,800 348,800 348,800 budget figures. Cabinet decision taken 13.10.2010. Implementation underway. Verify the change to the base & the impact of the £80k saving & LDNP and Parish b Public Conveniences MK/SR 140,000 140,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 income loss. Inc in the base budgets. Cease to provide free advice on trees (Non SLDC owned trees). Advice would be restricted to Tree Preservation Orders and trees directly affected by c Tree Advice (Non SLDC Trees) DS 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 development proposals. d Total Growth in MTFP 300,000 600,000 900,000 1,200,000 1,500,000 e less Growth from below -179,900 -379,900 -579,900 -779,900 -979,900 Linked to the Growth Table below - £300k less total bids.
MRP plus interest on the £1m inc in each year of the MTFP for capital programme borrowing 2011/12 onwards (based on 10 year asset life and 4% f Reduction in Capital Programme Borrowing 0 140,000 280,000 420,000 560,000 interest pa) Savings of £84k already in the base only £65k pa will be delivered from g Carbon Reduction Savings shorfall DF -19,000 -19,000 -19,000 -19,000 -19,000 2011/12. Part of Service Review.
Sub-totals 476,900 741,900 1,126,900 1,447,900 1,687,900
3 of 5 85 APPENDIX 3
Ref. Lead 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Timescale/comment £ £ £ £ £ 2 Income Growth: 2.1 Fees and Charges a Planning Fees set by the Authority DS 0 TBA TBA TBA TBA There is the potential to charge more for this service. b Lake Charges MK 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Amount in addition to the MTFP projections. 2.2 New Sources/Charges a Bulky Waste Savings and Income/Additional Bin Part of the Service Review and Procurement Process. Inc in base estimates. Income. SR 10,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 b SMcV/ Income from office space rental MK 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 A partner will be taking up office space in the Atrium. d Printing SMcV 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 Consider options for expansion of service to generate income from partners. e Introduction of new areas of charge in As considered by Overview and Scrutiny and agreed by Cabinet - November Development Management (Development 2010. (In Base est.) Control, Building Control) DS 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 44,000 f DS 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 Under consultation - SLDC response provided to Govt. g Council Tax freeze grant SMcG 204,000 204,000 204,000 204,000 204,000 Provided Council Tax is frozen at 2010/11 level.
Sub-totals 337,000 502,000 502,000 502,000 502,000
Grand totals Savings Options for Discussion 1,501,500 2,560,500 3,209,500 3,530,500 3,770,500
Savings Target versus Options Shorfall (-)/Surplus (+) -88,500 43,500 -566,500 -1,450,500 -1,210,500
2011/12 shortfall to be met from Reserves -88,500 0 0 0 0
Potential Revenue Growth Bids - £300k MTFP p a assumption reduced as at 1.4d and e above
3 Potential Revenue Growth 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Comment £ £ £ £ £ a £9,000 for Personal Voter Identifiers. This is the work involved in re- validating the registration of voters, throughout the district & £10,000 for ICR Character Recognition equipment to used during the canvass mainly and also throughout Electoral Reform Legislation D.St 20,000 5,000 0 0 0 the year. b Olympiad DS 0 65,000 0 0 0 Pre- approved Growth bid 21/10/10 Council. c Pensions SMcG -40,100 106,800 243,400 243,400 243,400 Phasing of introdution of 19 year deficit recovery period d Recycling Credits 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Reduction of tonnages recycled incl in the base service budgets e Unallocated Growth 0 3,100 136,500 336,500 536,500 Assumes £200,000 of additional growth available pa
Total Potential Revenue Growth 179,900 379,900 579,900 779,900 979,900
4 of 5 86 APPENDIX 3
Ref. Lead 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Timescale/comment £ £ £ £ £ Reconciliation of Changes: Total Shortfall version 23 -32,600 -190,600 -1,170,600 -2,294,600 -2,294,600
Changes in version 24: Remove 1.3 d Housing Renovation Grant -100,000 -100,000 -100,000 -100,000 -100,000
Add 1.4 f Reduction in Capital Programme borrowing 0 140,000 280,000 420,000 560,000 2.2 g Council Tax freeze grant 204,000 204,000 204,000 204,000 204,000 3 c Pensions Growth 40,100 -106,800 -243,400 -243,400 -243,400 3 d Recycling Credits Growth -200,000 -200,000 -200,000 -200,000 -200,000 3 e Unallocated Growth 0 -3,100 -136,500 -336,500 -536,500
Adjust Previous Uncommitted Growth 0 300,000 800,000 1,100,000 1,400,000
Total Shortfall version 24 - based on MTFP -88,500 43,500 -566,500 -1,450,500 -1,210,500 0 0 0 0 0
Grand totals Savings Options for Discussion 1,501,500 2,560,500 3,209,500 3,530,500 3,770,500
5 of 5 87
88 Reserves Summary Appendix 4
CONTRIBUTIONS: £000 PREDICTED BALANCES: £000 01/04/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 actual 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 GENERAL (UNEARMARKED) RESERVES 1. General Reserve 184 200 200 200 200 2,423 1,185 1,385 1,585 1,785 1,985 Purpose: · To provide a buffer against future financial risks in the medium term: pension fund contributions, government grant, investment income, contract review factors · To enable the Council to progress major organisational and transformational changes by providing resources to fund the initial costs of those developments. Level: The level of this reserve is determined in conjunction with that of the General Fund Working Balance. Relevant factors are an assessment of risks attaching to: · pay and pension costs · inflationary pressures · interest rates · government grant · income from fees and charges. The main use of this reserve in recent years has been to fund the one-off costs of staff redundancy and early retirements to enable organisational reorganisation and the discontinuation of direct provision of services.
The Medium Term Financial Plan provisionally assumes a £200,000 annual contribution to the Reserve, depending on quantification of the potential impact of these factors. Taking these into account alongside an allowance for organisational changes, the target minimum balance for the reserve should be £1.0m with a preferred level of £1.5m which is approximately 10% of net revenue expenditure. The maximum balance should be set at £3.0m Unless allocated for a particular purpose, revenue budget under-spending and windfalls are added to the General Reserve. Following the closure of the Risk Management Fund, and the transfer of the balance on that fund to the General Reserve, £100,000 has been earmarked for risk management activities. Predicted balances tend to be overstated since this reserve is used to fund unexpected expenditure during the year, such as redundancy & retirement costs. 89 Reserves Summary Appendix 4
CONTRIBUTIONS: £000 PREDICTED BALANCES: £000 01/04/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 actual 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 2. LABGI Reserve Purpose: 0 0 0 0 0 451 209 67 52 52 52 · To fund non-recurring initiatives that contribute directly to one or more of the Council’s priority initiatives, with a preference for economic development. Level:
The Reserve accumulated funds from the Government’s Local Authority Business Growth Incentive (LABGI) scheme grant. Grants received under the LABGI scheme should be the only contributions to the Reserve – there should be no minimum or maximum contribution. The minimum balance on the reserve should be zero. This fund is now practically fully committed and should be closed once the committed spend is achieved. 3. General Fund Major Repairs Reserve Purpose:
· To fund major repairs and maintenance to General Fund properties that are not capitalisable and would be difficult to accommodate in the annual planned maintenance programme, on the basis that the Reserve: 100 100 100 100 100 483 283 383 483 583 683 o acts as a backstop for emergency major repairs o accumulates funds as necessary to meet an abnormal year in maintenance terms o is able to assist in meeting regular maintenance costs. Level:
The Reserve has been accumulating funds so that it can deal with the larger repairs for which it was established. The annual contribution is £100,000 which equates to the cost of (say) a new heating system for a larger building. A minimum backstop requirement of £50,000 per annum should be set for the contribution to the Reserve with a target of at least £100,000 and a maximum of £500,000 in advance of an abnormal maintenance year.
90 Reserves Summary Appendix 4
CONTRIBUTIONS: £000 PREDICTED BALANCES: £000 01/04/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 actual 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 4. IT Replacement Reserve Purpose: 50 45 40 40 40 157 55 55 55 55 55
· To fund the replacement of hardware and software with a preference for the updating of the corporate and networking infrastructure. Level: The Reserve has been used regularly since its inception and is a valuable addition to mainstream funding. With the introduction of the IT shared service there will no longer be a requirement for SLDC alone to fund all replacement of servers, for example. Additionally, the use of virtual servers and increased use of thin-client technology has reduced the costs of IT recplacements. Based on an annual contribution of £50,000, the minimum level should be £10,000 with a target of at least £50,000 and a maximum of £250,000. It is proposed the annual contribution will reduce by £5,000pa to a minimum of £40,000. 5. Economic Development Fund Purpose: 00000 5124 0 0 0 0 · To encourage economic development in the District and to ensure that unused funds in a particular year can be carried forward. Level: The Fund assists the Economic Development Strategy by carrying forward resources that cannot be spent at the end of a budget year. Its maximum level should be linked to the Constitution’s limits and set at £25,000 plus amounts earmarked for specific purposes.
91 Reserves Summary Appendix 4
CONTRIBUTIONS: £000 PREDICTED BALANCES: £000 01/04/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 actual 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 6. Vehicle and Plant Replacement Fund Purpose: 00000 370000 0 · To accumulate funds to purchase replacement vehicles and plant. Level:
This reserve was set up to assist the purchase of vehicles and plant by collecting contributions equal to the leasing payments that would have been payable should vehicles have been funded from leases rather than from purchase. It is proposed that since all future vehicle purchases will be funded either by borrowing or finance leasing and will be reflected in the Minimum Revenue Provision, this reserve is no longer required and should be closed. The remaining monies in the fund of £37,300 will be applied to the purchase of vehicles in 2010/11. 7. Planning Development Grant Purpose: · To enable monies provided by Planning Delivery Grant to be earmarked for expenditure and to be carried forward for use in a subsequent accounting period if necessary 00000 12764 0 0 0 0 Level: Established in March 2010 when Planning Delivery Grant was no longer earmarked by government. The balance in the fund represents monies received in 2009/10 but not spent by 31 March 2010. This source of grant funding has now been discontinued and the fund will be closed when the current balance is spent.
92 Reserves Summary Appendix 4
CONTRIBUTIONS: £000 PREDICTED BALANCES: £000 01/04/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 actual 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 CAPITAL RESERVES 8.Fund of Revenue Monies for Capital Purposes Purpose: 100 100 100 100 100 135 0 0 0 0 0 · To provide support to the Capital Programme · To supplement the capital finance available to the Programme by revenue contributions · To cover ‘grey area’ expenditure and allow flexibility in financing decisions. Level:
The level of the Fund depends on the Council’s holding of capital receipts and its aspirations for capital expenditure. The Council aims to build up the Fund in preference to retaining capital receipts by converting and ‘switching’ resources wherever possible when financing capital expenditure. The Fund should have a minimum balance of £100,000 to ensure that it has a buffer to meet unexpected un-capitalisable expenditure. An appropriate operational maximum level for the Fund from 1 April 2011 would be £2,000,000. 9. Second Homes Income Reserve Purpose: · To enable monies provided by reducing council tax discounts to be earmarked for capital expenditure and to be carried forward for use in a subsequent accounting period if necessary 87 0 0 0 0 0 Level: The annual income from second homes is currently around £750,000. It is spent on a mixture of large developments and programmes of minor assistance to meet the need for affordable housing. The reserve acts to preserve the funds in the event of slippage: if expenditure matches plans, the minimum balance will be zero. The maximum level should be 25% of the annual income i.e. £250,000 although this could be exceeded in exceptional circumstances where funds are being accumulated over a period of years for a major project.
93 Reserves Summary Appendix 4
CONTRIBUTIONS: £000 PREDICTED BALANCES: £000 01/04/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 actual 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 EARMARKED RESERVES 10. Kendal Employment Development Fund Purpose: 0 0 0 0 0 102 57 17 17 17 17 • To assist economic development in the Kendal area. Level: The Fund was set up by a Section 106 legal agreement that made a contribution of £200,000 to the Council with strict conditions on its use. Since grants are paid out from the Fund and its only ongoing source of income is loan repayments the Fund will never exceed the initial contribution. The minimum level is zero. 11. Building Control Fee Income Reserve Purpose: 0 0 0 0 0 95 75 48 28 0 0 • To record surpluses and losses on the trading activities of building control in accordance with statutory guidance. Level: Building control operates in a commercial environment with a three year rolling accounting period. Operating surpluses can only be used for investment back into the service. A minimum level of £30,000 debit is specified as (in theory) the Reserve could fall into deficit in the first or second years of the accounting cycle. The maximum level of £300,000 is related to the annual turnover of around £700,000.
TOTAL RESERVES 434 445 440 440 440 4,148 1,952 1,955 2,220 2,492 2,792
94 Reserves Summary Appendix 4
CONTRIBUTIONS: £000 PREDICTED BALANCES: £000 01/04/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 actual 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 WORKING BALANCES A. General Fund Working Balance Purpose: 91 50 50 50 50 1,339 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 • To provide a general working balance and contingency to cushion the Council against uneven cash flows, sharp budgetary changes and unexpected events or emergencies. Level:
The level of the Working Balance is set by reference to the risks attaching to the General Reserve. In essence the Working Balance represents the Council’s backstop contingency and its bare minimum reserve that should never be depleted. The level has been £1.0m historically but this is to be increased in £50,000 annual steps to a target level of £1.5m; the forecast level at 1 April 2010 is £1.1m and at 1 April 2011 is £1.2m. B. Housing Revenue Account Working Balance Purpose: n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,340 724 600 600 600 600 • To provide a general working balance and contingency to cushion the Housing Revenue Account against uneven cash flows, sharp budgetary changes and unexpected events or emergencies. Level:
The level of the working balance is set by reference to the risks attaching to the HRA, taking account of its relatively small annual contingency provision. Legislation requires the Council to budget to avoid a year-end deficit on the Account and a healthy working balance is a key element in rent setting. However restrictions on the Council’s ability to increase rents mean that a compromise has to be made between building up balances and funding necessary expenditure on managing the Council housing stock. Taking these factors and the risks attaching to an activity with a turnover of £10m into account, the HRA should aim for a target working balance of £600,000 within a range of £200,000 minimum to £1,000,000 maximum levels.
95
96
PART I
Agenda Item No: 13
South Lakeland District Council CABINET
Meeting Date: 9 February 2011 Report Author: Sue Hill, Corporate Finance Manager Portfolio: Councillor Andy Shine Policy, Performance & Resources Portfolio Report from: Assistant Director (Resources) & Section 151 Officer Wards affected: All Key Decision: PD10/007/Sev Forward Plan: 1 October to 28 February 2011
2011/12 DRAFT FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAMME
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT AND BACKGROUND 1.1 The Council’s Capital Programme is spending on the purchase or improvement of assets that enables the delivery of the Council’s priorities and outcomes as set out in its Corporate Plan and that have a long-term benefit to the District. As the Council moves towards a needs-led approach it needs to ensure the District’s assets remain fit for purpose. This process is guided not only by South Lakeland District Council’s 5 Year Strategy and Corporate Plan but also the Medium Term Financial Plan. The required expenditure is balanced against the limited resources available. 1.2 This report provides an update of the proposed Capital Programme which was considered by Joint Overview and Scrutiny and Cabinet on the 11 and 12 January consecutively. This report was considered by Joint Overview and Scrutiny on 3 February 2011. 1.3 Council noted progress on the existing Capital Programme in December 2010. That programme needs to be revisited in the light of changes in financing, the need for new schemes and the implications on the 2011/12 Revenue Budget and the proposed five year programme to 2015/16. 1.4 The Capital Prioritisation Group (Informal Cabinet and SMT) has been considering the projects coming forward using a revised criteria discussed at paragraph 3 below. The group has considered and reviewed the current
97 1 programme in light of the new projects coming through and the resources available. The draft Programme will be included in the Budget and it will be requested that Council consider and approve it at their meeting on the 22 February 2011.
FURTHER BUDGET WORK 1.5 The work on the 5 Year Medium Term Financial Plan is continuing and will be considered by the 16 February Cabinet and the 22 February Council. Any further changes due to Central Government announcements will be incorporated and brought back to Cabinet and Council as part of the February Reports.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS The CABINET members are requested to:
2.1 To consider matters raised by Joint Overview and Scrutiny on 3 February 2011;
2.2 Approve the revised Capital Prioritisation Criteria;
2.3 Consider and approve the Draft 5 Year Capital Programme as a baseline for capital investment and calculation of prudential indicators;
2.4 Recommend to Council that it approves the draft 5 Year Capital programme
PROPOSALS 3 CHANGES SINCE THE 12 JANUARY CABINET REPORT 3.1 The knowledge gained from the second and third quarter budget monitoring exercises has been used to develop both the revenue and capital budget proposals. 3.2 The changes to the previous report arise from: • a review of the Capital Prioritisation Criteria which resulted in an improved scoring system being applied. The revised Criteria reflect a list of considerations which are in line with the best practice model developed by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), which take account of the current economic conditions and constraints local authorities find themselves currently facing. This has been adjusted to reflect the individual circumstances pertaining to SLDC. The existing criteria are attached at Appendix 1 and the proposed revised criteria, with scoring for new and existing projects, are attached at Appendix 2. • The inclusion of proposed new projects which have been scored against the same Prioritisation Criteria. • Single Capital Pot funding has been discontinued from 2011/12 onwards and funding for projects affected has been reduced accordingly. • Five projects were removed from the programme as low priority: Nobles Rest Park Improvements, Private Sector Renewal grants, Energy Efficiency (previously funded from Single Capital Pot), Employment Land in South Lakeland, and the Historic Environment Support Programme. • The General Fund Administrative and Technical allocation was removed as this is no longer required. 98 2 • Two new bids failed to score sufficient points to be included in the draft proposed programme. These were replacement of Ecclerigg Portacabins and Public Jetties Development. • Four bids received are shown at the foot of the proposed capital programme (Appendix 3), these are potential income generation projects. These will be worked up in more detail and brought back for further consideration. This aspect of the capital programme will be reflected in the MTFP. • An additional year (2015/16) has been added to the programme to extend it back to 5 years beyond the current year. 2016/17 is included only to show the vehicle and plant programme amount for that year. The details of the 2010/11 programme have not changed since the last report and are included in Appendix 3. 3.3 At the date of this agenda going to print the potential Programme has been re- scored in the light of the revised scoring criteria. The completed potential 5 Year Programme is attached at Appendix 3 and new projects are highlighted as such.
4 PRESSURES ARISING FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE SPENDING REVIEW 4.1 As set out in the Draft Revenue Budget Report being considered as a separate item on this meeting’s agenda, significant pressures now exist on the Revenue position of the Council in the future. The Provisional Grant Settlement provided by central government reduced the Revenue Support Grant by £1.02m in 2011/12 and a further £648k in 2012/13. Significant savings are required to produce a balanced future budget position as set out in the Revenue Budget Report. 4.2 Members are reminded of the inter-relationship that exists between the Revenue Budget and the Capital Programme approved. Revenue savings will arise from a decision to reduce the borrowing currently assumed in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). The existing MTFP assumes a level of £1m borrowing per annum to 2013/14. The reduction of the Programme to a level which means that this level of Borrowing is not required will deliver reductions in the Revenue Budget requirement and Members are asked to take account of this in their deliberations. Each £1m borrowed has a revenue budget requirement of £100k to cover the capital repayment element over a ten-year period and around £48k per annum in interest.
5 REVISED 2010/11 POSITION 5.1 Spend on the capital programme to the end of December represented 52% of the programme for the year, which totals £9,432.9k. A number of the larger projects are grant projects which are committed and are usually paid in the final quarter of the financial year. The quarter 3 monitoring has been used to finalise the draft programme going forward.
6. DRAFT 5 YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAMME (2011/12 TO 2015/16) 6.1 The draft Capital Programme is attached as Appendix 3 reflects the changes detailed above and the following assumptions:
99 3 • a continuation of current trends for capital receipts, with reduced Right to Buy sales; • no Housing Single Capital Pot funding from 2011/12 onwards; • A reduction to the Disabled Facility Grant funded schemes due to the removal of Single Capital Pot funding. This has been partly replaced with funding from General Resources in the draft proposed programme; • the Council will receive one-third of Cumbria County Council’s income from second homes, for use on Homes to Meet Needs, this has not been factored into the draft programme yet; • the receipt of £45,900 in respect of a claim for Ulverston Tennis Centre, earmarked for remedial works; 6.2 Bids were invited for capital funding in December 2010 and 12 bids were received in total. Three bids were rejected as they were more appropriate for funding from revenue and one bid for a vehicle will be progressed through the Vehicle and Plant Replacement Programme. The bid paperwork will be revised should the proposed new scoring criteria be approved and adopted. 6.3 Project management disciplines should be introduced and once approved within the Capital Programme, no project should proceed until a Project Initiation Document (PID) has been approved by the Senior Management Team. Details of expenditure should be confirmed as meeting the definition of capital expenditure and an Equality Impact Assessment be produced.
7 FUNDING OF THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME 7.1 The general resources available to the Council have declined significantly over the last 6 years. Capital receipts, particularly from the Right to Buy sales of Council Houses, have reduced significantly. In the current economic climate it is unrealistic to expect significant capital receipts from the sale of assets. The draft programme includes provision for a large capital receipt of £1.2m from Grange regeneration in 2013/14. The situation with this item will be kept under review going forward. Previous Capital Programmes have relied on the using the balances in the Fund of Revenue Monies for Capital Purposes but surplus balances no longer exist. 7.2 Over the last few years, there has been relatively high levels of slippage of capital spend compared against the capital programme: Approved Actual Capital Capital Over/(under) spend Programme Spend £000 £000 £000 % 2009/10 10,119.5 6,888.7 (3,230.8) -32% 2008/09 14,168.4 11,841.9 (2,326.4) -16% 2007/08 14,700.7 13,149.5 (1,551.2) -11% 2006/07 17,666.5 15,141.6 (2,524.9) -14% 2005/06 10,800.8 8,989.6 (1,811.2) -17%
100 4 The current Capital Programme and MTFP assumes we borrow £1m in 2010/11 to fund spending. However, if spending this year matches the pattern of previous years it is most unlikely that any of this borrowing will be required this year. The current programme also assumes borrowing would be used as a major source of funding, with £1m to be borrowed each year from 2011/12 to 2013/14. 7.3 In the current financial climate, the levels of borrowing previously assumed are likely to be unaffordable (see section 4.2). Regulations require the Council to set aside monies within the Revenue Budget to fund borrowing based on the life of assets funded through borrowing. This will significantly increase the revenue costs of borrowing, particularly on shorter-life assets such as vehicles. The draft proposed programme attached at Appendix 3 is affordable over the five year period without the need for long-term borrowing. Appendix 4 shows the analysis of the proposed programme undertaken to ensure the need for long-term borrowing was removed.
8 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 8.1 This report sets out various options for Members to consider.
9 NEXT STEPS 9.1 Joint Community and Resources Overview & Scrutiny and Cabinet Members considered the Draft Capital Programme on 11 and 12 January 2011. An update was considered by Joint O&S on 3 February and matters raised by them will be considered by Cabinet along with this report. This report incorporates all known adjustments required. Council will be asked to approve the 5 Year Capital Budget on 22 February 2011.
10 IMPLICATIONS 10.1 Financial and Resources 10.1.1 These form part of the report, the strategic aim being to safeguard the Council’s medium to longer term financial position. 10.2 Human Resources 10.2.1 Officers will play an important role in delivering or enabling the outcomes of the programme to be achieved. 10.3 Legal 9.3.1 This report has no direct legal implications at this stage. 10.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 10.4.1 Sustainability is the principle behind the Budget Strategy set out here which will be further developed.
11 RISK ASSESSMENT All projections of capital income and expenditure involve a degree of uncertainty. These can be managed over the life of the Programme.
101 5 Risk Consequence Controls required Use of prioritisation criteria Inappropriate investment that Adherence to agreed that are insufficiently robust does not reflect corporate prioritisation criteria. priorities with consequent
inability to progress priority schemes. Poor use of resources Capital receipts from asset Resources are not available to Cautious assumptions on sales are over-estimated deliver the full Programme receipts. Regular revision and monitoring. Expenditure assumptions are Resources are not available to Accurate estimation and under-estimated deliver the full Programme monitoring of capital projects. External funding is not Resources are not available to Avoidance of over- available to the extent deliver the full Programme commitment of expenditure assumed in the Programme Programmed slippage does Potential overspending of Close monitoring and ability to not occur Programme slow down progress on schemes.
12 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 12.1 The Capital Programme has not been Equality Impact Assessed but each project within the Capital Programme has had an Equality Impact Assessment. 13 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 13.1 The proposals are based on forecasts that recognise the need for resources to be identified for new developments in the Corporate Plan. Setting a sound framework for budget preparation assists in the delivery of corporate outcomes. This strategy has been developed from the MTFP. 14 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 14.1 This report fleshes out the detail below the framework approved to date. This will ensure the Council directs its financial resources to delivering the priorities within the Corporate Plan. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Capital Prioritisation Criteria – existing system 2 Capital Prioritisation Criteria – proposed system 3 Proposed Draft 5 Year Capital Programme 4 Funding analysis of proposed programme
CONTACT OFFICERS Sue Hill, Corporate Finance Manager Shelagh McGregor, Assistant Director (Resources) & S151 Officer BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE 30/03/2010 Council 2010/11 Medium Term Financial Plan 12/08/2010 Council 2011/12 – 2015/16 Budget Strategy Report 102 6 22/09/2010 Cabinet 2011/12 – 2015/16 Budget Process Progress Report 08/12/2010 & 21/12/2010 Council 2011/12 Draft Revenue & Capital Budgets 21/12/2010 Council Addendum 11&12/01/2011 Joint O&S and Cabinet 2010/11 Budget Report 03/02/2011 Joint O&S 2011/12 Draft 5 year Capital Programme Report
TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee My Report N/A 20/01/2011 03/02/2011 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 09/02/2011 Cabinet 22/02/2011 My Report 20/01/2011 09/02/2011 HRServices Manager N/A
103 7
104 SUMMARY OF SCORING CRITERIA - EXISTING SYSTEM APPENDIX 1
SLDC Schemes (Q10) Deliverability
External External Payback No External Confirmed Funding Funding Permissions in Appropriate < 5 years Funding Funding & CAPITAL PROGRAMME: > 50% 10 - 25% Place Timescale PRIORITISATION CRITERIA AND SCORECHART Resources Overall Or Assessment Partner Schemes (Q11) Q14 Q15 Q16 SLDC SLDC SLDC SLDC Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution < 25% < 50% 75 - 90% 100%
Assessed Basic Score for Maximum Add: Sum of the following Priority Category Criteria on Strategic Fit Add: One of the following Total (up to) Questions (Minimum) Score
A statutory requirement over which 1 Unavoidable Q1 240 20 10 5 0 6 6 7 279 the Council has no choice
A health & safety or business continuity issue where service 2 Essential Q2-6 200 20 10 5 0 6 6 7 239 delivery would fail if the scheme did not proceed
A scheme which is specifically 3 Corporate Outcome identified in the Corporate Plan as Q7 160 20 10 5 0 6 6 7 199 delivering a priority outcome
A scheme which has clear links to corporate outcomes and will have 4 Strong Strategic Fit Q8 120 20 10 5 0 6 6 7 159 a significant impact on service delivery A scheme which has a link to corporate outcomes and will have 5 Good Strategic Fit Q9 80 20 10 5 0 6 6 7 119 a limited impact on service delivery A scheme which does not link to corporate priorities but provides 6 Operational Benefits Q9 40 20 10 5 0 6 6 7 79 positive benefits to service delivery
Marginal benefit to service 7 Other Schemes 0 20 10 5 0 6 6 7 39 delivery
Note: Weighted towards strategic fit: no overlap between priority bands
105
106 SUMMARY OF SCORING AND CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISATION PROCESS JANUARY 2011 - PROPOSED SYSTEM APPENDIX 2
Proposed New Projects Project Ref: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AD service area SE SE SE SE SE CS SE CS Contact Name / Telephone Number Caroline Leigh Jim McGuire Caroline Leigh Jim McGuire Caroline Leigh Nick Pearson Caroline Leigh CMT Lake Lake Project Location Caravan Site Various CPks Ferry Nab Various CPks Ecclerigg Depot Council wide Windermere Windermere
Delivery of Replace Car Car Park Replace Development of Development of Marina Public Jetties mobile working Project Name Park Pay capacity Ecclerigg Caravan Site Ferry Nab site Development Development across the Machines expansion Portacabins Council
Ref: Weighting Criteria Scoring Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score STRATEGIC Number of Priorities met (1=1, 2=3, A 7 Meets Corporate Plan priorities 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 3=5, 4=7) Meets Environmental / B 3 No (0), Yes (3) 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 Sustainability Objectives C 15 Flagship Scheme No (0), Yes (15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RISK MANAGEMENT / CONTINUITY OF SERVICE D 5 Corporate Property Strategy No (0), Yes (5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 Urgency of investment in order to meet statutory obligations (e.g Urgent : Year 1 (15), Year 2 (10), Year E 15 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Disability Discrimination Act, 3 (5), Later Years (0) Health & Safety, Security) Risk assessed as 'red' (serious or Avoiding future business F 10 major impact and likely / very likely to 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 interruption occur) (10); amber (5); green' (0) PROMOTES PARTNERSHIP / JOINT WORKING G 5 Internal 'cross-cutting' benefits No (0), Yes (5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 External 'partnership' benefits - H 5 with public, private or voluntary No (0), Yes (5) 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 sector FINANCIAL Spend to Save Initiative - Annual savings as % of capital cost; 1 - I 15 produces revenue savings / 15 10 15 15 15 0 0 15 5% (5), 6 - 10% (10), > 10% (15) additional income Is part funded from either % of capital cost funded 0 -19% (3), 20 - externally generated resources J 15 39% (6), 40 - 59% (9), 60 - 79% (12), 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 (e.g. grants) or specific capital 80%+ (15) receipts from disposals Meets Value for Money Criteria, promotes 'economy, efficiency & K 5 No (0), Yes (5) 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 effectiveness, e.g. increase in Council Tax revenue Total 100 32 37 32 32 32 23 11 37
1 Capital report Cabinet 90211107 Appendix 2 SUMMARY OF SCORING AND CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISATION PROCESS JANUARY 2011 - PROPOSED SYSTEM APPENDIX 2
Existing Projects Project Ref: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AD service area Contact Name / Telephone Number Value Value? Value? Value? Project Location GR £ £100k 11/12 £302k £40k 11/12 12/13 £333k p.a was £282k scp was £100k scp £498k 11/12 £114k £1350k ? Public Historic Site Assembly Communi Convenie Employment Disabled Carbon Kendal Museum Environment Private Sector Fund For Energy ty nces Project Name Land in S Adaptations/ Reduction Improvements Support Renewal Grants Affordable Efficiency Allocatio (Upgrade Lakeland DFG Programme Programme Housing n And Hand Over) Deliverable Deliverable Deliverable Deliverable No site Dependent on PS homes Deliverability (grants) (grants) (grants to RSLs) (grants) identified match funding (grants)
Ref: Weighting Criteria Scoring Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score STRATEGIC Number of Priorities met (1=1, 2=3, A 7 Meets Corporate Plan priorities 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 3=5, 4=7) Meets Environmental / B 3 No (0), Yes (3) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sustainability Objectives C 15 Flagship Scheme No (0), Yes (15) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 RISK MANAGEMENT / CONTINUITY OF SERVICE D 5 Corporate Property Strategy No (0), Yes (5) 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 Urgency of investment in order to meet statutory obligations (e.g Urgent : Year 1 (15), Year 2 (10), Year E 15 0 5 0 0 0 0 15 10 0 0 Disability Discrimination Act, 3 (5), Later Years (0) Health & Safety, Security) Risk assessed as 'red' (serious or Avoiding future business F 10 major impact and likely / very likely to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 interruption occur) (10); amber (5); green' (0) PROMOTES PARTNERSHIP / JOINT WORKING G 5 Internal 'cross-cutting' benefits No (0), Yes (5) 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 External 'partnership' benefits - H 5 with public, private or voluntary No (0), Yes (5) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 sector FINANCIAL Spend to Save Initiative - Annual savings as % of capital cost; 1 - I 15 produces revenue savings / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 5% (5), 6 - 10% (10), > 10% (15) additional income Is part funded from either % of capital cost funded 0 -19% (3), 20 - externally generated resources J 15 39% (6), 40 - 59% (9), 60 - 79% (12), 9 9 3 9 12 9 9 3 6 3 (e.g. grants) or specific capital 80%+ (15) receipts from disposals Meets Value for Money Criteria, promotes 'economy, efficiency & K 5 No (0), Yes (5) 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 5 effectiveness, e.g. increase in Council Tax revenue Total 100 18 28 11 30 33 18 33 52 35 31
SEE OVER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN THE SCORING PROCESS
2 Capital report Cabinet 90211108 Appendix 2 SUMMARY OF SCORING AND CRITERIA FOR PRIORITISATION PROCESS JANUARY 2011 - PROPOSED SYSTEM APPENDIX 2
Comments A Please tick the priorities summarised below in 'Corporate Plan Priorities' Meets objectives of Environmental Strategy in that the project explicitly takes account of its own impact both within and B outside the district Major project of importance both locally and in the wider area context - such projects to be identified in the Asset C Management Plan Priorities within the Asset Management Plan are projects that 1) part of urgent 'Priority 1' maintenance, or 2) have an D agreed action plan, or 3) are identified as key in the Asset Management Plan Where there are major Health & Safety issues the Capital Prioritisation Group may choose to override the priority score E and recommend a project be included in the Capital Programme Please refer to the risk impact grid on the separate worksheet which should have been completed by the person F completing the capital bid G Projects promoting joint working - across Council services, with other agencies, the public, private & voluntary sectors If a score is given against this criteria, it must be supported by a financial analysis, which shows the estimated revenue H savings and capital costs of the project. Where revenue savings are identified, they will also need to be included in the relevant revenue budget If a score is given against this criteria, it must be supported by a financial analysis, which shows the estimated reduction I in Council Tax arising from the project The available points have been allocated to the criteria in an attempt to 'weight' them in terms of their relative priority to J the Council. (The scoring system will be reviewed in use and if changes are needed then these will be implemented)
3 Capital report Cabinet 90211109 Appendix 2
110 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL Appendix 3 Five Year Capital Programme (February 2011 Approval)
Programmed Expenditure
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total GL Code Project Title (** New projects January 2011) £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's
JDW Decency Project - SLH Supervision (Incl NPS) 18.2 18.2 JDX Decency Project - Sustainability 93.9 93.9 JNA90 Council Houses - Aids & Adaptations 430.0 290.0 290.0 290.0 290.0 290.0 1,880.0 JNI30 South Lakes Housing, Choice Based Letting System 26.3 26.3 JNI33 South Lakes Housing, Asset Management 8.9 8.9 JNM50060 Council Houses - Other Major Repairs 1,912.1 1,799.2 1,799.2 1,799.2 1,799.2 1,799.2 10,908.1 JNM50070 Housing Play Areas 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 120.0 KDE03 Low Mill Business Park Phase II 10.0 10.0 KGT20 Site Assembly Fund For Affordable Housing 1,088.0 1,088.0 KGT25 Buy Back Scheme: RTB Homes 398.7 398.7 KMR21 Kendal Museum Improvements 602.0 602.0 KMR22 Castle Dairy Essential Repairs 140.0 140.0 KPE11 Environmental Partnerships 21.3 21.3 KPE16 Greenside Limekiln, Kendal, Renovation 43.6 43.6 KPG01 Historic Environment Support Programme 24.9 24.9 KRE04 Grange Regeneration Programme 46.9 46.9 KRE55 New Road Common scheme preparation 0.0 70.0 70.0
Community Investment &DevelopmentCommunity Investment Totals Community Investment & Development 4,282.8 2,179.2 2,109.2 2,711.2 2,109.2 2,109.2 0.0 15,500.8
111 -1 - 31/01/11 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL Appendix 3 Five Year Capital Programme (February 2011 Approval)
Programmed Expenditure
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total GL Code Project Title (** New projects January 2011) £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's
KEG33 Stockbeck Drainage Land & Construction 1.3 1.3 KGD21 Disabled Facilities Grants 459.0 366.0 365.0 326.0 326.0 226.0 2,068.0 KGP11 Private Sector Renewal Grants 400.0 400.0 KGS01 Affordable Housing Grants (AHRG) 480.4 365.4 365.4 365.4 365.4 365.4 2,307.4 KGT22 Energy Efficiency 179.1 179.1 KGT23 Disabled Adaptations 200.0 200.0 KGX17 Town View Fields Hostel Improvements 57.1 57.1 KLR22 Rothay Park, Ambleside 82.0 82.0 KLR50 Play South Lakeland (Big Lottery) 107.7 107.7 KLS21 Ulverston Tennis Centre Remedial Works 45.9 45.9 KRE99 Lightburn Park, Ulverston, Skateboard Facility 16.3 16.3 KSC91 Vehicle & Plant Programme 1,053.3 2,666.0 446.0 1,009.0 321.0 571.0 1,696.0 7,762.3 KTY02 The Tram Footpath, Kendal Heights 12.0 12.0
Totals Community Services 3,048.2 3,443.3 1,176.4 1,700.4 1,012.4 1,162.4 1,696.0 13,239.1
KIT19 Replacement Revenues & Benefits System 252.4 252.4 Mobile Working ** 100.0 100.0
Focus Totals Customer Focus 252.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 352.4 Customer
KXF50 Transformation Agenda 213.9 213.9 KXW21 Carbon Reduction Programme 177.6 57.0 57.0 291.6 KXX01 Community Allocation 102.0 102.0 204.0
VisionTotals Corporate Vision CommunityServices 493.5 159.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 709.5 Corporate
112 -2 - 31/01/11 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL Appendix 3 Five Year Capital Programme (February 2011 Approval)
Programmed Expenditure
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total GL Code Project Title (** New projects January 2011) £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's
JTR01 Admin & Technical Support Met By MRA 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 168.0 JTR01 HRA Admin Support 33.2 33.2 KIT25 Upgrade Financial Systems 28.4 28.4 KXR51 GF Administrative & Technical Support 34.5 34.5
Resources Totals Resources 124.1 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 0.0 264.1
KEP51 Public Conveniences (Upgrade And Hand Over) 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 KLL16 Rayrigg Meadow Public Jetties 25.1 25.1 KMR01 Clare House Lane Bridge, Grange 494.8 494.8 KPY22 Main Street, Grange Car Park, Complete Refurbishment 2.0 2.0 KPY38 Westmorland Shoping Centre Car Park Refurbishment 200.0 600.0 200.0 1,000.0 Replace Car Park Pay Machines ** 150.0 150.0 300.0 KPY41 DDA Works to Car Parks 170.0 170.0 KXB26 South Lakeland House Heat/Chiller Unit 340.0 340.0
Social Enterprise Social Totals Social Enterprise 1,231.9 1,250.0 850.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,331.9
PROGRAMME TOTALS 9,432.9 7,159.5 4,220.6 4,439.6 3,149.6 3,299.6 1,696.0 33,397.8
113 -3 - 31/01/11 SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL Appendix 3 Five Year Capital Programme (February 2011 Approval)
Programmed Expenditure
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total GL Code Project Title (** New projects January 2011) £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's
Programmed Funding EARMARKED RESOURCES: Disabled Facilities Grant 266.0 266.0 265.0 226.0 226.0 226.0 1,475.0 Big Lottery Grant 107.7 107.7 Heritage Lottery Grant 43.6 43.6 NWDA Grant 0.0 Other Grants & Contributions 300.0 300.0 Stockbeck Drainage Grant 1.3 1.3 Single Capital Pot 1,972.9 1,972.9 Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) 2,390.1 2,137.2 2,137.2 2,137.2 2,137.2 2,137.2 13,076.1 MRA Decent Homes 112.1 112.1
Second Homes Discount 680.4 665.4 665.4 665.4 665.4 665.4 4,007.4
Leasing of Vehicles 1,053.3 2,666.0 446.0 1,009.0 321.0 571.0 1,696.0 7,762.3
LABGI Reserve 0.0 GF Major Repairs Reserve 310.0 310.0
TOTAL EARMARKED RESOURCES 6,937.4 5,734.6 3,513.6 4,337.6 3,349.6 3,599.6 1,696.0 29,168.4
GENERAL RESOURCES: Capital Receipts 261.7 437.0 250.0 1,300.0 250.0 250.0 2,748.7 Fund of Revenue Monies for Capital Purposes 235.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 735.0 Borrowing - Unsupported 1,000.0 1,000.0 TOTAL GENERAL RESOURCES 1,496.7 537.0 350.0 1,400.0 350.0 350.0 0.0 4,483.7
Slippage 998.8 887.9 357.0 (1,298.0) (550.0) (650.0) 0.0 (254.3)
TOTAL RESOURCES 9,432.9 7,159.5 4,220.6 4,439.6 3,149.6 3,299.6 1,696.0 33,397.8
PROPOSED PROJECTS GENERATING INCOME TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION Development of Caravan Site ** 200.0 200.0 Development of Ferry Nab site ** 150.0 150.0 300.0 Car Park capacity expansion ** 150.0 850.0 1,000.0 2,000.0 Marina Development ** 150.0 150.0 300.0 0.0 450.0 1,350.0 1,000.0 0.0 0.0 2,800.0
114 -4 - 31/01/11 APPENDIX 4
Capital Projects 2011/12 onwards - Prioritised January 2011 - Summary
Current Programme TOTAL Cumulative Other TOTAL ALL New projects Score General Resources General General funding FUNDING Resources Resources 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Ref: Project Title £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k Nobles Rest Park, Kendal, Improvements Not scored 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GF Administrative & Technical Support Not scored 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ulverston Tennis Centre Remedial Works Earmarked 45.9 45.9 45.9 45.9 New Road Common scheme preparation Committed 70.0 70.0 115.9 70.0 Westmorland Shoping Centre Car Park Refurbishment Committed 600.0 200.0 800.0 915.9 800.0 Public Conveniences Committed 500.0 500.0 1,000.0 1,915.9 1,000.0 Carbon Reduction Programme 52 57.0 57.0 114.0 2,029.9 114.0 2 Replace Car Park Pay Machines 37 150.0 150.0 300.0 2,329.9 300.0 12 Mobile working 37 100.0 100.0 2,429.9 100.0 Community Allocation 35 102.0 102.0 2,531.9 102.0 Site Assembly Fund For Affordable Housing 33 0.0 2,531.9 0.0 Disabled Facilities Grants 33 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 400.0 2,931.9 1,914.0 2,314.0 Disabled Adaptations Scored with DFG 0.0 2,931.9 0.0 FUND TO HERE NO BORROWING OVER 5 YEAR PERIOD (Note a) Private Sector Renewal Grants 30 0.0 2,931.9 268.0 268.0 Kendal Museum Improvements 28 302.0 302.0 3,233.9 300.0 602.0 PROPOSED PROJECTS GENERATING INCOME TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION 1 Development of Caravan Site 32 200.0 200.0 3,433.9 200.0 3 Development of Ferry Nab site 32 150.0 150.0 300.0 3,733.9 300.0 4 Car Park capacity expansion 32 150.0 850.0 1,000.0 2,000.0 5,733.9 2,000.0 5 Marina Development 32 150.0 150.0 300.0 6,033.9 300.0 FUND TO HERE WITH BORROWING OVER 5 YEAR PERIOD (Note b) PROJECTS FUNDED FROM EXTERNAL RESOURCES Council Houses - Aids & Adaptations MRA 0.0 0.0 1,160.0 1,160.0 Council Houses - Other Major Repairs MRA 0.0 0.0 7,196.8 7,196.8 Housing Play Areas MRA 0.0 0.0 80.0 80.0 Affordable Housing Grants (AHRG) Second Homes 0.0 0.0 1,461.6 1,461.6 Vehicle & Plant Programme Leasing 0.0 0.0 6,709.0 6,709.0 Admin & Technical Support Met By MRA MRA 0.0 0.0 112.0 112.0
PROGRAMMED EXPENDITURE 1,724.9 1,457.0 1,752.0 1,100.0 0.0 0.0 6,033.9 19,201.4 25,235.3
Total General Resources Available (assuming borrowing of £1m p.a. for 4 years 1,511.7 1,386.9 2,400.0 1,350.0 350.0 6,998.6 25,235.3 Total General Resources Available (assumes no borrowing) 511.7 386.9 1,400.0 350.0 350.0 2,998.6
Note a Funding to this level would leave unallocated resources of (66.7)
Note b Funding to this level would leave underallocated resources of (964.7) For Information SCHEMES FAILING TO MEET THE MINIMUM SCORE REQUIREMENT 6 Replace Ecclerigg Portacabins 23 150.0 150.0 150.0 Energy Efficiency 18 0.0 0.0 Employment Land In South Lakeland 18 100.0 100.0 100.0 Historic Environment Support Programme 11 20.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 7 Public Jetties Development 11 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 270.0 70.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 390.0 390.0
1 Capital report O&S 30211115 Appendix 4
116 PART I Agenda Item No: 14
South Lakeland District Council CABINET Meeting Date: 9th February 2011 Report Author: Caroline Leigh – Corporate Asset Manager Portfolio: Cllr Clare Feeney-Johnson – Environment and Sustainability Report from: Assistant Director Social Enterprise Wards affected: All Key Decision: KD10/027/E&S Forward Plan: 1st September to 31st December 2010 PUBLIC CONVENIENCES – NEXT STEPS 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to allow the transfer of a number of public conveniences at less than best consideration to interested parties and to start investigating the available options for the retained conveniences 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Cabinet:- (1) Agree to the transfer of the public convenience listed in Appendix 1 to this report to the interested parish/town councils and/or local community groups by way of lease; and (2) Agree that the lease is at less than best consideration as by doing so this will help secure the social, economic and environmental well being of the area; and (3) Authorise the Corporate Director (Monitoring Officer) to finalise the transfer terms of the leases. (4) Authorise invitations to tender through the negotiation procurement route for the retained public conveniences and explore options for joint procurement with other parties. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 At Cabinet on the 15th October 2010 the decision was made that SLDC would commit to retaining certain key public conveniences and fund a community toilet scheme. The remaining public conveniences would be open to offers from local parish/town councils or other interested bodies.
117
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 Since Cabinet on the 15th October 2010 meetings have been held with interested Parish and Town Councils or other interested parties. From these meetings Heads of Terms have been presented to the interested parties in respect of toilets which they are interested in. 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 With regard to potential transfers to interested parties the proposal is to transfer the public conveniences listed in Appendix 1 on leases at £1 per annum rent, which is at less than best consideration. 5.2 Within the lease the main stipulation is that the primary use needs to remain as a public convenience. If the tenant decides that they can no longer sustain the costs of opening the public convenience then a break notice can be served and the building reverts back to SLDC to dispose of. 5.3 In normal circumstances the disposal of surplus Council-owned property by the grant of leases in excess of seven years for less than best consideration (generally market value) would contravene S123 of the Local Government Act 1972. Also the introduction of restrictive covenants, such as restricting the use to public convenience purposes only, within such disposals to artificially drive down the disposal value would also be a contravention of that Act. However, under the General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 it is permissible to make disposals at less than best consideration if those disposals contribute to the social, economic and environmental well being of the area. Such discounts on the disposal price must not exceed £2 million in each individual case. In each case the discounts will not exceed the statutory limit. 5.4 It is considered that the grant of the leases on the proposed terms is in the best social, economic and environmental interests of the district as it enables those public conveniences to remain open for the benefit of the community and residents. It also has a wider impact in that it could encourage tourism and visitors to remain in the area and reduces anti social behaviour. 5.5 While the above reach their conclusion, the other proposal is to start investigating the options available for the retained public conveniences. Cabinet on 15 October instructed Officers to develop options for the future management of the retained conveniences and report back to Cabinet on the more detailed revenue and capital implications. To fully understand all options available the Procurement and Contracts Manger has advised that this needs to be done through a procurement route. It has been advised that due to the large number of different scenarios available that the negotiation route for the procurement is followed. 5.6 Investigations will also continue to explore options of joint procurement with other interested bodies or working in partnership. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 The alternative options are to first of all transfer the public conveniences to those interested parties at market value. This is not recommended as this will make the cost of running the public conveniences prohibitive to the interested parties and those conveniences would close.
118 6.2 With regards to the retained conveniences the alternative option is to continue operations as existing, however all options need to be considered to ensure that these conveniences will be managed and upgraded to a high standard. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 If approved, negotiations will continue with interested parties in order to finalise Heads of Terms. 7.2 Once terms have been finalised the transfer terms and conditions will be agreed under delegated powers. 7.3 Legal services will then be instructed to complete the leases with the aim to do so prior to the 1st April 2011. 7.4 The tender process will commence for the retained public conveniences. Joint procurement options will also be explored with other parties and a report will be brought back to a future Cabinet for consideration. 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The financial arguments for closure of the public conveniences has been demonstrated in previous reports. 8.1.2 Disposal of the public conveniences at less than best consideration will require the Council to forgo the potential capital receipts from any sales on the open market. 8.1.3 There are 25 public conveniences being offered for transfer. Many will have a low value and it is not considered cost effective for a market valuation for each individual property just to demonstrate the amount of each individual discount. 8.1.4 The Part II appendix provides the range of market values which will demonstrate the compliance with the General Disposal Consent discount limit. Please note that in accordance with Section 100B(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, copies of this appendix are excluded from inspection by members of the public as the report contains information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, as follows – namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any other person (including the authority holding that information). 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 Previous reports have considered HR issues. However there may be further implications dependent on the outcome of future decisions which are not known at this stage 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 Legal Services are dealing with the completion of the leases. Whilst there is a presumption that land would be sold at best consideration reasonably obtainable it is considered that the current proposals will help to secure the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of the area because the community and local residents will benefit and that it could encourage tourism and visitors to remain in the area and reduces anti social behaviour.
119 8.3.2 When disposing of land at less than best consideration authorities are providing a subsidy to the purchaser. However given that there is no real competition as regards the provision of toilets it is considered that there is no breach of EU State Aid rules. 8.3.3 Advice has been sought from NPS as to the best and worst case scenarios as regards undervalues in respect of the proposals set out in this report. The Council has therefore complied with guidance set out in the Technical appendix to the Circular 06/03: Local Government Act 1972 general disposal consent (England) 2003 disposal of land for less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? No as the current operation is considered unsustainable. 8.4.2 This proposal is considered to have a positive impact on sustainability, as it will reduce consumption of resources in cleaning and maintaining toilets as well as travel between sites. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Legal challenge to the Reversal by the Courts of Identify the discount, basis of disposal the Council’s decision to establish that it can be sell at less than best justified under the GDC consideration 2003 and publicly record the reasons for the decision. Not being able to transfer Unlikely that interested Ensure that leases are public conveniences at parties will be able to provided with the less than best proceed as the costs will covenant that primary consideration become prohibitive and use remains as a public further conveniences will convenience so that the close terms of the General Disposal Consent can be satisfied.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 The decision made will affect all stakeholder groups equally. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1.1 People’s essential needs are addressed through effective public services in South Lakeland. 3.1 The public realm in South Lakeland is upgraded, protecting and enhancing its special character. 3.2 The visitor industry is sustainable and meets the needs of both local and visitors. CP 50 Review public toilet facilities (Link to Outcomes 3.1, 3.2, 1.1).
120 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 At this moment in time it is expected that a number of the public conveniences will be transferred at less than best consideration to interested parties to enable the Communities to continue with the provision. 12.2 Officers will consider fully the options for those conveniences which are to be retained. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Public Conveniences – List of potential transfers 2 (Part II) Market values CONTACT OFFICERS Michael Keane, Assistant Director Social Enterprise – [email protected] Caroline Leigh, Corporate Asset Manager – [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE 1) Cabinet Report 22nd September 2010 and decision minute EX/133 TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 13/01/11 25/01/11 14/01/11 20/01/11 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 20/01/11 21/01/11 Human NPS Resource Services Manager N/A 13/01/11
121
122 PUBLIC CONVENIENCES – APPENDIX 1 1. The purpose of this Appendix is to list the public conveniences which have interested parties and are in negotiations about the proposed transfer:
Aldingham Rothay Park, Ambleside Low Fold, Ambleside Chapel Stile, Ambleside Arnside Promenade, Arnside Bardsea Bowness Bay, Bowness Rayrigg Road, Bowness Rayrigg Meadow, Bowness Baddeley Clock, Bowness Ferry Nab, Bowness Braithwaite Fold, Bowness Pinfold Car Park, Bowness Broad Street, Windermere Broughton Cark in Cartmel Cartmel Coniston Bridge, Consiton Promenade Playground, Grange Church Hill, Grange Jingling Lane, Kirkby Lonsdale Abbey Square, Staveley Joss Lane, Sedbergh Brogden Street, Ulverston Lindale
123
124 PART I
Agenda Item No: 15
South Lakeland District Council CABINET Meeting Date: 9th February 2010 Report Author: Graham Darlington – Conservation Officer Portfolio: Housing and Development - Councillor Peter Thornton Report from: Corporate Director Communities Wards affected: Milnthorpe Ward Key Decision: Not applicable Forward Plan: Not applicable Conservation Area Designation Appraisal - Leasgill 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To consider a Conservation Area Designation Appraisal prepared following a request from Heversham Parish Council for Leasgill to be considered for designation as a conservation area. The Statement assesses whether the village possesses the special architectural or historic interest required to be worthy of designation. The assessment has been subject to consultation with the Parish Council. Though the recommendation is not to proceed with designation, the Designation Appraisal enables better understanding of the architectural and historic interest in the settlement, which the community might want to use to inform its own future consideration of the local historic environment. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that, having considered this report and its conclusions, Cabinet agree not to designate Leasgill as a conservation area. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 In May 2009 Heversham Parish Council wrote to South Lakeland District Council to ask whether the village of Leasgill might be considered for possible conservation area designation. At that time SLDC was engaged in a review of its ten existing conservation areas and the parish council was advised that any assessment of Leasgill would not take place until the review programme was completed. 3.2 Conservation Areas are statutorily defined ‘’areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’’ (Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas Act 1990) (“the 1990 Act”). Guidance for the assessment and management of conservation
125 areas is provided by central Government in ‘’Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment’’ (PPS 5) 2010 and in ”Conservation Area Practice’’ published by English Heritage in 2006. 3.3 The 1990 Act makes it a statutory requirement for local authorities to review their conservation areas from time to time and to determine whether any parts or any further parts of their area should be designated as conservation areas. English Heritage advises that: Deciding which areas are of ‘special architectural or historic interest’ is ultimately a matter for the judgement of local planning authorities. The assessment of an area’s special interest should be made against local (district-wide) criteria. Local distinctiveness and community value, ‘specialness’, in the local or regional context, should be recognised in drawing up these criteria.
4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 The review of the council’s ten existing conservation areas was completed in July 2009 and in January 2010 the council’s conservation officer began an assessment of Leasgill to consider the potential for designation. Fieldwork was concluded in May 2010 and the written character appraisal of Leasgill’s built and historic environment was completed in July 2010. 4.2 The council consulted with the Heversham Parish Council on this matter in September 2010. A formal response from the parish council was received on 23rd December 2010. This states: The draft conservation area designation statement as prepared by SLDC was considered. The assessment has concluded the architectural and historic interest of Leasgill cannot be said to be special and that the designation of the area as a conservation area would not therefore be appropriate. County Cllr Bingham expressed the opinion that Leasgill was worthy of interest but had reservations regarding some of the factual details of a small number of the buildings. After a short discussion it was resolved to accept the conclusion of the report and for County Cllr Bingham to make a response with respect to correcting any inaccuracies.
5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 Appendices 1-3 contain a Conservation Area Designation Assessment and Analysis Maps for Leasgill. This assesses considers whether there is sufficient architectural or historic interest to warrant designating the village as a conservation area
6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 The alternative option would be to disagree with officer advice and to designate the village as a conservation area. Any such designation would require a boundary to be determined based on the area’s special interest. In order to do so members would need to be satisfied that, notwithstanding the officer’s advice,
126 there is sufficient interest in the area for it to be recognised as being special enough for statutory designation. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 The Heversham Parish Council will be contacted to notify them of the council’s decision. 7.2 If Cabinet chooses instead to designate the area as a conservation area then the following formal notifications and publicity will need to be undertaken. Notification must be sent to the Government Office for the North West and this would include a map of the area boundary, a copy of the committee resolution, and the date on which the area was designated. In addition, English Heritage would be formally notified and a similar description and map should be sent to their regional team in Manchester. All new designations must be advertised in the London Gazette and at least one local newspaper. These advertisements do not normally include a map and so the boundary will have to be described in a succinct way by defining the route it takes or by including a schedule of affected properties. 7.3 In addition, all those affected by the designation would be contacted in writing to inform them of the decision and to explain the implications of designation on them as householders, once the council’s decision has been determined. Internal notifications would be posted to Legal, Land Charges, Development Management and Housing. 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 There are no financial implications associated with the report recommendations as drafted. However if members decide to designate the village or part thereof as a Conservation Area there will be costs comprising the advertisement cost which will be in the region of £1,500 and staff time dealing with the formal notifications. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 There are no human resources or staffing implications associated with the report. 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 The 1990 Act makes it a statutory requirement for local planning authorities to review their conservation areas from time to time and to determine whether any parts or any further parts of their area should be designated as conservation areas. The assessment complies with the council’s legal responsibilities, as set out in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of this report. The investigation and analysis contained in the assessment has been undertaken using the 2006 guidance provided by English Heritage and having regard to PPS 5. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 Development management of conservation areas has a central role to play in conserving heritage assets and utilising the historic environment to create sustainable places that will be enjoyed by this and future generations. Local environments that are protected by designation usually offer a range of attractive and accessible buildings and high quality public spaces that can stimulate local
127 people and offer distinctive places where communities are keen to work, socialise and invest in. 8.4.2 In determining planning permission and listed building/conservation area consent applications as they affect heritage assets such as listed buildings and buildings within designated areas, PPS 5 is a material consideration. Policies within PPS 5 require the specific consideration of the need to consider the implications of climate change and the need to resolve conflicts between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage asset. The adaptive re-use of heritage assets avoids the consumption of building materials, energy and the generation of waste from the construction of replacement buildings. For these reasons the designation of conservation areas is considered to have the potential for a very positive affect on sustainability. 8.4.3 The evaluative nature of the appraisal required for the preparation of the designation assessment that forms this proposal, is considered to have the potential for a positive impact on sustainability. However, given that conservation area designation is not being recommended for Leasgill due to its lack of special historic environment significance, it was felt that a sustainability impact assessment would not need to be prepared to support this report. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Decision not to designate A third party challenges The designation the decision not to assessment has been designate prepared in compliance with detailed guidance issued by English Heritage and has been undertaken by a qualified and experienced special adviser employed by the council. Decision to designate A third party might legally Ensure that when making against officer’s challenge the decision. its decision Cabinet gives recommendation careful consideration to the arguments put forward concerning the need for specialness when designating conservation areas.
10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 An Environmental Impact Assessment has not been prepared as this report as its outcomes would not constitute a new service or policy, or affect the alteration of an existing service or policy.
10.2 However, the historic environment plays a significant role in establishing local quality and identity in the district’s settlements and landscape character. The
128 conservation of heritage assets, such as buildings within conservation areas, though effective development management helps to sustain distinctive local buildings and historic areas and sites and helps create a tangible and evocative link with the past that reinforces civic pride and offers valuable opportunities for learning and recreation. Protected local environments that offer a range of attractive and accessible buildings and public spaces stimulates people of all backgrounds and offers distinctive places where communities are keen to come together to work and socialise.
11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 11.1 The activities described in this report are linked to the following objectives of the Corporate Plan: Outcome: 1.7 South Lakeland’s development is balanced against protecting the area’s natural and built environment.
Target: NI 197 Increase the proportion of Local Sites where positive conservation management has been or is being implemented 33% to 39% by March 2011.
Key Projects: Conserve areas previously developed to a high quality. Also linked with Local Target: Consult upon and adopt the Local Development Framework by May 2010.
3.1 The public realm in South Lakeland is upgraded, protecting and enhancing its special character (D/E)
12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 Paragraph 2 of this report confirms that, for the reasons outlined in Section 5, it is recommended that Cabinet agree not to designate Leasgill as a conservation area. Paragraph 7 identifies the formal consultations that will be required, depending on the resolution made by Cabinet.
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Conservation Area Designation Assessment for Leasgill Village 2 Architectural Quality Map appendix 3 Townscape Character Map appendix
CONTACT OFFICERS Graham Darlington, Conservation Officer. Phone: 01539 717338. E-Mail: [email protected]
129 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE E-Mail from Heversham Parish Council Heversham – A Website History: - http://www.heversham.org/heversham_history_bingham_1.html
TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 12/01/2011 N/A Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer N/A N/A Human Resource Services Manager N/A
130 Conservation Area Designation Assessment for Leasgill – APPENDIX 1
Contents Section 1.0 Introduction and Legislative Background 2.0 The Location and Demography of the Settlement 3.0 Geology, Geomorphology and Landscape Setting 4.0 Archaeological Significance and Potential 5.0 The Origins & Historic Development of the Village 6.0 Settlement Analysis and Evaluation 6.0.1 Introduction to the Organisation of the Appraisal 6.0.2 Character and Appearance – General Influences 6.0.3 The Evaluation of Architectural Quality 6.1 Spatial Structure 6.2 Townscape Character 6.3 Architectural Quality 7.0 Summary 8.0 Conclusions Tables: Table 1: Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. Table 2: Unlisted Buildings that are considered to have a Positive Architectural Quality Maps Appendices: Map Appendix 1: Architectural Quality Map Appendix 2: Townscape Features and Spatial Characteristics
131 1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 In May 2009 Heversham Parish Council wrote to South Lakeland District Council to ask whether the village of Leasgill might be considered for possible conservation area designation. At that time SLDC was engaged in a review of its ten existing conservation areas and the parish council was advised that any assessment of Leasgill would have to wait until this review programme was completed. The last of these ten areas was reviewed in July 2009 and in January 2010 the conservation officer at SLDC began an assessment of Leasgill to consider the potential for designation. Fieldwork took place between January and May 2010 and this written character appraisal of Leasgill’s built and historic environment was completed in July 2010. 1.2 Conservation Areas are statutorily defined ‘’areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’’ (Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.Guidance for the management of conservation areas is provided by central Government in ‘’Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning & the Historic Environment’’, 1994 (PPG15) and in ‘’Conservation Area Practice’’ published by English Heritage in 2006.
1.3 The 1990 Act makes it a statutory requirement for Local authorities to review their Conservation Areas from time to time and to determine whether any parts or any further parts of their area should be designated as conservation areas. English Heritage advises that: Deciding which areas are of ‘special architectural or historic interest’ is ultimately a matter for the judgement of local planning authorities. The assessment of an area’s special interest should be made against local (district-wide) criteria. Local distinctiveness and community value, ‘specialness’, in the local or regional context, should be recognised in drawing up these criteria.
1.5 This draft assessment has been prepared by Graham Darlington, Conservation Officer in the Development Strategy Group of South Lakeland District Council, who are the local planning authority for the area. Desktop research was undertaken, including historic map analysis; physical inspection of the buildings and spaces; and some secondary source materials were examined as part of the preparation of this appraisal. Special acknowledgment must be given to access to the information contained on the Heversham-a Website History, by local historian Mr Roger Bingham and also to the Heversham and Leasgill Community Website.
2.0 THE LOCATION & DEMOGRAPHY OF THE SETTLEMENT 2.1 Leasgill was historically situated in the very southernmost part of the mediaeval county of Westmorland, but following local government review in the 1970s it became part of the modern county of Cumbria and is now a small village in the local government district of South Lakeland. The village is located 10km south of
132 Kendal, 25km Lancaster, and some 80 km distant from Carlisle, the county city of modern Cumbria. The modern A6 road passes alongside the west edge of the village on its way from Lancaster to Kendal. The wider civil parish had a resident population of 647 at the time of the 2001 Census.
2.2 In the area of Leasgill the Pennine range and its western foothills reach almost to the Irish Sea coastline leaving only a narrow, undulating land passage that has been used by successive inhabitants of the west coast as an important north to south trading, military and communications route since earliest times. Immediately to the west of the village is The Moss, a low flat plain of reclaimed marshland on the estuarine fringe of Morecambe Bay, now in use as productive agricultural fields; while to the east is an extensive area of low undulating hills formed from low limestone humps and accreted glacial moraines.
3.0 GEOLOGY, GEOMORPHOLOGY AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 3.1 Leasgill has a very distinctive landscape setting, which is shaped by its location at the intersection of two contrasting geomorphologies: the village sits on the slightly elevated western edge of a band of small limestone hills and accreted glacial moraines, while immediately to the east is a wide estuarine flood plain formed by both the River Kent and the upper tidal reaches of Morecambe Bay.
3.2 The underlying solid geology of the wider area consists predominantly of Carboniferous limestones, some Silurian shales and slates, and occasional sandstones. Strong faulting within the limestone resulted in the creation of a series of steep sided blocks, separated by lower lying basins. The last glaciation resulted in the erosion of these higher blocks into numerous stepped and rounded hills and the deposition of numerous morainic drumlins and eskers within the basins, such as those found at Haysteads and Parkhill, immediately to the south west of Leasgill. The concurrent lowering of sea levels resulted in the headward erosion of nearby river systems and the formation of knickpoints, or steep changes to river bed profiles, and the formation of waterfalls, such as the cascade by Beetham’s Heron Corn mill on the River Bela, to the south, and at Force Falls and Heversham Force Falls on the River Kent.
3.3 The local drift geology consists of glacio-fluvial deposits, comprising predominantly of boulder clay tills on the hillier ground; and lowland raised mires or mosses in the Kent flood plan and intertidal reaches of the bay. The latter was sometimes traditionally worked as peat cuttings by villagers but today this has now largely been drained and claimed for agriculture. Alluvial clays are also to be found in the former estuary and during the C19th clay from Heversham Marsh was turned into bricks for use in the formation of the roof of the Hincaster canal tunnel on the Lancaster to Kendal Canal, and in the construction of bridges and other structures on the London and North Western Railway.
133 3.4 Apart from a few seasonal rills draining onto the former Moss there are no surface watercourses in Leasgill. However, there is a conspicuous spring line, arranged in a roughly north-south axis, located above the River Kent’s and coastal flooding levels, which would have supplied drinking/washing water to the village’s inhabitants. 3.5 This ancient and more modern geological activity and the geographical position of narrow coastal/Pennine gap is likely to have been a notable factor bearing on the decision to settle the Leasgill/Heversham area. It would have affected the area’s economic development, and had a marked impact on the visual character of the village itself, both in terms of the topographical backdrop to the settlement and in the appearance of many of the settlement's traditional buildings, which are invariably constructed from locally quarried natural limestone.
3.6 Many of the earliest buildings in the area would have been constructed from timber. Later, clearance stone or stone extracted from convenient local outcrops would have been used on higher status buildings, and only in the post mediaeval period was there a significant surge in demand for more robust construction materials for all forms of new building. In an age prior to local transport improvements in the mid C19th, this invariably meant the use of vernacular materials from local sources. In Leasgill’s case this meant the exploitation of an indigenous pale grey Carboniferous limestone, which produced hard, slightly permeable masonry for constructional use. There were several masonry quarries close to the village with the chief one being on the south west corner of Heversham Head, while one was sited at the southern end of Princes Way, which produced a pink tinged limestone. Because of the slightly porous nature of this material some buildings appear to have been once covered in render or roughcast and historic photographs suggest that many of these buildings would have been further protected with limewash.
3.7 Since the early C18th the predominant roofing material in the Cumberland and Westmorland area has been slate. The main quarry for roofing slate was at Kirkby Moor, 40km to the west of Leasgill, where ‘blue-grey’ roofing slates were produced. The traditional technique of cutting these slates to different lengths for laying in graduated or diminishing courses is a distinctive practice that has had a significant impact on the characteristic appearance of the roofscape in many local settlements, including Leasgill. However, it is also notable here that some non- indigenous roofing slates and building materials from further afield, and particularly the slate quarries in North Wales, which produced bluer and purple slates cut in regular coursing sizes, are found on some roofs in the village and that the coming of the near by railway in 1891 probably stimulated the introduction of this alternative roofing material.
4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND POTENTIAL
4.1 Very little archaeological work has been undertaken within the parish of Heversham, and no intrusive archaeological work is recorded in Leasgill Additionally, finds of archaeological material are also very rare. 4.2 A fragmentary cross shaft currently in the church porch at Heversham is likely to date from the eighth century, while a fragment of worked stone built into the south
134 wall of the church is possibly of a similar date (Bailey and Cramp 988). The sculpture was almost certainly associated with the monastic site recorded as Hefresham in the eleventh century (Curwen 1925). Continuity from pre-conquest monastic sites into the post-conquest conquest period cannot be proven at any site in Cumbria (C Newman 2006), and thus the location of the pre-conquest monastic complex at Heversham/south Leasgill is not known. Some commentators have suggested that the irregular shape of the current churchyard belies the boundaries of earlier monastic site, but this is far from certain and it is possible that the monastic site could extend into the southern part of Leasgill. 4.3 Given the postulated post-mediaeval date for much of the settlement at Leasgill there is considered to be modest archaeological potential for medieval remains within the settlement area, beneath and within the environs of standing buildings. Furthermore, any opportunity to examine the wider environs of the church and churchyard at Heversham and the southern portion of Leasgill should be exploited. The location of the early medieval monastic complex is not known, and remains from that period could conceivably be located anywhere within this geographical area and care should be taken during any investigation that the techniques employed are appropriate. 4.4 The North West Archaeological Research Framework highlighted the need for further work into the origins of village nucleation and evidence of continuity from earlier periods, but acknowledged the lack of excavated evidence hindered study (Newman and Newman 2007). For most areas, the most basic elements of chronology, economy, and consumption are largely unknown for rural settlements. The continuity, morphology, and landscape development of the village are all relevant avenues of research for Leasgill, and any archaeological information toward these aims would represent a valuable addition to the current dataset. 5.0 THE ORIGINS & HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE VILLAGE
5.1 Some evidence of prehistoric activity has been found locally to Leasgill. At Watercrook a Neolithic flint scraper was discovered, while various axe and arrowheads from near by Levens Park suggest that Neolithic people were probably exploiting the Leasgill area by c.4000 AD. Local Bronze Age activity includes the formation of corduroy roads in the Lyth valley, a few kilometres to the northwest, and possible Beaker age occupation at the Levens Park circular hut settlement, while Iron age activities also figure locally and continue right through into the late Roman occupation, including possible Hill Forts at Dallam Park and Warton Cragg, to the south of Leasgill, and at Heaves Fell to the north. Iron age remains where also found during excavations at the Haverbrack Dog Hole. Roman settlement at near by Hincaster is also postulated by such place name evidence. However, there is no known evidence for prehistoric activity or settlement in Leasgill itself. 5.2 Before 1066 the majority of land in the South Lakeland area appears to have been held by two local Viking chieftains called Torfin and Tostig. After the Conquest the Norman Ivo de Taillebois became the first of the Barons of Kendal and acquired the former estates of these two chieftains. In about 1098 de Taillebois gave the Church and one third of the land in the ancient manor of Heversham, within which Leasgill lies, to the Abbey of St Mary in York in 1090-97, with a rectory manor being founded with its ‘caput’ or principle house being at Heversham Hall. The rest of the land remained with the Barony, within a new manor focussed on Milnthorpe. The Rectory manor and demesne of Heversham Hall remained with the Abbey until
135 the Dissolution after which the Crown sold it on to three named landowners, and then ultimately passed down through various lines to Edward Wilson of Nether Levens, in whose posterity it has descended with the Dallam Tower estates. 5.4 In 1086, at the time of the Domesday Book, North Lancashire, Cumberland, and Westmoreland had yet to acquire the status of separate counties, a status that was only achieved in the early twelfth century. In the Domesday Book this area appears to have been known as ‘Amounderness’ and described as an appendage to royal lands in Yorkshire. Indeed, an entry for ‘Eureshaim’, long presumed to refer to the area of the settlement of Heversham, is recorded within the Yorkshire parts in the Domesday Book. As with much of Northern England, Domesday suggest that after the ‘Harrying of the North’ in 1069-70 by William the Conqueror’s forces Amoundness was significantly denuded of population and resources, and the ‘Eureshaim’ entry would seem to confirm this. 5.5 While Heversham, immediately to the south, has an Anglian place name and is first mentioned in the 10th Century ‘Historia de Sancto Cuthberto’, in connection with a monastery known as ‘Hefresham’, Leasgill seems likely to be a much later settlement and therefore of considerably less historical significance than its near neighbour. Mediaeval documentary evidence is unknown, with the earliest recorded reference to a settlement at Leasgill being found in the granting by Edward Middleton of Leighton Hall of a “messuafe” (‘messuage’ or dwelling house) in Leasgill to Thomas Strickland of Nyanserghe (Ninesergh) as late as 1586. 5.6 There is no record of the formal granting of a Market or Fair for the village suggesting that it’s size and status as a settlement has always been slight. It seems feasible that in the post mediaeval period the village consisted of only a few estate farms, outbuildings and agricultural workers cottages arranged in an unknown but possibly dispersed settlement pattern. Perhaps only with the arrival of Plumtree Hall in 1815 and Eversley House in 1859 did the impetus for further settlement extension occur when clusters of estate buildings and accommodation for workers were erected to the north and south ends of today’s village core. 5.7 Prior to the formation of a new turnpike road from Kendal to Milnthorpe in 1752, Leasgill would have been connected to the wider world only by a series of unmade up country lanes and droving or drift tracks. The main north south lane through the village was improved in the 1820s, when a new route was established for the A6 trunkroad, which brought it through the village from Milnthorpe and Carnforth and then on to Kendal via Levens village. The Princes Way by-pass road, to the west of the village, was created in 1927 to allow the bourgeoning number of motor vehicles to avoid the narrow and winding road through the village. Heversham Railway Station, located to the south east of the village on a branch line from Arnside to the junction on the London and North Western mainline at Hincaster, was not opened until 1891. The Athenaeum, became a key focus for village social activities in the 1870s when it was converted from an old barn into a concert and reading room, and a club house for non-alcoholic recreation in the village. 5.8 The modern era has seen much new development take place throughout the historic core of the village along both sides of the village street. This consists largely of infill development in gaps between earlier buildings; the rebuilding, remodelling and extending of a number of earlier houses; while a number of former barns and outbuildings have been converted into residential use, while some more
136 extensive modern development, of mixed design quality, has occurred to the southern end of the village and alongside the Princes Way. This has had an appreciably detrimental impact on the historic character of the settlement and has somewhat diminished its traditional visual character and appearance (see below).
6.0 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 6.0.1 Introduction to Organisation of Appraisal The particular architectural and historic character the settlement, will have been influenced by a wide range of factors, including: • the nature of the topography, its underlying geology and any specific patterns of drainage; • the survival of any pre-urban features; • the role played by any formal woodland planting or the presence of any ornamental or individual landmark trees; • the physical relationship of the land/buildings to any historic communication and transport routes, and; • the particular historic uses and consequent development that the land/buildings have been put to over time, by many landowners or building users, all with a range of differing interests. 6.0.2 This appraisal seeks to establish and evaluate the spatial characteristics, pattern of building and particular architectural qualities of the area. It is organised around the following themes: Spatial Structure, which describes the urban framework and includes an analysis of plot sizes and building density, the hierarchy of routes and the incidence and type of public and private spaces, etc; A Summary of Townscape Character, i.e. the way buildings and spaces interrelate in three dimensions, and which includes a definition of key landmarks, the identification of significant views and vistas, types of approaches, gateways, sense of enclosure or openness, key open spaces and the impact of natural elements such as trees and any wider woodland planting, etc; and • A Definition of Architectural Quality which examines and evaluates the contribution made by listed buildings and key unlisted buildings and is arranged in two sets of tables. 6.0.3 Character and Appearance – General Influences 6.0.4 The way that this townscape has been managed over time will have had a significant impact on the way that the settlement has developed and so appears to us today. The needs and status of each building user; any longstanding patterns of land ownership and tenure; the design quality, form and function of individual buildings will all have had a significant bearing on the village’s subsequent appearance. Such actions will have influenced when and where particular buildings were erected; why they were designed in a particular way; how particular streets were laid out; and why public and private spaces within the settlement have
137 a specific character. 6.0.5 The appraisal contains a set of Townscape Character Analysis Maps in Map Appendix 2 that seek to show, in graphical form, the specific townscape quality of the area, i.e. the nature and quality of the spaces between the buildings, as well as the importance of the wider landscape setting to the special character of the town. Factors identified include the significance of particular trees or woodland planting; the positioning of key landmarks; the role played by the main building elevations and buildings lines in defining and enclosing spaces; and the opportunities available for views and vistas along streets, between buildings, and outwards towards key landmarks. The maps also identify the locations of trees affected by Tree Preservation Orders, as well as other non-statutory categorisations that might have been made in defining the area’s importance. A series of map conventions have been developed to represent these factors. 6.0.6 The Evaluation of Architectural Quality 6.0.7 It is important to recognise that all buildings within a settlement, whatever its size, will help to shape its special character in some way. The impact that such buildings make will be dependent on a number of factors including not only their most public elevations but also their surviving integrity as historic structures and the way they relate in three dimensions to aspects such as public spaces, the general roofscape or the wider skyline. It may be their age, which is significant; the architectural composition of their elevations; or perhaps the stylistic or decorative features that are incorporated. Please note that the evaluations of individual buildings and spaces that are included within this appraisal, and on the attached maps, are based on such formal design criteria and do not represent criticism of building owners or users, or the way that they manage or maintain their properties. However, where obviously insensitive or unfortunate alterations have been made, which have visually harmed the building’s integrity as a historic building, these need to be clearly identified as they will have an impact on whether the area is deemed to be special enough to warrant designation. 6.0.8 After a short chapter describing the architectural character of the village, a pair of tables is presented which identifies the architectural significance of the individual buildings in more detail. Table 1 identifies the few ‘Listed Buildings’ in the settlement and includes their statutory descriptions, as found in the formal list entries for such buildings prepared by central government. Table 2 – ‘Unlisted Buildings’ – describes those unlisted buildings or features that are considered to make a positive contribution to the special architectural or historic interest of the conservation area. Each individual building description will list the key elements that combine to give that particular unlisted building its particular interest. 6.0.9 In order to easily identify the contribution made by particular buildings a set of Architectural Quality maps for the whole area has been prepared as Map Appendix 1. These reveal how each building within the conservation area has been evaluated according to their architectural quality. A traffic light system of green, amber and red has been used to place buildings within particular categories of architectural or historic quality: green for positive, amber for neutral and red for harmful. 6.0.10 Listed buildings are identified with a dark green colour on the Architectural Quality maps. These are buildings or structures that have been categorised as having a
138 specific national value due to their special architectural or historic interest. They represent a finite resource and an irreplaceable asset and, for such reasons, are given additional protection beyond those available to unlisted buildings. There is a statutory presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings and local planning authorities must pay special regard to protecting such buildings, any features of special architectural or historic interest that they possess, and their characteristic settings. 6.0.11 In addition, there are some unlisted buildings in Leasgill that possess an architectural or historic importance in this local context (shown as a medium green colour on maps). These buildings can be said to contribute positively to the special architectural or historic interest of the settlement. Such buildings will display either attractive aspects of design or distinctive ornamentation; act as key visual landmarks; share qualities of age and materials with adjacent listed buildings; or exhibit construction characteristics that are typical of their period of build. They will generally not have been subject to unsympathetic alteration and they will retain the essential aspects of their main period of construction. Such buildings can be said to add to the general architectural richness of the area and, while not possessing sufficient interest to be listed as of national importance, they still make a considerable contribution to the quality of the local scene. As such they have been deemed important enough to warrant identification and it will be important that careful attention is given in the future to any development proposals that are likely to affect such buildings. The majority of such structures are described in Table 2: ‘Unlisted Buildings’. 6.0.12 In Leasgill there are quite a large number of buildings that are evaluated as having an essentially neutral effect (coloured amber on the Architectural Quality Maps) in that they possess only slight or moderate intrinsic importance and can be seen as neither enhancing nor harming the architectural character of the settlement. In their physical arrangement and combination with other buildings they might add to the richness, intricacy of form and characteristic appearance of the area, but as individual structures they can be said to be of only modest value. 6.0.13 Please note that this character appraisal and its attached analysis maps should not be seen as a comprehensive audit of every single aspect of the conservation area. The omission of comments on a specific building, part of a building, space or townscape feature should not be seen as an indication that it is of no interest or value. 6.1 VILLAGE APPRAISAL - SPATIAL STRUCTURE
6.1.1 Leasgill is essentially linear in organisation, but with buildings arranged quite loosely and irregularly, but more frequently on the eastern side of the north to south street that runs through the village. This street steers a slightly sinuous course at a relatively even gradient set a little way above the height of the historic flooding levels of the moss and wider estuary. This village street acts thus as the key structuring device in the settlement’s morphology. The very narrow back lane to the immediate west of the Athenaeum is an interesting feature that may represent an earlier route through the village that was superseded at some later stage by the present main street. It is significant that there are no obvious surviving signs of early boundaries associated with any mediaeval organisation of the village, such as potentially early house plots, linear rear tofts, or possible farmstead garths, which reinforces the notion that Leasgill is likely to be a largely post medieval creation.
139 The village merges imperceptibly with Heversham to the south while to the north it terminates at the roadside lodge to Everlsey. 6.1.2 Pre 1900 houses and buildings are frequently arranged against the road edge without front gardens, or are set behind shallow, enclosed set backs, often within quite small building plots, such that while there are some small gardens set to the sides of houses, rear gardens of any substance are relatively scarce. 6.1.3 The more recent housing developments tend to be set within slightly larger plots so that small front and rear gardens are a common feature, but that has altered the historical character of the village to an appreciable extent, creating some parts that now have a much more suburban character. 6.1.4 To the east are small agricultural fields set on elevated ground with a fairly open character. To the west are larger sub-rectangular fields which probably relate to the draining of the moss and its enclosure for farmland in the early C19th. 6.2. CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL - SETTLEMENT CHARACTER 6.2.1 The settlement generally has a rural, village like character and a moderately low building density that, before modern infill housing, was even more dispersed and sporadic. The village street threads between buildings that are often set quite close to the highway, either abutting it or set behind low stone walls and shallow irregular grass verges.
6.2.2 Village buildings are mostly detached or semi-detached in form and are, at most, two stories high. Except for the two short terraced rows towards the southern end of the settlement the street space is only infrequently edged or physically defined by building frontages arranged long side onto the street, and broad and narrower gaps between buildings are quite common. Because of building orientation being aligned along the street edge eaves and ridge lines/chimneystacks are a significant visual feature when viewing along the street axis and roof form and the appearance of roofing materials becomes significant when viewing houses front on from the street edge. Only a very few houses are arranged gable end on to the street, as is sometimes the case with some mediaeval villages where narrow building plots sometimes force this pattern, and this reinforces the suggestion that Leasgill is likely to be a post mediaeval settlement. 6.2.3 The organisation of the village, along the contour line at the base of shallow hills against the edge of drained Moss, helps to establish a notable aspect of the village’s character as this arrangement means that eastward views are generally curtailed by pasture fields rising up the higher hill slopes, while the outlook westwards is more open in outlook and broad in character, with frequent glimpses of the flatter former marshland and down into the narrow valley through which the Princes Road now cuts. Glimpses into small private green garden spaces are thus quite common on the eastern side of the street but stone garden walls sometimes rise up to obstruct views on the eastern side. None of the outward views or street vistas are felt to be of major or strategic significance in terms of landscape aspect. 6.2.4 Stone boundary walls and occasional hedges are a common and attractive feature of the village. The walls are often drystone rubble construction when enclosing agricultural land and farmstead or former estate buildings, and mortared rubblestone with coping stones when edging house gardens. 6.2.5 Trees are not a major aspect of the village’s character, although a few individual
140 examples have strong landmark significance and are a notable aspect of the settlement’s visual interest. Longer views along the street are few, being frequently disrupted by building elevations or projecting gable ends and this is a characteristic aspect of the village’s historic character that is of visual interest. 6.2.6 The short crescent of houses to the north of Plumtree Hall is designed in a contemporary way and largely with privacy and modern amenity in mind but the form of the development is somewhat suburban in character and so slightly alien and out of keeping with much of the rest of the village. 6.2.7 The characteristic setting of the village to the west has been slightly compromised by C20th activity. To the west, the much needed Princes Way relief road has nevertheless had a visually detrimental affect by severing the village from its close physical relationship to the fields in the drier reaches of the former moss. In addition, the hard linear alignment of this modern highway seems slightly alien and out of keeping with the close knit organic form of the village, though this has softened in recent years due to the filtering effect of tree planted in the highway verge. In addition, the forming of this road created an opportunity for some later C20th development at its margins and the appearance of some of this new building has been mixed in terms of design quality. 6.3 CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL - ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY 6.3.1 Although conservation areas can be designated without there being any buildings included that are statutorily listed, the latter are often a good indicator of the architectural interest and richness that a settlement possesses. Leasgill only has one listed building, the grade II status Plumtree Hall of 1815. Of the other 71 buildings within the village, only 15 (21%) have been evaluated as having a positive architectural expression, which benefits the visual character of the settlement. A further 40 are considered as being essentially neutral or of modest architectural quality, while 16 are felt to be weak architecturally, and making an adverse contribution to the character of the village. 6.3.2 Pre mid C20th building tend to be built with local limestone, in either random or more regular coursed construction, under mostly local Cumbrian or Westmorland blue/grey coloured slate roofs that are quite often arranged in diminishing slate course sizes. A few later C19th and C20th buildings have non-indigenous blue or purple Welsh slates and some modern houses have cement fibre tiled roofs. 6.3.3 External wall renders are quite common on many buildings, occasionally as traditional roughcasts with an unpainted, grey appearance, but now much more frequently in a brilliant white or off white synthetic colour washes to smoother stuccos or flat renders, which again tend to reinforce something of a suburban modern character to parts of the village. 6.3.4 In Leasgill architectural ornament is somewhat rare except on the few larger detached houses such as Plumtree Hall, Eversley or High Leasghyll, where it follows classical or neo vernacular stylistic patterns, but in a fairly reserved manner. On the smaller domestic properties houses are generally far plainer, with double fronted elevations with plain window detailing and entrances that are slightly emphasised through the use of simple door surrounds; or very plain single fronted cottages with little decoration. There are few embellishments to roofs such as, verge copings, decorative bargeboards or dormer windows and chimneystacks are
141 generally simple in execution and small in scale.
7.0 Summary 7.1 In terms of historic interest it is considered that Leasgill is only of modest importance. There is some known prehistoric and important mediaeval activity in the surrounding area but no known settlement is recorded at Leasgill until the early post mediaeval period and the lack of any physical evidence for a possible mediaeval village morphology would seem to evidence the relatively late date for the emergence of today’s village.
7.2 It is also considered that the architectural quality of Leasgill’s buildings is, with only a few exceptions, generally unremarkable. Only 16 buildings have been evaluated as having a positive architectural character, including the statutorily Grade II listed Plumtree Hall. Many of the houses in the village date from the second half of the C19th, which is generally too late a date for consideration for listing, and of those, many have been subjected to modern changes to elements such as doors, windows, walling materials and finish, as well as to roof form, through the exercising of permitted development rights by householders. While usefully keeping such buildings in a sustainable use and generally good state of repair, such activities have also had a detrimental affect on the historic integrity and conservation value exhibited by many of these buildings. As the guidance criteria prepared by English Heritage clearly advises, for a building to be considered as contributing positively to the special architectural interest of an area it will be essential that:
“Such buildings will generally not have been subject to unsympathetic alteration and they will retain the essential aspects of their main period of construction”.
Many of the buildings identified as being essentially ‘neutral’ or ‘harmful’ in architectural terms are frequently so categorised because of such adverse changes in the modern era.
7.3 This relatively low measure of architectural quality would indicate that the settlement does not possess sufficient architectural interest to merit it being special enough to warrant designation as a conservation area.
8.0 Conclusion. 8.1 The statutory definition of a conservation area is ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance'. Advice from English Heritage clearly states that whatever criteria are used by local authorities when assessing areas for their special interest “it is essential that the need for real quality, ‘specialness’, in the local or regional context is recognised”.
8.2 In determining whether an area is worthy of Conservation Area designation South Lakeland District Council must form a judgement as to whether the area possesses special importance in terms of its architectural or historic interest, and if the
142 resulting character or appearance is worthy of protection.
8.3 It is considered that the village of Leasgill possesses a limited architectural and historic interest and that, unfortunately, some of its character and appearance has been affected in recent times by unsympathetic changes and alterations to a sizeable number of its buildings.
8.4 Theoretically, designation might still be considered as an option on the grounds that certain aspects of the village’s remaining special interest might be protected while other areas would represent an opportunity for positive enhancement and improvement. However, the legislation also clearly states that the determining factor must be that the area that is being considered is demonstrably ‘special’ as a whole.
8.5 On balance, it is felt that, while Leasgill possesses an interesting character in terms of the arrangement of some of its buildings and spaces, the architectural and historic significance of the majority of these buildings is quite modest, and that a large number of its buildings have been adversely affected by a range of unsympathetic changes in the modern era, which have undermined any inherent qualities they might once have possessed. As a result it is considered that the architectural and historic interest of the settlement cannot be said to be special and that the designation of the area as a conservation area would not, therefore, be appropriate.
Table1: Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest.
Address Listing Description Grade Plumtree II House, now old persons home. C1820 with later alterations and Hall additions. Limestone ashlar with rusticated quoins; shallow- pitched hipped graduated green slate roof with overhanging eaves and 2 end chimneys; chimney on gable of right hand pavilion. 3-storey central block with 2-storey flanking pavilions. Central block: 3 windows, C19 sashes with glazing bars to upper floor; 2 later bay windows with tripartite sashes to ground floor flanking central projecting porch supported on Ionic columns with entablature; 6-panelled door with semi-circular fanlight with traceried glazing bars and moulded impost blocks. Connecting wings to pavilions have C20 windows in original door openings with C19 gabled dormers above; gabled pavilions each have single sash window to first floor; right hand one has tripartite sash in segmental-headed reveal to ground floor; left hand pavilion has reveal mostly blocked and C20 window inserted. Interior not inspected.
143 Table 2: Unlisted Buildings that are Considered to Have a Positive Architectural Quality Each individual building description in the following table lists the key elements that combine to give that particular unlisted building its particular architectural or historic significance. Main Street – East Side Address Rating Description Eversley Green 1859. Small country house, now subdivided, designed in loose classical style for Frank Atkinson Argles by H. P. Horner of Liverpool. Rectangular plan with shallow projections and deep hipped roofs. Two and three stories with balanced elevation to west and asymmetrical facades to north and south. East side not inspected. Snecked, squared limestone masonry with limestone dressings, all boldly detailed in rock-faced, rustication. Slate roofs unadorned save for tall slender stacks with moulded copings and deep eaves with corbelled brackets. Graduated window sizes with Italianate coupled and three light openings to upper floors, all on aproned sills with corniced over-lintels set on brackets. Rectangular bay window to west side and canted bay window to south elevation. 1/1 sashed timber windows with marginal glazing bars to most openings. Classical side porch to main entrance on north end, with paired columns and side pilasters. Parapetted loggia with arched openings added to west end of south side and single storey billiard room extension to east end, the latter enlarged and given new attic dormers in late C20th, which jar. Central portion of west side much disfigured by recent painting and application of pastiche mouldings. House set in own informally landscaped grounds, with numerous good specimen trees and some limestone features Eversley Green House. Later C19th. Two stories and three bays, possibly once Lodge double fronted but now with entrance to right. Modern dashed and painted walls under gabled roof in local slate with eaves and verge on squared brackets/rafter ends. Good ashlar limestone end stacks. Modern timber and slate lean-to veranda around north and west walls. Marred by excess of roof lights and some later windows but 2/2 timber sashes remain on ground floor. Heavily modernised but retains just enough historic character as many changes not wholly complimentary. Bird Cage Green House of mid C19th. Asymmetrical, tall two stories with cellar. Cottage Two uneven bays to front with small plain doorway to right. Painted roughcast walls and gabled roof in slate. Multi-pane timber sashed windows in most openings. Thin end chimneystacks, that to south projects slightly. Rose Green Low two storey house attached to Bird Cage Cottage, with Cottage gabled roof in graduated blue grey slates and end stack. Double fronted with central gabled entrance porch and timber 6/6 sashed windows. Lean-to outshut to rear. Painted roughcast walls throughout.
144 Address Rating Description Leasgill Green House. C.1800. Two stories. South part double fronted with Cottage added or converted bay to north end, all under continuous, gabled, graduated local slate roof, with masonry verge copings, ogee moulded kneelers and roughcast axial stacks. Unpainted roughcast walls. Early 8/8 unhorned timber sashes in plain surrounds, upper openings set under eaves. Simple, open ended, gabled porch protects entrance. Attractive stone garden wall and gate stoops. Well preserved building of good local significance. Highfield Green Mid C19th cottage villa style house. Two stories and three bays, with central bay broader and end bays projecting forward under gabled roofs - right hand bay probably modern addition. Snecked limestone brought regularly to course with rock faced quoins. Slate roofs, with original part in graduated blue/grey slates. End chimneystacks in matching stonework. Plain bargeboards to oversailing verges with plain finials to front bay are conspicuous feature. Canted bay window in rock-faced rusticated limestone to left – more recent and broader copy in masonry to right. Sun room to centre bay is suitably scaled and detailed but conservatory to left end is not an asset. Windows all now PVCu. Haysteads Green Single fronted two storey house at northern end of Leasgill Cottages terraced row. Painted roughcast walls and gabled roof
in local blue grey slates in diminishing courses, with exposed purlin ends to verge and plain axial stacks. Lightweight, extensively glazed, but slightly over-scaled lean-to porch protects entrance and windows have late C19th style 3/3 timber sashed windows. Lean-to extension with local slate roof at north end is well proportioned. Now, easily the best preserved house in row. Cottage row Green C.1850. Terraced row of five former single fronted, two storey to south cottages of two or more phases, now seemingly made into three larger cottages. Mostly mixed random rubble walls with limestone dressings, once limewashed, although southern end now has painted roughcast. Gabled roof in blue/grey slates with broad axial stacks. Mixture of modern fenestration and variety of porches but historic character still just discernable. High Green Large, detached former Vicarage with dated porch of 1844. Leasghyll Square, with perimeter block plan and gabled roofs. South and east sides not seen. Symmetrical front of five bays faces west, of which central three bays step forward and central storied bay projects still further. North end is balanced architecturally but with single storey entrance porch offset to right, and right hand gable is blind but with projecting chimney breast. Random mixed rubble walls throughout with unstressed quoins and slobbered mortar finish. Rough limestone lintels and reveals to most windows but front has full, deeply chamfered limestone surrounds. Unbalanced, multi-paned timber sashed windows survive on all elevations inspected. Complex roofscape is distinctive and attractively detailed with gables aping broken pediments and ball finials surviving to some apexes. Boxed
145 Address Rating Description deeply oversailing eaves and verges with projecting purlins. Local blue/grey slates to roof in diminishing courses. Well preserved house with simple detailing but substantial form and roof plan, which is of definite local importance.
Coach Green Mid C19th and little altered. Two storey outbuilding in limestone House and rubble with quoins and slobbered mortar finish, under graduated Stables blue/grey slated gabled roof. Rough limestone lintels to north of openings with board doors and domesticated multi-pane High windows. Moulded stone owl hole in west gable and short Leasghyll breather slots below eaves to sides. West gable has small stack to loft. Good moulded stone gateway into yard.
Main Street – West Side
Strickland Green Dated 1876. Two storey, double fronted house. Walls of grey House rock faced, Urswick limestone, laid in very regular courses with rusticated detailing. Steep gabled roof in purple Welsh slates with flat dormers over two first floor windows and a small gable over the central one containing the datestone, axial end stacks and good quality perforated bargeboards and finials to the verges (except the north end). Well-scaled half-hipped slated canopy over entrance and 3/3 sashed windows throughout. Rose Green Mid C19th. Low two stories with symmetrical front. Now house Cottage distinguished by small pointed arched heads to window openings and late C20th casement windows. Modern dashed finish to walls and gabled roof in local slates. Modern timber porch is not unpleasant, though garage to north end is very detrimental. Yew Tree Green C. 1800. Double fronted detached house of two stories. Painted House roughcast walls under graduated blue/grey slated gabled roof on front only, with end stack on north east gable only. Eight panelled door with overlight, cemented surround and simple hood on console brackets. Late C19th 3/3 sashed timber windows with thin surrounds, those to rear ground floor being Yew Tree Green House now much modernised though retaining early C18th (rear) vernacular form. Asymmetrical front with unfortunate storm casement windows. Painted roughcast walls and gabled roof with local blue/grey slates in diminishing courses and oversailing verge. Tall thin stack at south end only. Modest porch hood on brackets. Leasgill Green Two storey, double fronted house of early C19th. Formerly House rendered now exposed grey limestone in squared rubble courses with stressed limestone plinth, quoins and window surrounds to ground floor, and with simple sandstone door surround and sills. Gabled roof in slate with small gabled dormers and end stacks. Windows are 6/6 modern horned sashes. Smaller extensions to north end also of interest, though pebbledashed double garage here is extremely detrimental to
146 setting. The Green Now village hall – formerly barn and possible coach house. Athenaeum Probably C18th. L shaped form and mostly tall single storey height. Limestone rubble walls with projecting throughstones on gables and unstressed quoins with occasional slobbered mortar finish. Blue/grey slate roof in diminishing bands with cut sandstone verge copings, ridge, shaped kneelers and ball finials. Probably rewindowed in late C19th with tall openings with squared limestone lintels and now fitted with late C20th small pane casement windows. Former doorway in east gable, modern lean-to porch over present entrance. Low gabled extension to north with matching details. A key building in centre of village with strong local significance.
147
148 Conservation Area Designation Appraisal Leasgill – APPENDIX 2
149 Conservation Area Designation Appraisal Leasgill – APPENDIX 3
150 PART I
Agenda Item No: 17
South Lakeland District Council JOINT OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY CABINET Meeting Date: Overview & Scrutiny: 3 February 2011 Cabinet: 9 February 2011
Report Author: Helen Smith, Strategic Finance Manager Portfolio: Councillor Peter Thornton, Housing & Development Report from: Shelagh McGregor, Assistant Director (Resources) & S151 Wards affected: All Key Decision: PD10/007/Sev KD11/002/H&D Forward Plan: 1 January to 30 April 2011
2011/12 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT BUDGET 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report considers the proposed budgets for the Council’s Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Cabinet are requested to approve the rent increase for 2011/12 as a key decision to give South Lakes Housing sufficient time to issue rent increase letters within the statutory deadlines.
2.0 Recommendation (1) It is requested that Joint Overview and Scrutiny consider the 2011/12 Housing Revenue Account and recommendations being made to Cabinet and identify matters they would wish Cabinet to take into account when considering the report. (2) It is recommended that Cabinet, subject to consideration of comments raised by the Tenants Committee and Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee: (a) Consider, and recommend to Council, the 2010/11 Revised Budget and 2011/12 Original Estimates (Appendix 1); (b) approve a target for the HRA working balance at 31 March 2012 of £600,000; (c) approve a target for the HRA contingency provision of £50,000;
151 1 (d)approve that weekly Council house rents be increased from Monday 4 April 2011 in line with the rent-restructuring formula with four rent- free weeks in the year; (e) agree the process for the following (with effect from Monday 4 April 2011 unless stated otherwise): i) Energy charges be adjusted to recover estimated energy costs, with the same number of charge-free weeks in the year as house rents; ii) Sheltered housing amenity charges to be calculated to recover 100% of unpooled scheme costs; individual charges are capped by the rent restructuring limit of RPI+1/2%+£2 per week; iii) The other fees and charges be increased as shown in Appendix 2
3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 The Housing Revenue Account is a statutory account set up to collect the costs and incomes relating to Council houses and their tenants. The main income to the HRA is from rents charged to the tenants of Council houses (the Council currently has around 3,190 houses & flats) unlike the General Fund where income is from Council Tax. There are strict rules to restrict the transfer of income and expenditure between the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account. 3.2 While ownership of the houses remains with the Council, day to day management of the stock is carried out by South Lakes Housing, an arms length management organisation wholly owned by the District Council. The draft budget figures from South Lakes Housing have been incorporated into the draft HRA budgets. South Lakes Housing have examined their proposed budgets and identified some efficiency savings that can be implemented to assist in setting a sustainable HRA budget. 3.3 The Council has been aware for some time that the HRA does not have sufficient resources to fund future maintenance requirements. As part of the Housing Options study carried out in 2010 a stock condition survey has identified the need to spend £188m over the next 30 years and £7m per year for the next five years. This level of spend would leave the HRA in substantial deficit. 3.4 The Government has made some funding available for Councils with a backlog of homes not decent. An application has been made for funding of £542,000 under this scheme. The funding, if approved, will be in the form of additional borrowing approval, to be reflected in the housing subsidy calculations. This has not been included in the attached budgets. 3.5 The Government is currently proposing to completely reform the system of HRA funding. Initial proposals by the previous government were published in March 2010 and the latest proposals were included in a consultation document “Local Decisions: A Fairer Future for Social Housing” in November 2010. This confirmed the Government’s intention to introduce a new transparent self financing arrangement based on a one-off settlement payment between each local authority and central Government. The settlement will be based on a valuation of the HRA taking account of income, expenditure and the current level of housing debt. More details will be announced during 2011 with the new system in place by 1 April 2012. The latest proposals are broadly in line with the 152 2 proposals modelled as part of the Council’s stock options project in 2010 but will retain the current arrangements for 75% of net receipts from right to buy sales to be retained by the Treasury while an extra £116m will be available for Councils to pay for disabled adaptations for their own stock. 4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 South Lakes Housing are currently consulting stakeholders on a significant cost reduction initiative to refocus resources, protecting front-line services. South Lakes Housing have had to incorporate non-discretionary increases such as pension contributions and nationally agreed salary scale incremental progressions. Changes in activity such as increasing tenant scrutiny, changes to the leasehold billing practices and increasing services relating to health & safety and other regulatory issues have been incorporated. Some of the cost saving initiatives incorporated into the SLH budgets are • Restructure to reduce back-office costs and increase resources to customer facing activities. • Review procurement including making better use of existing resources rather than buying in services • Review the support of the apprenticeship programme • Drive toward overhead efficiency such as printing, postage etc • Reviewing non-essential or non-tenant focussed activity. 4.2 South Lakes Housing have taken full control of the Major Repairs Allowance funds to allow better project planning and expenditure information within their own accounting system. They will allocate the monies earmarked by Government for major repairs depending on priority. 4.3 Negative housing subsidy, due to be paid to the Government, takes account of housing debt, management, maintenance & MRA allowances, debt management and rent increases. For 2011/11 the subsidy payable will increase by £627,000 from £3,428,000 to £4,055,000. This is largely as a result of the governments proposals for rent increases. It is disappointing that the Major Repairs Allowance for 2011/12 has fallen £13,000 to £2,144,000 when the stock condition survey identifies required spend of approx £2m higher. 4.4 The Government is keen to see consistency between social housing rents both throughout the country and between local authority homes and housing association homes. It introduced rent restructuring from April 2002 with the aim of achieving equality in 10 years through a formula rent for each property based 70% on regional wage levels and 30% on relative property values. This formula was introduced in setting SLDC rents in April 2003. There have been a number of changes to the process over the years and the latest subsidy determination proposes convergence will now be deferred until 2015/16. There is a transition rents scheme that ensures that during the change to full formula rents the change for an individual tenant is limited to inflation + ½% plus £2 per week (based on a 52 week rent year). For 2011/12 the rent increase is based on inflation for September 2010 at 4.6% so the maximum increase for an individual tenant is 5.1%+£2 per week. This results in an average increase of 7.6% from £71.91 per week to £77.34 per week, based on 48 rent weeks and 4 rent-free weeks per year. 4.5 Amenity charges for tenants of sheltered housing schemes are based on the actual costs of each scheme. When calculating the charge for each tenant, the
153 3 maximum increase in rent and amenity charge is also limited to inflation + ½% plus £2 per week. Proposed amenity charges are shown at Appendix 3. 4.6 Other aspects to highlight are: • Interest on balances is based on the medium term financial plan with calculations showing a slight increase from £14,280 (2010/11) to £19,830 (2011/12). • The budgets for 2009/10 and 2010/11 saw a total £150,000 allocated for the costs of the Housing Options review. This process was progressed as far as was possible during 2010/11. There will be further work required in 2011/12 when the government announces it’s final settlement figures. A Supplementary Revenue Estimate will be requested if required. 4.7 A growth bid has been included in the draft budgets for an asbestos survey. The costs of the asbestos survey are expected to be in the region of £150,000. This survey is required in order to meet SLDC’s current legal requirements as a landlord which came into effect from 1 April 2010. While the capital aspects of the requirements, sampling and testing presumed asbestos containing materials and removing the same on confirmation the additional requirements of SLDC’s recently adopted Asbestos Management Plan require an Asbestos Management or Refurbishment survey. This growth bid will enable SLH to ensure SLDC meet their requirements as asset owner. 4.8 The Council is moving towards preparing 5 year revenue budgets for all services. In the light of the move to self-financing from 1 April 2012 it is impractical to prepare detailed budgets for 2012/13 to 2015/06 so this report covers only 2011/12. 5.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 5.1 The law governing the HRA requires it should never fall into deficit. It is therefore compulsory to find ways of balancing the HRA. 6.0 NEXT STEPS 6.1 Following approval by Cabinet, South Lakes Housing will issue rent increase letters to tenants giving the statutory 4 weeks notice of a rent increase 6.2 The Housing Revenue Account budgets will be submitted to Council for approval as part of the 2011/12 Budget on 22 February 2011. 7.0 IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Financial and Resources 7.1.1 These form part of the report, the strategic aim being to safeguard the Council’s medium to longer term financial position. 7.2 Human Resources 7.2.1 This report has no direct impact on the staffing of the Council at this stage. 7.3 Legal 7.3.1 This report has no direct legal implications at this stage. 7.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 7.4.1 Sustainability is the principle behind the Budget Strategy set out here which will be further developed.
8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT 154 4 Risk Consequence Controls required Failure to create a Includes: inability to deliver Identification of sound budget balanced and corporate priorities, guidelines in an agreed strategy sustainable budget by inappropriate spending, reduces the risk of an March 2011 reductions in services. unaffordable budget, unacceptable council tax or council house rent increases, and/or precipitate budget reductions. There is a risk that the Criticism from Audit Controls over spending to Housing Revenue Commission, poor Use of prevent budgets being Account goes into deficit Resources and Housing exceeded; sufficient contingency – this is not permitted by Inspection scores provision; working balance to legislation reflect risks of overspends
9. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 9.1 An equality and diversity impact assessment of the options to be implemented is not required. 10. LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 10.1 The proposals are based on forecasts that recognise the need for resources to be identified for new developments in the Corporate Plan. Setting a sound framework for budget preparation assists in the delivery of corporate outcomes. This strategy has been developed from the MTFP. 11. CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 11.1 This report fleshes out the detail below the budget framework approved to date. This will ensure the Council directs its financial resources to delivering the priorities within the Corporate Plan. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 Draft Housing Revenue Account Budget 2011/12 2 Housing Revenue Account Fees & Charges 2011/12 3 Amenity Charges 2011/12
CONTACT OFFICERS Helen Smith, Strategic Finance Manager, 01539 717217, [email protected] BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE Medium Term Financial Plan 30/03/2010 Council Budget Strategy report 12 August 2010 Council
TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee
155 5
Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer
HRServices Manager
156 6 South Lakeland District Council Appendix 1 Housing Revenue Account 2011/12 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 Original Revised Original Budget Budget Budget
£000 £000 £000
EXPENDITURE
130.2 117.4 Sheltered Housing 157.0
Supervision & Management 2,989.0 3,175.3 - General 2,936.8 42.2 42.2 - Right to Buy Sales 27.7 361.9 287.9 - Special 307.7
311.3 311.3 Capital Charges 311.3 3,834.6 3,934.1 3,740.5
4,407.4 4,657.4 Repairs & Maintenance 4,513.4 0.0 2.5 Rents & Taxes 5.0 3,395.5 3,433.3 Housing Subsidy 4,054.7 11,637.5 12,027.3 12,313.6
50.0 0.0 Contingency 50.0
11,687.5 12,027.3 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 12,363.6
INCOME
11,169.1 11,126.2 Gross Rents 11,956.3 260.0 198.3 General Fund Contribution to Open Spaces etc 204.8 14.3 14.3 Interest on Balances 19.8 122.0 122.0 Other Income 123.9 11,565.4 11,460.8 12,304.8
122.1 566.5 Use of/ (Addition to) Balances 58.8 11,687.5 12,027.3 TOTAL INCOME 12,363.6
BALANCES
758.4 1,340.7 Opening Balance 1 April 774.2
(122.1) (566.5) Addition to/(Withdrawal from) Balance (58.8)
636.3 774.2 CLOSING BALANCE 31 MARCH 715.4
600.0 600.0 Minimum Working Balance 600.0
25/01/11157 South Lakeland District Council Appendix 1 Housing Revenue Account 2011/12 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 Original Revised Original Budget Budget Budget
£000 £000 £000
SHELTERED HOUSING
Expenditure 0.8 0.8 Premises 0.9 127.9 115.1 ALMO additional management costs for Sheltered 156.1 0.0 0.0 Additional costs of energy not met from charges 0.0 689.9 702.7 Payment to ALMO (income) 716.3 1.5 1.5 Departmental Recharges 0.0 820.1 820.1 Total Expenditure 873.3 Income 689.9 702.7 Other Income 716.3 689.9 702.7 Total Income 716.3 130.2 117.4 Net Expenditure 157.0
SUPERVISION & MANAGEMENT GENERAL (including Repairs Admin)
Expenditure 54.2 54.2 Employees 51.7 127.9 127.9 Premises 121.0 63.7 120.0 Supplies and Services 22.8 0.0 130.0 HRA Options Study 0.0 40.0 40.0 Investment & Loan Mgmt Expenses 40.0 216.9 216.9 Other Council Committees 288.4 182.4 182.4 Departmental Recharges 64.9 2,338.9 2,338.9 Payment to ALMO (Management Fee) 2,348.0 3,024.0 3,210.3 Total Expenditure 2,936.8 Income 35.0 35.0 Other Income 0.0 35.0 35.0 Total Income 0.0 2,989.0 3,175.3 Net Expenditure 2,936.8
ADMINISTRATION OF RIGHT TO BUY (RTB) SCHEME Expenditure 28.1 28.1 Payment to ALMO 28.0 2.9 2.9 Other Expenditure 2.9 15.1 15.1 Departmental Recharges 0.7 46.1 46.1 Total Expenditure 31.6 Income 3.9 3.9 Charge to Capital Receipts 3.9 3.9 3.9 Total Income 3.9 42.2 42.2 Net Expenditure 27.7
25/01/11158 South Lakeland District Council Appendix 1 Housing Revenue Account 2011/12 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 Original Revised Original Budget Budget Budget
£000 £000 £000
SUPERVISION & MANAGEMENT (SPECIAL) Expenditure
1.2 1.2 Premises 1.2 349.6 273.2 Maintenance of Grounds & Play Areas 281.8 0.0 2.4 Careline 0.6 11.1 11.1 Departmental Recharges 24.1 361.9 287.9 Total Expenditure 307.7 Income 260.0 198.3 Associated GF contribution to HRA 204.8 260.0 198.3 Total Income 204.8 101.9 89.6 Net Expenditure 102.9
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE Expenditure 20.0 20.0 Housing Play Areas 20.0 0.0 1,785.3 Delegation to South Lakes Housing 1,744.4 27.7 0.0 Planned Maintenance (incl DHP/Admin SLDC) 0.0 200.0 0.0 Batched Boiler Replacement & Renewal 0.0 120.4 0.0 Edgecombe Court windows 0.0 290.0 0.0 Fire Risk Assessments 0.0 80.0 0.0 Anchorite Fields 0.0 55.0 0.0 Heating System / Fires 0.0 150.0 0.0 Air source heat pump 0.0 35.6 0.0 Tyson Square - porches 0.0 5.3 0.0 Ulswater close - door entry system 0.0 7.0 0.0 Fell Close common room - windows & doors 0.0 226.1 0.0 Adhoc elements - (Decent homes elements) 0.0 250.0 0.0 Infrastructure & Structural works 0.0 75.0 0.0 School Knott 0.0 263.2 0.0 Unallocated refurbishments 0.0 290.0 290.0 Aids and Adaptations for the Disabled 290.0 90.0 90.0 Contingency 90.0 2,185.3 2,185.3 Funded from MRA 2,144.4
0.0 0.0 Delegation to South Lakes Housing 2,219.0 0.0 0.0 Asbestos Survey 150.0 1,060.1 1,060.1 Response Maintenance 0.0 453.4 453.4 Relets (incl clearance & rubbish removal) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Batched Imp Works (Response & Relets) 0.0 13.3 13.3 Abnormal Maintenance 0.0 250.0 500.0 External Decoration (Listed Repairs) 0.0 18.5 18.5 Garage refurbishments 0.0 20.0 20.0 Tenant Participation - Estate Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 Supervision 0.0 406.8 406.8 Specialist Maintenance 0.0 4,407.4 4,657.4 Total Expenditure 4,513.4
25/01/11159
160 South Lakeland District Council Appendix 2 Housing Revenue Account Estimates 2011/12 Rents, Fees Charges
DETAILS CHARGE IN REVISED EST. RECOMMENDED % EST. ANNUAL 2010/11 ANNUAL INCOME CHARGE INCREASE INCOME IN REMARKS 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT £ £ £ £
(a) Miscellaneous Land Rents From 0.05 p.a. £3,100 From 0.05 p.a. n/a £3,300 Miscellaneous land rents, wayleaves and To 395.00 p.a. To 395.00 p.a. leases, with various review dates mainly ranging from annual to 3 yearly
(b) Garage Site Rents Most at 75.00 p.a. £10,000 Most at 75.00 p.a. 0% £10,200 Various garage site rents with rent reviews every 5 years. Last increased 2006/07
(c) Shops and Miscellaneous Rents From 2,800 p.a. £62,400 From 2,800 p.a. n/a £62,400 Various shop rents with different To 9,000 p.a. To 9,000 p.a. review dates.
(d) Guest Room Accommodation £16.00 per person £2,500 £16.00 per person 0% £2,500 Charges last increased April 2007 per night per night
(e) Sheltered Housing - Amenity Charge From £19.95 p.w.* £595,000 From £22.97 p.w.* Various £606,800 To £43.19 p.w* To £46.23 p.w* Increase capped by RPI+0.5%+£2 per week max.
(f) Energy Charges on Sheltered Housing Schemes From £13.43 p.w.* £107,700 From £13.56 p.w.* Various £109,520 Based on actual costs To £24.49 p.w* To £24.99 p.w*
(g) Water Charges at Yewbarrow Lodge Single £4.20 p.w.* £6,400 Single £4.20 p.w.* £6,400 Based on actual costs Double £6.89 p.w* Double £6.89 p.w*
(h) Garage Rents £7.70 per week* £358,090 £8.28 per week* 7.6% £385,300 Rent is subject to VAT if the garage is not rented by a Council house tenant.
(i) Grazing Rights As negotiated £3,500 As negotiated n/a £5,000 Subject to annual review annually with annually with licensees. licensees.
(j) Service Charges - Sold Council Flats Variable based on actual Variable based on actual Based on actual cost for each flat + annual bill for costs per flat costs per flat repairs & maintenance as required by the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act.
(k) Sold Council Flats - Ground Rents 10.00 per annum £2,180 10.00 per annum n/a £2,180 Statutory Charge
(l) Careline All tenants £13,500 All tenants 0.00% £14,450 Based on actual costs, reinbursed in full £4.98 per week* £5.25 per week* by Supporting People Grant where tenant is eligible. Increase capped by RPI+0.5%+£2 per week max.
(m) Contributions to cost of gardening scheme per year £100 £4,100 per year £100 0% £4,100
* Charge or rent payable for 48 weeks in year - other 4 weeks are charge or rent free. 161
162 South Lakeland District Council Appendix 3 Housing Revenue Account 2011/12 Amenity Charges
2010/11 2011/12 - actual costs 2011/12 - capped charges
Scheme Cat Units Charge to Charge met Charge Chargeable Charge met Charge Increase Chargeable Charge met Charge Increase tenants by Supporting met from to tenants by Supporting met from to tenants by Supporting met from People grant rebates People grant rebates £ % People grant rebates £ %
Binfold Croft 1 49 £22.61 £23.62 -£1.01 £30.48 £23.62 £6.87 £7.87 34.8% £25.76 £23.62 £2.15 £3.15 13.9% Birthwaite 2 45 £33.40 £23.23 £10.17 £35.19 £23.23 £11.96 £1.79 5.4% £35.19 £23.23 £11.96 £1.79 5.4% Castle Walk 1 44 £22.57 £16.93 £5.64 £25.14 £16.93 £8.20 £2.56 11.3% £25.14 £16.93 £8.20 £2.56 11.3% Cross Lane 1 42 £26.97 £16.69 £10.28 £28.20 £16.69 £11.51 £1.23 4.6% £28.20 £16.69 £11.51 £1.23 4.6% Drummermire 1 14 £19.95 £17.95 £2.00 £26.80 £17.95 £8.85 £6.85 34.3% £22.97 £17.95 £5.02 £3.02 15.1% Edgecombe Court1 1 15 £25.91 £18.89 £7.02 £32.47 £18.89 £13.58 £6.55 25.3% £29.24 £18.89 £10.35 £3.32 12.8% Edgecombe Court2 2 27 £32.20 £23.20 £9.00 £42.86 £23.20 £19.66 £10.66 33.1% £35.84 £23.20 £12.64 £3.64 11.3% Fell Close / Ellerside 1 42 £24.76 £20.00 £4.76 £28.93 £20.00 £8.93 £4.17 16.9% £28.02 £20.00 £8.03 £3.26 13.2% Gallowbarrow 1 33 £25.29 £14.67 £10.62 £28.93 £14.67 £14.26 £3.64 14.4% £28.58 £14.67 £13.91 £3.29 13.0% Gladstone House 1 36 £28.15 £20.05 £8.10 £37.76 £20.05 £17.71 £9.61 34.1% £31.59 £20.05 £11.54 £3.44 12.2% School Knott 2 25 £39.32 £32.95 £6.37 £38.52 £32.95 £5.56 -£0.80 -2.0% £38.52 £32.95 £5.56 -£0.80 -2.0% Soutergate / Mill Dam 1 25 £35.97 £19.33 £16.64 £41.38 £19.33 £22.05 £5.41 15.0% £39.80 £19.33 £20.47 £3.83 10.7% Tyson Square 1 37 £26.95 £18.37 £8.58 £31.26 £18.37 £12.90 £4.31 16.0% £30.32 £18.37 £11.96 £3.37 12.5% West Ing 2 11 £43.19 £22.25 £20.94 £57.52 £22.25 £35.27 £14.33 33.2% £47.39 £22.25 £25.14 £4.20 9.7% Yewbarrow Lodge 2 30 £42.08 £27.57 £14.51 £51.13 £27.57 £23.56 £9.06 21.5% £46.23 £27.57 £18.65 £4.15 9.9% Average/Total 475 £29.95 £21.05 £8.91 £35.77 £21.05 £14.73 £5.82 19.4% £32.85 £21.05 £11.81 £2.90 13.8%
163
164 PART I Agenda Item No: 18
South Lakeland District Council Cabinet Meeting Date: 9th February 2011 Report Author: Caroline Leigh, Corporate Asset Manager Portfolio: Graham Vincent – Economy and Enterprise Portfolio Report from: Michael Keane, Assistant Director Social Enterprise Wards affected: Kendal Key Decision: KD11/001/Sev Forward Plan: 1st February to 31st May 2011 WESTMORLAND SHOPPING CENTRE CAR PARK 1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report is presented to Cabinet in order to update Members following receipt of the condition survey on the Westmorland Shopping Centre Car Park, and to seek approval for progressing the required maintenance and repair work. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Cabinet:- (1) Note the contents of the Report (2) Approve the introduction of a care plan; and (3) Approve option 1 works proceed; and (4) Approve invitations to tender for the work can proceed. 3.0 BACKGROUND 3.1 The Westmorland Shopping Centre car park comprises of two separate adjoining structures. One built during the 1960’s comprising of 7 storeys. This was later extended and modified during the 1990’s with the extension comprising of 5 storeys. 3.2 Over the past 16 years there have been a number of investigations, surveys and repairs undertaken to the car park along with the regular planned maintenance. The purpose of this report is to provide a fully evaluated study of all the options and investment required in the car park to prolong the life span of the structure. 4.0 RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 4.1 R.G. Parkins and Partners Ltd undertook a full structural condition survey of the car park. This included internal and external inspections and an internal structural investigation.
165 4.2 The investigation enabled confirmation of the car park construction, the extent of any deterioration and to diagnose the conditions within the structural components. 4.3 The details of the survey can be found in the confidential Part II Appendix which has been emailed separately to Members. Please note that in accordance with Section 100B(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, copies of this appendix are excluded from inspection by members of the public as the report contains information as described in Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information)(Variation) Order 2006, as follows, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any person, including the authority holding that information) (Paragraph 3) 5.0 PROPOSAL 5.1 In order to protect, repair and rehabilitate the car park there are three options available as detailed within the report. The current proposal is to proceed with Option 1 which outlines essential maintenance and repairs which are considered a short to medium term solution which would extend the car parks life for 5 to 15 years. Option 1 covers drainage maintenance and repairs, reinforced concrete repairs, replace and repair deck coatings, replace defective movement joints, repair defective vehicle safety barriers and fixings, external render repairs and roof repairs. The estimated costs are provided in the confidential Part II appendix and are not disclosed due to procurement implications. 5.3 It is also proposed that a life care plan is introduced which will facilitate a long- term inspection and maintenance strategy. This will use the R.G. Parkins & Partners Ltd report as a benchmark for future structural appraisals which will be required at regular intervals during the remaining life of the car park structure. Adequate resources will need to be allocated for this. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 6.1 Option 2 provides measures which also extends the life of the structure but also enhances it and option 3 is a demolish and re-build option. 6.2 Both of these options have been discounted as the primary aim is to ensure the car park remains functional and safe for the foreseeable future at the most economical cost. 7.0 NEXT STEPS 7.1 If Option 1 is approved then the next step will be to go through the procurement process and to timetable the works to have minimal impact on the use of the car park. Therefore it is expected the works will commence September/October 2011, after the summer holidays. 8.0 IMPLICATIONS 8.1 Financial and Resources 8.1.1 The funding for option 1 works is incorporated into the capital programme. The estimated costings can be found in Part II and are not disclosed due to procurement implications. 8.2 Human Resources 8.2.1 There are no Human Resource implications to this report.
166 8.3 Legal 8.3.1 There are no Legal implications to this report. 8.4 Social, Economic and Environmental Impact 8.4.1 Has a sustainability impact assessment been carried out? No as there are no changes required and it is maintenance works. 8.4.2 This proposal is considered to have a positive impact on sustainability as the existing structure is being repaired and maintained to extend its life span. 9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT Risk Consequence Controls required Deterioration of car park Car park has to close, Works within the structure beyond which would have recommended option 1 economic repair significant effects on are undertaken along parking in the Kendal with the adoption of a area care plan. Community Council reputation Adoption of care plan will dissatisfaction and suffers and loss of visitor ensure the facilities are reduced visitor and associated economic continually inspected and perception of facilities impact. maintained to the correct standard. 10.0 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY 10.1 This is not required and there are no proposed changes to the existing structure or layout of the car park which is DDA compliant. 11.0 LINKS TO THE CORPORATE PLAN AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 3.1 The public realm in South Lakeland is upgraded, protecting and enhancing its special character. 3.2 The visitor industry is sustainable and meets the needs of both local and visitors. 49. Examine opportunities to improve public parking facilities across the region. (Link to outcomes 3.1, 3.2, 1.1) 12.0 CONCLUSION AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES 12.1 It is recommended that the works within Option 1 and the care plan are authorised to ensure that the car park continues to operate successfully and maintained to a high standard to prolong the life span. APPENDICES ATTACHED TO THIS REPORT Appendix No. 1 (Part II) Survey and estimated costings (Please note this is an exempt appendix for the reason stated within the report) CONTACT OFFICERS Michael Keane, Assistant Director Social Enterprise – [email protected] Caroline Leigh, Corporate Asset Manager – [email protected]
167 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE None TRACKING Assistant Portfolio Solicitor to the CMT Scrutiny Director Holder Council Committee 24/01/11 25/01/11 N/A 27/01/11 Executive Committee Council Section 151 Monitoring (Cabinet) Officer Officer 27/01/11 25/01/11 Human Resource Services Manager N/A
168