Oldham Borough Council
Council Meeting Wednesday 17 April 2013
OLDHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL
To: ALL MEMBERS OF OLDHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL, CIVIC CENTRE, OLDHAM
Tuesday, 9 April 2013
You are hereby summoned to attend a meeting of the Council which will be held on Wednesday 17 April 2013 at 5.45 pm in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, for the following purposes:
1 The Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Lloyd will address Council
(time limit 30 minutes)
Open Council
2 Questions to Cabinet Members from the public and Councillors on ward or district issues
(20 minutes for public questions and 20 minutes for Councillor questions)
Formal Council
3 To receive apologies for absence
4 To order that the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 6th February 2013 and 27th February 2013 be signed as a correct record (Pages 1 - 40)
5 To receive declarations of interest in any matter to be determined at the meeting
6 To deal with matters which the Mayor considers to be urgent business
7 To receive communications relating to the business of the Council
8 To receive and note petitions received relating to the business of the Council (Pages 41 - 42)
(time limit 20 minutes)
9 Outstanding Business from the previous meeting
(time limit 15 minutes). Councillor Moores to MOVE and Councillor Wrigglesworth to SECOND:
Last year, Education Secretary Michael Gove announced plans to scrap GCSEs and replace them with English Baccalaureate Certificates (EBCs) from 2015. This year campaigners will hand in a letter to No.10 Downing Street urging Prime Minister David Cameron to rethink the pace of reforms of exams in England. The letter is signed by 100 groups and individuals from the worlds of education, the arts and industry. They include the National Union of Teachers; National Association of Head Teachers; Nicholas Hytner, Artistic Director of the National Theatre; Sandy Nairne, Director of the National Portrait Gallery; Caroline Miller, Director of Dance UK; campaigner Peter Tatchell; and Rosemary Johnson, Executive Director of the Royal Philharmonic Society. The council, whilst not being opposed to the reform of the system of examinations, or to the drive to raise standards, are concerned that the current consultation on the introduction of the English Baccalaureate Certificates is too limited and that decisions are being made too quickly. This Council resolves to instruct the Chief Executive to: 1. Write to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education, asking for the consultation period to be extended in both time and content to ensure any concerns are addressed before steps are taken to implement EBCs. Also to fully engage with the views of parents, students, governors businesses, teachers, head teachers and other concerned stakeholders before any changes are made. 2. Write to the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, and the three local Members of Parliament to outline the councils concerns and ask for their support.
10 Youth Council
The following recommendation has been received from the Youth Council:
“As a Youth Council we are deeply concerned that despite many local, regional and national organisations carrying out high level anti bullying campaigns, and despite many programmes and projects tackling the issue Bullying remains the number one concern for young people in Oldham.
We believe bullying is one of the most destructive experiences a person can have and its affects can have long term consequences on the health and well being of the victims.
Oldham Youth Council has taken the issue of Bullying as a priority for this term of office. After some recent research we discovered that since September 2009 to date 219 incidents of bullying have been reported using the reporting procedure for hate crime and racist incidents (that school can use to report bullying) this number doesn’t correlate with the findings of our consultation where 92 % of Young people have been bullied or directly witnessed it happening. Without consistent and accurate reporting of bullying in Oldham we have no idea how big this problem is, or how well it is being dealt with after relevant interventions.
We would like to explore this further to scrutinise whether schools are monitoring, recording and responding successfully to bullying.
We understand that schools do not have a duty to inform the local authority of bullying that takes place and that as a local authority we are limited in our direct influence over schools anti-bullying policies.
We therefore propose to the council that the Local Authority representatives on the secondary schools boards of Governors take a lead on working with us to carry out an assessment of school bullying policies, looking at:
• What schools define as bullying? • How schools monitor, record and report bullying incidents. • Assess the effectiveness of the schools anti-bullying policy. • Assess the support and help offered by schools to the victims of bullying.”
(time limit 20 minutes)
11 Leader and Cabinet Question Time
(time limit 30 minutes – maximum of 2 minutes per question and 2 minutes per response)
12 To note the Minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet held on the undermentioned dates, including the attached list of urgent key decisions taken since the last meeting of the Council, and to receive any questions or observations on any items within the Minutes from Members of the Council who are not Members of the Cabinet, and receive responses from Cabinet Members (Pages 43 - 74)
(time limit 20 minutes) :-
a) 28 th January 2013 b) 25 th February 2013 c) 25 th March 2013 d) 8th April 2013 (Budget) e) Urgent Key Decisions taken by Cabinet from 28 th January 2013 to 8 th April 2013
13 Notice of Administration Business
(time limit 30 minutes)
1. Councillor Jabbar to MOVE and Councillor Ball to SECOND:
Oldham is a Borough with above average rates of Child and Family Poverty. In 2010 36% of Oldham families were receiving working tax and child tax credits (national average 24%). In 2010 27% of Oldham children were living in families which were in poverty (national average 20%). The Government has capped all working benefit increases at 1%, this will substantially increase poverty rates in Oldham causing increasing stress and increased threats of homelessness. This Council Resolves to ask our 3 Members of Parliament to lobby the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to take steps to reduce child poverty by asking him to reaffirm the Coalition Government’s commitment to implement the Child Poverty Act 2009 thereby meeting the 4 targets on poverty reduction by 2020 as set out in the Act.
2. Councillor Hibbert to MOVE and Councillor Shuttleworth to SECOND:
This Council is concerned about the traffic flows on Broadway, Chadderton. The road is currently designated as a ‘trunk road’ and its maintenance is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency regards Broadway as being an intrinsic section of the motorway network that links the M60 to the M62. Consequently, heavy goods vehicles and others that are destined for Rochdale, Stakehill Industrial Estate and Yorkshire, are directed to leave the M60 at Semple Way to travel through the three Chadderton Wards and to join the A627(M) at Royton leading on to the M62. Oldham Council considers this to be an intrusion and to be detrimental to the quality of life of Chadderton residents and dangerous for the pupils of the schools that are located along that route. This Council calls upon the Highways Agency to install direction signs on the M60 instructing drivers to remain on the motorway system when travelling to the aforementioned destinations and for those travelling in the opposite direction.
14 Notice of Opposition Business
(time limit 30 minutes) 1. Councillor J Dillon to MOVE and Councillor D Heffernan to SECOND:
This Council strongly supports the retention of public houses and is greatly concerned at continued pub closures. Well-run pubs play an invaluable role at the heart of local communities, providing safe, regulated and sociable environments in which people can interact whilst enjoying a drink responsibly. The new National Planning Policy Framework and the Localism Act 2011 establishes new responsibilities and tools for local councils to promote and protect local pubs. This has been welcomed by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), which has also published: - Model Planning Policies to assist local authorities in adopting pro-pub policies - The Public House Viability Test to support local authorities when making a determination on a change of use or demolition application involving a pub
This Council resolves to: - Ensure Local Plans provides adequate planning protection for pubs - Support communities to list pubs as Assets of Community Value - Ensure that pubs of historic or architectural interest without a statutory listing are included on the Council’s Local Heritage List - Investigate the use of Article 4 Direction powers to prevent valued pubs being converted to small supermarkets, betting shops and other uses without the need for planning permission - Investigate the use of the CAMRA Public House Viability Test as a tool when considering planning applications involving pubs - Write to the Community Pubs Minister, The Rt. Hon Brandon Lee MP, and the Under Secretary of State at DCLG, The Rt Hon Don Foster MP, urging the Government to close the loophole that allows pubs to be converted or demolished without planning permission so that any change of use or proposal for demolition is subject to planning approval - Write to the three local MPs urging them to sign Early Day Motions 1035 and 1171 which condemn the action of the British Beer and Pub Association in seeking a judicial review of pro-pub planning policies adopted by Cambridge City Council and McDonalds in seeking pub sites for conversion to restaurants.
2. Councillor Harkness to MOVE and Councillor McCann to SECOND:
This Council notes the provisions of the Localism Act that permits voluntary and community groups to ‘stop the clock’ on the rapid sale of properties valued by the host community. Using Community Right to Bid powers, such groups can nominate an ‘asset of community value’ (such as a pub, post office, or village shop). This prevents the commercial sale of such assets for six months to enable communities to put together a bid of their own. This Council also notes the recent establishment of the Community Shares Unit. Backed by the Department of Communities and Local Government, this unit assists communities to raise community-backed finance to buy such assets. This Council resolves to: - Develop a register of ‘assets of community value’ based on nominations from community leaders and voluntary and community groups - Promote awareness of the Right to Bid provisions, the register and the help available from the Community Shares Unit, via the Council’s website and at District Partnerships
15 To note the Minutes of the following Joint Authority and Oldham Partnership meetings and the relevant spokespersons to respond to questions from Members (Pages 75 - 158)
(time limit 15 minutes):-
Police and Crime Panel 25 th January 2013
Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue 14 th February 2013 Authority 21 st March 2013
Transport for Greater Manchester 11 th January 2013 Committee 15 th February 2013 15 th March 2013
Unity Partnership Board 9th January 2013
Peak District National Park Authority 1st February 2013
Association of Greater Manchester 25 th January 2013 Authorities Executive 22 nd February 2013
Greater Manchester Combined 25 th January 2013 Authority 22 nd February 2013
Greater Manchester Waste Disposal 23 rd November 2012 Authority 8th February 2013
16 Budget Proposals 2014/2015 (Additional) (Pages 159 - 232)
17 Department for Education Capital Funding 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 (Pages 233 - 250)
18 Honorary Freeman of the Borough - Report of the Borough Solicitor (Pages 251 - 252)
19 The Result of the Royton South By-Election and Review of the composition of Political Groups (Pages 253 - 258)
20 Chief Officer Remuneration (Pages 259 - 264)
21 Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document (Pages 265 - 272)
Due to the size of the appendices, Appendix 1 to 6 to the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan are available online, or upon request.
22 Municipal Calendar - Report of the Borough Solicitor (Pages 273 - 302)
23 Update on Actions from Council (Pages 303 - 328)
PROCEDURE FOR NOTICE OF MOTIONS NO AMENDMENT
MOTION – Mover of the Motion to MOVE
MOTION – Seconder of the Motion to SECOND – May reserve right to speak
DEBATE ON THE MOTION: Include Timings
MOVER of Motion – Right of Reply
VOTE – For/Against/Abstain
Declare outcome of the VOTE
RULE ON TIMINGS PROCEDURE FOR NOTICE OF MOTIONS (a) No Member shall speak longer than five minutes on any Motion or Amendment , or by way of question,WITH AMENDMENTobservation or reply, unless by consent of the MembersPROCEDURE of the Council FOR NOTICEpresent, hOFe/she MOTIONS is allowed an extension, in which case only one extension of One Minute shall be allowed. WITH AMENDMENT
(b) A Member replying to more than question will have up to five minutes to reply to each question. WITH AMENDMENT
MOTION – Mover of the Motion to MOVE
MOTION – Seconder of the Motion to SECOND – May reserve right to speak
AMENDMENT – Mover of the Amendment to MOVE
AMENDMENT – Seconder of the Amendment to SECOND
DEBATE on the Amendment For Timings - (See Overleaf)
AMENDMENT – Mover of Original Motion – Right of Reply
IF LOST –Declare AMENDMENT – Mover of Amendment – Lost Right of Reply
VOTE ON AMENDMENT ONLY – Call for any debate For/Against/Abstain – CARRIED/LOST on Original Motion and then Call upon Mover of Original IF CARRIED – Declare Carried Motion – Right of Reply Call for any debate on Substantive Motion as Amended and then Call upon Mover of Original Motion – Right of Reply VOTE – On Original Motion – For/Against/Abstain VOTE – ON SUBSTANTIVE MOTION as amended - For/Against/Abstain
Declare outcome of Declare Substantive Motion as amended the Vote Carried/Lost Agenda Item 4 COUNCIL 06/02/2013
Present: The Mayor Councillors Akhtar, Alexander, Alcock, Ames, Azad, Ball, S Bashforth, Battye, Beeley, Blyth, Briggs, Brownridge, A Chadderton, O Chadderton, Dawson, Dean, Dearden, J Dillon, P Dillon, Fielding, Garry, Haque, Harkness, J Harrison, Heffernan, Hibbert, Hindle, Houle, Hudson, Hussain, Iqbal, Jabbar, Judge, Larkin, Malik, McCann, McDonald, McLaren, McMahon, Moores, Newton, Price, Qumer, Rehman, Roughley, Salamat, Sedgwick, Shah, Sheldon, Shuttleworth, Stretton, Sykes, Thompson, Williams, Williamson and Wrigglesworth
1 CIVIC APPRECIATION AWARD CEREMONY A presentation took place for Mr Cliff Ellison in recognition of his outstanding service and dedication to the voluntary sector in Oldham.
Councillors McMahon Sykes and Hudson, gave congratulatory speeches to Mr Cliff Ellison.
Mr Cliff Ellison was then presented with his award, and made a speech to the Council.
The meeting reconvened at 6.30 pm for the business of the Council meeting. 2 QUESTIONS TO CABINET MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS ON WARD OR DISTRICT ISSUES Councillor McMahon MOVED and Councillor Sykes SECONDED the suspension of the Council procedure rules to allow the time limit for Council to be increased.
RESOLVED – That the time limit for Council be increased, and the guillotine to now stand at 10.00pm
The Mayor made reference to the recent death of Councillor Phil Harrison and Councillors McMahon, Bashforth, Heffernan and Hudson all spoke in remembrance of Councillor Harrison
Council held a Minutes Silence in memory of Councillor Phil Harrison.
The Mayor advised the meeting that the next item in Open Council would be public question time. Questions had been received from members of the public and would be taken in the order that they had been received. If the questioner was not present then the question would appear on screen in the Chamber.
The following questions had been submitted:
Page 1
1.Question received from Parish Councillor Dave Murphy via email:
“Would Council consider changing the location of the successful Farmers in market in Royton to other areas around the borough, starting with Shaw & Crompton?”
Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Business Skills and Town Centre gave the following response:
“Royton Real Food market started trading in September 2012 and has taken place five times.
The market has been incredibly well received by customers and is also building a loyal trader base.
Although it is early days, due to its popularity, we would like to look at whether we can also operate the market at other locations in addition to Royton.
In the first instance, it would be sensible to look at venues in the borough that are not too close to the existing site in Royton, so it unlikely that Shaw will be included in this initial exercise.
The Markets Team have been trialling alternative activity in Shaw, including rental discounts on the Thursday market and the 'Lazy Car Boot' sale on Sundays, which is due to commence again in April.”
2. Question received from Ian Wolstenholme via email:
Despite contacting Council a couple of weeks ago, visitors to the town are still being invited to Christmas events and activities via a large board at King Street roundabout. Is this forward planning by Council or just another attempt to make Oldham look stupid?
Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Business Skills and Town centre gave the following response:
“The board is owned by TFGM and is part of their communications to motorists around Town Centre roadworks and Metrolink TFGM kindly allowed us to promote the Town Centre using this board over Christmas and we are working with them now to change this message to one promoting the free parking offer. This board should be updated by this Friday with this new offer.”
3. Question received from Sam Badriya via Facebook
“I read about first bus prices being lowered down thanks to the council. Are there any plans to try and get a better deal for people commuting from Oldham. I get a tram and a train to work and it costs me £33 for a weekly pass, and it went up by £2 in January.
Page 2
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning, gave the following response:
“Ensuring that public transport costs are affordable is of huge importance which is why the Council negotiated with First Bus to reduce their fares. Previously, we were in the unjust position where passengers in the south of Greater Manchester were paying much less on First Bus than people from Oldham.
The cost of the fares for Metrolink are set across Greater Manchester by Transport for Greater Manchester and the fares for rail are set by the rail companies. Transport for Greater Manchester is actively planning the introduction of a type of smart card which can be used on buses, trams and trains across Greater Manchester.
The first step will be to introduce the system for tram travel in 2014. As a result, TfGM is currently reviewing all of the fare structures across GM in order to standardise how their fares are charged. The council is playing an active part in this process and is particularly looking at where the fare zone boundaries are set within Oldham which has a major impact on the cost of travel from different parts of the Borough. These changes to Metrolink fares will be introduced next year.
The smart card system will then be extended to cover train and bus travel making it much easier to make linked journeys.
At this stage I cannot say that this will ultimately reduce your weekly travel costs but the Council is committed to lobbying for affordable public transport as a key part of helping to grow our local economy.”
4. Question received from Mr Warren Bates On 15 th November 2009 Councillor McMahon stated that the Council would run rings round residents. The Secretary of State Eric Pickles stated that any increase in Council Tax over a certain percentage - 2% - should not be invoked until a referendum has been undertaken. The purpose of this is to ensure constituents have a proper input into the democratic process. Inviting residents into the Civic Centre to decide what they want to be prioritised does not constitute a referendum, in my opinion. In view of the fact that the proposed budget exceeds 2% will you Councillor McMahon call a referendum?
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, gave the following response:
I did say that but what Mr Bates did not say is that since then there has been a change of administration. This Council is an open and democratic one and will work with residents to make sure that the people of Oldham have their say; be very clear that the government controls legislation and allows Local Authorities to increase their Council Tax by 2%. The Council Tax increase proposed is 2% or below – the additional difference takes in the precepts for police, fire and rescue, waste and transport. Has a Page 3
Civil servant made a mistake with this or is it that when the Chancellor announced the settlement we had nearly another £7.5 million to find? We either increase Council Tax or close some front line facilities. This was the choice we had to make and we did this against the cost of a referendum which would have been very costly.
The following questions were submitted by Councillors on Ward or District Matters:
1. Councillor Williamson to Councillor Hibbert:
“I have been asked by a local resident to bring up the following issue.
The resident states that they are expressing their concern regarding the parking on Netherhouse Road from people going to Crompton House School. Herself and other residents have raised these concerns since 2007.
On regular occasions they have notified the police, when some nights they cannot move because of how the cars are parked. The police have told them that they need some kind of parking restrictions on the west side (odd numbers) of Netherhouse Road down pass no 51. Double yellow lines, residents parking only, or even just cones put there permanently, like they have in Carlton Way, near the hospital.
The resident has emailed the deputy head on numerous occasions and all he has said is he can ask parents and students to park with respect. According to the deputy head he has asked the council to put cones out when there is something going on at school, but on 14, 23 and 27 November there were no cones put out. When they park opposite the drive and each side of their drive, therefore they have had to park on the road and, because of the road is narrow, there is double parking and large vehicles cannot get through.
At the Planning Committee meeting on 19 December Crompton House School had a planning application approved for new artificial pitches which would include an additional 20 parking spaces. These additional spaces will in no way alleviate the problems that the local residents are experiencing.
Can the Council please seriously consider working with the school and local residents to help all parties to a satisfactory solution?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning gave the following response:
“The Traffic Section regularly receive complaints concerning parking problems in the area. Currently, parking restrictions are in place along Rochdale Road until 6.00pm. Restrictions have recently been introduced within some residential streets to try Page 4 and maintain access throughout the day, but this has met with opposition form teaching staff and residents who also rely on parking within the highway.
During the consultation period of the Planning Application for the laying out of an all weather pitch (in place of an existing grass pitch),a number of representations were received concerning potential congestion and parking problems. A condition was applied to the planning permission that a Parking Management Plan be produced. The intention of this was to ensure that unrestricted use of the school car park is available to users of the pitches. Details will also be included of how parking will be managed when use of the pitches and other evening events at the school occur concurrently.”
2. Councillor Battye to Councillor Hibbert:
“Criteria for providing grit bins - During January, councillors have funded the placement of grit bins in 2 streets in Failsworth West ward. This is an area where bins were provided previously and on streets that are not on gritting rounds. One of the criteria used to remove the bins from the former list is altitude above sea level. In view of the fact that in very cold still weather the coldest areas are often in low lying areas because cold air rolls down the hillsides to low lying areas, would Cllr Hibbert give an undertaking that the criteria of altitude be reconsidered in the criteria for grit boxes for next winter?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning gave the following response:
“Oldham has a tried and tested criteria for allocating grit bins. Points are awarded on 10 sets of criteria including, altitude, climatic zone, highway gradient, distance to next bin, distance from primary gritting routes, etc.
There is a large variation in altitude between areas across Oldham and it is a well known fact that temperature does decrease with altitude. In Oldham statistical data does significantly support the importance of altitude as a highly relevant criterion. With increasing altitude generally there will be more snow fall and the likelihood of steeper gradients on roads - both circumstances where the locating of grit bins is more advantageous.
We do constantly review our service provision and will continue to review all aspects of winter maintenance provision to ensure it is delivered in the most effective way within the current financial challenges.
Page 5
Where a request does not meet the criteria District Partnerships do have the discretion to consider additional requests for grit bins and prioritise these along with other district needs.”
3. Councillor Briggs to Councillor McMahon:
“Can the council confirm the purchase of the Lancaster Club in Failsworth and give assurances that the social club and sporting facilities will continue to be made available to the public until a firm development is in place. Can the council also give support to the District Partnership taking on the responsibility of over- viewing the social club and sporting facilities during this time? This will ensure that the facility is not left to decline and help local councillors become local leaders.”
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, gave the following response: “The good news is that the Council completed the purchase of the Lancaster Club in December 2012. It is the Council's intention to allow the existing social club and sports pitch uses to continue, until such time as possession is required in connection with the proposed redevelopment of the site. To this end short term agreements have already been approved and put in place with the existing steward and stewardess of the Lancaster Club and Avro Football Club respectively. The agreements include a responsibility to maintain the facilities and will be closely monitored to ensure that any decline does not take place. Furthermore it should also be noted that the facilities remain available to the public for private hire and this can be arranged by contacting the relevant Council tenant direct. Bearing in mind the existence of these agreements, the Council would be happy for the District Partnership to take on an overseeing role, in terms of supporting the existing tenants and and users, as may be required, with Councillor Briggs taking on the role of Lead Member.” 4. Councillor Dawson to Councillor Hibbert:
“Local groups have expressed concern regarding the charging policy for rooms at Failsworth Town Hall. Will the council support local councillors in a review of the charging policy and marketing and promotion to encourage greater community and commercial use?”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning gave the following response:
“As a consequence of placing all Council assets within the Corporate Landlord function, Oldham has highlighted a number of service improvement measures with regards to the use of our
Page 6
Civic space function rooms, in particular the need to improve marketing and promotion.
A consistent approach for marketing, promotions and fees to be charged is required, and work is currently being undertaken to address this”
5. Councillor Dean to Councillor Hibbert
“Please could I submit the following for questions to cabinet members from ward Councillors. 1 Could I be informed the timetable for the demolition of Counthill School? 2 When will the planning brief be available and what form of consultation will take place”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning gave the following response:
“The asbestos removal started on Monday 7 January 2013 and is currently on programme to be completed prior to starting the demolition of the existing buildings. Demolition is due to start on 25 March 2013 and be completed by 28 June 2013. Officers are currently considering the future of the former Counthill School site alongside all of the other former School sites in order to develop a comprehensive and coherent redevelopment strategy. It is envisaged that the site will be sold for family housing and any briefs will reflect this. Comprehensive consultation will of course take place with local people at the appropriate time.”
6. Councillor Harkness to Councillor Stretton
“3D Dynamos Football Club I raised the issue about the playing field drainage problems, which is linked to the wider issue with drainage across Dobcross, a couple of meetings back. I have had a couple of meetings since and progress has begun. Sadly this now seems to be stalling. The football pitch has become unplayable and in the meantime 3D Dynamos FC have to play elsewhere. This is having financial implications for the club so I have made a contribution to the club to assist with the extra costs they have had as a result of the pitch problems in Dobcross. I would like to see a resolution for 3D Dynamos and indeed other users of the fields. Can I therefore, ask the Cabinet member if she will meet with me and council officers along with United Utilities representatives to make some progress on this issue?”
Councillor Stretton, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Devolved Services gave the following response:
“This issue is a longstanding problem that falls within a number of different service areas and cannot be responded to Page 7 comprehensively for tonight. This matter will be discussed by officers and Cabinet members, a report will be prepared, which I will share with Councillor Harkness and a written reply should be available within 21 days.”
7. Councillor McCann to Councillor Hibbert:
“Could the cabinet member confirm his support for the campaign to maximise the benefits for OMBC residents arising from the Rail Northern Hub upgrade. The current proposals envisage all services with local stops going to Piccadilly station,so cutting off rail access to Ashton-u-Lyne, and that only 2 of the 4 stations Slaithwaite,Marsden, Greenfield and Mossley will be stopped at by any particular train.
In effect after spending millions the service will be less user friendly for local people and so his support is sought in lobbying Network Rail to review their proposals.”
Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing Transport and Planning gave the following response:
“The recent go ahead for HS2 is excellent news for the Greater Manchester economy and is therefore great news for Oldhamers as it is expected to open up even more jobs growth in the city region.
How Oldhamers get easy access to those jobs across Greater Manchester is a question that we all need to consider. The investment in Metrolink into the heart of Oldham and many of our districts is therefore of major importance in improving that connectivity. Many parts of Oldham are now within half an hours very easy commute to Piccadilly. Manchester city centre is therefore closer than ever and it is important that Oldham sees itself as part of the overall Greater Manchester economy.
I am equally committed to ensuring that the East of Oldham gets the best it can from HS2 and will be pleased to work with colleagues to ensure that this happens. I will involve them fully in the consultations that will be taking place and will lobby for any necessary changes that will give Oldham and Greater Manchester the best deal.
That is why I shall be working closely with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and playing an active role in the consultation on the detail of HS2 and ensuring that I use the weight of TfGM in our response.
However, I recognise that the rail links through Saddleworth are also part of how we connect to the Greater Manchester economy and also over into Yorkshire, and will continue to work closely with TfGM to deliver the priorities identified (following market research) for the Manchester-Saddleworth-Leeds rail line, which are:
Page 8
• 2 trains per hour service at local stations; • Through services from local stations to Leeds; • Direct services to Manchester Victoria; • Rail services to connect local stations, including Ashton– under-Lyne.
While the Northern Hub proposals and the Electrification programmes have now been published, many of the key outcomes of these programmes have yet to be defined in detail. It is correct that they will lead to changes in service patterns on the Leeds via Huddersfield route and while the Department for Transport has published some indicative service patterns these are not definitive. The development of the final services will be overseen by a Network Rail Northern Programmes Board on which we will be represented by TfGM.
The possibility that TfGM and Northern local authorities will play a much more direct role in future franchises under the Government's devolution proposals could also assist us in delivering the priorities for the Manchester-Saddleworth-Leeds rail line.”
8. Councillor Roughley to Councillor Hibbert: “The 5 way cross roads in the middle of Denshaw is on a major diversionary route for when the M62 is closed because of an accident or there is bad weather. The number of such diversions is increasing and it is quite clear that the present road configuration cannot cope with 44 tonne trucks and the sudden increase in the general volume of traffic. There are frequent lengthy tailbacks on all the five roads at this junction and local residents have great difficulty in crossing the road for hours at a time. It is impossible for emergency vehicles to reach the village during some of the snarl ups. Will the Cabinet approach the Department of Transport - responsible for the M62 - and demand that a redesign of this junction is very necessary and that they, having set up this diversionary route, should foot the bill?” Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning gave the following response:
“There are currently on going discussions with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) to clarify the strategic road network across Greater Manchester and potential issues of funding. These discussions include the Highways Agency who are responsible for motorways such as the M62, and other designated trunk routes. It should be noted that the occurrences of traffic being diverted due to weather or closure of the M62 are on the whole infrequent, although obviously more prevail in the winter months. However, on the occasions this does happen, unusual disruption is inevitable regardless of the junction layout.
In terms of the junction itself there have been no reported injury accidents over the last 3 year period and as such it would not be Page 9
considered as a priority for reconfiguration due to safety concerns.
Next year's proposed highways capital programme will consider all junction improvements, to conclude whether there are any best value provisions that could be made. We currently expect there to be provision to repaint road markings to reinforce the layout and ensuring any signing and bollards are clear and lit as necessary.”
9. Councillor Heffernan to Councillor Hibbert
“The Springwood estate in Delph is in great need of major repairs to the highway. A request was made by Ward members of officers some time back for some emergency repairs to take place and I am grateful for that. There are still some major problems here and I know that it has been put forward for a major scheme under the Highways Programme. Can I ask that the recommendations, of the officers, prevail and Springwood Estate be placed on the Highways Improvement programme major schemes?” Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning gave the following response:
“Work to roads on the Springwood Estate in Delph was submitted as a possible option among others to be funded by Saddleworth North DP delegated highways funds in 2012/13, Year 3 of the programme. In discussions with members, it was not subsequently selected to be carried out and other schemes were prioritised for work in 2012/13 using the DP delegated highways funding. Some of these works have been partly held up by drainage matters, and as such in order that the monies are spent in a timely manner, the remaining Year 3 allocation could be carried over and combined with the £25k allocation of Year 4, which would allow a significant amount of the necessary works to be carried out on the Springwood Estate using the delegated DP funds in 2013/14. Springwood has not made the final long list for either the main Highways Improvement Programme (HIP) or the annual highways capital programme (LTP3) in 2013/14 as there are other higher priorities and it comprises unclassified roads.”
At this point in the meeting the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.
RESOLVED – That the questions raised and the responses given be noted. 3 TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Fletcher, Toor and Ur Rehman. 4 TO ORDER THAT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF Page 10
THE COUNCIL HELD ON 12TH DECEMBER 2012 BE SIGNED AS A CORRECT RECORD RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 12 th December 2012, now amended and circulated, be approved as a correct record. 5 TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN ANY MATTER TO BE DETERMINED AT THE MEETING Members declared the following interests:
The Mayor, Councillor O Chadderton and Councillors Ball, A Chadderton, Dawson, J Dillon, Garry, Heffernan, Judge, McMahon and Shah all declared a Personal Interest in Item 9 Outstanding Business from the Council meeting held on 12 th December 2012, by virtue of the fact that they were members of the Credit Union. Councillors Stretton and Williams also declared a Personal Interest in this item by virtue of the fact that they were Board Members of the Oldham Credit Union. 6 TO DEAL WITH MATTERS WHICH THE MAYOR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT BUSINESS The Mayor informed the meeting that no items of urgent business had been received. 7 TO RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL The Mayor informed the meeting that no communications had been received. 8 TO RECEIVE AND NOTE PETITIONS RECEIVED RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL The Mayor informed the meeting that no petitions had been received. 9 OUTSTANDING BUSINESS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING The Mayor informed the meeting that there were three items of Outstanding Business from the last Council meeting.
1. Notice of Administration Business – from the Council meeting held on 12 th December 2012 – Item 13.2 – Farer Deal on Bus Fares
Councillor A Chadderton MOVED and Councillor Fielding SECONDED the following motion:
“At the July meeting of Full Council, this Council unanimously adopted a motion calling for a fairer deal on bus fares for the residents of Oldham. Following this meeting the Borough's principal bus operator, First Group, have reduced the price of their weekly tickets and day tickets in Oldham by £5 and 60 pence respectively. This Council welcomes this initiative that could save residents up to £60 over the course of this reduction. This Council notes that high bus fares and access to affordable credit are major concerns for many Oldham residents. We Page 11 therefore welcome the recent announcement that First Bus company will launch a further fares discount scheme in partnership with Oldham Credit Union, offering significant discounts to new and existing members. We believe that this is a positive expression of our ambitions to be both a Co-operative Council and Borough. We wish to congratulate First Manchester and the Oldham Credit Union on a successful partnership and ground breaking initiative that will deliver significant benefits to the residents of Oldham. This Council resolves to: • Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Managing Director of First Manchester and to Oldham Credit Union congratulating them on formulating this scheme. • Collaborate with the two organisations to promote and publicise the discount scheme. • Continue to work co-operatively with Oldham Credit Union to devise further schemes promoting membership of the Credit Union that would subsequently provide access to affordable credit. Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Chair and Chief Executive of TfGM promoting this discount scheme and offer our support in formulating similar schemes that could benefit residents across the Greater Manchester conurbation.”
AMENDMENT
Councillor J Dillon MOVED and Councillor McCann SECONDED the following amendment:
“Paragraph 3, 2nd line delete after ‘recent’: “announcement that First Bus company will”,
Paragraph 3, 3 rd line insert after ‘launch’: “of”, insert after ‘scheme’: “by First Manchester”.
Paragraph 3, 4th line delete after ‘Union’: “, offering”, insert full stop after Union. Start new sentence after ‘Union’: “This offers”.
Paragraph 4, 2nd line delete after ‘We’: “wish to congratulate” insert after ‘We’: “are encouraged by”.
Paragraph 4, 3 rd line delete after ‘Union’: “on a”, insert after ‘Union’: “launching this”.
Paragraph 5, in the resolution, in
Bullet Point 1, 1 st line delete after ‘write’: “to the Managing Director of First Manchester and”.
Bullet Point 1, 3 rd line insert after ‘scheme’ “with First Manchester”
Bullet Point 4, 1 st line delete after ‘Chair’: “and Chief Executive of TfGM promoting this discount scheme and”, insert after ‘Chair’: “of Transport for Greater Manchester Committee Page 12
(TfGMC) and Director General of TfGM (Transport for Greater Manchester) to”
Bullet Point 4, 2 nd line delete after ‘support’:” in formulating similar schemes that could benefit residents across the Greater Manchester conurbation”, insert after ‘support’: “for the development of further concessionary bus travel ticketing schemes between bus operators and ‘groups of common purpose’ (such as employers, social landlords etc)”.
The Motion as amended would then read:
“At the July meeting of Full Council, this Council unanimously adopted a motion calling for a fairer deal on bus fares for the residents of Oldham.
Following this meeting the Borough's principal bus operator, First Group, have reduced the price of their weekly tickets and day tickets in Oldham by £5 and 60 pence respectively. This Council welcomes this initiative that could save residents up to £60 over the course of this reduction.
This Council notes that high bus fares and access to affordable credit are major concerns for many Oldham residents. We therefore welcome the recent launch of a further fares discount scheme by First Manchester in partnership with Oldham Credit Union. This offers significant discounts to new and existing members.
We believe that this is a positive expression of our ambitions to be both a Co-operative Council and Borough. We are encouraged by First Manchester and the Oldham Credit Union launching this successful partnership and ground breaking initiative that will deliver significant benefits to the residents of Oldham. This Council resolves to:
• Instruct the Chief Executive to write to Oldham Credit Union congratulating them on formulating this scheme with First Manchester. • Collaborate with the two organisations to promote and publicise the discount scheme. • Continue to work co-operatively with Oldham Credit Union to devise further schemes promoting membership of the Credit Union that would subsequently provide access to affordable credit. • Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Chair of Transport for Greater Manchester Committee (TfGMC) and Director General of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) to offer our support for the development of further concessionary bus travel ticketing schemes between bus operators and ‘groups of common purpose’ (such as employers, social landlords etc)”
Page 13
Councillor A Chadderton as MOVER of the original Motion and Councillor Fielding as SECONDER of the original Motion both ACCEPTED the AMENDMENT.
Councillor McMahon spoke in support of the Amendment and requested that the Council’s appreciation of the work that had been carried out, on behalf of Oldham residents, be placed on record.
Councillor A Chadderton exercised her right of reply Councillor J Dillon exercised his right of reply.
A vote was then taken on the Amendment which was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A vote was then taken on the SUBSTANTIVE MOTION. which was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLVED – That –
1. The Chief Executive be instructed to write to Oldham Credit Union congratulating them on formulating this scheme with First Manchester. 2. Council collaborate with the two organisations to promote and publicise the discount scheme. 3.Council continue to work co-operatively with Oldham Credit Union to devise further schemes promoting membership of the Credit Union that would subsequently provide access to affordable credit. 4.The Chief Executive be instructed to write to the Chair of Transport for Greater Manchester Committee (TfGMC) and Director General of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) to offer the Council’s support for the development of further concessionary bus travel ticketing schemes between bus operators and ‘groups of common purpose’ (such as employers, social landlords etc).
The Mayor informed the meeting that there were a further two items of Outstanding Business from the last Council Meeting:
2. Notice of Opposition Business – Item 14.2 – Social Housing; Councillor Hindle requested the consent of Councillor Alcock, as SECONDER of the MOTION and also that of Council that this item be withdrawn.
On being put to the vote it was AGREED UNANIMOUSLY that the Motion be WITHDRAWN.
3. Notice of Opposition Business – Item 14.3 – Community Right to Bid Powers, Councillor Harkness requested the consent of Councillor McCann, as SECONDER of the MOTION and also that of Council, that this item be withdrawn.
On being put to the vote it was AGREED UNANIMOUSLY that the Motion be WITHDRAWN.
Page 14
10 YOUTH COUNCIL Consideration was given to a joint report of the Youth Councillors and the Overview and Scrutiny Board which detailed the findings of an Overview Task and Finish Group which had reviewed the services currently available for young people in Oldham who were experiencing mental health issues. Two members of the Youth Council addressed the meeting.
Councillors McDonald, Heffernan, Williamson and McCann all spoke in support of the work carried out by the Youth Council and commended them on the content of their report and presentation.
RESOLVED – That the presentation and recommendations made be noted. 11 LEADER AND CABINET QUESTION TIME The Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Sykes, raised the following Questions:
1. Acorn Business Centre
“The Leader has made much of his recent trip to London at which prospective investors were assured that Oldham is ‘open for business’.
I was therefore very disturbed to hear that the licensees in the Acorn Business Centre in Derker have been given only a month’s notice by the Council to vacate their premises and relocate.
One businessman has told me that he feels badly let down by this Council – he describes what he considers to be (and I quote) “dirty goings on” and feels the situation is “a disgrace”.
In a heartfelt plea, his partner stated: “We have no other property to locate to and run our company on such a tight shoe string that we would not be able to afford to relocate”.
In a press article yesterday, Cllr Hibbert said that the Acorn Business Centre is let by the Council from the owner, that it has been running at a ‘significant cost’ to the authority and requires investment.
Given this situation the Council must have decided many months ago that the lease would not be renewed, so why were the licensees not informed as soon as the decision was made and offered a package of assistance and support to successfully relocate?
By taking this course of action, this Administration has needlessly jeopardised small businesses and jobs – the very lifeblood of our local economy – and shown that it is in fact far from ‘open for business, which is a great shame.” Page 15
Councillor McMahon advised that the Council was carrying out a review of their assets and liabilities. Buildings and land owned by the Council have been prioritised and this approach has guided us. Councillor McMahon gave a commitment that the Town was open for business and stated that he would be more than happy for the Licensees to meet with Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning.
2. Public Art in the Town Centre
“I am sure that the Leader will agree that public art in Oldham borough has had a chequered past?
Indeed I am proud that as Leader I got rid of the awful water feature in our town centre that had never worked and was a blight on our high street and an embarrassment to the Council and shoppers alike.
We will all welcome the sight of Metrolink trams running along Union Street, and we all want a good built environment, but at a time of austerity and cuts in services, isn’t it madness to spend up to half a million pounds on public art and statues?
Oldham’s Council Tax Payers, already hit in the pocket with a 3.5% rise from April, have different priorities for their hard- earned money and will simply see this as a wasteful indulgence and extravagance on the part of this Labour Administration that we can ill afford.”
Councillor McMahon responded stating that there was no suggestion that the Council would be spending half a million on public art. With reference to both the water feature and the clock Councillor McMahon was in full agreement with Councillor Sykes. It was his opinion that when you visited a town you should be able to get a feel for the place. Over the years the character of Oldham had been taken out. The statues could be relocated and it would be seen as instilling the heritage and industry of the town rather than a waste of money. Something should be created in the town centre that would reflect the successes e.g. the Lancaster Bomber and the first computer. We need to put pride back into our town.
3. Free Car Parking in Oldham Town Centre
“We all wish to see a thriving town centre retail economy, but will the Leader:
• Inform Council how much revenue will be lost to the authority at a time of cuts to Council services as a result of the free car parking initiative?
• Also will he outline the evidence that supports this Administration’s view that this represents a value-for-
Page 16
money measure that will bring more shoppers into our town?
• And is the most cost effective way of supporting the Oldham Town Centre?”
Councillor McMahon advised that it would be a mistake to look at free parking in isolation. The cost to the Council would be a loss of £200,000; however, car park usage was up by 25% with the average spend per person being £30. A lot of Councils are raising car parking charges – we want to get the message out there that Oldham is open for business.
The Minority Opposition Leader, Councillor Hudson, raised the following question:
1. There is a problem at the moment with the Lifelong Learning Centre on Lee Street in Uppermill – I believe that a meeting is scheduled to take place with the User Group at the premises. Please could you tell me when and where the decision will be taken? What will happen to the Centre and where will the services currently being provided at this Centre be delivered in the future?
Councillor McMahon advised that the Service was currently being reviewed and modernised and the meeting referred to with the User Group was part of a consultation process that would be carried out. Any changes to the facilities would be discussed as part of the consultation process in which Ward Members would be included.
The following questions were raised, advance notice of which had been given:
1. Question from Councillor Shuttleworth
“Would the relevant Cabinet Member explain how the purchase of Stansted Airport by the Manchester Airport Group, will benefit the people of Oldham?”
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council advised that this new deal would mean that we now have private sector involvement; the classification of the Airport group had also changed. Once the contract had been signed we would have a deal that has not cost the taxpayer of Oldham a penny. The private sector investment required to fund the acquisition would result in a restructuring of the company, but, adding a quality airport to the Group would deliver value to all the shareholders. This was a good move for the people of Oldham and at the moment – at no cost.
2. Question from Councillor Dearden
“What is likely to be the impact on Oldham of the welfare reform and what is the council doing to help Oldhamers?” Page 17
“In response Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships referred to Item 16 on the agenda which provided a detailed report and which gave all the information relating to the changes. Council was reminded that over £28m will be lost each year – he further reminded Council that the Government wanted to reduce the National Debt but at the same time millionaires would get a huge tax break. There was no doubt that these reforms would have an impact on the most vulnerable people of the Borough and he detailed the various taxes stating that although this was a national government initiative that the Council would be ultimately responsible. To mitigate the impact that this would have he urged Members to take part in the awareness campaigns and referred to the work being undertaken by Councillor Ball in this regard.
3. Question from Councillor Moores
“I was informed today that Tylon House have maintained their ‘Outstanding’ rating with good progress. So could I ask the following question; We all recognise the hard work done by our fostering and adoption teams in securing the best outcomes for children in care, but for some young people will require alternative types of care. Could the Cabinet member please assure me that we are providing the highest quality of care for these young people”
Councillor McDonald, Cabinet Member for Education and Safeguarding gave the following response: “With all children's care packages we try to accommodate within in-house provision in the first instance. Our first option is usually to explore an alternative family placement, Members will be aware our fostering service is rated by Ofsted as outstanding and we are naturally very proud of this as it indicates that we are as a service seeking to provide secure and good outcomes in this area. Sometimes we are not able to facilitate a Foster Placement with one of our own foster carers for a number of reasons, On these occasions our placement strategy is very clear that we will only place with independent fostering agencies that are rated as good or outstanding. We also aim to procure a placement that is within a 20 mile radius of Oldham and make every attempt to keep the young people in the same school, thus keeping their education disruption to a minimum. Whereby it is thought that a residential children’s home placement is appropriate then again we will seek a placement in one of our own in-house or commissioned beds. Mentioned in the question is the fact that Tylon House is Ofsted rated as outstanding,I can also tell members that the 2 block commissioned homes are also rated as outstanding and our other 2 children's homes are rated as Good with outstanding features. Should we need to seek an external residential bed then the same placement criteria applies in that we seek to Page 18 place local and only in a residential place that is good or outstanding, again attempting to keep school disruption to a minimum. I would just like to add that sometimes we have to seek placements for children with additional and complex needs, our in-house residential facility for children with disability is also rated by Ofsted as outstanding and our placement strategy also applies should we need to seek an out of borough placement in these circumstances. I am sure members will agree that the quality of in-house provision and our placement strategy indicates that we take the notion of securing best outcomes for all our Looked after Children very seriously, also it is likely that very few other authorities have access to a similar suite of quality in-house provision or indeed as robust a placement strategy.” 4. Question from Councillor Rehman
“Please can the relevant Cabinet member inform me what is going to happen to the former Remploy site on Ashton Road? Also can the member inform me if any work is being done to bring jobs to Oldham that will help the young people of this Borough?”
Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Town Centre gave the following response:
“The former Remploy site is currently for sale. The Council only has a minor ownership interest in the site and therefore has no direct control over its future use. Should any future owner wish to change the use of the site, the Council will of course have to determine the planning application.
The unemployment levels of our 18-24 year olds is of concern to all of us. In December just over 2000 were out of work. The question asked is what we are doing to bring jobs to Oldham but that is only half of the picture. We also have to ask what can be done to help our young people to secure employment in businesses across Greater Manchester?
The council hosted a Jobs Summit on the 21st January to discuss these questions with various partners and is currently developing a number of initiatives to tackle the issue. Our challenge is not a lack of innovative ideas but is more one of how we implement them in a time of continuing public sector funding cuts. It requires not just the council but all of our partners to consider how we all use the resources we have in a way that supports the local economy. Partners are committed to supporting the local economy and we are working together to identify how we can make the biggest impact.
However, this Summit was part of a long running programme to address this problem. As you know the Council has committed £100m capital investment towards regenerating the town in
Page 19 order to bring new sources of employment and our plans for developments such as the cinema in the old town hall are well advanced. All of our regeneration contracts will ensure that we maximise the number of apprenticeships, increase employment of local residents and encourage as much use of local businesses in the supply chain as possible.
This continues the work we have already done in the past on our schools contracts in particular where we worked with the main contractors to ensure that local businesses secured work to the value of £35m which was 37% of the total contract costs.
This requirement of our contractors has extended to other areas such as our PFI housing contract with Wates which is also delivering many opportunities for local people. Wates are contracted to deliver over 3,500 training hours for Oldham residents and must work with Oldham Council’s employability service to source local labour. So far 63 job placements have been offered and over 250 work experience hours for Oldham residents.
We are also intent on ensuring that local people benefit from inward investment such as the relocation of Monopumps to Greengate. The move to a larger site will enable the company to grow and Monopumps is signed up to helping Oldhamers to benefit from the new jobs that will be created.
5. Question from Councillor Thompson:
“The Big Budget Conversation held in the Queen Elizabeth Hall on 22nd October last year cost Oldham Council Tax payers at least £7,126.
Can the Leader or Cabinet Member confirm that despite this expense, none of the cost-saving measures suggested by members of the public at the event were adopted by this administration?
Also can the Leader or Cabinet Member outline for Council when public consultation took place about the 3.5% Council Tax rise proposed by this Administration?”
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, advised that he was able to confirm that the Big Budget Conversation held at the Queen Elizabeth Hall did cost £7,126. It had been a successful event which had given the citizens of Oldham the opportunity to listen to elected Members explain the budgetary challenges facing the Council as well as put forward their own opinions.
The ideas and suggestions put forward at the event had been, along with those from the rest of the consultation events through summer / autumn, fed into the process of budget option preparation and consideration at Star Chamber meetings.
Page 20
The event generally reinforced the Council’s priority spend areas, with Adult Social Care and Children’s Services featuring as priorities. The proposals put forward also mirrored many of the options that were being already being prepared and considered as a result of the early start that had been made to the budget process. This enabled the Administration to have some confidence that it’s thinking was reflective of the views of citizens.
More specifically there were a range of savings proposals that have now been approved which Councillor McMahon detailed for Members. In addition to these proposals a number of general ideas that reflected Administration thinking included use of shared services, reductions in “Adults / Children’s”, Neighbourhood working and decommissioning
With regard to the consultation on the Council Tax increase the lack of certainty about the level of Government funding that would be available to the Council as a result of the change in the Local Government Finance regime with effect from 2013/14 had hindered meaningful consideration of the Council’s financial position. As you will be aware, the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement was only announced on 19th December 2012 and the grant funding information did contain errors and is still incomplete. It was only on receipt of the Provisional Settlement information that the Administration was able to finalise its budget, including its views on Council Tax which up to that point had not been confirmed.”
At this point in the meeting the Mayor advised that the time limit for this item had expired.
RESOLVED – That – 1. The questions raised and the responses given be noted. 12 TO NOTE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE CABINET HELD ON THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES, INCLUDING THE ATTACHED LIST OF URGENT KEY DECISIONS TAKEN SINCE THE LAST MEETING OF THE COUNCIL, AND TO RECEIVE ANY QUESTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS ON ANY ITEMS WITHIN THE MINUTES FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, AND RECEIVE RESPONSES FROM CABINET MEMBERS The following Cabinet Minutes were submitted:
17 th December 2012 14 th January 2013
The following questions and observations regarding the Cabinet Minutes were raised at the meeting:
1. Councillor Sedgwick to Councillor Stretton, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Devolved Services, regarding Page 53, Minute 14, AGMA Contract for the Supply of Fresh/Frozen Page 21
Meat/Offal, Cooked Meats, Bacon and Associated Dairy Products – “In light of the recent revelations that a number of high street supermarkets were supplied with food products containing horsemeat, what safeguards on quality control are in place in relation to the supply of meat and offal under this contract?”
Councillor Stretton advised that the Food Standards people visited premises to test food samples on a regular basis and if concerns arise from these visits further visits are undertaken and additional testing is carried out.
2. Councillor Blyth to Councillor Stretton, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Devolved Services, regarding Page 53, Minute 14, AGMA Contract for the Supply of Fresh/Frozen Meat/Offal, Cooked Meats, Bacon and Associated Dairy Products – What controls are placed on the AGMA contract to check the supply chain for fresh and frozen meat that we use as the AGMA authority? Councillor Stretton advised that tests samples would be carried out on the food that is on this contract.
3. Councillor Sykes to Councillor Stretton, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Devolved Services, regarding Page 53, Minute 14, AGMA Contract for the Supply of Fresh/Frozen Meat/Offal, Cooked Meats, Bacon and Associated Dairy Products –Stated that this was not just about horse meat and it was not just about school meals; it was also about day care services; it was a genuine public concern and he queried where were the people that the Council had contracts with and how and where are they tested? Councillor Sykes requested that checks be made to ensure that all concerned were above board and that the quality control processes were robust; there was a need to reassure local residents.
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council, agreed that this was an issue but stated that at this point it was not known if random tests were carried out or not. If investigations showed that random tests were not undertaken then the Council would carry out their own tests. He pointed out that random testing would be extremely expensive but gave the assurance that given the concerns raised sample tests would be carried out on current stock.
4. Councillor McCann to Councillor McMahon regarding Page 60, Minute 5 Resolution 8 – relating to the introduction of public art works, - Councillor McCann stated that he hoped that the art works that were referred to were existing art works that would be moved from their current site and that when the works were being undertaken care would be taken, particularly if a water feature was involved, when working around the electricity power supply referred to earlier in the report.
Councillor McCann, regarding Page 51, Minute 9, Revenue Monitor 2012 – 13: Month 6 September – with regard to the Movement in Reserves – would the Leader be taking into Page 22 account the views expressed by the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP in his response to the RT Hon Michael Meacher MP referred to at Item 16 on the agenda – page 209 – Update on Actions report.
Councillor McMahon, Leader of the Council stated that he was very happy with the Town Centre works as planned and hoped all Members could work together on this in a cross party approach. He pointed out that everyone needed to be behind this consultation to obtain local residents views on what they wished to see in their town centre and reiterated that there would have to be genuine cross party working.
The following observations regarding the Cabinet Minutes were raised at the meeting:
1. Councillor Harkness made the following observation regarding Page 54, Minute 16 Leisure Estate – Appointment of Operator
“I would like to congratulate Oldham Community Leisure on their appointment again as the Borough's preferred provider of Leisure facilities. They are a not - for - profit organisation who were brought in as the largest "Co-Operative" during the Liberal Democrat administration. In some areas, the demand is outweighing the supply. I hope that work will be done to ensure people are not left out in the cold, being turned away and having to resort to private providers”.
Councillor McDonald, Cabinet member for Education and Safeguarding responded by stating that OCL was still finalising the contract with everyone being involved in a true co-operative organisation. One thing the Council cannot do is prevent people going to the private sector we can however provide other facilities at the Royton and Oldham Centres. Councillor McDonald pointed out that the Council had given an assurance to the Divers from Saddleworth and also the Bowlers that they would be involved in the consultation process.
Councillor Thompson made the following observation regarding Page 47 Minute 6 - Welfare Reform – She congratulated the Administration and stated that she was very pleased that they had recognised that they have to care for their service users and had put this in the hands of a vary caring and efficient officer. Councillor Thompson expressed concern at the fact that the Government had carried out a review of Benefits but had not mentioned pensions. There had been no mention of the rise in personal tax allowances which had especially benefited low paid workers and had brought over £42m into the local economy. In her opinion the exercise had been good but incomplete.
Councillor Jabbar, Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships responded by way of an Page 23
explanation of what the Council was trying to do, by way of minimising the impact on the vulnerable people of Oldham. Awareness will be raised and these people will be signposted to agencies that can help them. Our task is to raise awareness and offer support.
RESOLVED – That –
1. The Minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on 17 th December 2012 and 14 th January 2013 be noted 2. The questions put forward at the meeting and the responses given be noted. 3. The observations and the responses given be noted. 4. The Urgent Key decisions taken between 4th December 2012 and 25 th January 2013 be noted. 13 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS Motion 1.
The Mayor informed the meeting that Councillor Ur Rehman was unable to be present at tonight’s Council meeting and had given notice to the Chief Executive that the business that he was to have seconded would be taken by another Member.
Councillor Shuttleworth MOVED and Councillor Battye SECONDED the following motion:
“This Council welcomes the fact that the Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP was able to secure a back bench debate (17 January 2013) on the conduct of ATOS and further welcomes the cross party support this received. Furthermore, this Council is appalled at the unjust and unwarranted treatment that many of those who are subject to such examinations by ATOS receive. This Council instructs the Chief Executive Officer to: Write to the Rt Hon member for Oldham West & Royton offering our unequivocal support for his stance against the treatment of those subject to such examinations. Write to the Secretary of State for the Department of Work & Pensions expressing our displeasure at the treatment that many residents of Oldham have been, and will be subjected to, as they seek to receive benefits to which they are entitled and to request an urgent review of this practice in the light of information readily available”
Councillor Alcock spoke in support of the Motion Councillor McCann spoke in support of the Motion Councillor McMahon spoke in support of the Motion Councillor Sykes spoke in support of the Motion Councillor Blyth spoke in support of the Motion
Councillor Shuttleworth exercised his right of reply.
On being put to the vote the Motion was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Page 24
At this point in the meeting the Mayor advised that the time limit for Notice of Administration Business had elapsed.
RESOLVED – That –
1. The Chief Executive Officer write to the Rt Hon Member for Oldham West & Royton offering the Council’s unequivocal support for his stance against the treatment of those subject to such examinations. 2. The Chief Executive Officer write to the Secretary of State for the Department of Work & Pensions expressing the Council’s displeasure at the treatment that many residents of Oldham have been, and will be subjected to, as they seek to receive benefits to which they are entitled, and to request an urgent review of this practice in the light of information readily available.
At this point in the meeting the Mayor advised that time had expired for this item and asked if Councillor Moores as MOVER of Motion 2 and Councillor Wrigglesworth as SECONDER of MOTION 2 would be in agreement to the Motion being rolled over to the next ordinary meeting of Council.
RESOLVED – That Motion 2 be rolled over to the next ordinary meeting of Council. 14 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION BUSINESS Motion 1
Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor Thompson SECONDED the following Motion:
“This Council notes the excellent work that is being carried out in Oldham by the Council’s Trading Standards Team, the England Illegal Money Lending Team (IMLT) and Police to combat loan sharks in our borough. We congratulate the Administration on taking a lead on this issue and the agencies concerned on the recent arrest of individuals engaged in this activity in Oldham, Manchester and Tameside. This Council resolves that the Chief Executive write to all District Partnerships; social landlords; the Oldham Voluntary, Community, and Faith Partnership; and the Oldham Business Leadership Group urging them to get behind the Stop Loan Sharks campaign to rid our communities of loan sharks by: - promoting the Stop Loan Sharks Campaign to partners and to the public; - inviting the England Illegal Money Lending Campaign / Trading Standards Team to meetings and public events: including information on this campaign in newsletters, flyers and on-line promoting membership of credit unions as a alternate source of affordable credit District partnerships are also urged to make best use of the £500 made available to them by the IMLT (which was seized from apprehended loan sharks) to help support this work”
Page 25
Without further discussion Members moved to the vote.
On being put to the vote the MOTION was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLVED -That –
1. The Chief Executive write to all District Partnerships; social landlords; the Oldham Voluntary, Community, and Faith Partnership; and the Oldham Business Leadership Group urging them to get behind the Stop Loan Sharks campaign to rid our communities of loan sharks by:
• promoting the Stop Loan Sharks Campaign to partners and to the public; • inviting the England Illegal Money Lending Campaign / Trading Standards Team to meetings and public events: • including information on this campaign in newsletters, flyers and on-line promoting membership of credit unions as an alternate source of affordable credit. 2. The District Partnerships to be urged to make best use of the £500 made available to them by the IMLT (which was seized from apprehended loan sharks) to help support this work.
Motion 2
Councillor Hindle MOVED and Councillor Alcock SECONDED the following Motion:
“This Council notes that there has been a steady decline in the provision of social and affordable housing throughout the last 30 years and that the failure of policies of the Conservative and Labour Governments throughout that period left a social housing crisis for the new Coalition Government. Between 1979 and 2010, 1.5 million social homes were lost as there was a consistent failure by both administrations to replace those homes sold through ‘Right to Buy’. This Council recognises the contribution of the ‘Right to Buy Scheme’ to home ownership. However as a result of the failure of successive single-party Governments to address the resulting short fall in social housing, waiting lists soared to nearly 1.8m nationally by 2010. This Council welcomes the fact that, as a direct result of the Liberal Democrats involvement in Coalition Government, for the first time in over 30 years, there will be a large-scale house building programme. The Coalition is investing £4.5 billion over four years to deliver 170,000 new social and affordable homes; this is 20,000 more than first anticipated in this current Parliament.
Page 26
In Oldham, on current projections, 789 new affordable homes will be developed in the first period of Coalition Government. In the Brown administration, only 332 were built. This Council also welcomes the fact that this house-building programme will represent excellent value for the taxpayer as the subsidy required for each home built will be half the £87,000 it cost per home under the last Labour Government.
The Council therefore calls on the Chief Executive to write to:
1. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government, Don Foster MP supporting the Coalition Government’s house- building programme and making the case for even more social and affordable homes in Oldham 2.The borough’s three MPs, urging them to also make the case for more social and affordable homes in Oldham”
Councillor Jabbar spoke against the Motion Councillor Rehman spoke against the Motion Councillor Hibbert spoke against the Motion
Councillor Hindle exercised his right of reply.
On being put to the vote the Motion was LOST. 15 TO NOTE THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING JOINT AUTHORITY AND OLDHAM PARTNERSHIP MEETINGS AND THE RELEVANT SPOKESPERSONS TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Minutes of the Joint Authorities were submitted as follows:
Greater Manchester Fire and 6th December 2012 Rescue Authority
Transport for Greater 16 th November 2012 Manchester Committee 7th December 2012
Unity Partnership 31 st October 2012
Peak District National Park 5th October 2012 Authority 7th December 2012
Association of Greater 30 th November 2012 Manchester Authorities 14 th December 2012 Executive
Greater Manchester Combined 30 th November 2012 Authority 14 th December 2012
Shadow Police and Crime 30 th November 2012 Panel
The following questions and observations were raised in relation to the Joint Authority Minutes:
Page 27
1.Councillor Blyth referred to the Minutes of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority – Page 68 – Minute 62 – Treasury Management Mid-Year Review, he noted that the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority had money to put into a surplus fund which they would be willing to lend to people. How much is that surplus? And, if they are going to be lending it to other people he hoped that the precept would not be raised this year.
Councillor Williams advised that he would provide a detailed response relating to Treasury Management. The precept would be increasing by 2% ;fire stations would not have to close but they would still have to save 200 fire fighter posts in the next few years.
2. Councillor Houle referred to the Minutes of the National Park Authority - Page 101 – Minute – 88/12 9.3 Member Learning and Development Resolution 2 and asked for reassurance that the Council’s representative would meet the target referred to.
Councillor Beeley gave an assurance that she would attend the training including that for Planning.
3. Councillor Heffernan referred to the Minutes of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority – Minute 100/12 – Green Deal Business Case and asked the Leader of the Council to outline the Green Business Deal and indicate how it would affect Oldham?
Councillor McMahon advised that he would provide a written response to all Members in the next two weeks.
4. Councillor McCann referred to the Minutes of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority – Minute 115/12 – Business Rates Pooling stating that the pooling arrangement was beneficial to Oldham and asked if this was seen as a major worry for the Council and was there still a possibility of the other authorities in Greater Manchester going into a pool.
Councillor McMahon advised that the idea was that across the ten districts, boundaries would be almost ignored and concentrate on economic growth across Greater Manchester
5. Councillor Blyth referred to the Minutes of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority – Minute 62 – Treasury Management: Mid Year Review – and expressed his concern that 300 posts would be going and asked that these reserves be used to keep the posts as, in his opinion, the Fire and Rescue Authority did not need rainy day money.
Councillor Williams reassured Council that under no circumstances would any Fire Authority be putting lives at risk and he agreed to provide a more detailed response.
6. Councillor Harkness referred to the Minutes of the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee – Minute 12/72 – Current Page 28
Bus Issues Update – he welcomed the bus fares issue but reminded Council of the Motion that had been put forward at the Council meeting in July 2012 and had been defeated.
Councillor Dean advised that this was supposed to be a Government offer which hardly anybody had had the chance to take up, the free offer of a months bust travel; people had had to register with the job centres with the Government having had no input whatsoever; it had had all been left to the bus companies.
RESOLVED – That: 1 The Joint Authority Minutes, as listed above, be noted. 2. The questions and observations on the Minutes and the responses given be noted. 16 UPDATE ON ACTIONS FROM COUNCIL Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor informing Members of actions from previous Council meetings.
Members referred to the Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Board attached at Appendix 1 to the report which detailed the findings of an Overview and Scrutiny Board Review of the implementation of PFI Street Lighting; they pointed out that the report did not include the number of complaints that had been received and queried why the minutes did not reflect what had taken place at the meeting.
Councillor McClaren, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Board informed Council that the minutes were an accurate summary of what had taken place at the meeting.
RESOLVED – That
1.The report be noted. 2. A full report on Welfare Reform to be submitted to the April meeting of Council. 17 PUBLIC HEALTH TRANSFER OF FUNCTION - JOINT REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF AND BOROUGH SOLICITOR Consideration was given to a joint report of the Chief of Staff and the Borough Solicitor which advised Members of the changes that would be required to the Council’s Constitution on the transfer of the Public Health function from the NHS to the Council that would take effect from 1 st April.
RESOLVED – That –
1. The transfer of the Public Health function, along with related staff, to the Local Authority, with effect from 1 st April 2013, be noted.
2. Amendments to the Council Constitution will be required to be in place on
Page 29
the transfer of the Public Health function on the formal establishment of the Health and Wellbeing Board, and in relation to health scrutiny arrangements with effect from 1 st April 2013.
2.3 To delegate all required amendments to the Constitution to the Chief Executive and Borough Solicitor in consultation with the Leader of the Council with a detailed report outlining all changes to a future Council meeting. This will ensure the Council has plans in place for 1 st April 2013.
2.4 That Council delegates all the transactional decisions required on contractual matters and any related Legal agreements to the Chief Executive and Borough Solicitor in consultation with the Leader of the Council.
18 CHANGES TO COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES, COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2012/2013 AND MUNICIPAL DIARY 2012/2013 - REPORT OF THE BOROUGH SOLICITOR Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor informing Members of changes to the Council Procedure Rules together with amendments to both the Committee Appointments 2012/2013 document and the Municipal Diary 2012/2013.
RESOLVED – That –
1. The Council Procedure Rules be amended to permit Deputy Cabinet Members to speak at Council meetings on questions to Members as set out in the report. 2. The Council Procedure Rules be amended to permit a nominated representative of the Administration and Main Opposition Group to ask or respond to questions in the absence of the respective Leaders. 3. Councillor Brownridge’s portfolio be extended for the period up until Annual Council to include the Cabinet responsibilities and duties of Social Services and Community health. 4. That the changes to the dates of the Council, Budget Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny PVFM meetings in February, as detailed in the report, be noted. 19 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 1,2 & 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and it would not, on balance, be in the public interest to disclose the reports. 20 OLDHAM SCHOOLS PAY AND GRADING REVIEW - REPORT OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMISSIONING
Page 30
Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director Commissioning which made recommendations regarding the implementation of a Pay and Grading Framework for Local Government Services employees of Oldham’s schools, including proposals to amend Part 3 of the National Joint Council (NJC) agreement on employees’ terms and conditions. It was pointed out that Part 3 terms and conditions would now cover the working arrangements under national provisions, which would now be subject to local amendment rather than national determination.
RESOLVED – That approval be given to the agreement reached with the trades unions for the implementation of the Pay and Grading Framework for NJC Local Government Services employees in Oldham Council’s Schools by including them, as agreed following consultation with the Trade Unions, under the existing council collective agreement, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to the additional school led terms and conditions of service as follows: : • To incorporate within the existing collective agreement all additional elements and changes to Part 3 conditions of service as contained within Appendix 3 to the report and as agreed with Trade Union colleagues • The adoption of the Council’s existing 13 grade pay structure as for directorate staff and its implementation within schools from 1 st September 2012 • The effective date for implementation of the schools pay and grading review to be 1st September 2012 • Pay protection will be for a period of 2 years to cease on 31 st August 2014 • The terms and conditions of service to be amended for NJC Green Book staff in line with the above decisions.
The meeting started at 6.00 pm and ended at 10.00 pm
Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 32
COUNCIL 27/02/2013 at 6.00 pm
Present: The Mayor – Councillor O Chadderton
Councillors Akhtar, Alexander, Alcock, Ames, Azad, Ball, Bashforth, Battye, Beeley, Blyth, Briggs, Brownridge, A Chadderton, , Dawson, Dean, Dearden, J Dillon, P Dillon, Fielding, Garry, Haque, Harkness, J Harrison, Heffernan, Hibbert, Hindle, Houle, Hudson, Hussain, Iqbal, Jabbar, Judge, Larkin, Malik, McCann, McDonald, McMahon, Moores, Newton, Price, Qumer, Rehman, Roughley, Salamat, Sedgwick, Shah, Sheldon, Shuttleworth, Sykes, Thompson, Toor, Ur-Rehman, Williams, Williamson and Wrigglesworth
1 TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors McLaren and Stretton.
2 TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN ANY MATTER TO BE DETERMINED AT THE MEETING The Mayor informed the meeting that the Standards Committee, at its meeting held on 20 th February 2013, had granted a dispensation to allow all members who had an interest arising from ownership or occupation of property in Oldham to participate and vote on the setting of the Council Tax and matters directly related to such decisions including the budget calculations. All Members declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Item 4 - Budget Proposals, but the dispensation was applicable allowing Members to participate and vote on Item 4.
3 TO RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL a) The Mayor made reference to the recent death of Councillor Dilys Fletcher MBE and Councillors Dean, Hussain, Sedgwick and Hudson all spoke in remembrance of Councillor Fletcher.
Council held a Minutes Silence in memory of Councillor Fletcher.
b) The Mayor advised Members that Clare Fish, the Council’s Chief of Staff was leaving the Council after eight and half years to take up a new position as Strategic Director, Families and Wellbeing at Wirral Council.
The Mayor thanked Clare for all her hard work over the last eight and a half years, and Group Leaders, Councillors McMahon, Sykes and Hudson, spoke giving thanks.
Page 33
4 TO NOTE THE MINUTES OF THE BUDGET CABINET MEETING HELD ON THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2013 AND TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CABINET IN RELATION TO THE BUDGET PROPOSALS FOR 2013/14 & 2014/15 FURTHER TO THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED REPORTS; The Mayor requested, and it was RESOLVED – That Council Procedure Rule 10.7 (Rules of Debate) be suspended to enable the Leader of the Council to exceed the time limit for his contribution in moving the Administration Budget, to 15 minutes and the Leader of the Opposition Group in moving the Opposition Budget, a time limit of 10 minutes. All other speakers to be limited to 5 minutes.
Prior to considering the budget proposals, Councillor McMahon MOVED and Councillor Jabbar SECONDED that the Minutes of Cabinet on 18 th February 2013 be noted.
On a vote being taken, the recommendation was CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 18 th February 2013 be noted. a) Treasury Management Strategy Statement 2013/14 including the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement, Annual Investment Strategy and Prudential Indicators
Councillor McMahon MOVED and Councillor Jabbar SECONDED the report of the Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources & Strategic Partnerships, which presented the strategy for 2013/14 Treasury Management activities including the Minimum Revenue Position Policy Statement and the Annual Investment Strategy and Prudential Indicators.
RESOLVED – That 1. The Minimum Revenue Provision policy and method of calculation as per section 2.3 be approved. 2. The projected treasury position as at 31/03/2013 as per paragraph 2.7.3, be noted. 3. The Treasury Limits for 2013/14 to 2015/16 as detailed in sections 2.7.7 and 2.7.8 be approved. 4. The Borrowing Strategy for 2013/14 as per section 2.9 be approved. 5. The limits to interest rate exposures as set out in section 2.10.1 be approved. 6. The upper and lower limits on fixed rate debt maturity structure as set out in Section 2.10.2 be approved. 7. The Annual Investment Strategy, as per section 2.13 including the investment credit rating criteria and the level of investment in non specified investments, be approved.
b) Capital Strategy 2013/17 (incorporating the Capital Programme 2013/17) Page 34
Councillor McMahon MOVED and Councillor Jabbar SECONDED the report of the Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources & Strategic Partnerships, which set out the strategy for the 2013/17 capital programme, the proposed 2013/14 capital programme including identified capital requirements and indicative programme for 2014/17 having regard to the resources available.
RESOLVED – That: 1. The Capital Strategy for 2013/17 at Appendix 1 of the report and summarised in section 3 including the delegation of decision making as set out in the Capital Investment Programme Board Terms of Reference at Annex B of the report, be approved. 2. The Capital Programme for 2013/14 and indicative programmes for 2014/15 to 2016/17 as set out in Appendix 2, be approved. 3. The reallocation of resources in accordance with the review process outlined at Appendix 3, be approved. c) Housing Revenue Account Estimates for 2012/13 to 2016/17
Councillor Hibbert MOVED and Councillor Jabbar SECONDED the joint report of the Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships and Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning, which set out the latest Housing Revenue Account (HRA) outturn estimate for 2012/13 the detailed budget for 2013/14 and strategic estimates for the three years 2014/15 through to 2016/17. The report also set out the dwelling, non dwelling rent and service charge increases to be applied from 1st April 2013.
RESOLVED – That 1. The forecast out-turn for 2012/13, be noted. 2. The proposed HRA budget for 2013/14, be approved. 3. The proposed increases in dwelling rents, non-dwelling rents, service charges and leaseholder service charges, be approved. d) Statement of the Chief Financial Officer on Reserves, Robustness of the Estimates and Affordability and Prudence of Capital Investments
Councillor McMahon MOVED and Councillor Jabbar SECONDED the report of the Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships, which sought approval for the level of balances necessary to support the 2013/14 budget, the actions necessary to secure a properly balanced budget and the prudence of capital investments, and to note the future action planned.
RESOLVED - That 1. That the General Balances for 2013-14 be set at £15,917k and the planned levels for 2014-15 and 2015-16 be agreed,. 2. The intended report to the Audit Committee to ensure the Council is subject to appropriate scrutiny, be noted.
Page 35
3. The actions necessary to secure a properly balanced budget as noted in paragraph 6.5, be agreed. 4. The actions necessary to ensure the prudence of the capital investments as noted in paragraph 7.4, be agreed. e) Administration Budget Proposals 2013/14 & 2014/15
Councillor McMahon MOVED and Councillor Jabbar SECONDED the report of the Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships, which presented the final tranche of the Administration’s budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15 and the impact of the Local Government Finance Settlement.
AMENDMENT 1
Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor Thompson SECONDED the following amendment:
That a reduction be made by 1% of the proposed increase in the Council tax funded by additional savings proposals as identified in the report .
Councillors Beeley, Alcock, Blyth, McCann, Williamson and Heffernan, spoke in support of the Amendment.
Councillors Jabbar, Akhtar, Wrigglesworth, Battye, Ur Rehman, Judge and Rehman spoke against the Amendment.
Councillor McMahon exercised his right of reply.
Councillor Sykes exercised his right of reply.
On a vote being taken, the Amendment was LOST with FOURTEEN votes cast IN FAVOUR and FORTY votes cast AGAINST with TWO ABSTENTIONS.
AMENDMENT 2
Councillor Sykes MOVED and Councillor Thompson SECONDED the following amendment:
That the additional savings identified within the Alternative Budget in the report be redirected into funding additional improvements to the local environment.
Councillors Blyth, Sedgwick, P Dillon and Hindle spoke in support of the Amendment. Councillors Hudson, Dean, Houle, Hibbert, Brownridge and Harrison spoke against the Amendment
It was MOVED by Councillor McDonald and SECONDED by Councillor Bashforth that Council move to the vote on the Amendment.
Councillor McMahon exercised his right of reply. Page 36
Councillor Sykes exercised his right of reply.
On a vote being taken, the Amendment was LOST with FOURTEEN votes cast IN FAVOUR and THIRTY EIGHT votes cast AGAINST with TWO ABSTENTIONS.
It was MOVED by Councillor Battye and SECONDED by Councillor Jabbar that Council move to the vote on the original motion.
In response to a request for further debate on the budget proposals the Mayor advised the meeting that, in her opinion, there had been sufficient debate during this evening’s proceedings and she advised Council that the vote should now be put.
On a vote being taken THIRTY EIGHT VOTES were cast IN FAVOUR OF MOVING TO THE VOTE with FOURTEEN AGAINST and TWO ABSTENTIONS and so without further debate a vote was then taken on the original motion – the Administration Budget Proposals
On being put to the vote the Motion was CARRIED with THIRTY EIGHT Votes cast IN FAVOUR and NO Votes cast AGAINST with SIXTEEN abstentions.
RESOLVED – That: 1. Option FVP 13 202 resubmitted following completion of consultation £340k in 2013/14 and £178k in 2014/15, be approved. 2. Options detailed at Appendix B in summary and in detail at Appendix C towards the savings target, be approved. 3. The planned approach to deal with the funding gap for 2014/15 be approved. 4. The increase of the 2012/13 net revenue budget to £225.701m to reflect the increase in the allocation Council Tax Support New Burdens funding from Central Government, be approved. 5. The total draw on the Collection Fund for borough wide services of £80.444m, with £70.038m for Council services subject to confirmation of precepts, be approved. 6. The Fees and Charges for 2013/14 as set out in Appendix G, be approved. 7. The Council Tax, subject to confirmation from preceptors, as set out in Appendix I, be approved. 8. The Pay Policy Statement for 2013 as set out in Appendix J, be approved. 9. The approval of the budget savings presented to the 12 December 2012 Council meeting, included in Appendix D, be confirmed. 10. The lack of requirement to hold a referendum on the changes in the relevant basic amount of Council Tax, be noted. f) Medium Term Financial Strategy 2013/14 to 2016/17 Page 37
Councillor McMahon MOVED and Councillor Jabbar SECONDED the joint report of the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Human Resources, which set out the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) for the financial years 2013/14 to 2016/17 having regard to the uncertainties around a number of issues including the level of reductions in future funding from Central Government and the consequent changes required of the Council.
RESOLVED – That the Medium Term Financial Strategy, as detailed at Appendix 1 to the report, be approved.
The Mayor asked if Council agreed to the resolutions detailed in the summons.
On a vote being taken, the recommendation was CARRIED.
RESOLVED : - That
1. It be noted that on 28 January 2013, the following amounts were approved by the Cabinet as the Council's Council Tax Base for the financial year 2013/14:
(a) 50,280 for the whole Council area [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the "Act")]
(b) 7,950 for dwellings in the Saddleworth Parish area to which a Parish precept relates
5,182 for dwellings in the Shaw and Crompton Parish area to which a Parish precept relates
2. The Council Tax Requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2013/14 (excluding Parish precepts) as being £70,037,525 be approved
3. The following amounts be calculated by the Council for the year 2013/14 in accordance with sections 31 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:
(a) £698,823,410 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in section 31A(2) of the Act taking into account any Precepts for the Saddleworth and Shaw & Crompton Parish areas
(b) £628,556,706 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in section 31A(3) of the Act
(c ) £70,266,704 being the amount by which the aggregate at 3(a) above exceeds the aggregate at 3(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with section 31A(4) of the Act, as its Council Tax Requirement for the year (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act).
(d) £1,397.51 being the amount at 3(c) above, all divided by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its Page 38
Council Tax for the year (including Parish precepts).
(e) £229,179 being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in section 34(1) of the Act, being the Saddleworth and Shaw & Crompton Parish precepts.
(f) £1,392.95 being the amount at 3(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at 3(e) above by the amount by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the Council, in accordance with section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special item relates.
(g) £1,412.30 Saddleworth Parish area being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 3(f) above the amounts of the special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council's area mentioned at 3(e) above divided by the amount at 1(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with section 34(3) of the Act, as the basic amounts of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.
(h) £1,407.49 Shaw & Crompton Parish area being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 3(f) above the amounts of the special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council's area mentioned at 3(e) above divided by the amount at 1(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with section 34(3) of the Act, as the basic amounts of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.
4. It be noted that for the year 2013/14 the Police and Crime Commissioner for Greater Manchester and the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority have issued precepts to the Council in accordance with section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each category of dwellings in the Council's area as indicated in the table below:
5. That the Council, in accordance with Sections 30 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the aggregate amounts shown in the tables below as the amounts of Council Tax for 2013/14 for each part of its area and for each of the categories of dwellings.
Authority/Parish £
A B C D E F G H
Oldham Council 928.63 1,083.40 1,238.18 1,392.95 1,702.50 2,012.05 2,321.58 2,785.91 PCCGM Precept 99.55 116.15 132.74 149.33 182.51 215.70 248.88 298.66 GM Fire and Rescue Authority 38.43 44.83 51.24 57.64 70.45 83.26 96.07 115.28 Precept Page 39
Saddleworth 12.90 15.05 17.20 19.35 23.65 27.95 32.25 38.70 Parish Precept Shaw and Crompton Parish 9.69 11.31 12.92 14.54 17.77 21.00 24.23 29.08 Precept
AGGREGATE OF COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENTS Authority/ £ Parish
A B C D E F G H
Saddleworth 1,079.51 1,259.43 1,439.36 1,619.27 1,979.11 2,338.96 2,698.78 3,238.55 Parish area Shaw & Crompton 1,076.30 1,255.69 1,435.08 1,614.46 1,973.23 2,332.01 2,690.76 3,228.93 Parish area All other parts of the Council's 1,066.61 1,244.38 1,422.16 1,599.92 1,955.46 2,311.01 2,666.53 3,199.85 area
The meeting started at 6.00 pm and ended at 9.20 pm
Page 40 Agenda Item 8
COUNCIL
17 April 2013
LIST OF PETITIONS
Executive Director, Neighbourhoods
1. Maintenance of Bridleway from Lower Oozewood Farm on Oozewood Road to the Royton Boundary at Hough Farm (received on 20 February 2013) (54 signatures) (Ref 2013-002)
2. Proposed Foxdenton Development (received on 13 March 2013) (629 signatures) (Ref 2013-004)
3. Road Safety Patrol Officer in Failsworth (received on 19 March 2013) (185 signatures) (Ref 2013-007)
Executive Director, Commercial Services
4. Sale of Car Park at Hereford Street and Gloucester Street, Werneth (received on 6 March 2013) (52 signatures) (Ref 2013-003)
Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 42 Agenda Item 12 CABINET 28/01/2013 at 6.00 pm
Present: Councillors Akhtar, Brownridge, Dearden, Hibbert, Jabbar, McDonald, McMahon and Stretton
Also Present: Councillor Dearden 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 THE MEETING OF THE CABINET HELD ON 17TH DECEMBER 2012 AND THE SPECIAL CABINET MEETING HELD ON 14TH JANUARY 2013 RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Cabinet Meetings held on the 17 th December 2012 and the 14 th January 2013 be approved. 6 CO-OPERATIVE OLDHAM FUND - BRINGING DORMANT AND UNDER USED CHARITABLE FUNDS INTO USE The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer and the Deputy Chief Executive, which presented Members with options in respect of the potential use of dormant or under used charitable funds and the establishment, management and operation of a sustainable Co-operative Oldham Fund. The report provided Members with detailed information on the current position of some of the dormant or under used funds for which the Council was a sole Trustee or Custodian Trustee. Members were advised that the total resource within those funds was £1,575,769. The report set out proposals for the development of a sustainable Co-Operative Fund and how this could be established and sustained by the use of the dormant Trust funds, Council funds initially allocated for a Community Dividend Fund, income from fundraising by Voluntary Action Oldham and other income. Options/Alternatives Considered Proposal 1 - Transfer Trusteeship to relevant school or college – where applicable Proposal 2 - Merge with an existing charity – where applicable Proposal 3 - Transfer of the administration of active charities to the trustees Proposal 4 - Wind up the charities and donate funds to another organisation
Page 43 Proposal 5 - Transfer to the Co-operative Oldham Fund Proposal 6 - Do nothing pending further developments Option 1 - The recommended option was that that Cabinet approved the proposed way forward for the use of £1,575,769 of charitable resources as set out in sections 3.3 to 3.16 of the report. This was to be subject to final agreements and safeguards being approved by Councilors Jabbar, Brownridge and Stretton and consultation with the Joint Leadership Group. This option presented the best opportunity to use the dormant trust fund monies and one-off £250,000 to establish a sustainable Fund to support the delivery of the co-operative ambition. This sustainability would come from the fund-raising element which would be undertaken by Voluntary Action Oldham. Option 2 - That Cabinet did not agree with the proposals contained in this report and requested that a further report be prepared taking into account any issues raised. This would have delayed the anticipated launch date of 14 th February 2013 would not be achieved. The Chair welcomed the report and advised the meeting that the decision of Cabinet would be subject to consultation with the Joint Leadership Group and Cross- Party support. RESOLVED: That subject to consultation with Group Leaders and Cross- party support: 1. The approach recommended for each of the funds as set out in detail at sections 3.3 to 3.16 of the report be agreed. 2. The approach to the creation of the Co-operative Oldham Fund and the utilisation of £657,021 of charitable resources and £250,000 of Council resources in the initial start-up of the Fund be approved. 3. The management of the Co-operative Oldham Fund be undertaken by Voluntary Action Oldham. 4. Delegated authority for Cllr Brownridge, Cllr Jabbar and Cllr Stretton to approve the finalisation of the governance agreement, including financial arrangements and safeguards, of the Co-operative Oldham Fund in accordance with the principles established in the report be agreed. 7 PUBLIC REALM ENHANCEMENTS: OLDHAM WAR MEMORIAL Further to a report approved by Cabinet on the 11 th September 2012, which approved a programme of improvements to sixteen War Memorial sites within the Borough the Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, Neighbourhoods, which sought approval to progress the refurbishment of the Oldham War Memorial. Members were advised that the report provided details of the proposed refurbishment to the Oldham War Memorial, a building of special architectural or Historic Interest (Grade 2) located at Church Terrace in the Town Centre at a cost of £118,549.43.
Page 44 The refurbishment included repairs to the granite plinth and bronze doors, repairs to the bronze sculpture and brass plaques, proposals to commission moulds of the bronze plaques on the Parish churchyard wall and repair of the book of remembrance. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 - Do nothing. This approach would require the Council to continue to fund the daily manual turning of pages in the Book of Remembrance at a monthly cost of £425; the War memorial would continue to deteriorate and eventually become unfit for its purpose necessitating potentially radical options. Option 2 - The total costs could be reduced by eliminating the commissioning of a mould of the Brass Plaques. The savings would be circa £20,000. However at some future date if the memorials were removed and lost, replacement would be impossible. The commissioning of moulds would eliminate this risk. Option 3 - Undertake the proposed repair and refurbishment works as proposed including the commissioning of moulds of the Brass Plaques. Members agreed that the Memorials within the Borough should also incorporate reference to the lives of those lost in all conflicts. RESOLVED: That: 1. The grant offered by the War Memorials Trust towards the cost of the proposed works be accepted. 2. The overall costs and programme for delivery of the proposed scheme be approved. 3. The Memorials within the Borough should also incorporate reference to the lives of those lost in all conflicts.
8 COUNCIL TAX AND NNDR TAX-BASE 2013/14 The Borough Treasurer submitted a report that presented to the Cabinet the Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) Tax bases for 2013/14 for use in budget deliberations. The report provided the most up to date valuation list and information and estimates available including: • The total number of Council Tax Band D equivalent properties for 2013/14 was 64,853.3 before discounts and adjustments for the Council Tax Localisation changes. • After removing the equivalent number of Band D Properties relating to the Council Tax Support Grant receivable and applying a recommendation rate of 96.813% this equated to a Council Tax base of 50,280. The tax base had therefore reduced substantially on that calculated for 2012/13 but after adjusting for the grant with the amended collection rate to reflect deductions in collectability of the localisation changes the equivalent tax base had been maintained at the same level. The Tax bases for Saddleworth and Shaw and Crompton Parish Councils of 7,950 and 5,182 respectively which had been calculated on the same basis as above to maintain consistency in funding generated. Page 45 Options/Alternatives Considered The Council had little discretion in the calculation of the number of properties incorporated into the Tax Base. The main area for an alternative approach was over the level of assumed collection rate. An increase in the collection rate would have boosted the anticipated Council Tax income and a decrease in the rate would decrease income. There would however have had to be a reasoned argument to support an alternative anticipated collection level, particularly in view of the uncertainty over the changes in the Council Tax system that would otherwise lead to a surplus or deficit being created on the Collection Fund. Similarly the NNDR1 return generated the figures identified in the Local Government Finance Settlement as those targeted for the 2013/14 as to do otherwise would lead to a surplus or deficit being created on the Collection Fund. Consultation The setting of both tax bases were key elements in the budget setting process. The formal consultation process on the budget began on 4th September and ran until 4th December 2012. The final budget report would be presented to the February 27 th 2013 Council meeting. The Council was consulting on its budget proposals by a number of means including: • Public consultation sessions held via District Partnership arrangements • Meetings with the Town Centre Partnership • Meetings with business leaders • Statutory consultation with the business community • The launch of a budget simulator on the Council’s website which seeks views on spending priorities • Staff consultation via meetings with Trades Union representatives • Scrutiny of budget proposals by the Overview and Scrutiny Performance and Value for Money Select Committee RESOLVED: That: 1. The Council Tax Tax-Bases at 50,280 for Oldham be approved and the Tax Bases for Saddleworth and Shaw and Crompton Parish Councils of 7,950 and 5,182 respectively be noted. 2. The NNDR Tax Base at the start-up funding level be approved. 3. That this report be exempted from call-in as the Tax Bases was required to be set by 31 st January 2013 for legal reasons 9 REVENUE MONITOR 2012 - 13 - MONTH 7 (OCTOBER) The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which provided an update on the Authority’s 2012/13 budget position forecast to the year end, as at the period ending 31 st October 2012 (Month 7). It was reported that the current position projected an overspend of £429,000 and that this figure had been reduced from the Month 6 report. Page 46 It was anticipated that when management actions had been brought forward and delivered the budget for the year end would be in balance. Options/Alternatives Considered: Option 1 - Not to approve any of the proposed management actions included in the report Option 2 - Not to approve some of the actions included in the report. Option 3 - Approve all the actions included in the report. RESOLVED: That 1. The full year forecast of £429,000 possible projected overspend at the end of Month 7 ( 31 st October 2012) prior to management action be noted. 2. The transfer to/from reserves and virements as detailed in section 7 be agreed. 3. The action being undertaken regarding the Highways business unit in section 8 be noted. 4. The forecast positions for both the HRA and Collection Fund be noted. 5. The forecast Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement and Movement in Reserves Statement be noted. 10 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAMME 2012/13 - MONTH 7 (OCTOBER) The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which advised of the latest position on the 2012/13 capital programme and the proposed changes to the 2012/13 capital programme. It was reported that the financial monitoring element of the report outlined the most up to date spending proposals for 2012- 2017, including the current project manager forecast outturn position of £99.069 million expenditure. This gave rise to a potential slippage of £16.384 million and the forecast outturn position based upon statistical analysis was £112.783 million. Options/Alternatives Considered: Option 1 - Not to approve any of the changes included in the report Option 2 - Not to approve some of the changes included in the report. Option 3 - Approve all the changes included in the report. RESOLVED: That: 1. The projected capital outturn for 2012/13 be noted. 2. The variations to the 2012/13 capital programme detailed in Appendix A which provided details of budget movements and re-profiling of schemes resulting in a net increase in expenditure of £0.562 million and an increase in resources of £0.562million in 2012/13. be noted. 11 SCHOOL ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS 2014-15 The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, Commissioning (including the Director of Children Services) which set out the Council’s obligations to determine
Page 47 the admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools in Oldham for the academic year 2014/15. The report informed the Cabinet of the proposed Co-ordinated Scheme for admissions for 2014-15, the Admission arrangements for admission to community and voluntary controlled primary and secondary schools for the Academic year 2014-15 and sought Cabinet approval to continue the current arrangements for appeals to the Independent Appeal panel. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 - To approve the proposed Co-ordinated Scheme at Appendix A, the arrangements for admission to community and voluntary controlled primary and secondary schools, as set out in Appendices B & C and the continuation of existing arrangements for appeals to the Independent Appeal Panel. Option 2 - To request changes to the proposed admission arrangements RESOLVED: That the Co-ordinated Scheme and arrangements for admissions to community and voluntary controlled primary and secondary schools, as set out in Appendices A to C of the report and the current arrangements for appeals to the Independent Appeal Panel be agreed for 2014-15.
12 DUNWOOD PARK Further to a report submitted to Cabinet in April 2011, the Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director for Neighbourhoods which sought additional capital funding to complete the Dunwood Park project. Due to Changes to the project specification, the final capital costs of the project had increased over the amount agreed by the Cabinet in April 2011. The report provided details of the 10% overspend on the project and in line with Council Procedure Rules, approval from Cabinet to proceed. Options/Alternatives considered Expenditure on the project had already been incurred and was subject to separate analysis. The alternative course of action was therefore limited although Officers continued to explore all funding avenues. The works had been completed and the contractor had been off site for many months and therefore the opportunity to reduce the cost of the works did not exist. RESOLVED: That Cabinet would consider the commercially sensitive information at item 14 of the agenda before a decision was taken on the proposals. 13 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. 14 DUNWOOD PARK
Page 48 Cabinet gave consideration to the commercially sensitive information in relation to Item 12 Dunwood Park. After consideration of both the public and commercially sensitive information the Cabinet reached its decision. RESOLVED: That an enhanced capital allocation to complete the project be approved.
The meeting started at 6.00pm and Finished at 6.16pm
Page 49 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 50 CABINET 25/02/2013 at 6.00 pm
Present: Councillor Akhtar (Chair) Councillors Brownridge, Hibbert Jabbar and McDonald
Also Present: Councillor Dearden
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors McMahon and Stretton. 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 THE CABINET MEETING HELD ON THE 28TH JANUARY 2013 RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on the 28 th January 2013 be approved. 6 LOCAL WELFARE PROVISION POLICY 2013/14 The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which sought approval of the Council’s Local Welfare Provision Policy 2013/14 as detailed at appendix one to the report. Members were advised that Welfare Reform Act 2012 set out the Government’s plans for reforming the Social Fund administered by the Department of Work and Pensions. Community Care grants and Crisis Loans for Living expenses were to be abolished and a reduced level of funding would be transferred to Local Authorities to redesign the scheme and to develop a Local Welfare policy to meet the needs of local people. The report provided details of the proposed Local Welfare Policy funding including: • Funding • Providing grants rather than loans • The eligibility criteria, • Limiting the number of awards made to each applicant in any one period; • Restricting the type of goods supplied to those which are necessities; • Providing vouchers, goods and services rather than cash; • Referring and signposting residents to alternative sources of support, where appropriate. Options/Alternatives
Page 51 Option 1 – Do not approve the policy. Failure to approve a policy would mean that the Council would not have a Local Welfare Provision Scheme in operation for the 1 st April 2013. Option 2 - Approve the policy attached at Appendix 1 and delegate the power to the Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships in conjunction with the Borough Treasurer to agree any revisions to the scheme. Option 3 – Propose amendments to the policy attached at Appendix 1. Depending on the nature and scale of any proposed amendments, there could be an impact on the planned timescales for implementation. Consultation A multi-disciplinary Project Group was established to develop a policy and to implement a scheme for Oldham. This group included Council officers from a range of services, partner organisations including DWP/Job Centre Plus, and voluntary and community agencies. The proposals were developed with a partnership approach and a range of internal and external stakeholders. In addition, and building on the Council’s co-operative approach to designing and delivering services, a small focus group was held with previous claimants of Crisis Loans in order to learn from their experiences. This outcome of the focus group was that money was often used for other purposes and there was a preference for the direct supply of goods and services to help to ensure that residents got the support they really need. RESOLVED: That: 1. The Council’s Local Welfare Provision Policy for 2013/14 as detailed at appendix 1 to the report be approved. 2. Any revisions to the scheme be delegated to the Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships in consultation with the Borough Treasurer. 7 HEALTH AND WELL-BEING BOARD: ARRANGEMENTS FOR APPOINTING A CHAIR The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Chief of Staff which provided Members with the options for the arrangements regarding the position of Chair of the Health and Well Being Board (HWBB) from April 2013. It was reported to the meeting that from April 2013 the Shadow Health and Well Being Board would become a Statutory Committee of the Council and the Council would be required to formally appoint a Chair to the Board. Options/Alternatives Option 1 - To continue to operate with an independent Chair. The benefits of this option were: • The Chair had been an excellent ambassador for Oldham, particularly engendering a partnership working ethos; • The independent nature of the Chair had been essential in ensuring that through the formative 24 months of the Board, it had been able to evolve as a
Page 52 partnership board and had a strong ethos of equality between all parties; • The national profile of the current independent chair within the Local Government Association and Department of Health not only gave Oldham another channel through which to lobby and influence within both organisations, it also provided the Council with a closer link into the communications coming out of those organisations. The independent Chair had also been fundamental in helping Oldham to fulfil its commitments as set out in the Health and Well-being Charter, particularly to: • Maintaining a consistent focus on Oldham the place and it’s citizens rather than individual organisations’ priorities; • Building a high achieving and collaborative partnership that valued people’s different strengths and contributions and encouraged openness, honesty and trust among its members; • Having the strength and courage to assert the authority of the Board and afraid to challenge and hold people to account. The Independent Chair would be paid a daily allowance equivalent to the Local Government Association Member date rate of £300 plus expenses and this would equate to approximately £8,000 per annum. The cost would be allocated to the Public Health specific grant. Members were assured that an Independent Chair would also work in line with Council’s overall objectives. Option 2 - To operate with an Elected Member as the Chair. There were four elected members on the shadow Health and Well Being Board (HWBB) (3 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat). The Deputy Leader was the joint Vice Chair of the Board. Some of the HWBBs elsewhere had appointed an elected member as Chair. The portfolio holder with responsibility for Health and Well-being and in some cases the Leader of the Council had taken on the role. The appointment of an elected member had worked to varying degrees of success nationally, but could have been interpreted as being council centric and not fully representative of the broader health and well-being community. Option 3 - To operate with a member of the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) as the Chair. There were currently three members of the CCG on the shadow HWBB with one member operating as a joint Vice Chair of the Board. There were a small number of authorities that had a General Practitioner chair and some had Council and NHS co-chairs. Similar views were held in relation to 2 above as the appointment of a member of the NHS as chair could be focusing the agenda too much on health issues as opposed to the broader well-being agenda. Option 4 - To operate with a rotating nomination for Chair. There were currently twenty members of the shadow HWBB. Whilst this approach would ensure that the Chair was shared equally between all organisations and representatives it could have lead
Page 53 to a disjointed focus for the Board and lack of consistency in the way it operated. Consultation Consultation had taken place with the Leader of the Council and the Health and Well Being Board. RESOLVED: That option 1 be recommended to Council, to appoint and for the next Municipal year 2012-13. The options and appointment would be subject to annual review. 8 CAPITAL MONITORING 2012/13 MONTH 8 The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which advised Members of the latest position on the 2012/13 capital programme (Month 8) and the proposed changes to the 2012/13 capital programme as outlined in section 5 of the report. It was reported that the financial monitoring element of the report outlined the most up to date spending proposals for 2012- 2017, including the current project manager forecast outturn position of £93.597 million expenditure. This gave rise to a potential slippage of £17.041 million and the forecast outturn position based upon statistical analysis was £97.431 million. Options/Alternatives Considered: Option 1 - Not to approve any of the changes included in the report Option 2 - Not to approve some of the changes included in the report. Option 3 - Approve all the changes included in the report. RESOLVED: That: 1. The projected capital outturn for 2012/13 be noted. 2. The variations to the 2012/13 capital programme detailed in Appendix A which provided details of budget movements and re-profiling of schemes resulting in a net decrease in expenditure of £4.815 million and an decrease in resources of £4.815 million in 2012/13. be noted. 9 REVENUE MONITORING 2012-13 MONTH 8 The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which provided an update on the Authority’s 2012/13 budget position forecast to the year end, as at the period ending 30 th November 2012 (Month 8). It was reported that the current position projected an overspend of £158,000 and that this figure had been reduced from the Month 7 report. It was anticipated that when management actions had been brought forward and delivered, the budget for the year end would be in balance. Options/Alternatives Considered: Option 1 - Not to approve any of the proposed management actions included in the report Option 2 - Not to approve some of the actions included in the report. Option 3 - Approve all the actions included in the report. RESOLVED: That
Page 54 1. The full year forecast of £158,00 possible projected overspend at the end of Month 8 ( 30 th November 2012) prior to management actions be noted. 2. The transfer to/from reserves and virements as detailed in section 7 be agreed. 3. The action being undertaken regarding the Highways business unit in section 8 be noted. 4. The forecast positions for both the HRA and Collection Fund be noted. 5. The forecast Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement and Movement in Reserves Statement be noted.
The meeting started at 6.00 pm and ended at 6.09 pm
Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 56 CABINET 25/03/2013 at 6.00 pm
Present: Councillors McMahon (Chair) Councillors Akhtar, Brownridge, Hibbert, McDonald, and Stretton
In Attendance: Councillors Dearden and J Harrison
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jabbar. 2 URGENT BUSINESS The Chair agreed to consider an Item Urgent Business - Supporting Oldham’s Town Centre - Options for Free Parking as a matter of urgency in accordance with S.100 B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972; Urgent Cabinet approval was required to enable the Council to continue the free parking offer as the pilot was due to finish on the 5 th April 2013. The Item was considered at Item 16 of the agenda.
3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest received. 4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME There were no public questions received. 5 MINUTES OF THE CABINET MEETINGS HELD ON THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2013 AND 25TH FEBRUARY 2013 RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meetings held on the 18 th February 2013 and the 25 th February 2013 be approved. 6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND WELFARE REFORM The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer, which provided Members with an update on a rage of issues in relation to Local Government finance and welfare reform. Members were advised that following a review, the Council had identified three policies which needed to be updated to reflect the changes introduced by the Local Government Finance arrangements and the Welfare reform Act 2012. The three policies were the Discretionary Housing Payment Policy, Discretionary Rate Relief Policy and Corporate Fair Debt Policy. The review was carried out to ensure the Council would meet the new requirements introduced by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and to ensure the Council had the appropriate policies in place to support those residents of the Borough affected by the changes. Options/Alternatives Considered
Page 57 Option 1 – Do not approve the policies. The Council would not have appropriate policies in place to meet new requirements to support those affected by the change to Local Government Finance and Welfare Reform. Option 2 - Approve the Discretionary Housing Payment Policy (Appendix 1), Discretionary Rate Relief Policy (Appendix 2) and Corporate Fair Debt Policy (Appendix 3). The Council would have appropriate policies in place to support those affected by the changes to Local Government Finance and Welfare Reform. Cabinet were asked to consider the interim delivery arrangements for Local Welfare Provision outlined at 2.8.2 of the report, the following options were available: Option 1 – Do not approve the proposed delivery arrangements for Local Welfare Provision outlined at 2.8.2. The Council’s Local Welfare Provision Scheme would not be operational from the 1st April 2013. Option 2 – Approve the proposed delivery arrangements for Local Welfare Provision outlined at 2.8.2 of the report. The Council’s Local Welfare Provision Scheme would be operational from the 1st April 2013. Consultation A multi-disciplinary Project Group was established to develop a policy and to implement a scheme for Oldham. This group includes Council officers from a range of services, partner organisations including DWP/job Centre Plus, and voluntary and community agencies. The proposals had been developed through a partnership approach with a range of internal and external stakeholders. In addition, and building on the Council’s co-operative approach to designing and delivering services, a small focus group was held with previous claimants of Crisis Loans in order to learn from their experiences. The focus group confirmed that money was often used for other purposes and there was a preference for the direct supply of goods and services to help ensure that residents got the support needed. RESOLVED: That: 1. The Discretionary Housing Payment Policy (Appendix 1), the Discretionary Rate Relief Policy (Appendix 2) and the Corporate Fair Debt Policy (Appendix 3) be approved. 2. The Cabinet Member for Finance, HR and Strategic Partnerships in conjunction with the Borough Treasurer be given delegated power to make any revision to the Discretionary Housing Payment Policy, Discretionary Rate Relief Policy and the Corporate Fair Debt Policy (Appendices 1,2,and 3) that were required in year. 3. The actions being taken in respect of Council Tax Collection at 2.5 of the report be noted. 4. The position on Business Rates Retention at detailed at 2.6 of the report be noted. 5. The position on Welfare Reform as detailed at 2.7 of the report be noted. 6. The interim delivery arrangements for Local Welfare Provision as per option 2 of the report to ensure the Page 58 scheme was operational on 1 st April 2013 be approved. 7 WORKING TOGETHER TO PREVENT HOMELESSNESS IN OLDHAM Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Neighbourhoods which sought approval of the Council’s new Homelessness and Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2016. Members were advised that the strategy was a statutory requirement and the document focused on the challenges of maintaining a reduction in homelessness acceptances and the number of households in temporary accommodation. It was further reported that the Council’s approach to dealing with homelessness had improved significantly to prevent and reduce homelessness within the Borough. Options/Alternatives considered Option One - All local authorities were required to publish a new Homelessness Strategy as a minimum every five years. The Council’s current strategy covered the period 2010-13. It was therefore possible that Oldham could continue to use the priorities and actions contained within the Strategy for a further year. However, given the significant improvements in performance and issues affecting households in Oldham, especially in relation to welfare benefit reform, the document no longer reflected the Council’s priorities. Option Two – To approve the contents of the new Homelessness Strategy and Action Plan which had been developed with partners, service users and Members to meet the needs and address the key challenges in relation to the prevention of homelessness in Oldham. Consultation The strategy was developed using a robust evidence base including: • National, regional and local information in respect of households seeking assistance under homelessness legislation • National information in respect of mortgage repossession • Local information in respect of anticipated impact of welfare benefit reform • Local information in respect of households on the Housing Register, Choice Based Lettings and social housing allocations in 2009. • Actions taken in relation to the prevention of homelessness Users of homelessness, advice and support services had a number of opportunities to put their views forward and consultation had been ongoing through a range of multi agency groups that the Council’s partners were involved in. A formal half day consultation event had taken place which all partners were invited to.
Page 59 A number of elected Members had been consulted on the development of the Strategy and Action Plan, including the Lead Member for Housing, Transport and Planning. Further information was provided to Overview and Scrutiny and the Affordable Homes Task and Finish Group. RESOLVED: That the Homelessness Strategy and Action Plan (Working Together to Prevent Homelessness in Oldham 2013-2016). 8 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAMME 2012/13 MONTH 9 The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which provided Members with details of the latest position on the 2012/13 capital programme (Month 9) and the proposed changes to the 2012/13 capital programme as outlined in section 5 of the report. It was reported that the financial monitoring element of the report provided the most up to date spending proposals for 2012-2017, including the current project manager forecast outturn position of £90.899 million expenditure. This gave rise to a potential slippage of £22.197 million and the forecast outturn position based upon statistical analysis was £104.722 million. Options/Alternatives Considered: Option 1 - Not to approve any of the changes included in the report Option 2 - Not to approve some of the changes included in the report. Option 3 - Approve all the changes included in the report. RESOLVED: That: 1. The projected capital outturn for 2012/13 be noted. 2. The variations to the 2012/13 capital programme detailed in Appendix A which provided details of budget movements and re-profiling of schemes resulting in a net decrease in expenditure of £1.236 million and an decrease in resources of £1.236 million in 2012/13. be noted. 9 REVENUE MONITOR 2013-2013 MONTH 9 The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which provided an update on the Authority’s 2012/13 budget position forecast to the year end, as at the period ending 31 st December (Month 9). It was reported that the current position was a projected possible under spend of £17,000 compared to the Month 8 report which had reported a £158,000 overspend. Members were advised that using statistical analysis as previously reported the expected outturn was £226.674 million which would result in an under spend of £769,000, however this was statistical analysis and as previously reported the Borough treasure was confident the budget would balance at the year end. Options/Alternatives Considered: Option 1 - Not to approve any of the proposed management actions included in the report Option 2 - Not to approve some of the actions included in the report.
Page 60 Option 3 - Approve all the actions included in the report. RESOLVED: That 1. The full year forecast of £17,000 possible projected underspend at the end of Month 9 ( 31 st December 2012) prior to management actions be noted. 2. The transfer to/from reserves and virements as detailed in section 8 be agreed. 3. The forecast positions for both the HRA and Collection Fund be noted. 4. The forecast and actual comprehensive income and expenditure statement movement in reserves statement, balance sheet and cashflow statement be noted. 5. Month 9 was the final monthly report due to the accelerated closedown process. A full outturn report would be completed and submitted to Cabinet as part of the closedown process. 10 COUNCIL PERFORMANCE REPORT - QUARTER 3 (2012- 2013) The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Deputy Chief Executive, Carolyn Wilkins, which provided Members with an overview of the Council’s performance against the priorities outlined within the Corporate Plan for the period October – December 2012. Members were advised that due to the challenges faced by the Council, including the impact of welfare reform and the continuation of services in a context of reducing budgets and increasing demand, local indicators would be developed and incorporated into future performance reports. Options/Alternatives considered Not applicable. RESOLVED: That: 1. The Cabinet acknowledged the highlights and areas of underperformance as detailed within the report. 2. The ongoing developments in the Council’s reporting of performance be noted. 11 ADOPTION OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER MINERALS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director, Neighbourhoods which provided Members with details of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document, which had been produced for Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) by the Minerals and Waste Planning Unit as part of the Borough’s statutory development plan. It was reported that the plan would be submitted to full Council for approval on the 17 th April 2012. Options Alternatives considered Option 1 – Commended the Greater Manchester Minerals Development to Council Option 2 – Amend, modify or alter the plan Consultation The Minerals Plan had been subject to extensive consultations with the community and statutory consultees since 2010. The
Page 61 consultations and opportunities for people to make their views known included: • Issues and Options – February / March 2010 • Defining Minerals Safeguarding Areas in Greater Manchester – August 2010 • Preferred Approach October / November 2010 • Proposed Submission – July to September 2011 (following support from Full Council in April 2011) • Preliminary Meeting – 6 December 2011 • Public Hearings – 22 and 23 February 2012 • Consultation on the proposed modifications to the Greater Manchester Minerals Plan – August to September 2012 • Additional public hearing – 21 November 2012 RESOLVED: That the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document be commended to Council 12 ST MARY'S DISTRICT HEATING NETWORK The Cabinet gave consideration to a joint report of the Executive Director Commercial Services and Executive Director, Neighbourhoods, which sought approval for the acceptance of funding for the proposed refurbishment of the St.Marys Heat Network system and to develop further options of transferring the asset to an Energy Services Company (ESCO). Cabinet were advised that the Council and First Choice Homes had been approached by a major energy company with a proposal to provide significant investment to clad and insulate the domestic properties and to the replace the boiler house and boilers with a biomass boiler system. It was reported that the proposal as detailed within the report had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Board. The Board had made three recommendations: 1. That any capital improvement works outside the scope of the offer should be met from the Housing Revenue Account. 2. The Overview and Scrutiny Board have sight of a developed scheme of works after 1 st May 2013. 3. The options regarding an ESCO or future ownership of the scheme are examined by the Overview and Scrutiny Board. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 – Do nothing. Option 2 – Work with First Choice Homes and the funding provider to deliver a low carbon solution as described in the report. RESOLVED: That Cabinet would consider the commercially sensitive information at item 18 of the agenda before a decision was taken on the proposals 13 DRUG AND ALCOHOL COMMISSIONING UPDATE The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Assistant Executive Director Joint Commissioning, which sought an exemption from the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules 4 and 5 to obtain tenders and quotations so that existing drug and
Page 62 alcohol contracts currently commissioned by the DAAT could be extended. 1. The contract with Oldham Drug and Alcohol Service (ODAS Pennine Care) until 31 st March 2015 2. All other contracts until 31 st March 2014. It was reported that from April 2013 the lead responsibility for commissioning drug and alcohol outcomes would be transferred to the Local Authority and would be the responsibility of the Director of Public Health. Funding from the Department of Health for drug and alcohol treatment and support would be part of the Public Health settlement. The requested exemption from the contract procedure rules to extend the contracts detailed within the report would allow time to review all the public health contracts during 2013/14. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 – To approve an exemption from the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules 4 and 5 to enable efficiencies to be identified from the renewal of contracts in years 2014/15. Option 2 – Not to approve the exemption from the Contract Procedure Rules. RESOLVED: That Cabinet would consider the commercially sensitive information at item 19 of the agenda before a decision was taken on the proposals 14 SHELTERED HOUSING PFI CONTRACT The Cabinet gave consideration to a joint report of the Executive Director , Neighbourhoods and the Borough Treasurer which provided Members with an update in respect of the Council’s Sheltered Housing contract with Oldham Retirement Housing Partnership Limited (ORHP) and sought authorisation for the Executive Director Neighbourhoods, the Borough Solicitor, the Borough Treasurer to conclude and execute all relevant contract documentation in conjunction with the Chief Executive, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jabbar and Councillor Hibbert. Members were advised that further to the project agreement executed on the 20 th October 2006 and construction of the three group schemes completed in May 2012 a review needed to be undertaken of the contractual terms. It was reported that further work needed to be undertaken by ORHP to meet the full contractual specification and that in order for ORHP to complete the work ORHP had requested that the Council enter into a Deed of Variation. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 - To enter into a deed of variation with ORHP Option 2 – seek an alternative solution to ensure works are undertaken. RESOLVED: That Cabinet would consider the commercially sensitive information at item 20 of the agenda before a decision was taken on the proposals 15 RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL SERVICES (PHASE 3) TO THE UNITY PARTNERSHIP Consideration was given a report of the Executive Director, Commercial Services which provided Members with details of
Page 63 the proposed Phase 3 transfer of services to the Unity Partnership. The report provided details of the services to be considered, the business cases relating to the proposed transfers and the recommendations which would result in improved services and savings in the cost of providing the services. It was reported that approval was required to complete the Phase 3 programme with the transfer of: 1. HR People Advisory Service 2. ICT Modernisation and Information Management Team The Council would retain the schools technicians. This new way of working would create scope for the Council to make further savings in the future. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 – To do nothing. The Council would fail to realise an opportunity to deliver the operational efficiencies and financial savings afforded by the recommended transfer. Option 2 - To look at an alternative to the transfer. Option 3 – To transfer the recommended services. RESOLVED: That Cabinet would consider the commercially sensitive information at item 21 of the agenda before a decision was taken on the proposals 16 SUPPORTING OLDHAM TOWN CENTRE - OPTIONS FOR FREE PARKING The Chair agreed to consider an Item Urgent Business - Supporting Oldham’s Town Centre - Options for Free Parking as a matter of urgency in accordance with S.100 B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972; Urgent Cabinet approval was required to enable the Council to continue the free parking offer as the pilot was due to finish on the 5 th April 2013. The Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Executive Director, Commercial Services, which sought approval of the introduction of 3 hour free parking on Saturday and Sundays for all off street town centre car parks, together with the continuation of free 30 minute on street parking, 7 days a week from the 6 th April 2013 for a 12 month period. Further to the Cabinet approval on the 7 th January 2013 of a 3 month 2 hour free parking initiative pilot, there had been an increase of people using car parks within the pilot scheme. Oldham retailers had confirmed sales had increased in 2013 on average by 2 - 4% and also reported an increase in the number of transactions undertaken. Independent retailers reported that year-on-year sales were the same, however they had seen new customers and the return of old customers and 60% of visitors surveyed were aware of the free parking offer before visiting the Town Centre and of these, 40% came to the Town Centre because of the offer and 23.5% of the respondents came from outside of Oldham. It was reported that the feedback on the Saturday free 3 hour Christmas parking offer in 2012 was positive and the software required for the pay and display machines to operate to the revised charges had already been purchased and was available for use by the Council.
Page 64 Members were advised that in addition to the free parking offer the maximum stay at the Tommyfield and Clegg Street Car parks would be increased to 3 Hours. Options/Alternatives considered Option 1 – Not to implement the options for free parking and increasing the maximum stay at Tommyfield and Clegg Street Car Parks to 3 Hours. Option 2 –To implement the options for free parking and increasing the maximum stay at Tommyfield and Clegg Street Car Parks to 3 Hours. RESOLVED: That 1. The introduction of 3 hours free parking on Saturday and Sunday for all “off street” Town Centre car parks for a 12 month period from the 6 th April be approved. 2. The continuation of free 30 minute “on street parking” 7 days a week from 6 th April 2013, for a 12 month period be approved. 3. That the maximum stay on both Tommyfield Market and Clegg Street Car parks be increased from a maximum stay of 2 hours to 3 hours 7 days a week, with no return permitted within 3 hours. 4. The offer of free all day parking for Hobson Street car park on Saturday and Sunday be continued for a 12 month period from the 6 th April 2013. 17 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. 18 ST. MARY'S DISTRICT HEATING NETWORK Cabinet gave consideration to the commercially sensitive information in relation to Item 12 St. Marys Heating Network. After consideration of both the public and commercially sensitive information the Cabinet reached its decision. RESOLVED: That: 1. The offer of funding be agreed. 2. The Executive Director Commercial Services, in consultation with the Cabinet member for Housing, Transport and Planning and the Borough Solicitor be given delegated authority to complete the necessary legal documentation to process this proposal. 3. The Executive Director Commercial Services be given approval to work with First Choice Homes and British Gas to explore the option of creating an Energy Services Company to provide a sustainable management model for further consideration.
19 DRUG AND ALCOHOL COMMISSIONING UPDATE Cabinet gave consideration to the commercially sensitive information in relation to Item 13 Drug and Alcohol Page 65 Commissioning Update. After consideration of both the public and commercially sensitive information the Cabinet reached its decision. RESOLVED: That: 1. All of the currently commissioned Drug and Alcohol Action Team contracts apart from the contract with Oldham Drug and Alcohol Service (ODAS Pennine Care) be extended to 31 st March 2014. 2. The contract with Oldham Drug and Alcohol Service ODAS be extended up to 31 st March 2015 to allow for management of the additional financial obligations and to make any necessary amendments so that the contract would be flexible enough to manage any risk to the Council as a result of reduced funding for drugs and alcohol commissioning during the extended period and also so that it is in line with up to a 5% decrease year-on-year. 3. The Drug and Alcohol Strategy Refresh (2012-14) as attached at Appendix 1 be approved. 20 SHELTERED HOUSING PFI CONTRACT Cabinet gave consideration to the commercially sensitive information in relation to Item 14 Sheltered Housing PFI Contract. After consideration of both the public and commercially sensitive information the Cabinet reached its decision. RESOLVED: That the Executive Director for Neighbourhoods, the Borough Treasurer and the Borough Solicitor (acting separately or together), or their respective nominated representatives, be authorised to conclude any necessary agreements relating to the Project in conjunction with the Chief Executive, the Leader of the Council and Lead Members Councillor Abdul Jabbar and Councillor Dave Hibbert.
21 RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSFER ADDITIONAL SERVICES (PHASE 3) TO THE UNITY PARTNERSHIP Cabinet gave consideration to the commercially sensitive information in relation to Item 15 Recommendation to Transfer additional services (Phase 3) to the Unity Partnership. After consideration of both the public and commercially sensitive information the Cabinet reached its decision. RESOLVED: That: 1. The transfer of the HR People Advisory service and the ICT Modernisation and Information Management service to the Unity Partnership be approved. 2. The retention of the Schools Technicians service by the Council and the transfer of the service to the ICT section of Commercial Services on the basis that a business plan is developed to make a modest investment to provide leadership and to develop the team to create the capacity to at least maintain
Page 66 current levels of income and to seek to improve income be approved.
The meeting started at 6.00pm and finished at 6.20pm
Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 68 Performance, Services and Capacity
CABINET 08/04/2013 at 6.00 pm
Present: Councillor McMahon (Chair) Councillors Brownridge, Hibbert, McDonald and Stretton
Also Present: Councillors Bashforth, Dearden and Harrison 1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Akhtar and Jabbar.
2 URGENT BUSINESS The Chair informed the meeting that notification of the announcement of Department for Education (DfE) capital grant funding for 2013/14 and 2014/15 had been received after the publication of the Cabinet agenda, details of which were considered as an item of urgent business which appeared at Item 7 on the agenda. 3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest received.
4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME There were no public questions received.
5 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PERFORMANCE AND VALUE FOR MONEY SELECT COMMITTEE HELD ON THE 26TH MARCH 2013 RESOLVED: That the deliberations and comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Performance and Value for Money Select Committee held on the 26 th March 2013 be noted.
6 BUDGET PROPOSALS 2014/15 (ADDITIONAL) Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which presented the final tranche of the Administration’s budget proposals for 2014/15 resulting from the impact of the Local Government Finance Settlement and other matters
Members were informed that the position for 2014/15 was a remaining projected shortfall of £7.528m for which savings were to be identified in the Spring of 2013 and it was intended that savings incorporated in this report would form the basis of those proposals to be presented to Council on 17 th April this year.
Page 69 Performance, Services and Capacity
Consultation It was intended that the options would be agreed by Council in April for consultation where needed. The results of the consultation and Equality Impact Assessments, where appropriate, would be brought back to a later PVFM, for commendation to Cabinet for final approval. Council in February 2014 would approve the final budget but the detail of all of the 2014/15 options, with Equality Impact Assessments where appropriate, would have been formally signed off by Cabinet. If however, following consultation, Cabinet did not feel that a proposal should be taken forward, or that further work would be required, then this would be raised at the Cabinet meeting and next steps resolved at the Cabinet meeting.
The Chair, Councillor McMahon expressed his thanks to the Borough Treasurer and the Finance Team for all their hard work.
RESOLVED – That: 1. Options detailed at Appendix A in summary and in detail at Appendix B towards the savings target be approved. 2. The budget savings for 2014/15 be recommended to Council, with consultation being undertaken where needed. 3. It be noted that the results of the consultation and Equality Impact Assessments, where appropriate, be submitted to a later Performance and Value for Money Select Committee, for commendation to Cabinet for final approval; the final budget to be approved by Council in February 2014.
7 DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION CAPITAL FUNDING 2013/2014 AND 2014/2015 Cabinet gave consideration to a report of the Borough Treasurer which advised of the announcement of Department for Education (DfE) capital grant funding for 2013/14 and 2014/15 and the implications for the capital programme. Options/Alternatives Considered Option 1 – To approve the recommendations in the report. Option 2 – To take an alternative approach by either: • Not treating the Education Maintenance grant as a resource which is added to a unallocated corporate pot; • Using the Education Maintenance grant to support education expenditure including the increase in school capacity; or • Not allocating the £1,461,114 basic need funding (to be split equally over 2013/14 and 2014/15) to increasing school capacity. Consultation
Page 70 Performance, Services and Capacity
Consultation had taken place with the members of the Capital Investment Programme Board which includes Cabinet Members. The capital strategy and programme for 2013/17 was approved at the Council meeting on 27th February 2013. RESOLVED – That: 1. The change in the capital programme to incorporate ring- fenced 2013/14 Devolved Formula Capital grant of £537,580, Maintenance capital grant for 2013/14 of £2,301,667 and Basic Need capital grant of £1,461,114 split equally over 2013/14 and 2014/15 be approved. 2. The use of the Basic Need capital grant resource to support the Council capital priority of increasing school capacity that was identified in the 2013/17 capital strategy be approved. 3. The initiation of work to bid for targeted basic need grant subject to detailed officer and Member review prior to submission to the DfE be approved.
The meeting started at 6.00 pm and ended at 6.10 pm
Page 71 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 72 URGENT KEY DECISIONS TAKEN BY CABINET FROM 28 th January 2013 to 8th April 2013
CABINET – 25 th March 2013
Title of Report Reason the Report was Decision Exempt from Call-in Supporting The Chair agreed to consider an RESOLVED: That Oldham’s Town Item Urgent Business - 1. The introduction of 3 hours free parking on Saturday and Sunday for Centre - Options Supporting Oldham’s Town all “off street” Town Centre car parks for a 12 month period from the th for Free Parking Centre - Options for Free Parking 6 April be approved. as a matter of urgency in 2. The continuation of free 30 minute “on street parking” 7 days a week accordance with S.100 B (4) of from 6 th April 2013, for a 12 month period be approved. the Local Government Act 1972; 3. That the maximum stay on both Tommyfield Market and Clegg Urgent Cabinet approval was Street Car parks be increased from a maximum stay of 2 hours to 3 required to enable the Council to hours 7 days a week, with no return permitted within 3 hours. continue the free parking offer as 4. The offer of free all day parking for Hobson Street car park on Page 73 the pilot was due to finish on the Saturday and Sunday be continued for a 12 month period from the th 5th April 2013. 6 April 2013.
CABINET – 8th April 2013
Department for The Chair informed the meeting RESOLVED – That: Education Capital that notification of the 1. The change in the capital programme to incorporate ring-fenced Funding announcement of Department for 2013/14 Devolved Formula Capital grant of £537,580, Maintenance 2013/2014 and Education (DfE) capital grant capital grant for 2013/14 of £2,301,667 and Basic Need capital grant 2014/2015 funding for 2013/14 and 2014/15 of £1,461,114 split equally over 2013/14 and 2014/15 be approved. had been received after the 2. The use of the Basic Need capital grant resource to support the publication of the Cabinet Council capital priority of increasing school capacity that was agenda, details of which were identified in the 2013/17 capital strategy be approved. considered as an item of urgent 3. The initiation of work to bid for targeted basic need grant subject to business which appeared at Item detailed officer and Member review prior to submission to the DfE 7 on the agenda. be approved.
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 74 Agenda Item 15
3.
MINUTES OF THE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY 25 th JANUARY 2013 AT ROCHDALE TOWN HALL
Members Present-
BOLTON COUNCIL Councillor Cliff Morris
BURY COUNCIL Councillor Mike Connolly
MANCHESTER CC Councillor Richard Leese
OLDHAM COUNCIL Councillor Jim McMahon
ROCHDALE MBC Councillor Colin Lambert
SALFORD CC Mayor Ian Stewart
STOCKPORT MBC Councillor Sue Derbyshire
TAMESIDE MBC Councillor Keiran Quinn
TRAFFORD COUNCIL Councillor Matthew Colledge
WIGAN COUNCIL Councillor Peter Smith - Chair
INDEPENDENT MEMBER Diane Curry
INDEPENDENT MEMBER Maqsood Ahmad
Also in attendance-
POLICE & CRIME COMMISSIONER Tony Lloyd
Sean Harriss Bolton Council Mike Kelly Bury Council Howard Bernstein Manchester CC Richard Paver Manchester CC Carolyn Wilkins Oldham Council Jim Taylor Rochdale Council Martin Vickers Salford CC Steve Houston Stockport MBC Steven Pleasant Tameside MBC Theresa Grant Trafford Council Donna Hall Wigan Council Russell Bernstein Office of Police & Crime Commissioner Peter Fahy Chief Constable, GM Police Jacquie Russell Police & Crime Transition Team
Julie Connor ) Greater Manchester
Page 75 3. Joanne Horrocks ) Integrated Support Team Kerry Bond ) Nicola Ward )
27/12 APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Barbara Spicer, Eamonn Boylan and Charlie Parker.
28/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None were received.
29/12 MINUTES OF POLICE AND CRIME PANEL MEETING 30 th NOVEMBER 2012
It was AGREED by those present that these were a true record of the meeting with the amendment at 23/12 to read Maqsood Ahmad.
30/12 POLICE AND CRIME PRECEPT
a. Police and Crime Commissioner Precept Proposal
A report of Barbara Spicer, Lead Chief Executive for Police and Crime was considered. Richard Paver, GMCA Treasurer presented the report detailing the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposed precept levels for 2013/14 and the statutory timeline for the proposal.
Discussion took place in relation to the Community Safety Fund allocation used to support the Police and Crime Plan priorities. The Police and Crime Commissioner referred to paragraph 4.2 of the report and emphasised the total loss of money to Greater Manchester Police and the Greater Manchester districts amounting to approximately 25.5% The Police and Crime Commissioner would be writing to districts in the following week to confirm this and the implications around the shortfall of 2012/13 monies to the Community Safety Fund.
The Police and Crime Panel AGREED
1. To note that the Police and Crime Commissioner would write to each district in relation to the loss of funding to support the Police and Crime Plan and seeking responses from districts. 2. That a full budget report and proposals for the Community Safety Fund be brought to the meeting scheduled for 22 February. 3. To note the report and timeframe for considering the precept proposals.
b. 2013/14 Precept and Budget Proposals
The Police and Crime Commissioner presented the report notifying Panel members of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s precept and budget proposals for 2013-14.
The Panel noted that the proposed increase represented 3.46% and not 3.5% as stated in the report.
The Police and Crime Panel AGREED
Page 76 3.
1. To note the latest revenue budget projections and the proposals for achieving a balanced budget in 2013/14. 2. To endorse the proposal to implement a £5 precept increase for 2013/14 at £149.33 per band D property. 3. To note the budget assumptions relating to the budgets for 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17.
31/12 DRAFT POLICE AND CRIME PLAN
The Police and Crime Commissioner updated members on the work carried out to date on the Police and Crime Plan and stated that he would be meeting with Leaders to discuss the draft and bring the full Plan back to the Panel at it’s February meeting. The Police and Crime Commissioner emphasised that partnership working would be at the centre of all the objectives of the Plan. Funding restrictions would impact on what could be delivered and the implications would be discussed with district leads.
The Police and Crime Panel AGREED:
1. To note that the draft Police and Crime Plan would be submitted to the February meeting of the Panel. 2. That the co-opted members, Diane Curry and Maqsood Ahmad should be invited to future meetings of the Police & Crime Steering Group meetings.
32/12 CIVIL CONTINGENCIES UNIT ANNUAL REPORT AND LESSONS LEARNT
Steven Pleasant, Lead Chief Executive Civil Contingencies presented the report updating members on the contribution that the Civil Contingencies & Resilience Unit has made to the management of emergencies across Greater Manchester since it’s set up in September 2011. The unit replaces a service that used to be carried out individually in all ten districts and works with local authorities to deliver statutory duties in the field of emergency planning and offering a response service that is available 24 hours every day of the year.
The paper detailed the range of services that the unit delivers to authorities working with GMP’s Resilience Unit, together with representatives from GMFRS and the NHS Resilience Team and also the response to emergencies the lessons learnt together with opportunities identified for the future.
Steven Pleasant reported that the new service had saved Greater Manchester approximately £2m since it had commenced
The Police and Crime Panel AGREED:
1. To note the lessons learnt during the response to a range of emergencies. 2. To note the considerable benefits and financial savings of having adopted a shared service model in this service area.
Chair
Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 78 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
HELD ON 14th FEBRUARY 2013
Present:
Councillor David Acton (Chairman), Councillor Tommy Judge (Vice- Chairman), Councillors John Bell (Deputy Chairman), Mohammed Ayub, Dylan Butt, Lynda Byrne, Basil Curley, Jim Dawson, Jim Ellis, Hilary Fairclough, Grace Fletcher-Hackwood, Derek Heffernan, James Hennigan, David Higgins, Barrie Holland, Bernard Judge, Iain Lindley, Alan Matthews, Wendy Meikle, Amna Mir, Shelia Newman, John O'Brien, Shaun O'Neill, Michael Smith, Fred Walker, Lisa Walker and Steve Williams
Also in Attendance: Steve McGuirk (County Fire Officer & Chief Executive), Donna Hall (Clerk to the Authority), Paul McKevitt (Treasurer, Wigan MBC), Ged Murphy (Director of Finance and Technical Services), Paul Argyle (Director of Emergency Response), Shelley Wright (Director of Corporate Communications) and Donna Parker (Democratic Services Manager)
66. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Walter Brett, Sandra Walmsley and George Wilson.
67. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 th December 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
68. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Clerk reported that in consultation with the Independent Person a dispensation had been granted to all Members to participate and vote at meetings of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority, any Committee or Sub-Committee of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority and any joint committee or joint sub-committee on which the Authority is represented in respect of matters relating to setting Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority’s precept (and matters directly related to such decisions, including Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority’s budget calculations). This was granted on the grounds that without the dispensation the number of Members prohibited from participating in any particular business would be so great a proportion of the body transacting the business as to impede the transaction of the business (Section 33(2)(a) of the Localism Act 2011)(Minute 77 refers).
69. URGENT BUSINESS (IF ANY)
There were no items of urgent business raised.
Page 79
70. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. The Chairman informed Members of the sad death of Hyde Firefighter Carl Davies. Carl, had worked for GMFRS for more than 12 years, and sadly died on Saturday, 26th January 2013 when he was off duty. The funeral was held on 12th February 2013. Also, the sad death of the former Chairman of the Standards Committee Terence Flynn. Terence sadly died on Tuesday 12 th February 2013 at the age of 86. The funeral was due to take place on Thursday 21 st February 2013 at Agecroft Crematorium.
A minute’s silence was observed.
2. The Chairman reported that the next meeting of Policy, Resources and Performance Committee had been replaced by an Extraordinary Meeting of the Authority on Thursday 21st March 2013 to consider the ‘Draft Corporate Plan 2013/16 Consultation Process’ prior to the Plan’s submission to a future Meeting of the Authority for final approval.
3. The Chairman reported that a Member Training and Development Session titled ‘Danger and How we Deal With it’ would be taking place at the rise of the Meeting of the Authority on Thursday 18th April 2013. The Session would be hosted by Bradley Frost, the Risk and Intelligence Manager and all Members were encouraged to attend.
4. The Chairman invited all Members to attend the ‘It’s Time to Care About Fire’ Conference that was taking place on Thursday 28th February 2013 from 9.30am till 1.00pm at the Training and Development Centre in Manchester. The conference was being held to launch GMFRS’s new ‘Partnership Model and Referral Pathway’ and to showcase existing partnerships with Health and Social Care organisations. All Members were encouraged to attend.
5. The Chairman reported that Sir Ken Knight had visited GMFRS on 21st January 2013 as part of the DCLG’s Operational Efficiencies Review. He was due to visit a number of fire and rescue authorities over the forthcoming weeks. The findings from the Review would be available in early summer 2013 and Members would be advised of the outcomes accordingly.
6. The Chairman reported that he had attended the ‘Green Hose Awards’ along with the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive on Wednesday 6th February 2013. The Green Hose Awards was an annual competition to find the greenest fire station in Greater Manchester. Each station was given a list of 60 environmental and efficiency challenges to complete. In total 34 stations took part in the challenge and Marple Fire Station was the overall winner of the Award.
Page 80
7. The Chairman reported that Don Foster MP had visited Hollins Fire Station on Friday 8 th February 2013 to observe a presentation and demonstration from the Cadets Unit on the Social Inclusion Project. Councillors Derek Heffernan and Steve Williams also attended this event.
8. The Chairman reported that the Annual Fire Fighters Charity Car Wash was taking place on 16th and 17th March 2013. All Members were welcome to come along and help out washing cars with the fire fighters, support and development staff. Further details were available from the Borough Managers.
71. QUESTIONS (IF ANY) UNDER STANDING ORDER 7
There were no Questions under Standing Order 7 submitted.
72. MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2012 OF AUDIT, SCRUTINY AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Audit, Scrutiny and Standards Committee held on 29 th November 2012 were submitted (Appendix 1).
Resolved: That the proceedings of the Audit, Scrutiny and Standards Committee held on 29 th November 2012, be approved.
73. MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, 17 JANUARY 2013 OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMITTEE
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Emergency Response Committee held on 17 th January 2013 were submitted (Appendix 2).
Resolved: That the proceedings of the Emergency Response Committee held on 17 th January 2013, be approved.
74. MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, 24 JANUARY 2013 OF PREVENTION AND PROTECTION COMMITTEE
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Prevention and Protection Committee held on 24 th January 2013 were submitted (Appendix 3).
Resolved: That the proceedings of the Prevention and Protection Committee held on 24 th January 2013, be approved.
75. MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2013 OF POLICY, RESOURCES AND PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Policy, Resources and Performance Committee held on 7 th February 2013 were submitted (Appendix 4).
Page 81
Resolved: That the proceedings of the Policy, Resources and Performance Committee held on 7 th February 2013, be approved.
76. TREASURY POLICY STATEMENT, CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2013/14 TO 2015/16, PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS AND MINIMUM REVENUE PROVISION STATEMENT
Consideration was given to a report of the Treasurer in consultation with the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which sought approval of the Authority’s Treasury Management Policy and set out the requirements to determine prudential indicators for the forthcoming financial year 2013/14. The Authority was required to receive and approve, as a minimum, three main reports each year, which incorporate a variety of policies, estimates and actuals.
It was noted that this report had also been considered at the Policy, Resources and Performance Committee on 7 th February 2013 (Policy, Resources and Performance Minute 47 refers). However, an updated version of the report had been circulated prior to this meeting the changes had been highlighted in yellow for easy reference.
Resolved: That:
1. The various prudential indicator requirements, as detailed in the report, be noted.
2. The Prudential Indicators and Treasury Management objectives, as detailed in the Table titled ‘Summary of Prudential Indicators’ of the report, be approved.
3. The Minimum Revenue Provision Statement for 2013/14, be approved.
77. REVENUE BUDGET AND PRECEPTS 2013/14
Consideration was given to a report of the Treasurer which recommended the setting of the Revenue Budget for 2013/14 as required under Section 42A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (updated in the Localism Act 2011) and the precepts and relevant levels of Council Tax required under Sections 40, 44 and 47 of the Act.
It was reported that the Policy, Resources and Performance Committee held on 7 th February 2013 had considered the Authority’s budget in detail and the Committee made certain recommendations in respect of the Budget Strategy based upon an increase in Band D of £4.99 (9.48%) in the precept for 2013/14. The report detailed the necessary resolutions and statements to be approved by the Authority in order to set the budget and precept for 2013/14. It was noted that the recommendations had been considered at the AGMA Executive Board on 25 th January 2013.
Page 82
Members had an in-depth discussion on the proposals, as detailed in the report, with specific regard to the increase in Band D of £4.99 (9.48%) in the precept for 2013/14.
On being put to the vote, the recommendation was CARRIED by 25 votes in favour and 2 votes against .
(Note: Councillors David Acton, Mohammed Ayub, John Bell, Dylan Butt, Lynda Byrne, Basil Curley, Jim Dawson, Jim Ellis, Grace Fletcher-Hackwood, Derek Heffernan, James Hennigan, David Higgins, Barrie Holland, Bernard Judge, Tommy Judge, Alan Matthews, Wendy Meikle, Amna Mir, Sheila Newman, John O’Brien, Shaun O’Neil, Michael Smith, Fred Walker Lisa Walker and Steve Williams voted in favour of the recommendation. Councillors Hilary Fairclough and Iain Lindley voted against the recommendation).
In conclusion, the Chairman took the opportunity to thank all Members and Officers who had been involved and supported the lobbying process. He also thanked both local MP’s Leaders and Councillors for their support in raising this matter within their own authorities and parliament.
Resolved: That:
1. The Revenue Estimates in accordance with the summary submitted for 2013/14, as detailed in Appendix A of the report, be approved.
2. The Authority had calculated the amount of 665,792 as its Council Tax base for the year 2013/14, being the aggregate of the tax bases calculated by the Districts, as detailed in Appendix C of the report, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992 made under Section 31B (3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, be noted.
3. The following amounts to be calculated in accordance with Sections 42A to 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, be approved:-
(a) £121,582,815 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Authority estimates for the items set out in Section 42a (2) (a) to (d) thereof (Appendix 'B')
(b) £83,206,564 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Authority estimates for the items set out in Section 42a (3) (a) to (b) thereof (Appendix 'B')
(c) £38,376,251 being the amount by which the aggregate at (a) above exceeds the aggregate at (b) above, calculated by the Authority, in accordance with Section 42a (4) of the Act, being its budget requirement for the year (Appendix 'B')
Page 83
(d) £57.64 being the amount at (c) above all divided by the amount at paragraph 19 of the report, calculated by the Authority, in accordance with Section 44(i) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year (Appendix 'D').
(e) Valuation Bands
A B C D E F G H £38.42 £44.83 £51.23 £57.64 £70.44 £83.25 £96.06 £115.28
being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at (d) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in Band D, calculated by the Authority, in accordance with Section 47 (1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands.
(f) The Amounts (precepts) payable by each Billing Authority as detailed at Appendix ‘E’, calculated as being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at (d) by the tax bases calculated by Districts in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act, adjusted for surpluses and deficits on District Collections Funds.
78. TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS 2013/14
Consideration was given to a report of the Clerk to the Authority which sought approval to the proposed Timetable of Authority and Committee meetings for the 2013/14 municipal year.
Resolved: That the proposed Timetable of Meetings for the 2013/14 municipal year, be approved.
79. CHIEF OFFICERS ACTIVITY REPORT (QUARTER 3 - 1ST OCTOBER TO 31ST DECEMBER 2012)
The County Fire Officer and Chief Executive presented the ‘Chief Officer’s Activity Report’ for Quarter 3 2012/13 – 1st October to 31 st December 2012, for Members’ information a nd comments. The report provided Members with information on the wide ranging activities which had taken place across the Boroughs during this period and also provided an update on the following subject matters:-
- Operational Incidents; - Service Delivery; - Prevention and Protection;
Page 84
- Children and Young People; - Training and Resilience; - Corporate Communications.
Members had a detailed discussion on the content of the report and the activity which had taken place across the Service in Quarter 3.
Resolved: That the ‘Chief Officer’s Activity Report’ for Quarter 3 2012/13 – 1st October to 31 st December 2012 and comments raised, be noted.
80. PERFORMANCE REPORT QUARTER 3 2012/13 - 1ST OCTOBER TO 31ST DECEMBER 2012
Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which set out the current status and progress made against the Corporate Plan 2012/15 development and delivery goals for Quarter 3 of 2012/13. The current Corporate Plan was adopted at the meeting of the Authority on 19 th April 2012 following extensive consultation.
A condensed summary of the overall development goal progress was detailed at Appendix A of the report, it was reported that progress was broadly on target with the exceptions noted within the summary. An overview of Quarter 3 performance against the corporate performance indicators was detailed at Appendix B of the report.
The ‘Measuring Progress’, report detailed at Appendix C of the report, provided a greater level of detail and transparency of performance against the corporate measures broken down by each borough. The ‘Measuring Progress’ report was intended to complement the richer picture of overall Service activity contained within the quarterly CFO’s Activity Reports and to support Members in their meetings with Borough Managers and partners.
Members had an in-depth discussion on the content of the report and asked a series of questions regarding its content relating to the rise in Road Traffic Collisions (RTC), the rise in volunteer numbers and supporting hours, the number of smoke alarms fitted which did not activate and the reasons for this happening and performance targets and how these were measured.
Resolved: That:
1. The performance against the development and delivery goals for Quarter 3 2012/13 (1 st October to 31 st December 2012) of the Corporate Plan 2012/15, be noted.
2. The ‘Measuring Progress’ Quarterly report, as detailed in Appendix C of the report, for future use in meetings with Borough Managers and partners, be noted.
CHAIRMAN
Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 86 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
HELD ON 21st MARCH 2013
Present:
Councillor David Acton (Chairman), Councillor Tommy Judge (Vice- Chairman), Councillors John Bell (Deputy Chairman), Mohammed Ayub, Walter Brett, Dylan Butt, Lynda Byrne, Basil Curley, Jim Ellis, Hilary Fairclough, Derek Heffernan, David Higgins, Barrie Holland, Bernard Judge, Iain Lindley, Alan Matthews, Wendy Meikle, Amna Mir, Shelia Newman, John O'Brien, Shaun O'Neill, Fred Walker, Lisa Walker, Sandra Walmsley, Steve Williams and George Wilson
Also in Attendance: Steve McGuirk (County Fire Officer & Chief Executive), Jim Owen (Deputy County Fire Officer), Paul McKevitt (Treasurer, Wigan MBC), Paul Argyle (Director of Emergency Response), Ged Murphy (Director of Finance and Technical Services), Gwynne Williams (Deputy Clerk and Authority Solicitor) and Donna Parker (Democratic Services Manager)
81. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jim Dawson, Grace Fletcher-Hackwood, James Hennigan and Michael Smith.
82. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 th February 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
83. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no Declarations of Interest received.
84. URGENT BUSINESS (IF ANY)
There were no items of urgent business received.
85. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. The Chairman reported that a Member Training and Development Session titled ‘Danger and how we deal with it’ would be taking place at the rise of the next Authority meeting on 18 th April 2013. The Session would be hosted by Bradley Frost, Risk and Intelligence Manager, and all Members were encouraged to attend.
2. The Chairman reported that the Annual Firefighters Charity Car Wash was taking place on 23 rd and 24 th March 2013. All Members were welcome to come along and help out washing cars with the firefighters,
Page 87
support and development staff. Further details were available from the Borough Managers.
3. The Chairman reported that Salford Central Fire Station had become the first fire station in the country to double as a driving test centre. Bookings had now opened and the first learner drivers could pass their test at the station within the month. This partnership was part of GMFRS’ Road Safety Strategy to educate and engage with drivers and pedestrians on road safety.
4. The Chairman provided an update on the acquisition of the site at Wellington Street, Bury and its subsequent development as a new Operational Training Site. He reported that the site had now been purchased and a visit to allow all Members of the Authority to view the site would be arranged in due course (Minute 89 provides further details).
5. The Chairman advised that Paul Fogerty would be standing down from the position of Secretary of the Greater Manchester Fire Brigades Union (FBU) at the end of March 2013. On behalf of the Authority the Chairman took the opportunity to thank Paul for his commitment and hard work during the past two years and wished him all the best for the future.
86. QUESTIONS (IF ANY) UNDER STANDING ORDER 7
There were no Questions under Standing Order 7 submitted.
87. MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, 28 FEBRUARY 2013 OF AUDIT, SCRUTINY AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Audit, Scrutiny and Standards Committee held on 28 th February 2013 were submitted (Appendix 1).
Resolved: That the proceedings of the Audit, Scrutiny and Standards Committee held on 28 th February 2013, be approved.
88. MINUTES OF MEETING THURSDAY, 7 MARCH 2013 OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMITTEE
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Emergency Response Committee held on 7 th March 2013 were submitted (Appendix 2).
Resolved: That the proceedings of the Emergency Response Committee held on 7 th March 2013, be approved.
Page 88
89. CORPORATE PLAN/INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013-2016
Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which presented the draft Corporate Plan for 2013/16. Members were requested to note the proposals contained within the draft Corporate Plan and endorse the Plan for consultation. A copy of the draft Corporate Plan 2013/16 was attached at Appendix A of the report, for Members’ reference.
Jim Owen, Deputy County Fire Officer was in attendance and gave a presentation on the draft Plan. He advised that this draft Plan had a greater emphasis than previous plans on the Integrated Risk Management Planning (IRMP) and included proposed changes to risk modelling and key performance measures. A new Fire and Rescue National Framework for England was published on 11 th July 2012 and came into force on 17 th August 2012. The Framework provided an overall strategic direction to fire and rescue authorities from the Secretary of State. In accordance with Section 21(7) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, fire and rescue authorities must have regard to the framework in carrying out their functions. The draft Plan 2013-16 sought to address the IRMP requirements as set out within the new National Framework and also provided detail of the Service’s use of ris k modelling in prevention, protection and response areas to target resources to where they were most needed. A proposed consultation summary for the draft Corporate Plan 2013/16 was attached at Appendix B of the report, for Members’ reference.
As part of the presentation Members were advised that a ‘live’ web -link on GMFRS website titled ‘Incident Response Times’ had been launched this week. A demonstration was given on how the link allowed the public to access their own response time by inputting their postcode this then showed on average how fast GMFRS would respond to an incident in their area (from data over the past 3 years).
Ged Murphy, Director of Finance and Technical Services, was also in attendance and provided a presentation on the acquisition of the site at Wellington Street, Bury and its subsequent development as an Operational Training site. The business case for the Operational Training Site had been produced in support of Development Goal (DV) 20 – ‘Provide new training facilities to impro ve real fire training for our firefighters’.
Members raised a number of questions and comments on the content of the report and presentations provided with specific regard to the consultation on the draft Corporate Plan, the new training development and the current apprenticeship scheme these were answered by Officers accordingly. Members made specific reference to the forthcoming bonfire period and the work GMFRS undertook to support bonfire and firework licensing and events across the brigade. The County Fire Officer and Chief Executive suggested that the Prevention and Protection Committee undertake a piece of work on the issue raised.
Page 89
In conclusion, the Chairman on behalf of the Authority took the opportunity to thank all Officers involved in the production of the draft Corporate Plan 2013/16 for their hard work and professionalism.
Resolved: That:
1. The content of the report, presentation and comments raised, be noted.
2. The proposals contained within the draft Corporate Plan 2013/16, be noted.
3. The draft Plan Corporate Plan 2013/16, be endorsed for consultation and the proposed consultation plan for both internal and external consultation, as detailed at Appendix C of the report, be approved.
4. The External Consultation Summary, as detailed at Appendix B of the report, be noted.
5. The Prevention and Protection Committee undertake a piece of work on the forthcoming bonfire period with specific reference to organised events and licensing of fireworks across the brigade.
90. WARWICKSHIRE WAREHOUSE BLAZE - REVIEW OF STAFFORD CROWN COURT RULING
Consideration was given to a report of the County Fire Officer and Chief Executive which presented the outcomes from the recent judgement against Warwickshire County Council following the fire at Atherstone-on-Stour in 2007 and how GMFRS had addressed the issues raised.
It was reported that following the tragic loss of four firefighters in a fire at Atherstone-on-Stour in 2007, a CPS prosecution failed to convict three fire officers on charges of manslaughter by gross negligence over the deaths. However, Warwickshire County Council was found guilty of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act. A copy of the judgment and sentencing remarks made by The Honorable Mr. Justice Macduff were attached at Append ix A of the report, for Members’ reference.
The Director of Emergency Response was in attendance and gave a presentation which provided an overview of the incident, the court case and the national implications.
Members welcomed the informative presentation and raised a number of questions and comments on its content that were answered by Officers accordingly.
Resolved: That:
1. The content of the presentation, report and comments raised, be noted.
Page 90
2. The work completed or in train to respond to the substantive matters identified by the outcomes from the fire at Atherstone-on-Stour, be noted.
CHAIRMAN
Page 91 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 92 4 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER COMMITTEE, HELD ON 11 JANUARY 2013
Present: Councillor Fender (Chair).
Councillors: Aldred, Audin, Bayley, Bellis, Biant, Bradbury, Chadwick, Clayton, Cordingley, Corris, Dean, Dickinson, Dillon, Duckworth, Fitzpatrick, Garrido, Godson, Holland, Jones, Mistry, Moores, Paul, Rawlins, Reilly, Rigby, Smethurst, Walters, Warner, Wild and Wright.
In attendance: Mrs Beverley Bell, Traffic Commissioner for the North West and the Senior Traffic Commissioner.
Apologies: Councillors Robinson and Whitehead.
TfGMC12/74 CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND URGENT BUSINESS a.) Welcome
The Chair welcomed Members to the first TfGMC meeting of 2013. A particular welcome was extended to Jon Lamonte who was attending his first TfGMC meeting as the Chief Executive of TfGM. b.) GMATL
Members were reminded that a meeting of the GMATL Board was to take place at the rise of the meeting. c.) Metrolink Issue
The Chair provided a statement which provided an update to Members on the adjudication process in relation to the TfGM and Thales contract issue.
A Member asked for a copy of this statement to be included on the TfGM website.
Resolved/-
1.) That the statement be received and noted; and 2.) That the statement be included on the TfGM website.
TfGMC12/75 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest made by any Member regarding any item on the agenda.
TfGMC12/76 MINUTES
1 Page 93
The Minutes of the proceedings of the TfGMC meeting, held on 7 December 2012, were submitted.
Resolved/-
That the Minutes of the proceedings of the TfGMC meeting, held on 7 December 2012, be approved as a correct record.
TfGMC12/77 MINUTES FROM SUB COMMITTEES a.) Metrolink and Rail Networks Sub Committee
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Metrolink and Rail Networks Sub Committee meeting, held on 14 December 2012, were submitted.
A Member reiterated the need for MRDL to make drivers aware of processes in place to deal with incidents on board trams.
A Member requested for clearer information to be provided at Salford Central Station to make passengers aware if train services would be stopping at the station over the weekend.
A Member thanked officers for the operation of Metrolink services to Shaw and Crompton.
Resolved/-
That the Minutes of the proceedings of the Metrolink and Rail Networks Sub Committee meeting, held on 14 December 2012, be received. b.) Bus Network and TfGM Services Sub Committee
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Bus Network and TfGM Servicers Sub committee meeting, held on 4 January 2013, were submitted.
With regard to Minute ref BN/12/51 Forthcoming Changes to the Bus Network, a Member commented that changes to services in Boothstown would result in a reduced service frequency.
Officers undertook to arrange a meeting to discuss the request of a Member for the inclusion of Middleton in the area served by the Kingsway Local Link service.
It was noted that following its deferment by the Sub Committee, any proposed changes to Service 390 would be considered at the March meeting.
Resolved/-
That the Minutes of the proceedings of the Bus Network and TfGM Services Sub Committee meeting, held on 4 January 2013, be received.
2 Page 94
TfGMC12/67 FORWARD LOOK
Members received a report that presented them with a Forward Look of key work streams requiring decisions from the Committee over the next four months.
In response to an enquiry from a Member, officers confirmed that the GM Train Card is a railway industry product.
Resolved/-
That the Forward Look be noted.
TfGMC12/68 TFGMC MEETING IN MARCH 2013
Members considered a proposal to move the TfGMC meeting scheduled for Friday 8 March 2013 to Friday 15 March 2013.
Resolved/-
That the TfGMC meeting scheduled for Friday 8 March 2013 be re-arranged to meet on Friday 15 March 2013.
Section 2 TfGMC Recommendations for Further Approval by GMCA
TfGMC12/69 2013/14 TRANSPORT LEVY BUDGET PROPOSALS
A report was presented that provided Members with an update on the outcome of discussions with the Transport Levy Scrutiny Panel on the transport budget for 2013/14. A more detailed report on the revenue budget will be presented to the Committee in March.
A Member highlighted that this year’s negotiation had been the toughest to date, as a result of the difficult funding settlement received by local authorities.
A Member enquired as to the impact of the delays in operating services on the extended Metrolink Network had had on the budget. In response, officers explained that the financial projections were included as part of the capital costs of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund.
Resolved/-
1.) That the outcome of the discussions with the Transport Levy Scrutiny Panel and the recommendation by the Scrutiny Panel for the Levy for 2013/14, which is for a 3% increase in the Levy in respect of Greater Manchester Transport Fund funding element and a 0.6% increase in the underlying Levy, be noted; and
3 Page 95 2.) That the recommendation was to be considered by GMCA at its meeting on 25 January 2013, be noted.
Section 3 – Items for Resolution by TfGMC
TfGMC12/70 POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMME 2013 – 14
Members received a report which updated them on the Committee’s political engagement activities during 2012/2013 and set out proposals for the 2013/2014 political engagement programme.
In response to an enquiry by a Member regarding how the success of political engagement events was measured, a Member commented that Greater Manchester had the largest capital investment programme in future public transport outside of London and that securing such and the Northern Hub was a result of TfGMC’s political engagement programme.
Members thanked Jane Nearney, TfGM for her efforts in arranging political engagement events.
A Member commented that Manchester is now a world-class city and deserved a public transport system that reflected this.
Resolved/-
1.) That the political engagement activities during 2012/2013, be noted; 2.) That the broad political engagement programme of events for 2013/2014, as set out in the report, be agreed and that the Leading Members of TfGMC and the Leader of the Liberal Democrat group be delegated responsibility to finalise the detailed political engagement programme. 3.) That approval be granted for a political engagement budget of £48,800 and to encourage officers to seek sponsorship from appropriate organisations whose objectives accord with those of the Committee; and 4.) That the attendance of invited Members at such political engagement events should rank as an approved duty for Members’ travelling and subsistence purposes.
Section 4 - Items for Information
TfGMC12/71 UPDATE ON TFGMC POLICY PRIORITIES
Members were presented with a report that advised them of the arrangements in place to progress and report on the 2012/2013 Policy Priorities which were determined by the Committee at its annual meeting on 15 June 2012.
A Member requested that future policy priority reports include more information on active travel, including cycling.
A Member commented that bus operators should be providing details of potential
4 Page 96 bus service changes to local Members.
Resolved/-
That the arrangements for progressing TfGMC’s Policy Priorities, as set out in the report, be noted.
TfGMC12/72 DEVOLUTION OF RAIL RE-FRANCHISING IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND
A report was presented that gave an update to Members on the work currently underway on the potential devolution of re-franchising responsibility from the Department for Transport in the North of England.
Resolved/-
1.) That the report be noted; 2.) That Greater Manchester be supported in continuing to work with local authorities across the North to develop these proposals.
TfGMC12/73 INTER CITY WEST COAST FRANCHISE UPDATE
Members considered a report that provided them with an update on the progress with the various inquiries and reports commissioned by Government following the decision not to award a contract to First Group for the Inter City West Coast franchise; and provided information on the actions taken by the Department for Transport to ensure rail services continue to operate.
Resolved/-
1.) That the report be noted; and 2.) That a further report that sets out the content and conclusions of the Brown report on the rail franchising programme be provided to a future meeting of the Committee.
TfGMC12/74 SMART TICKETING UPDATE
A report was presented that gave an update to Members on the Smart Ticketing Scheme for Greater Manchester.
A Member sought clarification as to how the touch-in touch-out system would work where passengers were required to use a replacement bus service.
A Member enquired what the on-board response time of smart card readers was. In response, officers explained that tests had been undertaken in Bolton where a response time of 0.5 seconds was recorded and which was the current target.
Resolved/-
That the update on the Smart Ticketing Scheme be noted.
5 Page 97
TfGMC12/75 CURRENT BUS ISSUES UPDATE
Members were provided with an update on the revisions to fares and products available on Stagecoach’s Wigan services and on the proposed acquisition of Bluebird Bus and Coaches by Stagecoach Manchester.
Members welcomed the new Stagecoach Wigan operation and commented that patronage levels on these services looked to be increasing. A number of positive comments had been received regarding the cleanliness of the new buses in operation and the reduction in the cost of fares. A copy of the Stagecoach Wigan leaflet which set out for passengers the range of products available was to be circulated to Members. A Member welcomed the pricing of Stagecoach’s Wiganrider product and hoped that it would become a permanent fare type.
A Member enquired as to what would happen to Bluebird Bus and Coach if the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) refused the purchase by Stagecoach. In response, officers explained that this was not a matter for TfGM/C.
A Member requested for the 534 service to be extended to enable to make return journeys from Manchester. Officers undertook to look in to this request.
In response to an enquiry from a Member, officers undertook to investigate if Stagecoach Wigan tickets were to be accepted on Stagecoach Lancashire services.
A Member noted that the Bus Operators’ initiative, Bus for Jobs, had been inadequately promoted.
Resolved/-
1.) That the position in regard to the introduction of revised fares and products by Stagecoach Wigan, with effect from Sunday 6 January 2013 be noted; 2.) That the position with regard to the purchase of Bluebird Bus and Coach by Stagecoach Manchester be noted.
TfGMC12/76 TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER – PRESENTATION
Members received a presentation from Mrs Beverley Bell, Traffic Commissioner for the North West and the Senior Traffic Commissioner that gave a synopsis of her role and career, the challenges and issues her office deals with and gave examples of the regulatory and punitive action she may undertake to improve bus services.
In response to an enquiry by a Member regarding the sharing of bus ticketing data for monitoring purposes, the Traffic Commissioner explained that currently there was no requirement for bus operators to share such data, however new guidance may enable this to happen.
6 Page 98 A Member enquired as to why bus operators did not provide real time information for passengers. In response, it was noted that this was due to the complacency of some bus operators.
A Member enquired if allowance was made to bus operators whose service punctuality was affected by highway works. In response, the Traffic Commissioner explained the accepted time tolerances in place. Work was under way with the North West Punctuality Group to ensure that proper notice of proposed highway works was given to bus operators.
A Member commented that with regard to service 17, highway problems in Rochdale Town Centre were causing punctuality problems.
A Member requested that where a public inquiry was to be held in relation to bus services, that the inquiry takes place in a local venue. In response, The Traffic Commissioner would look to do this in the first instance.
A Member highlighted the monopoly of bus services in Oldham by First Group and enquired if the Traffic Commissioner could encourage other bus operators in to the area. In response, the Traffic Commissioner explained that she was unable to intervene in such matters as this was beyond her remit, but where there were problems with services she wanted to know.
Following an enquiry by a Member, the Traffic Commissioner explained that bus passengers were aware that they could provide comments on bus operators directly to her office and highlighted the number of letters that she received.
A Member enquired if the Traffic Commissioner could regulate buses in relation to the safety of cyclists. In response, it was noted that this was a matter for VOSA who had regulated to ensure that rigid lorries were fitted with blind spot mirrors in order to facilitate cycle safety.
Resolved/-
That the informative presentation be received with thanks and noted.
7 Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 100 4
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER COMMITTEE, HELD ON 15 FEBRUARY 2013
Present: Councillor Fender (Chair).
Councillors: Aldred, Audin, Bayley, Bellis, Biant, Bradbury, Chadwick, Clayton, Cordingley, Corris, Dean, Dickinson, Dillon, Duckworth, Fitzpatrick, Garrido, Godson, Holland, Jones, Paul, Rawlins, Reilly, Rigby, Robinson, Smethurst, Whitehead, Wild and Wright.
Apologies : Councillors Mistry, Moores, Walters and Warner.
TfGMC12/88 CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND URGENT BUSINESS
a.) Welcome
The Chair extended a welcome to Rebecca Ward and Nadim Hammad, students from the University of Westminster, who were in attendance to observe the proceedings.
b.) Metrolink East Manchester Line
Members noted that the Metrolink extension of the East Manchester Line to Droylsden had successfully opened from 11 February 2013 and had been preceded by three days of free travel for local residents.
c.) Philip Purdy
The Chair announced that Philip Purdy, Metrolink Director, TfGM, was to leave the organisation shortly and that this was likely to be the last meeting of TfGMC that he would attend. An outline of his career and achievements at TfGM was provided.
Members thanked Philip for his efforts and wished him well for the future.
d.) TfGMC Meeting 15 March 2013
Members were reminded that the next TfGMC meeting would now be taking place on Friday 15 March 2013.
e.) Petition
A representative of the Greenfield Rail Users’ Group presented a petition requesting that the Huddersfield to Manchester line train services go to Manchester Victoria, as present, and not Manchester Piccadilly, as proposed. In receiving the petition the Chair explained the proposed arrangements were not set in stone and highlighted the
1 Page 101 current peak time capacity problems and the introduction of electrification of key rail routes to cater for the high level of patronage growth along this corridor. It was noted that TfGMC’s priority was to secure greater capacity and a higher frequency of service along this route.
Resolved/-
That the petition of the Greenfield Rail Users’ Group be received.
TfGMC12/89 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest made by any Member regarding any item on the agenda.
TfGMC12/90 MINUTES
The Minutes of the proceedings of the TfGMC meeting, held on 11 January 2013, were submitted.
In response to an enquiry from a Member regarding the Tram Management System (TMS) issue with Thales, (Minute TfGMC12/74 refers) officers explained that this was an on-going contract negotiation and therefore discussion on this matter was not appropriate at this time.
Resolved/-
That the Minutes of the proceedings of the TfGMC meeting, held on 11 January 2013, be approved as a correct record.
TfGMC12/91 MINUTES FROM SUB COMMITTEES
a.) Capital Projects and Policy Sub Committee
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Capital Projects and Policy Sub Committee meeting, held on 18 January 2013, were submitted.
Resolved/-
That the Minutes of the proceedings of the Capital Projects and Policy Sub Committee meeting, held on 18 January 2013, be received.
b.) Metrolink and Rail Networks Sub Committee
The Minutes of the proceedings of the Metrolink and Rail Networks Sub Committee meeting, held on 8 February 2013, were submitted.
A Member enquired if on-tram announcements could include a reference to connections for national rail stations when they arrive at Manchester Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly. Officers undertook to explore this request.
2 Page 102
Resolved/-
That the Minutes of the proceedings of the Metrolink and Rail Networks Sub Committee meeting, held on 8 February 2013, be received.
TfGMC12/92 FORWARD LOOK
Members received a report that presented them with a Forward Look of key work streams requiring decisions from the Committee over the next four months.
Resolved/-
That the Forward Look be noted.
SECTION 2 - TFGMC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER APPROVAL BY GMCA
There were no items for further consideration by GMCA reported.
SECTION 3 - ITEMS FOR RESOLUTION BY TFGMC
There were no items requiring resolution by TfGMC reported.
SECTION 4 - ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
TfGMC12/93 FUTURE TRANSPORT PRIORITISATION – GOVERNANCE
Members received a report which informed them of the Department for Transport (DfT) publication of formal guidance on the establishment of Local Transport Bodies (LTBs), which will enable the devolution of major scheme funding from 2015, and work underway to prepare an LTB assurance statement for Greater Manchester by the end of February 2013.
In response to an enquiry from a Member, it was noted that the membership of the LTB was to be considered by the GM Combined Authority.
Resolved/-
1.) That the publication of formal DfT guidance on the establishment of Local Transport Bodies to manage future devolved major scheme funding, be noted; 2.) That the summary of the guidance set out in the report and the outline commentary on its issues for Greater Manchester, including the requirement to submit an assurance framework for the future Greater Manchester LTB to DfT by the end of February 2013, be noted; and 3.) That the final draft assurance framework will be prepared for consideration by the Combined Authority at its February 2013 meeting, be noted.
3 Page 103 TfGMC12/94 HIGH SPEED RAIL PHASE 2 ANNOUNCEMENT
A report was presented which informed Members of the recent Government announcement regarding Phase 2 of the proposed HS2 high speed rail line.
It was noted that TfGM/C put the case for the North West to be served with HS2 stations in central Manchester and at Manchester Airport. The issue of route design was not something that TfGM/C had the ability to influence.
Resolved/-
1.) That the report be noted; 2.) That the case for early delivery of the project be supported; 3.) That officers be requested to continue to work with representatives from HS2 Ltd, Department for Transport, relevant districts, the Manchester Airport Group and Network Rail to deliver the proposals and ensure maximum benefit is achieved at the chosen station locations.
TfGMC12/95 RAIL INDUSTRY STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLANS
A report was provided which gave Members an overview of the Network Rail and Rail Industry Strategic Business Plans for Control Period 5 (2014-2019), presented a draft response to the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) on the content of the Network Rail plan and sought comments from Members on the draft response to the Rail Delivery Group on the Rail Industry Plan.
A Member commented that the response should also include the gating of stations to protect revenue, smart ticketing, Tram/Train and Real Time Passenger Information. In response, officers explained that the main focus of the response would be on Network Rail plans and not operational matters. In addition, and because of the significant capital investment required, Tram/Train would not be considered as part of this process.
A Member highlighted that services operating on both the Southport and Blackpool lines had been de-strengthened. In response officers explained that they were working with Northern Rail, in this regard to ensure that the train plan was delivered. And the Metrolink and Rail Networks Sub Committee focusing attention on ensuring that Northern Rail was strengthening rail services.
In response to an observation by a Member regarding railway accessibility issues, officers confirmed that such matters had been included in the draft response. Officers also confirmed that a final version of the draft response would be shared with Members before it was submitted to the ORR.
Resolved/-
1.) That the report be noted, particularly the significance of the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan and Office of Rail Regulation Periodic Review Process;
4 Page 104 2.) That the draft response to the Office of Rail Regulation initial consultation on the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan for Control Period 5, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, be noted and that approval for the submission of a final response that is substantially the same, be granted; 3.) That the draft response to the Rail Delivery Group on the Rail Industry Strategic Business Plan for Control Period 5, as set out at Appendix 2 to the report, be noted and that approval of the submission of a final response that is substantially the same, be granted.
TfGMC12/96 GREATER MANCHESTER BUS PARTNERSHIP – UPDATE ON A6 QUALITY PARTNERSHIP SCHEME AND PROPOSED FUTURE SCHEMES
Members considered a report that provided an update on the performance of the A6 Quality Partnership Scheme and outlined plans for the development of further schemes to support the delivery of the Bus Priority Package (BPP), the Better Area Bus Fund (BBAF) and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF).
A Member sought clarification as to the progress for consistent bus lane enforcement across Greater Manchester. In response, officers undertook to provide a report on this matter to the next meeting of this Committee. In addition, a Member requested that this report would also include details of Hackney Carriage provisions.
Following an enquiry by a Member, officers clarified that where highway infrastructure was over five years old, a Quality Partnership Scheme could only be introduced with the consent of bus operators.
In response to an enquiry from a Member, officers explained the role of the Urban Traffic Control and its relationship with TfGM.
Resolved/-
1.) That the positive performance of services and investment in 40 new hybrid vehicles on the A6 corridor be noted; 2.) That the new investment taking place along the corridor including plans for a commercial park and ride facility in Hazel Grove be noted; 3.) That the planned delivery of the Bolton – Leigh Voluntary Partnership Agreement pilot by spring 2013 be noted; 4.) That the planned development of further Quality Partnership Schemes in line with current infrastructure delivery programmes be noted. 5.) That a report regarding bus lane enforcement be brought to the next meeting of this Committee.
TfGMC12/97 CURRENT BUS ISSUES - UPDATE
A report was presented that provided an update to Members on First Manchester’s fares initiative and the planned acquisition by Stagecoach of Bluebird Bus and Coach and the acquisition, by Stagecoach, of First Manchester’s former Wigan bus business and assets.
5 Page 105 In welcoming the First Manchester fares initiative, a Member enquired as to what impact the recent Buses for Jobs initiative had had on the unemployed. In response, it was noted initial feedback had highlighted the lack of information provided to Job Centre Plus sites and publicity of this initiative. Officers undertook to raise the matter with Bus Operators. In response, Members were reminded that the Buses for Jobs initiative was a national bus industry initiative and not arranged by TfGM.
A Member highlighted the lack of publicity in relation to the First Manchester M60 fares initiative and enquired if there were plans to extend this initiative outside of the M60 boundary. In response, officers explained that this would be a commercial decision by First Manchester but discussions with the operator would continue. A Member explained that in Oldham the Credit Union was working with First Manchester with regard to fares.
In response to an enquiry from a Member regarding the potential for TfGM to influence the price of weekly fare products as part of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement, particularly on the 582 route, officers explained that this matter would be raised at a forthcoming meeting with the Bus Operator.
A Member enquired as to why the ruling of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on the Stagecoach acquisition of Bluebird Bus and Coach business had yet to be concluded. In response, officers explained that this was a matter for the OFT.
Resolved/-
1.) That the decision by First Manchester to extend their current fares initiative and the on-going dialogue between TfGM and First Manchester in this regard, be noted; 2.) That the position in regard to the planned acquisition by Stagecoach of Bluebird Bus and coach, be noted; 3.) That the position in regard to the acquisition by Stagecoach of First Manchester’s former Wigan bus business and assets be noted.
6 Page 106 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE TRANSPORT FOR GREATER MANCHESTER COMMITTEE, HELD ON 15 MARCH 2013
Present: Councillor Fender (Chair).
Councillors: Aldred, Audin, Bayley, Bellis, Biant, Bradbury, Chadwick, Clayton, Cordingley, Corris, Dean, Dickinson, Dillon, Duckworth, Garrido, Godson, Holland, Jones, Mistry, Moores, Paul, Rawlins, Reilly, Rigby, Robinson, Smethurst, Walters, Warner, Whitehead, Wild and Wright.
In attendance: Councillor Colledge, GMCA.
Apology : Councillor Fitzpatrick.
TfGMC12/98 CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS AND URGENT BUSINESS
a.) Welcome
The Chair welcomed Councillor Matt Colledge, GMCA Member with the Transport Portfolio, to the meeting. Councillor Colledge explained he would be attending TfGMC meetings where possible in order to be fully informed of transport policy developments, initiatives and the work of the Committee.
b.) Cycle City Ambition Grant Seminar
The Chair reminded Members that a Cycle City Ambition Grant seminar was to take place at the rise of the meeting.
TfGMC12/99 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest made by any Member regarding any item on the agenda.
TfGMC12/100 MINUTES
The Minutes of the proceedings of the TfGMC meeting, held on 15 February 2013, were submitted.
Resolved/-
That the Minutes of the proceedings of the TfGMC meeting, held on 15 February 2013, be approved as a correct record.
TfGMC12/101 MINUTES FROM SUB COMMITTEES
a.) Capital Projects and Policy Sub Committee
1 Page 107 The Minutes of the proceedings of the Capital Projects and Policy Sub Committee meeting, held on 1 March 2013, were submitted.
With regard to Bus Priority Update (Min ref CPP/12/41) a Member raised a concern that a report appertaining to works on the A580 was not shared with local Members prior to its consideration by the Salford City Mayor.
In response to an enquiry by a Member regarding the closure of the Mosley Street Metrolink stop, officers confirmed that there would be passenger information displays at Mosley Street, and at Market Street and Piccadilly Gardens Metrolink stops. It was noted that this course of action had been reported at the last Metrolink and Rail Networks Sub Committee.
With regard to Bus Priority Update (Min Ref CPP/12/41), a Member raised a concern that the proposed bus journey times from Atherton to Manchester would not be achievable. In addition, the concerns of local residents regarding the tree felling at Tyldesley were highlighted.
Resolved/-
That the Minutes of the proceedings of the Capital Projects and Policy Sub Committee meeting, held on 1 March 2013, be received.
TfGMC12/102 FORWARD LOOK
Members received a report that presented them with a Forward Look of key work streams requiring decisions from the Committee over the next four months.
Resolved/-
That the Forward Look be noted.
SECTION 2 - TfGMC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER APPROVAL BY GMCA
TfGMC12/103 BUDGET 2013/14
Members received a report which set out the detailed revenue expenditure budgets for 2013/14.
A Member noted a correction to the report in relation to concessionary support costs, such that eligibility to the scheme was available to those over the age of 61 years and 4 months.
In response to an enquiry by a Member regarding the reported reduction in the 2013/14 Levy revenues when compared to the previous year, officers explained that this reduction related to the reduced amount of Levy monies required to undertake TfGM functions for 2013/14 and agreed to ensure the manner in which these figures were presented be clarified in subsequent reports.
2 Page 108 A Member highlighted that districts were already looking at budgets for the next financial year and hoped that TfGM would do likewise. In response, it was noted that TfGM would continue to operate within the agreed funding parameters.
Following an enquiry by a Member, officers explained that funding for the Through Ticketing grant was awaited from the Department for Transport (DfT).
A Member commented that the delays in opening the extended Metrolink network had resulted in the loss of revenue. Clarification was sought as to the audit processes in place for TfGM. In response, officers explained that revenue forecasts in the budget showed that the resources for Metrolink would be achieved. It was also noted that a key role of the GMCA Audit Committee was, amongst others, to consider actions undertaken by TfGM/C, whilst in addition TfGM benefitted from its own Audit Committee.
Resolved/-
1.) That the contents of the report and the detailed budget for 2013/2014 of £227.33 million, be noted; 2.) That TfGM would be receiving a grant from GMCA of £120.31 million funded from the Transport Levy, be noted. 3.) That officers will submit regular budget monitoring reports to this Committee, be noted; 4.) That an updated position on the subsidised bus services budget will be reported to each meeting of the Bus Network and TfGM Services Sub Committee, be noted.
SECTION 3 - ITEMS FOR RESOLUTION BY TfGMC
TfGMC12/104 PUBLIC ART STRATEGY
A report was presented which sought approval of a draft Public Art strategy for TfGM, which would be delivered within TfGM’s stakeholder engagement commitments. The aims of the strategy were:
(a) To use public art as a means of creating a stimulating, high quality travel environment that is sate and secure; (b) To use the development of public art as a means of engaging with local communities; (c) To work with local partners on the development of art projects where these contribute to TfGM’s objectives; (d) To ensure that TfGM infrastructure is designed so as to make a high quality contribution to the urban fabric.
A Member welcomed the report and highlighted that the proposed establishment of a Public Art Working Group, as set out in the report, should include a TfGMC Member amongst its membership. This suggestion was supported.
A Member welcomed the report and the concept of the introduction of public art but highlighted that the funding for such projects would not be a priority at district level,
3 Page 109 given the current budget constraints. In response, officers explained that any funding for public art would not be an additional cost but be incorporated within the costs for future capital schemes.
A Member highlighted examples of where public art had been introduced, particularly in the Stoke on Trent area and at adopted stations in Greater Manchester. Improvements to information poster designs was highlighted as a potential area for consideration.
Resolved/-
1.) That the progress made to date on the Public Art Strategy be noted; 2.) That the Chair determine appropriate TfGMC Member representation on the Public Art Steering Group; 3.) That the Public Art Strategy be approved and adopted.
TfGMC12/105 DEVOLUTION OF RAIL RE-FRANCHISING IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND
Member received a report which provided them with an update on the potential devolution of re-franchising responsibility in respect of future Northern and TPE rail services.
In response to an enquiry from a Member regarding baseline outputs and what the franchise document would contain, officers explained that the key franchise outputs TfGM was seeking should contain:
(a) a baseline set of services broadly equivalent to today’s level of service, and which can form a commitment between Government and Northern authorities; (b) service development in line with the economic and connectivity objectives of the Northern Hub programme, electrification, and other initiatives; (c) additional capacity to support growth; (d) multimodal smart ticketing; (e) increasing the quality of the passenger offer through replacement of life- expired trains with modern equivalents and refurbishment of older carriages; and, (f) station improvements focussing on passenger security, retail/information and car/cycle parking.
Resolved/-
1.) That the level of agreement which has been reached between North of England Authorities around the principles for franchise devolution at a Leaders’ meeting in Leeds on 4 February 2013, be noted; 2.) That the contents of a Prospectus, setting out the principles under which the devolution of rail responsibilities would be developed, be noted; 3.) That the importance of decisions that the Secretary of State will make in the spring around a new national franchising programme be noted; and 4.) That the costs which have been expended by TfGM in preparation for any
4 Page 110 franchise devolution be noted, and that these costs have been shared between TfGM and partner authorities. 5.) That with regard to resolution 4 above, further expenditure would be required during 2013/14 be noted, and that such costs may not be estimated or shared between TfGM and the partner authorities until firm DfT plans on this matter were received.
TfGMC12/106 GREEN BUS FUND - ROUND THREE UPDATE AND ROUND FOUR COMPETITION
A report was presented that gave an update on round three of the Green Bus Fund, provided details of the fourth round of the competition and set out TfGM’s response to this bid.
It was noted that the bid would provide a further ten yellow school buses and also introduce three electric vehicles to the Manchester Metroshuttle fleet.
A Member asked if the hybrid vehicles that were to be relocated from the Manchester Metroshuttle fleet would identify them as hybrid vehicles on their new livery. In response, officers explained that as yet, there was not a fixed view at to where on the network these vehicles would be redeployed.
In response to an enquiry from a Member regarding the payback period for the new hybrid vehicles, it was noted that further work was being undertaken to fully assess this.
A Member commented that electric vehicles emitted little sound and enquired if this would be a safety concern.
A Member asked if a reduction in road tax for electric vehicles could be campaigned for. In response, officers explained that there were discount arrangements in place for electric vehicles and agreed to discuss the matter further with the Member outside the meeting.
Following an enquiry from a Member regarding electric vehicles, officers explained that technological advances had resulted in the development of lighter batteries and that the weight of vehicles had also been reduced.
Resolved/-
1.) That the allocation of £0.908 million from TfGM’s successful Green Bus Fund 3 award to Manchester Community Transport, to support the purchase of 10 diesel-electric hybrid vehicles for operation on subsidised services, be noted; 2.) That the details of the fourth round of the Green Bus Fund competition, be noted; 3.) That the work undertaken to date to identify potential bidding options to Green Bus Fund 4 for vehicles by TfGM and bus operators, for use on both TfGM subsidised services and local commercial services, be noted; 4.) That delegated authority to approve any proposed TfGM bid to the Green Bus Fund be granted to the Head of the Paid Service, GMCA and the Chief
5 Page 111 Executive, TfGM in consultation with the Chair of TfGMC, the three Vice Chairs of TfGMC and the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on TfGMC.
SECTION 4 - ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
TfGMC12/107 GREATER MANCHESTER ROAD ACTIVITIES PERMITS SCHEME
A report was presented which informed Members of the progress in implementing the Greater Manchester Road Activities Permits Scheme (GMRAPS) which will enable Greater Manchester Councils to minimise disruption, manage and co- ordinate road works more effectively and keep the public and stakeholders better informed.
A Member wished to record thanks to all those councils involved in this process.
A Member welcomed the report, and noted the Scheme should help remedy the problems of poorly implemented re-instatements of highways following utility works.
In response to a comment from a Member regarding information sharing, officers confirmed that a number of district and TfGM level meetings take place with bus operators in relation to forthcoming highway works, and that information on works and events is circulated to a range of stakeholders.
Resolved/-
1.) That the report be noted; 2.) That future reports will be submitted prior to and post Go-Live of the Scheme, be noted.
TfGMC12/108 CURRENT BUS ISSUES
Members received a report which presented an update on the acquisition of First’s former Wigan bus business and assets by Stagecoach, the acquisition of Bluebird Bus and Coach bus business and assets by Stagecoach Manchester and the acquisition of Maytree Travel by Manchester Community Transport.
In addition, the report noted that an update on the First Manchester fares initiative and work to improve bus service quality would be provided by the Regional Director of First, David Alexander, at the next meeting of the Bus Network and TfGM Services Sub Committee on 22 March.
A Member commented that currently residents of Bolton enjoyed an excellent bus service from Maytree Travel and sought assurances that this would continue under the new Manchester Community Transport operation. Officers noted that it is for Manchester Community Transport to provide assurance on this, but that TfGM officers would look to monitor the outcomes of the acquisition.
Resolved/-
6 Page 112 1.) That the decision reached by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in respect of the acquisition by Stagecoach of First’s former Wigan bus business and depot, be noted; 2.) That the decision reached by the OFT in respect to the proposed acquisition by Stagecoach Manchester of Bluebird Bus and Coach bus business and assets and the resulting acquisition, be noted; 3.) That the acquisition by Manchester Community Transport of Maytree Travel Limited, be noted; 4.) That the position of First with regard to their current fares initiative be noted; 5.) That delegated authority be granted to the Head of the Paid Service, GMCA and the Chief Executive of TfGM, in consultation with the Chair of TfGMC, the three Vice Chairs of TfGMC and the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on TfGMC, to consider the approval of any revision to the price of the TfGM Weekly Scholar’s Ticket, which may be appropriate in light of any changes made by First Manchester.
7 Page 113 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 114
UNITY PARTNERSHIP BOARD
9 January 2013
Lees Suite, Civic Centre, Oldham, West Street, Oldham, OL1 1NL 5.30 pm
Present: Councillors Akhtar, Jabbar and Thompson
Emma Alexander OMBC Kay Andrews Agilisys Craig Apsey Mouchel Roger Barrett Unity John Cousins Mouchel Steven Garratt OMBC (Constitutional Services) Ailsa Gerrard Agilisys Paul Jones OMBC Andrew Kendall Unity Charlie Parker OMBC Ron Reynolds Agilisys
1 Welcome and Apologies Apologies were received from Councillors Hudson, McMahon and Sykes.
2 Minutes and Matters Arising The minutes of the meeting held on 31 st October 2012 were agreed as a correct record.
3 Update on Phase 3 (Standing Item) The Board received a verbal update on Phase 3, and it was reported that there had been no movement at this time, however it was being included as part of the proposal to review and restructure the Partnership, which was to be discussed at Item 4 on the agenda.
The Board noted the verbal update.
4 Proposal to review and restructure the Unity Partnership The Board received a presentation detailing the proposal to review and restructure the Unity Partnership. It identified key elements needing to be addressed by the review which aimed to deliver the Council’s objectives and those of the partners involved. Further specific details were presented to the Board, and the presentation sought the Board’s endorsement for the proposed direction. Page 115
Members sought details on aspects of potential risk involved, and clarification was given on the matter.
As part of the process, ‘Unity Change Programme’ was to become a standing item on the Unity Partnership Board agenda.
It was clarified that additional meetings or briefings were likely to be required, possibly at short notice, before the next scheduled meeting of the Board, and a project plan with milestones could be circulated to Members.
The Board endorsed for the proposed approach for: - The JV Structure - The key principles for the Commercial Deal - The savings proposals and operational changes - The delivery and governance arrangements
5 Managing Director's Report and KPI Report (Standing Item) The Board received a report on the work of the Unity Partnership since the previous meeting.
Highlights included: • Highways was active in undertaking work for other authorities, including a pilot with Tameside, and discussions with Stockport and Manchester. • Unity had been accredited as Education Ready by the Institute for Education Business Excellence, and been awarded Employer of the Year by Oldham College.
The Board noted the report.
6 Operations Board (Standing Item) There were no matters arising from the Operations Board.
7 AOB None reported.
8 Date and Time of Next Meeting It was noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Unity Partnership Board would take place on Wednesday 6 th March 2013 at 5.30pm.
It was further reported that an additional meeting may be required before the next meeting in relation to the proposal to review and restructure the Partnership, as discussed at Item 4 on the agenda.
The meeting started at 5.30 pm and ended at 6.35 pm
Page 116 ANY AMENDMENTS TO THESE MINUTES WILL BE SHOWN WITHIN THE TEXT OF THE MINUTES FOR THE NEXT MEETING OF THIS COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Meeting: National Park Authority Meeting
Date: 1 February 2013 at 10.00am
Venue: Aldern House Baslow Road Bakewell Derbyshire
Chair: Clr A Favell
Present: Clr Mrs B Beeley, Miss P Beswick, Clr D Birkinshaw, Clr P Brady, Clr C Carr , Clr D Chapman, Mr R Clarke, Clr C Furness, Clr Mrs H Gaddum, Clr P Harrison, Clr Mrs N Hawkins, Clr Mrs C G Heath, Mr R Helliwell, Clr H Laws, Ms S Leckie, Clr A McCloy, Mr G Nickolds (from 11.55am), Mr C Pennell, Clr G Purdy, Clr Mrs L C Roberts, Clr D B Taylor, Clr Mrs N Turner, Clr Mrs J A Twigg.
Apologies for absence: Mr P Ancell, Mrs F Beatty, Clr G Claff, Clr Mrs K M Potter and Clr Mrs M Stockdale.
1/13 CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chair held a minute’s silence in remembrance of Prof J ohn Herbert, former Member of the Authority, who had died in December.
2/13 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2012 were approved as a correct record subject to the following amendments:
MINUTE 81/12 1.FULL APPLICATION – SEPARATION OF FORMER COACH HOUSE FROM MAIN HOUSE TO RECREATE TWO SEPARATE DWELLINGS, FERNHILL, HOLLOW MEADOWS (NP/S/0612/0653, P3081, 03/07/2012, 427003 387189/KW)
The penultimate paragraph of the minute was amended to read as follows: “Following debate a motion to approve the application was moved and seconded”.
The resolution was amended by deleting the words ‘approve the recommendation of Planning C ommittee to’ and “as an exception to policy”.
MINUTE 82/12 2. FULL APPLICATION: ERECTION OF TWO WIND TURBINES ON LAND ADJACENT TO HILL TOP FARM, PARWICH (NP/DDD/0412/0434 P.3391 418946/355455 27/9/2012/CF)
The first sentence of the penultimate paragraph of the minute was deleted as it was duplicated and the remaining sentence of the penultimate paragraph was moved to follow the first sentence of the last paragraph.
The list of Members present during the afternoon session of the meeting was amended by deleting Clr P Harrison from the list.
Page 117 National Park Authority Meeting Minutes Page 2 1 February 2013
3/13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Chair stated that 3 people had given notice to speak under the Authority’s Public Participation at Meetings Scheme.
4/13 MEMBERS DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Item 7
Clr P Brady declared that he had received an email from Mrs P Russell.
Item 8
It was noted that all Members had received lobbying correspondence by email from Mr J Youatt.
Item 9
Clr Mrs H M Gaddum declared that she had been lobbied by telephone regarding this item.
5/13 7. NOTICE OF MOTION
In accordance with Standing Order 1.14, Clr Chris Furness had given notice that he intended to move the following motion: “That the Authority review Standing Order 1.48 (as set out in part one, section D) which permits the referral, by officers, of Planning Committee decisions to Authority Meetings”
Clr Furness moved the motion and it was seconded. Clr Furness requested that officers consider the issue, including procedure s used by constituent Councils and other National Park Authorities, and report back to a future Authority meeting.
It was noted that officers were already reviewing the issue and a report would be made to the March Authority meeting.
RESOLVED:
That officers review Standing Order 1.48 (as set out in part one, section D) which permits the referral, by officers, of Planning Committee decisions to Authority meetings, including considering procedure s used by constituent Councils and other National Park Authorities , and report back to the Marc h Authority meeting.
6/13 8. ASSESSING THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK CORE STRATEGY WITH T HE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (BJT/A.6101)
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:
Mr J Youatt spoke on behalf of Friends of the Peak District and Sustainable Youlgrave to request that Members delayed making a decision for one month in order to review 4 policies.
Members then debated the report which requested them to agree the conclusions of the officer assessment of the consistency of the National Park Core Strategy with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 118 National Park Authority Meeting Minutes Page 3 1 February 2013
The Policy Planning Manager stated that officers were confident that the policies were consistent.
It was noted that a supplementary planning document (SPD) on climate change and sustainable building was being prepared and that a workshop for Members was due to be held regarding this in April. It was also noted that in response to a previous Member query officers would be preparing a guidance note covering how national planning policy differs inside and outside National Parks.
The recommendation for agreement of the officers’ conclusions, as set out in the report, was moved and seconded. However an amendment to recommendation 1.2 to include that CC2 policy be individually reviewed was moved and seconded. The amendment was then voted on but lost. The original motion was then voted on and carried.
RESOLVED:
1. That Members agree the conclusions of officers in Appendix 1 and paragraph 13 of the report, that:
1. The Authority’s planning policies are consistent with the provisions of the NPPF; 2. That, consequently no early review of the Core Strategy be required; and 3. That the process of producing Development Management Policies be used t o consider any further ways in which the Authority’s planning policies can be refined to further strengthen the consistency with national policy
The meeting adjourned for a 5 minute comfort break.
At the request of the Chair, before consideration by the meeting of Item 9, the Director of Corporate Resources read out paragraph 1.48(1) from Part 1, Section D, of the Authority’s Standing Orders to clarify why the application had been referred to the Authority.
7/13 9. FULL APPLICATION – FOR THE ERECTION OF A LOCAL NEEDS DWELLING INCORPORATING FORMER AGRICULTURAL BUILDING AT HUNGER HILL, FOOLOW ROAD, EYAM (NP/DDD/0612/0640, P.5560, 06/07/2012, 421006/376921/JK
The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:
Dr Owens spoke as an individual and in support of the officer view on policy Jenny Eyre, applicant
Members considered and debated the application including need and whether or not the development was out of the village. During the debate Clr Mrs N Turner left the room f or a short time so did not vote on this item.
The recommendation for approval subject to a S106 agreement and conditions was moved and seconded. It was clarified that the reasons for approval were on the basis of local need and enhancement and improvem ent of the site. The motion was then voted on and carried.
Page 119 National Park Authority Meeting Minutes Page 4 1 February 2013
RESOLVED:
That the Authority APPROVE the application as a departure from policy and subject to prior entry into a S106 agreement regarding local occupancy and affordability and subject to the following conditions:
1. Statutory 3 year time limit for commencement
2. Adopt submitted plans
3. Removal of Permitted Development rights
4. Ecology mitigation
5. Minor design details
6. Submission and agreement of materials
7. Siting of meter box
8. Highways requirements
9. Solar Panels
11.55am Mr G D Nickolds joined the meeting and Clr Mrs N Turner left the meeting.
8/13 10. BUDGET 2013/14 (A137/PN)
Members considered the report of the formal budget for approval for 2013/14. The recommendation as set out in the report was moved and seconded. It was agreed to add an additional recommendation to thank all officers involved in the preparation of work and figures for the report. The motion was then voted on and carrie d.
RESOLVED: 1. That the base budget for the 2013/14 financial year shown in Appendix 1 and 2 of the report be approved.
2. That the financial position of the Authority in respect of planning for the following years be noted.
3. That all officers involved in the preparation of work and figures for the report be thanked.
9/13 11. REVIEW OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR MEETINGS INVOLVING MEMBERS – PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SCHEME (A.111/JS)
Members considered the report on amendments proposed to the Public Participation Scheme , to address situations where large numbers of speakers could impact on the efficiency of the decision making process , following discussions between the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Authority and the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Committees.
Page 120 National Park Authority Meeting Minutes Page 5 1 February 2013
The recommendation for approval of the amendments set out in paragraph 7 of the report was moved and seconded subject to further amendments that out of the 15 maximum speakers per item 1 for and 1 against will be included (as long as for and again st are represented in the requests to speak), that requests to speak from Statutory Consultees were included within the 15 maximum speakers per item, that requests to speak from County, District and Parish Councillors were included within the 15 maximum sp eakers per item and that the amended scheme be run for a trial period of 12 months. This was voted on and carried.
RESOLVED:
To approve proposals to amend the public participation scheme, as set out in paragraph 7 of the report , with effect from the Planning Committee meeting on 8 March 2013 subject to the following amendments:
Out of the 15 maximum speakers per item there is 1 for and 1 against if represented in the requests to speak Requests to speak by Statutory Consultees will be accepted and the number of consultees giving notice will be deducted from the overall limit of 15 maximum speakers per item. Requests to speak by County, District or Parish Councillors (or Chair of a Parish Meeting) on matters impacting upon their Division, Ward or Par ish will be accepted and the number of Councillors giving notice will be deducted from the overall limit of 15 maximum speakers per item. Trial period of 12 months
The meeting adjourned at 12.20pm for a short comfort break and reconvened at 12.30pm.
10/13 13. ITEM FOR APPROVAL WITH NO DISCUSSION:
1. THE LOCALISM ACT 2011 – THE AMENDED STANDARDS REGIME UPDATE TO STANDING ORDERS, PROTOCOLS AND POLICIES (A.11/AGM)
The Head of Law reported an amendment to the report in Appendix 3, box number 6 of the S chedule, by inserting the words ‘personal or’ in front of the words ‘prejudicial interests’.
RESOLVED:
1. To approve changes to the following protocols:
Protocol on Planning Development Control and Planning Policy (Appendix 1 of the report) Protocol for Member and Officer Relations (Appendix 2 of the report) Monitoring Officer Protocol (Appendix 3 of the report)
2. To approve changes to the Anti-Fraud and Corruption policy as set out in appendices 4 of the report.
3. To approve changes to part 1 and part 6 of Standing Orders as set out in appendices 5 and 6 of the report.
Page 121 National Park Authority Meeting Minutes Page 6 1 February 2013
11/13 12. MANAGEMENT REVIEW: FUTURE LEADERSHIP OF OPERATIONS (JBD)
Paragraph 27 of the report was amended in the third and fourth paragraphs due to the omission of the o n-costs to the figures quoted. In the third paragraph the figures quoted should be “£24,569” and “£68,110” and in the fourth paragraph the first figure quoted should be “£31,890” not “£29,703”.
The Chief Executive detailed the background to the report and thanked the other project board members, Bob Cartwright, Christopher Pennell and Deborah Unwin, for all their contributions .
He also reported that the Government had recently announced a £62 million pound investment in cycling with up to £12 million being made available to local authorities working in partnership with National Parks to improve conditions for cyclists and it was hoped that the Peak District would benefit from this.
Members considered the report which proposed specific, detailed changes to the senior staffing structure of the Authority’s organisation. The recommendation as set out in the report was moved and seconded. This was then voted on and carried. Members requested that the structure be reviewed in 12 months.
RESOLVED:
1. Disestablish the posts of Director of Operations with effect from 1 April 2014 and the Head of Field Service, Head of Policy and Head of Environment & Economy with effect from 31 March 2013
2. Disestablish the post of Head of Property Service with effect 31 March 2013, but retain the entire budget capacity to provide strategic support to property work until 31 March 2014 and thereafter allocate sufficient budget to provide a permanent 0.5FTE J Grade strategic property post on the establishment.
3. Establish the new posts reporting to the Chief Executive of Assistant Director (Land Management), Assistant Director (Enterprise and Field Services) and Assistant Director (Policy and Partnerships) on Chief Officer terms and conditions with effect from 1 April 2013
4. To establish a new 4 point Assistant Director salary scale, in line with the Chief Executive and Directors scales (i.e. related to Chief Officer pay and outside the Local Government Job evaluation scheme), from £40,741 to £45,147) to be reviewed in line with any future review/ pay award to the salary scales of the Chief Executive and Directors
5. Appointments to be made in line with the Managing Change Policy and to come into effect 1 April 2013
6. All staff and managers who contributed to consultation events or who responded in written form are thanked for their thoughtful, constructive and professional inputs. Members of the Programme Board are thanked.
The meeting concluded at 1.10pm.
Page 122 3.
ASSOCIATION OF GREATER MANCHESTER AUTHORITIES
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY 25 th JANUARY 2013 AT ROCHDALE TOWN HALL
Present-
In the Chair Councillor Peter Smith (Wigan)
BOLTON COUNCIL Councillor Cliff Morris Sean Harriss
BURY COUNCIL Councillor Mike Connolly Mike Kelly
MANCHESTER CC Councillor Richard Leese Howard Bernstein Richard Paver Sara Todd
OLDHAM COUNCIL Councillor Jim McMahon Carolyn Wilkins
ROCHDALE MBC Councillor Colin Lambert Jim Taylor
SALFORD CC Mayor Ian Stewart Martin Vickers
STOCKPORT MBC Councillor Sue Derbyshire Steve Houston
TAMESIDE MBC Councillor Keiran Quinn Steven Pleasant
TRAFFORD COUNCIL Councillor Matthew Colledge Theresa Grant
WIGAN COUNCIL Donna Hall
GM FIRE Steve McGuirk Ged Murphy
GMFRSA Councillor David Acton
POLICE & CRIME Tony Lloyd COMMISSIONER
Page 123 3.
GM POLICE Peter Fahy
GMWDA Councillor Neil Swannick Councillor John Bland MANCHESTER FAMILY Paul Simpson Mark Hughes
NEW ECONOMY Mike Emmerich
NHS GM Eileen Fairhurst
OFFICE OF POLICE & Russell Bernstein CRIME COMMISSIONER
TfGM Jon Lamonte
TfGMC Councillor Andrew Fender
GMIST Penny Boothman Kerry Bond Joanne Horrocks
59/12 APOLOGIES
Charlie Parker, Barbara Spicer, Eamonn Boylan and Mike Burrows.
60/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
61/2 MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING - 14 th DECEMBER 2012
It was AGREED by those present that these were a true record of the meeting.
62/2 FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS
Members AGREED to note the report.
63/12 AGMA BUDGETS 2013-14
a. Police and Crime Commissioner Precept Proposal
The AGMA Executive Board received a report from Barbara Spicer, Lead Chief Executive for Police and Crime was considered.
Page 124 3.
Richard Paver, AGMA Treasurer presented the report detailing the Police and Crime Commissioners proposed precept levels for 2013/14 which will be considered by the Police and Crime Panel at their meeting being held on 25 January.
1. The Executive Board AGREED to note the report. b. 2013/14 Precept and Budget Proposals
The AGMA Executive Board received a report from Tony Lloyd, Police and Crime Commissioner notifying members of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s precept and budget proposals for 2013-14 which will be considered by the Police and Crime Panel at their 25 January meeting.
It was reported that the precept increase figure amounted to 3.46% and not 3.5% as stated in the report.
The Executive Board AGREED:
1. to note the latest revenue budget projections and the proposals for achieving a balanced budget in 2013/14. 2. to endorse the proposals to implement a £5 precept increase for 2013/14 at £149.33 per band D property. 3. to note the budget assumption relating to the budgets for 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17. c. Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority Budget 2013-14 and Medium Term Financial Strategy
The AGMA Executive Board received a report presented by Councillor David Acton providing an updated budget paper outlining information on Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority’s current budget position, a high level forward forecast for the four subsequent years and the proposed precept level increase for 2013/14 at B and D equivalent by £4.99 subject to rounding.
The Executive Board AGREED:
1. to note the range of strategic issues and risks set out in the report which will influence the Medium Term Financial Strategy and the Authority budgetary requirements; and 2. to endorse the proposed precept of £57.64 (subject to roundings) at Band D for 2013/2014. d. GMWDA Budget Proposal 2013-14
The Executive Board received a report presented by Councillor Neil Swannick seeking final input on the proposals for the 2013/14 budget and levy due to be determined by the GM Waste Disposal Authority meeting scheduled for 8th February 2013. The Executive Board AGREED:
Page 125 3.
1. to endorse a reduction in the GMWDA budget requirement of £6.1m, from the January 2012 approved £172.2m level, as a result of further budget reduction measures; 2. to endorse a reduction in the smoothed levy increase from 9.57% to 8.40% (and unsmoothed from 16.59% to 14.15%); 3. to endorse the agreed return of £15m in balances, with the basis for that to be finalised at the GMWDA meeting on the 8th February 2013; 4. to note good prospects in 2014/15 to further increase savings, and the potential revised impact on the levy; and 5. to note the endorsement of the proposed budget strategy by the Leaders of Bolton and Stockport Councils as part of the AGMA budget review process.
Chair
Page 126 3.
ASSOCIATION OF GREATER MANCHESTER AUTHORITIES
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY 22 nd FEBRUARY 2013 AT SWINTON CIVIC CENTRE
Present- In the Chair Councillor Peter Smith (Wigan) BOLTON COUNCIL Councillor Cliff Morris Sean Harriss BURY COUNCIL Councillor Mike Connolly Mike Owen
MANCHESTER CC Councillor Richard Leese Howard Bernstein Richard Paver Sara Todd
OLDHAM COUNCIL Councillor Jim McMahon Charlie Parker ROCHDALE MBC Councillor Colin Lambert Jim Taylor SALFORD CC Mayor Ian Stewart Barbara Spicer
STOCKPORT MBC Councillor Sue Derbyshire Eamonn Boylan
TAMESIDE MBC Councillor Kieran Quinn Sandra Stewart TRAFFORD COUNCIL Councillor Matthew Colledge Theresa Grant WIGAN COUNCIL Donna Hall GM POLICE Peter Fahy GMWDA Councillor Neil Swannick NEW ECONOMY Mike Emmerich NHS GM Eileen Fairhurst TfGM Jon Lamonte
TfGMC Councillor Andrew Fender GMIST Julie Connor Kerry Bond Joanne Horrocks
Page 127 3.
64/12 APOLOGIES
Steven Pleasant, Mike Kelly, Councillor Acton and Mike Burrows.
65/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
66/2 MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING - 25 th JANUARY 2013
It was AGREED by those present that these were a true record of the meeting.
67/2 FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS
Members AGREED to note the report.
68/12 HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE REFORM
The AGMA Executive Board received a tabled report from Steven Pleasant, Lead Chief Executive for Health detailing the priorities for health and social care reform across Greater Manchester. In Stevens absence, Sean Harriss presented the proposals in the report to Members.
The Chair requested that paragraph 2.1 of the report be amended to emphasise that improved quality of health care should be at the root of a new health care system
The Executive Board AGREED:
1. That subject to the inclusion of the amendment suggested by the Chair the proposals in the report be supported and that the report should be recommended for consideration and endorsement to all Greater Manchester Districts Executives, Cabinets and local Health and Well Being Boards in Greater Manchester in March and April 2013;
2. That each local authority area be asked to work with partners, particularly the CCGs and the local acute trust, to develop a brief report on current progress in developing models of integrated health and social care;
3. To receive a report back on the picture of integrated care development across Greater Manchester at the June 2013 meeting;
4. To note that the development of the models of integrated care provide a framework for the public consultation on the reconfiguration of some hospital services due in the summer 2013.
Chair
Page 128 3. GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY 25 th JANUARY 201 AT ROCHDALE TOWN HALL
BOLTON COUNCIL Councillor Cliff Morris
BURY COUNCIL Councillor Mike Connolly
MANCHESTER CC Councillor Richard Leese
OLDHAM COUNCIL Councillor Jim McMahon
ROCHDALE MBC Councillor Colin Lambert
SALFORD CC Mayor Ian Stewart
STOCKPORT MBC Councillor Sue Derbyshire
TAMESIDE MBC Councillor Keiran Quinn
TRAFFORD COUNCIL Councillor Matthew Colledge
WIGAN COUNCIL Councillor Peter Smith (in the Chair)
JOINT BOARD AND OTHER MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE
POLICE & CRIME Tony Lloyd COMMISSIONER
TfGMC Councillor Andrew Fender
GMWDA Councillor Neil Swannick
GMFRSA Councillor David Acton
GMWDA Councillor John Bland
OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE
Howard Bernstein GMCA Head of Paid Service Donna Hall GMCA Secretary Richard Paver GMCA Treasurer
Sean Harriss Bolton Council Mike Kelly Bury Council Sara Todd Manchester CC Carolyn Wilkins Oldham Council Jim Taylor Rochdale MBC Martin Vickers Salford CC Steve Houston Stockport MBC
Page 129 3. Steven Pleasant Tameside MBC Theresa Grant Trafford Council Steve McGuirk GMFRS Ged Murphy GMFRS Peter Fahy GMP John Bland GMWDA Paul Simpson Manchester Family Mark Hughes Manchester Family Mike Emmerich New Economy Eileen Fairhurst NHS GM Russell Bernstein Office of Police & Crime Commissioner Jon Lamonte TfGM Julie Connor ) Joanne Horrocks ) Greater Manchester Kerry Bond ) Integrated Support Team Nicola Ward )
119/12 APOLOGIES
Charlie Parker, Barbara Spicer, Eamonn Boylan and Mike Burrows.
Members requested that their best wishes be sent to Barbara Spicer for her quick return to good health.
120/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
121/12 MINUTES OF GMCA MEETING 14 th DECEMBER 2012
It was AGREED by those present that these were a true record of the meeting.
122/12 FORWARD PLAN OF STRATEGIC DECISIONS
Members AGREED to note the Forward Plan.
123/12 CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2015
The Combined Authority received a report from Charlie Parker, Environment Lead Chief Executive seeking approval of the final draft of the Greater Manchester Climate Change Strategy Implementation Plan 2011-2015.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to note the report; and 2. to approve the final draft of the Greater Manchester Climate Change Strategy Implementation Plan 2011-2015.
Page 130 3. 124/12 GREATER MANCHESTER POSITION ON GROWTH - HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT LAND REQUIREMENTS
The Combined Authority received a report from Eamonn Boylan, Planning & Housing Lead Chief Executive seeking endorsement for the progression of a project to develop a Greater Manchester strategy on future housing and employment land requirements to support growth.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to note the report. 2. that officers continue to develop proposals for an up-to-date strategy on the scale and distribution of housing and employment land required to deliver Greater Manchester’s growth. 3. that a future paper be brought back to confirm the timetable and processes for engaging with stakeholders on preparation of strategic documents.
125/12 FUTURE TRANSPORT PRIORITISATION - GOVERNANCE
The Combined Authority received a report from Jon Lamonte, Chief Executive TfGM informing members of the DfT publication of formal guidance for the establishment of Local Transport Bodies which will enable the devolution of major scheme funding from 2015.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to note the publication of formal DfT guidance on the establishment of Local Transport Bodies to manage future devolved major scheme funding. 2. to note the summary of guidance and the outline commentary on issues for Greater Manchester, including the requirement to submit an assurance framework for the future Greater Manchester Local Transport Body to DfT by the end of February. 3. that a final draft assurance framework be brought back to the next meeting of the Combined Authority.
126/12 DEVOLUTION OF RAIL RE-FRANCHISING IN NORTH OF ENGLAND
The Combined Authority received a report from Howard Bernstein Head of Paid Service, GMCA and Jon Lamonte, Chief Executive TfGM providing Members with an update of the work currently underway on the potential devolution of rail re-franchising responsibility from the Department for Transport to the North of England.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to note the report. 2. to note that a report on this topic was discussed at TfGMC on 11 th January. 3. to support Greater Manchester continuing to work with local authorities across the North to develop these proposals. 4. that a report be brought back to a future GMCA meeting with a view to agreeing definitive governance and shadow-running proposals.
Page 131 3. 127/12 GREATER MANCHESTER ROAD ACTIVITIES PERMIT SCHEME
The Combined Authority received a report from Jon Lamonte, Chief Executive TfGM updating members on the progress of implementing the Greater Manchester Road Activities Permit Scheme.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to note the report. 2. that a report be brought to a future GMCA meeting to approve the GMRAPS Operating Agreement.
128/12 GREATER MANCHESTER IMPACT OF RECENT FORMAL RAIL BUSINESS PLANS
The Combined Authority received a report from Howard Bernstein Head of Paid Service, GMCA and Jon Lamonte, Chief Executive TfGM providing a briefing on the January publication of the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan and the Rail Industry Strategic Business Plan, highlighting issues that Greater Manchester might wish to include in its formal responses.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to note the report. 2. that officers review the two strategic plans in full, and that TfGMC approves the main elements of the initial response into the formal regulatory process, taking into account the issues set out in the final paragraph of this report. 3. to note that specific issues Greater Manchester might comment on include (a) the timescales for some elements of the electrification programme, (b) clearer plans for the industry wide delivery of non Rcustomer Rfacing efficiencies, and (c) governance arrangements for the smaller funding pots such as those for stations and customer journey improvements.
129/12 DfT LOCAL PINCH POINT FUND
The Combined Authority received a report of Jon Lamonte, Chief Executive TfGM informing members of the recent launch of a new DfT Local Pinch Point Fund and giving guidance on bids to the Fund and the arrangements in place to prepare a Greater Manchester package bid.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to note the launch of the DfT Local Pinch Point Fund and that bids are required by 21 February 2013. 2. to note that arrangements are underway to prepare a Greater Manchester package submission to the Fund. 3. that delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive of TfGM and the Head of the Paid Service, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairs of GMCA, the Chair of TfGMC and the Chair of the GMLEP, to agree the final submission to DfT.
Page 132 3. 130/12 MANCHESTER MONITOR QUARTERLY
The Combined Authority considered the latest Manchester Monitor Quarterly as presented by Mike Emmerich, Chief Executive of New Economy.
131/12 BUDGETS
a. GMCA Revenue 2013/14 to 2015/16
The Combined Authority received a report from Richard Paver GMCA Treasurer setting out- - the GMCA budget for 2013/14 - the indicative budgets for 2014/15 and 2015/16, including the forecast outturn position for 2012/13 - the proposed Transport Levy and charges to support the Economic Development and Regeneration Functions for 2013/14; and - the recommended allocations to the District Councils of Greater Manchester.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to approve the budget relating to the GMCA transport function for 2013/14 and the indicative budget proposals for 2014/15 and 2015/16 which will be subject to regular review. 2. to approve the budget relating to the GMCA Economic Development and Regeneration functions for 2013/14 and the indicative budget proposals for 2014/15 and 2015/16 which will be subject to regular review. 3. to note the issues which are affecting the 2013/14 transport budget and projections for 2014/15 and 2015/16 as detailed in the report. 4. to note the consultation process which has been undertaken by officers with the Transport Levy Scrutiny Panel and that the outcome of the consultation is a proposal that will result in a total levy for 2013/14 of £198.094 million. 5. to approve the overall proposed increase in the Transport Levy for 2013/14 of 3.6% which represents a 3% increase with respect to the Greater Manchester Transport Fund; and a 0.6% increase relating to funding for the rest of the budgeted costs. 6. to approve a Transport Levy on the district councils in 2013/14 of £198.094 million apportioned as set out in the report. 7. to continue to support the provision of a county-wide demand responsive service for those who are unable to access conventional transport services; such support to be by way of a grant of up to £5.4 million, made under the provisions of s.106 of the Transport Act 1985 and s.99 and 102A of the Local Transport Act 2008, to the Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Trust (GMATT). 8. to confirm the proposed increase in Bus Station Departure Charges of 3.2%, with effect from 1st April 2013. 9. to approve the charges on the GM District Councils to support the Economic Development and Regeneration Functions in 2013/14 of £2.813 million as set out in the report. 10. to approve the revised budget for 2012/13 and to note the forecast outturn for 2012/13 as detailed in paragraphs 5-13 of the report. 11. to note and approve the position on reserves.
Page 133 3. 12. to note item 13d on the agenda - the recommendations of the report on the Treasury Management Strategy Statement Borrowing Limits and Annual Investment Strategy 2013/14.
b. GMCA Capital Programme 2013/14-2015/16
The Combined Authority received a report from Richard Paver, GMCA Treasurer updating members on the forecast capital outturn position for 2012/13 and to present the 2013/14 capital programme and forward commitments for approval by the GMCA. The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. to note that the current forecast capital expenditure for 2012/13; 2. to approve the one year capital programme 2013/14 and forward commitments; 3. to note that the capital programme will require a potential long term borrowing requirement of £429.3 million over the next three years and that provision has been made in the revenue budget for the associated financing costs; 4. to note that the capital programme will continue to be reviewed and any recommendations will be reported back to the Authority later in the financial year 2013/14; 5. to note that revised Treasury Management indicators have been reported in agenda item 13d to reflect the approved capital programme and updated cash flows; 6. to note that any schemes included in the programme which have not received specific approval will be brought back to the GMCA for approval in due course.
c. Centre of Excellence Budget 2013-14
The Combined Authority received a report from Paul Simpson, Manchester Family Chief Operating Officer outlining the budget request for the Manchester family of agencies - Marketing Manchester, MIDAS and New Economy for the financial year 2013/14.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. the budget for the Manchester family of agencies (Marketing Manchester, MIDAS and New Economy) for 2013/14. 2. to receive a refreshed 3 year Business Plan at their meeting being held on 22 March.
d. Treasury Management Strategy
The Combined Authority received a report from Richard Paver, GMCA Treasurer setting out the proposed Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Borrowing Limits for 2013/14 and Prudential Indicators for 2013/14 to 2015/16 which had been approved at the GMCA Audit Committee meeting held on 24 January 2013.
The Combined Authority AGREED the report.
Page 134 3. 132/12 MINUTES
a. TfGMC - 11 January 2013
The Combined Authority considered minutes of the TfGMC meeting held on 11 th January: but raised no issues.
b. Scrutiny Pool - 11 January 2013
The Combined Authority noted the draft minutes of the meeting of 11 January 2013 are attached,
c. Local Enterprise Partnership - 10 January 2013
The Combined Authority noted the draft minutes of the Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership held on the 10 January 2013.
133/12 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
The Executive AGREED the resolution excluding the public from the meeting during consideration of items E1 for 134/12 - Greater Manchester Loan Fund and 134/12 - Investment Decisions because they contain information relating to the financial and business affairs of particular persons and the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
134/12 GREATER MANCHESTER INVESTMENT FUND
a. Greater Manchester Loan Fund
The Combined Authority received a report of Eamonn Boylan, Lead Chief Executive for Investment providing a summary of the Greater Manchester Loan Fund project that will provide loan finance for new and growing businesses in GM an outline of the outcomes that the fund will deliver, the outline proposed terms of appointment of the fund manager and the proposed fund governance arrangements.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. To note the current position of the procurement process and to delegate authority to the Combined Authority Treasurer and Monitoring Officer to appoint the fund manager. 2. To delegate authority to the Combined Authority Treasurer and Combined Authority Monitoring Officer to scope out the nature of their appointment including procuring external legal advisors to assist with the necessary legal work and drafting of documents, including setting up the legal structure, expected to be as a limited partnership with the GMCA becoming the sole limited partner. 3. The award of £2 million Regional Growth Fund monies from the Greater Manchester RGF 3 programme, subject to satisfactory completion of due diligence. 4. To note the proposals for Manchester City Council to lend to the fund between £12-14 million subject to the agreement of the AGMA authorities to underwrite any losses alongside Manchester City Council in proportion to the resident
Page 135 3. population of each authority as at the date of the establishment of the fund. 5. To note that the individual districts agree the appropriate form of guarantee and for Manchester City Council to consider making the loan.
b. Investment Decisions
The Combined Authority received a report of Eamonn Boylan, Lead Chief Executive for Investment summarising four new projects which have been reviewed by the Core Investment Team, Chief Executive Sub Group and Independent Advisor.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. that the projects outlined in the report be recommended for conditional approval and progress to due diligence; 2. to delegate authority to the Combined Authority Treasurer and Combined Authority Monitoring Officer to review the due diligence information and subject to their satisfactory review, issue final approvals and complete any necessary related documentation.
JOINT GMCA & AGMA REPORTS
135/12 AGMA BUDGET 2013/14 & REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13
The Combined Authority received a report from Richard Paver, GMCA Treasurer informing members of the revised forecast revenue outturn position for AGMA as at end December 2012 and provides details of the proposed budgets and district allocations for 2013/14 with regards to the AGMA Executive Board Functions.
The Combined Authority and Executive Board AGREED:
1. to note the current revenue outturn forecast for 2012/13, which is projecting an underspend of £148,000 – AGMA. 2. to approve the proposed AGMA budget for 2013/14 as detailed in the report. 3. to approve the District Allocations in respect of AGMA, as detailed in the report, apportioned using the Mid Year 2011 Population figures, unless otherwise stated. 4. to approve the utilisation of the Growing Places Fund grant allocated to GMCA as described in the report. 5. to approve the use of non transport related funds from the GMCA to meet budget requirements as detailed in the report. To also note that any further shortfall at year end would be net from either growing places fund or general reserves.
Chair.
Page 136 GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY 22 nd MARCH 2013 AT SWINTON CIVIC CENTRE
BOLTON COUNCIL Councillor Cliff Morris
BURY COUNCIL Councillor Mike Connolly
MANCHESTER CC Councillor Richard Leese
OLDHAM COUNCIL Councillor Jim McMahon
ROCHDALE MBC Councillor Colin Lambert
SALFORD CC Mayor Ian Stewart
STOCKPORT MBC Councillor Sue Derbyshire
TAMESIDE MBC Councillor Keiran Quinn
TRAFFORD COUNCIL Councillor Matthew Colledge
WIGAN COUNCIL Councillor Peter Smith (in the Chair)
JOINT BOARD AND OTHER MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE
GMWDA Councillor Neil Swannick
TfGMC Councillor Andrew Fender
OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE
Howard Bernstein GMCA Head of Paid Service Donna Hall GMCA Secretary Richard Paver GMCA Treasurer
Sean Harriss Bolton Council Mike Owen Bury Council Sara Todd Manchester CC Charlie Parker Oldham Council Jim Taylor Rochdale MBC Martin Vickers Salford CC Eamonn Boylan Stockport MBC Sandra Stewart Tameside MBC Theresa Grant Trafford Council Peter Fahy GMP Mike Emmerich New Economy Eileen Fairhurst NHS GM Jon Lamonte TfGM Julie Connor ) Joanne Horrocks ) Greater Manchester Kerry Bond ) Integrated Support Team
Page 137
136/12 APOLOGIES
Steven Pleasant, Mike Kelly, Councillor Acton and Mike Burrows.
137/12 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
138/12 MINUTES OF GMCA MEETING 25 th JANUARY 2013
It was AGREED by those present that these were a true record of the meeting.
139/12 FORWARD PLAN OF STRATEGIC DECISIONS
Members AGREED to note the Forward Plan.
140/12 FUTURE TRANSPORT PRIORITISATION GOVERNANCE
The Combined Authority received a report from Jon Lamonte, Chief Executive, TfGM summarising the assurance framework for the future Local Transport Body (LTB) for Greater Manchester, in line with recent DfT guidance, which will enable the devolution of major scheme funding from 2015.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. To endorse the draft Greater Manchester LTB assurance framework for submission to DfT based on the outline proposals as set out in Appendix 1 of the report. 2. The membership composition for the future Greater Manchester LTB be as follows: GMCA Transport Lead Member, Councillor Matthew Colledge, Trafford Council. Three additional GMCA Members: Councillor Peter Smith, Wigan Council, Mayor Ian Stewart, Salford CC and Councillor Mike Connelly, Bury Council. Chair of TfGMC. Chair of TfGMC Capital Projects and Policy Sub-Committee. Chair of GM LEP and one further non-local authority LEP member nominee. Chair and Lead Transport member of the BLC. 3. To receive a further report on the mobilisation arrangements for the future LTB on completion of the review of the assurance framework with DfT.
141/12 HIGH SPEED RAIL
The Combined Authority received a report from Jon Lamonte, Chief Executive, TfGM informing Members of the recent Government announcement regarding Phase 2 of the proposed HS2 high speed rail line.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
Page 138 1. To note the report. 2. To support the case for early delivery of the project. 3. That officers be requested to continue to work with representatives from HS2 Ltd, Department for Transport, relevant districts, Manchester Airports Group and Network Rail to deliver the proposals and ensure maximum benefit are achieved at the chosen station locations .
142/12 RAIL RE-FRANCHISING IN NORTH OF ENGLAND
The Combined Authority received a verbal update from Howard Bernstein, Head of Paid Services, GMCA on the progress of the rail re-franchising process since their last meeting held in January. Leaders across all the North of England Local Transport Authorities had recently met at an event confirming commitment, and work going forward including governance.
The Combined Authority AGREED to receive a further update report at their meeting in March or April which will include a timetable and proposed approach for taking it forward.
143/12 MINUTES
a. TfGMC - 15 February 2013
The Combined Authority noted the draft minutes of the TfGMC meeting held on 15 th February 2013.
b. Scrutiny Pool - 8 February 2013
The Combined Authority noted the draft minutes of the Scrutiny Pool meeting held on 8 th February 2013.
c. Local Enterprise Partnership - 7 February 2013
The Combined Authority noted the draft minutes of the Greater Manchester Local Enterprise Partnership held on the 7 th February 2013.
d. GMCA Audit Committee - 24 January 2013
The Combined Authority noted the draft minutes of the GMCA Audit Committee held on the 24 th January 2013.
144/12 EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
The GMCA AGREED the resolution excluding the public from the meeting during consideration of items E1 for 145/12 - Textiles and 146/12 - Greater Manchester Investment Fund - Projects for Conditional Approval because they contain information relating to the financial and business affairs of particular persons and the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
145/12 TEXTILES
The Combined Authority received a report of Mike Emmerich, Chief Executive, New Economy providing an update on the emerging findings of the project.
Page 139 The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. To endorse the continued work of the textile core team for a further period of 12 months to allow them to develop the work and programme as set out in the report. 2. That the continued costs of the team be funded by the Combined Authority/ LEP. 3. The next steps of the textiles work programme and the opportunities for leveraging as detailed in the report noted that further reports would come back in due course.
146/12 GREATER MANCHESTER INVESTMENT FUND – PROJECTS FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
The Combined Authority received a report from Eamonn Boylan, Lead Chief Executive for Investment seeking approval for two investment projects requesting resources from the GM Investment Framework.
The Combined Authority AGREED:
1. That the two investment project applications as detailed in the report be recommended for conditional approval and progress to due diligence. 2. To delegate authority to the Combined Authority Treasurer and Combined Authority Monitoring Officer to review the due diligence information and, subject to their satisfactory review, issue final approvals and complete any necessary related documentation.
Chair
Page 140 N
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age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
Page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
Page 143 ! 0 % ) ) ) $# )%) * % * ) * *%,) + 5) , ) * * ) % ) & ) % *% ) + , * , ) # E# ) ) ) + 0 &)% % ) ) %) % + <% ) % &$#* $#% ) ) ) +3 % % ) * % ) ) +<% , ) ) ) JK ) ) % + 0 &)% % ) ) ) & ) ) * )% $# ) ) ) ) ) ) + <% , ) % , R &S) +5% * ) )) )* )) ) +5) , ) ) % *% % & % ) + 1>$26?>" 3 " ( G ) ( $# ) ), % & %)+ 77 *+!*' *"+$,# (&"&" < ) % F % %? #)# ) *% % ) * $ )) % %#)+3 )) % #)# ) ) ) ) % #) ) %#)+ 1>$26?>" 3 ) %? #) # ) + 7 !2-! %<=$!%#&*"&2!9&2!1&2&#!+#* 72&"$#!%2(>&2$2: F % ) S0 3 + @ Page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age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age 146 ! $+ !# @ ("+!)*"+8 *22! ,&(1 *"%&+! (#&*"% 3 )) = 2 S% )) ) -)! 9@ )- )* )) * % ) 1 ) # ' # ( % % + 3 )) 3 4 #& ) # $ % )) % ) & 3) 1 %*% !* ) F ) ) % 3 '3(% ) !+ &) F ) * )% *= )% ) ) = + &) 5 ) 1 # '5 1# ( ) ) ) )% ) ) ,) 1 2# + 1>$26?>" 3 " ( ) ) G ( % %) ) 3) 1 % ) 3 '3( $ @ ) , ) ) % ))G ( ) ) F * %& G ) )( F , % % 5 1# ) ) ) ))) & 1 2# . !+ 7 *"# (,#&%?%("+ 4( ! (4(,&#) # ) % # $ ) 3 4#& % )) ) ) )- 3 '-3( ) )) ) % ) 1 3 %$ '3$(+3 )) ) 3 2 $ 1 % ! + &)F ) % %) ) ) ) )% 3$ % +
N Page 147 ! 1>$2 6?>" 3 " ( ) -3 G ( ) 1 3$G ( )) # $ % % #& *# )? E # '# 1 * 42 '1 2( # ( = % > * .) )1 '( 3 2 $ 1 %+ (1'* +*(+0! $1#*"9'* 2! >&+!(##! &!%: &#! * !%%4+(#! )) = 3 4#& ) # $ % )) ) ) )%%)+ 1>$26?>" 3 " ( % < ? # ' * $)+3 1 4$ ) # ) ) +
A Page 148 ! 1>$26?>" 3 " ( ) $ @+L ) ) G ( ) G ( 1 4$ , ) *% % # )? E# '# * )1 '1(# (* ) )G ) )( F 2 ) 6) @ ! ) N !+ 3 )+! ) )+ !
Page 149 ! This page is intentionally left blank
Page 150 Agenda Item 4
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age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
PagePage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
Page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
; PagePage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
G Page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
7 PagePage 156 8 ' % &# )7 ) )+ 'H )' (( ) 8&' )& ' "(( )+" ) F 5 ) )/5 :;H ' ) :;!778;7(* )/5F( !778 (& ! 8G@(&;8GJ * 8;J5 ( ) '&# ) ) . 'H ' + ) /5 8@ J )8@ J ;:G ) G:7 5&5 ( )/5 8;J ) 8 J'H ' ))> ) )/5 ( 8 ) ) ,&' )& ' H ) ' 5 ( ) /5( ( )+> 8 3 ( )8( ) )8 (8
Page 1579 This page is intentionally left blank
PagePage 158 10 Agenda Item 16
Council
Budget Proposals 2014/15 (Additional)
Report of Borough Treasurer
Portfolio Holder: Councillor Abdul Jabbar, Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships
17 th April 2013
Officer Contact: Steven Mair, Borough Treasurer
Ext. 4900
Purpose of Report
To present to Council the final tranche of the Administration’s budget proposals for 2014/15 resulting from the impact of the Local Government Finance Settlement and other matters.
Executive Summary
This report presents the Administration’s further proposed budget savings for 2014/15. These proposals build upon the budget reports agreed at Council in December 2012 and February 2013 and take account of the effects of the Local Government Finance Settlement and other matters which resulted in an increase in the budget gap from the £12.976m approved for 2014/15 by a further £7.528m.
The Star Chamber meeting on 18 March 2013 was presented with options that bridged the gap between the options presented to the February Council and these were then taken to PVFM on 27 March 2013 and Cabinet on 8 April 2013.
The position for 2014/15 is a remaining projected shortfall of £7.528m for which savings were to be identified in the Spring of 2013 and it is intended that savings incorporated in this report will form the basis of those proposals.
Page 159 It is intended that the options will be agreed by Council for consultation where needed. The results of the consultation and Equality Impact Assessments, where appropriate, will be brought back to a later PVFM, for commendation to Cabinet for final approval. Council in February 2014 will approve the final budget but the detail of all of the 2014/15 options, with Equality Impact Assessments where appropriate, will have been formally signed off by Cabinet.
If following consultation, Cabinet do not feel that a proposal should be taken forward, or that further work is required, this will be raised at the Cabinet meeting and next steps resolved at that same meeting.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Council;
a) A pprove options detailed at Appendix A in summary and in detail at Appendix B towards the savings target for consultation where needed.
b) Notes that the results of the consultation and Equality Impact Assessments, where appropriate, will be brought back to a later PVFM, for commendation to Cabinet for final approval and that Council in February 2014 will approve the final budget.
Page 2 of 74 Page 160 Council
17 th April 2013
1 Background
1.1 The meeting of the PVFM Select Committee on 28 th January 2013 received options for 2014/15 to bridge the initial gap in funding for the year of £12.976m and these were taken through Cabinet and then Council on 27 th February 2013.
1.2 Subsequently to that PVFM meeting further details about the Local Government Finance Settlement and other matters were made available and these increased the shortfall for 2014/15 by a further £7.528m.
1.3 PVFM on 26 March were presented with a report that included a number of options to meet the shortfall. The Select Committee scrutinised the options and:
a) recognised a need to look at Terms and Conditions of Employment for staff in relation to sickness absence, but that all options should be thoroughly explored. The reduction of pay for the first three days of sickness for everyone should not be considered; and
b) recognised the Troubled Families prototype was in its early stages, and that a progress report should be presented to the Committee in a further six months.
1.4 The report was then taken to Cabinet on 8 April 2013 who approved the options and commended the 14/15 budget options to Council for consultation where needed.
1.5 This report presents the Administration’s proposed savings for 2014/15 to bridge the remaining budget gap.
2 Current Position Nationally
2.1 The challenging financial position continues and it is anticipated that there will be further pressure on budgets, especially in the public sector, and these are likely to be outlined in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) for the next four year period.
2.2 The CSR is anticipated to be released during the middle of the year but predictions on timing based on recent experiences with Government announcements is proving to be somewhat speculative. However it is likely that the element of funding that is left within Central Government control, being Revenue Support Grant (RSG), is the area that could potentially drop
Page 3 of 74 Page 161 by a significant amount, as witnessed by the reductions from 2012/13 to 2014/15.
2.3 The national financial position is not optimistic and thus not helpful:
It is possible that DCLG will continue to be an “unprotected” service and will face major reductions in support National borrowing is currently forecast to be higher than anticipated in 2014/15 alone which will have to be addressed A mix of tax rises, spending reductions or further welfare reform is possible for the financial year 2015/16 onwards
2.4 The Government has continued along the work programme it set out in the National Coalition Agreement in May 2010. This has resulted in major changes to the role of, and arrangements for, local authorities. Key changes in the policy landscape include:
Public Service Reform Changes to role and duties of local government Local Government Finance Welfare Reform
3 Oldham Council Position
3.1 Oldham remains positioned to be able to adapt and adjust to meet some of the new challenges. Since 2008, the Council has been on a journey of recovery and improvement that has led to a number of positive outcomes and achievements recognised through the Most Improved Council award in March 2012. The improvement journey has also provided a firm base from which to reposition the Council. This means developing different ways of working and preparing for how the Council will deliver services in future, for example, moving from being a provider of services to more of a commissioner.
3.2 Financial challenges for the foreseeable future will consist, among others, of the following:
Comprehensive Spending Review
3.3 This will set the landscape against which the next four years budgets will need to be managed and it is envisaged that this will continue to be a challenging position.
Government Grants
3.4 Despite the Government’s previous indications that there would be less input into Local Government finance and that Authorities should become “self- sufficient” from locally raised funds the Government has, from the initial position of rolling most grants into RSG and the Business Rates system,
Page 4 of 74 Page 162 created several new grants or extended existing ones beyond the boundaries they used to cover.
3.5 Were these grants to be non-ringfenced then the Council would have the ability to utilise them for the priorities that it has set out, rather than being directed by the grant requirements. However it appears that this may be the style of funding to be allocated in future and this will limit the ability of the Council to meet existing budget issues and local priorities.
3.6 In addition to these there are other grants and sources of funding which support the Revenue Budget including Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), Education Services Grant (ESG) (replacing Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG)) and Public Health transfers from the NHS. Clearly changes in the levels of grant / income from these areas will have the potential to increase pressure on the revenue budget and the services provided to the public may have to be adapted or decommissioned as a result of these and other funding pressures.
Business Rates (NNDR)
3.7 Under the localisation of Business Rates the Council retains 49% of the rates collected, after allowing for costs of and loses on collection. Government receives 50% and the remaining 1% is due to the Fire Authority.
3.8 This is against a “target” determined by DCLG in the start-up funding assessment for each Council and it should be noted that there is now a greater risk to the Authority from any potential non-collection of current and outstanding past debts that did not exist previously. Also where any future mandatory or discretionary reliefs are given to organisations then this reduction in collectable rates will also be shared in the proportions above.
New Homes Bonus
3.9 The New Homes Bonus (NHB) is made up of two elements, one of which is related to new homes built or brought back into use, and a second element which is a redistribution of centrally top-sliced funding for the NHB programme nationally. It should be noted that that actual number of new homes built / brought back in the year to September 2013 may not result in the identified grant and that the reallocated top-slice is dependent on the national number of new homes built / brought back which may result an increase or decrease in this element.
Council Tax Localisation and Collectability
3.10 Under localisation of Council Tax a substantial proportion of households who either did not receive a Council Tax bill, because they received full benefit, or who received a bill reduced by such benefit will from 1 April 2013 be required to pay more towards their Council Tax bills. Additionally there are additional charges to some property owners (e.g. second homes) over the previous system.
Page 5 of 74 Page 163
3.11 In both of these instances the collection rates for these additional liabilities, combined with general difficulties in collection in these times of austerity, will mean that there is a greater risk that the amount of Council Tax collected may not reach that budgeted.
Council Tax
3.12 The position for Council Tax for 2014/15 is not yet clear, information is awaited on this which may impact on the Authority’s financial position for 2014/15.
4 Options to address the balance of the £7.528m
4.1 The PVFM meeting of 26 th March 2013 and Cabinet meeting of 8 th April 2013 were presented with options that bridged the gap.
4.2 Proposals received are summarised by portfolio below and are detailed in full at Appendix 1 and with option forms at Appendix 2:-
2014/15 Portfolio (£'000) Commercial 1,750 Commissioning * 3,480 Deputy Chief Executive 1,650 Neighbourhoods 650 Total 7,530 Gap 7,528 Remaining Gap -2
* includes joint commissioning and commercial services work
5 TIMETABLE
5.1 It is intended that the options will be agreed by Council for consultation where needed. The results of the consultation and Equality Impact Assessments, where appropriate, will be brought back to a later PVFM, for commendation to Cabinet for final approval. Council in February 2014 will approve the final budget but the detail of all of the 2014/15 options, with Equality Impact Assessments where appropriate, will have been formally signed off by Cabinet.
5.2 If following consultation, Cabinet do not feel that a proposal should be taken forward, or that further work is required, this will be raised at the Cabinet meeting and next steps resolved at that same Cabinet meeting.
Page 6 of 74 Page 164
6 Financial Implications
6.1 Dealt with in full in this report.
7 Legal Services Comments
7.1 The Council has a legal obligation to pass a resolution to pass its budget and Council Tax resolutions by March 2014. There are legal issues contained in the body of the report. (B Balmer)
8 Cooperative Agenda
8.1 The Council will ensure that its budget setting process addresses the repositioning of the Council as a Co-operative Council linking to Oldham’s ambition for a Co-operative Future.
9 Human Resources Comments
9.1 Due to the council setting a 2 year budget, the S188 documentation issued for the 13/14 savings also provided information on options that had been identified at that time for 2014/15. This was so, at the earliest stage, staff and unions would have the fullest picture possible on how the Council was intending to meet the forthcoming budget challenge. This did not include indicative staffing impact numbers and was for information purposes only at that point. It was clarified that full and proper consultation would take place on these and any additional options identified for 2014/15 at an appropriate time in 2013 and with the issuing of a further S188 document.
9.2 It is expected that this S188 in respect of the 2014/15 budget proposals will be presented to the trade unions on the 24 th April and which will start the minimum 90-day consultation period with employees and the unions. This will include both those options already identified together with the options for this additional £7.528m.
9.3 However due to the change of process, the options, which contribute much to of the 14/15 budget savings were agreed by Council in December 2012 and the additional options which make up the £7.528m are now being presented to this Council for approval. Both in advance of consultation with the unions, staff and public having started and concluded.
9.4 The purpose of consultation is that it is meaningful and with a view to reaching agreement. For this to be the case all options must be able to be amended or overturned as a result of consultation. Should this not be the case the council if challenged will run the risk of a ”protective award” being made which could mean up to 12 weeks pay being awarded for every employee not properly consulted.
Page 7 of 74 Page 165 9.5 The council budget for 14/15 will be set in February 2014 so it is important that it is clear that:
i) The purpose of both PVfM and the Council considering this £7.528m of savings options in April is in order to approve for consultation and that any such approval is in principle. Any final decisions at a later date would be subject to the outcomes of that full and meaningful consultation.
ii) The 14/15 options, which were presented to Council in December and February, are indicative of what the council intends to do to set a balanced budget for 14/15 and that these again are subject to meaningful consultation with staff, trades unions and public.
9.6 This means that there is the requirement for all 2014/15 options to be considered by a future appropriate Cabinet meeting for amendment, withdrawal or ratification.
9.7 The additional £7.528m also identifies that savings will be achieved by further changes to employee terms and conditions of service. This will be a complex and contentious process and we will need time to engage with the workforce and Trade Unions to determine whether alternative and mutually acceptable options may be considered to achieve savings. Work on how we approach this process and potential timescales has commenced and will require legal opinion. However it is considered that the full process cannot be completed in less than 12 months. (S Blackman)
10 IT Implications
10.1 Many of the budget proposals require the more efficient use of existing computerised systems. Any costs associated with any improvements to systems have been factored into the net budget savings put forward.
11 Property Implications
11.1 Any impacts on asset management have been factored into the proposals identified or will be dealt with as part of the previously approved asset management strategy.
12 Procurement Implications
12.1 Any proposals that impact on the procurement of goods, services etc will be undertaken in full liaison with procurement and in compliance with all necessary Council and statutory requirements.
13 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications
13.1 Environmental and Health and Safety implications will be taken into account when dealing with the individual proposals as appropriate.
Page 8 of 74 Page 166
14 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications
14.1 In taking financial decisions the Council must demonstrate that it has given “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and promote good relations between different groups.
14.2 Demonstrating that “due regard” has been given involves: assessing the potential equality impacts of proposed decisions at an appropriate stage in the decision making process - so that it informs the development of policy and is considered before a decision is taken; ensuring that decision makers are aware of the equality duties and any potential equality issues when making decisions.
NB – having due regard does not mean the Council cannot make decisions which impact disproportionately, it means that we must be clear where this is the case, and must be able to demonstrate that we have consulted, understood and mitigated the impact.
14.3 To ensure that the process of impact assessment is robust, it needs to: Be specific to each individual proposal; Be clear about the purpose of the proposal; Consider available evidence; Include consultation and involvement with those affected by the decision, where appropriate; Consider proposals for mitigating any negative impact on particular groups; Set out arrangements for monitoring the actual impact of the proposal.
14.4 The Equality Act 2010 extends the public sector equality duties to cover eight protected characteristics, namely:
age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief and sexual orientation.
In December 2010, the Government announced that it would not be taking forward the socio-economic duty for public bodies. Despite this we have continued to consider people on low incomes as part of our equality impact assessment process.
Page 9 of 74 Page 167 Oldham’s approach to assessing the impact
14.5 Assessing the potential equality impact of proposed changes to policies, procedures and practices is one of the key ways in which public authorities can show ‘due regard’. Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs), therefore, provide a structured framework which enables the Council to ensure that it considers the equality impact of decisions, and to demonstrate to others that it has done so.
14.6 Building on the strengthened approach that we adopted last year, we have again made a number of improvements to the equality impact assessment process for the budget setting process 2013/14. The EIA form has been remodelled based on the experience of last year’s budget process and also to incorporate elements from good practice elsewhere. The main aims of remodelling the EIA have been to:
• strengthen the process through improved accountability – identifying a lead officer for each EIA; • stimulate a more rigorous and overt analysis of the impact and possible mitigations; • implement a stronger equality monitoring and management process to ensure that we follow through on what we said we would do. This includes identifying risks to implementation and how these will be managed.
14.7 The equality impact assessment process undertaken for the Council’s budget process involves:
An initial equality impact screening – The budget proposal action plan forms completed by each Assistant Executive Director (AED)/ Service Manager incorporate an initial equality screening to identify whether any proposal has a significant disproportionate adverse impact in respect of any protected characteristic i.e. whether the impact of the proposal falls disproportionately on any particular group – such as people with a disability.
The initial screenings are then independently reviewed by a small group with knowledge of the equality legislation, comprising the Deputy Cabinet Member for Finance and HR, a senior officer from the Deputy Chief Executive’s directorate, a senior officer from the Neighbourhoods directorate and a lawyer from the Legal Services team.
14.8 The key aims of this review process are to:
assess the potential equality impact of each proposal using the information provided
Page 10 of 74 Page 168 provide challenge to those where the Group feel the initial screening does not accurately identify those equality groups potentially affected and that a further screening process needs to be completed.
14.9 Full equality impact assessment – An equality impact assessment is carried out if the initial screening identifies that the proposal could have a potential significant, disproportionate adverse equality impact.
14.10 It is intended that the options will be agreed by Council for consultation where needed. The results of the consultation and Equality Impact Assessments, where appropriate, will be brought back to a later PVFM, for commendation to Cabinet for final approval. Council in February 2014 will approve the final budget but the detail of all of the 2014/15 options, with Equality Impact Assessments where appropriate, will have been formally signed off by Cabinet.
14.11 If following consultation, Cabinet do not feel that a proposal should be taken forward, or that further work is required, this will be raised at the Cabinet meeting and next steps resolved at that same Cabinet meeting.
Involving elected members
14.12 A key element to assessing the equality impact has been the involvement of elected members. This involvement has included:
The Deputy Member for Finance and HR sits on the Equality Challenge Group. Consideration of equality impact throughout the Star Chamber process, including through the initial screenings on the proposal forms and a briefing paper. Briefings between Executive Directors and Cabinet Members during development of proposals and working together to consider the equality impacts and identify any mitigating actions. Both the EIA screening information contained with the budget proposals and the EIA forms themselves, are submitted to, and considered by the Performance and Value for Money Scrutiny Panel NB: The EIA forms are still in draft at this stage, as consultation is still ongoing in some cases; Final EIAs are made available to the decision makers.
Public consultation
14.13 See paragraphs 14.10 and 14.11.
Implications for financial decisions
14.14 In taking financial decisions the Council must demonstrate that it has given “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and promote good relations between different groups.
Page 11 of 74 Page 169 14.15 Demonstrating that “due regard” has been given involves:
assessing the potential equalities impact of proposed decisions at an appropriate stage in the decision making process – so that it informs the development of policy and is considered before a decision is taken; ensuring that decision makers are aware of the equality duties and any potential equality issues when making decisions.
14.16 To ensure that the process of impact assessment is robust, it needs to:
Be specific to each individual proposal; Be clear about the purpose of the proposal; Consider available evidence; Include consultation and involvement with those affected by the decision; Consider proposals for mitigating any negative impact on particular groups; Set out arrangements for monitoring the actual impact of the proposal.
14.17 The Council in adhering to the legal requirements is already completing EIAs and progress will be reported on these throughout the budget preparation as it was last year.
15 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?
15.1 It is intended that the options are to be approved for consultation where needed by Council. The results of the detail and consultation and Equality Impact Assessments, where appropriate, will be brought back to a later PVFM for commendation to Cabinet for final approval. Council in February 2014 will approve the final budget but the detail of all of the 2014/15 options with Equality Impact Assessments, where appropriate, will have been formally signed off by Cabinet.
15.2 No EIA will be finalised until after any relevant consultation has closed and the consultation outcomes considered and incorporated into the EIA as appropriate.
15.3 If following consultation, Cabinet do not feel that a proposal can be taken forward, or that further work is required, this will be raised at the Cabinet meeting and next steps resolved at that same Cabinet meeting.
16 Key Decision
16.1 No
17 Forward Plan Reference
17.1 Not applicable
Page 12 of 74 Page 170
Page 13 of 74 Page 171
18 Background Papers
18.1 The following is a list of background papers on which this report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by the Act:
File Ref & Name of File: CouncilBudgetReport170413 Records held in Level 14, Finance Department, Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham
Officer Name : Anne Ryans Contact No : 4902
23 Appendices
A summary of proposals B detailed proposals
Page 14 of 74 Page 172
Budget options - 2014/2015 Appendix A Staffing Impact FTE 2014/15 Theme Ref Portfolio Proposal 2014/15 (£'000) Income/Decommissioning aimed at BWWTS 14 103 Commercial reducing Council Subsidies to Services 10.0 500.0 BWWTS 14 104 Commercial Settlement Funding 0.0 500.0 BWWTS 14 110 Commercial Unity / Stretch Target N/A 750.0 Total for Commercial Services 10.0 1,750.0
ASDM 14 101 Commissioning Integrating Adult and Children's Services 7.0 1,110.0 BWWTS 14 105 Commissioning Clinical Commissioning Group TBC 300.0 Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of BWWTS 14 106 Commissioning externally commissioned services TBC 1,020.0 BWWTS 14 107 Commissioning Public Health TBC 1,050.0 Total for Commissioning 7.0 3,480.0
Public Sector Reform (linked to the Deputy Chief solutions proposed to deliver the BWWTS 14 102 Executive Commissioning with Health savings target) TBC 500.0 Deputy Chief FVP 14 101 Executive Early Years 2.0 150.0 BWWTS 14 Deputy Chief Terms and Conditions - Increments and 109a Executive Overtime 0.0 600.0 BWWTS 14 Deputy Chief 109b Executive Terms and Conditions - Sickness 0.0 400.0 Total for Deputy Chief Executive 2.0 1,650.0
Rationalisation of Health & Safety BWWTS 14 101 Neighbourhoods Wellbeing & Environmental Health Teams TBC 100.0 Increase in Cremation and Purchase of a NEIGH 14 101 Neighbourhoods New Grave fees 0.0 150.0 Community Safety - Post devolution alignment of local budgets within NEIGH 14 102 Neighbourhoods Community 0.0 40.0 NEIGH 14 103 Neighbourhoods Review of Library Resources 0.0 60.0 NEIGH 14 104 Neighbourhoods Review of District Assets and Services. TBC 200.0 BWWTS 14 108 Neighbourhoods Advice Services TBC 100.0 Total for Neighbourhoods 0.0 650.0
Totals 19.0 7,530.0 Target 7,528.0
Page 15 of 74 Page 173 Gap on Current Target -2.0 Appendix B Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 103 Portfolio: Commercial Theme: Better Ways of Working and Transactional Services Section: Council wide Lead Member: Various depending on service
Proposal: Income/Decommissioning Aimed at reducing Council subsidies to services
2013/14 Expenditure N/A – review authority wide Budget for the section:
Income N/A – review authority wide Net Expenditure N/A – review authority wide
Total posts numbers FTE N/A – review authority wide in section:
Actuals N/A – review authority wide
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £nil £500k £nil Proposed reduction in FTE’s 10 (estimated) Proposed reduction in actuals
Background
As the Income and Decommissioning theme has been progressing it has become apparent that there are clear links between and benefits to be derived from work involving business units and in particular through a commissioning approach. This approach will be targeted at business units which are deemed likely to benefit most in terms of both the potential to reduce costs and to improve quality.
The commissioning approach will take into account a number of factors including looking at all components of the business unit, looking for synergies and potential integration with other services, looking at different funding options, delivery models and comparisons with other local authorities in order to give a full options appraisal. This will allow the focus to be on the overall outcomes of the business unit and remove unnecessary subsidisation from Council Tax payers.
Page 16 of 74 Page 174
Outcomes and Key Outputs
Initially the Authority will achieve additional income or reduced cost for a series of services. In the longer term the Authority will document its decision as whether to subsidise its services.
Proposed savings
1. £500k (2014/15) - Subsidy Reductions/ Commissioning review/ Decommissioning
By adopting a Commissioning approach across a targeted selection of Business Units the Authority will be able to identify ways of reducing the net cost to Council Tax whilst ensuring that the desired outputs are delivered.
Working with Senior and Operational managers across the selected services, Commissioners will perform service reviews to identify the key outputs for each area and those activities that do not add value to the priorities. They will also produce action plans to ensure that any proposed subsidy reductions are implemented. The subsidy reduction through a commissioning approach does not necessarily mean a reduction in the service level, it will consider alternative methods of delivering service and the generation of income and harvesting of other efficiencies where possible.
There are a number of areas that the project will focus upon. It is anticipated that not all areas will generate budget savings however will benefit from the commissioning review. Areas to be examined include:
• Highways • Museums • Libraries • Grounds allotments • Strategic Transport • Traded Services • Contracts • Statutory duties • Decommissioned building costs • Children’s respite provision • Transformation support delivery method • Building cleaning • Other services sold to schools • Other high value services that have not previously been reviewed
How would this affect the users of this service
Service users may experience higher charges to access services deemed non priority by the Council.
Page 17 of 74 Page 175
Key Milestones
Identification and implementation of subsidy reductions by 1 April 2014. Key Consultations
Portfolio Holders Service Managers EMT Service Users
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact
Key Risks and Mitigations
The key risk is the reduced subsidy of a particular service being contrary to Political priorities. To mitigate this, service reductions in key areas will be consulted upon with Portfolio Holders.
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people TBC Particular ethnic groups TBC Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) TBC People of particular sexual orientation/s TBC People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have TBC undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes TBC People in particular age groups TBC Groups with particular faiths/beliefs TBC
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
Page 18 of 74 Page 176
EIA required: EIA screenings will be carried out on each proposal and an EIA completed where it shows a disproportionate adverse effect. EIA to be completed by: Steve Mair / Paul Cassidy By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Steve Mair / Paul Cassidy By: 6/3/2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 19 of 74 Page 177
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 104 Portfolio: Commercial Theme: Better Ways of Working and Transactional Services Section: Borough Treasurer Lead Member: Cllr Jabbar
Proposal: Settlement Funding To utilise £0.5m of funding arising from the settlement and finalisation of the budget
2013/14 Expenditure £k Budget for the section: Income £k Net Expenditure £k Total posts numbers FTE in section: Actuals 2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: 500 Proposed reduction in FTE’s 0 Proposed reduction in 0 actuals
Background
Within the Council Budget Report in February 2013 an item was included to offset risks for uncertainties in funding issues including the New Homes Bonus and the Education Services Grant. It is anticipated that these items will be clarified during this year and thus, within the parameters currently understood and before the CSR in the Summer, the carry forward of the full value of the 2013/14 pressure will not be required.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
Contribution to balance the base budget
Proposed savings
To utilise £0.5m of funding arising from the settlement and finalisation of the budget.
How would this affect the users of this service
There will be no direct implication on users.
Page 20 of 74 Page 178
Key Milestones
Budget for 2013/14 and budget savings targets for 2014/15 of £12.976m set at February 2013 Council Additional budget savings targets for 2014/15 of £7.528m presented to July 2013 Council
Monthly budget monitoring through 2013/14 to maintain spend within the set budget.
Key Consultations
Consultation with EMT and the Member for Finance.
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact None
Key Risks and Mitigations
Maintenance of the 2013/14 budget within the limits set at Council in February 2013 which will be managed through monthly budget monitoring through 2013/14.
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people No Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes No People in particular age groups No Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
Page 21 of 74 Page 179 If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for- ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: No EIA to be completed by: Enter name of officer By: Enter the date by which the assessment will be complete
Responsible Officer: Steve Mair th By: 8 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 22 of 74 Page 180
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 110 Portfolio: Commercial Services Theme: Betters Ways of Working and Transactional Services Section : Various Services Within Unity Lead Member: Cllr Abdul Jabbar
Proposal : To continue the work to review and where necessary revise service delivery and costs within Unity
2013/14 Expenditure £k (to be confirmed for the Budget for the section: Income services identified in the Net Expenditure worked up proposals) Total posts numbers FTE in section: Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: 750 Proposed reduction in FTE’s N/A Proposed reduction in N/A actuals
Background
As one of a number initiatives by Unity to deliver savings to the Council under the contract Unity will continue its work to review and where necessary revise service delivery and costs within Unity
Areas where the savings will be targeted from are described below.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
To continue to maintain as high standards of customer care to the citizens of Oldham as possible within the available budget
Proposed savings
Work will be undertaken with Unity to review areas currently being examined to identify where stretch can be applied to existing proposals, particularly but not solely in the areas of ICT, property, exchequer and service costs
How would this affect the users of this service
Page 23 of 74 Page 181 Any impact on service users, both internal and external, will be minimised as far as possible Key Milestones
No key milestones have been set. This will be developed when this initiative is being fully scoped out and project plan is finalised. The savings will need to be realised from the 1 April 2014.
Key Consultations
Internal consultations between Unity and Council management, if appropriate then service users will be consulted
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations No identified impact at this stage
Key Risks and Mitigations
Key Risks Mitigations
Failure to implement key changes A full project plan will be in place and that result in the savings not monitored on a regular basis materialising. Unity may not release the saving on As part of the project sign off both the basis that they feel the parties will agree on the key dependences on the council have not dependences that Unity require of the been met. Council. Other initiatives program may impact Both parties will ensure that the the delivery on the saving. saving from this initiative is not double counted and any initiative is operated independently.
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people TBC Particular ethnic groups TBC Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) TBC People of particular sexual orientation/s TBC People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have TBC undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes TBC People in particular age groups TBC Groups with particular faiths/beliefs TBC
Page 24 of 74 Page 182
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: EIA screenings will be carried out on each proposal and an EIA completed where it shows a disproportionate adverse effect. EIA to be completed by: Emma Alexander By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Emma Alexander By: 18 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 25 of 74 Page 183
Budget Information
Reference: ASDM 14 101 Portfolio: Commissioning Theme: Alternative Service Delivery Model Section: Education and Safeguarding, Adult Services Lead Member: Cllr H McDonald, Cllr S Dearden
Proposal: To achieve further savings to those already identified as a result of integrating Adult and Children’s Services
2013/14 Expenditure Adult Services £40.4 million Budget for the section: Children’s Services £23.3 million Income £k Net Expenditure £k Total posts numbers FTE in section: Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £1,110k Proposed reduction in FTE’s Proposed reduction in 7 (Additional) actuals
Background
The integration of Adult and Children’s Services has presented opportunities to adopt common approaches and processes in addition to previously identified activity to combine management roles and delivery arrangements which have offered significant savings to date.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
The services covered by these proposals encompass a wide range of activity delivering services to Oldham’s most vulnerable residents across the age ranges. People have crossed some ‘threshold’ of need which requires assessment and a service response. The paramount driver is to keep people safe in line with the statutory requirements placed on the Council. Whilst many services are geared towards maintaining or regaining independence mostly in their own homes, for some of our most vulnerable the only options are residential or alternative family provision.
Page 26 of 74 Page 184
Proposed savings
There are several areas across both adult and children’s services where the opportunities for additional savings in 2014/15 have been identified.
1. Additional Efficiencies from Social Care Provider Services – £460,000
Within Adult Services, the decision to move towards a Trading Arm model has already identified substantial efficiencies and within Children’s Social Care considerable savings have been offered from Provider services which include consideration of alternative delivery models.
By continuing the work programmes already underway and stretching the associated financial targets additional savings of £460,000 across both service areas have been identified.
Within Adult Services it is anticipated that the utilisation of existing supported accommodation (Mill View) on the lines of an extra care housing model would enable the service to decommission five other supported living properties currently accommodating individuals with learning disabilities. Some of the five properties to be targeted are considered as being no longer fit for purpose and no longer suitable or appropriate to meet the long term needs of those individuals.
There are currently three Older Peoples Day care Centres all operating on average at less than 65%. Therefore the second proposal is that we relocate the service users currently at the Highbarn Day Care Centre at Ena Hughes Centre or Laurel Bank.
Alternatively Individuals have the option to purchase services of their choice with their individualised budgets within their local communities.
In Children’s Services, stretch targets will be put against the development of an alternative delivery model for After Care Support which may involve the transfer of the service to another not for profit provider. Further reduction of the costs of provision likely to remain in house is also proposed (children’s homes, corporate parenting and family placement) and there should be additional efficiencies as a result of streamlining processes due to the creation of the All Age Disability service.
2. Integrated arrangements and approach to charging for services - £250,000
By developing a formal charging policy in Children’s Services for short breaks (children with disabilities) in line with current practice in Adult Services, the Council can begin to recoup income against service spend. It is also proposed to charge for money management services, leading to break-even/no subsidy for providing this service by 14/15.
Increased income from Helpline charges can be identified – significantly more people have opted for mid-range service than originally anticipated.
Page 27 of 74 Page 185 Further improvements in financial processes will bring in more income from non- residential service charges.
3. Savings from Assessment and Care Management Functions £400,000 Further savings have been identified linked to channel shift, new technology and telephony access, a rationalisation of our 24-hour “front-door” offer and improved outcomes using the reablement and response services. Better use of prevention services, better information and advice via the web and developments around integrated health and social care teams should drive further efficiencies at neighbourhood team level.
How would this affect the users of this service
• Reducing the costs of service provision inevitably involves some rationalisation of delivery arrangements and reprioritisation of spend. Where services to our most vulnerable residents are concerned we will aim to ensure continuity of service and minimum disruption. Although service quality may be adversely impacted we would seek to prevent this having a detrimental impact on outcomes. Due consideration will need to paid to the negative cost implications of deteriorating performance in factors such as placement stability for Looked After Children.
• The introduction or widening of any charging policy could act as a deterrent to people accessing services and the Council would need to ensure that the interests the most vulnerable were not adversely affected. Most charging policies have a direct link to the level of disability benefits an individual or household receives and it appears other local authorities are considering similar moves to Oldham in respect of children with disabilities. There is a current nominal charging policy in place for non-assessed short breaks.
• The changes in relation to Assessment and Care Management could lead to Improvement in the access and make safe service and swifter responses for service users.
Key Milestones
• The proposed savings against social care provision and assessment /care management are to be factored in to the existing workstreams within the overarching programme approach
• The approval of a charging policy for children’s short break services – November 2013
Key Consultations
• Affected Staff Groups/Trade Unions • Service Users/Carers • Partner Organisations
Page 28 of 74 Page 186
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact The Children’s Society Current providers of a Children’s Rights and Advocacy contract that may be rolled up into a delivery model including some in house services Not known as yet The development of alternative delivery models will present opportunities for VCS organisations to be considered as delivery partners
Key Risks and Mitigations
Service changes result in user Active consultation and interim dissatisfaction and adverse public arrangements (e.g. transport to reaction alternative provision) may limit the impact
Any expansion of the current low level A thorough process of consultation and approach to charging for services to engagement and a policy that is fair and SEND children may result in challenge by transparent are essential as will be the parents/user groups and potentially to a inclusion of safeguards for the most reduced take up of services. vulnerable and the least well off. The charging policy will be linked to benefit income received.
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people Yes Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes Yes People in particular age groups Yes Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
Page 29 of 74 Page 187
EIA required: Initial EIA screening – many proposals will be rolled into existing activity for which an EIA has been done, however where additional ones are identified these will be carried out on a case by case basis EIA to be completed by: E Francis By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Ed Francis By: 07.03.13
Page 30 of 74 Page 188
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 105 Portfolio: Commissioning (links also to proposal on Public Sector Reform (PSR) within Deputy Chief Execs remit)
Theme: Better Ways of Working and Transactional Services Section: Commissioning Lead Member: Cllr Dearden
Proposal: To work with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and other partners to develop investment agreements/invest to save initiatives. The target Council share of these savings is £300,000: - Health and Social Care including focus on joint commissioning programmes with Clinical Commissioning Group (e.g. mental health, ageing well/falls, urgent care, end of life care)
2014/15 Expenditure N/A Budget for the section: Income Net Expenditure Total posts numbers FTE N/A in section: Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: 0k £300k through integrated commissioning (solutions will be additional to those to deliver £500k savings from PSR) Proposed reduction in FTE’s 0 TBC TBC Proposed reduction in actuals
Background
The rationale for community budgets and PSR is summarised in the related template for PSR efficiencies.
Page 31 of 74 Page 189 To support this work, further joint commissioning opportunities will be explored and implemented with the CCG which link to PSR approaches. This is to ensure a whole- system approach to health and social care areas identified above. It will also be through consolidating and expanding existing work around integrated teams, risk profiling, prevention, demand management and behaviour change.
It is recognised that this proposal is high risk as it is dependent on the CCG and other partners signing up to investment agreements and having clearly agreed models in place for allocating benefits and efficiencies. This is particularly the case for those areas which impact on hospital admissions as the efficiencies will not be the Council’s and decisions will need to be made with partners about shifts in investments and distribution of overall efficiencies.
In addition many of the integrated commissioning priorities including mental health, falls and urgent care in particular, will form part of the service redesign work in adults services and will therefore be impacting on the same budgets already earmarked for star chamber efficiencies.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
• Redesign public sector services to improve outcomes in the following areas:
o Reduce falls;
o Reduce repeat acute mental health admissions;
o Reduce repeat hospital admissions;
o Increased focus on reablement and recovery models in urgent care thereby reducing inappropriate admissions to residential care and repeat hospital admissions
• By improving these outcomes, reduce demand on reactive public sector services, for example:
o Falls-related hospital admissions;
o Falls-related social care referrals;
o Reduced A&E attendances
o Reduced reliance on residential care
This will link to the joint commissioning savings plans to:
• Develop further joint commissioning priorities and ‘stretch targets’ and whole system redesign to release efficiencies supporting PSR including:
Page 32 of 74 Page 190 o Integrated delivery – expanding beyond current continuing healthcare team and the developing integrated health and social care teams dealing with high risk patients identified via primary care
o Urgent care whole system integration aligned with local and AGMA priorities re health and social care integration models
Proposed savings
By working with partners to clarify the cost savings associated with the above reductions in demand, and through releasing efficiencies through joint commissioning we have set a target of £300k from commissioning with health (solutions to be linked to those developed through PSR saving of £500k), to be made up from a combination of increased income to the Council and direct savings.
How would this affect the users of this service
The premise is to reduce demand on services by improving outcomes for service users, so the impact is positive.
Key Milestones
High level business cases developed by end April Detailed financial investigation with partners by end May Detailed business cases agreed with partners by end July Final legal agreement signed by end November
Key Consultations
Current consultations identified with partners as above. Any consultations with residents will be identified through the development of the high level business cases in April.
Stakeholder engagement and involvement regarding commissioning with health will include comprehensive discussions and influence via Urgent Care Partnership Board and the Integrated Commissioning Partnership (ICP).
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact
Key Risks and Mitigations 1. The key risk is that realising the savings is dependent on partners signing up to the investment agreements. It is therefore not fully (and controllably) in the council’s gift to deliver the savings, but is reliant on influencing and negotiating with partners.
The Council has already begun to gain partner buy-in to this way of working through the Fuel Poverty and Troubled Families exemplars. There is dedicated time allocated
Page 33 of 74 Page 191 to detailed negotiations with partners, from both a service delivery and a finance perspective.
2. A further risk is the capacity within the system to support the changes required to transform systems and behaviours particularly due to NHS organisational change and the new commissioning roles and the role of the GM commissioning support unit. The ICP will be required to oversee and tackle these challenges.
3. Another risk is that one of the beneficiaries of reduced demand on reactive services (and therefore one of the agencies making savings) will be the Council. For example, social care and localised benefits are likely to be key areas where we reduce demand. If we are asking partners to release savings associated with reduced demand, we will need to be willing to do this ourselves.
4. As outlined in the background, many of the integrated commissioning priorities including mental health, falls and urgent care in particular, will form part of the service redesign work in adults services and will therefore be impacting on the same budgets already earmarked for star chamber efficiencies. This is a significant risk to delivering the overall targets.
Equality Impact Screening Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people Yes Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes No People in particular age groups Yes Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: Yes EIA to be completed by: Michelle Bradley By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Michelle Bradley By: 07.03.13
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 34 of 74 Page 192
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 106 Portfolio: Commissioning Theme: Better Ways of Working and Transactional Services Section: Cross Cutting Lead Member: Cllr H McDonald, Cllr S Dearden
Proposal: To achieve savings of £1.02 million through activity across the Council to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of externally commissioned services
2013/14 Expenditure Approximately £90 million Budget for the section: Contract Spend
Income £k Net Expenditure £k Total posts numbers FTE in section: Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £1,020 Proposed reduction in FTE’s TBC Proposed reduction in actuals
Background
Across the Council, there is the ongoing opportunity to reprioritise activity and drive down service and contract costs in relation to externally commissioned services which currently cost the Council in excess of £90 million. Savings have been previously offered for 2013/14 and 2014/15 against contract costs from many service areas and procurement processes but there is the potential to build on this as the commissioning led approach is rolled out.
The application of the commissioning approach gives the best chance of generating further savings with the least impact on the level and quality of frontline delivery against a backdrop of rising demand in many areas. This proposal will not just focus on ‘one offs’ and is linked to ongoing activity which should contribute to savings proposals in future years. The Commissioning Hub will drive the process and offer support to Directorates in their adoption of medium and longer term approaches.
Page 35 of 74 Page 193
Outcomes and Key Outputs
The areas of activity covered by these proposals stretch across the supply of goods and services across both ‘People and Place’ agendas. The main areas of external spend on services for the public relate to service contracts within Adult and Children’s social care and include targeted and specialist services.
Proposed savings
The main approach to achieving the £1,020,000 savings are as follows
1. Review of the Council’s priorities within the ‘High Needs’ Block of its DSG allocation from central government. The focus of the review will be to create better alignment with what the Council funds from mainstream resources in carrying out its statutory functions for children with Special Education Needs and that funded by Dedicated Schools Grant. This will include particular consideration of the current funding arrangements for SEN home to school transport which is currently commissioned from the mainstream budget. It is anticipated that savings of £300,000 could be made by this process in2014/15.
2. Review and Respecification of Contracts with External Providers Throughout 2013/14 there will be activity to review currently commissioned activity particularly in relation to People services but also across the Place agenda. This process will involve detailed negotiations with provider organisations (including with major delivery partners such as Pennine Care NHS Trust) and a realignment of commissioning priorities. It is anticipated that some activity will be decommissioned and that in other cases, contract price reductions will be agreed with providers. The process is expected to deliver additional savings of £720,000 in 2014/15 to those previously offered by similar activity.
How would this affect the users of this service
Inevitably as part of any reprioritisation process there may be the cessation, or decommissioning of activity which may include services to the public including vulnerable people. The adoption of a commissioning framework approach however ensures that decisions are arrived at following a full appraisal of available options and alternatives. As a result there will be service improvements and improved outcomes.
Many providers of services to vulnerable people are Voluntary & Community Sector (VCS) organisations and in line with the Council’s Cooperative ethos and approach the commissioning process will ensure that added value and social capital considerations are taken into account when developing new delivery arrangements.
Key Milestones
1. Engagement with Schools Forum September 2013 2. Identification of potential in scope contracts April 2013
Page 36 of 74 Page 194 3. Review and respecification of selected contracts complete December 2013
Key Consultations
• Partner agencies including CCG and schools (via School’s Forum)
• Parents and users of services
• Provider organisations
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact
Affected organisations There will be risks and opportunities as a result of the not known at this stage commissioning process
Key Risks and Mitigations
RISK MITIGATION Partner agreement to those activities which Existing partnership mechanisms and have a shared interface (particularly the increasing move to an integrated schools and the CCG) is critical. commissioning approach between partners and across agendas give the Council a good platform for carrying forward these proposals
The inability to revise service delivery Coordinated approach between the arrangements at sufficient pace to produce Commissioning Hub, lead cashable savings in 2014/15 commissioners and Procurement Team to manage the process in order to meet Council and partner objectives. Additional capacity may need to be secured to support the process.
The inability to revise service delivery Coordinated approach between the arrangements at sufficient pace to produce Commissioning Hub, lead cashable savings in 2014/15 commissioners and Procurement Team to manage the process in order to meet Council and partner objectives. Additional capacity may need to be secured to support the process.
Page 37 of 74 Page 195
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people Yes Particular ethnic groups Not Yet Known Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) Not Yet Known People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes Yes People in particular age groups Yes Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: First Stage Screening Required – Each sub proposal may require its own EIA when precise courses of action become clear. EIA to be completed by: Ed Francis By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Maggie Kufeldt By: 07.03.13
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 38 of 74 Page 196
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 107 Portfolio: Commissioning Theme: Better Ways of Working & Transactional Services Section: Public Health Lead Member: Cllr H McDonald, Cllr S Dearden
Proposal : Movement of existing council services to come within the scope of commissioning responsibilities relating to the Director of Public Health (within the Commissioning Directorate).
This will include provision of funding for these services via the Councils Public Health Grant, resulting in savings in overall council expenditure, and increased opportunities to maximise the health benefits of these services.
2013/14 Expenditure £ 13.59m Budget for the section: Income £ 13.59m Net Expenditure £k Total posts numbers FTE in section: Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 £k £k (addnl) £k Proposed Financial saving: £1,050k £k tbc (see appendices table 1) Proposed reduction in FTE’s Proposed reduction in actuals
1.0 Background
1.1 The Council will receive a grant from the department of health, which is ring fenced for delivery of public health responsibilities and outcomes. This budget has restrictions on its use and expenditure should be auditable separately from other council expenditure. Parts of existing council expenditure contribute to delivery of public health outcomes and can legitimately be moved into the public health budget,
Page 39 of 74 Page 197 so long as it can be demonstrated that this will have a beneficial effect upon the meeting of key PH outcomes.
1.2 It is envisaged that where services are moved to sit under the PH budget, regardless of where these services are currently located across the council directorates, that they become Ph commissioned services, subject to a contract or SLA which has clear deliverables and measureable outcomes. Key performance indicators will be set, which will be monitored, and in the same way that other PH contracts are managed, underperforming services or those not seen to be best value, may be de-commissioned in the future.
1.3 Therefore the commissioning directorate has indicated its intention to avoid simply bringing into the PH budget those services which are being already considered for reduction or closure. This is particularly the case for services which if decommissioned might incur reputation management issues, both for the whole council and for particular councillors and officers. The approach taken when commissioning public health services will be focused on the meeting of PH outcomes, against which the council will be measured. Of note is that performance against these measures will (in subsequent years) influence future funding allocations for Oldham, depending on the Success of the Council in meeting key outcomes.
1.4 The integrity of the ring fence on the public health budget can therefore be protected by ensuring that the existing service provision being moved into the public health budget is rigorously reviewed to effectively deliver public health outcomes. The council will then be in a position to make savings on the investment previously in those services which are moved under the public budget.
2.0 Proposed savings
2.1 It is proposed to move existing council investment to the total £1,050,000 into the public health budget in 2014/15 and thus release the equivalent amount in council savings.
2.2 As part of the proposed review of investment into Public Health and the related budget savings the Council will undertake a review of the available funding, the investment needs of the service and the necessary outcomes. This will ensure that the expenditure is prioritised and spent only where needed and to the levels required. Part of this review will ensure, within the confines of the grant requirements, there is a focus on getting Oldham working and the health benefits that this will bring
3.0 How would this affect the users of this service?
3.1 Service users should see a greater focus on promotion of health and wellbeing through service delivery.
3.2 It is intended that there will be a stakeholder event held with providers and services in order to inform them of the changes to source funding, and indicate our intentions to request that they identify health outcomes arising from their services and how these might be measured, and opportunities for further development of services.
Page 40 of 74 Page 198 We intend to explore the potential for these and related services to come under the umbrella of an integrated ‘wellbeing’ or ‘wellness’ service at a later date.
4.0 Key Milestones
28.2.2013 Outline proposal to SMT 6.3.2013 Completed documentation –full description of services to be moved, and process for setting out contracts/SLAs for these services including full details re budget lines 11.3.2013 Discussion at EMT on 11 th March with a rapid turnaround of changes required for STAR Chamber on 11 th March 25.3.2013 Submission to PVFM
5.0 Key Consultations
Current budget holders (already engaged – proposals originated) Stakeholder communications Lead Councillor – Health (Cllr Dearden)
6.0 Key Risks and Mitigations
Risks include the ability to change service delivery at sufficient pace to maximise impact on the public health outcomes and to ensure compliance with audit requirements on the public health budget.
7.0 Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: Yes / No Disabled people TBC Particular ethnic groups TBC Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) TBC People of particular sexual orientation/s TBC People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have TBC undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes TBC People in particular age groups TBC Groups with particular faiths/beliefs TBC
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: EIA screenings will be done alongside the detailed development of the proposal and EIA’s will be carried out
Page 41 of 74 Page 199 where necessary EIA to be completed by: Andrea Fallen By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Andrea Fallen By: 07.03.13
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 42 of 74 Page 200
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 102 Portfolio: Deputy Chief Executive Theme: Public Sector Reform Section: Early Intervention and Families Lead Member: Cllr Jean Stretton
Proposal: To develop investment agreements with partners around the Public Sector Reform Themes, to generate savings cross sector in addition to those already identified within the Council . The target Council share of these savings is £500,000: - Health and Social Care including focus on joint commissioning programmes with Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) (e.g. mental health, ageing well/falls, urgent care, end of life care) - Transforming Justice (domestic violence focus) - Employment & Skills (precise focus to be determined via CEMB public sector reform task and finish group). Please note that in all of these cases, the workstreams will be enablers to driving savings from other sections of the public sector. They are not the areas that savings will be taken from in themselves. Please also note that this is in addition to the £300,000 saving already identified for troubled families.
2014/15 Expenditure Across the public sector, Budget for the section: there is over £100million spent on these services. Income More detailed financial Net Expenditure analysis scheduled for May 2013 will identify Total posts numbers FTE TBC in section: Actuals TBC
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £500k PSR (solutions will be in addition to those identified by Commissioning) Proposed reduction in FTE’s TBC
Page 43 of 74 Page 201 Proposed reduction in TBC actuals
Background
Public sector reform and community budget approaches start from the simple premise that there is a huge amount of money spent across the public sector every year (in Greater Manchester as a whole, it is around £20 billion): there must be a more effective way of spending that money to achieve improved outcomes for residents if we join up planning and resourcing decisions across the public sector, and think more flexibly about who delivers what, how, who should pay, and how any savings should be shared.
One of the key barriers identified to reforming public sector services was that savings often accrue to a different agency from the one making the initial investment. This was therefore preventing the initial investment being made in many cases. Community budgets provides a mechanism for these issues to be identified and agreements made to use resources more flexibly (including sharing savings between agencies), thereby potentially unlocking the barrier to initial investment.
A community budget approach to reforming public services is most likely to help in situations where:
- need a drive to align resources between different organisations; - where one agency is responsible for service delivery and another/others make the savings; - where there are significant barriers in existing ways of working across partner organisations that need a specific drive to overcome them (e.g. differing HR policies, data sharing, IT access etc.).
To date, we have tested this approach on a small scale in relation to Fuel Poverty, and are now testing it on a significantly larger scale through our Troubled Families work.
The approach is predicated on: - it being possible to improve outcomes for residents in a way that reduces the demand they place on reactive agencies; - it being possible to clearly pin down the savings resulting from this reduced demand, and to identify how it will be cashed; - partners being open to the evidence presented, and willing to take a collaborative approach to generating and sharing financial savings.
To support this work, further joint commissioning opportunities will be explored and implemented with the CCG. This is to ensure a whole-system approach to health and social care areas identified above. It will also be through consolidating and expanding existing work around integrated teams, risk profiling, prevention, demand management and behaviour change.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
Page 44 of 74 Page 202 • Redesign public sector services to improve outcomes in the following areas: o Reduce repeat acute mental health admissions; o Reduce repeat hospital admissions; o Increase skill levels of Oldham residents; o Reduce incidents of domestic violence.
• By improving these outcomes, reduce demand on reactive public sector services, for example: o hospital admissions; o social care referrals; o Housing evictions and costs of homelessness; o Increased payment-by-results from employment-related programmes; o Reduced A&E attendances from victims of domestic violence.
Proposed savings
By working with partners to clarify the cost savings associated with the above reductions in demand, and through releasing efficiencies through joint commissioning we have set a target of £500k from PSR (solutions will be in addition to those developed to deliver the £300k joint commissioning with health), to be made up from a combination of increased income to the Council and direct savings.
These savings will be made from reducing demand on reactive agencies (see examples of reduced demand above), and increasing income into other services, rather than through making cuts from the service areas named in this template named as public service reform themes.
Please also note that this is in addition to the £300,000 saving already identified for troubled families.
How would this affect the users of this service
The premise is to reduce demand on services by improving outcomes for service users, so the impact is positive.
Key Milestones
High level business cases developed by end April Detailed financial investigation with partners by end May Detailed business cases agreed with partners by end July Final legal agreement signed by end November
Key Consultations
Current consultations identified with partners as above. Any consultations with residents will be identified through the development of the high level business cases in April.
Page 45 of 74 Page 203 Stakeholder engagement and involvement regarding commissioning with health will include comprehensive discussions and influence via Urgent Care Partnership Board and the Integrated Commissioning Partnership (ICP).
Page 46 of 74 Page 204
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact TBC as more detailed TBC as more detailed proposals are developed proposals are developed
Key Risks and Mitigations
1. The key risk is that realising the savings is dependent on partners signing up to the investment agreements. It is therefore not within (and controllably) the Council’s gift to deliver the savings, but is heavily reliant on influencing and negotiating with partners to agree and sign up to the investment.
We have already begun to gain partner buy-in to this way of working through the Fuel Poverty and Troubled Families exemplars. We have allocated dedicated time to detailed negotiations with partners, from both a service delivery and a finance perspective and will aim to focus the work around reducing the demand on services.
2. A further risk is the capacity within the system to support the changes required to transform systems and behaviours particularly due to NHS organisational change and the new commissioning roles and the role of the GM commissioning support unit.
The ICP will be required to oversee and tackle these challenges.
3. A final risk is that the Council services for example, social care and localised benefits are likely to be key areas where we reduce demand. These service areas are already identifying savings as part of the Council’s overarching efficiency programme, there is a risk of significantly increasing pressure on budgets or double counting savings.
Senior officers are working closely to ensure that all proposals within services, and those that are cross cutting, corporate and sector wide are considered jointly to mitigate the risk
Page 47 of 74 Page 205
Equality Impact Screening
Screening will be carried out alongside the development of the detailed drawing up of the proposals
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people TBC Particular ethnic groups TBC Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) TBC People of particular sexual orientation/s TBC People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have TBC undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes TBC People in particular age groups TBC Groups with particular faiths/beliefs TBC
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: Yes. EIA to be Jill Beaumont completed by: By: June 2013
Responsible Officer: Jill Beaumont By: 26 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 48 of 74 Page 206
Budget Information
Reference: FVP 14 101 Portfolio: Deputy Chief Exec Theme: Families and Vulnerable People Section: Family and Youth Support -Preventative Services Lead Member: Cllr Jean Stretton
Proposal: Identification of further efficiency savings 2014/15 totalling £150k *The above figure does not include the £300k Children’s Centre Contract reduction that is to be achieved in 2014/15
2013/14 Expenditure £k * All information in this Budget for the section: section will be included in future versions following confirmation by Finance, given that the service is currently in the process of implementing a number of merges and shifts under the 2013/14 agreed budget efficiency savings Income £k Net Expenditure £k Total posts numbers FTE in section: Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £150k Proposed reduction in FTE’s 2 Proposed reduction in 2 actuals
Background
These initial proposals represent a further saving on Preventative Services budget for 2014/15. The service has made savings in 2013/14 of £620k from remodelling the way the service operates and carries out key functions. These additional savings are being proposed, through a continuation of the reform of the way the service carries out its duties and functions.
Page 49 of 74 Page 207 Outcomes and Key Outputs
The proposals represent an initial set of savings that may need to change or shift with any further developments which at this point are unknown. The proposals intend to maintain key outputs but will be underpinned by a radical shift in the way that services are delivered and managed.
Proposed savings
£80k savings from Barn Street rental and associated costs £50k saving from personnel £20k reduction in specialist early years support
How would this affect the users of this service
The proposed savings at this point represent minimum impact on front line services, but are reliant on a progressive, developing model of service, that seeks to establish greater alignment with partners in the districts and avoid duplicative costs.
Key Milestones
Whilst the initial proposals have been discussed with the Assistant Executive Director, Early Intervention and Families, the detail of the actual savings to be made have not been widely disseminated or discussed. Further discussion and detail will be worked up, once initial agreement has been given to progress further the ideas set out above.
Key Consultations
As above
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact Internal staff Reduction in team capacity External agencies Reduction in small grant allocation
Key Risks and Mitigations
The majority of the savings have been identified from non personnel and aim to minimise the impact on front line services.
Page 50 of 74 Page 208 Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people no Particular ethnic groups no Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) no People of particular sexual orientation/s no People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have no undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes no People in particular age groups yes Groups with particular faiths/beliefs no
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: Yes EIA to be completed by: Maria Greenwood By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Maria Greenwood th By: 8 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 51 of 74 Page 209
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 109a Portfolio: Deputy Chief Executive Theme: Better Ways of Working and Transactional Services Section : People Services Lead Member: Cllr A Jabbar
Proposal : Reduce the cost associated with the Terms & Conditions of Employment for the workforce in relation to incremental progression and bank holiday remuneration
2013/14 Expenditure £k Budget for the section: Income £k Net Expenditure £k Total posts numbers FTE in section: Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £600k Proposed reduction in FTE’s Proposed reduction in actuals
Background
The continuing scale of our budget reductions is such that the Council is proposing further amendments to the Terms & Conditions of Employment totalling £1m. At this stage proposals on how to achieve this saving are being considered but may include the freezing of pay increments and changes to the current bank holiday remuneration arrangements of double time and a day off in lieu.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
Unknown at this stage
Proposed savings
Implementing changes of this nature will take approximately 12 months therefore may run into 2014/15. Overall savings will be dependent upon the nature of the proposal.
How would this affect the users of this service
N/A
Page 52 of 74 Page 210
Key Milestones
To be determined during the consultation process with the Trade Unions.
Key Consultations
Extensive consultations are required with both the Trade Unions and all employees to whom the proposals impact.
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact
Key Risks and Mitigations
It is essential that the correct process is followed to mitigate the risks associated with amending employees Terms & Conditions of Employment.
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line
Unable to comment until the proposal is worked up Disabled people Particular ethnic groups Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) People of particular sexual orientation/s People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes People in particular age groups Groups with particular faiths/beliefs
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at:
Page 53 of 74 Page 211 http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: Screenings will be done alongside the detailed development of the proposal and where required EIA’s will be carried out EIA to be completed by: Dianne Frost By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Dianne Frost By: 18 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 54 of 74 Page 212
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 109b Portfolio: Deputy Chief Executive Theme: Better Ways of Working and Transactional Services Section : People Services Lead Member: Cllr A Jabbar
Proposal : Reduce the cost associated with the Terms & Conditions of Employment for the workforce in relation to sick pay entitlement
2013/14 Expenditure £k Budget for the section: Income £k Net Expenditure £k Total posts numbers FTE in section: Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £400k Proposed reduction in FTE’s Proposed reduction in actuals
Background
The continuing scale of our budget reductions is such that the Council is proposing further amendments to the Terms & Conditions of Employment totalling £1m. At this stage proposals on how to achieve this saving are being considered but may include changes to the current provision of sick pay entitlement.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
Unknown at this stage
Proposed savings
Implementing changes of this nature will take approximately 12 months therefore may run into 2014/15. Overall savings will be dependent upon the nature of the proposal.
How would this affect the users of this service
N/A
Page 55 of 74 Page 213
Key Milestones
To be determined during the consultation process with the Trade Unions.
Key Consultations
Extensive consultations are required with both the Trade Unions and all employees to whom the proposals impact.
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact
Key Risks and Mitigations
It is essential that the correct process is followed to mitigate the risks associated with amending employees Terms & Conditions of Employment.
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people Yes Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes No People in particular age groups No Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: Yes EIA to be completed by: Dianne Frost
Page 56 of 74 Page 214 By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Dianne Frost By: 18 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 57 of 74 Page 215
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 101 Portfolio: Cross cutting – Neighbourhoods and People Services Theme: Better ways of Working and Transactional Services Section: Health and Safety Enforcement on businesses located in Public Protection and Health and Safety delivered on behalf of the Council employees by the Health Safety and Wellbeing Team Lead Member: Cllr Jean Stretton and Cllr Abdul Jabbar
Proposal: To rationalise the provision of Health and Safety advice and enforcement both to Council Managers and businesses across the Borough.
To look at opportunities to generate more income.
2014/15 Expenditure £152,510 – Public Budget for the section: Protection £275,260 – Health, Safety and Wellbeing Income (£5,250) – Public Protection (£63,390) – Health,Safety and wellbeing Net Expenditure £359,130 Total posts numbers FTE 4 – Public Protection in section: 6 – Health and Safety and wellbeing
Total 10 Actuals 10
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £100k Proposed reduction in FTE’s tbc Proposed reduction in tbc actuals
Background
Currently the delivery of Health and Safety advice is carried out in two distinctly separate teams of the Council.
Page 58 of 74 Page 216
Enforcement of the various pieces of legislation is carried out in the Public Protection section of Neighbourhoods whilst the Council’s internal policies, procedures and arrangements on Health and Safety matters issued on behalf of the Chief Executive for all Council employees is delivered by the Health Safety and Wellbeing Team based in People Services.
There is an opportunity to rationalise this delivery under one team as the legislation and it’s interpretation is the same and benchmarking work with other Councils has shown that this type of approach has been successful elsewhere.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
The main outcome would be a more efficient combined service with consistency of delivery across both the Council and private business.
Proposed savings
It is proposed to save £100,000 by a combination of rationalising the provision and by generating more income
How would this affect the users of this service
The service user would get a more efficient, flexible service that could react to situations that are reported both within the Council services and from the private sector across the Borough.
Key Milestones
June 2013 - Develop the proposal in detail and seek views from service users esp. from within Council departments.
August 2013 – seek approval for changes to FTEs and management arrangements where necessary.
December 2013 onwards – commence implementation of the new service structure
Key Consultations
Service users esp. relevant Council departments
Draft options put to staff for their views on praticality
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
N/A
Key Risks and Mitigations
Page 59 of 74 Page 217 Tbc
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people No Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes No People in particular age groups No Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: No EIA to be completed by: N/A By: N/A
Responsible Officer: Neil Crabtree By: 5 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 60 of 74 Page 218
Budget Information
Reference: NEIGH 14 101 Portfolio: Neighbourhoods Theme: Neighbourhoods and Devolution Section : Environment Lead Member: Cllr Jean Stretton
Proposal : Increase in Cremation and Purchase of a New Grave fees
2013/14 Expenditure £1,0 25 ,610 Budget for the section: Income -£1,301,900 Net Expenditure -£276 ,290 Total posts numbers FTE 19 in section: Actuals 19
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £150k Proposed reduction in FTE’s Nil Proposed reduction in Nil actuals
Background
Below is a list of fees and charges for Cremation and New Grave costs from the AGMA area, some are 2012 fees and some show 2013 fees, it is considered that all of the fees under ’From 1.4.13’ will increase for 2014. (The figures below are correct as of 12 March 2013 checks have been made with other local authorities to establish any proposed increases for 2014 and as yet there is no data available)
Page 61 of 74 Page 219
NB Oldham currently (From Cremation 1/4/2013) second least From Proposed expensive in the region 1.4.12 From 1.4.13 for 2014 Wigan £569.00 Oldham £560.00 £575.00 £650.00 Rochdale £556.00 £576.00 Trafford £519.00 £580.00 Burnley £549.00 £581.00 Tameside £520.00 £600.00 Bolton £560.00 £600.00 Stockport (private crem) £570.00 £600.00 Salford £568.00 £640.00 Sherwood £645.00 Bury (East Lancashire) Private £655.00 £655.00 Grantham £667.00 Rotherham £701.00 Lancaster and Morcambe £726.00 Manchester £554.25 or £682.25 £527.00 depends on chapel
New Graves for 1 or 2 persons NB Oldham currently (2013) least expensive in the region Proposed From 1.4.12 From 1.4.13 for 2014 Oldham £651.00 £670.00 £870.00 Trafford £685.00 £720.00 Bolton £730.00 £750.00 Wigan £777.00 Tameside £635.00 £735.00 Manchester £780.00 £805.00 Burnley £788.00 £820.00 Salford £840.00 £880.00 Bury £697.00 £926.00 Rochdale £913.00 £946.00 Stockport Council Cems £768.00
Outcomes and Key Outputs
Outcome Quality cremation and burial service and highly maintained cemeteries.
Outputs Approximately 250 new graves purchased annually
Page 62 of 74 Page 220 Approximately 1550 cremations annually.
Working to support local communities to provide a flexible service that meets the demands of the bereaved at an extremely vulnerable time.
Proposed savings
It is proposed to increase the cost to purchase a grave for the period of 99 years to £870.00. The cost for a cremation to increase to £650.00. Current fees (from 1 st April 2013) shown in table above.
How would this affect the users of this service
This will guarantee that the service users will continue to be provided with flexibility, highly maintained cemeteries, open spaces and excellent service provision.
It is also essential to maintain the cemeteries to high standards for the local residents who use the open space of the cemetery for recreational purpose.
Work is on-going with representatives of local Muslim communities to enable an out of hours service to be provided by trained volunteers.
The out of hours service provided costs the Council £50 per day on a none working day e.g. weekends and bank holidays to have staff on standby, which approximately totals £5,500 per annum, plus any overtime worked at the time of a funeral requested. Currently there is a surcharge of £513 to carry out a weekend or bank holiday burial which off sets the cost to the Council.
From 1 st April 2012 to 12 March 2013, there have been 7 weekend burials covering costs of £3,591.
The work on-going with the now established Burial Coordination Committee is to introduce volunteers to carry out weekend and bank holiday burials and as a result will eventually eliminate the need to have Council employees on standby and remove the need for cost recovery.
Key Milestones
1. Introduction of revised fees and charges
Key Consultations
• Members
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact
Page 63 of 74 Page 221
Key Risks and Mitigations
Service users may choose an alternative less expensive crematorium or cemetery, but traditionally cost is rarely a mitigating factor when arranging a cremation or the cemetery that a burial is to take place in. To maintain the cemeteries to high standards and the crematorium chapel and facilities to excellent condition ensures that local people choose to be cremated or buried in Oldham.
Local Funeral Directors can influence family’s choice in places to use for funerals and providing that they are aware that the cemeteries and crematorium facilities are being maintained to high standards they will encourage families to use the facilities in Oldham.
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people No Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes Yes People in particular age groups No Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: Yes EIA to be completed by: Jayne Murphy By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Jayne Murphy By: 13 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 64 of 74 Page 222
Budget Information
Reference: NEIGH 14 102 Portfolio: Neighbourhoods and Districts Theme: Neighbourhoods Section: Community Safety Lead Member: Cllr Stretton
Proposal: Community Safety - Post devolution alignment of local budgets within Community
2013/14 Expenditure £k Budget for the section: Income £k Net Expenditure £k Total posts numbers FTE 9 in section: Actuals 9
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: 40k Proposed reduction in FTE’s None Proposed reduction in None actuals
Background The community Safety service was devolved to the 6 Districts last year in creating 6 District Community Safety Officers, The Domestic Violence service remains a central Borough wide service and does not form part of this saving option
As the Community Safety Service has been devolved there is the opportunity through better local targeting of services and contracts to reduce the operational / maintenance and resource budget. The budget is currently under spent due to more effective working with communities at a District level, that has now brought about significant behaviour change around demand for target hardening and the numbers of gating schemes .
Outcomes and Key Outputs Alignment of local budgets to reflect efficiencies gained through District working.
Proposed savings
£40K Reduction in operational budgets
How would this affect the users of this service
Page 65 of 74 Page 223 Minimal impact on the service user as its aligning budgets currently under spent to reflect reduced demand Key Milestones Align budgets in April 2014 as above
Key Consultations
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact None None
Key Risks and Mitigations
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people No Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes No People in particular age groups No Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: No EIA to be completed by: Enter name of officer By: Enter the date by which the assessment will be complete
Responsible Officer: Colette Kelly th By: 6 March
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 66 of 74 Page 224
Budget Information
Reference: NEIGH 14 103 Portfolio: Co -operatives and Community Theme: Neighbourhoods Section: Heritage, Libraries & Arts Lead Member: Cllr Brownridge
Proposal: Review of library resources
2013/14 Expenditure £3,434k Budget for the section: Income £175k Net Expenditure £3,259k Total posts numbers FTE 66.17 in section: Actuals 81
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £60k Proposed reduction in FTE’s None attached Proposed reduction in to this saving actuals option
Background The library service has undergone a considerable amount of modernising and remodelling to improve services and increase efficiency. This has included staffing restructures, the introduction of flexible working practices and new technology, as well as straight forward budget reductions.
Outcomes and Key Outputs The proposed level of savings can be achieved by a combination of further reductions in the library service’s resources budget total of £300k which covers all library programmes across the Borough.
Proposed savings £60k.
How would this affect the users of this service The resource budget is used to provide online resources, data bases and books in all formats (audio, large print, Braille, e-books) for the library service. A reduction in this budget would lead to a reduction in range and amount of reading and information materials available for users of the service.
Key Milestones To be determined.
Page 67 of 74 Page 225 1 Key Consultations
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact
Key Risks and Mitigations Risks:- • Potential user dissatisfaction as level of resources reduce and availability of up to date materials such as books , literature , information and periodicals
Mitigations:- • Apply savings proportionally across the book fund. • Develop effective communication plan regarding changes to service delivery. . Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people No Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes Yes People in particular age groups No Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: Yes EIA to be completed by: Sheena Macfarlane By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Sheena Macfarlane By: 12 March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 68 of 74 Page 226 Budget Information
Reference: NEIGH 14 104 Portfolio: Neighbourhoods Theme: Neighbourhoods Section: Neighbourhoods Lead Member: Cllr Jean Stretton
Proposal: Review of District Assets and Services. (Linked to ref: NEIGH 13 308)
2013/14 Expenditure TBC across a range of Budget for the section: services Income As above Net Expenditure As above Total posts numbers FTE TBC across a range of in section: services Actuals As above
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £200k Proposed reduction in FTE’s TBC Proposed reduction in TBC actuals
Background The budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15 are being developed within the context of the Council's commitment to greater devolution of services, decisions and resources to a more local level. Rather than identify savings proposals for specific areas at a council/corporate level, it is proposed that District Partnerships themselves consider future delivery options in relation to a range of key service areas. These delivery options will also incorporate a review of Council buildings/facilities from which services are delivered in the District as well as identifying an overall reduction in total support costs following introduction of new delivery/operational arrangements.
As Neighbourhood working has progressed and developed over the last few months, it is anticipated that there could be further efficiencies of £200k (in addition to the £800k already sited in form reference NEIGH 13 308)
Outcomes and Key Outputs Will vary according to each District Partnership’s neighbourhood settlement.
Proposed savings Savings will arise from both reduced running costs associated with assets, from reduced levels of service and from different delivery arrangements.
Page 69 of 74 Page 227 How would this affect the users of this service
The offer within the Districts will be vary and will have a differential impact on service users
Key Milestones
Consultation with District Partnership chairs to take place in March 2013 and to agree the process and milestones
Key Consultations
Elected members and District partnerships District teams
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact TBC – if any
Key Risks and Mitigations
TBC
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people TBC Particular ethnic groups TBC Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) TBC People of particular sexual orientation/s TBC People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have TBC undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes TBC People in particular age groups TBC Groups with particular faiths/beliefs TBC
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
Page 70 of 74 Page 228
EIA required: An EIA screening will be carried out as part of the review of each asset and an EIA will be carried out where a disproportionate impact is identified EIA to be completed by: Elaine McLean By: Summer 2013
Responsible Officer: Elaine McLean th By: 6 March
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 71 of 74 Page 229
Budget Information
Reference: BWWTS 14 108 Portfolio: Cross cutting Neighbourhoods and Commercial Services Theme: Better ways of working and transactional services Section: Housing Strategy, Community Safety, Commercial Services Lead Member: Cllrs Stretton, Hibbert and Jabbar
Proposal: Advice Services To review the way in which advice services are delivered across the Council, primarily which have a housing related link.
2013/14 Expenditure £Approx. 1 million spent Budget for the section: on Access Oldham, One Point Service, CAB, Contact Centre, Welfare Rights Service and Family Information Service Income £Nil Net Expenditure £ Approx. £1million Total posts numbers FTE The services are both in section: voluntary sector, council and partners Actuals
2013/14 (addnl) 2014/15 2015/16 (addnl) £k £k £k Proposed Financial saving: £100k Nil Proposed reduction in FTE’s To be confirmed Proposed reduction in actuals N/a at this stage. (There may be an increase in say the voluntary sector)
Background
The One Point Housing Service, which is primarily the old Housing Advice Service, is delivered by FCHO. The current SLA expires in February 2014. Across the Council and through the voluntary sector, housing related advice is offered on a daily basis in a number of locations including Access Oldham.
Page 72 of 74 Page 230
Changes arising out of welfare benefit reform will mean that access to welfare benefit, financial, budgeting and debt advice will be crucial going forward in supporting people to access affordable housing options. This advice too is provided in varying degrees of complexity through a range of agencies. It is intended that bringing these services together will result in a seamless service (One Stop) for customers and potentially realise financial savings for the council.
The review of the way in which we deliver such services has also highlighted that we need to consider how services can be provided in a different way through the use of new technology which offers the opportunity deliver the services in a more efficient way. However, we also have to be conscious of the impact of Welfare Reform which is likely to increase demand on all of these services.
The view amongst stakeholders is that the service to customers can be improved despite the suggested reduction in the overall budget for advice services. For example, FCHO has seen a significant reduction in visitors to the One Point Service after introducing on –line registration for the housing register. An increase in on-line services, more options for self-help, more focused customer contact and advice will deliver efficiencies from the existing services and consequently reduce the need for visitors to visit a number of offices to get advice.
Outcomes and Key Outputs
Primarily, services are focused on enabling residents to either remain in their homes or to find suitable alternative accommodation
Proposed savings
The review of the way in which services are delivered is at an early stage, but it should be possible to make savings of around £100k if we ensure the voluntary sector is an integral part of the new arrangements and the focus on self-help continues.
How would this affect the users of this service
Ideally, service users would have a more streamlined service which encourages those with less complex technical enquiries to self-help and those with the more complex personal issues to access bespoke advice.
Key Milestones
Review of the services involved completed by May 2013 Design of new service specification for One Point Service by July 2013 Commissioning of new service to commence Autumn 2013
Key Consultations
A range of partners and members will be consulted on the proposal.
Page 73 of 74 Page 231
Impact on Voluntary, Community or Faith Groups or Organisations
Please list the groups or organisations affected and detail the impact on each: Group Impact Voluntary Sector The proposal will emphasise the need for the voluntary sector to be key partner in the service
Key Risks and Mitigations
The key risk is the impact of Welfare Reform on existing services and the ability to cope accordingly. However, by offering more options for self-help and a more effective signposting of the more complex cases to staff with the appropriate technical knowledge, it is anticipated that the demand can be managed
Equality Impact Screening
Is there potential for the proposed saving to have a disproportionate adverse impact on any of the following groups: State Yes / No against each line Disabled people No Particular ethnic groups No Men or Women (include impacts due to pregnancy/maternity) No People of particular sexual orientation/s No People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have No undergone a process or part of a process of gender reassignment People on low incomes No People in particular age groups No Groups with particular faiths/beliefs No
If the screening has identified a potential disproportionate adverse impact, you will need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment. This assessment form and the guidance for its completion can be found at: http://intranet.oldham.gov.uk/working-for-ombc/equality-diversity/eia.htm
EIA required: No EIA to be completed by: Enter name of officer By: Enter the date by which the assessment will be complete
Responsible Officer: Mark Reynolds/John Rooney By: 27th March 2013
Please return completed form to: [email protected]
Page 74 of 74 Page 232 Agenda Item 17
Council
Department for Education Capital Funding 2013/14 and 2014/15
Report of the Borough Treasurer
Portfolio Responsibility: Councillor Abdul Jabbar, Cabinet Member Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships
8 April 2013
Officer Contact: Steven Mair, Borough Treasurer
Purpose of Report
The report advises of the announcement of Department for Education (DfE) capital grant funding for 2013/14 and 2014/15 and the implications for the capital programme.
Executive Summary
The report advises of the recently received (and much delayed) notification from the DfE of the education capital grant allocations for 2013/14 and 2014/15. The Council will receive funding as follows:
Education Capital Grants 2013/14 2014/15 £ £ Devolved Formula Capital (DFC) 537,580 Not yet advised Maintenance 2,301,677 Not yet advised Basic Need 730,557 730,557
The 2013/14 and 2014/15 capital programme will require amendment in order to incorporate these new funding sources.
In addition the Roman Catholic and Church of England Diocese will receive directly from Government, Devolved Formula Capital and Maintenance allocations.
Page 233
With regard to the use of the resources that the Council is to receive:
• Given its ring-fenced nature, the Council is required to pass the DFC allocation to maintained schools • In accordance with the capital strategy, Maintenance funding will be added to a general pot available for allocation to priority projects • It is recommended that the Basic Need funding is used to support the Council capital priority of increasing school capacity that was identified in the 2013/17 capital strategy
The report also advises of the Targeted Basic Need programme whereby the Government is seeking bids from Local Authorities to fund the provision of new, high quality school places in locations experiencing basic need pressures in order to prepare for further rises in pupil numbers. In order that the Council can comply with the deadline of 30 th April 2013 and submit an appropriate bid for resources, work has been initiated which will be subject to detailed officer and Member review prior to submission to the DfE.
As a result of the DfE notification and in the light of the proposed use of resources, the Council will have £3,520,951 of unallocated resources to finance its potential capital commitments and capital priorities over the life of the capital strategy/programme.
Recommendations
That Council approves:
1) The change in the capital programme to incorporate ring-fenced 2013/14 Devolved Formula Capital grant of £537,580, Maintenance capital grant for 2013/14 of £2,301,667 and Basic Need capital grant of £1,461,114 split equally over 2013/14 and 2014/15
2) The use of the Basic Need capital grant resource to support the Council capital priority of increasing school capacity that was identified in the 2013/17 capital strategy.
3) The initiation of work to bid for targeted basic need grant subject to detailed officer and Member review prior to submission to the DfE.
Page 234 Department for Education Capital Funding 2013/14
Report of the Cabinet Member for Finance, Human Resources and Strategic Partnerships
1 Background
1.1 Members will be aware that it is usual for the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement announcement to include information about capital grants that the Council will receive for the following financial year. However, not only was the Settlement information released extremely late (19 th December 2012), only the provisional Adult Personal Social Services Community Capacity Grant was notified with the Settlement.
1.2 The Council had been advised, by a letter dated 8 th November 2012 from the Department for Education (DfE) that the schools capital funding allocations for 2013/14 would be announced by the end of January. This deadline passed and no revised announcement date was given. The capital programme for 2013/14 had therefore to be prepared without the inclusion of any education grant funding.
1.3 The DfE advised that the delay was due to completing the School Capacity Survey which required additional data at Local Authority defined planning area level to give greater visibility of basic need pressures and the need to quality assure the information gathered.
1.4 The DfE capital funding allocations for 2013/14 and 2014/15 were issued on 1 st March 2013 and this information was presented for consideration by the Capital Investment Programme Board at its meeting on 11 th March 2013.
1.5 The Autumn Statement issued on 5 th December 2012 advised that £982m was to be invested in schools in England by the end of this Parliament, including enough funding for 100 new academies and free schools, as well as investment to expand good schools, in the areas of the greatest pressure on places. Information on the Targeted Basic Need Programme was also released on 1 st March and this was also presented for consideration by the Capital Investment Programme Board (CIPB) at its meeting on 11 th March.
2 Current Position
2.1 The DfE funding allocations that were advised on 1st March were consistent with the types announced in previous years and are split into three elements each of which is detailed in below.
Page 235 Devolved Formula Capital
2.2 This is allocated on a purely formulaic basis using school census datasets. The funding is paid to the Authority for maintained schools and to both the Roman Catholic and Church of England Diocese in respect of Voluntary Aided (VA) schools. The 2012/13 and 2013/14 figures are compared in the table below.
Devolved Formula Capital 2012/13 2013/14 Change £ £ £ LA Allocation 559,024 537,580 -21,444
VA Allocation 266,406 256,848 -9,958
2.3 As can be seen, there is a small reduction between 2012/13 and 2013/14 funding levels.
2.4 The Council is required to pass the DFC allocation to maintained schools and will therefore need to include the £537,580 in 2013/14 capital programme as expenditure funded by ring-fenced grant
Maintenance
2.5 The allocation for each Local Authority and Voluntary Aided school is based on the relative proportion of DFC paid to the schools in the respective Authority. The proportion of the Local Authority and Voluntary Aided funding is adjusted using a location factor to reflect the relative cost of building different regions. The funding is paid to the Authority for maintained schools and to both Diocese in respect of VA schools.
2.6 The allocations for 2013/14 are shown below compared to 2012/13. It can be seen that the allocations have reduced. The £2,301,677 will need to be included in the 2013/14 capital programme. In accordance with the capital strategy it will be added to a general budget available for allocation to priority projects.
Maintenance Grant 2012/13 2013/14 Change £ £ £ LA Allocation 2,546,536 2,301,677 -244,859
VA Allocation 1,335,649 1,167,803 -167,846
Basic Need
2.7 The basic need allocation is intended to support the capital requirement for providing new pupil places both in new or expanded maintained schools. A single pot of £1.6bn has been allocated to Local Authorities for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years. The allocation
Page 236 has been based on data collected from Local Authorities in the 2012 School Capacity Survey (SCAP) collection.
2.8 The funding allocation is shown in the table below at £1,461,117 which the DfE has advised that this will be split equally across 2013/14 and 2014/15. This is a substantial reduction when compared to 2012/13.
Basic Need Grant 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £ £ £ LA Allocation 1,889,506 730,557 730,557
2.9 The total funding of £1,461,114 will need to be included in the capital programme. In accordance with the capital strategy it should be added to a general budget available for allocation to priority projects. However, recognising the requirement to fund additional school places, the CIPB recommends the use of this resource to support the Council capital priority of increasing school capacity that was identified in the 2013/17 capital strategy.
Targeted Basic Needs Programme
2.10 Attached as an Appendix is information on the conditions of funding and how to make and application for the Targeted Basic Need Programme. This potentially gives the opportunity to bid for a share of £982m of resources that is available nationally. The timetable is such that bids will need to be submitted by 30 th April 2013.
2.11 The Government is seeking bids from Local Authorities to fund the provision of new, high quality school places in locations experiencing basic need pressures in order to prepare for further rises in pupil numbers.
2.12 The programme will provide additional support to the Authorities experiencing the greatest pressure on places through the funding of: • new Academies • Free Schools • As well as enabling investment to permanently expand good and outstanding schools with high levels of demand (the DfE has advised that this relates to maintained schools)
2.13 In order that the Council can comply with the deadline and submit an appropriate bid for resources, work has been initiated which will be subject to detailed officer and Member review prior to submission to the DfE.
Page 237 Overall Capital Funding Allocation Available
2.14 At the start of the financial year, the Council had unallocated resources available of £603,541 in 2013/14 and £615,733 in 2014/15. The receipt of the Education Maintenance funding, for which at this stage there is no recommended usage, will increase unallocated resources over the life of the capital strategy/programme as presented in the table below, to a total of £3,520,951.
Resources Available 2013/14 2014/15 Total £ £ £ Unallocated Resources included in the Capital Programme – approved 603,541 615,733 1,219,274 27 th February 2013
Education Maintenance Funding 2,301,677 0 2,301,677 Total Resources Available for Allocation to Capital Projects 2,905,218 615,733 3,520,951
2.15 There are some potential calls against this resource including a Council contribution to The Green Deal Company and matched funding for the Department for Transport Pinch Point grant. These however are yet to be confirmed. In addition, the Council will need to address its other corporate capital priorities from within the available funding unless other resources are identified in year.
Options/Alternatives
3.1 The Council is required to incorporate within the 2013/14 and 2014/15 capital programme, the Local Authority funding allocations from the DfE.
3.2 The Council has no flexibility with regard to the usage of the Devolved Formula Capital allocations. It does however have some over the usage of the Maintenance and Basic Need Funding and could therefore choose to take an approach that is different from that recommended in the report and therefore: • Not treat the Education Maintenance grant as a resource which is added to a unallocated corporate pot • Use the Education Maintenance grant to support education expenditure including the increase in school capacity • Not allocate the £1,461,114 basic need funding (to be split equally over 2013/14 and 2014/15) to increasing school capacity
Page 238 4 Preferred Option
4.1 The preferred option is that the recommendations of the report are approved by Council.
5 Consultation
5.1 Consultation has taken place with the members of the Capital Investment Programme Board which includes Cabinet Members. The capital strategy and programme for 2013/17 was approved at the Council meeting on 27 th February 2013.
6 Financial Implications
6.1 By the very nature of the report, it contains details of the resources available and potentially available to deliver the capita l strategy and programme for 2013/17. This is therefore set out in detail in the report.
7 Legal Services Comments
7.1 None
8 Cooperative Agenda
8.1 The capital programme has been prepared so that it aligns to the capital strategy of the Council. The capital strategy and the capital programme embrace the Council’s cooperative agenda with resources being directed towards projects that enhance the aims, objectives and cooperative ethos of the Council.
9 Human Resources Comments
9.1 None
10 Risk Assessments
10.1 The Council must manage its capital programme so that commitments do not exceed resources available. In order to ensure that risk is minimised, capital monitoring takes place on a monthly basis. There is also a periodic review of the programme by the CIPB. Any variances are therefore highlighted to ensure that the programme is managed effectively.
11 IT Implications
11.1 None
Page 239 12 Property Implications
12.1 There are none at this time. However, the use of capital resources may result in changes to the property portfolio of the Council as may a successful bid for Targeted Basic Need Grant.
13 Procurement Implications
13.1 None
14 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications
14.1 None at this time
15 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications
15.1 None
16 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?
16.1 No
17 Key Decision
17.1 Yes
18 Forward Plan Reference
18.1 CMCL-07-13
19.1 The following is a list of background papers on which this report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by the Act:
File Ref: Capital Estimates 2013-14 Name of File: Summary Capital programme & individual capital programme estimates Records held in: Finance Service Offices, Commercial Services Portfolio, Level 14, Civic Centre, West Street, Oldham,
Officer Name: Anne Ryans Contact No: 4902
Page 240 20 Appendices
Appendix 1 DfE Notification – Targeted Basic Need Programme
Page 241
Appendix 1
Targeted Basic Need Programme
Information on Conditions of Funding and Making an Application
1. In the Autumn Statement on 5 December, the Chancellor announced that the Government will provide an additional £982 million investment in schools in England over the remainder of this Parliament over and above existing allocations. The Department for Education (DfE) is now launching the Targeted Basic Need Programme to fund the provision of new, high quality school places in locations experiencing basic need pressures in order to prepare for further rises in pupil numbers.
2. We want to ensure that basic need is met with higher quality, more diverse provision. The programme will therefore provide additional support to those local authorities (LAs) experiencing the greatest pressure on places through the funding of new Academies and Free Schools, as well as enabling investment to permanently expand good and outstanding schools with high levels of demand.
3. As LAs have a statutory responsibility for providing sufficient school places in their area, they will be responsible for submitting applications for capital funding to meet the identified need for high quality places in their area. This document sets out the application process for LAs that wish to be considered for inclusion in the programme.
4. LAs will need to provide evidence of basic need to support proposals for new pupil places that meet the needs of pupils, parents and communities. All LAs can apply for funding but LAs with significant proportionate levels of basic need pressures are encouraged to apply for this programme.
5. The programme will be delivered in two phases:
Stage 1 - LAs bid for capital funding to establish a new Academy or Free School or permanently expand existing high quality provision, on a site provided by the LA, to address basic need pressures. LAs will be responsible for the procurement and build of the new places. A provisional funding allocation will be awarded to successful bids for new schools. Funding for the expansion of good and outstanding schools will not be provisional.
Stage 2 – LAs identify proposers to establish high quality new schools and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Funding is allocated upon approval of quality proposals.
Page 242
Timetable
6. It is anticipated that the first additional pupil places under this programme will be available from September 2014 with the remainder being available from September 2015.
7. Completed applications should be submitted electronically as set out in the instructions in this note. The deadline for applications is 12:00 noon on Tuesday, 30 th April 2013. Any applications received after this deadline will not be considered.
8. The key dates relating to this process are summarised below and further information is provided in the accompanying Question and Answer document.
Launch of Targeted Basic Need Programme 1 March 2013
Deadline for Receipt of Applications 1200 on 30 April 2013
Target Date for Informing Applicants of the June 2013 Outcome of their Application
Conditions of Funding
9. LAs who wish to apply for basic need funding under this programme must comply with the following requirements:
Stage 1 Bid Stage • Basic need/demand for pupil places – The LA is responsible for ensuring that the new provision will meet basic need. All LAs can apply for funding but LAs with significant proportionate levels of basic need pressures are encouraged to apply for this programme.
• Strategic context – The LA must demonstrate how the annual basic need allocations have been used or are planned to be used and set out why additional funding is needed to meet basic need requirements.
• Provision of suitable site/land – The site or land will be contributed by the LA for the purpose of the school build or expansion and DfE will not provide funding for this. The site or land must be suitable for the proposed new build or expansion and completion must be possible within the timetable. In order to secure opening by 2015, in most instances, this site or land will need to already be in the ownership of the LA (or close partner organisation). Applications where land is not yet within LA ownership will be considered but the ability to deliver the additional pupil places by September 2015 at the latest must be met.
Page 243
• New schools – Whilst we do not expect LAs to have fully worked up proposals at this stage, nor to have determined sponsors, we are seeking an initial assessment of how they will ensure the quality and diversity of new schools. LAs are asked to provide details of the criteria that they propose to use in seeking proposals and evidence of a range of potential sponsors.
• Expansions – LAs putting forward applications to permanently expand existing good or outstanding school should discuss their proposals with all potential schools in the relevant catchment area – including schools that are not maintained by the LA. As part of the application process, LAs will provide information on why a particular school has been put forward for expansion, which other schools were considered and why they were not supported by the LA. We will be looking to fund the strongest proposals and, therefore, recommendations to expand must demonstrate significant oversubscription for places and clear evidence of high quality provision.
• Allocation of funds – LAs whose bids for capital funding for new schools are successful will receive a provisional allocation of funding. This funding is dependent upon the approval by the Secretary of State of a high quality proposer to run the new school as a result of the LA undertaking the Academy/Free School presumption process. In order to meet the timescales, however, we envisage that LAs would be able to progress procurement of the buildings in the meantime.
Funding for expansions will not be provisional.
• Level of capital funding – The capital funding provided to LAs will be based on the Education Funding Agency’s (EFA’s) Contractors’ Framework rates, will be formulaically driven and will take account of baseline designs. These will be used as the ceiling of funding that will be given and examples are given in Annex 1. LAs will be able to supplement this funding if they wish.
It is the responsibility of the LA to provide any funding that is above the Contractors’ Framework rates and a commitment to this from the LA’s S151 officer will be required. The programme funding will be released to LAs by EFA in line with an agreed timetable which will be detailed within the agreement made with successful applicants.
• Procurement/contracting – LAs will be responsible for the procurement, contracting and build of the projects. They will identify a named contact to liaise with the EFA on progress towards the delivery of each project. This will include a requirement to contact the EFA should there be any slippage from the original timetable proposed and when the project has been completed. Funding will be provided to LAs to cover project management costs. This will be negotiated but can be up to £150,000 for each new build project.
Page 244
• Revenue costs - LAs are expected to make provision in their growth funds to support increases in pupil numbers relating to basic need. This relates to the per-pupil revenue funding in addition to the pre- and post- opening start-up funding, as the new Academy or Free School will be funded on a recoupment basis. This is detailed in full in the 2013-14 School Finance Regulations which were published in December 2012.
Stage 2 Presumption Stage
• Academy/Free School Presumption – Where an LA identifies the need to establish a new school, section 6A of the Education and Inspection Act 2006 places the authority under a duty to seek proposals to establish that school as an Academy or Free School. This is known as the Academy/Free School Presumption. LAs that are successful in securing Targeted Basic Need funding for a new school will seek proposals under the presumption to deliver the Academy or Free School to their specification. We expect LAs to use their local knowledge to generate new sponsors, for example, by encouraging strong local schools to take on this role. Guidance on the presumption process is available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/schoolorganisation As with the current presumption process, early and continued engagement between the LA and DfE will be essential at all stages of the selection process.
• Quality provision - All new school proposals that seek the Secretary of State’s agreement to enter into a Funding Agreement must clearly demonstrate how they will deliver quality provision. The Department will shortly issue updated guidance for the Academy presumption process. However, proposals must set out how full use will be made of Academy freedoms to innovate and drive continued improvement. In particular, they must show: o deliverability and value for money – the capability and capacity of the proposer to deliver their proposal on time and secure the best value for money;
o a focused and coherent educational plan that will raise standards and bring real quality to the places being added into the system; and
o the credibility and track record of the proposer and how the proposed governing body and governance model will drive improved standards.
• Recommendations - The LA will assess the proposals and can, if they wish, make a recommendation to the Secretary of State who is the decision maker. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not he will agree an ‘in principle’ funding agreement with any of the proposers presented to him or with another proposer of his choosing.
Page 245 The capital allocation will be confirmed following the Secretary of State’s decision to enter into an ‘in principle’ funding agreement.
Information Required To Support Applications
10. The application form requires the following information:
• Confirmation of conditions of funding: Applicants must indicate acceptance of these conditions (as outlined above in the “Conditions of Funding” section).
• Details of the proposed site/land: The site or land proposed by the LA for the new build or expansion must be suitable for that purpose. Details will be required regarding the land condition, size, ownership and planning considerations.
• Strategic context: Applicants are asked to explain how the proposed new or expanded provision fits within their Place Planning Strategy.
• Capital strategy: Applicants are asked to provide detail on their current and planned capital programme to provide additional school places, including the funding stream. LAs are asked to explain why the new provision that forms the basis of the application for funds under the programme cannot be funded through other capital funding streams, including basic need funding allocations received from DfE and other capital sources, such as Section 106/CIL monies.
• Demand data/basic need: Applicants are asked to provide clear evidence of basic need pressures in both the LA and the locality of the proposed additional provision. This will include providing actual and projected demand data for schools in close proximity to the proposed new school or planned expansion that cater for the same age group/cohort and information on available places.
• Quality provision – all new schools funded under the programme will be run by high quality sponsors. The process to identify these is outlined above at “Stage 2 – Presumption Stage”.
At “Stage 1 – Bid Stage” we do, however, want LAs to provide information on how they plan to ensure the quality and diversity of any new school places funded. LAs should include information about the range of potential viable sponsors and details of the criteria that they intend applying at Stage 2.
• Special Schools/SEN Provision: Applicants for additional Special School/SEN provision will need to provide responses to some additional questions relating to placement information and categories of need.
Page 246 Assessment of Applications
11. The EFA will assess applications based on information provided by the LA in the application form and as outlined in paragraphs 9 & 10 above and put recommendations to Ministers.
12. The EFA may contact LAs for clarification on aspects of their application/s on such issues as:
• Matters relating to land or site ownership or suitability which could impact on the ability to deliver the project to time or budget,
• Forecast pupil demand and supply of school places data,
• School reorganisation issues or other statutory processes that cannot be resolved within the available timescales,
• Affordability constraints and
• Any other relevant issues.
Making an Application
13. A separate application form must be submitted for each new school and/or expansion. Applications must be made using the correct form and instructions on the form must be followed.
14. The completed application form/s should be submitted to the Targeted Basic Need Programme email address at
by the closing date. The email should be clearly titled – “Name of LA – application for x new schools and y expansions”. No hard copies will be assessed. 15. The application form contains four worksheets. All applicants must complete the first two worksheets - “Application details” and “Capital Programme” - and one of the other worksheets as applicable.
16. During the application period, any queries should be emailed to the Targeted Basic Need Programme email address at [email protected]
and clearly marked “Query” with a brief description of the query also in the title box.
Page 247 Annex 1 – Funding Levels
New School Builds
The table below gives an indication of the levels of funding that will be available through the Targeted Basic Need Programme based on the notional size of new school builds. These levels will be used as the ceiling of funding that will be provided. Local authorities (LAs) will be responsible for providing any funding above these levels and confirmation of this will be required from the LA’s S151 officer.
The level of funding is based on the Education Funding Agency’s (EFA’s) Contractors’ Framework rates, is formulaically driven and takes account of baseline designs. This methodology is based on the EFA’s analysis of outturn costs on recent schemes and is also being used in the Priority School Building Programme. It ensures that a consistent funding allocation is provided that allows core facilities to be delivered. The level of funding will vary depending on the location and construction start date so the figures below should be used as a guide only.
The funding given covers: building, site costs, abnormals, professional fees, fixtures, fittings and equipment (FF&E), ICT infrastructure and ICT hardware. In addition to the amounts detailed, additional funding for technical adviser fees (including project management) will be provided. This will be up to £150,000 per new build project.
Funding Examples for New Build Schools
Primary 2 Form Entry Secondary 7 Form Entry
(420 Places) (1050 Places)
Inner London £4,411,644 £15,300,077
Outer London £4,144,558 £14,312,040
Outside London £3,699,415 £12,665,312
Conversion and Refurbishment
The level of funding provided for the conversion and refurbishment of an existing building into a school will be discussed with successful applicants on a case by case basis. This is because there is likely to be large variation depending on a number of factors and, therefore, one level of funding will not apply to all cases. If an LA is submitting an application relating to a conversion or refurbishment, they are asked to send an email to [email protected] clearly marked “Refurbishment”
Page 248 and with contact details in the email. The EFA will then make contact in due course to discuss further.
Expansions
Expansions will be funded at the same rate per m2 as new build schools.
Special Schools/SEN Provision
The level of funding provided for the building or expansion of a Special School or SEN provision will be discussed with successful applicants on a case by case basis. It is likely that there will be large variations depending on a number of factors and to apply one level of funding to all Special School/SEN provision across the Targeted Basic Need Programme is not considered to be appropriate.
Page 249 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 250 Agenda Item 18
COUNCIL
Section 249(5) Local Government Act 1972 Nominations for the Title of Honorary Freeman of the Borough
Report of Borough Solicitor
17 th April 2013
Officer Contact: Paul Entwistle, Ext. 4822
Council
Section 249(5) Local Government Act 1972 Nomination for the Title of Honorary Freeman of the Borough
1. Purpose of the Report
The purpose of the report is to seek approval, in accordance with Section 249(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 to nominate a person to receive the title of Honorary Freeman of the Borough, in recognition of a person who has, in the opinion of the Council, rendered eminent services to the Borough of Oldham.
2. Background
2.1 The Council can approve nominations for persons to receive the title of Honorary Freeman of the Borough. The title is conferred upon persons “who have, in the opinion of the Council, rendered eminent services to the Borough of Oldham.” (Section 249(5) of the Local Government Act 1972.)
2.2 Such conferment must be agreed by the Council by resolution passed by not less than two thirds of the members present at a meeting specially convened
Page 251 for that purpose with notice of the purpose being set out in the summons for the meeting.
2.3 A nomination has been presented after Group Leaders discussion. It is recommended that the Right Honourable Michael Meacher MP be considered for nomination to receive the title.
2.4 Michael Meacher has served as a Member of Parliament in Oldham for 43 years in total and for 29 years on Labour’s Front Bench. Michael was elected as a Member of Parliament for the constituency of Oldham West in 1970 which he served until 1997 when he was elected as MP for Oldham West and Royton. Michael served as a junior minister under Prime Minister Harold Wilson as the Under Secretary for Industry and under Prime Minister Jim Callaghan as the Under Secretary for Health and Social Security. As a member of the Shadow Cabinet under the then Leader of the Opposition Neil Kinnock he served as Shadow Secretary of State for several departments including Social Security, Health and Social Services and Employment. He also served as Shadow Secretary of State for Transport under Tony Blair when he was Leader of the Opposition. He was then appointed as Minister of State for the Environment in Prime Minister Tony Blair’s first government and he served in this post for six years from 1997-2003.
2.5 The nomination is subject to not less than two-thirds of members voting in favour at the Council meeting where due notice is given.
3. Recommendation
That in accordance with Section 249(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council is requested to nominate the Right Honourable Michael Meacher MP to receive the title of Honorary Freeman of the Borough in recognition of outstanding service and dedication over 43 years to the local community as Member of Parliament for Oldham West and Oldham West and Royton.
Page 2 of 2 17.04.2013 Nomination to the Title of Honorary Freeman of the Borough 17.04.2013] Page 252 Agenda Item 19
Council
The Result of the Royton South By-Election and Review of the composition of Political Groups
Report of the Borough Solicitor
17 th April 2013
Officer Contact : Liz Frier Ext. 4705
Page 253
Council 17 th April 2013
The Result of the Royton South By-Election and Review of the Composition of Political Groups - Report of the Borough Solicitor
1 LOCAL BY-ELECTION RESULTS
A local By-Election took place on the 14 th March 2013 and the following was elected to serve as Member of the Council as shown:
Ward Turnout Councillor
Royton South 17.75% Marie Anne Bashforth
Subsequent to the results of the Local By- Election on the 14 th March 2013 the Council is asked to review the political composition of committees and to note the composition of the political groups as previously notified under Regulation 8 (1) of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990.
2 POLITICAL GROUPS
2.1 Council is asked to note that the composition of the political groups, as previously notified under Regulation 8(1) of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, is:-
(i) The Labour Group - 43 Members (ii) The Liberal Democrat Group - 14 Members (iii) The Conservative Group - 2 Members
3. POLITICAL BALANCE
3.1 There are four statutory principles of political balance which have to be applied in filling appointments to Committees. These are contained in S15(5) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
3.2 The principles have to be applied in priority order as follows:-
(a) that not all seats on the body are allocated to the same political group;
(b) that the majority of the seats on the body are allocated to a particular political group if the number of persons belonging to that group are a majority of the Authority’s membership;
(c) subject to paragraphs (a) and (b) above, that the number of seats on the ordinary committees of a relevant Authority which are allocated to each political group bears the same proportion to the total of all the seats on the ordinary committees of that Authority as is borne by the number of members of that group to the membership of the Authority; and
Page 2 of 5 [Document Title] [date] Page 254
(d) subject to paragraphs (a) to (c) above, that the number of seats on the body which are allocated to each political group bears the same proportion to the same number of all seats on that body as is borne by the number of members of that group to the membership of the Authority.
3.3 The political group sizes as a percentage of the total membership of the Council are:-
Labour Group 43/59 x 100 = 72.88% 74 seats x 72.88% = 54 seats 53.93 Liberal Democrat 14/59 x 100 = 23.73% 74 seats x 23.73% = 18 seats Group 17.56 Conservative Group 2/59 x 100 = 3.39% 74 seats x 3.39% = 3 seats 2.51
* Each of the calculations have been adjusted to ensure the total number of seats are apportioned.
3.4 The application of these percentages to the number of seats on individual Committees gives the following allocation of seats:-
COMMITTEE LABOUR(L) LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE SIZE DEMOCRATS (C) (LD)
15 10.93 3.56 0.51 14 10.20 3.32 0.47 13 9.47 3.08 0.44 12 8.75 2.85 0.41 11 8.02 2.61 0.37 10 7.29 2.37 0.34 9 6.56 2.14 0.31 8 5.83 1.90 0.27 7 5.10 1.66 0.24 6 4.37 1.42 0.20 5 3.64 1.19 0.17 4 2.92 0.95 0.14 3 2.19 0.71 0.10 2 1.46 0.47 0.07
Page 3 of 5 [Document Title] [date] Page 255 3.5 Under the political balance rules after these percentages have been applied to the total number of seats on Committees of the Council any remaining seats must be allocated to Members who are not Members of any political group.
3.6 Applying political balance as detailed at paragraph 3.4 above, the allocation of seats, to the current committee structure, would be as follows:-
Committee Seats L LD C Licensing 15 11 3 1 Planning *14 10 3 0 O&S Performance & Value for *11 8 3 0 Money Select Committee O&S Board 9 7 2 0 Audit Committee 9 7 2 0 Local NJC 7 5 2 0 Commons Registration 6 4 2 0 Appeals Committee 3 2 1 0
Total 74 54 18 1
* The above calculation leaves 1 committee place unallocated and 1 place to be reallocated
3.7 Adjustment of Seats
In accordance with the rules of political balance the number of seats must be allocated to accord with the rules at paragraph 3.5 above. It is therefore proposed that the number of seats on the various Committees for the 2012/13 Municipal Year be fixed as follows:-
Committee Seats L LD Con Licensing 15 11 3 1 Planning 14 10 3 1 O & S Performance & VFM 11 8 3 0 O&S Board 9 7 2 0 Audit 9 7 2 0 Local NJC 7 5 2 0 Commons Registration 6 4 2 0 Appeals 3 2 1 0
Page 4 of 5 [Document Title] [date] Page 256
TOTALS 74 54 18 2 (+1)
The total above does not include a politically balanced Selection Committee. If all Members of Council agree, the representation of the Selection to provide cross party membership - 3 Labour 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Conservative this would require the unanimous agreement of full Council.
3.8 Council is asked to review the political composition of the Committees; to determine the allocation of seats to political groups; and to make the appointments to fill the seats in accordance with Sections 15 and 16 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, 1991 and 1993.
4. Recommendations
(a) Council is asked to note the result of the By-Election
(b) The composition of the political groups as shown in paragraph 2.1 be noted;
(c) Council confirms the allocation of seats to the political groups and notes that there are no changes to allocation of appointments to fill the seats in accordance with Sections 15 and 16 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
(d) Council agrees unanimously to waive the political balance rules to allow cross party representation on the Selection Committee for the Municipal Year 2012/13. The Membership of the Committee to be 3 Labour Councillors, 1 Liberal Democrat Councillor and 1 Conservative Councillor. This arrangement in relation to the Selection Committee shall not affect any duty imposed by virtue of Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 on a relevant Authority or Committee to review the representation of different political groups on the Selection Committee and accordingly, such arrangements when cease to have effect when any such duty arises..
(e) Any outstanding appointments to be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council, the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group and the spokesperson for the Conservative Group.
Page 5 of 5 [Document Title] [date] Page 257 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 258 Agenda Item 20
REPORT TO COUNCIL
Chief Officer Remuneration
Report of the Chief Executive
Portfolio Holder: Councillor Abdul Jabbar
17 April 2013
Officer Contact: Dianne Frost – Assistant Executive Director People Services
Ext. 4695
Reason for Decision
In accordance with the Council’s Pay Policy Statement, it is a requirement that any Chief Officer remuneration of £100k or over requires full Council approval prior to its application. The Selection Committee have recently made two appointments, the remuneration of which requires Council approval.
Recommendations
That Council approve a salary of £100k per annum to be applied to the following posts:
• Director of Adults and Children’s Services • Director of Development and Infrastructure
Page 259 COUNCIL
CHIEF OFFICER REMUNERATION
1 Background
1.1 The selection of a Chief Officer is made by a panel of Elected Members who make up the Selection Committee which has delegated authority to appoint through the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.
1.2 As a result of the on-going implementation of the new organisational framework and the resultant restructuring at the most senior levels within the Council a number of appointments have been made by the Selection Committee.
1.3 The Council’s Pay Policy Statement is reviewed annually and received its most recent annual approval from full Council at its meeting on 27 th February 2013. In accordance with the Pay Policy Statement; which ensures transparency with regard to the Council’s approach to setting pay for its employees; it is policy to establish a salary for each Chief Officer post that is sufficient to attract and retain an employee with the appropriate knowledge, experience, skills and abilities that are needed, at that time, by the Council.
1.4 Also in accordance with the Pay Policy Statement, there is a requirement for full Council to approve any payment of £100k or more prior to its application for those appointments made by the Selection Committee.
1.5 The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the salaries of the following posts, both of strategic importance to the Council:
• Director of Adults and Children’s Services
By integrating the Adults and Children’s services and the statutory responsibilities for both services under one Director provides further opportunity to make savings within the Council and importantly as part of a broader review, achieve a cohesive approach to family need with joined up pathways and streamlined services.
• Director of Development and Infrastructure
It is a major priority for the Borough to undertake a programme of growth and the extent of the regeneration and investment projects underway require a strong professional with the appropriate commercial skills to take the lead together with the Chief Executive.
A brief resume of the responsibilities of the posts is attached as an appendix for information.
Page 2 of 6 Council – Chief Officer Remuneration 17.04.13 Page 260 2 Current Position
2.1 Pay Determination
We constantly review the benchmark salary data for all chief officer posts predominantly using market data directly available to us and from the Hay Group, independent pay and reward specialists who have worked with the Council for a long period of time and whose job evaluation process the Council is aligned to for senior officer and some middle manager level posts. This is important to ensure that there is a clear evidence base and independent methodology available for any scrutiny by the public, government and any other interested parties. We are working with North West Employers and other AGMA authorities to develop a pay data base that will continue to provide us with local benchmark data. In addition we scan the advertised jobs, and source other benchmark data such as from recruitment agencies. We currently align our pay with the public sector and not for profit organisations and have in place pay bands for each level of chief officer posts.
2.2 The posts that we now seek salary approval are classified as Strategic Directors and fall within a pay band agreed with the Selection Committee of:
Pay Band Upper Quartile Median Quartile Lower Quartile £ £ £
Strategic Directors 114 100 83
2.3 Within Oldham, our strategy is to align pay to the median quartile of the pay band dependant on the individual’s ability and experience. The Selection Committee recommends to Council that the salary for both posts be approved at £100k per annum, aligning the individuals to the median point of this pay band.
5 Consultation
5.1 N/A
6 Financial Implications
6.1 The net financial savings arising from the proposals in this report and the available budgetary provision total £127k. This has been factored into the achievement of the management savings budget option approved as part of the 2013/14 budget. These proposals will be combined with future options to ensure the delivery of the total budget requirement. Steven Mair, Borough Treasurer
Page 3 of 6 Council – Chief Officer Remuneration 17.04.13 Page 261 7 Legal Services Comments
7.1 There is a legal requirement for full Council to approve salaries of £100,000 or more. Paul Entwistle, Borough Solicitor
8 Co-operative Agenda
8.1 N/A
9 Human Resources Comments
9.1 Included within the content of the report regarding pay determination.
10 Risk Assessments
10.1 N/A
11 IT Implications
11.1 N/A
12 Property Implications
12.1 N/A
13 Procurement Implications
13.1 N/A
14 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications
14.1 N/A
15 Equality, Community Cohesion and Crime Implications
15.1 N/A
16 Equality Impact Assessment Completed
16.1 N/A
Page 4 of 6 Council – Chief Officer Remuneration 17.04.13 Page 262 17 Key Decision
17.1 No
18 Key Decision Reference
18.1 N/A
19 Background Papers
19.1 None
20 Appendices
20.1 Appendix 1 – Resume of Post Responsibilities
Page 5 of 6 Council – Chief Officer Remuneration 17.04.13 Page 263 Appendix 1
Director of Adults & Children’s Services
• To discharge the statutory function of Director for both Adults and Children’s Services. • Develop an integrated Adults and Children’s service ensuring all statutory and regulatory requirements are in place. • Establish strategies to improve the well-being of vulnerable adults, children and your people within the Borough and that promote safe, independent lifestyles for frail elderly and younger disabled people. • Take actions to improve outcomes for all children and young people. • Supporting families and the wider community to help care for vulnerable adults and older people. • Getting best value for the Council’s significant financial contribution for children and adult social care. • Commissioning good quality and local services that provide personally tailored care, with a high emphasis on prevention. • Working with partner organisations, particularly with NHS and Police, to make Oldham a better place for vulnerable residents to live.
Director of Development & Infrastructure
• Lead and manage the Town Centre and Borough wide Regeneration and Infrastructure projects and teams. • Lead and manage the Inward Investment agenda and team to bring about an improved attitude and more affluent borough. • Work with the Chief Executive, Council Leader and businesses to deliver the projects associated with the Place Shaping, Place Making and Place Marketing agendas. • Act as Senior Responsible Officer for key projects and partnerships within the Borough. Current projects include: Old Town Hall project; Coliseum and Heritage Project, Hotel Future; FCHO HQ; Prince Street Gateway; Southlink Masterplan; Royton Town Centre and Town Hall; Foxdenton; Hollinwood OPP, Meridian, Langtree, Foxdenton LLP, Royton; Oldham College. • Lead on the delivery of the Private Sector Housing Delivery agenda.
Please note both roles will be required to undertaken any other duties commensurate with the level of the post and in accordance with the business requirements from time to time.
Page 6 of 6 Council – Chief Officer Remuneration 17.04.13 Page 264 Agenda Item 21
FULL COUNCIL – 17 APRIL 2013
Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document
Report of the Executive Director Neighbourhoods
Portfolio Holder: Councillor Hibbert, Cabinet Member for Housing, Transport and Planning
14 March 2013
Officer Contact: Clare Moran, Planning Officer Ext. 4139
Purpose of Report To adopt the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document, which has been produced for AGMA by the Minerals and Waste Planning Unit, as part of the borough’s statutory development plan.
Executive Summary In August 2009 the ten Greater Manchester Authorities agreed to produce a joint Development Plan Document (DPD) covering minerals (the Minerals Plan). Since then the document has undergone a series of consultations in order to identify sites for extraction along with depots for transport and storage, areas for the safeguarding of minerals, and to develop a suite of minerals planning policies.
The Minerals Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State in November 2011. The examination into the soundness of the Submitted Minerals Plan commenced at the Pre Hearing Meeting on 6 December 2011, with hearing sessions over two days during February 2012 and an additional morning on 21 November 2012.
The Inspector has now issued the Inspector’s Report which confirms the soundness of the Submission Plan and the Minerals Plan can now be adopted by each of the ten Greater Manchester Local Planning Authorities. As a result of adopting the Minerals Plan there will be subsequent changes to the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map.
Page 265 Recommendations
It is recommended that the Council:
1. Adopts the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document with the main and minor modifications recommended by the Inspector with effect from 26 April 2013; and 2. Approves amending the existing Proposals Map to reflect the adoption of the Minerals Plan.
Page 2 of 7 Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document 14 March 2013 Page 266
Full Council 17 April 2013
Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document
1 Background
1.1 The ten Districts constituting the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) agreed to produce a Joint Minerals Development Plan Document (the Minerals Plan) in 2009. The document was submitted to the Secretary of State in November 2011. The Planning Inspectorate appointed Inspector Mr Andrew Mead BSc (Hons) MRTPI MIQ to undertake the Examination in to the soundness of the Minerals Plan.
1.2 The Minerals Plan covers land-use planning matters in relation to minerals development across the ten Greater Manchester Districts and includes detailed criteria based policies, as well as policies covering Areas of Search and Mineral Safeguarding Areas. The document includes a set of development management polices which will assist in the consideration of minerals planning applications, as well as a set of plans identifying Areas of Search for Minerals and Mineral Safeguarding Areas for each of the ten Districts which, upon adoption of the DPD, will be added to each District’s Local Plan Proposals Map.
1.3 The Examination hearing sessions took place over two days during February 2012. A further consultation on Proposed Modifications to the Minerals Plan took place between 3 August and 14 September 2012. A further hearing session relating to the representations made during this consultation took place on the morning of the 21 November 2012.
1.4 The Minerals Plan aims to ensure Greater Manchester contributes towards the sub-regional requirement of sand and gravel and crushed rock. It also aims to ensure that other mineral resources are not needlessly sterilised by non mineral development. No specific site allocations came forward as part of the development of the Minerals Plan and therefore the Plan can only achieve these requirements through the identification of Areas of Search for sand, gravel and sandstone/gritstone and designation of Mineral Safeguarding Areas to protect mineral resources from needless sterilisation. All Areas of Search and Mineral Safeguarding Areas, as well as accompanying policies within the Minerals Plan, have been subject to consultation with stakeholders.
1.5 In January 2012, the Inspectors Report was received from the Planning Inspectorate confirming the soundness of the Minerals Plan and as such the Minerals Plan must now be adopted as part of the Local Plan of each of the ten Greater Manchester Authorities.
1.6 Together with the adoption of the Minerals Plan, each district is also required to adopt specific changes to their Adopted Proposals Map in so that the minerals
Page 3 of 7 Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document 14 March 2013 Page 267 designations in the Minerals Plan can be transposed on to the Oldham’s adopted Proposals Map.
1.7 All Districts have been asked to formally adopt the Minerals Plan before the end of 25 April 2013 to allow the Plan to come into force from the 26 April 2013. Further information on the Minerals Plan can be found on the Minerals Plan website http://www.gmmineralsplan.co.uk/docs.html#Post_Examination .
1.8 The Minerals Plan links to all four Corporate Plan objectives.
2 Current Position
2.1 The Inspector’s Report has been received. The Inspector has found the Minerals Plan sound subject to the main and minor changes that he has approved and is now in a position to be adopted.
3 Options/Alternatives
3.1 Option 1 – To adopt the Minerals Plan including the main and minor changes approved by the Inspector. (Advantages – adopting the Minerals Plan will provide an up-to-date waste planning framework providing confidence and certainty to developers.) (Disadvantages – there are no disadvantages to adopting the Minerals Plan.)
3.2 Option 2 – To not adopt the Minerals Plan including the main and minor changes approved by the Inspector. (Advantages – there are no advantages in not approving the Minerals Plan.) (Disadvantages – not adopting the Minerals Plan means relying on old minerals planning policies in the Unitary Development Plan that do not reflect current priorities and do not provide an up-to-date planning framework.)
4 Preferred Option
4.1 Option 1 above is the Preferred Option.
5 Consultation
5.1 The Minerals Plan has been subject to extensive consultations with the community and statutory consultees since 2010. The consultations and opportunities for people to make their views known have included:
• Issues and Options – February / March 2010 • Defining Minerals Safeguarding Areas in Greater Manchester – August 2010 • Preferred Approach October / November 2010 • Proposed Submission – July to September 2011 (following support from Full Council in April 2011) • Preliminary Meeting – 6 December 2011
Page 4 of 7 Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document 14 March 2013 Page 268 • Public Hearings – 22 and 23 February 2012 • Consultation on the proposed modifications to the Greater Manchester Minerals Plan – August to September 2012 • Additional public hearing – 21 November 2012
6 Financial Implications
6.1 There is a specific budget code for the Minerals Plan (Cost Centre 12060) which has paid for the Minerals and Waste Planning Unit to undertake its preparation on our behalf. The Minerals and Waste Planning Unit will be paying for the printing of the Minerals Plan however the council is required to place local advertisements notifying that the Minerals Plan has been adopted. Costs for these are estimated at £850. (Clare Moran)
6.2 Revenue Comments The proposed expenditure of £850 will be one-off revenue expenditure in financial year 2013/14 and will be funded from within the existing Neighbourhoods Directorate, AGMA Joint Services Plan revenue budget (cost centre12060).
As detailed in paragraph in 6.1, the £850 costs for local advertising must be met by the authority. Any overspend on these advertising costs will be met from an existing budget within the Neighbourhoods Directorate. (K.Williams/M Ward)
7 Legal Services Comments
7.1 In accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation in respect of local plans, all development plan documents must be adopted by the Council. (A Evans)
8. Cooperative Agenda
8.1 The Minerals Plan forms part of the Local Plan for the borough and as such links to the council’s priorities and objectives under the Cooperative Agenda.
9 Human Resources Comments
9.1 N/A
10 Risk Assessments
10.1 No comments received.
11 IT Implications
11.1 None
Page 5 of 7 Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document 14 March 2013 Page 269 12 Property Implications
12.1 None directly arising from this report.
Should any Council owned assets be identified, it is not anticipated that the value would be adversely affected. (Cath Conroy)
13 Procurement Implications
13.1 None
14 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications
14.1 The Minerals Plan forms part of the Local Plan, which is the borough’s statutory planning and development document and will have beneficial environmental impacts.
15 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications
15.1 The Minerals Plan forms part of the Local Plan, which is the borough’s statutory planning and development document and reflects community cohesion issues.
16 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?
16.1 No, however the Minerals Plan forms part of the Local Plan, which is the borough’s statutory planning and development document and reflects community cohesion issues.
17 Key Decision
17.1 Yes
18 Forward Plan Reference
18.1 Not Applicable
19 Background Papers
19.1 The following is a list of background papers on which this report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by the Act :
File Ref : [insert] Name of File : [insert] Records held in [insert] Department, [insert address] Officer Name : [insert] Contact No : [insert]
Page 6 of 7 Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document 14 March 2013 Page 270
20 Appendices
20.1 Inspectors Report 20.2 Greater Manchester Minerals Plan Development Plan Document 20.3 Sustainability Appraisal 20.4 Sustainability Appraisal Appendices 20.5 Sustainability Appraisal Addendum 20.6 Habitats Regulation Assessment
DELETE IF CABINET DECISION
Signed ______Dated ______Cabinet Member [specify whom]
Signed ______Dated ______Executive Director
Page 7 of 7 Adoption of the Greater Manchester Minerals Development Plan Document 14 March 2013 Page 271 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 272 Agenda Item 22
COUNCIL
Council Calendar 2013-15
Report of the Borough Solicitor
Portfolio Responsibility: Various
17 April 2013
Officer contact: Liz Frier Ext. 4705
Purpose of Report This report sets out the revised calendar of meetings for the 2013-15 municipal years.
Recommendation The current version of the Council’s calendar of meetings for 2013-15 be approved, as set out in appendix 1.
Page 1 of 4 Council Calendar 2013-15 7 November 2012 Page 273
Council 7 November 2012
Council Calendar 2013-15
Report of the Borough Solicitor
Portfolio Responsibility: Various
1 Purpose of Report
1.1 This report sets out the amended version of the Calendar for the 2013- 15 Municipal Year.
2 Recommendation
2.1 The Council’s Calendar of Meetings for 2013-15 be approved, as set out in Appendix 1.
3 Background
3.1 Following the submission of the Municipal Calendar to the November Council meeting a number of requests to change certain dates in the Calendar were received from Members.
3.2 As a result of these requests a meeting has now taken place with representatives from all political parties; amendments to the calendar have been made and these are now included in the latest version attached at Appendix 1.
3.3 The Calendar also lists a variety of other key non-constituted and external meetings of particular importance to Members and also includes a three week recess in August.
4 Current Position
4.1 The revised version of the Calendar is set out in Appendix 1 to this report, however it should be pointed out that alterations which may arise from Annual Council, could result in further amendments needing to be made.
4.2 Members need to be aware that the proposed date of Annual Council 2014 could be the subject of change. This is as a consequence of a consultation document that has just been issued, whereby it has been proposed to combine the dates of the Local and European Elections for late May 2014.
5 Options/Alternatives
Page 2 of 4 Council Calendar 2013-15 7 November 2012 Page 274 5.1 The Council is entitled to amend any of the dates in the calendar, but should note it is required to approve a version of the calendar at its annual meeting.
6 Preferred Option
6.1 To approve the calendar as set out in Appendix 1.
7 Consultation
7.1 Consultation has taken place with relevant officers and councillors.
8 Financial Implications
8.1 The possibility of holding the elections on the same day may result in a reduction in costs to both Local and Central Government.
9 Legal Services Comments
9.1 There are no legal comments (Paul Entwistle).
10 Human Resources Comments
10.1 There are no human resources issues.
11 Risk Assessments
11.1 A risk assessment is not required.
12 IT Implications
12.1 There are no IT implications.
13 Property Implications
13.1 There are no property implications.
14 Procurement Implications
14.1 There are no procurement implications.
15 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications
15.1 There are no environmental or health and safety implications.
16 Community Cohesion Implications [including Crime & Disorder Implications in accordance with Section 17 of the Act] and Equalities Implications
16.1 There are no community cohesion implications.
Page 3 of 4 Council Calendar 2013-15 7 November 2012 Page 275
17 Forward Plan Reference
17.1 N/A
18 Key Decision
18.1 No
19 Background Papers
19.1 The following is a list of background papers on which this report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by the Act: • Council’s calendar of meetings 2012/13.
20 Appendices
20.1 Appendix 1 – Council calendar 2013-2015
Page 4 of 4 Council Calendar 2013-15 7 November 2012 Page 276 Version 1.5
CALENDAR OF MEETINGS
1 MAY 2013 - 31 MAY 2015
Page 277
MAY, 2013 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3
6 7 8 9 10 Bank Holiday Members Training (Afternoon 6.00 pm Audit Committee session: 2-4pm; Evening (Draft Final Accounts) session: 6-8pm) – Local Leaders Programme, Module 6 13 14 15 16 17 6.00 pm Cabinet 7.00 pm Royton Community Forum 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Page 278 Parish Council Annual Meeting 20 21 22 23 24 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 12.00 pm (Annual) Council Group Meeting 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Annual Meeting 27 28 29 30 31 School Holiday (Half Term) 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 6.00 pm Planning Committee School Holiday (Half Term) Start Board End Bank Holiday 4.00 pm Audit Committee (Final Accounts)
2
JUNE, 2013 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 3 4 5 6 7 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & 7.00 pm Failsworth & 7.00 pm East Oldham District 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if Crompton District Partnership Hollinwood District Partnership Partnership required) 6.00 pm West Oldham District Partnership
10 11 12 13 14 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Committee 6.45 pm Chadderton District 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees (Operational) 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Partnership District Partnership 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Board Parish Council Meeting 17 18 19 20 21 5.00 pm TRO Panel / 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 6.00 pm Audit Committee Petitioners Panel 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / Board Transformational Change Members Training (Afternoon Board session: 2-4pm; Evening Page 279 5.30 pm Unity Partnership session: 6-8pm) – Local Board Leaders Programme, 6.00 pm Shaw & Crompton Celebration event Community Forum 24 25 26 27 28 6.00 pm Cabinet 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish 2.00 pm NJC Board Council Meeting 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Performance and Value for Money Select Committee
3
JULY, 2013 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3 4 5 LGA Conference start 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory LGA Conference end 4.00 pm Standards Committee Panel (Adult Care and Health) 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if required)
8 9 10 11 12 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Housing, Transport and Panel (Finance, HR and Panel (Children, Education and Panel (Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) Partnerships) Leisure) Co-operatives) 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Parish Council Meeting 15 16 17 18 19 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Council School Holiday (Summer) Start (Operational) 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny 6.00 pm Werneth Community
Page 280 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat Board Forum Group Meeting 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 22 23 24 25 26 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Council Meeting 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Members Training (Afternoon Board Board session: 2-4pm; Evening 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & session: 6-8pm) District Partnership Crompton District Partnership
29 30 31 6.00 pm Cabinet 2.00 pm Joint Leadership 6.45 pm Chadderton District 7.00 pm Failsworth & Partnership Hollinwood District Partnership 7.00 pm East Oldham District Partnership
4
AUGUST, 2013 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 6.00 pm West Oldham District Partnership
5 6 7 8 9 Recess Start Eid al-Fitr 12 13 14 15 16
19 20 21 22 23 Recess End 26 27 28 29 30 Bank Holiday 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Planning Committee 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Performance and Value for Money Select Committee Page 281
5
SEPTEMBER, 2013 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 2 3 4 5 6 3.30 pm Leadership School Holiday (Summer) End 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if (Operational) 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel Transformational Change required) 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Board Board 5.30 pm Unity Partnership Board 9 10 11 12 13 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 6.00 pm Council 6.00 pm Audit Committee Group Meeting Board 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 7.00 pm Royton Community Forum 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Parish Council Meeting
Page 282 16 17 18 19 20 Liberal Democrat Party 9.30 am Licensing Panel Liberal Democrat Party Members Training (Afternoon th Conference start (14 ) 4.00 pm Standards Committee Conference end session: 2-4pm; Evening 6.00 pm Cabinet session: 6-8pm) 23 24 25 26 27 Labour Party Conference start 6.00 pm Shaw & Crompton Labour Party Conference end 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing nd (22 ) Community Forum 6.00 pm Planning Committee Board 5.00 pm TRO Panel / 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Petitioners Panel Performance and Value for 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Money Select Committee Council Meeting
30 Conservative Party Conference Conservative Party Conference th start (29 ) end 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & Crompton District Partnership
6
OCTOBER, 2013 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3 4 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 7.00 pm East Oldham District 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Partnership required) Board 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees District Partnership
7 8 9 10 11 3.30 pm Leadership 2.00 pm NJC 6.45 pm Chadderton District 6.00 pm West Oldham District (Operational) 7.00 pm Failsworth & Partnership Partnership Hollinwood District Partnership
14 15 16 17 18 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Eid al-Adha 2.00 pm Joint Leadership 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Adult Care and Health) 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Finance, HR and 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Panel (Housing, Transport and Partnerships) Page 283 Parish Council Meeting Regeneration)
21 22 23 24 25 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Council 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Group Meeting 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Panel (Neighbourhoods and 6.00 pm Cabinet Board Co-operatives) 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Children, Education and Leisure)
28 29 30 31 School Holiday (Autumn Half Members Training (Afternoon 6.00 pm Planning Committee 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Term) Start session: 2-4pm; Evening Board 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish session: 6-8pm) 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Council Meeting Performance and Value for Money Select Committee 6.00 pm Werneth Community Forum
7
NOVEMBER, 2013 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 School Holiday (Autumn Half Term) End 4 5 6 7 8 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if (Operational) Crompton District Partnership required) (Subject to venue availability) 6.00 pm O&S PVFM st 7.00 pm East Oldham District (Administration Budget – 1 Partnership Tranche)
11 12 13 14 15 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / 6.00 pm Shaw & Crompton 6.45 pm Chadderton District 6.00 pm West Oldham District Transformational Change Community Forum Partnership Partnership Board 7.00 pm Failsworth & 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees
Page 284 5.30 pm Unity Partnership Hollinwood District Partnership District Partnership Board 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Parish Council Meeting 18 19 20 21 22 6.00 pm Cabinet 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Board Board 6.00 pm O&S PVFM st (Opposition Budget – 1 Tranche) 25 26 27 28 29 7.00 pm Royton Community 9.30 am Licensing Committee Members Training (Afternoon Forum 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny session: 2-4pm; Evening 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Board session: 6-8pm) Council Meeting
8
DECEMBER, 2013 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 2 3 4 5 6 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if (Operational) 4.00 pm Standards Committee required) 6.00 pm (Budget) Cabinet 6.00 pm Audit Committee 9 10 11 12 13 5.00 pm TRO Panel / 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 6.00 pm Planning Committee 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Petitioners Panel Board Performance and Value for 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Members Training (Afternoon Money Select Committee Parish Council Meeting session: 2-4pm; Evening session: 6-8pm) 16 17 18 19 20 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Council 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Group Meeting Board 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Page 285 Council Meeting 23 24 25 26 27 School Holiday (Christmas) Bank Holiday Bank Holiday Start 30 31
9
JANUARY, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3 School Holiday (Christmas) End 6 7 8 9 10 Members Training (Afternoon 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if session: 2-4pm; Evening required) session: 6-8pm) 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / Transformational Change Board 5.30 pm Unity Partnership Board
13 14 15 16 17 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee
Page 286 (Operational) 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Board Parish Council Meeting 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Board 20 21 22 23 24 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm West Oldham District 6.00 pm O&S PVFM nd Crompton District Partnership 7.00 pm Failsworth & Partnership (Administration Budget – 2 Hollinwood District Partnership 7.00 pm East Oldham District Tranche) Partnership
27 28 29 30 31 6.00 pm Cabinet 2.00 pm NJC 6.45 pm Chadderton District 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Partnership Board Council Meeting 6.00 pm Werneth Community Forum 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees District Partnership
10
FEBRUARY, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thur sday Friday 3 4 5 6 7 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Council 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if Group Meeting 6.00 pm O&S PVFM required) nd 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting (Opposition Budget – 2 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Tranche) Performance and Value for Money Select Committee 10 11 12 13 14 3.30 pm Leadership 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 6.00 pm Planning Committee 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory (Operational) Board Panel (Housing, Transport and 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Regeneration) Parish Council Meeting Panel (Adult Care and Health) 6.00 pm (Budget) Cabinet 6.00 pm Shaw & Crompton Community Forum 17 18 19 20 21 School Holiday (Spring Half 9.30 am Licensing Panel 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 2.00 pm Joint Leadership School Holiday (Spring Half Term) Start 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Finance, HR and 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Term) End Page 287 Panel (Children, Education and Partnerships) Panel (Neighbourhoods and Leisure) Co-operatives)
24 25 26 27 28 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny 6.00 pm (Budget) Council 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting Board Board 7.00 pm Royton Community Forum 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Meeting
11
MARCH, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 3 4 5 6 7 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel Members Training (Afternoon 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if session: 2-4pm; Evening required) session: 6-8pm) 6.00 pm Audit Committee 10 11 12 13 14 5.00 pm TRO Panel / 9.30 am Licensing Committee 6.00 pm Planning Committee 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Petitioners Panel 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Performance and Value for 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Board Money Select Committee Parish Council Meeting 4.00 pm Standards Committee 17 18 19 20 21 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Panel 7.00 pm East Oldham District 6.00 pm West Oldham District (Operational) 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & Partnership Partnership Crompton District Partnership
Page 288 24 25 26 27 28 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / 7.00 pm Failsworth & 6.45 pm Chadderton District 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Transformational Change Hollinwood District Partnership Partnership Board Board 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees 5.30 pm Unity Partnership District Partnership Board 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Meeting 31 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat Group Meeting 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting
12
APRIL, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3 4 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Council 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny required) Board 7 8 9 10 11 School Holiday (Easter) Start 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 3.30 pm Leadership Board Panel (Housing, Transport and Panel (Finance, HR and (Operational) 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Regeneration) Partnerships) Panel (Adult Care and Health)
14 15 16 17 18 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Bank Holiday Panel (Children, Education and 2.00 pm NJC Board Leisure) 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Neighbourhoods and Co-operatives) Page 289 21 22 23 24 25 Bank Holiday 6.00 pm Cabinet Members Training (Afternoon 6.00 pm Werneth Community School Holiday (Easter) End session: 2-4pm; Evening Forum session: 6-8pm) 28 29 30 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Meeting
13
MAY, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 Elections (subject to European Elections date) 5 6 7 8 9 Bank Holiday 12 13 14 15 16 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Parish Council Annual Meeting 19 20 21 22 23 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 12.00 pm (Annual) Council Elections (Potential date) 4.00 pm Audit Committee Group Meeting (subject to European Elections (subject to European Elections (Final Accounts) 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting date) date) 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Annual Meeting Page 290 26 27 28 29 30 Bank Holiday 12.00 pm (Annual) Council 6.00 pm Planning Committee School Holiday (Summer Half School Holiday (Summer Half (Potential date) (subject to (potential date) (subject to Term) End Term) Start European Elections date) European Elections date) 6.00 pm Planning Committee (subject to European Elections date)
14
JUNE, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 2 3 4 5 6 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & 7.00 pm Failsworth & 7.00 pm East Oldham District 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if Crompton District Partnership Hollinwood District Partnership Partnership required) 6.00 pm West Oldham District Partnership
9 10 11 12 13 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton 9.30 am Licensing Committee 6.45 pm Chadderton District 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees Parish Council Meeting 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Partnership District Partnership Board 16 17 18 19 20 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Audit Committee (Operational) 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / Transformational Change Board 5.30 pm Unity Partnership Page 291 Board 23 24 25 26 27 5.00 pm TRO Panel / 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Petitioners Panel 2.00 pm NJC Board 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Council Meeting Performance and Value for Money Select Committee 30 6.00 pm Cabinet
15
JULY, 2014 Monday Tues day Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3 4 4.00 pm Standards Committee 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if required)
7 8 9 10 11 3.30 pm Leadership LGA Conference start 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory LGA Conference end (Operational) 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Housing, Transport and 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Adult Care and Health) Regeneration) Panel (Finance, HR and Partnerships)
14 15 16 17 18 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Council 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory School Holiday (Summer) Start Panel (Children, Education and 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Neighbourhoods and Leisure) Board Co-operatives)
Page 292 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat Group Meeting 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Parish Council Meeting 21 22 23 24 25 6.00 pm Cabinet 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees 7.00 pm Failsworth & District Partnership Hollinwood District Partnership
28 29 30 31 Eid al-Fitr 2.00 pm Joint Leadership 6.45 pm Chadderton District 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & Partnership Board Council Meeting Crompton District Partnership 7.00 pm East Oldham District 6.00 pm Werneth Community Partnership Forum 6.00 pm West Oldham District Partnership
16
AUGUST, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1
4 5 6 7 8 Recess Start 11 12 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22 Recess End 25 26 27 28 29 Bank Holiday 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Planning Committee 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Board 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Performance and Value for Money Select Committee Page 293
17
SEPTEMBER, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3 4 5 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Transformational Change required) Board Board 5.30 pm Unity Partnership Board 8 9 10 11 12 3.30 pm Leadership 6.00 pm Council 6.00 pm Audit Committee (Operational) 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat Group Meeting 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Parish Council Meeting
Page 294 15 16 17 18 19 5.00 pm TRO Panel / 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee Petitioners Panel 4.00 pm Standards Committee
22 23 24 25 26 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Performance and Value for Council Meeting Money Select Committee 29 30 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & Crompton District Partnership
18
OCTOBER, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2 3 7.00 pm East Oldham District 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if Partnership required) 6.00 pm West Oldham District Partnership
6 7 8 9 10 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.45 pm Chadderton District 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees (Operational) 7.00 pm Failsworth & Partnership District Partnership Hollinwood District Partnership
13 14 15 16 17 2.00 pm Joint Leadership 2.00 pm NJC 6.00 pm Planning Committee 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Parish Council Meeting Board 20 21 22 23 24 Page 295 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Council 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Group Meeting 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Housing, Transport and 6.00 pm Cabinet Panel (Adult Care and Health) Regeneration) 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 27 28 29 30 31 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Panel (Finance, HR and Panel (Children, Education and Panel (Neighbourhoods and Board Partnerships) Leisure) Co-operatives) 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Performance and Value for Council Meeting Money Select Committee 6.00 pm Werneth Community Forum
19
NOVEMBER, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 3 4 5 6 7 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if (Operational) Transformational Change required) Board 5.30 pm Unity Partnership Board 10 11 12 13 14 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton 6.00 pm Planning Committee 6.00 pm O&S PVFM st Parish Council Meeting (Administration Budget – 1 Tranche) 17 18 19 20 21 6.00 pm Cabinet 9.30 am Licensing Panel 7.00 pm East Oldham District 6.00 pm West Oldham District 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & Partnership Partnership Crompton District Partnership
Page 296 7.00 pm Failsworth & Hollinwood District Partnership
24 25 26 27 28 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish 9.30 am Licensing Committee 6.45 pm Chadderton District 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Council Meeting 6.00 pm O&S PVFM Partnership Board st (Opposition Budget – 1 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees Tranche) District Partnership
20
DECEMBER, 2014 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Frida y 1 2 3 4 5 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if (Operational) 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny required) Board 6.00 pm Audit Committee 8 9 10 11 12 6.00 pm (Budget) Cabinet 5.00 pm TRO Panel / 6.00 pm Planning Committee 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Petitioners Panel Performance and Value for Parish Council Meeting Money Select Committee
15 16 17 18 19 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm Council 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Group Meeting 4.00 pm Standards Committee Board 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Meeting Page 297 22 23 24 25 26 Bank Holiday Bank Holiday 29 30 31
21
JANUARY, 2015 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 2
5 6 7 8 9 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if required) 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / Transformational Change Board 5.30 pm Unity Partnership Board
12 13 14 15 16 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Planning Committee (Operational) 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny
Page 298 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Board Parish Council Meeting 19 20 21 22 23 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & 9.30 am Licensing Panel 6.00 pm West Oldham District 6.00 pm O&S PVFM nd Crompton District Partnership 7.00 pm Failsworth & Partnership (Administration Budget – 2 Hollinwood District Partnership 7.00 pm East Oldham District Tranche) Partnership
26 27 28 29 30 6.00 pm Cabinet 2.00 pm NJC 6.45 pm Chadderton District 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Partnership Board Council Meeting 6.00 pm Werneth Community Forum 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees District Partnership
22
FEBRUARY, 2015 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 2 3 4 5 6 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Council 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if Group Meeting 6.00 pm O&S PVFM required) nd 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting (Opposition Budget – 2 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Tranche) Performance and Value for Money Select Committee 9 10 11 12 13 3.30 pm Leadership 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 6.00 pm Planning Committee 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory (Operational) Panel (Adult Care and Health) Panel (Housing, Transport and 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Regeneration) Parish Council Meeting 16 17 18 19 20 6.00 pm (Budget) Cabinet 9.30 am Licensing Panel 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 2.00 pm Joint Leadership 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Finance, HR and 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Children, Education and Partnerships) Panel (Neighbourhoods and Leisure) Co-operatives) Page 299 23 24 25 26 27 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny 6.00 pm (Budget) Council 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting Board Board 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Meeting
23
MARCH, 2015 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 2 3 4 5 6 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if required) 6.00 pm Audit Committee 9 10 11 12 13 5.00 pm TRO Panel / 9.30 am Licensing Committee 6.00 pm Planning Committee 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Petitioners Panel 4.00 pm Standards Committee Performance and Value for 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Money Select Committee Parish Council Meeting
16 17 18 19 20 3.30 pm Leadership 9.30 am Licensing Panel 7.00 pm East Oldham District 6.00 pm West Oldham District (Operational) 6.00 pm Royton, Shaw & Partnership Partnership Crompton District Partnership
Page 300 23 24 25 26 27 4.00 pm Joint Leadership / 7.00 pm Failsworth & 6.45 pm Chadderton District 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Transformational Change Hollinwood District Partnership Partnership Board Board 6.30 pm Saddleworth & Lees 5.30 pm Unity Partnership District Partnership Board 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Meeting 30 31 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat Group Meeting 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting
24
APRIL, 2015 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursda y Friday 1 2 3 6.00 pm Council 9.30 am Appeals Committee (if Bank Holiday required)
6 7 8 9 10 Bank Holiday 9.30 am Licensing Driver Panel 6.00 pm Overview and Scrutiny Board 13 14 15 16 17 3.30 pm Leadership 2.00 pm Joint Leadership 6.00 pm Planning Committee 2.00 pm Joint Leadership (Operational) 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Adult Care and Health) Panel (Housing, Transport and Regeneration)
20 21 22 23 24 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 9.30 am Licensing Panel 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory 2.00 pm Health & Wellbeing Page 301 Panel (Finance, HR and 2.00 pm NJC Panel (Children, Education and Board Partnerships) Leisure) 5.30 pm Cabinet Advisory Panel (Neighbourhoods and Co-operatives)
27 28 29 30 6.00 pm Cabinet 6.00 pm Werneth Community 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Forum Council Meeting
25
MAY, 2015 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1
4 5 6 7 8 Bank Holiday Elections (Local and National) 11 12 13 14 15 7.30 pm Shaw and Crompton Parish Council Meeting 18 19 20 21 22 5.30 pm Liberal Democrat 12.00 pm (Annual) Council Group Meeting 6.00 pm Labour Group Meeting 7.30 pm Saddleworth Parish Council Annual Meeting 25 26 27 28 29 Page 302 Bank Holiday
26 Agenda Item 23
COUNCIL
Update on Actions from Council
Report of the Borough Solicitor
Portfolio Holder : Various
17 April 2013
Officer Contact : Liz Frier, Head of Constitutional Services Ext. 4705
Reason for Decision
The decision is for Elected Members to note updates to the actions from previous Council meetings.
Executive Summary
1. This report provides feedback to the Council on actions taken on motions at the Council meeting on 6th February 2013, and copies of letters received in response to actions taken following Council meetings prior to 6th February 2013.
2. This report also provides feedback on other issues raised at the meeting.
Recommendations:
1. Council are asked to note the actions and correspondence received regarding motions agreed at previous Council meetings.
Page 303
Council 17 April 2013
Update on Actions from Council
1 Background
1.1 The report sets out the actions officers have taken on motions of outstanding business and notices of motion approved at the Council meeting on 6 th February 2013 and copies of letters received in response to actions taking following Council meetings prior to 6th February 2013.
2 Current Position
2.1 The current position from actions as a result of motions is set out in the table at Appendix One. Letters are attached at Appendix Two in response to the actions approved at Council on 6th February 2013.
3 Options/Alternatives
3.1 N/A
4 Preferred Option
4.1 N/A
5 Consultation
5.1 N/A
6 Financial Implications
6.1 N/A
7 Legal Services Comments
7.1 N/A
8 Human Resources Comments
8.1 N/A
9 Risk Assessments
9.1 N/A
10 IT Implications
10.1 N/A
11 Property Implications
Page 2 of 5 Update on Actions from Council 17Apr13 Page 304 11.1 N/A
12 Procurement Implications
12.1 N/A
13 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications
13.1 N/A
14 Equality, community cohesion and crime implications
14.1 N/A
15 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?
15.1 N/A
16 Key Decision
16.1 No
17 Forward Plan Reference
17.1 N/A
18 Background Papers
18.1 The following is a list of background papers on which this report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by the Act:
• Agenda and minutes of the Council meetings held on the 6th February 2013 available online at • http://committees.oldham.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails
19 Appendices
19.1 Appendix 1 – actions taken following the Council meeting on the 6th February 2013
19.2 Appendix 2 – Letters received in response to actions taken at the meeting approved at Council on 6th February 2013 and letters received in relation to actions agreed prior to February 2013.
Page 3 of 5 Update on Actions from Council 17Apr13 Page 305 Appendix One
MATTERS ARISING AT COUNCIL – 6 February 2013
ACTION RESPONSE WHO RESPONSIBLE DATE COMPLETED Outstanding Business from Previous Letters sent to Oldham Credit Union, Chief Executive Council letters sent 19 Feb; Meeting – Fairer Deal on Bus Fares Chair of TfGMC and Director General Letter dated 8 April from TfGM TfGM received 8 April
Administration Business 1 – Conduct Letters sent to the Rt. Hon. M. Chief Executive Council letters sent 19 Feb: of ATOS Meacher MP and the Secretary of Letter from Mr. Meacher MP State for Dept. of Work and Pensions dated 28 Feb received 7 March; Letter dated 28 March from DWP received on 8 April Page 306
Opposition Business 1 – Work Letters sent to the Chairs of the Chief Executive Council letters sent 22 Feb: Carried Out to Combat Loan Sharks Council’s six District Partnerships; the Letter dated 28 Feb from Places Oldham Voluntary, Community and for People received on 28 Feb; Faith Partnership; the Chair of the Letter dated 7 March from West Oldham Business Leadership Group Oldham DP received on 18 and the social landlords. March; Letter dated 12 March from FCHO received on18 March; Letter from Guinness Northern Counties dated 21 March received 26 March; Letter dated 8 April from East Oldham DP received on 8 April;
Minutes of Joint Authorities: Response outlining balances received Councillor S. Williams Email sent to All Councillors and 1. GMFRS: Question from Cllr from GMFRS 22 Feb Blyth relating to surplus funds and balances and how to be allocated
Page 4 of 5 Update on Actions from Council 17Apr13
ACTION RESPONSE WHO RESPONSIBLE DATE COMPLETED Minutes of Joint Authorities: Response sent outlining the Green Councillor J. McMahon Email sent to Cllr Heffernan and 2. GMCA: Green Deal Business Deal Business Case all councillors on 7 March Case
Welfare Reform Report Report to Council in July 2013 Councillor A. Jabbar To be received in July 2013
Page 307
Page 5 of 5 Update on Actions from Council 17Apr13 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 308
Mr Charlie Parker Chief Executive Oldham MBC Level 3, Civic Centre West Street OLDHAM 8 April 2013 OL1 1UG
Dear Charlie
Oldham Council Resolution – Fairer Deal on Bus Fares
You recently wrote to Councillor Fender and myself in regard to the resolution passed at your Council Meeting on 6 February 2013. I am replying on behalf of both of us.
TfGMC and TfGM have been working closely with First Manchester over the past 18 months in order to secure their commitment to reducing substantially the cost of travel to passengers and making bus travel across their operating area, including Oldham, significantly more affordable and attractive. This is one very important aspect of securing their commitment to improve the attractiveness and effectiveness of their services in all respects, through improvements to service performance, fleet investment and customer service.
During this period both Members and Officers have been stressing the need for more affordable fares to be available on a permanent basis in order to drive up overall patronage and ensure that the services provided by First support more fully the communities that they serve.
As you are aware, First have taken a number of steps during that time to improve the attractiveness of their services including the introduction of a number of corridor specific fares and subsequently some area based products. Whilst these steps were very much welcomed they, in themselves, potentially created additional complexity for passengers in ensuring they secured value for money. It is therefore, extremely pleasing that First have now sought to provide a more uniform offer across their operating area which sees very substantial reductions to the price of their Day and Period travel tickets, including equivalent Child products.
Transport for Greater Manchester is an executive body of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority
Page 309
Clearly given the scale of First’s network both within Oldham and across a substantial area of Greater Manchester, this move will have significant benefit to the residents of those areas in accessing employment, education and health.
Officers of TfGM are continuing to work with Operators, including First, to examine how both individually and collectively they can put into place meaningful discounted products to better support specific groups, including Job Seekers, apprentices and students. We would be extremely happy to work with Oldham and other boroughs in ensuring that this work is aligned to local initiatives such as those outlined in your letter.
Yours sincerely
Jon Lamonte Chief Executive
Transport for Greater Manchester is an executive body of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority
Page 310 Page 311 Page 312 Page 313 Page 314 Page 315 Page 316
Our ref: PE Your ref: Date: 28 th February 2013
Mr C Parker Places for People Chief Executive 18 South Rings Business Oldham MBC Park Level 3, Civic Centre Craven Drive West Street Oldham OL1 1UG Bamber Bridge PRESTON PR5 6BZ
Tel: 01772 666275 24hr: 0800 432 0002 Dear Mr Parker
Re: Oldham Council Resolution – Combating Loan Sharks in Oldham
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the work of Places for People in supporting the Stop Loan Sharks Campaign.
As one of the largest property management, development and regeneration companies in the UK we are well aware of the negative impact that Loan Sharks can have on our customers and the communities we work in. As a result of this, we have taken the following actions to support the campaign:
• Our Financial Services department offers affordable personal loans to customers and was created as an accessible alternative to high cost lenders and Loan Sharks • Our Money Advice Team is also available to offer telephone or face-to-face advice and support around budgeting, benefits and banking • Our Income Collection Centre actively dissuades customers that have rent arrears from approaching Loan Sharks and signpost to local Credit Unions and our own in- house Financial Services where appropriate • We have also recently created a formal partnership with StepChange Debt Charity to ensure that all of our customers have access to free, confidential debt advice and support • The Illegal Money Lending Team has also delivered several presentations to both our staff and customers across the country and these were well received by all that attended • We actively promote the work of the Illegal Money Lending Team via our website (www.placesforpeople.co.uk ) and the content was developed in conjunction with the team. We also take the opportunity to promote via our Local and National Let’s Talk customers newsletters.
We understand the important work that the team carries out within the communities we work and are committed to working alongside the Illegal Money Lending Team to Combat Loan Sharks. We are currently drafting the Group’s Financial Inclusion Strategy for 2013-16 and one of the main action points will be strengthening our partnership with the Illegal Money Lending Team.
Page 317 Yours sincerely
Pat Egan Managing Director Homes Places for People 18 Craven Drive, South Rings Business Park, Bamber Bridge, Preston PR5 6BZ T: 01772 666 275 E: [email protected] www.placesforpeople.co.uk
Page 318 Page 319 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 320 Page 321 Page 322 Page 323 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 324 Page 325 Page 326 Date: 8 April 2013 Your ref: Council – Loan Sharks - 06022013
Charlie Parker Councillor S Qumer Chief Executive 79 Queens Road Oldham OL8 2AB
Tel: 0161 770 4013 Mobile: 07885 617 444
Dear Charlie
Re: Oldham Council Resolution – Combating Loan Sharks in Oldham
Thank you for your letter of 6 th February.
The East Oldham District Partnership recognises the blight that loan sharks bring on the many communities of Oldham, and of East Oldham in particular, and applaud the lead that the Council is taking in this work.
The District Partnership has allocated £1,000 in the first instance, to supplement the £500 available through the England Illegal Money Lending Team (EIMLT). This funding is being used to support a variety of activity within the district.
The Partnership recognises that the issue of loan sharks is inextricably linked to a variety of other challenges that our residents face in these hard-pressed times. As such, the response at a district level is a multi-faceted one, as part of the Council’s broader “Making the Most of Your Money” (MMYM) campaign. To date, this has included:
• The District Partnership has paid for 18 members of local community groups to take part in training that will allow them to deliver budgeting skills sessions in their local communities. The Partnership will make a small donation to each group that delivers ten such sessions. As part of this training, the group has had an input on the problem of loan sharks, and how to report such issues. • As part of our rolling programme of MMYM events, information on reporting loan sharks is being given out to local residents. So far, this has included events in East Oldham on Friday 22 nd and Saturday 30 th March. Upcoming events are planned for Wednesday 10 th April and Sunday 21 st April. • The Partnership is supporting the delivery of a wide range of advice and support sessions from the East Oldham District Town Hall at Holt Street. These include: o Free English, Maths and I.T courses for local residents, in partnership with Oldham College. o Weekly Citizen’s Advice Bureau drop-in sessions, part-funded through the DP. o A weekly internet café, supported by volunteers from a local charity.
γ Page 327 o Weekly housing advice surgeries delivered by First Choice Homes and Threshold Housing. • Sports bottles, with logos promoting both the loan shark campaign and the credit union, have been purchased, and are being given to local sports teams, along with information on where to seek advice.
Moving forward, the Partnership is currently exploring the possibility of a localised offer around the Credit Union, which is likely to include a membership incentive scheme and sign- up events, as well as looking at the potential for a “handybank” satellite office for the Credit Union in the district.
I hope that the above gives you a flavour of the work currently taking place to combat this issue. The District Partnership understands that the scourge of loan sharks cannot be tackled overnight, and will remain resolute in its approach to tackling these issues.
Finally, I would like to extend the thanks of the District Partnership to Tony Denny (EIMLT), Natalie Downs (Communitiy Cohesion Support) and Uma Bashir (Trading Standards) for the support they have offered in developing our approach in East Oldham.
Yours
COUNCILLOR SHADAB QUMER St. Mary’s Ward Councillor, Chair of the East Oldham District Partnership Email: [email protected]
γ Page 328