Public Document Pack

CABINET Agenda

Date Monday 17 October 2016

Time 6.00 pm

Venue Crompton Suite, Civic Centre, Oldham, West Street, Oldham, OL1 1NL

Notes 1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST- If a Member requires any 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 Paul Entwistle or Liz Drogan in advance of the meeting.

2. CONTACT OFFICER for this Agenda is Liz Drogan Tel. 0161 770 5151 or email [email protected]

3. PUBLIC QUESTIONS – Any member of the public wishing to ask a question at the above meeting can do so only if a written copy of the question is submitted to the Contact officer by 12 Noon on Wednesday, 12 October 2016.

4. FILMING - The Council, members of the public and the press may record / film / photograph or broadcast this meeting when the public and the press are not lawfully excluded. Any member of the public who attends a meeting and objects to being filmed should advise the Constitutional Services Officer who will instruct that they are not included in the filming.

Please note that anyone using recording equipment both audio and visual will not be permitted to leave the equipment in the room where a private meeting is held.

Recording and reporting the Council’s meetings is subject to the law including the law of defamation, the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the law on public order offences.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE CABINET IS AS FOLLOWS: Councillors Akhtar, Brownridge, Chadderton, Harrison, F Hussain, Jabbar, Moores and Stretton

Item No

1 Apologies For Absence

2 Urgent Business

Urgent business, if any, introduced by the Chair

3 Declarations of Interest

To Receive Declarations of Interest in any Contract or matter to be discussed at the meeting.

4 Public Question Time

To receive Questions from the Public, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

5 Minutes of Previous Meeting (Pages 1 - 6)

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19th September are attached for approval.

6 GM Health and Social Care Devolution - Estates MoU (Pages 7 - 44)

7 Future Education Provision (Pages 45 - 52)

8 Proposed Disposal of the Former Kaskenmoor School Site, Roman Road, Hollinwood. (Pages 53 - 56)

9 Approval to award contract for works at Whitebank Stadium, White Bank Road, Limehurst Village [Hollinwood] (Pages 57 - 62)

10 Exclusion of the Press and Public

That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they contain exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and it would not, on balance, be in the public interest to disclose the reports.

11 Future Education Provision (Pages 63 - 98)

12 Proposed Disposal of the Former Kaskenmoor School Site, Roman Road, Hollinwood. (Pages 99 - 116)

13 Approval to award contract for works at Whitebank Stadium, White Bank Road, Limehurst Village [Hollinwood] (Pages 117 - 126)

Agenda Item 5 CABINET 19/09/2016 at 6.00 pm

Present: Councillor Stretton (Chair) Councillors Akhtar, Brownridge, Chadderton, Harrison, F Hussain, Jabbar and Moores

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE There were no apologies for absence received. 2 URGENT BUSINESS There were no items of urgent business received. 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest received. 4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME There were no public questions received. 5 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd August 2016 be approved as a correct record.

6 OLDHAM COUNCIL EFFICIENCY PLAN FOR FY 16/17 TO 19/20 The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Director of Finance which set out an Efficiency Plan for Oldham Council. Members were advised that the preparation and submission to Central Government of an Efficiency Plan (detailed at appendix one to the report) was necessary to access a four year finance settlement for Revenue Support Grant (RSG) covering the period 2016/17 to 2019/20. In order to secure the four year settlement the Council was required to submit its Efficiency Plan by no later than the 14th October 2016. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 – Continue to develop and finalise the Efficiency Plan for submission to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Option 2 – Do not develop and finalise an Efficiency Plan for submission.

RESOLVED – That: 1. The content of the Efficiency Plan as detailed at appendix one to the report be noted. 2. The revised cumulative budget gap figured of £20.315m for 2017/8 and £34.014m for 2018/19, £45.185m for 2019/20 and £53.823m for 2020/21. 3. That responsibility for finalising and submitting and Efficiency Plan be delegated to the Deputy Leader in his role as Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources in consultation with the Director of Finance. 7 CONTRACT AWARD: - NATIONALPage 1 FRAMEWORK FOR

THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONS OF A SUPPLIER EARLY PAYMENT SCHEME The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, Corporate and Commercial Services which sought approval to establish a national framework for the implementation and operations of a supplier early payment scheme. The report provided details of the previous tender process the Council had undertaken entered into in relation to establishing a supplier early payments scheme. The scheme assisted the council in pay suppliers faster which helped with cash flow, increased efficiency through e-invoicing and optimising the supply base. The key focus of the scheme was establishing best practice Purchase to Pay (P2P) and supplier relationships and the early payment rebates generated through the scheme formed an income stream for the Council that contributed to the savings target. The report contained details of the benefits of establishing a National Early Payment Framework including:  Continued income stream from an established and effective scheme and an opportunity to establish an Oldham run national framework with the benefit of levering a more favourable share of the income.  An opportunity to earn additional fees from both the framework supplier and contracting authorities for each call-off.  Dedicated scheme provision would provide a robust and transparent suite of Management Information, enabling the Council to accurately track and quantify the specific value added by the scheme and, more generally, the benefits that were realising through the Council’s implementation of P2P (Purchase to Pay) best practice. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 – To cease the Early Payment Scheme and income generated by the scheme would be lost. Option 2 – To establish a framework listing Oxygen Finance as the framework provider to ensure the ongoing success of the early payment scheme. This would provide an increase in early payment gain share income and inclusive P2P improvement and compliance. To also generate additional income by charging other Local Authorities to use the Framework.

RESOLVED – That following the results of a tender exercise on the 10th June 2016, the Council establishes a framework, listing Oxygen Finance as the framework provider contract for a period of 4 years whereby future requirements for an Early Payment Scheme could be called off by Local Authorities nationally.

8 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE REPORT JUNE 2016 The Cabinet considered a report of the Head of Business Intelligence which provided details of the Council’s performance for June 2016. The report summarised the performance measures and actions and of the rated measures Page57% met 2 their target and of the

Corporate plan actions 96% were on track or had been completed.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

9 PRIORITY SCHOOL BUILD PROGRAMME PHASE 2 (PSBP2) - ROYTON & CROMPTON SCHOOL The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Skills and Neighbourhoods which sought approval to maximise potential benefits from the proposed Education Funding Agency funded Priority Schools Building Programme Phase 2 project at Royton and Crompton School. It was reported that the Council had applied to the Education Funding Agency (EFA) for funding to rebuild Royton and Crompton Secondary School, Greenfield and Clarksfield Primary schools and had been successful in relation to the application for Royton and Crompton School. There had been significant delays in the EFA appointing its design consultants so significant progress had been delayed on the scheme until April 2016. It was further reported that a total rebuild of the school as an 8 form entry (240 pupils per year) would cost in the region of £14,000,000. As the Council was expecting a predicted shortfall of secondary school places the EFA was asked to consider rebuilding the school as a 10 form entry (300 pupils per year group rather than the current 8 form entry). The EFA confirmed that this additional scope could be included within the project however the Council would be responsible to pay all costs associated with this increased scope. This was estimated to be £3.5m and the EFA sought formal written confirmation of the Council’s financial commitment to this sum if the expansion as requested. At the site of the school there was also an artificial grass pitch which due to maintenance issues was not being used to its full potential. The footprint of the new building may intrude upon the pitch and due to funding restrictions the EFA would not be able to fund a replacement pitch. The Council were asked to offer up the maintenance costs within the current programme associated with replacing the pitch surface to be made available to them as part of the project as it was likely that the inclusion of a new pitch would produce a better layout and have the artificial pitch replaced as part of the main project. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1- Do nothing. Failing to progress with the necessary procedural and legal steps currently required will result in no works being funded by the EFA and the school having to continue to operate out of the current substandard school buildings. Option 2 – To work with the EFA for them to procure a rebuild using only the funds they had available. It was likely that if this option was pursued the EFA would produce a straightforward building at the lowest cost option and avoid any works in the vicinity of the artificial pitch thereby reducing the design options available as the design would be limited by the location of thePage existing 3 pitch.

Option 3 – To work with the EFA for them to procure a rebuild using the funds they had available and to offer to incorporate the £170,000 capital budget allocated for the artificial pitch. By offering to incorporate the maintenance budget for the artificial pitch it was likely that not only would the pitch replacement occur during the build project but also offer a greater variety of options to be available for the design and location of the building within the site. Option 3 – To work with the EFA for them to procure a rebuild using the funds they had available, to offer to incorporate the £170,000 of capital budget for the artificial pitch and to make an additional financial commitment of £3.5m to the EFA to permit them to build an expanded school with an intake of 10FE i.e. 300 pupils per year. This option was most likely to produce the best design incorporating the replacement pitch surface and deliver an economic method of increasing the number of secondary school places available. To proceed with the additional capacity as part of the project the EFA would require the Council’s Section 151 Officer to sign a letter agreeing to pay the Council’s Capital Contribution for additional works outlined above as per Appendix B. The costs of the expanded places could be provided from the available funds in the allocation Basic Needs funding from the EFA for 2018 and 2019.

RESOLVED – That the Cabinet would consider the commercially sensitive information at Item 12 before reaching a decision.

10 DAY SERVICES AWARD OF CONTRACT The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director Health and Wellbeing which sought approval to award the Day Services contract for older people. The report set out the future commissioning arrangements for day care services for older people in Oldham. This included complex day care for people with dementia and enhanced lunch club services. The new commissioning arrangements for day care services would reflect the transformation in the provision of adult social care services in Oldham over the next few years and would see a greater number of people organising their own care service using personal budgets. It was reported that the Council had an overarching contract with Age UK Oldham, covering several services and this contract was extended on the 31st March 2016 to allow implementation of the new contract. A total of two providers submitted a tender (A and B) and the tenders were evaluated in accordance with criteria and weightings as outlined within the report. Provider B did not meet the requirements of the service specification and therefore the Cabinet was asked to consider awarding the contract to provider A. Options Alternatives considered Page 4

To award the contract for Day Services to provider A based on the outcome of the tender process as detailed within the report.

RESOLVED – That the Cabinet would consider the commercially sensitive information at Item 13 of the report before reaching a decision. 11 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED that, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they contain exempt information under paragraphs 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and it would not, on balance, be in the public interest to disclose the reports. 12 PRIORITY SCHOOL BUILD PROGRAMME PHASE 2 (PSBP2) - ROYTON & CROMPTON SCHOOL The Cabinet gave consideration to the commercially sensitive information in relation to Item 9 - Priority School Build Programme Phase 2 (PSBP2) - Royton & Crompton School.

RESOLVED – That: 1. The grant application process and progress to date be noted. 2. The recommendation to seek an expansion of the school by 2 forms of entry (additional 60 pupils per year group) and the further request as detailed within recommendation 2 of the commercially sensitive report be approved. 3. The Director of Finance be authorised to issue a letter of financial commitment for the Councils’ portion of the costs of carrying out the works to expand the school, this letter would be in the sum of approximately £3,500,000 and the further request detailed within recommendation 3 of the commercially sensitive report be approved. 4. Recommendation 4 as detailed within the commercially sensitive report be approved. 5. The use of the existing capital budget of £170,000 for the artificial grass pitch to be allocated to this project to offset costs of replacing the artificial pitch as part of the EFA sponsored project be approved. 6. The Director of Legal Services or his nominee be authorised to enter into all necessary documentation contracts and legal commitments to ensure the full benefits of the project are realised within the framework of the Priority Schools Building Programme Phase 2. 13 DAY SERVICES AWARD OF CONTRACT The Cabinet gave consideration to the commercially sensitive information in relation to Item 13 – Day Services Award of Contract.

RESOLVED – That: 1. The Day Services contract be awarded to provider A as detailed within the report. Page 5

2. The proposals for transforming day care services to support the development of locally based integrated health and social care services be noted.

The meeting started at 6.00pm and finished at 6.15pm

Page 6 Agenda Item 6

Report to CABINET

GM Health and Social Care Devolution-Estates

MoU

Portfolio Holder: Councillor Moores, Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing

Officer Contact: Executive Director Health and Wellbeing Directorate

Report Author: Cath Conroy, Head of Asset Management and Estates Ext. 4424

17th October 2016

Reason for Decision

The purpose of this report is to update Cabinet on progress with the Estates workstream which forms part of the Enabling Better Care priority of the Health and Social Care (H&SC) Strategic Plan. In particular it recommends that Oldham Council approve its participation in the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) detailed in the appendices.

Recommendations

Cabinet is recommended to approve the MoU to enable GM to work with local partners and Central Government to enable us to effectively deliver the estates strategy.

Page 7

Cabinet 17th October 2016

GM Health and Social Care Devolution- Estates MoU

1 Background

1.1 The Greater Manchester (GM) Health and Social Care Strategic Plan “Taking Charge” will require a reconfiguration of the health and social care estate in order to ensure that we can deliver our shared vision from a property base that is fit for purpose in terms of location, configuration and specification. It will be key to the delivery of clinical and financial sustainability by 2021.

2.2 Implementation of the transformation themes and locality plans will have significant capital and estates requirements – as an example, the Healthier Together (Acute Standardisation) transformation theme requires an estimated £63m capital.

2.3 Estate transformation will also contribute to our devolution agreements on the GM Land Commission and One Public Estate, helping to join up the management of the public sector estate as a whole to underpin the reform of public services.

2.4 The GM Transformation Fund has no capital element, and it is clear from the work so far that the capital requirements for estate transformation cannot be met from the normal sources of public sector capital funding over the next five years, either locally or nationally. A new approach to capital funding is therefore needed to drive estates transformation at the desired pace, whilst managing risk appropriately

2.5 The development of a robust pipeline of Estates development opportunities will be key to the success of the Estates strategy. The pipeline will be developed to ensure the estate is underpinning the development of new service models and reducing the cost of delivery in support of „Taking Charge‟. A strong pipeline will also be critical to the development of the Capital Finance Strategy that will give GM a greater opportunity to access the capital it needs to transform the estate.

2.6 The Strategic Partnership Board has received regular updates on the progress being made with this work, and in particular the development of the two Memoranda of Understanding and the Capital Finance Strategy. This paper presents the latest position on these two issues and seeks approval to proceed with the GM MoU

3. Memorandum of Understanding

3.1 An MoU is a formal, but not legally binding, agreement between two or more parties that sets out clear principles and ways of working. We have developed two MoU that will help us create a robust and consultative process for delivering our estates strategy.

3.2 A National MoU between GM and the Department of Health (DH) / National Health Service (NHS) Improvement / NHS England / Treasury / Department for Communities and Local Government has been agreed. A second GM MoU will help us create a robust and consultative process for delivering our estates strategy.

3.3 A working group, including DH, has developed the MOUs and co-ordinated an engagement programme in 2016 with the key stakeholders across GM, utilising existing meetings and governing bodies, supplemented with a workshop for Providers: 7 March GM Health and Social Care Strategic Partnership Board (SPB) Executive

Page 8 2

15 March Provider Chair and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) meeting 18 March Provider Federation 18 March GM Health and Social Care SPB Meeting 21 March Strategic Estates Group (SEG) Chairs and Partners Forum 24 March GM Health and Social CareStrategic Estates Board 4 April General Practitioner (GP) Guiding Coalition Meeting 5 April NHS Provider Workshop 6 April Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) / Provider Director of Finance (DoF) / Chief Finance Officer (CFO) Meeting GM Devolution Governance Group 8 April CCG Chief Officer Meeting 15 April Provider Federation plus Provider Workshop in April

3.4 The final MoU are included in Appendices 1 and 2 and these are being submitted to Government ministers for approval. An executive summary of their content is attached at Appendix 3.

3.5 If the Council were not to sign the MOU‟s then we would not buy into the collective partnership approach of managing our H&SC estates. It is not considered that we would sacrifice any freedoms currently enjoyed, rather that we gain from being part of the collective approach.

4. GM Health and Social Care Governance

4.1 New governance structures will enable the parties to work together to make decisions in relation to the GM health and social care estate that are strategically coordinated and aligned to maximise benefit across GM. An innovative governance framework will be key to success.

4.2 The GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board has been established which represents all stakeholders and is responsible for high level strategic estates planning (not the management of the Estate).

4.3 Each of the ten GM localities has established Strategic Estates Groups (SEGs). These are collaborative forums of public sector occupiers charged with using public property assets more efficiently based on the needs of each community. The SEGs will develop locality-based strategic estate plans and delivery programmes which will flow from the Locality Plans. The work at locality level will be supported by work at GM level to understand the scale of the estate requirements and to secure the investment needed.

4.4 Community Health Partnerships (CHP) and NHS Property Services (NHS PS) are national companies wholly owned by the DH who own, lease or are head tenants for significant property interests in GM which are used for the delivery of health and social care services. The MoU will help GM to establish strategic relationships with both organisations that is different to the more transactional relationship we have with them today. We will want these organisations involved early in our service transformation discussions helping GM to develop the most practical and beneficial way of utilising the full extent of its estate. Simplifying lease and licence arrangements and associated buildings variations to speed up service moves, ensuring value for money from lease and services charges and rapid disposal of vacant property are key issues that will help towards realising our ambitions with more pace.

4.5 Cabinet is asked to approve the MOUs in Appendices 1 and 2. The MoUs are being presented to the governance bodies of the GM organisations that are

Page 9 3

party to the agreements. In parallel the Department of Health will agree the National MOU through the relevant government departments.

5. Capital Finance Strategy

5.1 Work is continuing on the development of a Capital Finance Strategy to show how capital investment needed to support H&SC transformation in GM might be funded. Work has been informed by consideration of a number of illustrative case studies, discussions with stakeholders and potential funders.

5.2 The illustrative case studies have highlighted a number of challenges that will need to be addressed by GM to attract additional capital and enable it to be deployed to a wide range of projects in a way that aligns the commercial interests of individual organisations with the need to deliver the clinical and financial benefits within the Strategic Plan. Challenges identified are both investment related (e.g. investing across boundaries, capturing benefits, maximising returns and managing risk) and technical (e.g. balance sheet treatment, taxation and demonstrating value for money). Potential investor soundings have been very positive but highlight the need to develop a robust pipeline of capital investment opportunities to secure a commercial investment partner.

5.3 This work is ongoing and next steps to address identified challenges to include:

5.4 Further pipeline development to enable delivery of GM strategic Plan “Taking Charge”; aided by the SEGs ongoing work on locality plans, the recent tender for additional support to develop local implementation plans and engagement with potential project sponsors;

5.5 Development of a clear capital regime to support additional investment across GM. This would consider the project and technical funding issues identified and seek to provide sponsors and funders a clearer framework for investment; focus capital investment on maximising GM H&SC transformation benefits and consider how additional capital funding should be deployed alongside any revenue funding from the £450m Transformation Fund (recognising many projects may need both revenue and capital); and continued engagement with potential funders; to monitor potential market interest as work progresses and to inform thinking in advance of any future partner procurement process.

5.6 The pipeline of projects and capital financing strategy will no doubt be dependent on the Government‟s Autumn Statement.

6. Implementation

6.1 The MoU include an Estates Governance Structure that has been developed by the SEGs and the GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board. This places the SPB at the heart of the decision making process, informed by the developing Locality Plans and focused on delivery of „Taking Charge‟

6.2 The SPB will receive regular reports via the SPB Executive from the GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board so that it willbe informed about the progress of the plans and will be involved in major investment/disinvestment decisions.

6.3 The changes determined by „Taking Charge‟ will be driven by both the GM-wide transformation programmes and the ten SEGs supporting delivery of the Locality

Page 10 4

Plans. The GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board has been established to take responsibility for translating the estates plans of the SEGs and those of the evolving Locality Plans into a set of strategic requirements for GM. A Delivery Unit will provide strategic capacity and multi-disciplinary expertise to support the existing estates capacity across GM statutory public bodies.

6.4 The MoU will help to create new coordinating governance and capacity to overcome the fragmentation and complexity of health estate ownership and management.

7. Options/Alternatives

7.1 If the Council were not to sign the MoU then we would not buy into the collective partnership approach of managing our H&SC estates. It is not considered that we would sacrifice any freedoms currently enjoyed, rather that we gain from being part of the collective approach.

8 Preferred Option

8.1 The preferred option is to approve the MoU.

9 Consultation

9.1 Officers in Legal and Finance have been consulted.

10 Financial Implications

10.1 There are no costs involved with the signing of the MoU. As the MoU is not a legally binding document the Council will not be signing up to any future financial commitments at this point.

10.2 As the work streams across GM progress more will be understood about the capital commitments as a whole and per Local Authority. If additional resources are required from the Council these will need to be agreed through the formally agreed processes in the future. (Sam Smith, Senior Finance Officer)

11 Legal Services Comments

11.1 A Memorandum of Understanding is not a legally binding agreement but it does establish how the parties to the agreement will endeavor to work together to achieve a common goal, in this case to reduce the funding gap of £2billion through rigorous estate management. There is no reason why the Council should not affix its signature to the two separate Memoranda. (Elizabeth Cunningham-Doyle)

12. Co-operative Agenda

12.1 Supporting sustainable health and social care is aligned to the Co-operative agenda.

13 Human Resources Comments

13.1 N/A

14 Risk Assessments

Page 11 5

10.1 As integrated working increases between different organisations on assets held for Adult Social Care and Health the Council will have to consider the implications on financing its capital plan as specific proposals develop (Mark Stenson)

15 IT Implications

1.1 None.

16 Property Implications

12.1 Implementation of MoU will support improved utilisation of wider public sector estate ensuring resource is released to support service delivery. (Cath Conroy)

17 Procurement Implications

17.1 None.

18 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications

18.1 None arising from this report.

19 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications

19.1 None

20 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?

20.1 No

21 Key Decision

21.1 Yes

22 Key Decision Reference

22.1 HWB-01-16

23 Background Papers

23.1 All background information included in Appendices attached to this report.

24 Appendices

24.1 Appendix 1 National Estates MoU Appendix 2 GM Estates MoU Appendix 3 MoU Executive Summary

Page 12 6 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – FINAL DRAFT V98 FOR DISCUSSION

NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

GREATER MANCHESTER HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE DEVOLUTION

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - ESTATES

BETWEEN GREATER MANCHESTER AND NATIONAL BODIES

1. Introduction

The overriding purpose of the initiative represented in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU or Memorandum) is to ensure that the effective management of the Greater Manchester (GM) health and social care estate enables the greatest and fastest possible improvement to the health and wellbeing of the 2.8 million citizens of GM.

This requires a more integrated approach to the use of the existing health and social care estate, which will be a critical component in delivering transformational changes to the way in which services are delivered across GM.

To facilitate this, this MOU creates a framework for achieving the dialogue and consensus between all parties that will be required to drive forward, at pace, an effective GM estates strategy. It sets out the process for collaborative working to ensure that the maximum value is derived from the changes to the GM health and social care estate that will be necessary if the ambitions in the GM health and social care strategy ‘Taking Charge’ are to be realised. Furthermore this MOU underpins a second MOU that will be agreed between GM’s health and social care organisations that will help shape the development of the GM estate.

All parties to this MOU agree to act in good faith to support the objectives and principles set out here, for this MOU for the benefit of all GM patients and citizens.

2. Parties

The Parties1 to the Memorandum are:-

GM Combined Authority (GMCA) The 10 GM Local Authorities Association of GM CCGs The 12 GM CCGs GM NHS Provider Trusts The 15 GM NHS Provider Trusts Association of Greater Manchester Local Medical Committees Department of Health (DH)2 NHS England (NHSE) NHS Improvement (NHSI) HM Treasury (HMT) Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

1 Appendix 1 includes a full list of organisations that are party to this Memorandum 2 DH is the sole shareholder for NHS Property Services (NHS PS) and Community Health Partnerships (CHP). Both organisations have important roles to play in the development of the GM estate, but are represented in this MOU by DH. PAGE 1 Page 13 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – FINAL DRAFT V98 FOR DISCUSSION

NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – DRAFT There will also be an MOU between GM partner organisations setting out in more detail how they will work together on management of the GM public sector estate. The parties to the GM Memorandum will be:-

GM Combined Authority (GMCA) The 10 GM Local Authorities Association of GM CCGs The 12 GM CCGs GM NHS Provider Trusts The 15 GM NHS Provider Trusts NHS Property Services (NHSPS) Community Health Partnerships (CHP) Association of Greater Manchester Local Medical Committees

3. Context

Estates development is a key enabler for the successful implementation of the GM Health and Social Care Strategic Plan “Taking Charge” and the closure of the £2bn gap in five years and will also have a wider impact on GM economic outcomes (e.g. housing delivery, economic space).

The key features of estate changes needed for health and social care in GM are that:

 through the combined effect of a radical upgrade in prevention of demand for health and social care services, scaling up primary care, the integration of community health and social care and the standardisation of clinical support and back office services, there should be a reduced need for hospital capacity due to inappropriate demand; and  there will be requirements for multi-purpose community based hubs accommodating, for example, integrated primary care, community health and adult social care services and enhanced provision of step down services preventing inappropriate demand for acute beds.

However, the current structure of the health and social care system can make strategic investment/disinvestment decisions in multiple ownership situations challenging. The existence of multiple and different decision points for estate development or changes and the plurality of processes for agreeing business cases for investment and disposal can result in difficulties in whole-system planning. There are currently few existing incentives for unified strategic estate planning across the diverse spectrum of health and social care partners.

There is unlikely to be sufficient capital available within existing sources to deliver the estate changes desired for the health estate in GM. GM will therefore develop a capital investment strategy for estates that considers the availability and affordability of capital budget (Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit known as CDEL) and where appropriate and value for money and create appropriate funding platforms in open consultation and collaboration with NHSE, NHSI, DH and HMT.

This MOU sets out the overarching principles so that there is the necessary leadership and coordination needed to maximise the opportunities the GM estate offers.

In that context this MOU:

 establishes the way in which GM and national organisations will adopt a collaborative approach to the management of the GM estate with the wider GM strategy in mind; and

PAGE 2 Page 14 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – FINAL DRAFT V98 FOR DISCUSSION

NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – DRAFT  clarifies the process by which the disposal of GM health and social care estate will be managed.

It should be read in conjunction with the MOU for the GM health and social care devolution, and the MOU for Estates between GM parties.

4. Vision and Objectives

A vision for GM Health and Social Care estates has been agreed at the Strategic Estates Group Chairs’ workshop in October 2015:

‘Greater Manchester will seek to drive maximum value from the public estate by enabling its more efficient use in order to deliver local strategic objectives and national policy objectives’.

The parties to this MOU share the following objectives:

 Better manage the public sector estate so that it enables the reforms needed to deliver: o Improved health and wellbeing outcomes for the people of GM, o better utilisation of the current health and social care estate, o Achieve clinical and financial sustainability for the GM health and social care system by 2020;  Make more efficient use of the public sector health and social care estate in order to deliver ‘Stronger Together: Greater Manchester Strategy’, ‘Taking Charge’ of our Health and Social Care in Greater Manchester, the delivery of our ten Locality Plans and national policy objectives included in the ‘Better Quality Care for Patients’ the Five Year Forward View;  Identify and release surplus land to optimise receipts and deliver economic growth and value for money;  Enable GM to optimise site value and to help DH meet its targets for receipts from land disposals and housing, and delivery of key worker housing if required; and  Deliver plans that are consistent with and support any overarching health and social care estate or public sector targets, estates sales plans and place based collaborations.

5. Overarching Principles

The MOU is underpinned by the following principles which will support the vision of driving maximum value from the public estate:

Collaboration  GM will work collaboratively with local non-GM bodies and take into account the impact of GM decisions upon non-GM bodies and their communities;  All parties will engage in collaborative, constructive conversations about the optimum use of public sector assets across GM to maximise value (minimising delivery risks with appropriate financial risks);  All parties commit to optimise the scale and value of disposals from surplus land, including, where appropriate, housing  A commitment for all parties to take a transparent and open book approach in relation to land and property assets, including early notification of possible land and buildings for disposal with clear recognition of the need to protect commercial confidentiality;

PAGE 3 Page 15 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – FINAL DRAFT V98 FOR DISCUSSION

NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – DRAFT Decisions  All parties will work collectively to ensure that decisions relating to estates taken at both locality and GM level will focus on the delivery of the GM strategic plan, Stronger Together: Greater Manchester Strategy and Taking Charge3 of our Health and Social Care in Greater Manchester and the delivery of our ten Locality Plans and therefore the interests and outcomes of patients and people in GM, not organisational self-interest alone;  The delivery of ‘Taking Charge’ and of the ten Locality Plans will be considered as a significant priority for investment and strategic estates decisions4;  There is no requirement for GM health and social care estate ownership to change;  The MOU does not affect the autonomy of any GM organisation, nor will it interfere with the rights and duties of any party to the MOU to determine what relevant estate is disposed of, or when; and  So far as is consistent with any statutory or other legal obligations on them. all parties will seek to optimise the utilisation of assets where long term commitments exist, such as PFIs, LIFT etc.

6. Scope

The MOU relates to all investment and disposals in health and social care estate (buildings and land) in GM that is owned by the public sector or GP practices.5

In relation to disposals it does not cover any other buildings or land owned by independent or private sector organisations from which health and social care services are delivered.

It is recognised that there are organisations outside of GM that may have health and social care estate in GM. The parties to this memorandum are expected to collaborate with such parties even though they are not party to this memorandum.

The MOU relates to strategic decisions on the GM estate’s health and social care buildings and land, not operational management of the estate or facilities management.

In all cases, decisions by the parties in pursuance of this MOU must be consistent with their respective statutory and other legal obligations, rights and objectives.

7 . What the MOU Delivers

Terms of the Memorandum

All parties will seek to drive maximum value from the public estate by:  acting in good faith to support the objectives and principles of this MoU for the benefit of all GM patients and citizens;  working collaboratively and transparently to deliver effective management of the public estate aligned with the ‘Stronger Together’ and ‘Taking Charge’, delivery of the ten Locality Plans and the principles of the GMCA Devolution agreement;

3 ‘Taking Charge’ is GM’s five year strategic plan for health and social care. As it develops it will mirror the requirements of the Sustainability Transformation Plan (STP) guidance that other areas are producing. GM will not be producing a separate STP.

4 NHS providers also have commitments/responsibilities to patients/residents beyond GM. There may be estate decisions taken regionally that we would want to be complementary but would not be incorporated into either Taking Charge, the STP or Locality Plans. 5 This recognises that GP practices may be owned privately but still provide public health services. PAGE 4 Page 16 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – FINAL DRAFT V98 FOR DISCUSSION

NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – DRAFT  facilitating an ongoing dialogue with relevant bodies managing the GM health and social care estate;  taking decisions at a GM level in respect of the health and social care estate where the GM place-based approach is optimum for its residents, recognising regional and national objectives;  developing a partnership for strategic estate planning, aligned with sub-regional strategies;  committing to a process designed for reaching agreement as to how GM will contribute to the DH estate disposal and housing targets. (See appendix 2 for proposed process); and  agreeing to open discussions on issues that will help GM accelerate the pace of change, or to overcome national constraints that inhibit the development of the GM strategy. Current examples of this are: o Capital Resource Limit - All parties will work together to agree how the NHS Capital Resource Limits relating to GM NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts can be confirmed as soon as possible, and to investigate how a GM wide allocation can be made in the future; and o Approval process for Capital Projects - GM will work with DH, NHSE and NHSI with the intention of streamlining approval processes for NHS Primary Care capital projects by ensuring they are fully aligned to ‘Taking Charge’, locality plans and national directives and thus are ready for approval

8. Implementation.

Appendix 2 outlines the process relating to the disposal of surplus property and the handling of receipts

9. Governance

New governance structures will enable the parties to work together to make decisions in relation to the GM health and social care estate that are strategically co-ordinated and aligned to maximise benefit across GM. An innovative governance framework will be key to success.

 The governance of GM health and social care will form part of the governance arrangements for the GM Land Commission (GMLC). The GMLC will provide greater local oversight and accountability for estates management strategies, including approaches to disposals and generation of capital receipts.. The GMLC will provide a strategic link between GM and Government Departments / Non-Departmental Public Bodies to facilitate the better use of the public estate to help meet national and local policy objectives. A GMLC / One Public Estate (OPE) framework is currently being developed comprising GM and local strategy and delivery capability. The emerging framework is shown at Appendix 4 to this MOU.

 A dispute resolution process is shown at Appendix 3

 A GM Land and Property Board responsible for delivering the OPE agenda in GM, accountable to the GMCA. It will support the GMLC and has responsibility for implementing the strategic direction for land and property set by GMCA in consultation with GMLC.

 A GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board has been established which represents all stakeholders and is responsible for high level strategic estates planning (not the management of the estate).

PAGE 5 Page 17 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – FINAL DRAFT V98 FOR DISCUSSION

NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

 Each of the ten GM localities have established Strategic Estates Groups (SEGs). These are collaborative forums of public sector occupiers charged with using public property assets more efficiently based on the needs of each community. The SEGs will develop locality-based strategic estate plans and delivery programmes which will flow from the Locality Plans. The work at locality level will be supported by work at GM level to understand the scale of the estate requirements and to secure the investment needed.

PAGE 6 Page 18 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – FINAL DRAFT V98 FOR DISCUSSION

NATIONAL ESTATES MOU – DRAFT Appendix 1 – Parties to the Memorandum

GM Combined Authority Association of GM CCGs GM NHS Provider Trusts

Bolton Council NHS Bolton CCG Bolton NHS FT Bury Council NHS Bury CCG Central Manchester Manchester City Council NHS Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS FT Oldham Council CCG Greater Manchester West Rochdale Borough Council NHS Heywood, Middleton Mental Health NHS FT Salford City Council and Rochdale CCG Manchester Mental Health Stockport MBC NHS North Manchester CCG and Social Care Trust Tameside MBC NHS Oldham CCG North West Ambulance Trust Trafford Council NHS Salford CCG Pennine Acute Hospitals Wigan Council NHS South Manchester CCG NHS Trust NHS Stockport CCG Pennine Care NHS FT NHS Tameside and Glossop Salford Royal NHS FT CCG Stockport NHS FT NHS Trafford CCG Tameside Hospital NHS FT NHS Wigan Borough CCG The Christie NHS FT University Hospital of South Manchester NHS FT Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS FT

5 Boroughs Partnership NHS FT Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS FT6

Association of Greater Manchester Local Medical Committees (LMCs) Department of Health (DH) NHS England (NHSE) NHS Improvement (NHSI) HM Treasury (HMT) Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

6 5 Boroughs and Bridgewater are formally located in Cheshire and Merseyside but are parties to this Memorandum as they have estate within GM. PAGE 7 Page 19 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU DRAFT V67 FOR DISCUSSION Appendix 2 –

PROCESS FOR GM TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAPITAL RECEIPT AND HOUSING TARGET FOR DH

1. Introduction

1.1 The national MOU will determine a collaborative way of working – principles, scope etc. The MOU will ensure that decisions are taken with the wider GM strategy in mind. It will establish an “Open book process” to optimise the speed and value of disposals in GM, helping DH meet its targets.

1.2 DH has a challenging Spending Review target which includes £2bn asset sales and disposal of land to deliver 26,000 new homes. GM has a 220,000 new homes target as part of the Devolution agreement. There is a need to consider the interplay (and any potential overlap) between this target and the NHS target.

2. Disposals Page 20 Page 2.1 For disposals involving one organisation the capital receipt flow and contribution to the DH receipts and housing targets is illustrated in Table 1.The contribution to the DH target is notional as funds remain with the organisation making the disposal

2.2 Where the disposal involves approval for housing on land owned by NHS bodies or NHS PS the housing numbers will contribute to the DH target.

3. Disposals involving multiple sites

3.1 Where a disposal follows site assembly by GM of one or more sites in the ownership of different public sector ownership, including NHSPS, ‘marriage value’7 may be created i.e. added value above that which might have been obtained from individual transactions (including the usual overage).

3.2 In these cases, the capital receipts relating to the un-enhanced value (plus usual overage8)of the individual sites will flow to the individual site owners. The share of the marriage value - ‘gainshare’ will be shared as agreed between the parties.

4. Delivery

7 ‘Marriage Value’ is the value released by the merger of two or more interests in land, often when combining land parcels to assemble a development site.

8 Page 8 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU DRAFT V67 FOR DISCUSSION

4.1 Establish a working group composed of: DH, CHP, NHS PS, Provider Trusts and the GM Health and Social Care Partnership team.The group will report into the MOU Working Group.

4.2 GMGM will establish an evidence based list of DH identified NHS sites,or disposal or housing development covering the period 2016-2020. The sites will be identified from the twelve GM interim Local Estates Strategies dated December 2015 and sites reported to HSCIC as surplus as part of the annual surplus land data exercise, refined through further Trust visits by the DH Provider Engagement Programme and by reference to the ‘Taking Charge’ strategy, which will include the national requirements for Sustainable Transformation Plans, and through updates to the Local Estates Strategies..

4.3 Agree monitoring of receipts, through an agreed ‘Disposals Framework’, for NHS sites identified for disposal/housing development from April 2016 onwards..

Table 1

Current GM H&SC Estate owner Capital Receipts Counts towards DH Page 21 Page from disposals targets

NHS Foundation Trusts FT retains 

NHS Trusts Trust retains,  with NHSI consent

NHS Property Services NHS Property  Services Ltd.

Local Authority LA retains 

CHP CHP 

Primary Care (GP owned) GP partner 

Page 9 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU DRAFT V67 FOR DISCUSSION

Primary Care (not GP owned) Freeholder 

CCGs n/a Dependent on freeholder Page 22 Page

Page 10 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU DRAFT V67 FOR DISCUSSION

Appendix 3

Dispute Resolution

1. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract shall, at first instance, be referred to a mediator for resolution. The parties shall attempt to agree upon the appointment of a mediator, upon receipt, by either of them, of a written notice to concur in such appointment. Should the parties fail to agree within fourteen days, either party, upon giving written notice, may apply to the President or the Vice President, for the time being, of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, for the appointment of a mediator.

2. Should the mediation fail, in whole or in part, either party may, upon giving written notice, and within twenty eight days thereof, apply to the President or the Vice President, for the time being, of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, for the appointment of a single arbitrator, for final resolution. The arbitrator shall have no connection with the mediator or the mediation proceedings, unless both parties have consented in writing. The arbitration shall be governed by both the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Controlled Cost Rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (2014 Edition), or any amendments thereof, which Rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this clause. The seat of the arbitration shall be Page 23 Page England and Wales. "

Page 11 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU DRAFT V67 FOR DISCUSSION Appendix 4 – Proposed GM Estates Governance Structure

Estates Governance framework

GM Health and Social Care GM One Public Estate

Strategic Partnership Government Board Departments / NDPB’s

Strategic Partnership GM Land Board Executive GM Combined Authority Commission ‘Taking Charge’ GM Health & Social Care

Page 24 Page Strategic Estates Board GM Land & Property NHSE Business Case and Board Capital/Investment (incorporating Housing Pipeline Steering Group Investment Board) 10 GM Strategic Estates Groups (SEGs) Locality x 10 Plans Locality Governance Individual GM organisations Accountable/reporting to 14 10 Local Primary Provider 12 CCGs Authorities Care Trusts No formal accountability

GM Estates Delivery Unit Strategy & Policy Programme Delivery

Page 12 NATIONAL ESTATES MOU DRAFT V67 FOR DISCUSSION

1 GM Land Commission • The GMLC will provide a strategic link between GM and HMG Departments / NDPB’s to facilitate the better use of the public estate (GMLC) to help meet national and local policy objectives. It will: − Support GM with discussions with HMG Departments to unlock barriers or resolve centrally determined estates issues impacting on the successful delivery of GMCA land and property programmes; − Provide a mechanism for HMG Departments to link, and support delivery of, departmental estate disposal programmes with locally led housing, economic growth and public service reform initiatives.

2 GM Land & Property • Responsible for delivering the One Public Estate agenda in GM, accountable to the GMCA. Board • Supports the GMLC and has responsibility for implementing the strategic direction for land and buildings set by GMCA in consultation with GMLC. • Develops and monitors a range of targets on behalf of the GMCA, in relation to the strategic management of public land and property assets in GM, and the delivery of key land and property programmes. Holds GM delivery function to account.

3 GM Delivery Unit • Delivery function providing appropriate strategic capacity and multi-disciplinary expertise to support the existing estates capacity across GM. The Delivery Unit will work within national guidance to provide the support required to deliver ‘Taking Charge’. (Strategy and Planning • Core responsibilities include i) Support the planning and delivery of key estate programmes including local estate strategies; ii) Programme Delivery Planning and delivery of strategic estates programmes iii) Design, implement and embed common standards and practices for PMO) estates planning and delivery.

4 GM Health and Social The GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board will: Care Strategic Estates • Provide strategic oversight and leadership to the development and delivery of the GM Health and Social Care Estates Strategy, and Page 25 Page Board to ensure that the MoU developed between GM and DoH, is supported by a corresponding intra GM MoU that defines how GM will work together. • Be responsible for delivery and oversight of the GM/DoH MoU, and the delivery of the intra GM MoU. • Have oversight for the production of the ten Strategic Estates plans, and be responsible for ensuring that there is a consistency in ambition and content. In support of this the SEG Chairs Group will be represented on the Board. • Have oversight of and be responsible for ensuring the estates elements of the Strategic/Implementation plans are produced and hold the Delivery Unit to account for developing them. • Have oversight of any national policy development that impacts on health and care GM organisations and their estate. • Not be responsible for the development of a GM Spatial Framework, its responsibility extends to the strategic management of the health and care estate only. •

5 Strategic Estates • Collaborative forums of public sector occupiers charged with using public estates more efficiently based on the needs of each Groups (SEGs) community. Develop locality-based strategic estate plans and delivery programmes that are aligned to the Locality Plans and ‘Taking Charge’.

NHS England • The group oversees the governance arrangements of the Capital/Investment pipeline across Lancashire & Greater Manchester. It’s Business Case and main aim is to provide strategic oversight to ensure capital investment is made in line with the strategic direction of NHS England; Capital/Investment to ensure investment is targeted at the areas of greatest need; and to ensure value for the NHS and that any investment has the Pipeline Steering maximum benefit to the NHS and its patients Group

Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

GREATER MANCHESTER HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE DEVOLUTION

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GM BODIES - ESTATES

1. Introduction

The overriding purpose of the initiative represented in this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to ensure that the effective management of the Greater Manchester (GM) health and social care estate enables the greatest and fastest possible improvement to the health and wellbeing of the 2.8 million citizens of GM.

This requires a more integrated approach to the use of the existing health and social care estate, which will be a critical component in delivering transformational changes to the way in which services are delivered across GM.

To facilitate this, the MOU creates a framework for achieving the dialogue and consensus between all parties to the MOU that will be required to drive forward, at pace, an effective GM estates strategy. It sets out the process for collaborative working to ensure that the maximum value is derived from the changes to the GM health and social care estate that will be necessary if the ambitions in the GM health and social care strategy ‘Taking Charge’ are to be realised.

All parties to this MOU agree to act in good faith to support the objectives and principles set out here, for the benefit of all GM patients and citizens.

2. Parties

The Parties1 to this Memorandum are:-

 GM Combined Authority (GMCA)  The 10 GM Local Authorities  Association of GM CCGs  The 12 GM CCGs  GM NHS Provider Trusts  The 15 GM NHS Provider Trusts  NHS Property Services (NHSPS)  Community Health Partnerships (CHP)  Association of Greater Manchester  Local Medical Committees

There will also be an MOU between GM partner organisations and national bodies setting out how they will work together. The parties to this Memorandum will be:-

 GM Combined Authority (GMCA)  The 10 GM Local Authorities  Association of GM CCGs  The 12 GM CCGs  GM NHS Provider Trusts  The 15 GM NHS Provider Trusts  Association of Greater Manchester Local Medical Committees

1 Appendix 1 includes a full list of organisations that are party to this Memorandum Page 1 Page 27 INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

 Department of Health (DH)  NHS England (NHSE)  NHS Improvement (NHSI)  HM Treasury (HMT)  Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

3. Context

Estates development is a key enabler for the successful implementation of the GM Health and Social Care Strategic Plan “Taking Charge” and the closure of the £2bn gap in five years and will also have a wider impact on GM economic outcomes (e.g. housing delivery, economic space).

The key features of estate changes needed for health and social care in GM are that:

 through the combined effect of a radical upgrade in prevention, scaling up primary care, the integration of community health and social care and the standardisation of clinical support and back office services, there should be a reduced need for hospital capacity due to inappropriate demand; and  there will be requirements for multi-purpose community based hubs accommodating, for example, integrated primary care, community health and adult social care services and enhanced provision of step down services preventing inappropriate demand for acute beds.

However, the current structure of the health and social care system can make strategic investment/disinvestment decisions in multiple ownership situations challenging. The existence of multiple and different decision points for estate development or changes and the plurality of processes for agreeing business cases for investment and disposal can result in difficulties in whole-system planning. There are currently few existing incentives for unified strategic estate planning across the diverse spectrum of health and social care partners.

There is unlikely to be sufficient capital available within existing sources to deliver the estate changes required for the health estate in GM. GM will therefore develop a capital investment strategy for estates that considers the availability of capital budget (Capital Delegated Expenditure Limit known as CDEL) and creates appropriate funding platforms in open consultation and collaboration with NHSE, NHSI, DH and HMT.

This MoU sets out the overarching principles needed to provide the leadership and coordination needed to maximise the opportunities the GM estate offers.

In that context this MoU:

 establishes the way in which GM organisations will adopt a collaborative approach to the management of the GM estate with the wider GM strategy in mind; and  clarifies the process by which the disposal of GM health and social care estate will be managed.

It should be read in conjunction with the MOU for the GM health and social care devolution, and the National MOU for Estates.

4. Vision and Objectives

A vision for GM Health and Social Care estates has been agreed at the Strategic Estates Group Chairs’ workshop in October 2015:

‘Greater Manchester will seek to drive maximum value from the public estate by enabling its more efficient use in order to deliver local strategic objectives and national policy objectives’. Page 2 Page 28 INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

The parties to this MOU share the following objectives:

 Better manage the public sector estate so that it enables the reforms needed to deliver; o Improved health and wellbeing outcomes for the people of GM, o Better utilisation of the current health and social care estate, o Achieve clinical and financial sustainability for the GM health and social care system by 2020,  Make more efficient use of the public sector health and social care estate in order to deliver ‘Stronger Together: GM Strategy’, ‘Taking Charge’ of our Health and Social Care in GM and the delivery of our ten Locality Plans and national policy objectives included in the ‘Better Quality Care for Patients’ the Five Year Forward View; and  Use surplus land to optimise capital receipts and deliver economic growth value for money.

5. Overarching Principles

The MOU is underpinned by the following principles which will support the vision of driving maximum value from the public estate:

Collaboration  GM will work collaboratively with local non-GM bodies and take into account the impact of GM decisions upon non-GM bodies and their communities;  All parties will engage in collaborative, constructive conversations about the optimum use of public sector assets across GM to maximise value;  All parties, including NHSPS and CHP, will collaborate when considering investment priorities and will consider the ambition of ‘Taking Charge’; and  A commitment for all parties to take a transparent and open book approach in relation to land and property assets, including early notification of possible land and buildings for disposal;

Decisions  All parties will work collectively to ensure that decisions relating to estates taken at both locality and GM level will focus on the delivery of the GM strategic plan, ‘Stronger Together’ and ‘Taking Charge’2 and the delivery of our ten Locality Plans and therefore the interests and outcomes of patients and people in GM, not organisational self-interest alone;  The delivery of ‘Taking Charge’ and of the ten Locality Plans will be considered as a significant priority for investment and strategic estates decisions3;  Requirements, based on delivering wider GM objectives, to be prioritised through the Strategic Estates Groups, comprising Local Authorities, CCG’s, provider representatives, and wider public sector representation;  There is no requirement for GM health and social care estate ownership to change;  The MOU will not impact the sovereignty of any Trust or organisation, nor will it interfere with the sovereign rights of an organisation to determine what estate is disposed of, or when; and  All parties will seek to optimise the utilisation of assets where long term commitments exist, such as PFIs, LIFT etc.

6. Scope

2 ‘Taking Charge’ is GM’s five year strategic plan for health and social care. As it develops it will mirror the requirements of the Sustainable Transformation Plan (STP) guidance that other areas are producing. GM will not be producing a separate STP. 3 NHS providers also have commitments/responsibilities to patients/residents beyond GM. There may be estate decisions taken regionally that we would want to be complementary but would not be incorporated into either Taking Charge, the STP or Locality Plans. Page 3 Page 29 INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

The MOU relates to all investment and disposals in health and social care estate (buildings and land) in GM that is owned by the public sector or GP practices.4.

In relation to disposals it does not cover any other buildings or land owned by independent or private sector organisations from which health and social care services are delivered.

It is recognised that there are organisations outside of GM that may have health and social care estate in GM. The parties to this memorandum are expected to collaborate with such parties even though they are not party to this memorandum.

The MOU relates to strategic decisions on the GM estate’s health and social care buildings and land, not operational management of the estate or facilities management.

7. What the MOU Delivers

Terms of the Memorandum

All parties will work together to drive maximum value from the public estate by:  acting in good faith to support the objectives and principles of this MOU for the benefit of all GM patients and citizens;  working collaboratively and transparently to deliver effective management of the public estate aligned with the ‘Stronger Together’ and ‘Taking Charge’, delivery of the ten Locality Plans and the principles of the GMCA Devolution agreement, in particular to help the achievement of clinical and financial sustainability for the GM health and social care system by 2020,  facilitating an ongoing dialogue with relevant bodies managing health assets and the health estate across GM, including the option for surplus land to be acquired by mutual consent, between GM organisations;  taking decisions at a GM level in respect of the health and social care estate where the GM place-based approach is optimum for its residents, recognising regional and national directives;  developing a partnership for strategic estate planning, aligned with sub-regional strategies;  developing a range of commercial models for accessing capital funding, which may include working with institutional investors to create a fund or an SPV to provide investment in new facilities in return for long term revenue streams. This will be in addition to accessing existing sources i.e. borrowing by Foundation Trusts, NHSE capital for primary and community care developments, LIFT type schemes and prudential borrowing via LAs; and  Agreeing a process for developing a pipeline of GM estate projects that will support the delivery of ‘Stronger Together’, Taking charge’ and locality plans and the wider GM health and social care strategy.

8. Implementation

This MOU agreed between GM partner organisations will:

 be agreed by and apply to all public sector health and social care organisations across GM;  ask GM organisations to formally agree that they will consider the delivery of the locality plan as a significant priority for investment;  imply a different approach to disposal in some instances, and a clear agreement that we will work together across GM to maximise value, possibly over time rather than simply maximise cash up front;  expect organisations to consolidate around those parts of the estate that we are legally committed to retain;  seek agreement from organisations to agree that a primary purpose for the deployment of resources is the delivery of the capital strategy underpinning the Locality plan; and

4 This recognises that GP practices may be owned privately but still provide public health services. Page 4 Page 30 INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

 develop a process and framework that provides the ability to flex between individual organisational interest ( which must always be respected) and the interest of the wider economy.

The GM Estates Strategy Delivery Unit will support the identification and disposal of public sector land in GM. The Unit will provide appropriate strategic capacity and multi-disciplinary expertise to support the existing estates capacity across GM statutory public bodies in the delivery of housing, public service reform, and growth ambitions. Core responsibilities will include:  Strategic planning of key land and property programmes including oversight of and direction for local estate strategies to ensure alignment with ‘Taking Charge’ and Locality Plans;  Programming and delivery of strategic estates programmes; and  Designing and embedding common standards and practices for estates planning and delivery.

The following processes will be agreed in order to deliver the vision and objectives:

 How the parties will share benefits of improved outcomes that accrue from the result of GM devolution – referred to as ‘Gainshare; and  How any disputes will be resolved

9. GM Health and Social Care Estates Governance

The GM Strategic Partnership Board is accountable for the delivery of ‘Taking Charge’. New governance structures will enable the parties to work together to make decisions in relation to the GM health and social care estate that are strategically co-ordinated and aligned to maximise benefit across GM. An innovative governance framework will be key to success.

 The governance of health and social care will form part of the governance arrangements for the GM Land Commission (GMLC). The GMLC will provide a strategic link between GM and Government Departments / Non Departmental Public Bodies to facilitate the better use of the public estate to help meet national and local policy objectives. A GMLC / One Public Estate (OPE) framework is currently being developed comprising GM and local strategy and delivery capability. The emerging framework is shown at Appendix 2 to this MOU.

• A GM Land and Property Board responsible for delivering the OPE agenda in GM, accountable to the GMCA. It will support the GMLC and has responsibility for implementing the strategic direction for land and property set by GMCA in consultation with GMLC.

 A GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board has been established which represents all stakeholders and is responsible for high level strategic estates planning (not the management of the Estate).

 Each of the ten GM localities have established Strategic Estates Groups (SEGs). These are collaborative forums of public sector occupiers charged with using public property assets more efficiently based on the needs of each community. The SEGs will develop locality-based strategic estate plans and delivery programmes which will flow from the Locality Plans. The work at locality level will be supported by work at GM level to understand the scale of the estate requirements and to secure the investment needed.

Page 5 Page 31 INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

Appendix 1 – Parties to the Memorandum

GM Combined Authority Association of GM CCGs GM NHS Provider Trusts

Bolton Council NHS Bolton CCG Bolton NHS FT Bury Council NHS Bury CCG Central Manchester Manchester City Council NHS Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS FT Oldham Council CCG Greater Manchester West Rochdale Borough Council NHS Heywood, Middleton Mental Health NHS FT Salford City Council and Rochdale CCG Manchester Mental Health Stockport MBC NHS North Manchester CCG and Social Care Trust Tameside MBC NHS Oldham CCG North West Ambulance Trafford Council NHS Salford CCG Service Wigan Council NHS South Manchester CCG Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Stockport CCG NHS Trust NHS Tameside and Glossop Pennine Care NHS FT CCG Salford Royal NHS FT NHS Trafford CCG Stockport NHS FT NHS Wigan Borough CCG Tameside Hospital NHS FT The Christie NHS FT University Hospital of South Manchester NHS FT Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS FT

5 Boroughs Partnership NHS FT Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS FT5

NHS Property Services (NHSPS) Community Health Partnerships (CHP) North West Ambulance Trust Association of Greater Manchester Local Medical Committees (LMCs)

5 5 Boroughs and Bridgewater are formally located in Cheshire and Merseyside but are parties to this Memorandum as they have estate within GM. Page 6 Page 32 INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

Appendix 2 - Proposed GM Estates Governance Structure

Estates Governance framework

GM Health and Social Care GM One Public Estate

Strategic Partnership Government Board Departments / NDPB’s

Strategic Partnership GM Land Board Executive GM Combined Authority Commission Page 33 Page ‘Taking Charge’ GM Health & Social Care Strategic Estates Board GM Land & Property NHSE Business Case and Board Capital/Investment (incorporating Housing Pipeline Steering Group Investment Board) 10 GM Strategic Estates Groups (SEGs) Locality x 10 Plans Locality Governance Individual GM organisations Accountable/reporting to 14 10 Local Primary Provider 12 CCGs Authorities Care Trusts No formal accountability

GM Estates Delivery Unit Strategy & Policy Programme Delivery

Page 7 INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

1 GM Land Commission • The GMLC will provide a strategic link between GM and HMG Departments / NDPB’s to facilitate the better use of the public estate to help meet (GMLC) national and local policy objectives. It will: − Support GM with discussions with HMG Departments to unlock barriers or resolve centrally determined estates issues impacting on the successful delivery of GMCA land and property programmes; − Provide a mechanism for HMG Departments to link, and support delivery of, departmental estate disposal programmes with locally led housing, economic growth and public service reform initiatives.

2 GM Land & Property • Responsible for delivering the One Public Estate agenda in GM, accountable to the GMCA. Strategy Board • Supports the GMLC and has responsibility for implementing the strategic direction for land and property set by GMCA in consultation with GMLC. • Develops and monitors a range of targets on behalf of the GMCA, in relation to the strategic management of public land and property assets in GM, and the delivery of key land and property programmes. Holds GM delivery function to account.

3 GM Delivery Unit • Delivery function providing appropriate strategic capacity and multi-disciplinary expertise to support the existing estates capacity across GM. The Delivery Unit will work within national guidance to provide the support required to deliver ‘Taking Charge’. (Strategy and Planning • Core responsibilities include i) Support the planning and delivery of key estate programmes including local estate strategies; ii) Planning and Programme Delivery delivery of strategic estates programmes iii) Design, implement and embed common standards and practices for estates planning and delivery. PMO)

4 GM Health and Social The GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board will:

Page 34 Page Care Strategic Estates • Provide strategic oversight and leadership to the development and delivery of the GM Health and Social Care Estates Strategy, and to ensure that Board the MoU developed between GM and DoH, is supported by a corresponding intra GM MoU that defines how GM will work together. • Be responsible for delivery and oversight of the GM/DoH MoU, and the delivery of the intra GM MoU. • Have oversight for the production of the ten Strategic Estates plans, and be responsible for ensuring that there is a consistency in ambition and content. In support of this the SEG Chairs Group will be represented on the Board. • Have oversight of and be responsible for ensuring the estates elements of the Strategic/Implementation plans are produced and hold the Delivery Unit to account for developing them. • Have oversight of any national policy development that impacts on health and care GM organisations and their estate. • Not be responsible for the development of a GM Spatial Framework, its responsibility extends to the strategic management of the health and care estate only.

5 Strategic Estates Groups • Collaborative forums of public sector occupiers charged with using public estates more efficiently based on the needs of each community. Develop (SEGs) locality-based strategic estate plans and delivery programmes that are aligned to Locality Plans and ‘Taking Charge’.

NHS England Business • The group oversees the governance arrangements of the Capital/Investment pipeline across Lancashire & Greater Manchester. It’s main aim is to Case and provide strategic oversight to ensure capital investment is made in line with the strategic direction of NHS England; to ensure investment is targeted Capital/Investment at the areas of greatest need; and to ensure value for the NHS and that any investment has the maximum benefit to the NHS and its patients Pipeline Steering Group

6 Organisation specific • Deliver local property and asset management services in respect of detailed local strategies for housing delivery, economic growth and public property asset service reform. management • Engage with, and supported by, GM Delivery Unit through SEGs.

Page 8 INTRA GM ESTATES MOU – DRAFT

Appendix 3- Dispute Resolution

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract shall, at first instance, be referred to a mediator for resolution. The parties shall attempt to agree upon the appointment of a mediator, upon receipt, by either of them, of a written notice to concur in such appointment. Should the parties fail to agree within fourteen days, either party, upon giving written notice, may apply to the President or the Vice President, for the time being, of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, for the appointment of a mediator.

Should the mediation fail, in whole or in part, either party may, upon giving written notice, and within twenty eight days thereof, apply to the President or the Vice President, for the time being, of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, for the appointment of a single arbitrator, for final resolution. The arbitrator shall have no connection with the mediator or the mediation proceedings, unless both parties have consented in writing. The arbitration shall be governed by both the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Controlled Cost Rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (2014 Edition), or any amendments thereof, which Rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this clause. The seat of the arbitration shall be England and Wales. "

Page 9 Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank Summary of MOU’s

National Estates MOU

Executive Summary

1. Parties

The Parties to the Memorandum are:-

GM Combined Authority (GMCA) The 10 GM Local Authorities Association of GM CCG’s The 12 GM CCG’s GM NHS Provider Trusts The 15 GM NHS Provider Trusts Association of Greater Manchester Local Medical Committees Department of Health (DH) NHS England (NHSE) NHS Improvement (NHSI) HM Treasury (HMT) Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

2. Context

This MOU sets out the overarching principles needed to provide the leadership and coordination needed to maximise the opportunities the GM estate offers. It:  establishes the way in which GM and national organisations will adopt a collaborative approach to the management of the GM estate with the wider GM strategy in mind; and  clarifies the process by which the disposal of GM health and social care estate will be managed.

3. Vision and Objectives

A vision for GM Health and Social Care estates has been agreed at the Strategic Estates Group Chairs’ workshop in October 2015:

‘Greater Manchester will seek to drive maximum value from the public estate by enabling its more efficient use in order to deliver local strategic objectives and national policy objectives’.

Page 37 The parties to this MOU share the following objectives:

 Better manage the GM public sector estate so that it enables the reforms needed to deliver: o Improved health and wellbeing outcomes for the people of GM, o The most efficient utilisation of the current health and social care estate, o Achieve clinical and financial sustainability for the GM health and social care system by 2020;  Make more efficient use of the public sector health and social care estate in order to deliver ‘Stronger Together: Greater Manchester Strategy’, ‘Taking Charge’ of our Health and Social Care in Greater Manchester and the delivery of our ten Locality Plans and national policy objectives included in the ‘Better Quality Care for Patients’ the Five Year Forward View;  Identify and release surplus land to optimise receipts and deliver economic growth and value for money;  Enable GM to optimise site value and to help DH meet its targets for receipts from land disposals and housing units, and delivery of key worker housing if required; and  Deliver plans that are consistent with any overarching health and social care estate or public sector targets, estates sales plans and place based collaborations.

4. Overarching Principles

The MOU is underpinned by the following principles which will support the vision of driving maximum value from the public estate:

Collaboration  GM will work collaboratively with local non-GM bodies and take into account the impact of GM decisions upon non-GM bodies and their communities;  All parties will engage in collaborative, constructive conversations about the optimum use of public sector assets across GM to maximise value (minimising delivery risks with appropriate financial risks);  All parties commit to optimise the scale and value of disposals from surplus land, including ,where appropriate, housing  A commitment for all parties to take a transparent and open book approach in relation to land and property assets, including early notification of possible land and buildings for disposal with clear recognition of the need to protect commercial confidentiality;

Decisions  All parties will work collectively to ensure that decisions relating to estates taken at both locality and GM level will focus on the delivery of the GM strategic plan, Stronger Together: Greater Manchester Strategy

Page 38 and Taking Charge1 of our Health and Social Care in Greater Manchester and the delivery of our ten Locality Plans and therefore the interests and outcomes of patients and people in GM, not organisational self-interest alone;  The delivery of ‘Taking Charge’ and of the ten Locality Plans will be considered as a significant priority for investment and strategic estates decisions2;  There is no requirement for GM health and social care estate ownership to change;  The MOU does not affect the autonomy of any GM organisation, nor will it interfere with the rights and duties of any party to the MOU to determine what relevant estate is disposed of, or when; and  So far as is consistent with any statutory or other legal obligations on them. all parties will seek to optimise the utilisation of assets where long term commitments exist, such as PFIs, LIFT etc.

5. Scope

The MOU relates to all investment and disposals in health and social care estate (buildings and land) in GM that is owned by the public sector or GP practices.3

In relation to disposals it does not cover any other buildings or land owned by independent or private sector organisations from which health and social care services are delivered.

It is recognised that there are organisations outside of GM that may have health and social care estate in GM. The parties to this memorandum are expected to collaborate with such parties even though they are not party to this memorandum.

The MOU relates to strategic decisions on the GM estate’s health and social care buildings and land, not operational management of the estate or facilities management.

In all cases, decisions by the parties in pursuance of this MOU must be consistent with their respective statutory and other legal obligations, rights and objectives.

1 ‘Taking Charge’ is GM’s five year strategic plan for health and social care. As it develops it will mirror the requirements of the Sustainable Transformation Plan (STP) guidance that other areas are producing. GM will not be producing a separate STP.

2 NHS providers also have commitments/responsibilities to patients/residents beyond GM. There may be estate decisions taken regionally that we would want to be complementary but would not be incorporated into either Taking Charge, the STP or Locality Plans.

3 This recognises that GP practices may be owned privately but still provide public health services.

Page 39 6. What the MOU Delivers The MOU relates to all investment and disposals in health and social care estate (buildings and land) in GM that is owned by the public sector or GP practices.4

In relation to disposals it does not cover any other buildings or land owned by independent or private sector organisations from which health and social care services are delivered.

It is recognised that there are organisations outside of GM that may have health and social care estate in GM. The parties to this memorandum are expected to collaborate with such parties even though they are not party to this memorandum.

The MOU relates to strategic decisions on the GM estate’s health and social care buildings and land, not operational management of the estate or facilities management.

In all cases, decisions by the parties in pursuance of this MOU must be consistent with their respective statutory and other legal obligations, rights and objectives.

7. Implementation.

DH Targets

The MOU outlines the process relating to the disposal of surplus property and the handling of receipts. (See full National MOU)

Governance

New governance structures will enable the parties to work together to make decisions in relation to the GM health and social care estate that are strategically co-ordinated and aligned to maximise benefit across GM. An innovative governance framework will be key to success.

GM Estates MOU

4 This recognises that GP practices may be owned privately but still provide public health services.

Page 40 Executive Summary

1. Parties

The Parties to this Memorandum are:-

GM Combined Authority (GMCA) Association of GM CCG’s GM NHS Provider Trusts NHS Property Services (NHSPS) Community Health Partnerships (CHP) North West Ambulance Trust Association of Greater Manchester Local Medical Committees

2. Context

This MoU sets out the overarching principles needed to provide the leadership and coordination needed to maximise the opportunities the GM estate offers. It:

 establishes the way in which GM organisations will adopt a collaborative approach to the management of the GM estate with the wider GM strategy in mind; and  clarifies the process by which the disposal of GM health and social care estate will be managed.

3. Vision and Objectives

A vision for GM Health and Social Care estates has been agreed at the Strategic Estates Group Chairs’ workshop in October 2015:

‘Greater Manchester will seek to drive maximum value from the public estate by enabling its more efficient use in order to deliver local strategic objectives and national policy objectives’.

The parties to this MOU share the following objectives:  Better manage the GM public sector estate so that it enables the reforms needed to deliver; o Improved health and wellbeing outcomes for the people of GM, o The most efficient utilisation of the current health and social care estate, o Achieve clinical and financial sustainability for the GM health and social care system by 2020,  Make more efficient use of the public sector health and social care estate in order to deliver ‘Stronger Together: GM Strategy’, ‘Taking Charge’ of our Health and Social Care in GM and the delivery of our ten Locality Plans and national policy objectives included in the ‘Better Quality Care for Patients’ the Five Year Forward View; and  Use surplus land to optimise capital receipts and deliver economic

Page 41 growth value for money.

4. Overarching Principles

The MOU is underpinned by the following principles which will support the vision of driving maximum value from the public estate:

Collaboration  GM will work collaboratively with local non-GM bodies and take into account the impact of GM decisions upon non-GM bodies and their communities;  All parties will engage in collaborative, constructive conversations about the optimum use of public sector assets across GM to maximise value;  All parties, including NHSPS and CHP, will collaborate when considering investment priorities and will consider the ambition of ‘Taking Charge’; and  A commitment for all parties to take a transparent and open book approach in relation to land and property assets, including early notification of possible land and buildings for disposal.

Decisions  All parties will work collectively to ensure that decisions relating to estates taken at both locality and GM level will focus on the delivery of the GM strategic plan, ‘Stronger Together’ and ‘Taking Charge’ and the delivery of our ten Locality Plans and therefore the interests and outcomes of patients and people in GM, not organisational self-interest alone;  The delivery of ‘Stronger Together’, ‘Taking Charge’ and of the ten Locality Plans will be considered as a significant priority for investment and strategic estates decisions;  Requirements, based on delivering wider GM objectives, to be prioritised through the Strategic Estates Groups, comprising Local Authorities, CCG’s, provider representatives, and wider public sector representation;  There is no requirement for GM health and social care estate ownership to change;  The MOU will not impact the sovereignty of any Trust or organisation, nor will it interfere with the sovereign rights of an organisation to determine what estate is disposed of, or when ;and  All parties will seek to optimise the utilisation of assets where long term commitments exist, such as PFIs, LIFT etc.

5. Scope

The MOU relates to all investment and disposals in health and social care estate (buildings and land) in GM that is owned by the public sector or GP practices.

In relation to disposals it does not cover any other buildings or land owned by independent or private sector organisations from which health and social

Page 42 care services are delivered.

It is recognised that there are organisations outside of GM that may have health and social care estate in GM. The parties to this memorandum are expected to collaborate with such parties even though they are not party to this memorandum.

The MOU relates to strategic decisions on the GM estate’s health and social care buildings and land, not operational management of the estate or facilities management.

6. What the MOU Delivers

Terms of the Memorandum

All parties will work together to drive maximum value from the public estate by:  acting in good faith to support the objectives and principles of this MOU for the benefit of all GM patients and citizens;  working collaboratively and transparently to deliver effective management of the public estate aligned with the ‘Stronger Together’ and ‘Taking Charge’, delivery of the ten Locality Plans and the principles of the GMCA Devolution agreement;  facilitating an ongoing dialogue with relevant bodies managing health assets and the health estate across GM, including the option for surplus land to be acquired by mutual consent, between GM organisations;  taking decisions at a GM level in respect of the health and social care estate where the GM place-based approach is optimum for its residents, recognising regional and national directives;  developing a partnership for strategic estate planning, aligned with sub- regional strategies;  developing a commercial model for accessing capital funding, which may include working with institutional investors to create a fund or an SPV to provide investment in new facilities in return for long term revenue streams. This will be in addition to accessing existing sources i.e. borrowing by Foundation Trusts, NHSE capital for primary and community care developments, LIFT type schemes and prudential borrowing via LAs; and  Agreeing a process for developing a pipeline of GM estate projects that will support the delivery of ‘Stronger Together’, Taking charge’ and locality plans and the wider GM health and social care strategy.  Agreement of a dispute resolution procedure in those cases where there is a clear conflict of interest between individual organisations interest and its potential negative impact on the GM strategic or Locality Plans.

7. Implementation.

The GM Estates Strategy Delivery Unit will support the identification and disposal of public sector land in GM. The Unit will provide appropriate strategic capacity and multi-disciplinary expertise to support the existing

Page 43 estates capacity across GM statutory public bodies in the delivery of housing, public service reform, and growth ambitions. Core responsibilities will include:  Strategic planning of key land and property programmes including oversight of and direction for local estate strategies to ensure alignment with ‘Taking Charge’ and Locality Plans;  Programming and delivery of strategic estates programmes; and  Designing and embedding common standards and practices for estates planning and delivery.

8. GM Health and Social Care Estates Governance

New governance structures will enable the parties to work together to make decisions in relation to the GM health and social care estate that are strategically co-ordinated and aligned to maximise benefit across GM. An innovative governance framework will be key to success. (Further details in section 5 of this report)

 A GM Health and Social Care Strategic Estates Board has been established which represents all stakeholders and is responsible for high level strategic estates planning (not the management of the Estate).

 Each of the ten GM localities have established Strategic Estates Groups (SEGs). These are collaborative forums of public sector occupiers charged with using public property assets more efficiently based on the needs of each community. The SEGs will develop locality-based strategic estate plans and delivery programmes which will flow from the Locality Plans. The work at locality level will be supported by work at GM level to understand the scale of the estate requirements and to secure the investment needed.

Page 44 Agenda Item 7

Report to Cabinet

Future Education Provision

Portfolio Holder: Cllr A Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education and Early Years

Officer Contact: Caroline Sutton, Director Education and Early Years

Report Author: Paula Green, Interim Education Provision Manager Ext. 3158

17 October 2016

Reason for Decision Oldham Council has a statutory duty to provide sufficient school places within its area. There is a forecasted shortfall in the secondary sector from September 2017. In order to meet this demand it is envisaged that the following projects will be needed;  Three secondary school expansions  A new build secondary free school

Recommendations It is recommended that Cabinet:

1. Agrees the programme of future schemes for expansion outlined in this report and the proposals for expansion/newly built schools at Crompton House School, The Oldham Academy North, Oasis Academy together with a new secondary free school.

2. Notes the programme of expansion will be funded by the basic needs funding allocated (totaling £38.2m) to Oldham local authority for 2017/18 and 2018/2019.

3. Delegates authority to the Director of Education and Early Years to develop, consult, procure and arrange for the execution by the Director of Legal Services of any relevant contracts and incidental and ancillary documentation, in accordance with the agreed school expansions programme.

Page 45

Cabinet 17 October 2016

Education Provision

1 Background

1.1 There continues to be an increase in demand and significant pressure on school places in the borough. This is as a result of an increasing birth rate, new housing developments and a growing number of families moving into the borough, including high numbers of International New Arrivals. The current primary surplus places for the borough is 1.2% (secondary surplus is 6% at present). The recommended surplus stated by Central Government is 5%.

1.2 A report to Cabinet in March 2014 highlighted the need for additional primary school places and several primary programmes have commenced as a result of that report. Primary expansions included;

Old PAN Revised PAN Planning Area Bare Trees C P 70 90 Chadderton Yew Tree C P 60 90 Chadderton EC St George’s C E 30 60 Royton/Shaw Greenfield C P 20 30 Saddleworth/Lees St Hilda’s C E 45 60 West Oldham Propps Hall C P 20 30 Failsworth/Hollinwood Watersheddings C P 30 45 East Oldham Mills Hill C P 60 90 Chadderton Oasis Academy Limeside 30 60 Failsworth/Hollinwood Kingfisher Special (Free) School 140 (total) 280 (total) Chadderton

1.3 As a result of this increase in primary numbers there is expected to be a significant shortfall of secondary school places across the borough from September 2017.

1.4 In September 2016, secondary demand has only been met with a number of short term expansions of year group sizes in a number of schools. Significant further pressure is expected from September 2017 and substantial physical expansion of schools will be required to ensure sufficient school places are provided to satisfy demand.

1.5 School capacity and future projections information is submitted to the Department for Education (DfE) annually. The information on this return determines the basic needs funding allocation calculated by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) annually. The EFA has allocated sums of £15.4m for 2017/18 and £22.8m for 2018/19 (a total of £38.2m) for providing capital works programmes to satisfy the need for school places under the Basic Needs Funding Programme.

1.6 The process for identifying school/settings expansion projects has been followed as set out in The Education Provision Strategy that was agreed by Cabinet in August 2016.

1.7 There are a number of schemes that have been discussed at the Education Provision Group (EPG), which seek to address the pressure and satisfy demand in the borough, ensuring our statutory duty of providing sufficient school places is adhered to. It is now necessary to establish and work towards delivery of a structured programme of works and identification of possible sites. This will give the greatest certainty over the Council’s ability to deliver the required number of places. The schemes for recommendation have been

Page 46 2

chosen due to their priority on the decision making matrix (appendix 20.5) (as per the Education Strategy that is a background paper to this report).

2 Current Position

2.1 There are currently sufficient surplus places in year 7 to year 11 in the secondary sector. However for year 7 in September 2016 there are only 37 vacancies across the entire borough and there are still applicants that have not applied. If all the non-applicants apply there will be a deficit of -41 places. There will be no spare places in year 7 for in year movement next academic year.

2.2 The data for secondary school places across Oldham does not further sub-divide the requirement for places at any lower geographical level than across the entire borough. However presuming the secondary follows the primary trend, the pressure and demand for school places will lie in Central Oldham.

2.3 Forecasts show that by September 2017 an additional 300 places will be needed in year 7 and subsequently across all other year groups. By 2021 a further additional 400 places will be needed in year 7 and subsequently across all other year groups. In total this means we will be 700 places short by 2021.

2.4 The anticipated level of additional secondary school places required indicates that at least one new secondary school or circa 8 to 10 forms of entry (1200-1500 pupils) will be required in addition to these expansion proposals. Project delivery could be via; expansion/relocation of an existing provider, new school under the academy presumption or a new free school. Choice of site would either be an existing Council site or would require the acquisition of a new site.

2.5 The Education Act 2011 changed the arrangements for establishing new schools and introduced section 6A into the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The effect of this piece of legislation means that any new schools will be Academies or Free Schools. If the Council seeks to establish a new school under the Academy process the Council will have the ability to select a preferred sponsor for consideration by DFE through the Academy Presumption process, however, this route makes the council liable to fund start-up costs for the new school from the DSG. The start-up costs consist of: o resources needed for the new school to open and function from its first day o Pre-opening costs for staffing, recruitment etc If a Free School is sought no such burden is placed on the DSG for startup costs, however, the ability to nominate a preferred sponsor through a presumption process is lost. The Council has and will seek to ensure that any Free School established in Oldham will be able to demonstrate its capacity to provide a good or outstanding provision and work closely with the LA and the wider school community.

2.6 The opportunity to expand existing secondary schools has been evaluated using the Secondary Schools Priority Matrix. Using the matrix criterion the potential schools for expansion are the following in priority order; Crompton House School, Hathershaw College, North Chadderton School and The Oldham Academy North. To date only one feasibility idea has been considered at Crompton House School based upon an approach from the school. Crompton House School has put forward a proposal to expand from an 8FE to 10/12 FE i.e. an expansion of 60/120 school places per year group.

Page 47 3

2.7 In February 2015 Royton and Crompton was approved to receive significant investment through the Priority Schools Building Programme Phase 2 (PSPB2). Cabinet agreed to set aside additional funding to secure an expanded new build at its meeting in September.

2.8 The above schools are both situated in the Royton and Shaw area. Whilst demand in that area is high, the pressure for school places is most significant is the East and West Oldham areas.

2.9 Hathershaw College, North Chadderton School and The Oldham Academy North all have sites that could potentially house new blocks on.

2.10 Oasis Academy previously had a planned admission number of 300 and reduced to 240 in September 2016. There is sufficient space and capacity in this building for Oasis to return to a PAN of 300.

2.11 A number of schools could be expanded to give the additional places necessary;

School Additional places Revised PAN Crompton House School 120 343 Hathershaw College 90 300 North Chadderton School 60 300 The Oldham Academy North 60 300 Oasis Academy 60 300 Royton and Crompton (PSPB2) 60 300 TOTAL ADDITIONAL PLACES 450

2.12 The scheme for Crompton House School has been evaluated as the highest preference for expansion on the priority matrix. This is due to it being rated ‘good’ by Ofsted and being the third most oversubscribed school in Oldham, after Blue Coat and North Chadderton. The expansion would increase the school from an 8 form entry to a 12 form entry.

2.13 Expansion of The Oldham Academy North would also provide an additional 60 places (2FE).

2.14 Oasis Academy already has the site and space to take an additional 60 pupils (2FE) at no cost to the LA.

2.15 Oasis Academy, North Chadderton and Failsworth have all agreed temporary increases in PANs for September 2017, if they can access growth funding which will give us an additional 100 places in September 2017.. To address the -317 shortfall in 2018, Oasis Academy, The Oldham Academy North and Crompton House will all need expansion.

3 Options

3.1 Option 1: Do nothing – this will mean that the LA is in breach of its statutory duty to provide sufficient school places across the borough.

3.2 Option 2: Approve the expansions as proposed. At 2.12 - 2.15 above.

3.3 Option 3: Reject expansion proposals in option 2 and seek the urgent development of 2 new secondary schools. There is a risk that this will mean there will be insufficient school places in 2017/18.

Page 48 4

3.4 Option 4: Approve the expansion proposed in option 2 and develop a new secondary school scheme through the Free School Route

4 Preferred Option - Option 4

Agree the schemes for;

 Crompton House School expansion to increase the school from an 8 form entry to a 12 form entry.  The expansion of The Oldham Academy North providing an additional 60 places (2FE).  Note that Oasis Academy already has the site and space to take an additional 60 pupils (2FE) at no cost to the LA.  Note that Oasis, North Chadderton and Failsworth have all agreed temporary increases in PANs if they can access growth funding which will give us an additional 100 places in September 2017.  Agree that officers develop proposals for a new secondary school through the Free School Route.

5 Consultation

5.1 The above options have all been discussed by the Education Provision Group and this group has agreed the proposals and recommendations are now progressed forward for Cabinet approval. Discussions will now need to commence with the relevant schools/academies, then a further consultation should take place with all other schools/academies to inform them of how decisions have been made.

5.2 With regards to Oasis Academy, Crompton House School and The Oldham Academy North the following consultation process will be followed according to statutory legislation;  As Crompton House School and The Oldham Academy North are rated ‘Good’ by Ofsted and the expansions are less than 50% of the schools overall capacity, they would be able to make a fast track application for approval via the Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC)  A local consultation running for four weeks would need to take place in the first instance with all those who could be affected by the proposed change

5.3 Oasis Academy would not need consultation as it is not an expansion to the premises.

6 Financial Implications

6.1 The financial implications are detailed in the Part B report. (James Postle)

7 Legal Services Comments

7.1 Legal Services will provide legal advice and support as and when required to do so to support the proposed expansion programme and will advise on the consultation process to mitigate any risk of legal challenge.

7.2 Legal Services will provide legal advice in relation to the procurement of the contractors and the drafting of relevant contractual documentation. (Elizabeth Cunningham-Doyle)

8. Co-operative Agenda

Page 49 5

8.1 Objective 1: A Productive Place where business and enterprise thrive.

8.2 Outcome: Ensuring the creation of sufficient quality school places and effective, inspiring learning environments. Ensuring that the Local Authority is adhering to their statutory duty of providing sufficient school places in the borough and ensuring a higher percentage of families can go to a school of their preference.

8.3 Objective 3: A co-operative council delivering good value services to support a co-operative borough.

8.4 Outcome: Deliver our statutory duties and services to a good standard and ensure they are value for money.

9 Human Resources Comments

9.1 There are no HR implications from a statutory perspective. Formation of new schools and expansion of existing provision will provide valuable employment opportunities in the borough. Any new provider will be encouraged to adhere to the principles outlined in the Oldham Academies Policy. (Andy Collinge, Education Information and Advice Service Manager)

10 Risk Assessments

10.1 By implementing a scheduled and robust programme of capital works and expansions the risk of running short of school places will be reduced and the likelihood of creating high quality places will be increased.

11 IT Implications

11.1 Not applicable.

12 Property Implications

12.1 The proposed capital schemes will facilitate the expansion of schools to ensure the Council satisfies its statutory duty to ensure sufficient places are available.

12.2 The design, procurement and construction of each project will be considered specifically and necessary individual project proposals made dependent upon the project type and criteria for success. (Barney Harle)

13 Procurement Implications

13.1 Any works associated with school expansions are to be carried out in line with EU Regulations and Oldham Council’s Contract Procedure Rules.

13.2 It would be prudent to ensure that the proposed recommended options, including the expansion proposals are aligned with the council’s overall commercial strategy in relation to school expansions. (Darren Judge)

14 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications

Page 50 6

14.1 The availability of sufficient high quality school places will reduce the likelihood that parents will have to travel beyond a reasonable walking distance in order to take their children to school. This will in turn have the effect of reducing the number of car journeys as parents make every effort to get their children to school on time and keep them safe by collecting them at the end of the school day.

14.2 By attending their preferred school parents and children are more likely to feel confident about their educational experience which can contribute to their sense of wellbeing.

15 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications

15.1 Admission authorities have a legal duty to comply with parental preference wherever possible. Consequently, Oldham’s school place planning approach takes account of identified demand for places. In terms of equality, the proposal will positively increase the supply of school places in the borough.

15.2 The LA makes every effort to ensure that parents are not only aware of which schools are available in their local area and beyond but that the information that is published is clear and concise so that parents and young people are able to make informed choices about which school they would like to attend. The level of satisfaction in terms of the availability of places at the preferred school contributes directly to community cohesion.

16 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?

16.1 Yes on 01.08.2016.

17 Key Decision

17.1 Yes

18 Key Decision Reference

18.1 EEY-04-16.

19 Background Papers

19.1 None

20 Appendices

20.1 None

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is recommended that the investment programme outlined in section 2 to section 4 is approved to address basic needs provision for the next three years. The remainder of the basic needs funding allocation 2018-2019 would remain unallocated but specifically held in reserve towards the Council’s portion of costs of a new secondary free school and other capital works progammes in other planning areas to be brought to Cabinet at a later date.

The implications of not addressing the basic needs provision at this time would result in the Local Authority not meeting its statutory duty. Additionally there would be an increase in the number of

Page 51 7 children travelling greater that the statutory recommended travelling distance to schools and an increase in the number of siblings attending different schools.

RECOMMENDATIONS We are currently experiencing significant pressure in the year 7 cohort of the secondary sector, with just enough places this year to meet demand. This has been achieved through working with headteachers to temporarily increase their Planned Admission Numbers. In 2018, projections show that there will be a deficit of 300 year 7 places in the borough. This forecast is also evidenced by the number of pupils that are in the year 5 cohort now that will be year 7 in September 2018.

We have planned an extensive capital works programme that will address this need in the secondary sector. The agreement by Cabinet in October 2016, will allow feasibility to take place before Christmas, so that planning applications (a process that takes 12 weeks) can be submitted thereafter and capital work can be scheduled to start in the Spring Term 2017. It is imperative that this timeline is adhered to so the build programme (which will take approx. 16 months) can be completed for the end of the academic year 2017/2018. This will enable any remodelling of internal spaces to be done during the summer holidays 2018 to minimise disruption to teaching and learning and for projects to be complete for the pupils starting secondary school in September 2018.

Any delay in the timeline will result in Oldham LA not being able to offer all year 7 pupils a place at secondary in September 2018.

All potential schemes have been selected as a result of the Education Provision Group (EPG) analysing capacity, demand and future projections. The EPG consists of members from across housing, planning, regeneration, finance, business intelligence, education, capital works and elected members including Cllr Moores and Cllr Akhtar. The planning areas where the most significant shortfall was evidenced (Secondary, Saddleworth/Lees, East and West Oldham) were analysed further through the EPG Priority Matrices. These matrices assess and prioritise each potential school scheme, taking in to account education standards, demand, site feasibility and value for money in terms of cost per additional pupil place.

It is recommended that an amount of the Basic Needs funding for 2018/2019 totaling £38.2m be allocated towards;  Crompton House School - additional 120 places per year group  The Oldham Academy North – additional 60 places per year group  1 x secondary expansion at Oasis Academy, no cost – additional 60 places per year group  (New secondary (additional 300 places) free school  Feasibility costs

Page 52 8 Agenda Item 8

Report to CABINET

Proposed Disposal of the Former Kaskenmoor School Site, Roman Road, Hollinwood.

Report of Cllr Jean Stretton (Leader) – Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise.

Officer Contact: Helen Lockwood, Executive Director Economy Skills and Neighbourhoods.

Report Author: Liz Garsrud, Principal Surveyor, Strategic Property Partnerships. Ext. 4284

th 17 October 2016

Purpose of Report

The purpose of the report is to seek approval for the Council to dispose of the residue of the Former Kaskenmoor School Site and to include the Kaskenmoor site in the existing Strategic Partnering Agreement with Langtree Property Partners Limited for the development of Council owned land at Hollinwood Junction.

Recommendations

Cabinet is asked to note the contents of the report only, with a further report which contains financial information, to be considered under restricted part of the agenda.

Page 53

Cabinet 17th October 2016

Proposed Disposal of the Former Kaskenmoor School Site, Roman Road, Hollinwood.

1. Background

1.1 The Council entered into a five year Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA) in relation to Council owned land at Hollinwood Junction with Langtree Group PLC on 20th June 2011. This followed an earlier OJEU tender exercise to attract a long-term private sector development partner for Hollinwood, with Langtree Group PLC being selected as the preferred partner and Cabinet approval being obtained at the time to this effect.

1.2 The SPA sets out the mechanisms by which the Council and Langtree would work together to promote regeneration at Hollinwood Junction, which included the setting up of a Project Board to govern the process.

1.3 In the spirit of partnership working, Langtree submitted a mixed-use employment-led planning application for the main Albert Street site and this was approved in June 2013. This approval gave permission for the demolition of the former gas holder, and the delivery of up to 215,000 square feet of new employment space across the site, along with certain agreed commercial/leisure uses to the northern part of the scheme.

1.4 As a result of Langtree’s on-going investment into the JV partnership, Cabinet agreed certain variations to the existing SPA and a Deed of Variation and Development Agreement were completed on 23 December 2014 to document these variations.

2. Current Position

2.1 It had always been the intention that the remainder of the site of the former Kaskenmoor School should be part of the Hollinwood Junction JV proposals. However, at that time it was unclear how much surplus land was available for development and therefore it was not formally included within the revised SPA documentation in 2014.

2.2 Following the completion of the New Bridge Multi-Academy, which includes the New Bridge Academy and Hollinwood Academy (new ASD School) both, on part of the former Kaskenmoor School Site, the surplus land available for development, has now been identified. It is therefore proposed to include the surplus Kaskenmoor School land (Kaskenmoor site) within the SPA.

2.3 The Kaskenmoor site is unallocated in the Council’s Local Development Framework, and is identified as a Green Corridor/Link however, it is adjacent to existing housing on its southern and western boundaries and therefore, subject to planning, it is considered potentially suitable for residential development.

2.4 Langtree has undertaken some soft market testing on the current demand for residential development sites in the area. This has shown that there is a good demand for residential development sites with good access to the M60 motorway.

2.5 The Council and Langtree are continuing their negotiations with National Grid for the demolition of the redundant former gas holder on the development area and the Council’s subsequent acquisition of the site and further details will follow at the earliest opportunity.

3. Options/Alternatives

3.1 The options available to the Council can be summarised as follows:

Page 54 2

3.2 Option 1 - To dispose of the Kaskenmoor site and include the site in the SPA with Langtree.

3.3 Option 2 - Not to dispose of the former Kaskenmoor site and not to complete the proposed variations to the existing SPA with Langtree and continue to operate under the current agreement.

4 Preferred Option

4.1 The preferred option is Option One above and for the Council to dispose of the former Kaskenmoor site and to include the site in the SPA with Langtree

5 Consultation

5.1 Relevant Portfolio holder, the Director of Education and Early Years and senior Council officers.

6 Financial Implications

6.1 These are outlined in the restricted report.

7 Legal Services Comments

7.1 These are outlined in the restricted report.

8. Co-operative Agenda

8.1 The Council is working co-operatively with both Langtree Property Partners Limited and the Hollinwood Partnership to bring forward development at Hollinwood Junction. This will create a significant number of jobs, stimulate the local economy and improve the local environment.

9. Risk Assessments

9.1 These are outlined in the restricted report.

10. IT Implications

10.1 None.

11. Property Implications

11.1 These are outlined in the restricted report.

12 Procurement Implications

12.1 These are outlined in the restricted report.

13. Environmental and Health & Safety Implications

13.1 None.

14. Equality, community cohesion and crime implications

14.1 None.

Page 55 3

15. Equality Impact Assessment Completed?

15.1 No.

16. Key Decision

16.1 Yes

17. Key Decision Reference

17.1 ECEN-13-16.

18. Background Papers

18.1 None.

19. Appendices

19.1 None.

Page 56 4 Agenda Item 9

Report to CABINET

Approval to award contract for works at Whitebank Stadium, White Bank Road, Limehurst Village [Hollinwood]

Portfolio Holder: Cllr Jean Stretton, Leader and Cabinet Member for Economy and Enterprise

Officer Contact: Helen Lockwood, Executive Director, Economy, Skills and Neighbourhoods

Report Author: Mark Prestwich, Principal Surveyor Ext. 1660

17 October 2016

Reason for Decision The purpose of the report is to provide Cabinet with details of a recent tender exercise in relation to planned works at Whitebank Stadium, Limehurst Village.

Recommendations Cabinet is asked to note the contents of the report only, with a further Part B report being considered later in the Cabinet agenda.

Page 57

Cabinet [17 October 2016]

Approval to award contract for works at Whitebank Stadium, White Bank Road, Limehurst Village [Hollinwood]

1 Background

1.1 In September 2011, the Council completed a number of transactions to secure the use of the Whitebank Stadium for Oldham Rugby League Football Club (ORLFC), namely;

- The acquisition of the Freehold interest in the land shown edged red on the attached plan. The land measures approximately 4.85 acres and was purchased by the Council from Molson Coors Brewery. - The acquisition by the Council of a leasehold interest in the adjacent land shown edged blue on the attached plan. The land is leased from Enville Estate. - The grant of a leasehold interest in the whole site (i.e. the land edged green) to ORLFC for a term of 15 years with an option for the club to acquire the site at the end of the term.

1.2 Following promotion of ORLFC to the Championship and notice from the Rugby Football League that Whitebank Stadium failed to meet minimum ground standards for the league, ORLFC ceased playing competitive games at the ground and entered into an agreement with Stalybridge Celtic to play games at Bower Fold. On 19 July 2016, Oldham RLFC surrendered their lease agreement with the Council.

2 Current Position

2.1 In September 2016, the Council agreed to enter into an initial agreement for a lease with AVRO FC whereby, upon the Council securing planning permission for a range of improvement works and carrying out the programme of works, AVRO FC would be granted a 25 year lease across the whole of the site (Modern.Gov2740). In line with the agreement for a lease, the Council has now submitted a planning application (PA/339093/16) for the proposed improvement works at Whitebank Stadium and this is due to be determined at the Planning Committee on 16 November 2016.

2.2 The works detailed in the planning application have been tendered in consultation with colleagues in the Corporate Procurement team. As part of this process, the Authority approached a total of 7 companies which had been recommended by Council’s procured sports pitch consultant (Surfacing Standards Limited).

2.3 Details of the opportunity were uploaded onto the Chest on 3 October 2016 and the tenders were returned on 17 October 2016 (i.e. a 14 day tender period). Of the 7 companies approached, 4 returned a tender.

Page 2 of 5 [approval to award contractPage at whitebank58 OPEN.doc] [17 October 2016]

3 Public Health, Sport and Leisure

3.1 The loss of grass pitches at the Lancaster club could be mitigated with the development of a 3G artificial pitch development at the Whitebank stadium. The pitch at Whitebank is currently assigned as a rugby pitch, albeit not currently used. Having a rugby pitch at this site is factored into the overall borough supply and demand of pitches.

3.2 With the installation of an improved specification to allow both rugby and football to be played on site, this would offer the potential for wider and more flexible participation across sports and support long term sustainability of the asset. [Neil Consterdine – Head of Public Health and Leisure] 4 Options/Alternatives

4.1 There are a range of options available to the Council and these can be summarised as follows;

- Do Nothing - Issue a contract for completion of the works to the party submitting the most economically advantageous tender

5 Preferred Option

5.1 It is considered preferable for the Council to award the tender to the company submitting the most economically advantageous tender. Full details of the appointment, together with the financial implications of the appointment would be set out in the separate, Part B report.

6 Consultation

6.1 None.

7 Financial Implications

7.1 These are detailed in the separate, Part B report.

8 Legal Services Comments

8.1 These are detailed in the separate, Part B report.

9. Procurement Comments

9.1 These are detailed in the separate, Part B report.

10. Co-operative Agenda

10.1 The Council are seeking to make a sizeable investment in a facility that is expected to accommodate significant community use. The facility would help

Page 3 of 5 [approval to award contractPage at whitebank 59 OPEN.doc] [17 October 2016] provide better access to sport for the residents of Limehurst Village who, compared with average data for Oldham, are considered to be less healthy, less active and less likely to participate in sports.

10.2 The Council have also had a series of discussions with Regenda about the works and both Regenda and Contour and supportive of the Council’s proposals.

11 IT Implications

11.1 None.

12 Property Implications

12.1 These are detailed in the separate, Part B report.

13 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications

13.1 None.

14 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications

14.1 The Council are working with a series of partners including local sports clubs, Regenda, Contour and the Football Association to deliver a facility which can accommodate a range of sporting activities.

14.2 Whitebank Stadium also provides a social club on the site and it is expected that this would not only provide refreshments for stadium users, but also host a range of community events – including functions and parties.

15 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?

15.1 No.

16 Key Decision

16.1 Yes.

17 Key Decision Reference

17.1 ECEN-16-16

18 Background Papers

18.1 None.

19 Appendices

19.1 Appendix One – Plan.

Page 4 of 5 [approval to award contractPage at whitebank60 OPEN.doc] [17 October 2016] Appendix One

Page 5 of 5 [approval to award contractPage at whitebank 61 OPEN.doc] [17 October 2016] This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 111 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 115 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 117 This page is intentionally left blank