Town Hall, St. Helens, Merseyside, WA10 1HP

Telephone: 01744 673219 (Joanne Griffiths)

CABINET

Public Meeting Agenda

Date: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 Time: 4.00 pm Venue : Room 10

Membership

Councillors : Rim mer (Chairman), Bacon, Bowden, Grunewald, Murphy, Pearson, Quinn and Smith

Item Title Page

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2012 1

3. Declarations of Interest from Members

4. Issues Arising from Overview and Scrutiny

1) Scrutiny Review of Allotments 5 2) Scrutiny Review of 5 Borough Trust’s Later Life Memory Services 25 and Relocation of Stewart Assessment Ward

5. Budget Performance Monitoring Report December 2011 37

6. Revenue and Capital Budget 2012/13 97

* 7. The Sutton Academy - Approval of Final Business Case 205

* Key Decision which is within the Forward Plan of Key Decisions

This page is intentionally left blank 2

CABINET

At a meeting of the Cabinet held on 25 January 2012

(Present) Councillor Rimmer (Chairman) Councillors Bacon, Bowden, Murphy, Pearson, Quinn and Smith

(Not Present) Councillor Grunewald

------

111 APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Grunewald.

112 MINUTES

*** Resolved that the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 4 January 2012 be approved and signed.

113 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FROM MEMBERS

No Declarations of Interest were made.

114 ISSUES ARISING FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

i) Overview and Scrutiny Commission – Budget Scrutiny Review 2012/13

A report was submitted which informed Cabinet that the Budget Scrutiny review process for 2012/13 had been undertaken in the following stages:

• Initial consideration of the Draft Portfolio Spending Plans at the Commission meeting held on 22 September 2011. • Individual Scrutiny Panels invited Portfolio Holders and appropriate Chief Officers to attend their meetings and together examined and discussed the Draft Portfolio Spending Plans. Members were given the opportunity to submit questions prior to the meetings. For those Portfolio Holders who were unable to attend the Panel meetings, separate meetings were arranged to which Scrutiny members were invited. • All scrutiny members were issued with the findings from the Panel meetings and given an opportunity to consider and raise anything further. A progress update was reported at the Overview and Scrutiny Commission meetings held on 3 November and 15 December 2011 respectively. • The Budget Report was presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission on 12 January 2012 and Members were invited to raise any additional questions prior to the finalisation of the Budget Scrutiny report.

The Overview and Scrutiny Commission recognised the difficult financial climate against which the spending plans had been developed and acknowledged the detailed work that had been undertaken in order to review all aspects of spending and to identify scope for savings and efficiencies. The Overview and Scrutiny Commission had welcomed the opportunity to discuss these spending

1 2

CABINET

plans with Portfolio Holders and Chief Officers and to understand their implications for departments and for service delivery.

*** Resolved that the outcome of the 2012/13 Budget Scrutiny review undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission as part of the Council’s budget setting process for 2012/13 be noted.

Following this item, the Chairman, on behalf of Cabinet, thanked Jane Brighouse, Assistant Treasurer (Regulation and Compliance) who had presented the report from Overview and Scrutiny and paid tribute to her professionalism and competency in all the functions which she had carried out for the Council. Jane was leaving the Local Authority on 31 January 2012 and would be leaving with Cabinet’s best wishes for the future.

115 SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY

A report was submitted which informed Cabinet of a social media policy which it was proposed should be adopted.

Social media presents the Council with new opportunities to understand, engage and communicate with their residents. The potential of social media as a business tool was almost limitless, however if misused it had the potential to cause considerable damage to the Council, and to those they sought to engage with.

The purpose of the policy was to ensure that where the Council used social media, it did so in a controlled manner that enabled them to engage safely and effectively with residents and other parties.

The policy sought to ensure that the reputation of the Council was not adversely affected through their use of social media, and that the Council was not exposed to legal and governance risks that could be very significant.

* Resolved that the Social Media Policy be approved.

116 BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT NOVEMBER 2011

A report was submitted which informed Cabinet of the Budget and Performance Monitoring Report November 2011.

In November new data was available for 85 key performance indicators and of this number 51 (60%) were on or better than target.

The impact the new data had overall was to see performance decrease by 4% from 70% of all PIs on or better than target last month to 66% this month.

* Resolved that

(1) the financial position of the Portfolios be noted;

(2) the performance as at November 2011 as set out in the report be noted; and

2 2

CABINET

(3) officers be encouraged to take appropriate remedial action where there was currently under performance against target.

117 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

Resolved that the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items for the reason stated:

Minutes Reason (under the Local Government Act 1972)

118-119 Exempt information relating to an individual (Para 1 of Schedule 12A) of the Local Government Act 1972).

118 THE FINDINGS OF A SERIOUS CASE REVIEW RELATING TO MR A

A report was submitted which informed Cabinet of the findings of a Serious Case Review relating to Mr A.

The purpose of the report was to confirm the completion of the Action Plan arising from the Serious Case Review (SCR) conducted into the death of Mr A, an Adult Social Care service user.

* Resolved that the Safeguarding Adults Board Action Plan associated with the Serious Case Review relating to Mr A, previously considered by Cabinet on 22 June 2011 be noted.

119 RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION IN RELATION TO MOSS BANK SUPPORT CENTRE AND PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CENTRE

A report was submitted which informed Cabinet of the response to the consultation in relation to Moss Bank Support Centre and proposals for the future of the Centre.

On 1 June 2011 Cabinet resolved that the consultation process in relation the future of Moss Bank Support Centre should commence.

The report informed Cabinet of the outcome of the consultation process completed between 25 July 2011 and 25 November 2011 and provided details and responses to the consultation.

The report also outlined further issues for Cabinet to consider alongside the responses to the consultation in order to assist in moving to the next stage i.e. making a decision about the future of the Centre and those services presently provided at the Centre.

* Resolved that:

(1) the responses to the consultation in relation to the future of Moss Bank Support Centre be noted; and

(2) in light of the consultation and other considerations outlined in the report to agree that existing residential, respite and day services be re-provided in alternative locations appropriate to the needs of individuals and to close Moss Bank Support Centre.

-oOo-

3 This page is intentionally left blank

4 4 Environment and Safer Communities Scrutiny Panel

Review of Allotments

January 2012

5 4

Table of contents

Page

Chair’s foreword and acknowledgements 3

Introduction and Terms of Reference 4

Method of Investigation 4-5

Background 5-6

Findings 6-11

Site Visits to Allotments 12-15

Rental Income Arrangements/Financial Position 16

Conclusions 16-18

Recommendations 18-19

6 4

Chair’s Foreword and Acknowledgements

Councillor Wally Ashcroft Chairman of the Environment and Safer Communities Scrutiny Panel

This year the Environment and Safer Communities Scrutiny Panel agreed to look at the provision of Allotments in St Helens.

St Helens currently has 569 allotments in 17 sites. The last few years has seen a marked increased nationally in the demand for allotments and St Helens is no exception to this trend. This is due to a number of factors including increased food prices and a desire for fresh organic food. Television programmes have promoted the virtues of ‘growing your own’ and the benefits to having an allotment and this has contributed to the growth in waiting lists in many parts of the borough.

Allotments provide a source of cheap food as well as giving allotments holders the opportunity to be healthy, take time out from every day life, gain a sense of achievement and be part of a community all at the same time. They are of particular significance to the elderly population.

We were pleased to find that overall, the provision of allotments in St Helens is good, however that being said the condition of the allotment plots is variable. There are some differences in the quality of the sites and the size of the plots offered. The waiting list currently stands at approximately 622.

We know that the demand for allotments peaks and troughs however many of the Council’s policies are still based on an assumption of a decline in demand. We believe that these need to reform, to be fit for purpose in an era of growth and as a result need to ask more of our plot holders. We acknowledge that they will need to pay higher rents to cover more of the costs of running the service and we also want them to help cut costs by taking greater responsibility for management of their sites.

The enthusiasm and commitment to allotments was demonstrated throughout the evidence gathering for the review and on behalf of the Panel I would like to thank Terry Deveney the Council’s Principal and Open Spaces Manager, Alan Hull Chairman of the North West Counties Allotment Association and the North West mentor of the Allotment Regeneration Initiative and Reg Massey the Treasurer from Ashton’s Green in supporting members to carry out the review and in particular those allotment holders who gave up their time to talk to us.

7 4

1.0 Introduction and Terms of Reference

1.1 During the process of agreeing a scrutiny work-programme for 2011/12 the Council’s Environment and Safer Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel agreed to look at the provision of allotments in St Helens

1.2 The aim was to review the current approach to the Allotments Service provision. The terms of the review were as follows; -

• To examine the role of allotments within St Helens in the context of sustainable development, community cohesion, healthy living and sustainability.

• To review the current Allotments Action Plan

• To examine the criteria, take up and process of renting an allotment in St Helens.

• To examine the financial resources, rental income arrangements and support available to the provision of allotments.

• To examine the current maintenance provision for allotments.

• To examine the advantages and disadvantages of self- managed allotments.

• To identify any good practice in nearby local authority areas.

• To look at the role and benefits on offer of the Federation

2.0 Method of the Investigation

• The Task Group consisted of the following scrutiny members: Councillors W Ashcroft (Chair), Joe D’ Asha, Terry Sheilds and Keith Roberts

• We also enlisted the help of St. Helens Council’s Principal Parks and Open Spaces Officer, Allan Hull, a representative from the National Allotments Federation and Reg Massey, a plot holder from Ashtons Green Community Allotments to provide us with the information and expertise that we needed.

• We looked at background information about allotment provision nationally and locally. • Various site-visits were carried out to Trafford, Blackpool and a number of allotment sites throughout the borough whereby the task group spoke with various allotment holders.

• Consideration was given to how other Councils approach the allocation of allotment plots.

8 4

• Task group members attended a number of Allotment Site Committee meetings with allotment holders and reported back their findings.

• The Principal Parks and Open Spaces Officer presented the Council’s current Allotments Action Plan and we examined, in detail the current financial arrangements.

3.0 Background

3.1 Setting the Scene – The importance of Allotments

3.2 An allotment plot is a piece of land, usually referred to as a plot, around 250 square meters in size which can for rented for cultivation i.e. for the use of growing flowers, fruit and vegetables and for rearing poultry.

3.3 The demand for allotments which can be rented for cultivation peaks and troughs on a cyclical basis. Currently there is a marked increase in demand for allotment plots, not seen since the 1970’s. It is recognised that the increased awareness of the need for a healthy lifestyle has contributed to this increase as more people use gardening as a way of keeping fit as well as cultivating their own supply of organic fruit and vegetables.

3.4 The economic downturn has also contributed to the rise in the popularity of allotments, as people look to produce their own food cheaply. Recently there has been increased media interest in the changing age demographic of allotment holders. Traditionally a past time for the semi-retired or retired, it is acknowledged that more families are applying for and taking on allotment plots

3.5 Television programmes such as Gardeners World, Jamie at Home and Riverview Cottage promote the ‘grow your own’ and self-sufficiency ethos.

3.6 The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is responsible for policy on allotments at a national level. The aim of NSALG is to promote allotments, provide protection for allotment holders and ensure that there is sufficient provision to meet demand.

3.7 It is recognised that allotments play an important role in communities and contributes to a healthy diet and exercise; a source of growing food cheaply and organically and the development of social activity, thus adding to the community cohesion agenda.

3.8 Allotments contribute to environmental sustainability at both local and global scales. Once established, an allotment provides the sustainable production of fruit and vegetables. The volume of fruit produced can meet a significant proportion of an average family’s needs for most the year; in many instances produce is shared with friends, neighbours and the wider family. This reduces reliance on commercial food supplies and can make a contribution to reducing waste, packaging and food miles One of the key factors behind the growing popularity of allotments amongst the young and environmentally conscious is the issue of “food miles” and the contribution to reduction of carbon dioxide production and global warming.

9 4

3.9 There are several pieces of legislation relating to allotments;

a) The Small Holdings and Allotment Act 1908 – Placed a duty on authorities to provide sufficient allotments due to demand. It also made it possible for local authorities to purchase land compulsorily in order to provide allotments.

b) The Allotments Act 1922 – Provided allotment holders with security of tenure and greater compensation should their tenancy be terminated. It also specified that plots should be mostly cultivated and used for growing sources of food.

c) The Allotments Act 1925 – Established the need for local authorities to incorporate allotment provision into town planning.

d) The Allotments Act 1950 – Made changes to rental charges and further increased security for allotment holders by introducing a minimum period of notice to quit of 12 months and compensation payable to allotment holders should the land be used for other purposes by local authorities.

Other legislation which impacts upon the provision of allotments is the Local Government Act 1972, which amended various details contained within previous allotments legislation and in regards to planning, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980.

4.0 Findings

Provision of Allotments in St Helens

4.1 St Helens currently has 72,700 households and 569 allotment plots. This equates to 7.5 plots per 1, 000 households. The Thorpe Report Recommended 14 plots per 1,000 households and in 1996 the national average was 15 per 1,000 households. Since then the NSALG recommend minimum of 20 plots per 1,000 households. St Helens currently provides roughly ½ the national average of number of plots for its population.

4.2 St Helens has a total of 17 allotment sites owned by the Council, 14 of which are managed directly by the Council and the remaining 3 are self managed (devolved management responsibility)

4.3 Of the 14 Council managed sites there are:

• 11 Horticultural sites • 2 of these sites have areas specifically for poultry (Ashtons Green and Eccleston Old Lane) • 1 site is a garden tenancy/garden extension site (Sexton Ave, Parr) • 2 sites are a mix of garden tenancy/garden extension and varying sized plots (Milton Street and Elm Road)

4.4 Allotment Status per Site

10 4

Appendix 1 sets out the occupancy rate for allotment plots in St Helens

4.5 Allotment Rent

4.6 Invoices are raised the first week in January for Council managed sites. The rent is £25.85 for a full plot on the 11 sites. Rents range from £1 to £25.85 for Elm Road, Milton Street and Sexton Avenue sites. A concession of up to 50% if offered to those who are on certain benefits.

4.7 For self managed sites such as the Harlow allotment, the full rent is £60 per year. The rent for Rainford is £31.00 per year and Rob Lane currently stands at £25.85 per year.

4.8 Plot Sizes

4.9 A full allotment plot is in the region of 250 square metres or 300 square yards in size with half sized allotment plots being 125 square metres or 150 square yards respectively.

4.10 However there are anomalies within St. Helens Council’s allotments as found at Elm Road and Milton Street where parcels of land are of various sizes and on other sites across the Borough where there have been odd shaped areas which have been historically added to an adjacent plot as it wouldn’t have been large enough to create even a half plot from the space.

4.11 Through working communicating with the various Allotment Associations discussions have taken place to gauge a view as to whether full plots should be maintained or half sized allotment plots be developed when a full allotment plot has become available.

4.12 This can be evidenced as good practice at Cabbage Hall, Kentmere Avenue, Havannah Lane, Harlow, Rob Lane and Mesnes Park allotment sites.

4.13 New Sites

4.14 It was felt throughout the review that the provision of new allotment sites should be explored by looking closely at under utilised Council owned land. With the current high levels of demand for housing it was unrealistic to expect to secure large allotment sites however the improvement of existing sites and the development of new sites on the fringes of new developments could be considered when planning application negotiations were taking place

4.15 Allotment Rents North West

4.16 Across the country, prices for allotments range from 1p per square metre to 55p. St Helens currently charges approximately 10.3p per sqm compared with the average North West rent of 16.86p.

St Helens 10.3p Burnley 20p Knowsley 8p Wigan 14.8p

11 4

Preston 18p Carlisle 18p Halton 12.4p Blackpool 20p Liverpool 13.2p Rochdale 25p Wirral 12.8p Trafford 17.6p West Lancashire 12p Sefton 12.4p Manchester 19.2p Salford 14.8p Chorley 15.8p Stockport 14.5p Fylde 10.8p Lancaster 12p Bury 59.4p Hyndburn 10p

4.17 Rents at St Helens are currently charged on a plot basis and the chart below compares average yearly rents in the North West. As highlighted, St Helens is currently one of the cheapest.

Full plot

£120.00

£100.00

£80.00

£60.00 Full plot

£40.00

£20.00

£0.00 y l l e r n n ol e a rd er r e ton sle o r o on de t lens sl gan dal f shir t l s bu e i s alt f a y a Bury d w re h Wir ra F c Burnely o W H c Sef Salford n P Carli T n ncheste Chorley an yn St. H K BlackpoLiverpooRoc a Stockport L H M est La W

4.18 Management of Allotment Sites

4.19 Council owned allotment sites are managed through the Civic Pride and Community Spaces section within the Environmental Protection Department. Their role includes undertaking correspondence, lettings, terminations, waiting lists, inspections, maintenance, development, management, co- ordinate and attend appropriate allotment meetings. Some associations arrange and hold their own meetings. Rents are co-ordinated via the Council’s Income section.

4.20 Self-Managed allotment sites are responsible for carrying out the following duties which includes correspondence, lettings, terminations, waiting lists, inspections and management. They also collect all rents and pay all water charges. Self managed inspections are more flexible and more often.

12 4

4.21 Plot inspections to Council managed sites are carried out 4 times per year, January, April, July and October. Self managed sites are ad hoc throughout the year with Rob Lane having ad hoc fortnightly and 4 main inspections in March, May, August and October.

4.22 The Council Managed Plot Inspection Process

The process for Plot inspections by the Council is as follows:

Inspection

Pass Fail

New Tenant Non Warning Letter Cultivation/Other Reason

21 Days Notice

Pass Fail

Terminate

The Council Managed Plot Inspection Criteria is set out below:

• Undertake a joint plot inspection with a member of allotment association committee where able to • Ensure plots are being cultivated with crops of fruit and vegetables growing, and crops are being managed to good horticultural standard • Weeds are being removed • Note if there is no cultivation taking place or just weedkilled or weeds covered over – this is not cultivation of a plot • Is any poultry on site and are they being managed correctly • Or is there a health & safety issue/storage of rubbish • Condition of buildings/structures, paths gates, fences and trees within plot

13 4

4.23 Allotment Development work

4.24 Over the past 5 years substantial development works have taken place with funding from St Helens Council, Ward Committee & external grant funding to help improve allotment sites.

4.25 Improvements have been identified from various allotment association meetings, annual allotment holder surveys and through the condition survey / security survey undertaken

4.26 Waiting lists

4.27 Over the last four years the demand for allotments in St Helens has risen dramatically and currently the number of people on waiting lists is comparable to the number of occupied plots – around 660.

Allotment Waiting Lists as of 16 December 2011

Allotment Site Approximate Waiting Time No. on Waiting List Ashtons Green Horticultural 2 years 7 months 30 Ashtons Green Poultry 4 years 8 months 34 Bertram Street 2 years 11 months 62 Cabbage Hall 2 years 6 months 67 Eccleston Old Lane Horticultural 4 years 61 Eccleston Old Lane Poultry 1 year 4 months 5 Elm Road Garden Tenancy 2 years 5 months 6 Havannah Lane 1 year 3 months 32 Kentmere Avenue 4 years 6 months 40 Mesnes Park 3 years 75 Milton Street 4 years 4 months 12 Nutgrove 4 years 5 months 56 Parr Depot 1 year 10 months 31 Recreation Street 1 year 6 months 33 Sexton Avenue Garden Tenancy 2 years 5 months 4 Walkers Lane 3 years 6 months 67

The average waiting time for an allotment is 2 years 11 months

4.28 As part of the review process, the Task Group considered the Councils Allotment Action Plan 2009 – 2013. A copy of this can be made available on request.

The aims of the Allotments Action Plan are as follows:

Aim 1: To have sites that are welcoming and accessible to all

Aim 2: To have cleaner, greener, safer and healthier allotments

Aim 3: To create sustainable allotments

14 4

Aim 4: To improve and encourage biodiversity and conservation

Aim 5: To encourage, support and promote community involvement

Aim 6: To work in partnerships with groups and agencies to support and develop allotments

Aim 7: To market allotments

Aim 8: To improve the management of allotments

4.29 In 2010 the Local Government Association published A Place to Grow and update to the good practice guide for the management of allotments and Growing in the Community to help local authorities and allotment association cope with growing waiting lists for plots across the UK. The specific aims of these guides are to identify ways to minimise the time that people who wish to rent an allotment have to wait before they can do so.

4.30 Allotment waiting lists conventionally operate on the rule that newly vacated plots are offered first to those persons who has been on the waiting list for the longest period of time. The task group considered how best to manage the waiting lists and discussed how the current procedure could be improved.

4.31 Renting an allotment plot in St Helens

4.32 The criteria and process of renting an allotment plot (on Council managed sites) within St Helens is relatively simple. Contact with the Civic Pride and Community Spaces section is made and the person added to the bottom of the site’s waiting list. When the person’s name is at the top of the waiting list they will be offered the next vacant allotment plot. Once accepted, two copies of the allotment tenancy agreement for the vacant plot are signed by the new plotholder, countersigned by a witness to the new plot holder’s signature and also by the Council’s Legal section. One copy of the tenancy agreement to remain with the new plot holder and a copy held within the Civic Pride and Community Spaces section.

4.33 The Council’s Civic Pride and Community Spaces section then inform the Income section of the change and arrangements for billing put in place.

4.34 Ways to increase the number of plots on existing sites

4.35 Existing sites could be more intensely cultivated so that more people had an opportunity to obtain an allotment plot. Ways of doing this include:

• Having standard plots and where applicable halving standard plots so that smaller plots are let, especially to novice gardeners • Encouraging the surrender of multiple tenancies where an individual gardens several plots • Bringing back into use former plots which have not been cultivated and have become too overgrown to attract new tenants. This would require horticultural works such as rotavating which would require resource but would also bring in further income.

15 4

• Converting parts of the site which have never been previously cultivated, such as grassed amenity areas, into new plots – this again would require funding. • Some applicants have their names down for more than one site which appears to enlarge waiting lists.

5.0 Site visits to Allotments

5.1 As part of the review, the task group visited a number of sites within St Helens to look at examples of the best and less satisfactory sites. Both Council managed and self-managed sites were considered. Visits were also made to various allotment plots in Trafford and Blackpool. The group found strong evidence of informal but also locally coordinated community activity on some allotment sites, particularly Ashtons Green and Pilkingtons Allotments (Notes from all of the site visits undertaken can be made available on request)

5.2 Ashtons Green Community Allotment Site

5.3 Although this site is directly managed by the Council, the Committee, particularly the Allotment Treasurer Reg Massey and Angie Middlehurst play an active role in developing the site and encouraging community usage. There is a newly extended community area for use with local schools and community groups and 5 schools currently access the facilities as part of the Sow, Grow and Eat Programme. Work is also undertaken with young offenders

5.4 The team have managed to raise funds from generous funding bodies and work in partnership with local organisations – this has helped to make this site what it is today. There is a classroom on site with a kitchen & toilets with disabled facilities. There is also have a large greenhouse & polytunnel for growing and a large container for storage of tools, as well as storage for

16 4

poultry feed which is bought in to sell to allotment holders at a discounted rate.

5.5 Plants are also sold at certain times of the year and fruit & veg is grown and sold to the community at discounted rates as part of the Sow Grow and Eat Programme. 5.6 Pilkingtons Allotment Site St Helens (Self Managed)

5.7 This is a fully self-managed site containing 90 allotments. This was previously managed by Pilkingtons but has been handed over to the management committee on a 25-year lease. Rents are currently £70 per annum. The committee is responsible for the maintenance, insurance, water and boundary fencing and will terminate tenancies should the need arise.

5.8 The site is very well managed and most plots are well maintained. There is fencing surrounding some plots but mostly you are able to view what is happening on each site. Plots are various sizes but some of the bigger ones are being divided into a number of plots once they become vacant.

5.9 Pilkington Allotment Holders work in partnership with Stephenson House, Early Intervention, St Helens Stroke Association and St Helens Coalition for Disabled People 5.10 Balmoral Road Allotments – Trafford

5.11 Ten years ago, Balmoral Road was overgrown and derelict land, prior to that the space had been used as allotments. Lots of work had been undertaken recently to establish the site. The allotment area was cleared and ploughed to create allotment plots for rent. These are let in different sizes to accommodate a range of needs. New tenants are briefed when they take a plot at Balmoral to anticipate wider community involvement related to additional projects on the site.

5.12 As well as allotments, the site has a central zone which is being developed as an orchard, several mature orchard trees were retained during renovation,

17 4

which include; eight apple, three plum, three cherry and clumps of damson.

5.13 The site also includes a ‘fruitwood’ area trees and provides cover and safety for wildlife displaced by the renovation and acts as a barrier between the site and adjacent railway. The ‘fruitwood’ area also houses several colonies of honey bees (hives) which not only demonstrate the art of beekeeping but the bees are an important part of the ecosystem as essential pollinators of fruiting crops.

5.14 The aims and objectives of the site are as follows; -

• To bring a redundant allotment back into active and sustainable community use. • Provide different levels of access to the allotment site for the wider community. • To demonstrate the physical and psychological benefits of contact with nature and practical involvement in the care of the environment. • To provide an example of healthy sustainable living.

5.15 Lawson Road Allotment Centre Blackpool (Self - Managed and Self-Maintained)

5.16 This site is an excellent example of how an allotment committee works in partnership with the Council. Blackpool currently has 8 sites all of which are self-managed and self-maintained and each site has a committee a member of which is the Allotment Federation Representative. Sites work together under the Local Federation.

5.17 Attendance at committee meetings is very good and open and honest communication is encouraged. All new tenants are encouraged to become a member of the Allotment Federation.

5.18 The whole budget (apart from costs for water) is delegated to the Federation. Six out of eight sites hold open days where they have the opportunity to build up revenue. When starting a tenancy at Lawson Road a £50 deposit is required with the proviso if someone brings rubbish onto the site then they are responsible for its removal. If a plot holder leaves a plot in an unsatisfactory condition then they will lose their original deposit.

5.19 Self Managed Sites

5.20 During our site visits we found very good examples of self managed sites. These sites tended to provide people with a greater sense of ownership. However in St Helens there has been limited interest in the development of self managed or leased sites within the borough and many tended to rely on the support given to them by the Council . This is now being encouraged with the help of the Federation.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Managed Sites

Advantages Disadvantages

18 4

A feel good factor of ‘we did it Implementation may be at the wrong ourselves’ raising morale on the site time at the wrong pace or have little support through each allotment sites plot holders Promotion of vacant plots can be Plot holders could lose interest which more effective could result in a delay of plots coming back to local authority management Maintenance work carried out quickly Insufficient funds/budget to cover the and by those who have a vested day to day operation maintenance of interest in the site the site

Ability to submit bids for various Work may fall on one or two people grants/funding that the Council doesn’t have access to Allows the association to set the plot Lack of confidence of allotment rental rate and decide how rental holders to take on responsibility. income is spent Increase the site profile via open days etc and gives them the option to sell surplus allotment produce

Frees up the time of the Council officer responsible for allotments resulting in reduced costs

Neglected plots are dealt with much quicker and prevent sites from falling into disarray and becoming eyesores.

5.21 Allotments Regeneration Initiative (ARI)

5.22 The Allotments Regeneration Initiative was launched in 2002 as a partnership between the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG) and the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (FCFCG). Current funding has been secured from The Big Lottery Local Food Programme, Department of Communities and Local Government and the Fund for the Urban and Environmental Life.

5.23 ARI’s vision is to increase uptake of and involvement with allotments by individuals and community groups. In 2002 allotments were not high on the public policy agenda however ARI has helped to change this by raising the issue and profile of allotments. To date over 4,500 allotment associations and local authorities throughout the UK have registered their interest in the Allotment Regeneration Initiative.

5.24 ARI has 14 unpaid volunteer mentors to give help and support to anyone working locally in allotments regeneration. Although each mentor has signed up to do 8 hours per month, most do significantly more.

5.25 The ARI has been instrumental in setting up Regional Allotment Officers Forums with very positive results. The forums are events specifically for Council officers who have responsibility for managing allotments and provide an opportunity for allotment officers to build up support networks and share good practice.

19 4

6.0 Rental Income Arrangements / Financial Position

The current budget and rental income for the Allotment Services is as follows:

Allotments Budget 2011/12

£

Employees 44,112

Premises - Planned Grounds Maintenance 23,956 - Improvements, Repairs and Maintenance 19,802 - Other Grounds Maintenance 1,707 - Electricity/Water/Sewerage 9,316 - Rents 1,719

Support Service Recharges 344

Capital Finance 2,398

Gross Expenditure 103,354

Rent Income -8,325

Net Expenditure 95,029

6.1 The Improvement and Repairs budget of almost £20k paid for items such as the hire of skips, use of environmental services and repairs to fencing. The cost in 2010/11 for hire of skips was £4,185 (27 @£155 per 8cusq yd)

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 The Task Group recognised the benefits allotments brought to the community, the environment and the healthy eating agenda. Allotments helped to promote physical exercise and can help to prevent such conditions as diabetes, heart disease and obesity. Research conducted by the National Trust in 2009 suggested that 30 minutes of gardening could burn as many calories as aerobic exercise.

7.2 Allotments also helped to promote a healthier lifestyle through giving users access to fresh fruit and nutritious food. Encouraging children from an early

20 4

age to eat fresh fruit and vegetables has been shown to establish healthy choices and improve their long-term health. .

7.3 In addition to these important health benefits, we believed there were many other key advantages such as, providing opportunities for sustainable waste management including recycling and composting, reducing carbon footprints by reducing the amount of packaging being sent to landfill and reducing the energy required to process and distribute food to communities.

7.4 We also felt that allotments were very successful in facilitating social interaction between individuals and family plot holders. Allotments promoted social well being and helped to develop cohesive communities as we heard and saw people who had learnt from the experience of others as well as facilitating the development and strengthening of local social ties and promoting that sense of community.

7.5 We heard that there was a statutory duty to ensure the provision of allotments in the Borough under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act (1908). It was felt that more work could be undertaken to identify under utilised Council owned land which could be used for additional allotment purposes.

7.6 From a financial perspective the allotment service was substantially subsidised with income falling far short of expenditure. In 2011/12 the service cost £103,354 with rental income of only £8,325. In line with the Council’s Budget Strategy the rent of a standard plot has increased by 2.5% per annum in recent years. We felt there was clearly an argument to reduce the gap between income and subsidy and propose a more realistic scale of fees which are set against the services of repairs, maintenance, water, staff etc that are expected by plot holders.

7.7 We agreed that in line with the various early Allotment Acts, allotments should be financially accessible to all residents of St Helens and there was no doubt the rent should reflect this, however an increase in rental charges would generate the revenue needed to make some of the necessary much needed improvements to the various sites. We have seen that increasingly many local authorities were revising their view of rent rates and introducing increases. Many were now charging per sqm rather than standard plot rates and from the evidence gathered we believed this to be a more equitable way of charging.

7.8 We saw that demand for allotments was at it highest level for a generation with all the sites full and waiting times in some areas running at a number of years. We felt it was unlikely that tenancy levels would increase without greater plot splitting. The current trend was towards smaller plots – in part this reflects lifestyle changes where time is short and serves to accommodate novice gardeners with limited ability and the elderly who want to downsize plots due to age/infirmity. We saw in some self-managed sites, the move towards smaller and mini plots has been highly successful. Large plots could be split as a plot becomes vacant to create more flexibility in plot provision, reflect public demand for smaller plots and ease the pressure on waiting lists.

7.9 Throughout the review we looked at both Council managed and self managed allotment sites and compared the advantages and disadvantages of both. Self-managed sites appeared more organised, tidy and had a sense of working together, they also had the ability to submit bids for various

21 4

grants/funding etc that the Council did not have access to. Maintenance work was often carried out quicker plus it allowed the association to set the plot rental and decide how rental income should be spent.

7.10 We recognised the benefits of self-management and ideally would look to encourage all existing Council managed sites the opportunity to take this forward, however devolved management needed commitment from the Council, the allotment Federation and plot holders themselves. Volunteer managers could be an easy target for a dissatisfied plot holder. The capacity for an allotment society to take on and succeed with self-management would depend on the leadership abilities of present and future tenants and both the willingness and ability of plot holders to take on voluntary community effort. This was likely to vary across the Borough with the character of the local community. Any allotment society has to be democratically elected and must operate with fairness and accountability. Their performance has to be monitored as the local authority has a statutory obligation to provide equal access for all residents to allotment land.

7.11 Whilst great autonomy of allotment societies reduces the day-to-day workload of Council officers, it is essential that a mechanism be put in place (and reviewed from time to time) to ensure that allotment societies can communicate effectively with the Council.

7.12 The Task Group were pleased to see the results of the substantial development work which had taken place with the help of funding from the Council, Ward Committees and external grant funding to help improve allotment sites. Lots of good work had been undertaken and the results of this had been highlighted via the annual allotment holder condition survey.

7.13 Throughout the site visits the task group witnessed a number of areas of good practice and felt that these should be taken into consideration when further developing our own policies and procedures. Suggestions were:

• All prospective allotment holders be given a 3 month probationary period • All waste brought onto a site should be the responsibility of the allotment holder and must be fully removed by them. The Council should be able to re- charge tenants the cost of debris removal if they fail to do so when vacating the plot. • A deposit be taken when letting an allotment which would be returnable when the allotment is relinquished and is in a suitable condition for the next person to use • All new tenants are encouraged to become a member of the SSALG. Benefits include seed schemes, increased buy in power, legal assistance and a 1/4ly magazine. Each site should also be encouraged to joint the St Helens Federation.

7.14 Throughout the review process we were assisted by Alan Hull who is the Chairman of the North West Counties Allotment Association and the North West Mentor of the Allotment Regeneration Initiative. Alan’s dedication to the allotments initiative is second to none and he has been instrumental in mentoring allotment holders and encouraging the development of Local Federations in the North West. We felt that the advantages of being a Federation member were invaluable and we would encourage all allotment

22 4

holders to join. We also believed that the Council should be encouraged to join the National Society of Allotments at a cost of £80 per annum.

8.0 Recommendations

8.1 Based on the outcome of the review process a number of areas for improvement and further development have been identified and are detailed in the recommendations below:

8.2 Building upon the key themes and objectives of the Council’s Allotment Action Plan for 2009-2013, revisions to Tenancy Agreements be considered for implementation by 1 st April 2013 to Council managed allotment sites to include:

(a) An annual review of annual rentals to ensure comparability with other local authorities. Additional income arising be ring fenced for re-investment

(b) Consideration of changing the date for increases in fees and charges from 1 January to 1 April to fall in line with the financial year

(c) Consideration of annual rentals at 20p per square metre rather than per plot

(d) Ensuring secure perimeter fencing to all sites eliminating the need for internal fencing and creating open plan allotments

(e) Revision to tenancy agreements to include a stricter penalty regime for non- cultivation, the exceeding of permitted development and the non-removal of waste. This will introduce rules and regulations within the agreement which can be amended annually as future situations and issues change.

(f) A probationary period be considered for new tenants

8.3 That a rolling programme be established to develop the Council’s existing allotment sites to a consistent standard.

8.4 That the Council investigates the potential for identifying/allocating further land for allotment sites where demand has been identified.

8.5 That the Council seeks to maximise the number of smaller plots available on sites as and when they become available.

8.6 That the provision of skips to Council managed allotment sites be discontinued from 1 st April 2012 to enable this funding to be used for improvements.

8.7 That the Council actively encourages self-managed sites and, with the assistance of the Federation, provides training and support to interested parties.

8.8 That the Council become a member of the National Federation at a cost of £80 per annum.

23 4

Appendix 1 Occupancy Rates for Allotment Plots in St Helens as at October Sites Lettable No of No No on No No of % Plots Vacancies under Waiting Lettings Terminations Occupancy offer List Ashtons 19 0 0 29 2 0 100% Green Horticultural Ashtons 20 0 0 33 0 0 100% Green Poultry Bertram 26 1 1 63 0 0 96% Street Cabbage Hall 62 0 0 67 0 1 100% Eccleston 24 0 0 60 1 0 100% Old Lane Horticultural Eccleston 10 0 0 4 1 0 100% Old Lane Poultry Elm Road 13 0 0 7 0 0 100% Havannah 22 0 0 30 1 0 100% Lane Kentmere 16 0 0 41 0 0 100% Avenue Mesnes Park 35 0 0 76 0 0 100% Milton 22 2 1 13 1 1 95% Street Nutgrove 25 1 1 56 0 0 96% Parr Depot 32 0 0 30 1 0 100% Recreation 38 0 0 32 0 0 100% Street Sexton 8 0 0 4 0 0 100% Avenue Walkers 46 0 0 66 0 1 100% Lane Harlow ¤ 39 2 1 7 2 0 95% Rainford ¤ 40 0 0 10 0 0 100% Rob Lane ¤ 72 1 0 34 1 0 99% Overall 569 7 4 662 10 3 99% Totals 2011

These sites are full to capacity Plots are under offer owing to recent terminations. Vacant plots are equal to number under offer Vacant plots are not equal to number under offer owing to plots being cleared before being offered out • Number of people on waiting lists include those that are under offer Note – some people are included on more than one waiting list from choice, thus making the overall number larger than actual

24 4 Adult Social Care and Health Scrutiny Panel

Review of 5 Boroughs Trust: Later Life and Memory Services and Relocation of Stewart Assessment Ward

Councillors:

Suzanne Knight (Chairman) Betty Lowe Leon McGuire Brian Spencer

February 2012

25 4

1.0 Introduction and Terms of Reference

1.1 During December 2011 the 5 Boroughs Trust and NHS Merseyside Commissioners presented the Council with a series of proposals relating to later life and memory services and the Stewart Assessment Unit.

1.2 The Council's Cabinet referred this issue to Scrutiny in the first instance to consider the details of the implication. A small Task Group made up of Scrutiny members was established to consider these issues in detail and report back to both the Scrutiny Panel and Cabinet.

1.3 On examining the proposals in detail it was agreed that the Task Group would consider the following:

• Why the proposals were being considered

• The objectives associated with the proposals

• Any benefits which would be gained from the proposals

• Strategic links

• Communications with staff, partner organisations and the public in general

2.0 Method of Investigation

2.1 We enlisted the help of Mike Wyatt St Helens Council’s Director of Adult Social Care and Health to provide us with the information and expertise that we needed.

2.2 The Task Group invited a number of witnesses to attend a series of meetings. In addition site visits were held at Rydal Ward at Knowsley Resource & Recovery Centre, Kingsley Ward at Hollins Park, Warrington and Stewart Assessment at Peasley Cross. A number of documents/reports prepared by 5 Boroughs Trust were also submitted to the Task Group for their consideration (Proposals for a New Model of Care – Later Life Memory Services and Relocation Plan – Later Life Memory Services)

2.3 A set of questions were submitted to LINks and their response was fed back to the task group and amalgamated into the final report.

2.4 Task Group Meetings were held on the following dates:

• Friday 6 th January 2012

Witnesses Therese Patten – Chief Operating Officer 5 BT Dr Ashley Baldwin – Consultant Psychiatric and Strategic Lead for Older Peoples Services Pauline McGrath – Acting Assistant Director, Older Peoples Services 5 BT

26 4

• Thursday 12 th January 2012

Witnesses Dr Omar Shaikh ULC Board Member and GP Partner Dr Jackie Bussin Consultant in Medicine for Older People and Janet Sumner Directorate Manager, Dept of Care of Older People

• Thursday 19 th January 2012

Witnesses Dr Joe Banat (GP Commissioning Group) Colin Vose – Clinical Commissioner for Merseyside Hazel Bayley – Altziemers Society Cheshire North and St Helens

• Friday 3 rd February 2012

Site Visits to Rydal Ward, Kingsley Ward and Stewart Assessment. The Task Group were met by Pauline McGrath, Bernard Pilkington (Chair of 5BT) and Therese Patten.

3.0 Background

3.1 The Stewart Assessment Unit is an Older People’s unit that cares for people with a diagnosis of dementia, Alzheimer’s, or complex mental health problems associated with the ageing. The unit currently operates on 12 beds.

3.2 5BT state that the unit cannot deliver effective personalised care within the current environment because it uses traditional 4-bedded dormitories. Modern single room accommodation is available at both Rydal Ward on the Whiston Hospital site and Kingsley Ward at the Hollins Park Site. The Trust’s desire is to deliver care within the highest quality environment and Stewart Assessment Unit struggles in this regard. Therefore, the Trust proposes to relocate the 12 beds currently at Stewart Assessment Unit to Rydal ward and Kingsley ward respectively.

3.3 The unit has been well maintained in terms of décor and furniture however the structure and layout of the unit is no longer fit for purpose. To make the unit fit for purpose a large investment would be required because it would need a full refurbishment including a new roof.

3.4 The review of the overall Later Life and Memory Services has resulted in the development of a model which focuses on early intervention and home/community based support and treatment promoting independence and personalised care. The proposed re-provision of the St Helens inpatient facilities fits with the model intentions to provide high quality inpatient units, for the occasions when admission for assessment is required.

3.5 The proposed wider model was presented to the Technical Appraisal Group meeting on the 28 October 2011, and was agreed in principle. The Trust is now implementing a pilot (in the Wigan Borough) of the new Community Care Pathway and includes an out of hour’s service.

27 4

3.6 In St Helens, a Dementia Action Plan has been developed by a multi-agency group, arising from the work of the shadow Health and Well-being Board, to ensure that as services are developed they truly reflect the needs of the local population.

3.7 The Trust has developed a service strategy for the Older People’s service which is also part of the Trust’s Integrated Business Plan (IBP). The IBP is driven by the Trust’s aspiration to deliver a clinical model that is high quality, efficient and safe. This will be supported by the consolidation of in-patient sites and a greater focus on the use of community resources.

3.8 The proposal, if implemented, will support the Trust’s Corporate High level Objectives of:

• Service Delivery and Patient Experience • Effective and Efficient Organisation

3.9 The success of this relocation will improve services to Older People and their carers and demonstrate more efficient use of resources.

3.10 The implementation of the proposed relocation plan is not dependant on any other work under way within the organisation, as alternative inpatient accommodation is readily available with the Rydal and Kingsley wards, which provide higher quality facilities. Once the Stewart ward has been vacated, the Trust will undertake some remedial works to allow the building to be utilised for the provision of community mental health services.

3.11 The National Dementia Strategy sets out 17 objectives with an emphasis on increasing community resources to maintain people in their own homes and support carers. Work is underway to develop an assessment and treatment service for St Helens borough and the implementation of this will enhance community services, provide timely assessment and diagnosis. The development of the ATC services in St Helens is integral to the implementation of the Trust’s new Community pathway, which will provide:

• Single point of access • Same Day Screening by Senior Nurse • Same day Face to Face Assessment for Urgent referrals • Single Assessment • Crisis Intervention and Rapid Response • Face to Face Assessment (for non urgent) within 10 working days • Needs Led Care Framework/Supporting people to live independently • Direct to Appropriate Path of Service • Improved Access to Psychological Interventions • Offers a comprehensive and appropriate range of interventions

3.12 This will ensure that people can be maintained in the community in an environment that is familiar for as long as possible.

3.13 The objective of the relocation of beds from the Stewart Assessment Unit is to enable the Trust to provide inpatient care for St Helens residents in an environment that is personalised and fit for purpose.

28 4

3.14 The relocation will enable the Trust to proceed with the implementation of their wider Model of Care for Later Life and Memory Service, which has already been agreed and supported by clinical, and PCT commissioners.

3.15 The existing users of the Stewart Assessment Unit inpatient facility are primarily from St Helens and Knowsley boroughs. There are also residents from out of area who have been admitted from A&E at Whiston or they have been temporarily living with relatives locally.

3.16 The long-term plan for the Peasley Cross site is for it to continue to provide adult acute beds. The rest of the site will be used to accommodate the Later Life and Memory Services community teams, the Assessment Care and Treatment Team and the adult community teams. To get the current buildings to the required standard to accommodate these services the Trust Board has pledged to invest £7.6m of capital monies on the site.

4.0 Findings/Conclusions

4.1 Distinguishing between immediate and longer term proposals

4.2 The Panel considered issues which related to short term or immediate changes to services and felt that in their present form they did not represent a substantial variation to services and should be seen as a development of existing services. In broad terms alongside the recommendations contained in this report, the Panel support the proposals.

4.3 The Panel noted that the documentation and presentations did reference the creation of a Centre of Excellence and future changes to Later Life and Memory Services. The timescales for these proposals were unclear and the Panel received reassurances that developments would not take place without clear evidence of the effectiveness of the more immediate proposals and an effective consultation engagement.

4.4 The Panel would wish to note that the proposal for a Centre of Excellence and other long term proposals would, on the information available at this time, constitute a substantial variation in Later Life and Memory Services which would require a separate consultation exercise and a separate formal scrutiny process. As the Centre of Excellence would be likely to impact on a number of Local Authorities, it is likely that this would be dealt with as a statutory joint scrutiny exercise..

4.5 Stewart Assessment Unit

4.6 The Panel carefully considered the supporting documentation relating to the proposal to close Stewart Assessment Unit and relocate inpatient beds for people requiring Later Life and Memory Services at Kingsley Ward at Hollins Park and Rydal Ward at Whiston Hospital. The Panel also sought the views of a number of witnesses in relation to these and undertook site visits to all three units.

29 4

4.7 Having carefully considered these issues, the Panel formed the view that subject to a number of recommendations referred later in the report they supported the proposal on the basis of: -

The Quality of Accommodation

• The proximity of Acute Hospital services at Rydal Ward offers some advantages to patients.

• The fact that all services at Kingsley and Rydal ward are offered an individual room, most with en-suite, offers significantly better physical environment for the patients.

• New units have rooms suitable for shared use if this is required.

• Communal areas also seem to be of a better design and quality than Stewart Assessment Unit.

Over Capacity in the System

4.8 The Panel were persuaded that there is some over capacity in the system and understood the rationale for a shift in investment to community based resources away from bed based inpatient resources. The Panel did hear some concerns in relation to delays about identifying beds, particularly from the Acute Trust and would ask that the situation in relation to bed capacity is carefully monitored and that St Helens residents are not disadvantaged in any way by the change of the bed location.

Quality of Care

4.9 The quality of the care provided by staff on Stewart Assessment Unit (Treatment Regime) was complimented by all the witnesses to the Panel and during their visit the Panel were impressed by the expertise that staff displayed and the sensitive way that they went about their duties.

4.10 The Panel were anxious to ensure that as outlined in the proposals, the permanent staff, with the exception of those who were retiring, should transfer with patients to Rydal and Kingsley wards.

4.11 The original submission received by the 5 Boroughs Trust contained proposals that staff should be deployed on a temporary basis to the new wards. The Panel were anxious about this and during their later contact with the 5 Boroughs Trust, were reassured that the members of staff would transfer on a permanent basis to their new work locations. The Panel trusts that this commitment will be honoured and believes it will represent a significantly more positive way forward for the service.

Additional Services offered from Stewart Assessment Unit

4.12 During their visit to Stewart Assessment Unit, the Panel became aware that a number of associated services are offered from the location, e.g. drop in sessions for carers facilitated by experienced carers. The Panel would recommend that these services should transfer and carry on at Kingsley and

30 4

Rydal wards and where carers or others need support with location and transport, this should be delivered.

Transfer of Patient Records

4.13 In their feedback LINKs envisaged that the proposals could also present new challenges for additional services being involved and the records of patients being forwarded to the relevant trust in time could present unforeseen barriers to treatments and wasted appointments.

Future of Peasley Cross Site

4.14 The Panel were pleased to hear assurances in relation to the importance of Peasley Cross as a Centre for Community Based Services, both for older people and younger adults.

Transport

4.15 The Panel do have some concerns in relation to the transport to Kingsley and Rydal ward, particularly for relatives and carers wishing to visit patients at the new units and would recommend that the 5 Boroughs Trust should make particular arrangements for transporting/or facilitating visits to patients on a 7 day a week basis at both venues.

4.16 These concerns were also hightlighed in the feedback from LINks and service users particularly for residents with relatives to be placed in the Kingsley wards at Hollins Park. The bus service available on a weekday changes in the early evening and people travelling from St Helens (without their own car) trying to see their relatives in ‘visiting hours’ after work would find this difficult. On a Sunday, throughout the day, the only route available was the 2 x bus services plus a 14 minute walk. This is a traditional day for visiting family in our area and may start to impact negatively on people who do not have their own transport.

4.17 Patient Pathway

4.18 The Panel welcomes the intention of the Later Life and Memory Services proposals to improve access to services for people with dementia, ensuring at an early stage appropriate diagnosis to help ensure that they receive the most beneficial treatment.

4.19 The Panel also welcomes the proposed reductions in the time that assessment processes take, however the Panel is mindful that the improvement in diagnosis and/or speed of assessment will not deliver the expected positive outcomes unless there are effective services in place to support patients and carers at all stages of the Dementia Pathway.

4.20 The St Helens Shadow Health and Well being Board have created a Dementia Project Group which is presently developing an action plan and considering issues in relation to the 6 phases of dementia as outlined by the Department of Health in relation to commissioning Dementia Services: -

Phase 1 – When memory problems have prompted me and all my carers/family to approach my GP with concerns.

31 4

Phase 2 – Learning that the condition is dementia.

Phase 3 – Learning more about the disease, options for treatment and care, self management and support for me and my carers/family.

Phase 4 – Getting the right help at the right time to live well with dementia, prevent crisis and manage together.

Phase 5 – Getting help if it is not possible to stay at home or if hospital care is# needed.

Phase 6 – Receiving care, compassion and support at the end of life.

4.21 The Panel endorses this approach and recommends the implementation of the proposals relating to Later Life and Memory Services are carefully coordinated with all other dementia developments in the Borough.

4.22 The Panel were also pleased to hear about the development of Old Age Psychiatric Liaison Service at Whiston Hospital and proposals to both increase the staffing level of this service and also to extend it to operate at evenings and weekends.

4.23 The Panel feel that although this development is in its early stages, close working between the 5 Borough Trust and St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust will help to ensure that this improves the services for people being admitted to hospital.

4.24 Crisis Services

4.25 The Panel, through previous work relating to Crisis Services for younger people with mental health problems, is very familiar with the importance of Crisis Services for both patients and their family/carers. The Panel recognise the importance of these services for people with dementia and their carers.

4.26 The Alzheimer’s Society stressed that putting in place a number of key elements of information and support to family/carers and patients in advance, will often help to avoid crisis and The Panel were pleased to note a willingness of all partners to engage in developing services in this way.

4.27 The Panel noted the Pilot of Crisis Services in Wigan and would support a faster development of Crisis Services for people with dementia and their family/carers in St Helens. It was felt that cover from Saturday afternoon to Sunday evening would be very beneficial for those in crisis as weekends was more likely to be the point which they present at services.

4.28 Residential and Nursing Care Homes

4.29 The Panel heard consistently from a number of witnesses from all disciplines the importance of effective Dementia care in Nursing and Residential Care Homes, both to improve the quality of care and maintain a focus on dignity. The Panel were pleased to note the support to care homes offered by the 5 Boroughs Trust and the proposals to strengthen this.

32 4

4.30 Through its recent review of Dignity in care homes, the Panel is aware of many of the issues which face care homes and believe that it is vitally important that the work being undertaken by the 5 Boroughs Trust is coordinated with other developments and work relating to care homes in the Borough. This will help to ensure that there is effective coordination of a range of initiatives e.g. Dementia, Dignity, End of Life Care and Physical Care. The Panel also believes that work should be prioritised and focus on those homes most needing support, and not just focussed on those homes that come forward or ask for support. The Panel believes that this is important to ensure that those residents most in need receive the necessary support.

4.31 Functional Mental Health

4.32 The Panel heard consistently from witnesses that older people with functional mental health problems require specialist in-patient facilities. At present they are normally placed on in-patient wards with younger adults and/or in some cases on in-patient wards for those people with Dementia. The Panel welcomed the proposals to develop a specialist in-patient facility for people with functional mental health needs.

4.33 Communication and Engagement

4.34 Whilst The Panel received assurances from officers of the 5 Boroughs Trust in relation to consultation and engagement, and indeed the support of a number of clinical and non-clinical groups, the evidence presented to the Panel from other sources was not consistent with this view. Key witnesses felt that there had been some limited engagement in relation to the principles of the proposals, but the important details had not been fully shared. It was confirmed that there had been little service user engagement via LINk to be able to state if service users agree with the proposals. On hearing the feedback, the Panel consistently felt that the approach of the Trust could be further refined by: -

• Ensuring that all key partners had full access to detailed information at an appropriate stage in proceedings.

• Creating the opportunity to comment on these and for the documentation to be refined.

• That they should received feedback on any comments or issues made.

4.35 The Panel is aware of the difficulties of consulting and engaging on a wide geographical footprint, but have raised this point in their report as there appears to be some disconnection between the views of officers of the 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust and the evidence presented to the panel.

33 4

5.0 Recommendations

Distinguishing between immediate and longer term proposals

1. The further developments referred to in the reports such as the development of a Centre of Excellence be subject to separate consultation and scrutiny appropriate exercises.

Stewart Assessment Unit

2. Having carefully considered the information available, the Panel support the proposals to relocate subject to the implementation of the following points:

(a) That St Helens residents are not denied access to inpatient beds and that the situation in relation to capacity is carefully monitored to ensure no undue delays.

(b) That the 5 Boroughs Trust maintains the facility in both Rydal and Kinsley wards for shared bedroom facilities for family members who may wish to share.

(c) That capital investment is identified and those single rooms without en- suite facilities at Kingsley ward are upgraded to the same standards as other wards.

(d) That the 5 Boroughs Trust make particular arrangements for transporting/or facilitating visits to patients on a 7 day a week basis at both venues.

(e) That staffing from Stewart Assessment Unit is transferred to the 2 wards on a permanent bases ensuring appropriate skill levels and skill mix to support service users.

(f) That St Helens based initiatives presently based at Stewart Assessment Unit are carried on either as part of the community based services at Peasley Cross or within the new wards.

(g) That the Adult Social Care and Health Scrutiny Panel be kept informed of changes to the use of the facilities at Peasley Cross

Patient Pathway

3. That developments relating to Later Life and Memory Services in the Borough, carried out by the 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust are integrated and consistent with developments being led by the Dementia Project Group of the St Helens Shadow Health and Well-being Board.

4. That the 5 Boroughs Trust and the St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust work together to ensure that the maximum benefits are accrued from the increase in resource in the Old Age and Psychiatric Liaison Services.

34 4

Crisis Service

5 That a clear development plan be implemented to ensure the effective development of Crisis/Out of Hours Services for people with Dementia and their family carers in St Helens. This should be supported by learning from any relevant pilot.

Residential and Nursing Care Homes

6 That any work undertaken by the 5 Boroughs Trust in relation to Residential and Nursing Home be effectively coordinated with other initiatives relating to Residential and Nursing Care Homes within the Borough.

Functional Mental Health

7. The proposal to create a specialist in-patient ward for older people with functional mental health problems be further developed with a view to implementation as soon as possible.

Communication and Engagement

8. The 5 Boroughs Trust review their engagement and consultation processes for the future in partnership with the commissioners of Mental Health services.

35 This page is intentionally left blank

36 5 Cabinet 22nd February 2012

KEY DECISION NO DATE ADDED TO FORWARD PLAN N/A

BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT DECEMBER 2011

WARDS AFFECTED

All

EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM

NO

1. PROPOSED DECISION

1. That Cabinet note the financial position of the Portfolios. 2. That Cabinet note the performance as at December 2011 as set out in the table 4. Officers are encouraged to take appropriate remedial action where there is currently under performance against target

2. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION

The December PI Monitoring Report provides an analysis of performance through the inclusion of the following

Table The table on the following page provides overall analysis of the performance as at the end of December 2011, for all reportable Tier 1 and Tier 2 indicators. Appendix A Tables set out by Cabinet Portfolio providing full details of all Tier 1 and Tier 2 indicators identified as having new data at the end of December 2011 and the budget monitoring reports.

To aid analysis, the tables in Appendix A identify the Å Improvement direction of travel for each indicator compared to the Ä Same previous month (relative to the degree of “variance” from Worse each month’s target), by the use of an of appropriate Æ symbol i.e. Additionally, the symbols are different to indicate On or better than target performance against target as at the end of December 2011 i.e. Worse than target

Where the system is unable to assess performance due Unable to assess to missing data, a ? symbol is applied. ?

Please note that the performance tables at Appendix A were produced directly from the PI database as at 6th February 2012.

37 5 3. FACTS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED DECISION

The table below provides an overview of the performance of all Tier 1 and Tier 2 PIs at the end of the December 2011.

There are 147 Tier 1 and Tier 2 indicators. Of this number, data was not available to report on 1 PI. SC-08 (Successful planned exits from drug treatment) was established during 2011 and data will not be available to report until year-end.

NB. Where data is not available, these PIs have been excluded from the calculation of percentage on or better than target.

In December new data was available for 108 key performance indicators and of this number 69 (64%) are on or better than target.

The impact the new data has overall is to see performance decrease by 3% from 66% of all PIs on or better than target last month to 63% this month.

All PIs at end December 2011 Tier No. On or Percentage Worse Data of better than on or better than gaps Portfolios PIs target than target target Tier 1 14 10 71% 4 0 Children and Young People’s Services Tier 2 27 16 59% 11 0 Tier 1 11 7 64% 4 0 Adult Social Care & Health Tier 2 11 8 73% 3 0 Tier 1 7 7 100% 0 0 Urban Regeneration & Housing Tier 2 22 17 77% 5 0 Tier 1 6 3 50% 3 0 Environmental Protection Tier 2 13 7 54% 6 0

Family Intervention & Safer Tier 1 6 2 40% 3 1 Communities Tier 2 8 3 38% 5 0 Tier 1 3 2 67% 1 0 Culture, Sport & Leisure Tier 2 9 7 78% 2 0 Tier 1 5 2 40% 3 0 Corporate Services & External Affairs Tier 2 5 2 40% 3 0 Total Tier 1 PIs 52 33 63% 18 1 Total Tier 2 PIs 95 60 63% 35 0 TOTAL 147 93 63% 53 1

Appendix A provides full details of all indicators identified as having new data at the end of December 2011.

Further details of all indicators are available in the Performance Indicator Database 2011/12.

38 5 4. OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Legal - None Financial – The financial implications are implicit within the budget sections of the report Land and Property (Asset) - None Anti-Poverty - A number of key performance indicators set targets for and measure outcomes in relation to the anti-poverty agenda Effects on existing Council Policy – The performance of key PIs will be taken account when reviewing existing Council policy. Effects on other Council Activities – The performance of key PIs is relevant to the Council’s involvement in all partnerships across the Borough. Human Rights - None Sustainability – A number of key performance indicators set targets for and measure outcomes for sustainability issues Equalities - A number of key performance indicators set targets for and measure outcomes for equalities issues Asset Management - None Health – A number of key performance indicators set targets for and measure outcomes for health

5. PREVIOUS APPROVAL/CONSULTATION

None

6. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS THEREOF

None

Ian Roberts, Assistant Chief Executive (Finance)

The Contact Officer for this report is Ian Roberts, Chief Executive's Department, Finance Division, Town Hall, St. Helens, WA10 1HP, Telephone: 01744 456022

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The following documents were used to complete this report and are available for public inspection for four years from the date of the meeting from the Contact Officer named above:

Budget working papers

39 5

40 5

Appendix A

Adult Social Care and Health Portfolio

41 5

42 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Adult Social Care and Health

Tier 1

&'C"% 4r5nt3g o6 7o78 r5i9ing o5i38 53r 3n@ A77ort r9i5       1n ()%0 3ti6i@ BitC tC r9i5 tCD r5i9 23rgt Monitoring Cont 2C in6or3tion 6or tCi in@i53tor 5o 6ro tC 83tt &@A8t 'o5i38 C3r 'Ar9D BCi5C B3 An@rt3Gn @Aring SFrA3rD 3n@ M3r5C 2C Ar9D 8ooG@ 3t igCt @o3in in r83tion to tC 58intT UA38itD o6 8i6 BCi5C Br Contro8I 4ron38 C3rI Soo@I &55oo@3tionI 4ron38 '36tDI 'o5i38 Vi6I 155A73tion 3n@ PignitD 2C 6igAr CoBn i 3 7r5nt3g o6 tC nAFr o6 58int BCo t3t@ tCD Br 9rD 3ti6i@ or Wtr8D 3ti6i@ BitC tC r9i5 tCD Br r5i9ing

&'C"$ 4r5nt3g o6 3@A8t 3g@ "# BitC 83rning @i3Fi8iti GnoBn to  !   ! " ! "#$  Eor ()! 0 &'CHI in tt8@ 355oo@3tion 3t tC ti o6 tCir ot r5nt 3ntI 6or38 r9iB or otCr MP2 783nning ting Monitoring43 Cont '8igCt8D FCin@ ontC8D t3rgt  VP 58int 3r in r5i7t o6 3 r9i5 or C39 Fn in9o89@ BitC 'o5i38 'r9i5 FtBn &7ri8 3n@ P5Fr % 16 tC I !$ 3r in tt8@ 355oo@3tion 1n8D  3r in non"tt8@ 355oo@3tionI BCi5C in58A@ % t3Ding BitC 63i8D Q 6rin@ 3 3 Cort tr gAtX  7835@ in t7or3rD 355oo@3tion FD tC V&X 3n@ $ in 35At Q 8ong t3D ri@nti38 C38tC53r 2Cr 3r 3 6ArtCr ! 58int BitC 3 t3tA o6 )ot Y5or@@

&'C"! Q )AFr o6 3@A8tI o8@r 7o78 3n@ 53rr r5i9ing 86"@ir5t@ $  % %  %!  Rttr )$ A77ort in tC D3r to $t M3r5C 3 3 7r5nt3g o6 58int r5i9ing 5oAnitD F3@ r9i5 3n@ 53rr r5i9ing 53rr 75i6i5 r9i5 3g@  or o9r Monitoring Cont `W588nt 7r6or3n5I W5@ing ontC8D 3n@ D3r8D t3rgt 2Cr 3r 5Arrnt8D !$ r9i5 Ar BCo C39 r5i9@ Pir5t 43Dnt or C39 gon tCroAgC tC '86 Pir5t@ 'A77ort 7ro5 'in5 tC i78nt3tion o6 tC Y&' (YoAr5 &88o53tion 'Dt0I tC 'P' 7ro5 C3 Fn 8inG@ to r9iB (58int noB 5o78t tC 'P' 7ro5 @Aring 35C 3nt 3n@ r9iB0I BCi5C C3 C87@ to nAr tC 35Ci9nt o6 oAr D3r"n@ t3rgt

&'C" 3 Mort38itD r3tI 388 3g 388 53A 7r I 7o7A83tion (M380 % ! !  "%$! "$  Rttr Q )%3 Monitoring Cont )o9Fr % @3t3 i A@ 3 3 7roWD 6or aA3rtr $ 3 @3t3 i not Dt 393i83F8 M38 @3tC C39 5ontinA@ to @5r3 @Aring %I CoBing tC3t

CbP 3n@ 53n5r intr9ntion 3n@ C38tC i7ro9nt initi3ti9 3r Fginning to C39 3 7oiti9 i735t in @8i9ring i7ro9@ C38tC oAt5o 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

&'C" F Mort38itD r3tI 388 3g 388 53A 7r I 7o7A83tion (S380 !# $ $ ! " % "%  Rttr Q )%F Monitoring Cont )o9Fr % @3t3 i A@ 3 3 7roWD 6or aA3rtr $ 3 @3t3 i not Dt 393i83F8 S38 @3tC C39 r3in@ 8oB tCroAgCoAt % FAt C39 not n tC @5r3 tC3t 38 @3tC r3t C39 CbP 3n@ 53n5r intr9ntion 3n@ C38tC i7ro9nt ini3ti9 3r C87ing to 3int3in tC 8oB r3t

&'C" Q )AFr o6 oGing UAittr 7r  7o7A83tion %$  %# $ "$#% "    Eor )%$ Monitoring Cont cAnI cA8I &AgI 15t d )o9 C39 Fn A7@3t@ )o9Fr @3t3 i 3 n37Cot 3n@ tCr6or 7ro9iion38I tCi Bi88 F A7@3t@ in tC nWt r7ort P5Fr @3t3 not Dt 393i83F8 o )o9Fr @3t3 A@ 3 3 7roWD 't H8n 'to7 'oGing r9i5 C3 t 5Arrnt t3rgt FtBn &7ri8 3n@ &AgAt 2Ci t3 i noB on o6 tC to7 7r6orr in tC 5oAntrD E W75t to t tC a! t3rgt

&'C" 4r5nt3g o6 3@A8t 3g@ "# BitC 83rning @i3Fi8iti in !$ %  !!# " "$  Eor ()!0 78oDnt 44 Monitoring Cont CArrnt8D not ting ontC8D t3rgt 16 tC  VP 58int in9o89@ BitC 'o5i38 'r9i5 FtBn &7ri8 3n@ P5Fr %I % 58int C39 Fn in 73i@ 78oDnt 2o 35Ci9 D3r"n@ t3rgtI 3 6ArtCr  58int n@ to F C87@ into 78oDnt 2o n5oAr3g in@i9i@A38 to t3G A7 78oDntI t3tr ion tCroAgC )B bntAr 3r 5Arrnt8D Fing o66r@

&'C" Q 4r5nt3g o6 3@A8t in 5ont35t BitC 5on@3rD nt38 C38tC r9i5 $       1n )  in 78oDnt 23rgt Monitoring Cont en@i53tor i on t3rgt 6or P5Fr Si9 RoroAgC r7ortI tC3t tCr Br  't H8n V& 58int o7n to tC t3 16 tCI ! 58int 3r 78oD@ (3n in5r3 o6 iW in5 83t ontC0I  3r 86"78oD@ (3n in5r3 o6 on in5 83t ontC0I # Br An78oD@ (3 @5r3 o6 iW0I  C3@ no 78oDnt r5or@@ 3n@ $ Br 583i6i@ 3 otCr (in58A@ing rtir@0 (3 @5r3 o6 on0

&'C"# 2C 7r5nt3g o6 53rr r5i9ing n@ 3nt r9iB or %# ! % %!$ %!$ #%  Rttr ()$ 0 r9i5 3 3 7r5nt3g o6 7o78 r5i9ing 3 5oAnitD F3@ r9i5 in tC D3r Monitoring Cont 16  r9i5 Ar in r5i7t o6 5oAnitD F3@ r9i5I % 53rr C39 C3@ 3 foint 53rr 3nt r5or@@ or 3 r9i5 BitC tC 53rr r5or@@ 3 tC 3in Fn6i5i3rD FtBn &7ri8 3n@ P5Fr % 4r6or3n5 C3 t t3rgt 3n@ CoB 3 trong 7oition 6or tCi GD in@i53tor SArtCr r7ort 3r Fing @98o7@ to nAr tC3t B 53n r7ort 6A88D on tCi in@i53torI to in58A@ nAFr o6 in@i9i@A38 53rr 3nt 3n@ nAFr o6 53rr r5i9ing 3@9i5 3n@ in6or3tion 2C r7ort Bi88 5o78int in6or3tion on tC nAFr o6 foint 3nt 3n@ 53rr in r5i7t o6 3 r9i5 5Arrnt8D Fing r5or@@ Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

&'C"%# 4r5nt3g o6 initi38 tr3tgD @i5Aion An@rt3Gn BitCin ! BorGing # # # "! "!%  Eor CoAr o6 tC 38rt Fing 3@ to tC Cont35t Cntr Monitoring Cont 4r6or3n5 5ontinA to F trong in tCi 3r3 3n@ tC @3t3 in@i53t tC3t tC @i5AionI BCr initi38 riG 3nt 5on5I 3r gi9n o7r3tion38 7rioritD

&'C"$ 4r5nt3g o6 9iit to tC 9i5ti An@rt3Gn BitCin % BorGing CoAr   ! !   Rttr o6 tC initi38 tr3tgD @i5Aion Monitoring Cont 4r6or3n5 C3 W5@@ tC t3rgt BCi5C i 3 3Ar o6 CoB rioA8D 388 388g3tion o6 3FA 3r t3Gn 3n@ i in@i53ti9 o6 tC roFAt r7on to 9iit tC 9A8nr3F8 3@A8t in 7ron in tCir oBn tting to 39oi@ or r@A5 tC 7otnti38 6or 6ArtCr C3r 45 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Tier 2

&'C"% 4r5nt3g o6 7o78 r5i9ing o5i38 53r 3n@ A77ort r9i5        Rttr t3ting tC3t tCD C39 noAgC 5ontro8 o9r tCir @3i8D 8i9 (&@A8t 'o5i38 C3r 'Ar9D %0 Monitoring Cont P3t3 C3 5o 6ro tC &@A8t 'o5i38 C3r 'Ar9D BCi5C B3 An@rt3Gn @Aring SFrA3rD 3n@ M3r5C 3n@ BCi5C B3 nt to # r9i5 Ar 6ro 3 r3n@o8D 85t@ 378 16 tC Ar Ar9D@I $  g39 3 9rD 7oiti9 3nBr 3n@ !   g39 3 7oiti9 3nBr to tC UAtion THoB A5C 5ontro8 @o DoA C39 o9r DoAr @3i8D 8i6gT & 6ArtCr   r7on@@ 3Ding tCD C3@ o 5ontro8 o9r @3i8D 8i6I o in tot38I o9r # i@nti6i@ C39ing 3n 8nt o6 5ontro8 o9r tCir 8i9

&'C"$ 4r5nt3g o6 7o78 r5i9ing o5i38 53r 3n@ A77ort r9i5   #!% %!% $ $  Rttr 68ing 36 ini@ or oAti@ tC Co (&@A8t 'o5i38 C3r 'Ar9D %0 Monitoring Cont 46 P3t3 C3 5o 6ro tC &@A8t 'o5i38 C3r 'Ar9D BCi5C B3 An@rt3Gn @Aring SFrA3rD 3n@ M3r5C 3n@ BCi5C B3 nt to # r9i5 Ar 6ro 3 r3n@o8D 85t@ 378 16 tC Ar Ar9D@I $# g39 3 9rD 7oiti9 3nBr 3n@ 3 6ArtCr %$$ g39 3 7oiti9 3nBr to tC UAtion HoB 36 @o DoA 68g 2Ci i 9rD goo@ 7r6or3n5

&'C"! Q 4r5nt3g o6 3@A8t r5i9ing 5on@3rD nt38 C38tC r9i5 in #%$ #  #  #% "$ "$!  Eor )!# tt8@ 355oo@3tion Monitoring Cont '8igCt8D FCin@ t3rgt FAt 3Fo9 tC 39r3g o6  # 6or tC Si9 RoroAgC 6or P5Fr 16 tC  58int o7n to tC t3I R4 r7ort tC3t ! 3r in tt8@ 355oo@3tionI !$ in non"tt8@ 355oo@3tion (3 @5r3 o6 tBo in5 83t ontC0 3n@  58int C39 no 355oo@3tion r5or@@ 3g3int tC (3 @5r3 o6 on in5 83t ontC0

&'C" )AFr o6 58int r5i9ing 3 5oAnitD F3@ r9i5 BCo 3r $#!$ $!! $% !!$ $  %$$  Rttr ()$0 A77ort@ to 8i9 in@7n@nt8D 7r I 7o7A83tion Monitoring Cont `W588nt 7r6or3n5I W5@ing ontC8D 3n@ D3r8D t3rgt RtBn &7ri8 3n@ P5FrI tCr C39 Fn  58int 3n@ 58int BitC 53rr tC3t C39 Fn C87@ to 8i9 3t Co Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

&'C" Q Mort38itD r3t 6ro 388 5ir5A83torD @i3 3t 3g An@r  #!   # " "%$$  Rttr )% Monitoring Cont )o9Fr % @3t3 i A@ 3 3 7roWD 6igAr 6or aA3rtr $ F53A tC tot38 nAFr o6 @3tC rgitr@ @Aring tC 7rio@ i 3 Dt An9ri6i@ 2Cr Br ! 6Br @3tC @Aring aA3rtr $ %Q% 5o73r@ to aA3rtr $ %Q EorG 5ontinA in oGing 53tion 5ontro8I i@nti6Ding 7o78 3t riG o6 5ir5A83torD @i3 3n@ tr3tnt o6 CHP 3n@ troG 'oGing 53tion r3t 5ontinA to i7ro9 3n@ 3 6ArtCr ! C38tC 5C5G C39 Fn An@rt3Gn FD 7r35ti5 in 'tH8n

&'C" Q Mort38itD r3t 6ro 388 53n5r 3t 3g An@r  % %$# %$# #! "!  "  Rttr )%% Monitoring Cont )o9Fr % @3t3 i A@ 3 3 7roWD 6igAr 6or aA3rtr $ 3 3 6in38 938i@3t@ 6igAr i not Dt 393i83F8 4ro9iion38 @3t3 to )o9Fr % in@i53t tC3t tC nAFr o6 @3tC @A to 53n5r C39 r3in@ t3ti5 @Aring tC D3r Tht CC5G@TI H38tC CC5G 3n@ oGing 53tion 7rogr3 5ontinA to @8i9r 7r9ntion 3n@ 3r8D @t5tion o6 53n5r Y5on6igAr3tion o6 tC 4C2 C3 @83D@ tC r"t3F8iCnt o6 tC C3n5r &5tion 23 HoB9rI tCr i 3 trong 53n5r ntBorG 7rogr3I BCi5C BorG BitC in@i9i@A38 h4 7r35ti5 3n@ C8ini538 Coiioning hroA7 to

7root47 tC 3r8D @i3gnoi 3n@ tCr6or 3r8D tr3tnt o6 53n5r &88 8o538 7r35ti5 C39 Fn in9it@ to @98o7 53n5r 35tion 783nX 53n5r 7ro6i8 C39 Fn C3r@ BitC 9rD 7r35ti5I 3n@ 53n5r 5rning i Fing 7root@ & n3tion38 FoB8 53n5r 3B3rn 5373ign Bi88 F 83An5C@ 83tr in c3nA3rD

&'C" Q 4r5nt3g o6 o8@r 7o78 @i5C3rg@ 6ro Co7it38 to tCir oBn #$  # # #$ ! %  Rttr )% Co or to 3 ri@nti38 or nAring 53r Co or Wtr3 53r CoAing F@ 6or rC3Fi8it3tion Monitoring Cont `W588nt 7r6or3n5I Fttr tC3n ontC8D t3rgt 2BntD tBo 58int Br @i5C3rg@ in '7tFr 3n@ 388 Br ti88 3t Co 36tr # @3D gi9ing 3 ontC8D 7r6or3n5 o6  6or P5Fr RtBn &7ri8 3n@ P5Fr tCr C39 Fn % 58int not 3t Co # @3D 36tr @i5C3rg oAt o6 3 tot38 o6  16 tC tB89 not 3t CoI nin 58int C3@ @i@ 3n@ tCr C3@ Fn 3@itt@ to 3 53r Co

&'C"# )AFr o6 o8@r 7o78 3g@  or o9r 3@itt@ on 3 7r3nnt # #  $ "$$ " #  Rttr F3i in tC D3r to ri@nti38 or nAring 53r 7r I 7o7A83tion 3g@  or o9r Monitoring Cont &5Ci9ing ontC8D t3rgt RtBn &7ri8 3n@ P5FrI # 7o78 Br 3@itt@ into 7r3nnt 53r 2Cr C39 Fn  6Br 58int 3@itt@ in %Q% tC3n 5o73r@ to tC 3 7rio@ in %Q 2C nAFr o6 o8@r 7o78 3@itt@ to 7r3nnt ri@nti38 3n@ nAring 53r 5ontinA to r@A5 3n@ tC @73rtnt A tC 43n8 7ro5 to 7ro"35ti98D nAr tC3t 5oAnitD 38trn3ti9 3r 38B3D 5oni@r@ 6irt 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

&'C"% 4r5nt3g o6 3@A8t "# BitC 7CDi538 @i3Fi8itD in 78oDnt   $ % # %# ##%$  Rttr

Monitoring Cont Rttr tC3n ontC8D 3n@ D3r8D t3rgt RtBn &7ri8 3n@ P5FrI $ 4'P 58int 3g@ "# C39 Fn in 78oDnt 2C P73rtnt r5ogni tC3t 3int3ining tCi W588nt 7r6or3n5 i 3 @i66i5A8t 5C388ng 3n@ Bi88 BorG BitC 5o883gA 35ro tC 5oAn5i8 3n@ in tC $r@ 5tor to 5r3t 78oDnt o77ortAniti BCr 7oiF8

&'C"$ 4r5nt3g o6 tC nAFr o6 38rt 7rogring to 3 tr3tgD ting   # " "#%$  Eor 58o@ BitCin # @3D Monitoring Cont 4r9ioA 5Ato 3n@ 7r35ti5 C3 388oB@ in@i9i@A38 in9tig3tion o6 3FA to r3in io7ni Anti8 388 UA38itD 5on5rn BitCin tC r9i5 tting C39 Fn 3@@r@ et C3 noB Fn 7C3i@ to 3n3gr tC3t 3 7ro7t oAt5o 6or tC in@i9i@A38 3n@ ti8D 58oAr o6 tC in9tig3tion i or 377ro7ri3t 2Ci Bi88 F 3@ 583r in tC nWt @ition o6 tC '36gA3r@ing &@A8t 7ro5@Ar Y3on BCD tC # @3D t3rgt i W5@@ in58A@ Criin38 en9tig3tionI Pi5i78in3rD en9tig3tion 3n@ '36gA3r@ing en9tig3tion An@r otCr Vo538 &AtCoritD 4ro5@Ar tC3t @o not C39 tCi ti538I in 1At o6 RoroAgC 4835nt 48 &'C"$% 4r5nt3g o6 tC nAFr o6 38rt not 7rogring to 3 tr3tgD    "  "#  Eor ting 58o@ BitCin $ @3D Monitoring Cont &8rt tC3t @o not 7rogr to 3 'tr3tgD Mting 3r 8 5o78i53t@ 3n@ in9o89 8oBr riG 3n@ 53n tCr6or F 5o78t@ or UAi5G8D HoB9r tC 9o8A i CigC 3n@ 3n3gr 3r 5oni@ring tr3tgi 6or i7ro9ing 7r6or3n5 in tCi 3r3 5

Portfolio Budget Report – December 2011

Adult Social Care & Health

1. Revenue

The Portfolio is carefully monitoring its spending across all services and is currently projecting a balanced budget in 2011/2012.

Budgetary Issues

The Portfolio is reporting the following variations.

ŠBudget pressures are forecast for 2011/2012 in purchasing budgets in Older Peoples Services, due to an increasing demand for commissioned packages. This equates to £54,000 for the whole financial year.

ŠBudget pressures are forecast for 2011/2012 in purchasing budgets in Vulnerable Adult Client Groups client groups, due to an increasing demand for commissioned packages. This equates to £349,000 for the whole financial year.

ŠBudget pressures exist in relation to commissioned packages for Domiciliary Care & Direct Payments due to an increasing demand for services across client groups. These increases are more than offset by increases in income in relation to Domiciliary Care and Direct Payments. Based on current projections this equates to £52,000 in 2011/2012.

ŠStaffing efficiencies are forecast in both Care Management and Commissioning & Business Support. This equates to £230,000. Non-staffing efficiencies are also forecast in these service areas equating to £119,000.

ŠStaffing pressures exist within in-house services in respect of the Supported Living Service. These are partly offset by efficiencies within other in-house services, which equates to a net pressure of £86,000, the majority of capital costs arising from voluntary redundancy are included in the forecast. Non-staffing efficiencies are also forecast in these service areas equating to £43,000. Any capital costs associated with severance payments for voluntary redundancy or early retirement are reflected in the portfolio forecast. Under achievement of income in Community Services equates to £80,000.

Any cost pressures are being managed. The portfolio continues to carefully monitor demand across the client groups and manage its budget on a portfolio basis.

In addition the Portfolio will implement a number of key actions in line with the budget strategy focusing on the Personalisation of Adult Social Care and continuing to manage ongoing pressures.

2. Capital

Following the introduction of the Community Capacity Grant announced in the Local Government settlement for 2011/2012 the portfolio continues to review the capital

49 5

programme on a scheduled basis. Following a review of the capital programme the portfolio has realigned the capital spend profile in order to reflect the ongoing budget strategy. The latest Corporate Finance Report reflects this realignment.

3. Key Actions

In order to manage budget pressures the Portfolio has implemented a number of management actions in order to address the situation, these include ongoing management of non-essential spend and, as detailed in efficiency proposals for 2011/2012, the Portfolio is currently undertaking a review of high cost commissioned care packages.

The Portfolio, following approval of a Section 256 Partnership agreement, is implementing a range of activities in line with meeting the objectives arising from the NHS funded ‘Support for Social Care’ outlined in the Local Government Settlement for 2011/2012.

Following the recent government announcement of NHS Investment in Social Care Funding, the council in partnership with NHS Halton and St Helens are developing a number of proposals to utilise the funding. This will be formalised through council decision making processes and will be assured through a Section 256 Partnership Agreement.

4. Budget Strategy and Zero Base Budget Review

The three-year budget strategy for 2011/12 and beyond focuses on continuing the Modernisation Agenda in line with the Council’s commitment to Personalisation. It also reflects the significant budget efficiencies outlined in previous reports to Cabinet. It will focus on reviewing services and ensuring efficiencies are achieved. As identified in the budget strategy the level of health funding is significant and any change in health strategy or approach may, in future, bring a risk of a funding shortfall for the portfolio. The council is working closely with partners to manage this situation and minimise risk to services.

The portfolio is playing an active role in the zero based budget review for 2012/2013. This will underpin the portfolio strategy to meet efficiency targets over the coming years.

The Portfolio is on target to deliver its agreed efficiency savings for 2011/2012. This is reported on a monthly basis as part of the Revenue Monitoring process.

50 5

Children and Young People’s Services Portfolio

51 5

52 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Tier 1

C&' # 'r2nt3g o4 5o6ng 7o78 o4 3239i2 3g "   not in 9623tion@      !" "# $ 1ttr ()0 78o5nt or tr3ining Monitoring Cont G6ring tF 7rio9 4ro H2toCr #  to G2Cr #  tFr F3 Cn 3 ontF C5 ontF 92r3 in )IIP DitF G2CrQ 7r4or3n2 3t $ DFi2F i C8oD tF t3rgt t o4 $ RiSn tF3t tF )oSCr 7r4or3n2 D3 "$@ i4 tF T3n63r5 7r4or3n2 r3in C8oD $ tF 3nn638 t3rgt 4or #  Di88 C 32FiS9 U Co6nit5 )IIP U2tiSit5 '83n 4or # # i noD in 7832 DitF 399ition38 32tiSiti 783nn9 PF 6 o4 2o6nit5 Sn6 322 7oint F3 9S8o79 46rtFr DitF DE85 9ro7 in ion Cing o44r9 4or Vn4or3tion@ U9Si2 3n9 R6i93n2 (VUR0 377ointnt@! PF 6 o4 tF CFi89rnQ Cntr 4or 322 to ConnWion i noD in tF 3r85 t3g o4 9S8o7nt! PFr F3 Cn 3 92r3 in )IIP in tFr o4 tF X)D 3r3 3 3 r68t o4 tF 2o6nit5 DorEing 76t in 7832 '3rr ti88 r3in 3 E5 2F388ng DitF tF FigFt n6Cr o4 )IIP in tFi 3r3! PF 73rtnrFi7 DorEing DitF tF ToC Cntr 6n9r  39Sir 3n9 tF 8inE9 ConnWion 'rogrion BorEr F3 r68t9 in 3 92r3 in tF n6Cr o4 6n9r  283i3nt DitF 3n5 oSing into IIP $ o4 53r  83Sr Dr tr32E9@ DFi2F F3 3n i732t on tF U2tiSit5 Y6rS5 7r4or3n2 o4

%"$53 53r  )IIP 2o73r9 to %$ in #  

C&' %3 A 'r2nt3g o4 in43nt Cing Cr3t49 3t " DE #!$ #!$ #%$ ##$     % $ Bor )!%3 Monitoring Cont U88 4ig6r F3S Cn 6793t9 96 to 2F3ng in r7orting tFo9 4ro 9i2rt to 26683tiS PF 9noin3tor 4or tFi in9i23tor i )6Cr 96 3 " DE 2F2E 3n9 not tF n6Cr o4 CirtF 1r3t49ing r3t 3t " DE 3r Sr5 28o to tF t3rgt  DorEing toD3r9 1`V Yt3g # PF Vn43nt `9ing Coor9in3tor 3n9 1r3t49ing 677ort DorEr 7ot F3S Cn 3gr9 C5 tF Ugn93 4or CF3ng 73n8 3n9 r2r6itnt i iinnt 'r4or3n2 in9i23tor F3S Cn 3gr9 PF U26t tr6t CabV) i in 7832c o7t o6t 377ro32F to in43nt 49ing 3ntn3t38 ion i in2r3ing 3ttn93n2 CFi89rnQ 2ntr F38tF 72i4i23tion in2869 Cr3t49ing 3n9 7r 677ort PF 3i i to 2ontin6 to 3int3in 13C5 4rin985 7ri

C&' %C A 'r2nt3g o4 in43nt 4or DFo Cr3t49ing t3t6 i Cing r2or99 $  $ !$ $ %  $ 1ttr )!%C Monitoring Cont U88 4ig6r F3S Cn 6793t9 96 to 2F3ng in r7orting tFo9 4ro 9i2rt to 26683tiS PF 9noin3tor 4or tFi in9i23tor i )6Cr 96 3 " DE 2F2E 3n9 not tF n6Cr o4 CirtF 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

C&' ! A 'r2nt3g o4 2Fi89rn 32FiSing  7oint 32ro 388 % 3r85 53r !!! ! ! ! #  $ 1ttr )# 4o6n93tion t3g 7ro4i8 238 Monitoring Cont X27tion t32Fr 3ttn99 tF 36t6n o9r3tion ting 3n9 in4or3tion 4ro tF Yt3n93r9 3n9 Pting Ugn25 (YPU0 rg3r9ing tFi 53rQ I3r85 &3r `o6n93tion Yt3g (I&`Y0 7ro4i8 D3 9iin3t9 P32Fr F3S Cn 3E9 to 4o26 73rti2683r85 67on C6i89ing on ntr5 3nt 3n9 to n6ring tF3t tFo 2Fi89rn i9nti4i9 3 S68nr3C8@ in2869ing hooE9 U4tr CFi89rn@ 3E goo9 3r85 7rogr P32Fr 6n9rtooE 3 o9r3tion Wr2i in DFi2F tF5 Dr 3E9 to 9ontr3t Si9n2 to 32F otFr 4or tF g69gnt tF5 F3S 39 o 43r@ 3n9 Dr rin99 o4 tF n9 to n6r tF3t Si9n2 i 4ro 644i2int 2Fi89initi3t9 32tiSit5@ 3 3n in9i23tion tF3t 2Fi89rn 3r 3C8 to 37785 tF Ei88 tF5 F3S 32e6ir9

C&'  A 'r2nt3g o4 767i8 32FiSing !UdC or e6iS38nt in2869ing Ing8iF !# !" !" !!  %  ! $ Bor )! 3n9 M3tF 3t fY Monitoring Cont PF 4in38@ S38i93t9 7r4or3n2@ 3 r7ort9 C5 tF G73rtnt 4or I9623tion (G4I0@ FoD tF3t !!$ o4 388 Yt i8n 9623t9 767i8 2o78ting tFir f5 Yt3g  t69i 3t tF n9 o4 tF #  A#  3239i2 53r 32FiS9 !p RCYI (or e6iS0 3t gr39 Ud to C in2869ing RCYI Ing8iF q M3tF3ti2 PFi 83tt 7r4or3n2 4or tF #  A#  3239i2 53r (# A# # 4in3n2i38 53r0 i Cttr tF3n tF 7r4or3n2 r7ort9 4or Yt

i8n54 3t tF n9 o4 tF # A#  3239i2 53r (!#$0@ r7rnting@ 46rtFr 2ontin69 i7roSnt

C&'  A 'r2nt3g o4 2Fi89rn 8ooE9 34tr 3t % M3r2F DitF tFr or or  ! ! !   $ Bor )"# 7832nt 96ring tF 53r Monitoring Cont `ro 3 tot38 o4 %%" 8ooE9 34tr 2Fi89rn in G2Cr@ tFr F3S Cn  2Fi89rn DFo F3S F39 tFr or or 7832nt 96ring # A# PFi in9i23tor 23n C 3442t9 C5 8ooE9 34tr 2Fi89rn oSing 4or Sr5 7otiS r3on@ g iin97n9nt 322oo93tion 4or o89r 2Fi89rn A going to 8iS DitF 3 73rnt or r83tiS PFr F3 Cn 3 388 in2r3@ C6t tFi r3in goo9 7r4or3n2

C&' A 'r2nt3g o4 2Fi89rn C2oing tF 6Cg2t o4 3 CFi89 'rot2tion '83n  ! !   #"" $ Bor )"! 4or 3 2on9 or 6Ce6nt ti Monitoring Cont `ro 3 tot38 o4 " 2Fi89rn DFo C23 tF 6Cg2t o4 3 CFi89 'rot2tion '83n 96ring tF 7rio9 U7ri8 to G2Cr # @ 3 tot38 o4 ## 2Fi89rn Dr rgitr9 4or 3 2on9 or 6Ce6nt ti

YC  )6Cr o4 68ti78 2ont32t DitF   53r o89 !@!" !@"# @ #@ "% %! $ 1ttr

Monitoring Cont Un W288nt t6rn3ro6n9 F3 Cn 32FiS9 DitF tFi in9i23tor 'r4or3n2 i noD %!$ 3CoS tF t3rgt PFi 7r4or3n2 i 3ttriC6t9 to tF t3rgt9 DorE in rg3r9 GoI rgitr3tion@ 4o88oDing on 4ro 3 Sr5 622468 36t6nADintr F384 tr 7rogr3 PF r8o23tion o4 9t32F9 ion A 6nit into 8o238 Sn6@ 3n9 tF 2o7rFniS r3 7rogr3@ Dr D88 r2iS9 3n9 5i899 goo9 4ig6r Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

YC ! A )6Cr o4 4irtti ntr3nt to tF 5o6tF g6ti2 5t DFo r2iS %!  %" #  #""% $ 1ttr ) tFir 4irt 6Ct3ntiS o6t2o or 2o6rt 9i7o38 7r  @ 7o7683tion 3g9   Monitoring Cont PF r7ort9 4ig6r r7rnt !# 5o6ng 7o78 C2oing `irt Pi Intr3nt CtDn U7ri8G2Cr #  PFi i 3 #!$ r962tion on tF 3 7rio9 83t 53r DFn " 5o6ng 7o78 C23 `irt Pi Intr3nt PFi i 46rtFr Si9n2 o4 tF 7oitiS 3442t o4 tF Pri3g 5t 6n9r7inn9 C5 442tiS 73rtnrFi7 3rr3ngnt CtDn tF &HP 3n9 tF 'o8i2 in tring 7otnti38 5o6ng o44n9r 3D35 4ro tF &o6tF T6ti2 Y5t 55 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Tier 2

C&'# 'r2nt3g o4 initi38 3nt 4or 2Fi89rnQ o2i38 23r 23rri9 o6t  ! !   ! " $ 1ttr ()!0 DitFin  DorEing 935 o4 r4rr38 Monitoring Cont `ro U7ri8 to G2Cr # @   Vniti38 Unt (VU0 Dr 2o78t9 ! o4 tF Dr 23rri9 o6t DitFin  DorEing 935 DFi2F e63t to  $ PF 7r4or3n2 i goo9 3n9 26rrnt85 3CoS t3rgt PF o7r3tion38 3n3gr DorE 28o85 DitF t3 3n3gr onitoring 388 3nt DorE 3n9 3ttn9ing rg683r DE85 r4rr38 ting@ 38D35 Eing to i7roS 7r4or3n2

C&'% A 'r2nt3g g37 CtDn 9i3n 3n9 8oDt # $ o4 tF 3r85 53r %% % % %  %# $ Bor )# 4o6n93tion t3g r68t Monitoring Cont PF I3r85 &3r P3 32tiS85 n2o6r3g 2Foo8 to 4o26 3t 3n 3r85 t3g on o6t2o 4or S68nr3C8 2Fi89rn@ 3n9 in 73rti2683r hooE9U4tr CFi89rn Vn4or3tion F3 Cn 2o883t9 C5 tF t3 in or9r to i9nti45 3n9 tr32E tF 2Fi89rn@ 3n9 to t3C8iF tFir 8S8 o4 9S8o7nt son

ntr5s56 PFi in4or3tion Di88 F87 tF I3r85 &3r P3 3n9 otFr o9r3tor to n6r tF3t tF 2Fi89rn r3in 3 FigF 7riorit5 in tr o4 tFir 7rogr toD3r9 tF I3r85 h3rning Ro38

C&' 'r2nt3g o4 8ooE9 34tr 2Fi89rn 78329 4or 39o7tion DitFin #     %  #" $ 1ttr ()"0 ontF o4 Cing gr3nt9 3 '832nt Hr9r Monitoring Cont `ro U7ri8 to G2Cr #  tFr F3S Cn  2Fi89rn DFo Dr 78329 4or 39o7tion DitFin # ontF o4 Cing gr3nt9 3 '832nt Hr9r PFi i CroEn 9oDn 3 4o88oDt U7ri8  #@ T6n  @ T685  @ Y7t  %@ H2t to G2   PFi i Sr5 goo9 7r4or3n2

C&'# 'r2nt3g o4 2Fi89rn 8ooE9 34tr 23 tF3t Dr rSiD9 on ti      # $ 1ttr A)"" 96ring tF 53r Monitoring Cont 1tDn U7ri8 3n9 U6g6t #  388 CFi89rn hooE9 U4tr rSiD Dr 2o78t9 on ti Vn Y7tCr@ ! rSiD Dr not 2o78t9 DitFin " ontF@ 3Eing %# 4ro % Vn H2toCr rSiD Dr 2o78t9 on ti 3n9 in )oSCr # rSiD Dr not 2o78t9 DitFin " ontF Vn G2Cr 388 rSiD Dr 2o78t9 on ti

C&'# A 'r2nt3g o4 2Fi89 7rot2tion 23 DFi2F Dr rSiD9 DitFin       $ Hn )" re6ir9 ti238 P3rgt Monitoring Cont `ro U7ri8 to G2Cr #  388 CFi89 'rot2tion XSiD Dr 2o78t9 DitFin re6ir9 ti238 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

C&'## )6Cr o4 2Foo8 DFr 8 tF3n " $ o4 767i8 32FiS 3 hS8p    " $ Bor ()"0 in CotF Ing8iF 3n9 M3tF 3n9 DFr 7rogr in Ing8iF 3n9 in M3tF i C8oD n3tion38 3Sr3g (9i3n0 Monitoring Cont PFi in9i23tor r83t to 7ri3r5 2Foo8 PF 4in38 S38i93t9 r68t 4or #  FoD tF3t tFr i  2Foo8 C8oD tF RoSrnntQ f5 Yt3g # Q48oor t3n93r9Q PF 2Foo8 in e6tion i io85 Y7irit XC 'ri3r5 Vn 63r5@ tF 7ro7ortion o4 Yt i8n 7ri3r5 2Foo8 (#$0 C8oD tF f5 Yt3g # Q48oor t3n93r9Q in #  i C8oD 2o73r3C8 rgion38 ($0 3n9 n3tion38 ( $0 3Sr3g

C&'#% )6Cr o4 Y2Foo8 DFr 8 tF3n %!$ o4 767i8 32FiS !p RCYI   # Hn ()0 (or e6iS0 3t gr39 Ud to C in2869ing RCYI Ing8iF 3n9 RCYI M3tF P3rgt 3n9 DFr 7rogr in Ing8iF 3n9 in M3tF i C8oD n3tion38 3Sr3g (9i3n0 Monitoring Cont

PF57 4in38@ S38i93t9 #  fY 7r4or3n2 t3titi2 in9i23t tF3t non o4 tF Yt i8n 2on93r5 2Foo8 3r C8oD 388 8nt o4 tF 48oor t3n93r9

C&'#3 'r2nt3g o4 tF ri9nt 7o7683tion 3g9 ! # 3227ting 3 %%$ %!$ #%$ $ #  $ Bor A)%3 ttA2rn 4or 2F8359i3 Monitoring Cont 15 tF n9 o4 H2toCr@ DFi2F i tF ot r2nt 6793t@ $ o4 Yt i8n !# 7o7683tion F39 Cn 2rn9 4or CF8359i3 PF t3rgt C5 tF n9 o4 M3r2F i %!$ 3n9 Yt i8n i on t3rgt 4or 32FiSing tFi 67t3E C39 on H2toCr 93t3

C&'#C A 'r2nt3g o4 7oitiS 9i3gno 4or CF8359i3 in tF ri9nt "$ $ $ !$  ! "#! $ 1ttr )%C 7o7683tion 3g9 !# Monitoring Cont PF 7r2nt o4 5o6ng 7o78 7oitiS DitF CF8359i3 in H2toCr D3 !$@ 7oitiSit5 tFro6gFo6t tF 53r F3 S3ri9 4ro !$ to !$ Vn 4ortF2oing 53r it i W72t9 tF3t t3rgt Di88 C C39 on 7oitiSit5 r3tFr tF3n 67t3E o4 2rn@ tFi in4or3tion Di88 C 76C8iF9 in tF '6C8i2 i38tF H6t2o `r3DorE 96 to C r839 tFi ontF

C&'% A 'r2nt3g o4 4orr 23r 83Sr DFo 3r in 6it3C8    #  !! $ 1ttr ) 322oo93tion Monitoring Cont 1tDn U7ri8 3n9 G2Cr tFr F3S Cn  4orr 23r 83Sr DFo C23  53r o89  o4 tF 23r 83Sr i 26rrnt85 in 26to95

U22oo93tion 4or tF otFr % i 2oni9r9 6it3C8 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

C&'% A 'r2nt3g o4 4orr 23r 83Sr in 78o5nt@ 9623tion or  " " !   "" $ Bor ) tr3iningt Monitoring Cont  4orr 23r 83Sr t6rn9  CtDn U7ri8 3n9 G2Cr@  o4 DFo Dr in 78o5nt@ 9623tion or tr3ining@ DFi2F e63t to !  $ PF r3ining  2Fi89rn Dr not   Cing in 26to95@  DitF 3 rgitr9 9i3Ci8it5 283iing i2En Cn4it@ 3n9 # 96 to 832E o4 otiS3tion to ng3g in 4or38 78o5nt A tr3ining PF 83ttr # 3r 2ontin6ing to r2iS 4ortnigFt85 Siit 4ro tFir ConnWion 7ron38 39Sior to 7roSi9 otiSi3tion 3n9 i9nti45 3n5 C3rrir to n3C8 tF to 32FiS tFir 4688 7otnti38

YC! A 'r2nt3g o4 ntn2 i69 to 5o6ng 7o78 (3g9  0 tF3t #! ! ! %    $ 1ttr )% 3r 26to9i38 Monitoring Cont PFr Dr 5o6ng 7o78 ntn29 to 26to95 96ring G2Cr@ o6t o4 3 7oiC8  ntn2  tFi Cring tF &HPQ 7r4or3n2 C32E to DitFin tF !$ t3rgt t C5 tF &o6tF T6ti2 1o3r9 (26683tiS85@  o6t o4 ! tFi 53r@ U7rG20

YC )6Cr o4 5o6ng 7o78 32tiS85 inSo8S9 in So86ntring DFo 3r ! !!   %% # %% $ 1ttr

58 677ort9 C5 tF &o6tF YrSi2 Monitoring Cont IW288nt 7r4or3n2 tFro6gFo6t tF 53r@ 7832 tFi in9i23tor DitFin %$ o4 tF 4in38 o6tt6rn t3rgt 38r395 `6t6r Snt 62F 3 PF &o6tF '3r8i3nt@ &o6tF Co6n2i8 3n9 tF rrgn2 o4 tF Ytring Rro67@ 786 3n n9 o4 53r So86ntr 28Cr3tion@ Di88 n6r 7r4or3n2 r3in trong 4or tF r3in9r o4 tF 53r PFi in9i23tor r3in on t3rgt to 32FiS tF 4in38 o6tt6rn t3rgt

YC 'r2nt3g o4   53r o89 73rti2i73ting in 5o6tF rSi2 #! #" #  #% ! #"! # $ 1ttr

Monitoring Cont PF &o6tF YrSi2 2ontin6 to ng3g 3n9 F3S 2ont32t DitF 83rg n6Cr o4 &o6ng 'o78 PF r7ort9 4ig6r FoD tF3t tF YrSi2 F3 F39 2ont32t DitF % or 5o6ng 7ron tF3n 4or tF 3 7rio9 83t 53r@ DitF 3n oSr388 4ig6r t3n9ing $ 3CoS t3rgt to 93t Cro3n385i DitF otFr 3S3i83C8 3ttn93n2 93t3 i9nti4i tF3t $ o4 tFo 5o6ng 7ron tF &o6tF YrSi2 F3 2ont32t DitF 3r t6rn9 into rg683r 73rti2i73nt 5

Portfolio Budget Report – December 2011

Children and Young People’s Services

1. Revenue

Budgetary Pressures

Dedicated Schools Grant (Schools Budget)

It is forecast that there will be an underspend of £150k in respect of inter-authority education recoupment charges. It should be noted that any variations within the schools budget are contained within that budget - this budget is funded from the Dedicated Schools grant which is a ring fenced specific grant.

Central Budget

Following notification of lower funding levels due to reductions in specific grant funding and to facilitate the zero based budget process; the Portfolio undertook a number of service reviews when setting the budget for 2011/12. Due to time constraints and existing service requirements, it is only possible to implement and realise some of the efficiencies identified during the early stages of 2011/12 resulting in a forecasted pressure in relation to staffing costs of £137k.

It is projected that the revised arrangements for the delivery of Connexions services will result in an underspend of £259k.

It is forecast that there will be an underspend of £117k in relation to staffing costs within the Early Intervention Service.

Additional funding allocations of £46k Early Intervention Grant and £34k Local Services Support Grant have been received in year and these are available to fund eligible expenditure that would have had to be financed by the core budget.

A number of residual balances, mainly relating to externally funded programmes that have ceased, have been reviewed and assessed and can be transferred from the balance sheet in the current financial year. The overall effect of the transfer is an additional £115k to offset costs incurred against the core budget.

Children’s Services

Current forecasts indicate that there is likely to be an underspend in relation to the budget for residential and foster care services for Looked After Children of approximately £500k. Based on current levels of placements it is expected that this will be a permanent budget saving. However, it should be noted that the budget in respect of Looked After Children can be particularly volatile due to the high cost of some placements and, for example, when the need arises to make care provision for sibling groups. The situation will continue to be closely monitored.

A review of systems supporting Children’s Act payments has generated a projected underspend of £50k.

59 5

The leaving care budget is currently forecast to overspend by £46k due to an increase in the number of young people requiring support. It should be noted that this budget can be extremely volatile.

A number of activities and contracts that had been subject to review as part of the 2011/12 budget setting process have now ceased resulting in forecast savings of £169k.

The predicted financial position for the Children, Young People and Learning Services Portfolio for the current financial year is an overall underspend of £1.107M.

2. Base Budget Review

The Budget Strategy for 2011/12 sets out the key actions that will continue to be pursued in managing the financial pressures associated with the Children, Young People and Learning Services Portfolio.

The Portfolio will implement the requirements arising from a number of service reviews to achieve the efficiencies required due to reductions in specific grant funding. In addition, the overall number of looked after children continues to be a cause for concern which in turn places significant potential pressures on the fostering and residential care budgets. Budgets are closely monitored and are continually reviewed.

3. Other Issues

There are no other issues to report.

4. Capital

The Capital Programme has been updated to reflect the receipt of three grants for specific schemes at Red Bank:

x £101k to install an audio-visual system; x £20k for additional CCTV; x £17k for redecoration.

60 5

Corporate Services & External Affairs and Family Intervention & Safer Communities Portfolios

61 5

62 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Corporate Services and External Affairs Tier 1

C'" 4r5nt3g o6 5oAn5i8 t3W 5o885t@ #% # ! ! "  " #  Eor

Monitoring Cont Co885tion ti88 @oBn 3t n@ o6 P5Fr en 73rt tCi i @A to Wtn@ing 73Dnt int38nt to M3r5CI tC rA8t o6 BCi5C Bi88 F on8D F 6A88D n 3t tC n@ o6 tC D3r et 38o r685t tC @i66i5A8t 5onoi5 58i3t

C'"% )AFr o6 BorGing @3DQCi6t 8ot to i5Gn 3Fn5 7r !  $$ ! "#$ "!#  Rttr 78oD Monitoring Cont 4r9ioA8D ti3t@ 7r6or3n5 6or )o9Fr % C3 noB Fn 5385A83t@ 3n@ 3n@@ 2Ci 6igAr i 3Fo9 t3rgt 4r6or3n5 in P5Fr %63 C3 Fn ti3t@ 3n@ tCi 6igAr Bi88 F r9i@ BCn tC 35tA38 6igAr i 393i83F8

C'"$ Q &9r3g nAFr o6 538n@3r @3D to 7ro5 388 nB 583i 3n@ $ % ! !  !%#  Eor ) 5C3ng 9nt in HoAing Rn6it 3n@ CoAn5i8 23W Rn6it Monitoring Cont CAA83ti9 7r6or3n5 i 5ontinAing to i7ro9 4r6or3n5 in P5Fr B3 % @3D

C'"! 4r5nt3g o6 non"@oti5 r3t @A 6or tC 6in3n5i38 D3r BCi5C ## #  ! "%# "$$  Eor Br r5i9@ FD tC 3AtCoritD Monitoring Cont &8tCoAgC 7r6or3n5 C3 not t t3rgt 3t tC n@ o6 P5FrI 7r6or3n5 r3in on o6 tC Ft in tC &hM& groA7I 3n@ i 3 r685tion o6 tC @i66i5A8t 5onoi5 58i3t en 3@@itionI on 83rg 355oAnt i @A to F r3@ FD tC b38A3tion 166i5 &gn5D (b1&0 3n@ i GBing 7r6or3n5 on tCi 4e 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Tier 2

C'"3 4r5nt3g o6 to7  o6 3rnr tC3t 3r Bon          Rttr

Monitoring Cont CC3ng o55Arr@ in tC onitor@ groA7 in P5Fr % HoB9rI o9r388 groA7 iw r3in@ tC 3 3t $ 2Cr C39 Fn no nt 5C3ng to tC 35tA38 nAFr o6 638 or 38 2C o9r388 7r6or3n5 r3in An5C3ng@ 3n@ tC in@i53tor r3in on t3rgt

C'"F 4r5nt3g o6 to7  o6 3rnr 6ro F835G 3n@ inoritD tCni5 $  $ $# "$! "#  Eor 5oAniti Monitoring Cont CC3ng o55Arr@ in tC onitor@ groA7 in P5Fr % 19r388I tCr C3 Fn no nt in5r3 in tC groA7 iwI BCi5C B3 $ in P5Fr 2C 35tA38 nAFr o6 78oD BitCin tC groA7 @583ring tC3t tCD 3r 6ro 3 RM` F35GgroAn@ C3 r3in@ tC 3 3t  2Cr C3 Fn no 665t on 7r6or3n5 3n@ tC in@i53tor r3in F8oB t3rgt

C'"564 4r5nt3g o6 tC to7 73i@  o6 t366 BCo C39 3 @i3Fi8itD !    # $# %   Rttr (W58A@ing tCo in 3int3in@ 5Coo80 Monitoring Cont CC3ng o55Arr@ in tC onitor@ groA7 in P5Fr % 19r388I tCr C3 Fn no nt in5r3 in groA7 iwI BCi5C r3in 3t $ 2C 35tA38 nAFr o6 78oD BitCin tC groA7 @583ring tC3t tCD C39 3 @i3Fi8itD C3 r3in@ tC 3 3t  2Cr C3 Fn no 5C3ng in 7r6or3n5 3n@ tC in@i53tor r3in on t3rgt

C'" 4r5nt3g o6 t366 @583ring tC3t tCD t tC Pi3Fi8itD #     " " #  Eor Pi5riin3tion &5t @i3Fi8itD @6initionI Monitoring Cont CC3ng in tC onitor@ groA7 in P5Fr % C39 n no nt 5C3ng tC nAFr o6 78oD BitC 3 @583r@ @i3Fi8itD 2C nAFr o6 78oD @583ring 3 @i3Fi8itD r3in@ 3t % 2Ci 6o88oB 3 nB @583r3tion 6ro on Witing 78oDI 3n@ tC trin3tion o6  78oD (5o7A8orD r@An@3n5D0 BCo C3@ 7r9ioA8D @583r@ 3 @i3Fi8itD 2C in@i53tor i noB not ting t3rgt

C'" 4r5nt3g o6 8o538 3AtCoritD 78oD 6ro inoritD tCni5 #   #$ "! "$  Eor 5oAniti Monitoring Cont CC3ng in tC onitor@ groA7 in P5Fr % C39 n 3n in5r3 in tC nAFr o6 78oD 6ro RM` F35GgroAn@I FD 3 tot38 o6  2Ci 6o88oB tC 377ointnt o6 on nB 78oD @583ring tC3t tCD 3r 6ro RM` F35GgroAn@ 2C in@i53tor r3in o66 t3rgt Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Family Intervention and Safer Communities Tier 1

'C" Q )AFr o6 33A8t BitC 8 rioA infArD o66n5 7r I $! $ %! % % ! %$ $  Eor )% 7o7A83tion Monitoring Cont 2Cr Br !$ o66n5 in P5Fr en tC D3r to @3t (&7ri8"P5 %0 tCr C39 Fn 3 tot38 o6 !! o66n5I BCi5C i %$ or ( or 5ri0 tC3n tC 3 7rio@ 83t D3r &8tCoAgC 't H8n 5ontinA to F on o6 tC Ft 7r6oring 3r3 in it 7r groA7 3n@ 898 r3in 8oB 5o73r@ to tC rt o6 MrDi@I nAFr o6 33A8t (BitC 8 rioA infArD0 C39 rin tCi D3rI BCi5C i 8inG@ to FotC 385oCo8 5onA7tion in tC nigCt"ti 5onoD 3n@ @oti5 9io8n5 en r7on to tCi tC C'4 C3 A77ort@ ongoing 3n@ 75i6i5 o7r3tionI 75i388D in tC nigCt"ti 5onoD 3n@ r83t@ to PbI A5C 3 17r3tion hrn388 (385oCo8 5on6i53tion0I '2&)P 3n@ '3nti3go (CigC 9iiFi8itD 7o8i5ing0 in tC 2oBn CntrI tC T1n 4An5C C3n si88T 3rGting 5373ignI 3n@ 7r9nt3ti9 r9i5 to r@A5 tC 8iG8iCoo@ o6 9io8nt 5riI A5C 3 tC en@7n@nt Poti5 bio8n5 &@9o53t & 6ortnigCt8D A8ti"3gn5D bio8n5 ho9rn3n5 hroA7 C3 38o Fn t3F8iC@I 3n@ 3r8D rA8t 3r 7oiti9 in tr o6 r@A5@

9io8n565 tCroAgCoAt tC Bintr (5o73r@ to tC 73G o6 7ring"Ar0I BCi8t roFAt 7o8i5ing B3 n35t@ 6or tC Citori5388D 7roF83ti5 6ti9 7rio@ (TM3@ Sri@3DTI Poti5 bio8n5 `n6or5nt C373ignI t50

'C"% )AFr o6 rioA 35UAiiti9 5ri 7r I 7o7A83tion #! #% #% %! $% !%  Eor Q) Monitoring Cont 2Cr Br $ rioA 35UAiiti9 5ri in P5Fr % Sor tC D3r to @3t (&7ri8"P5Fr %0I tCr C39 Fn 3 tot38 o6 %% rioA 35UAiiti9 5riI BCi5C i ! or (! or 5ri0 tC3n 83t D3r BCn tCr C3@ Fn %$ r5or@@ o66n5 HoB9rI 't H8n r3in B88 F8oB FotC tC MrDi@ 3n@ T7r groA7T 39r3g r3t 6or tCi 5ri tD7 4r6or3n5 7rAr C39 rg@ tCi D3r in tr o6 @oti5 FArg83rD 3n@ FAin roFFrDI BCi8t 7rogr C3 Fn 3int3in@ in tr o6 9Ci58 5ri 3n@ 7ron38 roFFrD 2C C'4 5ontinA to A77ort ongoing 3n@ 75i6i5 o7r3tionI A5C 3 17r3tion Mi@8otCi3n (FArg83rD0 3n@ '3nti3go (toBn 5ntr rt3i80I tC entgr3t@ 166n@r M3n3gnt (e1M0 5CI 3n@ t3rgt@ 5oAni53tion to r3i 3B3rn o6 tC riG o6 o77ortAniti5 35UAiiti9 5riI 75i388D o9r tC r5nt 6ti9 7rio@

'C"$ )AFr o6 in5i@nt o6 3nti o5i38 FC39ioAr $  %#! ! !# " "%  Rttr

Monitoring Cont &88 &'R C388 (in58A@ing 5388 6or roB@D FC39ioArI BCi5C i tC CigCt 9o8A 6or o6 &'R0 to tC 7o8i5 C39 n 3 $ r@A5tion 5o73r@ to 83t D3r 6or &7ri8"P5 & Ait o6 ongoing 3n@ on"o66 35tion 53n F 3ttriFAt@ to tCiI 6ro n6or5nt 7oBr (&'R1I Pi7r38 1r@rI t50 to DoAtC @i9rion3rD 35ti9iti 3n@ 7r9nt3ti9 initi3ti9 " 73rti5A83r8D 17r3tion '7ringE3t5C BCi5C r3n tCroAgCoAt tC ontC o6 &7ri8I tC Arti 17r3tion '36 '735 in 73rG 3n@ o7n 735 38ongi@ tC 7o7A83r T2CinG &g3inT poAtC 'Ar 4rogr3I 3n@ or r5nt8D 17r3tion hoo@

hAD BCi5C t3rgt@ tC FAi8@"A7 o6 5oFAtiF8 3tri38 3n@ 7ro9i@@ @i9rion3rD 35ti9iti @Aring tC Ron6ir )igCt 7rio@ 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

'C" Q 4r5nt3g r@A5tion in r73t 9i5tii3tion 6or tCo @oti5 %$ $ $ # "$! "$#  Rttr )$% 9io8n5 53 Fing 3n3g@ FD 3 M&Y&C Monitoring Cont 2Cr Br % 53 r6rr@ to tC M&Y&C in P5Fr %I in58A@ing $ r73t 9i5ti " 3 r73t 9i5tii3tion r3t o6   6or tC ontC Sor tC D3r"to"@3t (&7r"P50I  53 C39 Fn C3r@I BitC ! r73t 9i5ti (i r73t r3t o6 #0 2Ci i tC 8oBt r73t r3t on MrDi@ D3r"to"@3t en %#QI # o6 53 going tCroAgC tC M&Y&C Br r73t 9i5tiI BCi8t in %Q tC r3t B3 %$ (5o73r@ to 3 MrDi@ 39r3g o6 0 2C 53 r6rr@ to tC M&Y&C 3r 3@ 3 Fing T9rD CigC riGT 53 38tCoAgC o TCigC riGT 53 3r 38o noB Fing r6rr@ 2C C'4 5ontinA to A77ort 7r9nt3ti9 r9i5I A5C 3 tC nB8D r5oiion@ en@7n@nt Poti5 bio8n5 &@9o53t (ePb&0I r6Ag 7ro9iionI 3n@ t3rgt"C3r@ning initi3ti9I BCi8t nAring tC M&Y&C i 66i5int 3n@ 665ti9 3 7oiF8I BitC 388 73rtnr 3gn5i 6A88D ng3g@ in tC M&Y&C 7ro5

'C" Q )AFr o6 385oCo8 r83t@ 3@iion to Co7it38 7r I %$ %!!% $% # #  $#  Eor )$# 7o7A83tion Monitoring Cont cAn " )o9 C39 Fn A7@3t@ P5Fr @3t3 i 3 7roWD F3@ on D3r to @3t @3t3 393i83F8 (0 & 5ontr35t C3 Fn 3B3r@@ to 3 tCir@ 5tor

7ro9i@rI66 &@@35tionI to 7ro9i@ 3 r5o9rD orint3t@I intgr3t@ AFt3n5 iA tr3tnt r9i5 in 't H8n 2C 3nti5i73t@ r9i5 t3rt A7 @3t i  &7ri8 %% &n i78nt3tion t3 C3 Fn 6or@ to o9r 3n@ A77ort tC i78nt3tion o6 tC nB r9i5 2Ci i 3 5o78W i78nt3tion BitC 6i9 7ro9i@rI in58A@ing )H' 3n@ tCir@ 5torI 5oing togtCr to 6or on nBI intgr3t@ r9i5 (@rAg 3n@ 385oCo80 2C 7rioritD i to nAr tC3t r9i5 Ar 36tD 3n@ FAin 5ontinAitD 3r 3int3in@ 3t 388 ti 3n@ to 3@@r GD 8ogiti5 A5C 3 t366 tr3n6rI r5or@ tr3n6rI 7ri 3n@ @i5in 3n3gnt ConA8t3tion 9nt 3r Fing C8@ BitC 388 3665t@ t366 3n@ 3 Bi@r 't3GCo8@r ng3gnt 9nt i 783nn@ 6or i@ M3r5C (%0 &n 17r3tion38 hroA7 C3 Fn 6or@ to o9r tC i78nt3tion o6 tC &85oCo8 )Aring '5C BitCin ECiton Ho7it38 3n@ BorG i An@rB3D in r83tion to @6inining 58ini538 53r 73tCB3D 6or 7o78 BCo C39 7rnt@ 3t Co7it38 BitC 385oCo8 r83t@ n@@ coF P5ri7tion 6or tC &85oCo8 )Ar 3r 5Arrnt8D Fing @98o7@ Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Tier 2

'C"# Q )AFr o6 ot rioA 9io8nt 5ri 7r I 7o7A83tion    $# !  #  Eor ) Monitoring Cont 2Cr Br  rioA 9io8nt 5ri in P5Fr %I 3n@ 6or tC D3r to @3t (&7ri8"P5Fr %0 tCr C39 Fn  A5C o66n5I BCi5C i % or (0 tC3n @Aring tC 3 7rio@ 83t D3r HoB9rI nAFr r3in r83ti98D 8oB (3n@ C39 6388n tCroAgCoAt tC Bintr 7rio@0I BitC 't H8nT r3t 6or rioA 9io8n5 F8oB FotC tC MrDi@ 3n@ 4r hroA7 39r3g 4r6or3n5 7rAr C39 rg@ in tr o6 gnr38 9io8nt 5riI 3n@ in r7on to tCi tC C'4 5ontinA to A77ort ongoing o7r3tionI A5C 3 17r3tion '2&)P (BGn@ nigCt"ti 5onoD0I 3n@ C3 r5nt8D 83An5C@ tC T1n 4An5C C3n si88T 3rGting 5373ignI in 3@@ition to r3iing 3B3rn o6 tC 5onUAn5 o6 Poti5 bio8n5

'C"! Q )AFr o6 @rAg Ar r5or@@ 3 Fing in 665ti9 tr3tnt %$ $ $   "% "##  Eor )! Monitoring Cont P3t3 i 83gg@I FAt tC 83tt 6igAr 393i83F8 6ro tC )3tion38 PrAg 2r3tnt Monitoring 'Dt CoB tC3t tCr Br   7roF83ti5 @rAg Ar (4Pq067 in 665ti9 tr3tnt 3 r5or@@ FD tC )P2M' 6or tC 83tt %"ontC r7orting 7rio@ o6 '7tFr % to &AgAt % So88oBing tC tr3n6r o6 tr3tnt 7ro9i@r in r7on to tC VigCtCoA 8iUAi@3tionI 3 @t3i8@ 53 6i8 3A@it C3 i@nti6i@ 3 nAFr o6 r9i5 Ar not 5Arrnt8D in 5ont35t BitC tr3tntI BCo C39 tCA Fn ro9@ 6ro tC r5or@ing 7ro5 2Ci C3 rA8t@ in tC r5nt 6388 in nAFr r5or@@ P7it tCiI 't H8n 5ontinA to rt3in 3 CigC 7ro7ortion (0 o6 nB 4Pq t3rtr in @rAg tr3tnt 2C 8o538 @rAg tr3tnt Dt i An@r r9iB in 8in BitC tC ho9rnnt PrAg 'tr3tgD %I 3n@ Bi88 F r5oiion@ 6ro  &7ri8 %% BitC 3 gr3tr 6o5A on @rAg"6r 3n@ Co8iti5 oAt5o

'C" )AFr o6 5388 6or r9i5 to tC Cont35t Cntr rg3r@ing 3nti"o5i38 %  ! $# !!  "#! "!!  Rttr FC39ioAr (388 6or0 Monitoring Cont 2Cr Br !% &'R"r83t@ 5388 to tC CoAn5i8 Cont35t Cntr in P5Fr %I 3n@ tCr C39 Fn !I!  in tC D3r"to"@3t (&7ri8"P5Fr %0 2Ci i  8 tC3n tC tot38 6or tC 3 7rio@ 83t D3r ( I%#$0 2C C'4 5ontinA to BorG BitC 73rtnr 3gn5iI 75i388D `n9ironnt38 4rot5tion 3n@ tC Sir 'r9i5I to 3@@r tC iA tC3t 3G A7 tC 3foritD o6 A5C &'R"r83t@ 5388 " 68Dti77ing 3n@ 93n@38i@Qto8n BC8i"Fin " 3n@ tC not3F8 r@A5tion in 5388 6or r9i5 @Aring 15toFr")o9Fr CigC8igCt tC A55 o6 17r3tion hoo@hAD in 3@@ring A5C iA in tC rAn"A7 to tC Ron6ir )igCt 7rio@ (g 3 $# r@A5tion in tC nAFr o6 BC8i Fin to8nQ93n@38i@0

'C" Y73t in5i@nt o6 @oti5 9io8n5  % %# #   Eor

Monitoring Cont P3t3 6or )o9Fr i noB 393i83F8 6ro MrDi@ 4o8i5 1At o6 %#% @oti5"r83t@ in5i@nt r7ort@ to tC 4o8i5 in &7ri8")o9 %I %# Br 5oni@r@ r73t in5i@nt " 3 r3t o6 !! 2Ci i 8igCt8D 3Fo9 tC MrDi@ 39r3g 7r6or3n5 (!$0 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

'C"% Q )AFr o6 @8iFr3t 5on@3rD 6ir 7r I 7o7A83tion !  !$% % " "$%$  Rttr )$$F Monitoring Cont 2Cr Br %! @8iFr3t 5on@3rD (&'R0 6ir in P5Fr %I 3n@ tCr C39 Fn ! in tC D3r"to"@3t (&7ri8"P5Fr %0 " tCi i on t3rgt 6or tC D3r"to"@3tI 3n@ 3 igni6i53nt r@A5tion ("%#0 5o73r@ to tC 3 7rio@ 83t D3r (BCn tCr C3@ Fn  A5C 6ir0 C'4 73rtnrI 3n@ 75i388D MrDi@ Sir d Y5A 'r9i5I 5ontinA to BorG 7ro35ti98D in GnoBn Cot7ot 8o53tion to 7r9nt 6ir r83t@ to 3nti" o5i38 FC39ioAr (i 5on@3rD 6ir0I 3n@ r3n 3 A556A8 17r3tion hoo@ hAD @Aring tC r5nt Ron6ir )igCt 7rio@ (ro9ing 5oFAtiF8 3tri38I 7ro9i@ing @i9rion3rD 35ti9iti 6or DoAng 7o78I 73tro88ing Cot7ot 3r3I t50 BCi5C rA8t@ in 3 $$ r@A5tion in 6ir o9r tCi Citori5388D 7roF83ti5 7rio@ 68 5

Portfolio Budget Report – December 2011

Corporate Services & External Affairs and Family Intervention & Safer Communities

1. Budget Pressures

Revenue

The budget variations reported previously remain at the same levels. No new material pressures or savings have been identified. The pressures and savings reported previously are:

x A shortfall in Land Charges income of £24,000 due to a reduction in activity due to the current economic climate.

x A pressure relating to the Coroners Service in 2010/11 of £60,000.

x A saving in the fee charged by the Audit Commission for external audit of £33,000.

x Managed underspends of supplies and services budgets of £85,000.

We are currently forecasting the employee slippage target will be achieved. This is based on detailed discussions with managers around anticipated recruitment dates.

Capital

The Family Intervention and Safer Communities portfolio capital programme has reduced by £64K due to slippage into 2012/13 of the Safer Stronger Communities Fund scheme and the Community Safety Improvements scheme of £19k and £45k respectively.

2. Key Actions

The budgets will be monitored throughout the year, to ensure that the Portfolio contains expenditure within cash limits. Managers are also aware of the ongoing need to monitor and identify any additional savings that can be utilised to offset future financial pressures.

3. Other Variations

There are no other variations to report.

4. Base Budget Review

The detailed budget for 2012/13 is almost complete and details have been included as part of the latest budget report.

69 5

70 5

Culture, Sport & Leisure Portfolio

71 5

72 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Culture, Sport and Leisure

Tier 1

CC" )AFr o6 9iit to 5A8tAr38 9nA A77ort@ FD 'tH8n CoAn5i8 !#! $ $  !$! $#  Rttr

Monitoring Cont 4r6or3n5 to tC n@ o6 P5Fr B3$ 3Fo9 t3rgt

CC"% )AFr o6 8iFr3rD r9i5 9iit  %  !% $ "$%! "  Eor

Monitoring Cont 4r6or3n5 to tC n@ o6 P5Fr B3 BitCin  o6 t3rgt 9n tCoAgC 2C3tto H3tC 8iFr3rD B3 58o@ 6or r6ArFiCnt 6ro $r@ 15toFr % 73 CC"! )AFr o6 9iit to 7ort 5ntr 3n@ 3ttn@3n5 3t 35ti9iti #!%  %% %% %  %#  Rttr A77ort@ FD 7ort @98o7nt Monitoring Cont 23rgt 6or 9iit to 388 it C39 388 Fn W5@@ '8BDn con 3n@ 'Atton 355oAnt@ 6or tC ot igni6i53nt in5r3 6or 8iAr 5ntr ho86 3n@ Pri9ing Y3ng 9iit Br F8oB W75t3tion 6or tC ontC @A to An639oAr3F8 B3tCr '7ort P98o7nt 5ontinA to 35Ci9 intr35tion 3Fo9 W75t3tion 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Tier 2

CC" )AFr o6 35ti9 8iFr3rD Fr $#%$ $ $ $%# %#   Rttr

Monitoring Cont 4r6or3n5 to tC n@ o6 P5Fr B3 3 8itt8 3Fo9 t3rgt

CC" )AFr o6 it ForroB@ tCroAgC 8iFr3ri !!#    %$% !$  Rttr

Monitoring Cont 4r6or3n5 to tC n@ o6 P5Fr B3 ! 3Fo9 t3rgt

CC" 2C nAFr o6 7AF8i5 e2 ion in 8iFr3ri ##%! ## ! !###%## #  Rttr

Monitoring74 Cont 4r6or3n5 to tC n@ o6 P5Fr B3 % 3Fo9 t3rgt

CC" )AFr o6 9iit to 7ort 5ntr #$! #$! ! #%%%!! %  Rttr

Monitoring Cont 23rgt 6or 388 it C39 388 Fn W5@@ '8BDn con 3n@ 'Atton 355oAnt@ 6or tC ot igni6i53nt in5r3 6or 8iAr 5ntr 19r388I B 3r noB %#!! 9iit 3C3@ o6 W75t3tion 6or %Q%% ho86 CoAr B3 F8oB W75t3tion 3n@ tC Pri9ing Y3ng B3 @oBn on W75t3tion 19r388 go86 3n@ @ri9ing r3ng 3r %!  9iit 3C3@ o6 t3rgt 6or % " %%

CC"# )AFr o6 9iit to go86 5oAr 3n@ @ri9ing r3ng # %#$% $# $! %!  !  Rttr

Monitoring Cont ho86 CoAr B3 F8oB W75t3tion 3n@ tC Pri9ing Y3ng B3 @oBn on W75t3tion @A to An639oAr3F8 B3tCr 5on@ition 19r388 go86 3n@ @ri9ing r3ng 3r %!  9iit Fttr tC3n t3rgt 6or %"%

CC" )AFr o6 3ttn@3n5 3t 9ntI 5oAr 3n@ 35ti9iti A77ort@ FD $ % % # % %%%% $# %$  Rttr '7ort P98o7nt Monitoring Cont '7ort P98o7nt 5ontinA to W5@ 83t D3r 7r6or3n5 3n@ 3r ng3ging BitC tBi5 3 3nD 7o78 3 3nti5i73t@ Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

CC" )AFr o6 9iitor to tC ho@6rD 4i8Gington &rt h388rD !%$ % ! !% "! "  Eor

Monitoring Cont `WCiFition 3ttn@3n5 FD tC n@ o6 P5Fr in5r3@ FD ! 5o73r@ BitC %I FAt B3 F8oB tC 3FitioA t3rgt o6 %% groBtC 6or tC 3 7rio@

CC"% )AFr o6 9iitor to tC Cit3@8 &rt Cntr #$! % !  #!!!! $  Rttr

Monitoring Cont SigAr 3t P5Fr CigCr tC3n 7rof5t@ @A to P3D 177ortAniti 5ontinA@ Cir 3n@ 3@@ition38 7r6or3n5 tCroAgCoAt tC D3r

CC"$ )AFr o6 9iitor to tC Eor8@ o6 h83 %$%$ %!   ! "% !  "!!  Eor

Monitoring Cont

4r6or3n575 to tC n@ o6 P5Fr B3 ! F8oB t3rgt 5 5

76 5

Portfolio Budget Report – December 2011

Culture, Sport and Leisure

1. Budget Pressures

Revenue

There have been no material variations to previously reported under and overspends. Budget issues regarding Leisure Services have previously been reported as follows:

x Income exceeding budget in the Leisure Centres due to increased usage of the Centres. The forecast excess income is £264,000 although the impact of Parr pool being closed whilst maintenance is undertaken needs to be quantified and built into the forecast.

x As a by-product of more people using the leisure centres, running costs are forecast to be £61,000 greater than budgeted.

x The business rates liability for Queens Park is now £46,000 higher than the original budget, due to a revaluation following the opening of the new Centre.

The Golf Course income is currently forecast to be £12,000 below it’s income target by the year end but there is scope for variation in this figure as the Golf Course income is directly linked to weather conditions.

The forecast pressure that Libraries face in relation to the hire of CD’s, DVD’s and fines, is still forecast to be £40,000. Additional savings, relating to managed underspends across various supplies and services budgets, are accruing which will ensure that the portfolio’s expenditure is contained within cash limit.

It is anticipated that all expenditure will be contained within currently approved cash limits. Managers are aware of the need to control costs so that there is no overspend.

Capital

There are no significant variations or additions to the Capital Programme.

2. Key Actions

The budgets will continue to be monitored, to ensure that the Portfolio contains expenditure within the approved cash limits. Managers are also aware of the ongoing need to monitor and identify any additional savings that can be utilised to offset future financial pressures.

3. Other Variations

None.

4. Base Budget Review

The detailed budget for 2012/13 is almost complete and details have been included as part of the latest budget report.

77 5

78 5

Environmental Protection Portfolio

79 5

80 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Environmental Protection

Tier 1

`4"$ Q 4r5nt3g o6 CoACo8@ B3t 3riing BCi5C C39 Fn nt 6or $% $! $$ $% $ "# "%#  Eor )#% r5D58ing Monitoring Cont Y5D58ing 7r5nt3g C3 Fn 63ir8D t3ti5 FAt B 3r ti88 3B3iting o 6igAr 6ro MEP& (g trt B7ing r5D58@0 h3r@n B3t r5D58ing i 3FoAt $t orI FAt GrFi@ r5D58ing i 3FoAt !t 8 h83 3n@ 53n tonn3g i 8igCt8D A7 FAt tC 3oAnt o6 737r Fing 5o885t@ i ti88 @5r3ing 2Wti8 5o885tion i 38o 8oB in5 tC GrFi@ 5C 53@I FAt B 3r BorGing BitC tC E3t 43rtnrCi7 to in5nti9i 5C3riti into 5o885ting or tWti8 2C in@i53tor @o not in58A@ tC 3oAnt o6 B3t going tCroAgC tC E3t Y5D58ing Cntr (HEYC0I BCi5C 3r 3n3g@ FD tC MEP& 3n@ 6or BCi5C tC CoAn5i8 53nnot 583i toB3r@ it oBn r5D58ing 7r5nt3g An8iG o Anit3rD 3AtCoriti e6 tC Br to F in58A@@ it BoA8@ @ontr3t tC3t ri@nt in 't H8n 3r r5D58ing fAt o9r ! o6 CoACo8@ B3t 2Ci 7ro6i8 i Fing r685t@ FD tC otCr MrDi@ Pitri5t

`4"81 4r5nt3g o6 r893nt 83n@ 3n@ CigCB3D tC3t i 3@ 3 C39ing #$ #% #% #  $ !$  Rttr ()# 30 @7oit o6 8ittr 3t 3n 3557t3F8 898 Monitoring Cont 'Ar9D 3r 53rri@ oAt in ! ontC 7rio@ 3n@ 39r3g@ o9r tC D3r Sirt Ar9D 7rio@ B3 #$#X '5on@ 7rio@ B3 #$ &9r3g 6or D3r o 63r x #  3n@ t3rgt 7ro6i8 35Ci9@ 2C nWt Ar9D i @A in &7ri8 %% 6or 7rio@ P5Fr to M3r5C

`4" Q si8ogr3 o6 ri@A38 CoACo8@ B3t 5o885t@ 7r CoACo8@ % % % %% "$ "!  Rttr )# Monitoring Cont 23rgt 7ro6i8 35Ci9@ 2ot38 B3t 3riing 3r r@A5ing 8igCt8D CArrnt BigCt o6 3tri38 Fing 7ro@A5@ 35C D3r 3n@ nt to 83n@6i88 i %%Gg 7r CoACo8@I 5o73r@ to $ Gg 7r CoACo8@ in )o9Fr %Q 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Tier 2

`4" )AFr o6 5o885tion i@ 7r I 5o885tion o6 CoACo8@ % % % %#$ $$ %#  Eor B3t Monitoring Cont )AFr i@ in P5Fr i CoBing 3n in5r3 3in8D @A to tC nB @3D 5o885tion 3rr3ngnt intro@A5@ 3 73rt o6 tC 3gr@ 39ing HoB9r P5Fr 6igAr i ti88 8oBr (%%0 tC3n tC CigCt 6or D3r in '7tFr (%$0 SigAr in58A@ FotC grn ($$I CoAQBG0 3n@ FroBn Fin (#I  CoAQBG0 3n@ in 7r35ti5 3n oAt o6 %I  CoA r9@ 35C BG 8 tC3n $ 3r i@

`4" 4r5nt3g o6 CigC riG 6oo@ 7ri in75t@   #% #%    1n 23rgt Monitoring Cont `35C ontC t3rgt nAFr o6 9iit itCr t or Ar73@

`4"82 4r5nt3g o6 r893nt 83n@ 3n@ CigCB3D tC3t i 3@ 3 C39ing !  ! #%  %!  Rttr ()# F0 @7oit o6 @tritA 3t 3n 3557t3F8 898 Monitoring Cont 'Ar9D 3r 53rri@ oAt in ! ontC 7rio@ 3n@ 39r3g@ o9r tC D3r Sirt Ar9D 7rio@ B3 #!X '5on@ 7rio@ B3 # # &9r3g 6or D3r o 63r x #% 3n@ t3rgt 7ro6i8 35Ci9@ 2C nWt Ar9D i @A in &7ri8 %% 6or 7rio@ P5Fr to M3r5C

`4"% )AFr o6 68Dti77ing in5i@nt ! ! #! %  %%  Eor

Monitoring Cont )AFr o6 in5i@nt 7r ontC i ti88 r@A5ing 5o73r@ BitC &7ri8 (0 3n@ P5 ( 0 o6 tCi D3r HoB9rI tCr C3 Fn 3n in5r3 on tC 3 7rio@ 83t D3r 43rrI 2oBn CntrI 2C3tto H3tC 3n@ Et 43rG E3r@ C39 388 r5or@@ 3n in5r3 in r7ortingI 7oiF8D @A to BitC@r3B38 o6 tC )igCFoArCoo@ `n9ironnt38 E3r@n Co73r@ BitC otCr MrDi@ &AtCoriti oAr 898 o6 68Dti77ing i 8oBI 3oAnting to 8 tC3n in5i@nt 7r @3D

`4"$ )AFr o6 68Dti77ing n6or5nt 35tion $  $  %#% !$! % !# #  Rttr

Monitoring Cont 2C AnW75t@ o77ortAnitD 3ro to A 3 ScS t3 F6or tCD 6iniC@ in i@"&7ri8 to r3i 3B3rn 3t tC Fginning o6 tC 6in3n5i38 D3r in 73rti5A83r Cot"7ot 3r3 2C 83rg 6igAr in58A@ $I  B3rning noti5 iA@ to 3nD trr35@ 7ro7rti rA8ting 6ro tCi o77ortAnitD Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

`4" Q 4r5nt3g o6 Ani5i738 B3t 83n@6i88@ #  # #% % %%  Eor )#$ Monitoring Cont Co73r@ BitC tCi ti 83t D3rI o9r388 B3t Fing 83n@6i88@ i ti3t@ to F  tonn 8I 377roWi3t8D 3  r@A5tion 2C 6igAr r5or@@ Cr i 3n ti3t 6or 't H8n 3n@ B 3r 3B3iting 6igAr 6ro MEP& en@i53tor `4"$Q)#% (r5D58ing 0 t tCi in@i53tor @o not UA38  F53A tCi in@i53tor in58A@ tC 3oAnt going tCroAgC tC E3t Y5D58ing Cntr (HEYC0I BCi5C 3r 3n3g@ FD tC MEP& 3n@ not tC CoAn5i8I 3n@ B 53nnot 583i tCi toB3r@ oAr oBn r5D58ing 7r5nt3g 83 5 5

84 5

Portfolio Budget Report – December 2011

Environmental Protection

1. Revenue

There are no new budget pressures to report at this time.

The main budget pressure previously reported is the shortfall in Trade Waste income of £142,000

It is anticipated at this stage that income from Traffic Management Act 2004 is likely to exceed the budget for 2011/12 and together with employee slippage will contribute to reducing the budget pressure identified above.

Capital

There are no issues to report at this time.

2. Key Actions

The portfolio budget will continue to be monitored closely to identify potential issues. Managers will continue to examine areas where efficiencies can be made and every effort will be made to achieve a balanced budget. The Trade Waste service has been tendered and the contract awarded. The new contract will produce savings for 2012/13 onwards.

85 5

86 5

Urban Regeneration and Housing Portfolio

87 5

88 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Urban Regeneration and Housing

Tier 1 qYH" Q )AFr o6 nt in5r3 in @B88ing to5G   $   %     Rttr ) ! Monitoring Cont V3tt @3t3 r83t to tC n@ o6 a$ 2Cr Br %  nt 5o78tion A7 Anti8 tC n@ o6 P5Fr % BCi5C W5@ tC tot38 35Ci9@ 6or tC BCo8 o6 %Q &66or@3F8 CoAing @98o7nt (!0 3G A7 3 83rg 7ro7ortion o6 tC o9r388 6igAr BitC 7ri93t 5tor @98o7nt 7rogring 3t 3 8oB 3n@ 53AtioA r3t 2Cr 3r # Anit 35ro tC ForoAgC An@r 5ontrA5tion qYH"% Q )AFr o6 366or@3F8 @B88ing 7ro9i@@     $ !  Rttr ) Monitoring Cont & 6ArtCr %! 5o78tion Br i@nti6i@ in 83t UA3rtr (15t"P5 %0 " tC 3r % Anit 3t Y358i66 43rG 3n@ % Anit 3t CC3n5D V3n SArtCr 89 Anit 3r W75t@ FD D3r n@ in FotC 5C " 3@@ing tC %! Anit to tC  38r3@D r7ort@ rA8t in 3 5AA83ti9 tot38 o6  Anit " W5@ing tC 3nnA38 t3rgt qYH"$ )AFr o6 CoACo8@ BCo 5oni@r@ tC89 3 Co8I BCo !$ $% %  $ % % !  Rttr 377ro35C@ tC 8o538 CoAing 3AtCoritDT CoAing 3@9i5 r9i5(03n@ 6or BCo CoAing 3@9i5 53BorGr intr9ntion ro89@ tCir itA3tion Monitoring Cont PAring P5Fr $ CoACo8@ BCo 5oni@r@ tC89 3 Co8 3n@ 377ro35C@ tC 8o538 CoAing 3AtCoritDT CoAing 3@9i5 r9i5 C3@ tCir itA3tion ro89@ tCroAgC 53BorGr intr9ntionI Fringing tC tot38 6or %Q% A7 to $ % qYH"! Y3t o6 78oDnt (BorGing 3g0 #   ! ! %%  Rttr () 0 Monitoring Cont V3tt @3t3 r83t to tC 7rio@ cA8D %"cAn % 2Cr C3 Fn 3 63ir8D C3r7 @ro7 o6  et i ti88 3Fo9 %T n3@ir o6 $# FAt 7r6or3n5 C3 noB 6388n FCin@ tC )E 39r3g o6 ! et i ti88 igni6i53nt8D CigCr tC3n tC MrDi@ 39r3g 3n@ tC 4e t3rgt 6or tCi D3r (0 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

qYH" 4r5nt3g o6 BorGing 3g 7o7A83tion BCo 3r 583iing oAt o6 BorG  $ $  "% "   Rttr () %0 Fn6it Monitoring Cont 2C 83tt @3t3 r6r to M3D % 2C r3t noB t3n@ 3t  3 % @5r3 on tC 7r9ioA UA3rtrI BCi5C i or or 8 in 8in BitC n3tion38 trn@ 2C 6igAr CoB 3 8igCt FAt t3@D i7ro9nt 6ro tC 7r9ioA D3r (%#0 BCi5C r35C@ $ 90 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

Tier 2 qYH" Q 4r5nt3g o6 r9i5 Ar BCo C39 o9@ on 6ro A77ort@       $# " % "%  Eor )! 355oo@3tion in 3 783nn@ B3D to in@7n@nt 8i9ing Monitoring Cont SigAr C39 Fn 3n@@ 6igAr 6or 15toFrQ)o9QP5 6o88oBing r"AFiion o6 4r6 en@i53tor 6ro  7ro9i@r 2Ci C3 in5r3@ tC &5tA38 6igAr to $# qYH"# Q )AFr o6 9A8nr3F8 7o78 BCo 3r A77ort@ to 3int3in ## # # ##! %! %!  Rttr )!% in@7n@nt 8i9ing Monitoring Cont 2C P5 6igAr r685t tC 3nnA38 o9r388 39r3g not tC UA3rtr8D o9r388 t3rgt 3 7r9ioA8DI Cn5 8igCt @ro7 5o73r@ to tC 6igAr r5or@@ in '7t HoB9r tC r9i5 5ontinA to 7r6or 3Fo9 t3rgt qYH" Q )AFr o6 CoACo8@ 8i9ing in t7or3rD 355oo@3tion %! % %  "$ "!!$  Rttr ) 91 Monitoring Cont V3tt @3t3 r83t to $r@ UA3rtr 3n@ B C39 3g3in W5@@ tC t3rgt 4r9nt3ti9 3Ar in58A@ing rF3n@ing on tC CoAing rgitr 3n@ ngoti3tion BitC 355oo@3tion 7ro9i@r 5ontinA to 5ontriFAt 7oiti98D to oAr oAt5o 3n@ t7or3rD 355oo@3tion i on8D A@ 3 3 6in38 o7tion qYH"3 4r5nt3g o6 3for 783nning 3778i53tion @trin@ BitCin $ %   $# %# !  Rttr Q ) 3 BG Monitoring Cont & nAFr o6 5o78i53t@ 3for 3778i53tion AFf5t to 7rotr35t@ ngoti3tion C39 r35C@ ro8Ation PA to tC 388 nAFr o6 3for 3778i53tion o9r388I tCi C3 C3@ 3 @i7ro7ortion3t8D CigC i735t 4r6or3n5 r3in 3Fo9 t3rgt qYH"F 4r5nt3g o6 inor 783nning 3778i53tion @trin@ BitCin  BG #!!   #!$% $%   Rttr Q ) F Monitoring Cont 4r6or3n5 5ontinA 3Fo9 t3rgt 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

qYH"5 4r5nt3g o6 otCr 783nning 3778i53tion @trin@ BitCin  BG ## # # #    !  Rttr Q ) 5 Monitoring Cont 4r6or3n5 r3in 3Fo9 8o538 3n@ n3tion38 t3rgtI 3n@ 3t 3n Wtr8D CigC 898 qYH"% Q M@i3n gro BG8D 73D o6 6A88"ti 78oD ($0 ! ! ! !$%% "$ "!  Eor ) Monitoring Cont )B @3t3 r83@ 9i3 )oi (3rning FD BorG78350 CoB 3 igni6i53nt @ro7 in 3rning in % FD o9r  2Ci 5oA8@ F 3 t3titi538 F8i7I 38tCoAgC @3t3 CoA8@ F 63ir8D roFAt 3t V& 898 RD 5o73rion tC )E 688 FD on8D ! 3n@ tC hR 39r3g 35tA388D in5r3@ FD   C83r8D @oBnB3r@ 7rAr on 7AF8i5 3n@ 7ri93t 5tor B3g tt8nt BoA8@ F tC 3in 53A o6 tCi et 3D 38o F tC 53 tC3t foF 8o 3D C39 @i7ro7ortion3t8D 3665t@ CigCr 39r3g 3rnr (g tC 7AF8i5 5tor foF 8o in 3r8D %0 38tCoAgC tCi i not 5Arrnt8D 7oiF8 to 9ri6D `3rning FD ri@n5I i 5oAnting tC B3g o6 ri@nt in 't H8n 3 o77o@ to tC B3g o6 foF 8o53t@ in 't H8nI 35tA388D ro FD  2Ci Aggt tC3t 't H8n ri@nt 3D F 355ing on 39r3g Fttr 73i@ 78oDnt oAti@ tC ForoAgCI FAt tC3t tC foF 3rGt BitCin 't H8n i 73Ding 8 SArtCr r3r5C i rUAir@ to An@rt3n@ tCi @3t3 )Wt @3t3 r83 in P5Fr %% 92 qYH"$ )AFr o6 7ri93t 5tor 9353nt @B88ing tC3t 3r rtArn@ into   ! $ "  "%   Eor o55A73tion or @o8iC@ 3 3 @ir5t rA8t o6 35tion FD tC 8o538 3AtCoritD Monitoring Cont 1n o6 tC 53 rtArn@ to A in P5Fr in9o89@ 58o 73rtnrCi7 BorGing BitC MrDi@ 4o8i5 BCi5C in9o89@ 3 5oni@r3F8 3oAnt o6 o66i5r ti 'o 53 t3G A5C or ti 3n@ 66ort to ro89 tC3n otCr 3n@ 83t8D tC or 5o78W 53 C39 oAtnAFr@ tC or tr3igCt6orB3r@ tD7 HoB9rI it i W75t@ tC3t oAttArn Bi88 F on t3rgt FD tC n@ o6 tC 6in3n5i38 D3r @A to 3 783nn@ 7rogr 3A@it o6 Witing 538o3@ @Aring SFrA3rD Q M3r5C %% 2C r9i@ `7tD 4ro7rtD 'tr3tgD i Fing i78nt@ to nAr tC3t BCi8t 66ort i 6o5A@ on tC ot 7roF83ti5 53 in5r3@ 7ro35ti9 BorG Bi88 38o t3G 7835 BitC oAr 73rtnr Ygitr@ 4ro9i@r in or@r to 3Wii oAt5o &n W378 o6 tCi i tC Y4 Fi@ 6or tC ho9rnntT `7tD Ho 6An@ingI BCi5CI i6 A556A8I 3r W75t@ to gnr3t in5r3@ oAt7At o9r 3 tCr D3r 7rio@ 6ro %%Q$ qYH"! 4r5nt3g o6 783n 5C5G 5o78t@ BitCin  BorGing @3D #! # #$ #   %  %  Rttr

Monitoring Cont P5 % C3 Fn @i66i5A8t @A to t366 3Fn5 3n@ 839 5oitttnt FAt tC ontC8D t3rgt C3 Fn r35C@ Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

qYH" )AFr o6 nB 5o73ni 8o53ting in tC RoroAgC BitC 3it3n5 o6 ! !  ! "! "   Eor tC inB3r@ in9tnt t3 Monitoring Cont 1n 3@@ition38 nB 5o73nD 8o53t@ in P5Fr qYH" )AFr o6 foF 5r3t@ 6ro nB 5o73ni 8o53ting in tC RoroAgC !!# % % %# "!$ " #%  Eor BitC tC 3it3n5 o6 tC inB3r@ in9tnt t3 Monitoring Cont 1n 5o73nD `"25C 5o7onnt r8o53t@ 6ro snoB8D on8D  foF FAt W75t@ to groB @A to W7ort 7otnti38 qYH" )AFr o6 CoACo8@ t3Gn oAt o6 6A8 7o9rtD !  %# !   %  Rttr

Monitoring Cont

2C93 &66or@3F8 E3rtC qnit C3 Fn 7ro9i@ing 3 nAFr o6 r9i5 to r@A5 tC 898 o6 6A8 7o9rtD BitCin tC ForoAgCI in58A@ingX 7ro9i@ing inA83tion 3Ar 9i3 tC CoAn5i8T inA83tion 5CX 3iting 58int to 355 ho9rnnt 6An@@ E3r Sront gr3nt 9i3 3@9i5 3n@ 7rootionX r6rring 58int 6or Fn6it ntit8nt 5C5GX 3n@ 7ro9i@ing 3 7ri5 5o73rion r9i5 6or g3 3n@ 85tri5itD to r@A5 6A8 Fi88 2C CoAn5i8 enA83tion 5C i noB o7r3tion38 3n@ BorG i Fing An@rt3Gn 2C t3rgt C3 Fn Ar73@ @A to tC FAi8@ A7 o6 r6rr38 6or tC 5C in tC ontC 7rior to tC 5ontr35t Fing 3B3r@@ qYH"# 2oBn Cntr rt3i8 9353n5i 3 3 7ro7ortion o6 tot38 to5G        1n 23rgt Monitoring Cont &5ti9itD in tC rt3Ar3nt 5tor togtCr BitC tC o7ning o6 nB 938A tor 3n@ o t7or3rD 3on38 tor C39 C87@ to 78Ag o o6 tC g37 3n@ tC rt3i8 9353n5D r3t i on5 3g3in 3t tC t3rgt 898 & 6ArtCr 7oiti9 not i tC3t 't H8n 2oBn Cntr i 7r6oring Fttr in tr o6 tC 898 o6 9oi@ tC3n o o6 it nigCFoAr qYH"% 4r5nt3g o6 BorGing 3g 7o78 583iing oAt o6 BorG Fn6it in tC $ $$ $$ $  "  "!  Rttr () $0 Bort 7r6oring nigCFoArCoo@ Monitoring Cont P3t3 6ro M3D % brD 8igCt t3titi5388D inigni6i53nt @5r3 on tC 7r9ioA @3t3 2Ci in@i53tor  to F 63ir8D 5onitnt o9r tC 83t D3r o6 @3t3 r83 5 5 Outturn Target Target Actual Actual % Performance Ref description 2010/11 2011/12 to Dec to Dec Minus Variance for Dec Target

qYH"%% en53735itDQ `'& 583i3nt r3t in tC ForoAgC ! ! !  "$ "%  Rttr

Monitoring Cont 2Ci @3t3 r6r to M3D % & r@A5tion 6ro ! in SFrA3rD %I 3n@ 3  in5r3 6ro tC 7r9ioA UA3rtr 2Ci in@i53tor C3 C8@ t3@D 6or tC 83t D3r or o et i An583r BC3t 635tor 3r 3t 783D Crv on tC on C3n@ 7oor 5onoi5 5on@ition 3D 7AC A7 eR r3tI FAt tC nB Fn6it rgi 3n@ tC 5o7rCni9 BorG8n 7rogr3 Fing @8i9r@ 9i3 tC CoAn5i8 3n@ 73rtnr BoA8@ 5oAntr35t tC3t 2Cr 3r too 3nD 635tor to F 5rt3in BitCoAt 5on@A5ting 75i6i5 8o538 r3r5C qYH"%$ 4r5nt3g o6 BorGing 3g 7o7A83tion BCo 3r 86"78oD@ !#      Rttr

Monitoring Cont P3t3 F3@ on &4' 9i3 )1Me'I 7rio@ cA8D % " cAn %   i 3notCr 8igCt in5r3 (t!0 3n@ 3D r685t 3 7oiti9 oAt5o o6 tC 3for t3rt A7 7rogr3 BCi5C B3 73rt o6 V`he 2C 388 in5r3 Fring 'tH8n 3 8itt8 Fit 58or to tC )3tion38 (#0 3n@ )E 39r3g (0 BCi5C C39 r3in@ 63ir8D t3ti5 o9r tC 83t 6B D3r qYH"% 3 2ot38 nAFr o6 BG 7nt in F@ 3n@ Fr3G63t 355oo@3tion      # 1n 94 (@3D0 FD CoACo8@ tC3t 3r Anintntion388D Co8 3n@ in 23rgt 7rioritD n@ Monitoring Cont 2Cr C39 Fn no t3D in RdR 355oo@3tion o 63r tCi D3r qYH"% F 2ot38 nAFr o6 BG 7nt in Cot8 355oo@3tion FD CoACo8@ %# % % ! " "#!$  Rttr tC3t 3r Anintntion388D Co8 3n@ in 7rioritD n@ Monitoring Cont 2Cr Br no 6ArtCr t3D in Cot8 355oo@3tion @Aring P5Fr o tC 39r3g r3in An5C3ng@ 5

Report To Cabinet

Urban Regeneration and Housing Portfolio December 2011

1. Budget Issues

Revenue

Pressures that have previously been reported to Cabinet are as follows:

x Increase in Business Rates of £80,000 following a revaluation exercise, x Off Street Car parking income forecast to be £240,000 below budget, x Underachievement of income by On Street Car Parking of £138,000, x A shortfall in Market Fee Income of £105,000, x Development Control fee income is currently forecast to be £75,000 below budgeted levels although there is the potential for variation on this figure, depending on any new schemes in planning. x An overspend on Public Buildings maintenance of £100,000.

Despite the pressures mentioned above, the portfolio is forecasting that expenditure will be contained within cash limit based upon underspends in the Supporting People programme of £557,000 and underspends that are being accumulated in anticipation of savings that need to be made to balance the 2012/13 budget. These savings include a programme of premises rationalisation that will deliver savings of £125,000 in the current year and managed underspends across various supplies and services budgets, which are currently forecast to contribute £95,000 and this figure is expected to increase as we get closer to the end of the financial year

We are currently forecasting the employee slippage target will be achieved. This is based on detailed discussions with managers around anticipated recruitment dates.

Capital

The portfolio has reduced the value of the capital programme for 2011/12 by £636k. This is due to: x The realignment of the Planning Delivery Grant scheme into 2012/13, the value of which is £280k, x The reduction in the Ground Conditions Survey scheme of £58k based upon spend to date for the year, x The transfer of £200k to the Environmental Protection portfolio relating to the Improvements to Disabled Access at Local Facilities scheme, x Slippage of £168k of the Refurbishment of St Mary’s Market scheme into 2012/13 due to a delay to the start date of the scheme. Work will now start in the 3rd week of February for 12 weeks, x An additional allocation of Disabled Facilities Grant of £118k and additional RSL contributions of £3k has increased the value of the Disabled Facilities Grant scheme, x Slippage in the Enabling/Fuel Poverty and General Fund Housing/Housing Assistance schemes of £26k and £25k respectively.

95 5

2. Key Actions

The budgets will be monitored, to ensure that the Portfolio contains expenditure within cash limits. Managers are also aware of the ongoing need to monitor and identify any additional savings that can be utilised to offset future financial pressures.

3. Other Variations

None.

4. Base Budget Review

The detailed budget for 2012/13 is almost complete and details have been included as part of the latest budget report.

96 6

Cabinet

22 February 2012 KEY DECISION No DATE ADDED TO FORWARD PLAN

REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET 2012/2013

WARDS AFFECTED

All

EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM

No

1. PROPOSED DECISION

To recommend to Council to approve:-

(a) the Revenue Budget for 2012/2013 summarised at Paragraph 4.3 and detailed in Appendix 1;

(b) the Capital Programme for 2012/2013 to 2014/2015 summarised at Paragraph 6.4 and detailed in Appendix 4;

(c) the movement of balances summarised at Section 5 and the set aside of funds from earmarked balances and capital receipts;

(d) adoption of the revised CIPFA Treasury Management Code and its related clauses as detailed in Appendix 2;

(e) the Treasury Management Policy Statement as detailed in Appendix 2;

(f) the Treasury Management Strategy 2012/2013 (incorporating the Annual Revenue Provision Statement) and the associated Treasury Limits and Prudential Indicators, as detailed in Appendix 2;

(g) the delegation of authority to the Assistant Chief Executive (Finance) to determine the profile of credit liabilities within the Prudential Indicator "Authorised Limit for External Borrowing", and to amend the criteria by which the Council’s lending list is compiled for its internally managed investments;

(h) the draft St. Helens Plan (Appendix 6);

(i) the delegation of authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to agree any minor amendments to the St. Helens Plan.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,1 97 6

2. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION

The action is in support of the Budget Strategy.

3. FACTS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED DECISION

See appended report.

4. RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DECISION

The Council needs to plan to establish a legal budget.

5. OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Legal - None

Financial - See appended report.

Anti-Poverty - The budget process will establish the budgets to address social inclusion.

Effects on existing Council Policy - In support of the budget and policy framework.

Effects on other Council Activities - See appended report

Human Rights - None

Agenda 21 - The budget process will establish the budgets to address the issues of sustainable development.

6. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS THEREOF

None

7. APPENDICES

Appendix A - Budget 2012/2013 report

Ian Roberts Assistant Chief Executive (Finance)

The Contact Officer for this report is Ian Roberts, Chief Executive's Department, Finance Division, Town Hall, Corporation Street, St. Helens, WA10 1HP Telephone: 01744 673201

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The following list of documents were used to complete this report and are available for public inspection, for four years from the date of the meeting, from the Contact Officer named above:

Budget Working Papers

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,2 98 6

Appendix A Cabinet

22 February 2012

REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET 2012/2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report identifies the key decisions required to set a legal budget which is affordable, meets the needs of the people of St. Helens and stays within the agreed long term budget strategy of the Council.

2.0 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT

2.1 The Government has announced the Final Revenue Support Grant Settlement following the consultation period and confirmed the funding levels previously announced for 2012/2013.

National St. Helens' St. Helens’ 2012/2013 Reduction Reduction Grant Loss % % Formula 7.3 8.4 £8.0m Grant

3.0 BUDGET CONSULTATION

3.1 Information relating to the budget was sent to each household in the Borough asking for comments on the proposed budget and Council level. A copy of the full budget report considered by Cabinet on 4 January 2012 was posted on the Council's Website.

3.2 The budget was subject to a detailed and thorough review by the Overview & Scrutiny Commission at each stage of the budget cycle. The Service Spending Plans were specifically considered by the relevant scrutiny panels and a number of questions were raised with Chief Officers. The outcome of the reviews was reported to the Cabinet on 25 January, which was that the Commission does not wish to raise any specific issues in respect of the proposed budgets. However:

1. The Commission considers that it has a key role to play in promoting effective and efficient service delivery against a backdrop of reduced funding and increased pressure on resources and would value a continued dialogue with Portfolio holders and Chief Officers through the Scrutiny Panels.

2. Cabinet is requested to note the questions raised by members of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission during the budget process and to continue to update the appropriate panels of progress and developments in managing budget pressures and achievement of savings targets.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,3 99 6

3. The Overview and Scrutiny Commission request that there is a continued recognition of the role of Scrutiny as a valued resource in reviewing approaches to service delivery.

3.3 The key stakeholders were consulted directly on the budget proposals and the responses received were supportive.

3.4 The public consultation produced a small number of responses. The results are generally in favour of the proposals. The detailed outcomes of the consultation have been posted on the Council’s Website and circulated to all Members.

4.0 SERVICE SPENDING PLANS

4.1 The Portfolio services have produced Service Spending Plans within the cash limits given to them, which were set in line with the budget strategy.

Individual summary Portfolio Budget Strategy Statements are given at Appendix 1.

4.2 The cash limits for the services have been adjusted to take account of the revisions to portfolio responsibilities, technical adjustments for support service allocations and revised capital charges. The financial impact of these changes is cost neutral.

4.3 The overall budget requirement of the Council is given below:-

£M

BUDGET 2012/2013

Children & Young People’s Services 32.658 Adult Social Care & Health 45.594 Urban Regeneration & Housing 10.890 Environmental Protection 21.003 Corporate Services & External Affairs 6.547 Culture, Sport & Leisure 7.208 Family Intervention & Safer Communities 1.795 PORTFOLIO SPEND 125.695

Pensions (Fixed Cost Element) 4.636 Levies 25.263 Treasury & Asset Management (5.959) Revenue Contribution to Capital 0.190 Contributions from Earmarked Reserves (0.213) Restructuring Costs 1.910 TOTAL SPEND 151.522

New Homes Bonus (0.700) Local Services Support Grant (0.483) Formula Grant (84.608) Collection Fund Deficit 0.102 COUNCIL TAX REQUIREMENT 65.833

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,4 100 6

4.4 The Levying Bodies have now informed the Council of their requirements for 2012/2013. These are given below:-

Amount Increase/Decrease £ % Merseytravel 16,695,000 - 0.04 Waste Disposal Authority 8,479,227 - 0.12 Environment Agency 88,756 - 0.24

This is less than anticipated by £602K.

4.5 The 2012/2013 Treasury Strategy is attached at Appendix 2. All decisions on Treasury Management will be in accordance with the Annual Treasury Management Strategy and Policy. The interest rate market for both investment and borrowing is expected to be very volatile in 2012/2013 as the impact of public sector spending reductions are felt on the wider economy.

4.6 The costs of restructuring are anticipated to be greater than originally anticipated. It is proposed to increase this provision by £178K in 2012/2013.

4.7 A detailed analysis of variations to the budget is given at Appendix 5.

5.0 BALANCES

5.1 General balances are projected to be £13.471M by 31 March 2012. General balances are held to protect the Council’s financial position from unforeseen events. In assessing whether this is a prudent level of balances, it is necessary to consider the potential risks which could result in a call on those balances. In doing this the following risks have been considered:-

Risk Potential Impact Risk Category

General uncertainty caused by Lower economic activity may High the economic climate affecting reduce the ability to generate ability to raise and collect income and higher revenues, interest rate unemployment rates may movements and higher require additional services unemployment rates across the Council beyond those already allowed for.

Localisation of Council Tax The introduction of this High Rebate scheme in 2013-14 Government policy will transfer significant risk to the Council tax payer. Future increases in the numbers of claimants will have to be funded locally.

Localisation of Business Rates The introduction of this High in 2013-14 government policy will transfer significant risk linked to business failures and the consequent reduction in business rates which would impact locally.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,5 101 6

Employment Relations Issues Local Government generally Medium faces the potential of disputes due to the public sector pay constraints, pensions changes and job security resulting from Government policy.

Climate Change The impact of climate change Medium has caused localised extreme weather events in some areas of the Country. These seem to be happening more frequently and the likelihood of St.Helens being affected by such an event in the future is raised.

Changes to Health Services The Government is High implementing major changes to how Health is managed and delivered. This will change fundamentally the relationship with the Council and the Health sector and could lead to additional responsibilities falling on the Council either directly or indirectly.

Equal Value Claims A number of new claims have Medium been received and are being progressed through the judicial process. If these are not defeated successfully further significant cost could arise.

Major Emergency Plan In the event of a major Medium Activation and Recovery Plan emergency there will need to (Civil Contingencies Act) be available funds to respond to the situation.

5.2 The above represents a higher risk profile compared to 2011/12 and it is proposed to set the underlying level of balances at £13.471m.

5.3 The Council is intent on improving the quality, effectiveness and value of its services. Central Government funding reductions have removed specific funds previously provided for these purposes.

It is proposed to set aside both earmarked reserves and capital receipts to provide the required investment to improve certain key services. These are:

1. Set aside £100k of earmarked balances to undertake a feasibility study for the development of Ruskin Park into a focal point for outdoor amateur sports within the Borough.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,6 102 6

2. Set aside £1m of capital receipts to further improve the recycling facilities available to the residents of St. Helens.

3. Set aside £250k of earmarked balances to support the development of a new apprenticeship scheme within the borough.

4. Set aside £1m from Capital Receipts to improve the highways, footpaths and alleyways within the Borough.

5. Set aside £1m of Capital Receipts to provide additional local car parking capacity.

6. Set aside £1m of Earmarked Balances to support energy efficiency within the Council and to assist in meeting commitments to reducing Carbon emissions.

The commitment of these funds will be on the direction that there will be no additional ongoing revenue requirements.

These proposals have been included in the reserves statement and the capital programme below, however the spending will only be incurred when a full project appraisal has been undertaken and approved.

5.4 The Council’s earmarked balances, which are designated for specific purposes, are summarised below. A more detailed description of these balances, and the process for using them, is given at Appendix 3. The current position in relation to these is summarised below:-

Purpose Estimated Current Additional Balances Balances Commitments Commitments 31/3/2013 at 2012/2013 included in 31/3/2012 To/(From) Section 5.3 above £000 £000 £000 £000

Service Development 4,035 (107) 0 3,928 Service Modernisation 23,209 (106) (1,350) 21,753 Care Services Transitional 3,000 0 0 3,000 Demand Fund

5.5 The balances shown at 31 March 2012 can be committed in line with the process identified in Appendix 3. Options for the use of the above are considered in light of their relative impact on service quality and key long-term objectives.

6.0 THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

6.1 The basis for the control of Capital Investment changed in 2004/05 with the introduction of ‘a prudential system of borrowing’. This gives Councils the freedom to borrow without direct permission from the Government. However, Councils must have regard to the affordability of that borrowing.

6.2 To ensure that Councils take due consideration to borrowing decisions and the resulting revenue consequences, the Government requested CIPFA to

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,7 103 6

produce a range of ‘prudential indicators’ which measure the key aspects of affordability, prudence and stability. These are given at Appendix (iii) of Appendix 2.

6.3 The Government has stated that capital resources will be reduced significantly in future years. This has been reflected in the available resources.

6.4 A summary of the Capital Programme is given below with the detailed programme attached at Appendix 4.

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 £000 EXPENDITURE Children & Young People’s Services 31,602 24,689 5,545 3,198 Environmental Protection - Transport 4,439 5,219 2,747 2,634 Environmental Protection - Other 2,608 7,442 1,690 787 Housing 2,972 3,488 1,021 1,021 Urban Regeneration 3,935 1,480 50 50 Family Intervention & Safer Communities 353 314 0 0 Corporate Services & External Affairs 26 345 0 0 Adult Social Care & Health 0 1,366 516 516 Culture, Sport & Leisure 335 0 0 0 Total 46,270 44,343 11,569 8,206 RESOURCED BY Unsupported Borrowing 1,072 934 735 700 Grants & Other Contributions 38,730 36,457 10,611 7,441 Capital Receipts 5,455 6,762 50 50 Designated Revenue Sources 1,013 190 173 15 Total 46,270 44,343 11,569 8,206

7.0 COUNCIL TAX LEVEL

7.1 The Government has introduced a requirement for Councils to undertake a local referendum if they intend to exceed a level determined by the Government as excessive. For 2012-13, this level has been set at 3.5%. However, they have produced a standard calculation to determine a Council’s increase which excludes Levying bodies expenditure. This has meant that the equivalent increase to avoid the requirement for a referendum is 2.0%.

7.2 The Government has offered a one-off grant to Councils to set a zero council tax increase, however if this were to be taken up it would require a further £1.3m of savings in 2013-14 onwards. It is proposed not to take up this Grant.

8.0 STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

8.1 The Council increasingly is encouraged to adopt a role of community leadership and plan its own services in conjunction with other agencies and partners. This means that in establishing its own spending plans it needs to take into account the plans of its key strategic partners. Given below is a summary of the key issues facing these partners.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,8 104 6

8.2 Local Strategic Partnership

The Local Strategic Partnership continues to provide a focus to the borough- wide implications of the massive changes to public spending and the implications to service users and economic activity. The Partnership ensures that the actions of individual partners are both understood and co-ordinated.

8.3 Merseyside Police Authority

The Authority faces significant changes with the election of a Police and Crime Commissioner and the transfer of responsibilities to this person. Police grant funding has reduced by 6.7%.

8.4 Merseyside Fire Service

The Fire Service is undergoing a significant period of change as it modernises services. Their grant settlement reduced by 3.1% for 2012/2013 with further reductions in future years, and major changes to the delivery of services will be required.

8.5 Health

The Health Service is experiencing the most significant changes to its structure since its creation. The abolition of PCT’s and the creation of Local GP Consortia and the changing role of Local Authorities in Public Health matters will place a greater emphasis on establishing effective relationships to manage the transition and to continue to provide co-ordinated action to community health issues.

8.6 Housing Partners

The changes to the Welfare Benefits system will have a major impact on Housing partners. The penalty for under-occupation being imposed on working age households in receipt of Housing benefit will impose a strain on both the individual and the Housing provider in their ability to provide a housing stock that matches the social demographics of the borough.

Our Housing Partners continue to play a significant part in the transition to extra care housing for our vulnerable and elderly residents.

9.0 FUTURE BUDGET PROJECTIONS

9.1 The Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review of Public Spending for 2011 to 2014 identifies significant reductions in funding for Local Government.

9.2 The Spending Review also included the transfer of responsibilities for Council Tax Benefit to Councils from Central Government as part of its welfare reforms. The detail and funding implications of this have not been announced yet, but this change poses massive financial risks if appropriate funding is not made available at the time of the transfer.

9.3 The Government has also announced the localisation of Business Rates. This again poses a major risk in terms of the impact of future economic downturn.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,9 105 6

9.4 The massive reductions in public spending has impacted on the economic recovery by removing large fiscal stimulus from the economy. If the economy dips into recession again and tax revenues are reduced, the Government has stated that this will be met from further spending cuts rather than tax increases. This could mean that the already major reductions in Central Government funding of local services may be reduced further.

9.5 A key issue will be the ability to manage care demand given the Council’s demographics. However, a new challenge will be the response to the environmental sustainability agenda in minimising and recycling waste and reducing both the Council’s and the Borough’s carbon footprint.

9.6 Given below are the cash limits for the next three years and a supporting balance sheet forecast along with the assumptions used in the model:-

2012/13 2013/14 2014-15 £000 £000 £000

Children & Young People’s Services 32,658 32,970 33,379 Adult Social Care & Health 45,594 46,179 47,079 Urban Regeneration & Housing 10,890 10,887 10,905 Environmental Protection 21,003 21,032 21,433 Corporate Services & External Affairs 6,547 6,568 6,623 Culture, Sport & Leisure 7,208 7,182 7,296 Family Intervention & Safer Communities 1,795 1,872 1,962 Corporate Income/Expenditure - 1,244 - 1,221 - 2,300 Service Levies 25,263 25,995 26,700 Restructuring Costs 1,910 0 0 TOTAL SPENDING 151,624 151,464 153,077 Formula Grant - 84,608 - 79,683 - 70,221 Council Tax - 65,833 - 67,478 - 69,166 New Homes Bonus/Local Services Support - 1,183 - 1,333 - 1,663 Grant NET FINANCIAL POSITION 0 2,970 12,027

Summary Balance 2012/13 2013/14 2014-15 Sheet £000 £000 £000

Buildings, Land & Other Assets owned by the Council 458,652 447,008 434,913 Stock 216 216 216 Cash & Investments 94,695 101,499 108,135 Money owed to the Council 23,608 23,458 23,158 Money owed by the Council (113,899) (113,622) (113,345) 463,272 458,559 453,077 Borrowing (73,382) (73,378) (73,374) Usable Reserves (95,399) (96,381) (97,447) Non-Usable Reserves (294,491) (288,800) (282,256) (463,272) (458,559) (453,077)

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,10 106 6

9.7 The model is based on certain assumptions, namely:-

General inflationary increases in pay and prices at

Pay Prices

2012-2013 0% 2.0% (Care Services only) 2013-2014 1% 2.0% 2014-2015 1% 2.0%

and 2.5% increases in Council Tax for 2013-14 and 2014-15.

10.0 CORPORATE PLANNING

The draft revised St. Helens Plan is attached at Appendix 6 and Cabinet is requested to recommend this to Council for approval. Cabinet are also requested to recommend that delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, to amend and update elements of the plan in the light of any more up-to-date information regarding priorities and indicators prior to publication.

It is imperative that financial planning underpins the Council’s corporate planning processes and identifies how scarce resources are to be allocated to corporate priorities.

St Helens Plan has been developed to this end and is the Authority’s overarching strategic planning document. Now in its second year, the plan combines the previous Council Corporate Plan and the Sustainable Community Plan into a single streamlined document.

The Plan sits at the head of a revised approach to corporate planning, with the priorities providing the foundation for the development of the Council’s departmental and service plans in the coming year. This revised approach incorporates the greater integration of corporate and financial planning processes and the rationalisation of the number of existing service plans.

The key revisions to the plan this year include updated successes and focal points for action for each themed aim, small revisions to some priorities, an updated foreword and financial section, and revised targets. A formal target setting report will be presented to Cabinet on 28 March 2012, and the Plan subsequently updated.

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 To recommend to Council to approve:-

(a) the Revenue Budget for 2012/2013 summarised at Paragraph 4.3 and detailed in Appendix 1;

(b) the Capital Programme for 2012/2013 to 2014/2015 summarised at Paragraph 6.4 and detailed in Appendix 4;

(c) the movement of balances summarised at Section 5 and the set aside of funds from earmarked balances and capital receipts;

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,11 107 6

(d) adoption of the revised CIPFA Treasury Management Code and its related clauses as detailed in Appendix 2;

(e) the Treasury Management Policy Statement as detailed in Appendix 2;

(f) the Treasury Management Strategy 2012/2013 (incorporating the Annual Revenue Provision Statement) and the associated Treasury Limits and Prudential Indicators, as detailed in Appendix 2;

(g) the delegation of authority to the Assistant Chief Executive (Finance) to determine the profile of credit liabilities within the Prudential Indicator "Authorised Limit for External Borrowing", and to amend the criteria by which the Council’s lending list is compiled for its internally managed investments;

(h) the draft St. Helens Plan (Appendix 6);

(i) the delegation of authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to agree any minor amendments to the St. Helens Plan.

IAN ROBERTS Assistant Chief Executive (Finance)

The Contact Officer for this report is Ian Roberts, Assistant Chief Executive (Finance), Town Hall, St. Helens, WA10 1HP Telephone (01744) 673201

BACKGROUND PAPERS The following list of documents were used to complete this report and are available for public inspection, for four years from the date of the meeting, from the Contact Officer named above:

Budget Working Papers Revenue Support Grant Settlement 2011/12

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,12 108 6

Children and Young People’s Services Portfolio

Budget Strategy Statement 2012-13

The proposed budget for the Children and Young People’s Services Portfolio is set out in the attached spending plan.

1.0 The Schools Budget

1.1 The Schools Budget is funded by the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The current estimate of the amount of DSG due to the Authority for the financial year 2012/13 (prior to adjustments in relation to Academies) is £124.1m. The actual level of DSG will be based on the Authority’s pupil numbers as at January 2012 and will be confirmed by the Department for Education in early Summer 2012. The amount of per pupil funding that the Council will receive for 2012/13 is £5013, which is unchanged from 2011/12.

1.2 In 2011-12 the Government introduced the Pupil Premium, which is funding assigned to schools to raise the educational attainment of pupils from deprived backgrounds. The level of the premium for 2011-12 was £488 per pupil and this has increased to £600 per pupil for 2012-13. In addition, eligibility has been extended to pupils who have been entitled to free school meals at any point in the previous six years. It is estimated that the total Pupil Premium for St Helens for 2012-13 will be approximately £4.5m (prior to adjustments for Academies). This funding is additional to the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant referred to above.

2.0 The Central Budget (Cash Limit)

2.1 The Central Budget comprises both those Education services that are not defined as being within the Schools Budget, and Children’s Social Care. This budget is cash limited by the Authority and has been set at £32.658m for 2012/13.

2.2 The main financial pressures that have been incorporated in setting the budget for 2012/13 are:

x the potential volatility of the number of Looked After Children and the associated care costs; x an expected reduction in the number of Red Bank secure accommodation places that are commissioned by the Youth Justice Board; x increased demand for support services for disabled young people and their families; x an expected reduction in the amount of grant funding from the Youth Justice Board in respect of the Youth Offending Service.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,13 109 6

2.3 The key actions associated with the budget strategy are as follows:

x a continued emphasis on reducing the number of Looked After Children whilst ensuring the best interests of vulnerable children are safeguarded; x the implementation of service efficiencies within Red Bank Community Home to reflect the expected reduction in the number of secure accommodation places commissioned by the Youth Justice Board; x a review of the organisation of disability services for children and their families to ensure the service is able to cope with increased service demands; x a review of the Youth Offending Service in order to ensure the service operates effectively within the available level of grant funding; x a review of the provision of free nursery places for 2-year-old children from deprived backgrounds following the Government’s announcement that the number of free places will be increased.

3.0 Equalities Assessment

3.1 As part of the budget setting process, assessment of the equalities impact in respect of the Portfolio’s service efficiencies has been undertaken. In addition, any specific decisions relating to service delivery that are required will be subject to equalities impact assessment in accordance with the Council’s decision-making process

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,14 110 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S SERVICES PORTFOLIO

Budget 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Area Significant Service Changes Forward Forward Forward Service Volume Measures Forward Forward Forward Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No. £M £M £M

Early Years*** 0.826 0.838 0.851 Pupil Numbers - Nursery (FTE) 752.9 752.9 752.9 Primary Schools 1.166 1.191 1.216 - Primary 13,611 13,777 13,964 - Secondary 9,172 8,963 8,877 Secondary Schools 1.249 1.259 1.282 - Secondary (exc 6,904 6,695 6,609 Academies) Special Schools 0.132 0.134 0.136 - Special 302.4 302.4 302.4 111 Pupils taking meals in school - paid 7,035 7,035 7,035 - free 3,293 3,293 3,293

Free early years entitlement within the Private, Voluntary and Independent sector:

- 3 & 4 year olds receiving 3,100 3,100 3,100 up to 15 hours - Settings receiving funding 48 48 48

Number of Children’s Centres 12 12 12

Number of children under 5 7,100 7,700 8,200 registered with Children’s Centres with status ‘active’

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,15 6 6

Budget 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Area Significant Service Changes Forward Forward Forward Service Volume Measures Forward Forward Forward Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No. £M £M £M Services to Young People*** Forward Estimates include 1.990 1.994 1.998 Number of multiple contacts 15,858 16,255 16,417 savings arising from the with 10 -17 year olds renegotiation of the Connexions contract. Number of Local Authority 2,000 2,000 2,000 Adult & Community Learners

School Related Education Forward Estimates include the 9.811 9.886 10.004 Number of Statements of SEN 460 460 460 Functions full year effect of service efficiencies in respect of School Improvement and Behaviour Improvement 112 Services identified when setting the 2011/12 budget.

Service Strategy 2.919 2.971 3.035 Annual number of social care 1,700 1,700 1,700 referrals

Number of open cases 1,220 1,220 1,220

Children Looked After 10.678 10.870 11.067 Number of Looked After Children:

- Fostering 243 243 243 - Residential 32 32 32 - Home Care Orders 36 36 36 - Placed for adoption 10 10 10 - Independent Living 9 9 9

Number of young people 100 100 100 receiving leaving care services

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,16 Budget 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Area Significant Service Changes Forward Forward Forward Service Volume Measures Forward Forward Forward Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No. £M £M £M Family Support Services 1.696 1.725 1.756

Youth Justice*** Forward Estimates include the 0.277 0.157 0.055 Number of commissioned 21 21 21 reduction in the number of placements within Red Bank secure accommodation secure provision places at Red Bank commissioned by the Youth Number of available 12 12 12 Justice Board. placements within Red Bank open provision

113 Number of referrals / 8,930 8,930 8,930 engagements with the Youth Offending Service

Children and Young 0.796 0.808 0.822 People’s Safety

Other Children’s and 1.118 1.137 1.157 Number of children (0-18 40 40 40 Families Services years of age) with an adoption plan

TOTAL 32.658 32.970 33.379

*** Indicates joint responsibility between two portfolio holders for Children & Young People’s Services and Family Intervention & Safer Communities.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,17 6 6

114 6

Adult Health and Social Care Portfolio

Budget Strategy Statement 2012-13

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The agreed cash limit for Adult Social Care and Health in 2012/2013 is £45.594 million. One of the principles of the agreed long term Budget Strategy of the Council is that Portfolio cash limits are adjusted only in line with recognised inflationary increases. No provision for pay award has been made. Other cash limit increases are in line with the budget strategy of the Council.

1.2 The Portfolio has been allocated a savings target of £2.609m for 2012-13.

1.3 In 2012/2013 NHS specific additional funding of circa £3.5 million will be available to support social care services in accordance with national directives. Elements of this funding, circa £2.5 million, will continue beyond 2012/2013 however there is no indication as to the mechanism to distribute the funding allocation.

1.4 The statement of provisional spending plans in September 2011 highlighted the progress the Portfolio has made in identifying efficiencies with which to achieve a balanced budget in 2012-13 as well as identifying additional pressures since the last financial year. The statement was produced following a Zero Based Budget Review undertaken in line with other Portfolios.

2.0 Budget Pressures

2.1 The portfolio has previously identified significant financial pressures within the Adult Social care and Health budget including;

(i) The contraction of funding as a consequence of the Revenue Support Grant settlement. (ii) Changes in legislation including funding arrangements for lead commissioning for learning disability services, and the impact of the upcoming Care and Support White Paper following the Law Commission and Dilnott reports regarding the future of Adult Social Care. (iii) Inflationary demand pressures based on the current rate of recognised measures (CPI or RPIx). (iv) The potential impact of recent legal cases concerning fee levels for Residential and Nursing care. (v) Demographics and Demand changes. (vi) Transitional Placements.

2.2 For 2012-13 the Council Budget Strategy requires that all growth be contained within the overall service budget.

3.0 Potential Budget Pressures

3.1 The portfolio has previously identified possible potential financial pressures within the Adult Social care and Health budget including;

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,19 115 6

(i) The maintenance of the current level of health funding due to uncertainty surrounding the future of health services beyond 2012/2013. (ii) The financial implications of assuming responsibility for Public Health Services in 2013/2014. Details of responsibilities and funding are yet to be finalised. (iii) Unexpected Ordinary Residence claim. (iv) The potential to bring increased demand for services arising from changes to the Benefits system. (v) The impact of changes in the level of financial support arising from changes in Independent Living Fund provision.

4.0 Key Actions Required To Operate within Cash Limits

4.1 The following key actions have been built into the 2012-13 budget strategy and accordingly the Portfolio’s activity during the year.

4.2 Adult Social Care and Health ensure that due regard to the General Duty of the Equality Act 2010 is given within the process of developing budget proposals. The portfolio uses existing data on services including service equality monitoring and service equality impact assessments to identify implications and budget pressures. Budget Efficiency Proposals set out any key risks including any risks to people who share characteristics protected under the Equality Act. All decisions on budget proposals for specific functions will be informed by an equality impact assessment in accordance with the Corporate Standard.

4.3 Service Reviews

4.3.1 The Portfolio continues to carry out wide ranging strategic reviews of adult social care services provided directly by the Council. The review will ensure that all services focus on the delivery of personalised high quality social care in a way that accords with the Council’s budget strategy and the current economic climate.

4.4 Review of Domiciliary Care Contracts

4.4.1 The move to Personalisation has led to a fundamental change in the contractual relationship between service user and provider. The Portfolio has recently entered into a new contract with domiciliary care providers and also for specialist domiciliary care and will seek to ensure value for money and improved personalised outcomes for service users and carers.

4.5 Fairer Charging Contribution

4.5.1 Following the implementation of Personalisation the Portfolio is required to introduce a new charging mechanism by way of a contribution charge. The current Fairer Charging policy will also be reviewed in light of the increasing demand for services and budget pressures and in accordance with statutory guidance issued by the Department of Health.

4.6 Review Procurement Strategy

4.6.1 The Portfolio will undertake a review of Commissioned services, where applicable, with reference to the potential inflationary uplift in 2012-13 taking into account the council’s commitment to providing quality services. This will

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,20 116 6

be carried out in consultation with providers and other stakeholders across all service areas.

4.6.2 The Portfolio will continue to review commissioned care packages that are deemed high cost, across all client groups, to ensure value for money is being achieved.

4.6.3 The Portfolio will continue to ensure that contracts for the provision of Extra Care Housing provide value for money and appropriate outcomes for service users.

4.7 Maximising Income Generation

4.7.1 The Portfolio will continue to assess the levels of income received and identify further areas of potential income generation. The Portfolio will also consider the level of fees and charges currently levied.

4.8 Review of Staffing Provision across the Portfolio

4.8.1 The Portfolio has reviewed a number of posts currently held vacant with a view to rationalisation of non-essential posts across all service areas.

4.8.2 The Portfolio continues to review administration and support functions.

4.9 Non Essential Spend

4.9.1 The Portfolio has reviewed non-essential spend budgets to ensure value for money is being provided. Where applicable the Portfolio has reduced or, in some cases, removed budget provision.

4.10 Third Sector Partners

4.10.1 The Portfolio will continue to engage with third sector partners in order to ensure that the services provided achieve the aim of providing improved personalised outcomes for service users and also provide value for money for council expenditure. This approach will be supported by a procurement exercise.

4.11 Strategic Objectives

4.11.1 Work will also continue on a number of other key objectives during the year focussing on the modernisation of services. These include;

4.12 Reprovision of Services

4.12.1 The Portfolio will seek to provide services that encompass a personalised approach offering choice and control for service users whilst providing value for money.

4.13. Review the Application of FACS Eligibility Criteria

4.13.1 The Department continues to monitor the way in which eligibility criteria is applied in order to ensure the level of demand for services can be met from within available resources, whilst also taking into account relevant case law.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,21 117 6

4.14 Commissioning

4.14.1 The Portfolio will establish and maintain a number of Commissioning Strategies as part of its key strategic objectives to ensure continued value for money

4.14.2 These strategies include:

(i) Re tendering of Information, Advice and Advocacy services; (ii) Promotion and development of assistive technology and working with partners to promote prevention and early intervention services: (iii) Development of a Dementia Services strategy, with partners, with the aims of improving services at all levels.

4.15 Staffing Analysis

4.15.1 The Portfolio will undertake a review of the skill mix within relevant service areas to ensure appropriate levels of qualified and unqualified staff.

4.16 Health Services

4.16.1 The Portfolio is continuing to engage strategic partners in order to understand the implications of the Health White Paper ‘Equity and Excellence; Liberating the NHS’, and the Public Health White Paper ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy People’.

4.17 Continuing Health Care

4.17.1 The Department continues to engage with NHS Merseyside to ensure the continued successful operation of the Department of Health national framework for NHS Continuing Health Care and NHS funded Nursing Care. National guidance for the assessment process for applying Continuing Health Care criteria has been updated. The Portfolio will continue to ensure that it is applied equitably.

4.18 Partnership Arrangements

In order to ensure the continued maintenance of service provision the portfolio will seek to secure medium and long term health funding through formal partnership agreements where appropriate.

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 The Portfolio, through the measures identified in section four of this report, will achieve a balanced budget whilst maintaining its focus on the provision of effective community based services that are personalised, flexible and responsive to individual need and manage the increasing demand for services.

5.3 The Portfolio recognises the significant financial pressures outlined above and has identified a range of proposals to address them. The strategies outlined will require further consideration and will form the basis of future service modernisation in order to ensure maintenance of a balanced budget position.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,22 118 ADULT SOCIAL CARE AND HEALTH PORTFOLIO

Budget £million Significant Service 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Volume Measures Service Area Changes 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Estimate Estimate Estimate Key Actions/Decisions Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No.

Older People Support more older people 23.027 23.321 23.784 Service Users in receipt of 6,390 6,545 6,680 to live at home services from Adult Social Care and Health aged over Modernise ‘In-House’ 65 Services Service Users aged over 65 213 207 200 Continue to develop a in Permanent Residential strategy for reablement Care. 119 services Service Users aged over 65 219 230 241 Continue to develop an in receipt of a regular direct Integrated Hospital payment. Discharge Team Domiciliary Care 477,000 484,000 491,000 Review Care Management Commissioned hours structure provided in-year for service users aged over 65 Adults with a Develop Supported 6.106 6.184 6.314 Service Users in receipt of 1,164 1,217 1,272 Physical Accommodation services from Adult Social Disability or opportunities Care and Health aged 18-64 Sensory Impairment Modernise Day Service Users aged 18-64 in 180 187 195 opportunities receipt of a regular direct payment

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,23 6 6

Review High Cost Commissioned Care Packages

Review Care Management structure

Adults with Develop and enhance 13.386 13.559 13.807 Service Users in receipt of 581 620 661 Learning supported employment for services from Adult Social Disabilities service users Care and Health aged 18- 64/65+ Review High Cost Commissioned Care Service Users aged 18-64 in 161 184 209 Packages receipt of a regular direct payment 120 Review Care Management structure

Adults with Review High Cost 2.667 2.701 2.754 Service Users in receipt of 505 504 504 Mental Health Commissioned Care services from Adult Social Needs Packages Care and Health aged 18-64

Review Care Management Service Users aged 18-64 in 11 12 14 structure receipt of a regular direct payment

Other Adult 0.122 0.124 0.127 Services

Service Strategy 0.286 0.290 0.293 Total 45.594 46.179 47.079

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,24 6

121 6

Urban Regeneration and Housing Portfolio

Budget Strategy Statement 2012-13

1. Introduction

The proposed 2012-13 budget for the Urban Regeneration & Housing Portfolio is £10.890 million; the detail of which is set out in the attached summary budget statement. The budget has been prepared by reviewing service requirements and any known changes that will impact on the 2012-13 budget. Income from fees and charges has been increased by of 2.5% in line with the overall Budget Strategy.

For 2012-13 there has been a change in the way that employers superannuation contributions have been shown in the budget. Superannuation has been budgeted at 11.6% of gross salary compared to 18.2% previously; the remaining 6.6% is being held centrally

The Council’s budget strategy is clear in that any additional inflationary, demand or legislative pressures must be absorbed within the approved cash limits.

The purpose of this statement is identify those pressures and also details the actions that have been taken to enable the pressures to be funded with the portfolio’s cash limit

2. Budget Pressures

Savings Target

The minimum savings target for Urban Regeneration has been set at £413k.

Energy Costs

Despite, in recent years, increases in energy costs outstripping inflation; the Council has taken proactive action to both reduce cost increases and energy usage. However, recently tendered contracts for Gas and Electricity have seen increases of 18% and 16% respectively. For the Urban Regeneration and Housing Portfolio this is a particular issue as the portfolio acts as the Corporate Landlord for operational properties across the Council.

Income due to the Economic Downturn

The portfolio as a whole has seen a marked effect on it’s income generating services due to the economic downturn over the previous three years and continues to see the effects of this despite previously taking action to re-align the budget. Planning, Town Centre, Markets and Car Parks have all seen significant reductions in income and continue to face pressures in relation to the activity levels within those areas.

All of these areas have been proactive in trying to increase income levels but have had problems in doing so.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,26 122 6

3. Zero Based Budget Review

Cabinet agreed that portfolios should undertake a Zero Based Review to establish areas of: ƒFurther efficiency ƒPriority services and ƒValue for Money Improvements

The following reviews have informed this process to identify savings:-

Review of Historical Budgetary Spend

One of the savings areas that have been identified was savings where budgets could be reduced on supplies and services without impacting on the functions or effectiveness a service based upon historical spend levels over the past two financial years.

Review of Structures and Services

Services have been reviewed and considered to ensure that they are being provided in the most efficient manner, that they are still necessary given the current economic climate and that there is no alternative solution that could be considered that could possibly lead to savings. Services have also been considered to ensure that the proposed staffing structure is suitable to efficiently meet the demands placed upon the service.

There are a number of reviews or changes to existing working practices that have been undertaken or are currently underway. These involve both back office functions and front office functions to ensure improved service delivery, whilst also achieving efficiencies in costs. Areas that are being reviewed include a review of the combined Asset Management and Property Services section and a Review of the demand for the Supporting People Service.

4. Equalities Assessments

As part of the budget setting process, we have undertaken some initial analyses of the equalities and other legal impacts of proposals and will continue to refine these. A detailed equalities impact assessment will be / has been undertaken in accordance with the requirement of individual decisions and in line with the decision making process of the Council.

5. Conclusion

By taking the action highlighted above, the Portfolio will be able to meet the aforementioned budget pressures and balance the budget for 2012-13.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,27 123 6

URBAN REGENERATION AND HOUSING PORTFOLIO

Budget 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Area Significant Service Changes Forward Forward Forward Service Volume Measures Forward Forward Forward Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No. £M £M £M General Fund Housing 1.275 1.296 1.323 Number of customers 6000 6000 6000 receiving advice from Housing Advice Centre

Number of grants process 550 550 550

Supporting People 7.983 7.984 7.986 Number of people supported 2,818 2,716 2,716

Building Control 0.306 0.300 0.296 Number of applications 1,000 1,000 1,000 124 processed

Development Control 0.491 0.472 0.456 Number of applications 1,200 1,200 1,200 processed

Number of enforcements 600 600 600

Planning Policy 0.812 0.821 0.832

Economic Development 0.057 0.067 0.079 Number of companies locating 15 17 19 in the Borough with the assistance from Inward Investment Team

Number of market stalls 564 564 564

Parking Services - 0.256 - 0.280 - 0.303 Number of car parking spaces 2,862 2,862 2,862

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,28 Budget 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Area Significant Service Changes Forward Forward Forward Service Volume Measures Forward Forward Forward Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No. £M £M £M Transport Planning 0.222 0.227 0.236

Management & Support --- Service Costs

TOTAL 10.890 10.887 10.905 125

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,29 6 6

Environmental Protection Portfolio

Budget Strategy Statement 2012-13

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Budget Strategy Statement for Environmental Protection is based on the Budget Reports presented to Cabinet on 14 September 2011 and 4 January 2012. Various technical adjustments have been made including a change in the accounting treatment of Superannuation and changes to Support Service Charges. The statement has been prepared against a revised cash limit of £21.003m. The cash limit assumes no increases in pay and prices and an increase in fees and charges of 2.5% in line with the overall Budget Strategy.

1.2 The report identified budget pressures for 2012-13 resulting from reductions in Revenue Support Grant, major changes to specific grants and future changes in legislation. Minimum savings targets were agreed for all departments with £149k identified for Environmental Protection Portfolio in 2012-13.

1.3 A Zero Based Budget review has been undertaken to identify areas for potential savings in line with the Budget Strategy.

2.0 Budget Pressures

2.1 The proposed budget for Environmental Protection is set out in the Budget Summary Statement. A number of forecast budget pressures have been identified and estimated at £256k.

2.2 Inflationary pressures

2.2.1 The Cash Limit includes no allowance for pay awards in line with pay constraints on the public sector as a whole. Incremental increases in staff pay potentially could add a further £30k due to reduced turnover of staff.

2.2.2 Price inflation affecting in particular Highways contracts has historically been above that allowed for inflation in the budget strategy as costs of fuel and materials have fluctuated. A provisional figure of £100k is estimated based on recent contracts let. The average price of fuel has increased by 27% over the last 2 years, creating a budget pressure of £60k on the Transport section. The impact on energy costs is anticipated to be £30k.

2.3 Other Pressures

2.3.1 Carbon Tax, introduced from 2011-12 based on the amount of carbon used at £12 per tonne is anticipated to add £36k to the department’s budget.

2.3.2 Trust status, Academies, Free Schools and Building Schools for the Future pilot schemes may result in externalisation of services provided to schools. This will impact on the Direct Services Division although this cannot be quantified at present.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,30 126 6

3.0 Key Actions Required to Operate Within the Cash Limit

3.1 The Department continues to review its budgets on an ongoing basis to identify any areas where efficiency savings can be identified for resource prioritisation.

3.2 Target reductions in some budget heads across the department will be applied mainly in supplies and services budgets following reviews via the zero based budget exercise.

3.3 Fees and charges will be reviewed in line and with the budget strategy. Areas for potential income generation will be investigated and comparisons made with other local authorities.

3.4 Staff establishments will be reviewed across the department.

3.5 Contracts will be reviewed/renegotiated to minimise inflationary increases where possible or increases absorbed within budgets allowed.

3.6 In February 2010, Cabinet approved a report that allowed the preparation and submission for a Permit Scheme under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The scheme has now received approval from the Department of Transport, and will introduce income to cover the additional duties from April 2012.

3.7 At this stage of the budget planning process an assessment of policies, decisions or functions have been considered with reference to the impact on staff / user groups from an equalities perspective. Any decision arising from efficiencies will be subject to it’s own detailed equalities impact assessment.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 It is anticipated that the service reviews and measures outlined above will produce a balanced budget for 2012-13.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,31 127 6

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PORTFOLIO

Service Area/Description Significant Service Budget Service Volume Measures 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Changes No. No. No. 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £M £M £M Environmental Health 1.273 1.287 1.304 No. of Treatments 5,200 5,200 5,200 No. of Dog Warden Responses 1,500 2,100 2,100 No. of Investigations / visits 3,000 3,000 3,000 No. of Noise Complaints 1,200 1,300 1,300 No. of Public Health Complaints 365 300 300 Trading Standards 0.623 0.633 0.644 No. of Visitors 1,000 1,000 1,000 No. of Queries/ Complaints 2,000 2,000 2,000 No. of Prosecutions/ Cautions 12 12 12

128 Parks & Open Spaces 3.503 3.500 3.664 No. of Allotment Plots 567 567 567

No. of Seasonal Lettings of 102 102 102 Football/ Rugby Pitches

No. of Events in Parks & Open 500 500 500 Spaces

No. of Ranger Patrols in POS 5,800 5,800 5,800

Hectares of Greenspace 720 720 720 Maintained

Street Cleansing 1.968 1.977 2.024 Kilometres of Road Swept 730 730 730

No. of Incidents of Fly Tipping 830 820 810 Waste Collection 2.852 2.883 2.955 Kgs of Residual Waste per 620 610 600 Household sent to Landfill

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,32 Service Area/Description Significant Service Budget Service Volume Measures 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Changes No. No. No. 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £M £M £M Percentage of Total Household 36 38 40 Waste Recycled

No. of Properties where bins 79,950 80,000 80,100 emptied

Cemeteries & Crematoria -0.307 -0.354 -0.371 No. of Burials 821 800 800

No. of Cremations 2,150 2,150 2,150 No. of Graves & Cremation Plots 37,808 38,124 38,440

129 Environmental Initiatives- 0.088 0.089 0.090 Climate Change Highways & Street 10.788 10.849 10.953 Kilometres of Carriageway 730 730 730 Lighting maintained Kilometres of Footway 1,200 1,200 1,200 maintained No. of Street Lighting Columns 23,400 23,400 23,400 maintained No. of Gullies Cleaned 39,000 39,000 39,000

Traffic Management & 0.625 0.633 0.642 No. of School Crossing Patrols 41 41 41 Road Safety No. of Traffic Enquiries 1,600 1,650 1,700 Direct Services -0.285 -0.332 -0.332 Licensing -0.125 -0.133 -0.140 No. of Licences Issued 4,015 3,960 3,960

Total 21.003 21.032 21.433

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,33 6 6

Corporate Services & External Affairs Portfolio

Budget Strategy Statement 2012-13

The proposed 2012-13 budget for the Corporate Services & External Affairs Portfolio is set out in the attached summary budget statement. This has been prepared by reviewing all service requirements and any known changes that will affect the 2012-13 budget.

The budget Strategy Statement has been produced in conjunction with the Zero Based Budgeting exercise that was agreed by Cabinet on 22 June to identify areas of potential savings for 2012-13 in order to balance the budget following grant reductions announced by Government in December 2010.

There has also been a fundamental change in the way employer’s superannuation contributions are budgeted for; previously, they have been budgeted at 18.2% of gross salary but now they will only be budgeted at 11.6% of gross salary with the other 6.6% being held centrally.

The Council’s budget strategy is clear that any additional inflationary, demand or legislative pressures must be absorbed within the approved cash limits. This statement sets out those pressures and details the actions that have been taken to enable the pressures to be funded.

Budget Pressures

Savings Target

Corporate Services is aware of its responsibility to fully scrutinise the budgets and put forward as many proposals for savings as possible. The total savings amount identified is £1m.

Housing Benefits

Housing Benefits has faced increased activity due to the economic climate over the past two financial years. A large number of residents who have previously never utilised the benefits system have had to access the service because of the economic downturn. However, the new Coalition Government is looking at reforming the welfare system and the results of this are currently not known. Despite the increase in activity around Benefits, the Government has reduced the level of Housing Benefit Subsidy Admin Grant by £102,000.

Zero Based Budget Review

It was agreed by Cabinet that portfolios should undertake a Zero Based Review to establish areas of further efficiency, priority services and improvements in Value for Money. The following reviews have informed this process to identify savings:-

Review of Staffing Structures

Managers have considered the suitability of their current staffing structure to efficiently meet the demands placed upon the service, whilst considering any future developments. Any posts that have been identified as potential savings have been considered in detail due to possible implications on service delivery.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,34 130 6

Review of Services

Services have been reviewed and considered to ensure that they are being provided in the most efficient manner, that they are still necessary given the current economic climate and that there is no alternative solution that could be considered that would possibly lead to savings.

There are a number of reviews or changes to existing working practices that have been undertaken or are currently underway. These involve both back office functions and front office functions to ensure improved service delivery, whilst also achieving efficiencies in costs. Areas that have been included within the review of services include the newly centralised HR and IT Functions.

Equalities Assessments

As part of the budget setting process, we have undertaken some initial analyses of the equalities and other legal impacts of proposals and will continue to refine these. A detailed equalities impact assessment will be / has been undertaken in accordance with the requirement of individual decisions and in line with the decision making processes of the Council.

Conclusion

By taking the action highlighted above, the Portfolio will be able to meet the highlighted budget pressures and balance the budget for 2012-13.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,35 131 6

132 CORPORATE SERVICES AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO

Budget 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Area Significant Service Changes Forward Forward Forward Service Volume Measures Forward Forward Forward Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No. £M £M £M Local Tax Collection 1.157 1.161 1.173 Number of bills raised 179,488 181,488 183,488

Registrars of Births, Deaths 0.076 0.078 0.082 Number of Certificates issued 3,000 3,000 3,000 & Marriages

Elections 0.384 0.385 0.389 Number ofpeople on register 138,883 138,883 138,883

Emergency Planning 0.136 0.136 0.138

133 Local Land Charges - 0.049 - 0.051 - 0.053

Corporate Management 1.755 1.759 1.777

Democratic Representation 1.645 1.651 1.661 & Management

Coroners Service 0.220 0.220 0.220

Grants and Donations 0.303 0.309 0.316 Number of groups supported 9 9 9

Service Management & - 0.007 - 0.007 - 0.007 Support

Non Distributed Costs 0.927 0.927 0.927

TOTAL 6.547 6.568 6.623

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,37 6 6

Culture, Sport and Leisure Portfolio

Budget Strategy Statement 2012-13

1. Background

1.1 The proposed 2012-13 budget for the Culture, Sport and Leisure Portfolio is set out in the attached summary budget statement. This has been prepared by reviewing all known service requirements that will have implications during 2012-13, together with any other known changes, including:-

x Inflationary increases in respect of prices; x Other agreed adjustments to cash limits

1.2 One of the decreases to Cash Limit is due to a fundamental change in the way that employer’s superannuation contributions are budgeted for; previously they have been budgeted at 18.2% of gross salary but now they will only be budgeted at 11.6% of gross salary with the other 6.6% being held centrally.

1.3 Government announced grant reductions for 2012-13 in December 2010 and it was agreed by Cabinet that portfolios would undertake Zero Based Budget Reviews to deliver the necessary savings that would need to be made to balance the budget. Savings that will be made by the Culture, Sport and Leisure Portfolio are reflected in the attached Budget Strategy Statement.

1.4 The Council’s budget strategy is clear that any additional inflationary, demand or legislative pressures must be absorbed within the approved cash limits. This statement sets out those pressures and details the actions that have been taken to enable the pressures to be funded.

2. Service Specific Budget Pressures

2.1 Savings Target

Culture, Sport and Leisure has been allocated a minimum savings target of £419k.

2.2 Libraries Income

Libraries income targets have increased steadily year on year by inflation but the level of income has not risen to keep pace with these. Income streams relating to DVD and CD hire have faced increased competition from cheap on-line retailers, as well as the increasing number of digital downloads.

2.3 Energy Costs

The increase in the cost of energy has outstripped inflation over the past few years and the Authority has been proactive in trying to minimise cost increases and reduce energy usage. Despite this, recently tendered contracts for Gas and Electricity have seen increases of 18% and 16% respectively. This is a particular issue for the Culture, Sport and Leisure Portfolio due to the level of electricity and gas required by the Leisure Centres.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,38 134 6

2.4 Inflationary Demand Pressures

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual inflation is currently 4.2% and the Retail Price Index, excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIx) is currently 5.0%. The portfolio will continue to work with Suppliers and contractors to manage inflationary pressures.

3. Strategy to Achieve Savings

3.1 To achieve the level of savings required to set a balanced budget, the portfolio has conducted a Zero Based Budget Review, as instructed by Cabinet. Three strands of review have been undertaken to establish areas of further efficiency, priority services and improvements in Value for Money and these were a review of historical expenditure, a review of staffing structures and a review of services.

3.2 There are a number of reviews or changes to existing working practices that have been undertaken or are currently underway. These involve both back office functions and front office functions to ensure improved service delivery, whilst also achieving efficiencies in costs. Areas that are being reviewed include a Review of the Libraries Management Structures.

4. Equalities Assessments

4.1 As part of the budget setting process, we have undertaken some initial analyses of the equalities and other legal impacts of proposals and will continue to refine these. A detailed equalities impact assessment will be / has been undertaken in accordance with the requirement of individual decisions and in line with the decision making process of the Council.

5. Conclusion

5.1 By taking the action highlighted above, the Portfolio will be able to meet the aforementioned budget pressures and balance the budget for 2012-13.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,39 135 6

CULTURE, SPORT AND LEISURE PORTFOLIO

Budget 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Area Significant Service Changes Forward Forward Forward Service Volume Measures Forward Forward Forward Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No. £M £M £M Cultural and Heritage 1.508 1.503 1.516 Number of museum visits 25,191 25,560 25,929

Recreation and Sport 2.474 2.463 2.504 Number of individual leisure 1,249,609 1,287,098 1,325,711 sessions undertaken

Community Centres 0.049 0.049 0.049

Library Service 3.159 3.149 3.209 Number of libraries 13 13 13

136 Number of books issued 955,000 950,000 945,000 Number of public workstations 276 276 276 available

Tourism 0.018 0.018 0.018 Number of unique visitors to 106,734 112,070 117,673 www.visitStHelens.com website

Service Management & --- Support

TOTAL 7.208 7.182 7.296

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,40 6

Family Intervention & Safer Communities Portfolio

Budget Strategy Statement 2012-13

Introduction

The proposed 2012-13 budget for the Family Intervention & Safer Communities Portfolio is set out in the attached summary budget statement. This has been prepared by reviewing all service requirements and any known changes that will affect the 2012-13 budget.

The Budget Strategy Statement has been produced in conjunction with the Zero Based Budgeting exercise that was agreed by Cabinet on 22 June to identify areas of potential savings for 2012-13 in order to balance the budget following grant reductions announced by Government in December 2010.

There has been a fundamental change in the way that employer’s superannuation contributions are budgeted for; previously they have been budgeted at 18.2% of gross salary but now they will only be budgeted at 11.6% of gross salary with the other 6.6% being held centrally.

The Council’s budget strategy is clear that any additional inflationary, demand or legislative pressures must be absorbed within the approved cash limits. This statement sets out those pressures and details the actions that have been taken to enable the pressures to be funded.

Service Budget Pressures

General Service Provision

The withdrawal of Area Based Grant and its replacement, albeit at a much reduced level, with the Early Intervention Grant has required considerable work to be undertaken in conjunction with partners, in order to identify and sustain the most impactive areas of service delivery. The Community Safety partnership (CSP) will continue to provide the primary mechanism for the development and delivery of the local multi agency strategy to tackle crime disorder and anti-social behaviour. The CSP’s cyclical process of assessment, planning and delivery has identified the following as overarching priorities for a continuation of intelligence led delivery:

x Prevention of Youth Crime; x A focus on the most impactive of offenders; x Neighbourhoods and anti-social behaviour; x Reducing the harms caused by alcohol and drugs.

In November 2012, elections will take place at a county level to appoint a Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside who, at some point will take control of a number of funding streams currently received at a district level. These include the Community Safety Fund, Drugs Intervention Programme Main Grant and Young Peoples Substance Misuse Grant. It is not yet clear to what extent, if any, these funds will continue to be available at a local level and there is therefore a potential additional budget pressure that will emerge during the final quarter of 2012-13. These will be addressed as matters become clearer and through applying the review processes set out below.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,41 137 6

The Portfolio will continue to take an entrepreneurial approach in seeking out additional sources of funding and consider either the reconfiguration of existing services or their closer integration with other mainstream services in order to sustain the progress made in recent years.

Savings Target

Safer Communities has been allocated a minimum savings target of £12k. However, it needs to be remembered that the portfolio also faces great uncertainty around specific grant provision.

Zero Based Budget Review

It was agreed by Cabinet that Portfolios should undertake a Zero Based Review to establish areas of further efficiency, priority services and improvements in Value for Money. The reviews of historical spend and staffing structures have informed this process to identify savings.

Equalities Assessments

Service delivery under the portfolio takes an evidence led approach underpinned by a multi-agency strategic assessment for crime disorder and anti-social behaviour alongside a series of substance misuse and alcohol needs assessments for both adults and young people. This ensures that service continues to focus upon areas and individuals of greatest impact and need with a particular focus on vulnerable and hard to reach populations such as victims of domestic and sexual violence and chaotic substance misuse and alcohol users.

As part of the budget setting process, we have undertaken some initial analyses of the equalities and other legal impacts of proposals and will continue to refine these. A detailed equalities impact assessment will be / has been undertaken in accordance with the requirement of individual decisions and in line with the decision making process of the Council.

Conclusion

By taking the action highlighted above, the Portfolio will be able to meet the highlighted budget pressures and balance the budget for 2012-13.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,42 138 FAMILY INTERVENTION & SAFER COMMUNITIES PORTFOLIO

Budget 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Service Area* Significant Service Changes Forward Forward Forward Service Volume Measures Forward Forward Forward Estimate Estimate Estimate No. No. No. £M £M £M Community Safety Unit 1.617 1.680 1.755 Number of drug users in 847 855 863 effective treatment

Community Development 0.172 0.186 0.201

Magistrates Courts & 0.006 0.006 0.006 Probation TOTAL 1.795 1.872 1.962 139

* The portfolio also has joint responsibility for services within the Children and Young People’s Services portfolio. These are Early Years, Services for Young People and Youth Justice.

h\roberts\reports\budget1213\budgetreport2012-13 feb 12,43 6 6

Appendix 2

TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT 2012/2013, ANNUAL REVENUE PROVISION POLICY STATEMENT AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management was most recently revised in November 2009 and was readopted by this Council on 2 March 2011. The Code and Guidance Notes have been reviewed and updated by CIPFA in November 2011 following recent developments in the market and the introduction of the Localism Act for English Authorities.

1.2 The primary requirements of the Code are as follows: -

x creation and maintenance of a Treasury Management Policy Statement which sets out the policies and objectives of the Council’s treasury management activities;

x creation and maintenance of Treasury Management Practices which set out the manner in which the Council will seek to achieve those policies and objectives;

x receipt by the Full Council of an annual Treasury Management Strategy Statement (including the Annual Investment Strategy and Annual Revenue Provision Policy) for the year ahead; a Mid-year Review Report; and an Annual Report covering activities during the previous year;

x delegation by the Council of responsibilities for implementing and monitoring Treasury Management policies and practices and for the execution and administration of Treasury Management decisions. These responsibilities are provided to the Cabinet and Assistant Chief Executive (Finance) respectively;

x delegation by the Council for the effective oversight of the Treasury Management Strategy and Policies to a specific named body. For this Council the delegated body is the Audit and Governance Committee.

1.3 The Local Government Act 2003 (the Act) and the associated CIPFA Prudential Code require the Council to set Prudential and Treasury Indicators for the next three years to ensure that the Council’s capital investment plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable.

1.4 The Act therefore requires the Council to set out its Treasury Strategy for borrowing and to prepare an Annual Investment Strategy that sets out the Council’s policies for managing its investments and for giving priority to the security and liquidity of those investments.

1.5 The Strategy for 2012/2013 covers: -

140 6

x the current treasury position; x prospects for interest rates; x borrowing requirements and strategy; x Annual Revenue Provision policy statement; x the investment strategy; x creditworthiness policy; x the extent of debt rescheduling opportunities; x treasury management limits for the period 2012/2013 to 2014/2015; and x prudential indicators for the period 2012/2013 to 2014/2015.

1.6 It is a statutory requirement under Section 33 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 for the Council to produce a balanced budget. In particular, Section 32 requires a local authority to calculate its budget requirement for each financial year to include the revenue costs that flow from capital financing decisions. This therefore, means that increases in capital expenditure must be limited to a level whereby increases in charges to revenue from:

(i) increases in interest charges caused by increased borrowing to finance additional capital expenditure; and

(ii) any increases in running costs from new capital projects

are limited to a level which is affordable within the projected income of the Council for the foreseeable future.

2. CURRENT TREASURY POSITION

Borrowing

2.1 At the time of drafting this report the C ouncil currently has outstanding debt of £73.380m which is comprised: -

Outstanding debt at Principal Average 31/01/2012 Rate £m % Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) Debt 50.380 7.586 Market Debt 23.000 4.162 Total Debt 73.380 6.513

2.2 The market debt in the table above is held in the form of Lender Option Borrower option (LOBO) loans where there are certain options on the part of both the borrower (St. Helens Council) and the lender at specified points in the loans' existence. The profile of the Council’s borrowing (both market and PWLB) is detailed in the following chart:-

141 6

Analysis of Loan Maturities as at 31/01/2012

18 16 14 12 10 £ million 8 6 4 2 0 0-1 1-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-40 40+ Years to maturity

In accordance with the revised Prudential Code, the maturity of borrowing should be determined by reference to the earliest date on which the lender can require payment. If the lender does have the right to increase the interest rate payable (as is the case with a LOBO loan), then this should be treated as a right to require payment. In accordance with this guidance the maturity dates of the Council’s LOBO loans has been taken as the next call date for each loan. This has led to a significant shift in the profile of the LOBO loan maturities making the Council’s position look much more short term. In the current interest rate climate it is unlikely that these loans will be called imminently.

2.3 The actual level of outstanding debt should be contrasted with the underlying need for borrowing as at 31 March 2012, which is estimated at £145.657m. The variance reflects previous strategy decisions to use available resources to negate the need to incur additional borrowing.

2.4 The Strategy adopted in previous years has proved to be largely successful, with the realisation of materially lower long term interest structures allowing the Council to satisfy its longer term borrowing requirements, as demonstrated by its Capital Financing Requirement, at significantly reduced cost. In doing so, the Council has been in the subsequent position to repay an element of its debt without any material early-repayment premiums and therefore protect its budgetary position against diminishing investment returns and also reduce the Treasury risk associated with investment holdings in these times of uncertainty.

2.5 The Council's policy on the utilisation of capital receipts and its other reserves and balances is, and has been pivotal to the ability to adopt such a flexible Treasury Management Strategy in the longer term - that is to say that if such receipts, reserves and balances are to be used (e.g. to finance investment in the Capital Programme) then it is possible that borrowing would have to be secured in the year that the additional Capital Financing Requirement arises. Pressures on reserves and balances are now more significant than in previous years.

142 6

Investments

2.6 At the time of drafting this report the Council has investments of £150.171m in a range of institutions as follows: -

Analysis of Investments by Credit Ratings as at 31/01/2012

Money Market Funds Banks 6.18% A+ F1 Local Authorities 13.32% 3.33% Government Credit Building Societies Guarantee Scheme A+ F1 14.65% 13.32%

Nationalised Banks 49.20%

These investments include (circa. £45m) funds held on behalf of Schools and Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority (MRWA).

2.7 Dependent on the timing of the Authority’s cash flows this level of investments will rise or fall. The average daily sum invested thus far during 2011/2012 is around £159.778m and this level of investments is key to the consequential borrowing considerations as detailed in Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5. The profile of average investment levels thus far is as detailed below: -

Profile of Average Investments 2011/2012

180 175 170 165 160

£million 155 150 145 v-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Jun-11 Apr-11 Sep-11 No Dec-11 Aug-11 May-11 Months

143 6

2.8 Levels of investments forecast as at 31 March 2012 are likely to be slightly lower than currently held. This is as a consequence of a significant number of funding streams being received earlier in the year (e.g. RSG, Council Tax) and spend being profiled somewhat towards the latter part of the year.

2.9 Reductions in investment interest returns have been forecast by Council Officers for some considerable time. Wherever possible the Council has sought to utilise longer-term fixed terms deposits to lock into favourable rates of return. These opportunities have, however, been somewhat restricted as security of capital is of paramount importance and therefore investment options are limited to a small number of Counterparties. A further consequence of the continued low interest rate environment is that there will be continued pressure on the budgets through to 2014/2015.

2.10 The profile of investment maturities at the time of drafting this report is detailed in the following chart: -

Analysis of Investment Maturities as at 31/01/2012

70

60

50

40 £ million 30

20

10

0 month 12-18 18-24 Upto 1 Upto months months On Call On 1-2 months 1-2 months 2-3 months 3-6 months 6-9 9-12 months 9-12 Over 2 years Over Period to maturity

3. PROSPECTS FOR INTEREST RATES

3.1 It is currently difficult to have any absolute confidence as to exactly how strong any UK economic recovery is likely to be and it is evident that the rate of economic recovery is slower than the majority of economic forecasters had previously projected. The Council has appointed Sector Treasury Services as a treasury advisor and part of their service is to assist Officers to formulate a view on interest rates. Annex 1 draws together a number of current City forecasts for both short and longer-term interest rates. The following gives the Sector central view.

144 6

Sector Bank Rate forecast for the financial years ends (March) x 2012/2013 0.50% x 2013/2014 1.25% x 2014/2015 2.50%

There is a downside risk to these forecasts if recovery from the recession proves to be weaker and slower than expected.

3.2 Growth in the UK economy is expected to be weak in the next two years and there is a risk of a technical recession (which is defined as two quarters of negative growth). Bank Rate, currently 0.50%, underpins investment returns and is not expected to start increasing until the latter part of 2013 at the earliest despite inflation being currently above the Monetary Policy Committee inflation target. Hopes for an export led recovery appears likely to be disappointed due to Eurozone sovereign debt crisis depressing growth in the UK’s biggest export market. The Comprehensive Spending Review, which seeks to reduce the UK’s annual deficit, will also depress growth during the next few years.

3.3 Fixed interest rates are based on UK gilt yields and consequently the outlook for borrowing rates is difficult to predict. The UK total national debt is forecast to continue to rise until 2015/2016; the consequent increase in gilt issuance is therefore expected to be reflected in an increase in gilt yields over this period. Gilt yields are, however, at a historic low due to investor concerns over Eurozone sovereign debt and have been subject to exceptionally high levels of volatility as events in the Eurozone debt crisis have evolved.

3.4 The challenging and uncertain economic outlook has several key treasury management implications:

x The Eurozone sovereign debt crisis, most evident in Greece, provide a clear indication of much higher counterparty risk. This continues to suggest the use of higher quality counterparties for shorter time periods; x Investment returns are likely to remain low during 2012/2013; x Borrowing interest rates are currently attractive but may remain low for some time. The timing of any borrowing will need to be monitored carefully; and x There will remain a cost of capital – any borrowing undertaken that results in an increase in investments will incur a revenue loss between borrowing costs and investment returns.

4. BORROWING REQUIREMENT AND STRATEGY

4.1 The Council's 'in year' borrowing requirements for the next, and subsequent two financial years, are based on those requirements arising from the proposed Capital Programme as included in the Budget report and are calculated as:-

2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 £m £m £m Unsupported Borrowing 0.934 0.735 0.700 Revenue Provision (6.884) (6.688) (6.401) Revenue Provision PFI (0.339) (0.497) (0.556) In-Year Capital Financing (6.289) (6.450) (6.257) Requirement

145 6

4.2 These requirements are calculated as: -

(i) that element of the proposed Capital Programme not financed by specific grant, capital receipts or earmarked balances;

(ii) less the Annual Revenue Provision as calculated by reference to the Capital Finance and Accounting Regulations 2008 (and explained further in section 5).

4.3 As is evident, the in-year Capital Financing Requirement during this three- year period is negative. This reflects the withdrawal of Central Government support for Council borrowing and is fundamentally different to the historic net Capital Financing Requirement position. The Council’s current borrowing profile, whereby levels of actual borrowing are below the implied underlying need to borrow, puts the Council in a sound position relative to these reductions.

4.4 The current position is a product of previous strategy decisions to use its available reserves and balances to negate the need to borrow. Since the economy has and continues to experience extraordinary conditions, with historically and abnormally low Bank Rates, the avoidance of new external borrowing has generated savings in the short term and reduced exposure to interest rate and credit risk.

4.5 With a reducing Capital Financing Requirement, the likelihood of undertaking new external borrowing to finance ongoing capital programme activity is minimal. However, whilst actual levels of external borrowing remain significantly below the Capital Financing Requirement there does remain the possibility or absolute need to incur new borrowing to finance historic activity. This is not currently forecast, but will largely be influenced by calls on capital receipts and other reserves and balances.

4.6 Should global economic conditions show signs of significant improvement (particularly relating to the security of counterparty credit ratings), there may be opportunities to secure low-rate borrowing. This will not be undertaken at the expense of introducing any inappropriate levels of additional risk.

4.7 Extreme caution will be adopted with the 2012/2013 treasury operations. Officers will continue to monitor prevailing interest rates and market forecasts and will adopt a pragmatic approach to any changing circumstances, with reports submitted on actions taken in line with the reporting requirements of the Council's Treasury Management Practices.

5. ANNUAL REVENUE PROVISION STATEMENT

5.1 Under Regulation 27 of the 2003 Capital Finance Regulations, Local Authorities were required to charge their revenue account for each financial year Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) to account for the repayment of principal in that financial year. The requirement to make this statutory provision was amended under regulation 28 in the Capital Finance Regulations 2008. The new regulation 28 sets out a duty for a Local Authority to make an amount of minimum revenue provision which it considers to be prudent.

146 6

5.2 Under regulation 28, Authorities are provided with a number of alternative approaches, which can be adopted for the purpose of calculating a ‘prudent provision’. The approach by an authority should be outlined in a statement and submitted to Council for consideration. The statement below outlines the approach that the Council has adopted to the calculation of its revenue provision with effect from 2007/2008.

5.3 For the purpose of making a revenue provision for government supported borrowing, the existing Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) method is used and by adopting this approach, the Council will make a 4% revenue provision for the repayment of supported borrowing each year.

5.4 To ensure that the provision made for borrowing undertaken by the Authority is ‘prudent’, for any borrowing under the Prudential system for which there has been is no Government support, the Council makes a provision in equal instalments over the estimated life of the asset for which the borrowing is undertaken (the Asset Life Method). This revenue provision for unsupported borrowing should be charged in addition to the provision for supported borrowing.

5.5 As detailed at 5.4, the current approach to applying the Asset Life method of calculating the revenue provision charge for unsupported borrowing is based on the equal installment approach where the profile of the provision is constant over the asset’s life. The guidance does allow Councils to use the annuity method for calculating revenue provision. This approach has the advantage of linking the revenue provision charge to the flow of economic benefits, which is more appropriate for calculating the revenue provision arising from Public Finance Initiatives (PFI).

5.6 It is the intention that, for the purpose of calculating the revenue provision for the Council’s PFI scheme, the Asset Life method of calculation is applied using the annuity method. The rationale for departing from the equal installment method (which it is proposed to retain for all other unsupported schemes) for this particular type of scheme is to ensure that the calculated charge more closely reflects the liability write down within the PFI financial model.

6. ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY

6.1 The Council will have regard to the CLG’s Guidance on Local Government Investments and CIPFA's Code of Practice in conducting its investment activity and the overriding priorities are that security and liquidity of funds are of paramount importance. .

6.2 In accordance with the above, and in order to minimise the risk to investments, the Council has a clearly stipulated minimum acceptable credit quality of Counterparties for inclusion on the Council’s lending list. The creditworthiness methodology used to create the Counterparty list takes account of the ratings provided by the three main ratings agencies. To support the assessment of institutions’ creditworthiness the Council utilises information provided by its Treasury Advisors, Sector, on Credit Default Swaps and this information is overlaid with the credit ratings. All investments

147 6

made during 2012/2013 will be in accordance with the Annual Investment Strategy which is detailed at Annex 2.

6.3 In keeping with previously approved Treasury Management Strategies, the Council has sought to lock into longer period investments where opportunities and Counterparty Criteria permits, whilst maximum strategic use of its call account facilities and Money Market Funds (MMF’s) has been made during the period for cash flow generated balances and to ensure sufficient liquidity. This practice will continue during 2012/2013, subject to: -

(iii) the outlook for medium term interest rates (i.e. to avoid locking into deals whilst investment rates are at historically low levels and there is a forecast pick-up in rates over the medium term);

(iv) the management of counterparty risk; and

(v) any opportunities to repay debt using available investments.

6.4 At the time of drafting this report, the Council has only two investments placed during 2011/2012 that span into 2012/2013 (and beyond). A contraction in the number of suitable Counterparties and significantly reduced rates being generally available within the market have meant that going forward such opportunities have been, and will be, more limited.

7 DEBT RESCHEDULING

7.1 Debt rescheduling has historically been undertaken in order to: -

(i) generate cash savings at minimum risk;

(ii) amend debt maturity profiles and/or the balance of volatility;

(iii) aid fulfilment of the Council's overall borrowing strategy.

7.2 Due to the expectation of short term borrowing rates being considerably cheaper than longer term rates, there may be some limited opportunities to generate savings by switching from long to short term debt. However, these savings will need to be considered in the light of their potentially short term nature and the likely cost of refinancing those short term loans, once they mature, compared to the current rates of longer term debt in the existing portfolio.

7.3 Consideration will also be given to the potential for making savings by running down investment balances by repaying debt prematurely (as short term investments are likely to be lower than rates paid on currently held debt). Premiums are also highly likely to compromise such opportunity.

7.4 It should be noted that the Prudential Code allows for the funding of premium costs arising from debt rescheduling to be financed by usable capital receipts. This adds another option for consideration in that such transactions could serve to reduce the Authority's liabilities arising from its borrowing activity and reduce revenue costs over the longer term.

148 6

7.5 Should rescheduling opportunities arise, prudence will be exercised at all times and any actions by officers will be reported in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Council's Treasury Management Practices.

8. TREASURY LIMITS AND PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS 2012/2013 TO 2014/2015

8.1 It is a statutory duty under Section 3 of the Local Government Act 2003 and supporting Regulations for the Council to determine and keep under review how much it can afford to borrow. The amount so determined is termed the "Affordable Borrowing Limit".

8.2 The Council must have regard to the Prudential Code when setting this limit. The Code also sets a series of other limits and indicators that the Council must consider.

8.3 The proposed limits and indicators required for approval for the three year period 2012/2013 to 2014/2015 are contained in Annex 3.

9. CIPFA CODE OF PRACTICE: TREASURY MANAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC SERVICES (THE CODE)

9.1 The then Executive approved formal adoption of the Code on 20 March 2002 and approval has been reiterated by Council in recent years, most latterly in approving the 2011/2012 Treasury Management Strategy.

9.2 All requirements of the Code are implemented through the governance frameworks, policies, systems, procedures and controls in place within the Council and will continue to be so. It is a requirement of the Code that the Council should formally adopt the Code and specifically the four Clauses contained at Annex 4 and the Treasury Management Policy Statement at Annex 5.

Annexes

1 Outlook for Interest Rates;

2 Annual Investment Strategy 2012/2013;

3 Treasury Limits and Prudential Indicators 2012/2013 to 2014/2015;

4 Adoption of the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services Code of Practice and Cross Sectoral Guidance Notes;

5 Treasury Management Policy Statement

149 6

Annex 1 OUTLOOK FOR INTEREST RATES

The data below shows a variety of forecasts published by a number of institutions. The table below provides individual forecasts including those of Sector, UBS and Capital Economics (an independent forecasting consultancy) whilst the second table represents summarised figures drawn from the population of all major City banks and academic institutions.

The data shows rates at the time of issue of the forecasts, not necessarily the current rates. The forecast within the strategy has been drawn from these diverse sources and officers' own views.

Interest Rate Forecasts

Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec Mar 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 Bank Rate Sector’s View 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25% 1.50% 2.00% 2.25% 2.50% 150 UBS 0.50%0.50%0.50%0.50% ------Capital Economics 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%0.50% - - - - - 5 year PWLB Rate Sector’s View 2.30% 2.30% 2.30% 2.40% 2.50% 2.60% 2.70% 2.80% 2.90% 3.10% 3.30% 3.50% 3.70% UBS ------Capital Economics 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%2.00% - - - - - 10 year PWLB Rate Sector’s View 3.30% 3.30% 3.40% 3.40% 3.50% 3.60% 3.70% 3.80% 4.00% 4.20% 4.40% 4.60% 4.80% UBS 3.45%3.50%3.60%3.65% ------Capital Economics 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%3.00% - - - - - 25 year PWLB Rate Sector’s View 4.20% 4.20% 4.30% 4.30% 4.40% 4.50% 4.60% 4.70% 4.80% 4.90% 5.00% 5.10% 5.20% UBS 4.90%4.90%4.90%4.90% ------Capital Economics 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% 4.30% 4.30%4.30% - - - - - 50 year PWLB Rate Sector’s View 4.30% 4.30% 4.40% 4.40% 4.50% 4.60% 4.70% 4.80% 4.90% 5.00% 5.10% 5.20% 5.30% UBS 4.95%4.95%5.00%5.00% ------Capital Economics 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40%4.40% - - - - - HM Treasury Independent Surveys

2012 2013 2014 2015 Q4 Average Average Average

Highest 1.80% 3.10% 4.10% 4.50%

Average 0.60% 1.20% 2.10% 3.10%

Lowest 0.10% 0.50% 0.90% 1.40% 151 6 6

Annex 2

ANNUAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2012/2013

1.0 Purpose

1.1 This Strategy is submitted to Council for approval in adherence with the guidance issued by the then ODPM under Section 15(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 2003.

1.2 It covers the financial period to 31 March 2013 and is complimentary to the Treasury Management Strategy 2012/2013 and the adopted Treasury Management Practices as required by the CIPFA Code of Practice: Treasury Management in the Public Services.

1.3 In doing so the Annual Investment Strategy sets out: -

Š which investments the Council may use for the prudent management of its surplus funds during the period, under the heads of Specified Investments and Non-Specified Investments;

Š the procedures for determining the use of each asset class;

Š the maximum periods for which funds may be prudently committed in each class;

Š the upper limits to be invested in each class;

Š the extent to which prior professional advice need be sought from the Council's Treasury Advisors prior to the use of each class; and

Š the minimum amount to be held in short-term investments.

2.0 Investment Objectives and Principles

2.1 The general policy objective for the Council is the prudent investment of its surplus funds. The Council's investment priorities are the security of capital and liquidity of investments.

2.2 The Council will aim to achieve the optimum return on its investments commensurate with the proper levels of security and liquidity and having properly assessed all inherent risks, as detailed in its Treasury Management Practices.

2.3 The Council will seek to ensure that temporary borrowing will not be made whilst the Council has investment funds available and its longer-term borrowing activity will have full regard to the content of CIPFA's Prudential Code and the Authority's own approved Treasury Strategy. In particular, the Council will not engage in treasury borrowing activity that is solely for the purposes of investment or on lending to make a return.

152 6

3.0 Specified and Non-Specified Investment Types

3.1 Investment instruments are broadly classified within government guidance as being Specified or Non-Specified.

3.2 Non-specified Investments are those investments not meeting the definition of a specified investment and, inherently, are subject to greater degrees of treasury risk. They do, however, offer some potential diversification as part of an overall strategy, and as a result, a small number are identified as being potentially suitable for use, subsequent to prior consultation and advice from the Council's appointed Treasury Management consultants.

3.3 In assessing the relative characteristics of each possible instrument type, the risk attached in their use and how their use would assist in the delivery/achievement of the Council's investment objectives and principles, Annex A has been prepared to detail those instruments that Officers propose may be used as part of the investment strategy.

4.0 Credit and Counterparty Policies

4.1 The Council relies on credit ratings published by three independent Rating Agencies to establish the credit quality of Counterparties (issuers and issues) and investment schemes. Credit rating lists are reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure prompt action to remove institutions whose ratings fall below the Council’s threshold.

4.2 In addition to credit ratings the Council now also considers Credit Default Swaps (CDS’s) when making investment decisions. CDS’s serve as an ‘early warning system’ and therefore Investments are only made with Counterparties whose CDS, where available, is within the range advised as acceptable by the Council’s Treasury Management Advisors. Sovereign ratings have also been incorporated into the Counterparty policy since 2009/2010.

4.3 Delegation has been granted to the Assistant Chief Executive (Finance) in relation to the criteria by which the Authority's lending list is compiled for its internally managed investments. The criteria proposed for adoption during 2012/2013 is contained at Annex B.

5.0 Liquidity of Investments

5.1 The need to ensure liquidity by the continuous management and monitoring of the Authority's cash transactions and resource is one of the key objectives of the Treasury function and liquidity risk management is fully considered and documented in the Authority's Treasury Management Practices.

5.2 The limits included in Annex A are a reflection of the overriding importance of liquidity, and in addition to those, as a general rule, the Authority will aim to ensure that it has a minimum 15% of its investments held with a maturity period

153 6

of less than one week at all times. Where cashflow expectations dictate, this general rule will be amended accordingly.

6.0 Investment Strategy - Internally Managed Investments

6.1 All investments made during the duration of this Strategy will be in full compliance thereof.

6.2 Decisions, taken within the framework, regarding the period and type of investment, will be taken having regard to future cashflow requirements and likely interest rate movements. A suitable proportion of investments will be held "at call" for contingent purposes to allow for any significant investment opportunities for longer periods that may come available.

6.3 In keeping with the approved Treasury Management Strategies of recent years, the static base rate has led the Council to, where possible, seek to lock into fixed rate deals at advantageous rates through the use of special tranche deals. This practice will continue during 2012/2013, subject to: -

(i) the outlook for medium term interest rates (i.e. to avoid locking into deals whilst investment rates are at historically low levels and there is a forecast pick-up in rates over the medium term);

(ii) the management of Counterparty risk; and

(iii) any opportunities to repay debt using available investments.

6.4 Maximum strategic use will be made of the Council's competitive call account facilities and the AAA rated money market funds to which the Council has access during the period.

7.0 Investment Strategy - Externally Managed Funds

7.1 The Council currently does not engage any Fund Managers to invest monies on its behalf. This position was arrived at following a review of Fund Manager activity and the decision of January 2007 to repatriate funds held by its then Fund Manager.

7.2 Arrangements for the re-engagement of Fund Managers at some point in the future will be considered in consultation with the appointed Treasury Management consultants. Where it is considered that the engagement of a Fund Manager is warranted, then a full tender exercise will be considered and a formal agreement entered into to determine the scope of activity.

154 6

8.0 Reporting Arrangements

8.1 Council will receive reports on Treasury Management activity and risks as part of the Corporate Financial Report, which shall initially be considered by the Cabinet.

8.2 Additionally, Council will receive, via Cabinet, an end of year report in relation to the activity undertaken in the proceeding year and a review of performance relative to the approved Strategy.

8.3 As a minimum, a mid-year Strategy review will also be undertaken and the Audit and Governance Committee will consider this.

155 6

Annex A

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS (ENGLAND) SPECIFIED VERSUS NON-SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS

The English Investment Guidance issued by the then ODPM on 22 March 2004 defined Local Government investments as being either 'Specified' or 'Non-Specified'. The Guidance was, however, non-prescriptive in classifying the various investment instruments available into either of these categories. Indeed, in a continually changing market where new innovative 'products' are frequently being introduced it would be extremely problematical, if not impossible, to do so.

Much focus and emphasis is therefore placed on that element of the Guidance which states that Specified investments should require 'minimal procedural formalities'. The Council's appointed Treasury Management advisors have discussed this issue with the DCLG, who have expressed their desire to see Local Authorities apply the spirit of the Guidance rather than focus on a legalistic approach to the meaning of words in the Guidance. The spirit of the Guidance is that investment products which take on greater risk and therefore should be subject to greater scrutiny should be subject to more rigorous justification and agreement of their use in the Annual Investment Strategy and so should fall into the Non-Specified category.

The following tables have been drafted on that basis.

156 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS (England) SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS

All "Specified Investments" listed below must be sterling-denominated with maturities of up to 1 year

Investment Repayable/ Security/ Use for Maximum Redeemable Minimum Managing Period within 12 Credit Internal Months? Rating Investments?

Debt Management Agency Deposit Facility Yes Govt-backed Yes 6 months (DMADF) Term deposits with the UK Government or with UK Yes High security Yes 1 year Local Authorities (i.e. Local Authorities as defined although LAs under Section 23 of the 2003 Act) with maturities up not credit to 1 year rated Term deposits with credit-rated deposit takers Yes See* Yes 1 year 157 (Banks and Building Societies), with maturities up to 1 year Money Market Funds (i.e. a collective investment Yes Yes : AAA Yes The period of investment may scheme as defined in SI 2004 No. 534) not be determined at the outset These funds do not have any maturity date but would be subject to cash flow and liquidity requirements Forward deals with credit rated Banks and Building Yes See* Yes 1 year in aggregate Societies < 1 year (i.e. negotiated deal period plus period of deposit) Callable deposits with credit rated Banks and Yes See* Yes 1 year Building Societies, with maturities not exceeding 1 year Call Account Facilities with credit rated deposit Yes See* Yes N/A takers (Banks and Building Societies)

* Subject to approved credit rating criteria as determined within the Annual Investment Strategy or as a result of delegation exercised by the Assistant Chief Executive (Finance) in accordance with approved Treasury Management Practices 6 6

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT (England) NON-SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS

Investment Repayable/ Security/ Use for Maximum Redeemable Minimum Managing Maturity within Credit Internal of 12 months? Rating Investments? Investments Term deposits with credit rated No See* Yes 3 years deposit takers (Banks and Building Societies) with maturities greater than 1 year Term deposits with the UK No High Security although LAs Yes 3years Government or with UK Local not credit rated Authorities with maturities greater than 1 year Certificates of Deposit with credit Yes See* Yes – after 3 years

158 rated deposit takers (Banks and consultation with Building Societies) Treasury Consultants Custodial arrangement required prior to purchase Callable deposits with credit rated Potentially See* Yes 3 years deposit takers (Banks and Building Societies) with maturities greater than 1 year Forward deposits with credit rated No See* Yes – after 3 years in aggregate Banks and Building Societies for consultation/advice periods > 1 year (i.e. negotiated from Treasury deal period plus period of deposit) Consultants Structured Deposits where Potentially N/A Potentially – after 3 years investment returns are determinant consultation with on how specified interest rate Treasury Consultants structures move over a determined period * Subject to approved credit rating criteria as determined within the Annual Investment Strategy or as a result of delegation exercised by the Assistant Chief Executive (Finance) in accordance with approved Treasury Management Practices. Annex B

Counterparty Criteria (2012/2013)

Counterparty Category Credit Ratings Maximum Maximum Long Term Short Term Individual Support CDS Sovereign Investment (1) Period (i) Nationalised Banks See below (2) £25m Until 13 April £35m for RBS 2014 incl. ‘on group call’ (ii) Authorised institutions who are The 2008 Credit Guarantee Scheme (3) £25m Until 13 April covered by the UK Government 2014 including banking support package ‘on call’ (iii) Money Market Funds AAA Rated (4) £25m per MMF On call (£100m total) (iv) Other Local Authorities and AAA Rated £50m 2 years Public Bodies AA- and F1+ B and above 1 or 2 In Range AA+ £25m 2 years 159 Authorised institutions (under the above (v) Banking Act 1987) which hold a AA- and F1 B and above 1 or 2 In Range AA+ £15m 12 months suitable credit rating above A+ F1 or above B and above 1 or 2 In Range AA+ £5m 3 months (vi) Call accounts held with AA- and F1+ B and above 1 or 2 In Range AA+ £25m On call authorised institutions (under the above Banking Act 1987) which hold a AA- and F1 B and above 3 In Range AA+ £10m On call suitable credit rating above AA- and F1+ B and above 1 or 2 N/A AA+ £15m 12 months above Building Societies which hold a (vii) AA- and F1 B and above 1 or 2 N/A AA+ £10m 6 months suitable credit rating above A+ F1 or above B and above 1 or 2 N/A AA+ £5m 3 months

. 6 6

Notes to Counterparty Criteria

1. For each institution meeting the criteria identified above and subject to the limits for maximum investments, no single investment transaction should be undertaken for more than £10m.

2. In interpreting the lending criteria detailed above, it should be accepted that the Nationalised banks in the UK, that is Lloyds Group and Royal Bank of Scotland Group, have credit ratings which do not conform to the credit criteria usually used by Local Authorities to identify banks which are of high credit worthiness. In particular, as they no longer are separate institutions in their own right, it is impossible for Fitch to assign them an individual rating for their stand-alone financial strength. However, these intuitions are now recipients of an F1+ short term rating as they effectively take on the credit worthiness of the Government itself i.e. deposits made with them are effectively being made to the Government. They also have a support rating of 1; in other words, on both counts, they have the highest ratings possible. Until such time as a decision is made by the Government to dispose of their interests in these banks, investments with these institutions can be made on the basis that they meet the highest criteria.

3. The UK Government has underlined its determination to ensure the security of the UK banking system by supporting Eligible Institutions via the 2008 Credit Guarantee Scheme. The scheme became operational on 13th October 2008 and closed to new issuance on 28th February 2010. This guarantee has been factored into the lending list criteria as shown above and this will terminate on 13th April 2014. Following closure of the draw down window on 28th February 2010, the Eligible Institutions are:

x Lloyds TSB; x Bank of Scotland; x Barclays Bank; x Nationwide Building Society; and x Royal Bank of Scotland.

4. Each individual Money Market Fund (MMF) used must be separately approved by the Assistant Chief Executive (Finance) by way of an Administrative Decision.

160 6

Annex 3

TREASURY LIMITS AND PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS 2012/2013 TO 2014/2015

2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 Estimates Estimates Estimates Capital Expenditure (£M) 44.343 11.569 8.206

Ratio of financing cost to net 8.29%* 9.01%* 8.77%* revenue stream

Net Borrowing Requirement (£M) External Borrowing (£M) 73.376 73.372 73.368 Investments Held (£M) (145.00) (135.00) (125.00) Net Requirement (£M) (71.624) (61.628) (51.632)

In Year Capital Financing (6.289)* (6.450)* (6.257)* Requirement (£M)

Capital Financing Requirement as at 138.336 131.887 125.630 31 March (£M)

Incremental impact of capital N/A N/A N/A investment decisions (increase in Council Tax Band D equivalent)

Authorised Limit for External Debt 118.811* 117.236* 115.621* (£M)

Operational Limit for External Debt 108.596* 108.436* 108.060* (£M)

Actual External Debt (£M) 73.376 73.372 73.368

Upper Limit for Fixed Interest Rate 100% 100% 100% Exposure

Upper Limit for Variable Interest 50% 50% 50% Rate Exposure

Upper Limit for Sums Invested over 60% 60% 60% 365 Days * The calculation of these indicators include the estimated impact of the Rainford PFI scheme.

161 6

Annex 4

Adoption of the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services Code of Practice and Cross-Sectoral Guidance Notes

The 2011 revision of the CIPFA Code recommends that all public service bodies formally adopt four specific clause s as contained in the Code. All requirements of the Code are implemented through the governance frameworks, policies, systems, procedures and controls in place within the Council and will continue to be so. For completeness it is recommended that Council formally approve the following: -

1. The Council will create and maintain, as the cornerstones for the effective treasu r y management: -

x A treasury management policy statement, stating the policies, objectives and approaches to risk management of its treasury management activities.

x Suitable treasury management practices (TMPs), setting out the manner in which the organization will seek to achieve those policies and objectives, and prescribing how it will manage and control those activities.

2. The Council will receive reports on its treasury management policies, practices and activities, including, as a minimum, an annual strategy and plan in advance of the year, a mid year review and an annual report after its close, in the form prescribed in its TMPs.

3. The Council delegates responsibility for the implementation and regular monitoring of its Treasury Management policies and practices to the Executive, and for the execution and administration of Treasury Management decisions in accordance with its Constitutional provisions to the Assistant Chief Executive (Finance), who will act in accordance with the Council’s approved Policy Statement and TMP’s and the CIPFA Standard of Professional Practice on Treasury Management.

4. The Council nominates the Audit and Governance Committee to be responsible for ensuring effective scrutiny of the treasury management strategy and policies.

162 6

Annex 5

Treasury Management Policy Statement

The policies and objectives of the Treasury Management function are defined as follows.

1. Treasury Management is "the management of the Authority's investments and cash flows; its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks".

2. The successful identification, monitoring and control of risks is the prime criteria by which the effectiveness of its Treasury Management activities will be measured. Accordingly, the analysis and reporting of Treasury Management activities will focus on their risk implications for the organisation.

3. It is acknowledged that effective Treasury Management will provide support towards the achievement of its business and service objectives and the Authority is committed to the principles of value for money in Treasury Management, and to employing suitable comprehensive performance measurement techniques within the context of effective risk management.

163 6

Appendix 3 EARMARKED BALANCES

Purpose Process for Use

Service Development Fund

To provide time-limited funding to investigate, Projects will require clearly defined and analyse, review and/or project manage activities measurable outputs and be supporting key with defined objectives to develop services objectives within the Corporate Plan. Accessed via Administrative/Executive Decision by Chief Executive and Leader of the Council

Service Modernisation Fund

To provide cover for non-recurring costs linked to Projects will require clearly defined and the modernisation of existing services, such as measurable outputs and be supporting key restructuring costs, pump-priming funds, specialist objectives within the Corporate Plan. Accessed activities via Administrative/Executive Decision by Chief Executive and Leader of the Council

Care Services Transitional Demand Fund

To provide temporary funding for unforeseen Uses will require clear analysis of the demand fluctuations in demand for care services to allow pressures and potential strategies to manage Portfolios and the Council to implement longer them in the medium term term solutions to those changes

164 Appendix 4

ASPIRATIONAL 2012/13 CAPITAL PROGRAMME 165 COMMITMENTS AND NEW STARTS 6 6

2012/13 Commitments based on existing Programme Scheme Estimated Costs Total Unsupported Capital Designated Grants and Total £000 Borrowing Receipts Revenue Other £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 De La Salle (BSF) 9,600 9,600 9,600 BSF ICT Grant 2,699 2,699 2,699 Sutton Academy 6,600 6,600 6,600 Education Capital Maintenance 750 750 750 Devolved Formula Capital for Schools 800 800 800 Education Basic Need 430 430 430 St.Helens City Learning Centre 115 115 115 Red Bank 246 246 246 Harnessing Technology 85 85 85 Computers for Pupils 160 160 160 Youth Capital Fund 6 6 6 Adult Social Care 850 850 850 166 Planning Delivery Grant 280 280 280 Ground Conditions Survey 50 50 50 St.Marys Market Refurbishment 150 150 150 Housing Assistance, Enabling, Clearance & Enforcement 201 201 201 Disabled Facilities Grants 1,139 1,139 1,139 Gypsy and Traveller Site 1,127 1,127 1,127 Community Safety Schemes 314 314 314 Contact Centre & ICT 345 345 345 Environmental Improvements: Passageways 1,000 1,000 1,000 Carbon Reduction Initiatives 900 900 900 Recycling / Waste Minimisation 979 580 399 979 Queens Park Recreation Ground 91 91 91 Sherdley Park Regeneration 118 118 118 Vehicle Replacement Programme 700 700 700 Victoria Park Heritage Lottery 2,543 190 2,353 2,543 Section 106 Arrangements / Miscellaneous Schemes 161 161 161 Blackbrook Diversion 641 641 641 Inner Ring Road Phase 4 130 130 130 Junction Lane Bridge 93 93 93 Scheme Estimated Costs Total Unsupported Capital Designated Grants and Total £000 Borrowing Receipts Revenue Other £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Atlas Street 82 82 82 Cycling Schemes 140 140 140 BLISS 563 234 329 563 Totals 34,088 934 3,762 190 29,202 34,088

2012/13 Capital Allocations and Proposed New Schemes

Scheme Estimated Costs

Commitments 2012/13 Total Unsupported Capital Designated Grants Total B/fwd New £000 Borrowing Receipts Revenue and £000 £000 Starts £000 £000 Sources Other £000 £000 £000 167 Commitments Carried Forward from 34,088 34,088 934 3,762 190 29,202 34,088 Previous Years

Capital Allocations

Education Capital Maintenance 1,782 1,782 1,782 1,782 Devolved Formula Capital for Schools 348 348 348 348 Education Basic Need 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068 Adult Social Care 516 516 516 516 Disabled Facilities Grant 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 Local Transport Plan 2,520 2,520 2,520 2,520

Proposed New Schemes

Local Car Parking Facilities 1,000 1,000 1,000 Recycling Facilities Improvements 1,000 1,000 1,000 Highways, Footpaths & Alleyways Improvements 1,000 1,000 1,000 Totals 34,088 10,255 44,343 934 6,762 190 36,457 44,343 6 6

168 ASPIRATIONAL 2013/14 CAPITAL PROGRAMME

COMMITMENTS AND NEW STARTS 2013/14 Commitments based on existing Programme

Scheme Estimated Costs

Total Unsupported Capital Designated Grants Total £000 Borrowing Receipts Revenue and £000 £000 £000 Sources Other £000 £000 BSF ICT Grant 950 950 950 Sutton Academy 1,397 1,397 1,397 Vehicle Replacement Programme 700 700 700 Victoria Park Heritage Lottery 990 173 817 990 BLISS 147 35 112 147 Cycling Schemes 110 110 110 Ground Conditions Survey 50 50 50

Totals 4,344 735 50 173 3,386 4,344

169 2013/14 Capital Allocations

Scheme Estimated Costs

Commitments 2013/14 Total Unsupported Capital Designated Grants Total B/fwd New £000 Borrowing Receipts Revenue and £000 £000 Starts £000 £000 Sources Other £000 £000 £000 Commitments Carried Forward from 4,344 4,344 735 50 173 3,386 4,344 Previous Years

Main Plans Education Capital Maintenance 1,782 1,782 1,782 1,782 Devolved Formula Capital for Schools 348 348 348 348 Education Basic Need 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068 Adult Social Services 516 516 516 516 Disabled Faclilities Grant 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 Local Transport Plan 2,490 2,490 2,490 2,490 Totals 4,344 7,225 11,569 735 50 173 10,611 11,569 6 6

ASPIRATIONAL 2014/15 CAPITAL PROGRAMME 170

COMMITMENTS AND NEW STARTS 2014/15 Commitments based on existing Programme

Scheme Estimated Costs Funding

Total Single Unsupported Capital Designated Grants Total £000 Capital Pot Borrowing Receipts Revenue and £000 £000 £000 £000 Sources Other £000 £000

Vehicle Replacement Programme 700 700 700 Victoria Park Heritage Lottery 87 15 72 87 Ground Condition Survey 50 50 50 Cycling Schemes 60 60 60 Totals 897 0 700 50 15 132 897

2014/15 Capital Allocations Scheme Estimated Costs Funding 171

Commitments 2014/15 Total Single Unsupported Capital Designated Grants Total B/fwd New £000 Capital Pot Borrowing Receipts Revenue and £000 £000 Starts £000 £000 £000 Sources Other £000 £000 £000

Commitments Carried Forward from 897 897 0 700 50 15 132 897 Previous Years

Main Plans Education Capital Maintenance 1,782 1,782 1,782 1,782 Devolved Formula Capital for Schools 348 348 348 348 Education Basic Need 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,068 Adult Social Services 516 516 516 516 Disabled Faclilities Grant 1,021 1,021 1,021 1,021 Local Transport Plan 2,574 2,574 2,574 2,574 Totals 897 7,309 8,206 0 700 50 15 7,441 8,206 6 6

Appendix 5 Adjustments to Cash limits 2012-2013

Previous Revised Variance Note Reported (Cabinet 4.01.12) £000 £000 £000 Children & Young People Services 31,013 32,658 Adult Social Care & Health 46,220 45,594 Changes Urban Regeneration & Housing 10,917 10,890 reflect Environmental Protection 21,075 21,003 revised Corporate Services & External 4,751 6,547 portfolio Affairs responsibilities Culture, Sport & Leisure 7,232 7,208 (Section 4.2) Family Intervention & Safer 4,442 1,795 Communities PORTFOLIO TOTAL 125,650 125,695 +45 (a)

Levies 25,865 25,263 -602 (b) Contribution to/from -213 -213 0 Earmarked balances Revenue Contribution to Capital 190 190 0 Treasury Management 10,713 10,668 -45 (c) Restructuring Costs 1,732 1,910 +178 (d) Capital Charges -16,627 -16,627 0 Pensions – Fixed Cost Element 4,636 4,636 0 TOTAL SPEND 151,946 151,522 -424 0 Formula Grant -84,608 -84,608 Local Services Support Grant -483 -483 0 New Homes Bonus -700 -700 0 Collection Fund Surplus / Deficit 0 102 +102 (e) Council Tax -66,155 -65,833 +322 (f) TOTAL INCOME -151,946 -151,522 +424

NET FINANCIAL POSITION 0 0 0

Notes £000 £000 (a) Revised Support Service Charges ( Treasury Management) 45+ - see ( c) below

(b) Reduced Levy Costs – see Section 4.4 602-

(c) Revisions to Treasury Management forecasts – see (a) above 45-

(d) Increase in Restructuring Costs – see Section 4.6 178+

(e) Increased Collection Fund Deficit 102+

(f) Reduction in proposed Council Tax increase from 2.5% to 2.0% 322+

TOTAL VARIATION 0

172 6

Appendix 6

173 6

174 6

St.Helens Plan Creating a better place, improving people’s lives and delivering effectively together

2012-15

175 6

Contents

Title Page No

1. Foreword 3

2. Our Vision for St.Helens 5

3. Improving People’s Lives 6

Healthy and Active 6

Skilled and Educated 8

Independent and Empowered 10

4. Creating a Better Place 12

Stronger and Safer 12

Cleaner, Greener and Accessible 14

Thriving, Vibrant and Competitive 16

5. Delivering Effectively Together 18

Principles and Values 18

How we work 19

Managing our Performance 20

Consultation, Engagement and Empowerment 21

Membership 22

Appendix 1 – Financial Summary 23

Appendix 2 – St Helens Plan Key measures of Performance and Targets 26

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 176 2 6

Foreword

Welcome to St Helens Plan 2012-15.

The Plan is our principal strategy that sets the direction both the Council and wider partnership will take over the coming three years to deliver our shared aspirations for the future.

The Plan is driven by our desire to make a lasting difference to St Helens and its communities, improving the social, economic and environmental well-being of the area for all. An extensive network of partnerships, strategies, delivery arrangements engagement processes and statistical analyses have informed its development.

The Plan contains our shared priorities, summary details of the joint actions that we will take to deliver our vision, and a listing of the key indicators, which we will monitor to measure our progress. The appendix to the Plan summarises the financial context in which we operate, as well as listing our targets for the next 3-years.

We believe that these targets are challenging, and along with its partners, the Council is right to strive for continuous improvement in the delivery of services and the well-being of the Borough. Inevitably however, our ability to deliver has to be tempered by the impact of a number of external factors over which we have limited control.

The first is the wider global economic environment. The Government has already acknowledged the continuing slow down in the economy and the lower than predicted growth rate. 2011 was a grim year for employment in the UK, with rising unemployment, particularly youth unemployment and an increase in the average duration. With weak or even negative growth now forecast for the coming year, unemployment is likely to continue to rise. Although, official labour market statistics show that St Helens is currently holding its own against the North West average in terms of economic activity, it is uncertain how the prevailing economic climate will impact on the Borough and its inhabitants in the future, as well as the wider region.

Therefore, these are challenging times for both the Council and the wider partnership. In addition to concerns about the future local economy, for the last 18 months we have seen ourselves staring down the double barrel of severe reductions in public sector funding and significant impending new legislation, both of which could potentially have a profound impact on the delivery of services and our communities who rely on them.

In terms of expenditure reductions, all local public sector services have been affected by the cuts. However, it seems as if local government has been unfairly targeted, and St Helens more so than many. Last year we were hit with an unprecedented £28 million reduction following the toughest local government settlement in living memory and in 2012-13 we are faced with a further £8 million reduction. The concern is that there will be no immediate future respite from these cuts and the prospect of further significant reductions and pressures in the coming years looms all too large.

In terms of proposed legislation, there are a number of areas of concern where further detail is still required. Firstly, the outcome of the Local Government Finance Bill will be potentially game changing and presents some very real risks to current service delivery.

A key element of this Bill is the large degree of uncertainty around the proposals to localise the collection and retention of Business Rates. However, there is a risk that in the medium to long-term that the measure could have a significant impact on the future resources available to the Council. The Government believes that the localisation of

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 177 3 6

business rates is a further step towards stimulation of local economic growth. Business rates are currently set nationally, collectively pooled and redistributed according to need. Under the new proposals there is a grave danger that relatively less prosperous areas like St Helens will be set to lose enormous amounts of funding. Over a prolonged period as a partnership we have actively and successfully worked to increase inward investment and business development. However, given our levels of relative deprivation, we see no fair case for linking the ability to increase the industrial and commercial rateable value base to our future ability to fund key services such as adult and children’s social care, particularly in times of economic uncertainty and austerity.

The transfer of responsibilities from central to local government for Council Tax Benefit is a further component of the Finance Bill that has the potential to greatly reduce resource availability, further placing vital services at risk and impacting on some of the least well off in our communities. The constraints of a reduced cash limited pot for this key benefit will again have a disproportionate effect on areas of greater relative deprivation. With reduced funding available to them, council’s will be asked to decide who gets financial support and to what level. Although we will work together as a partnership to protect the most vulnerable within our communities, ensuring they are not pushed further towards the poverty line, the choice we are likely to face is cutting the extent of Council Tax benefit for certain groups, or reducing expenditure on services.

A number of further Government policy areas and measures also promise fundamental change and raise the risk profile of the Council and its partners. The Health and Social Care Bill will bring about the integration of public health functions within councils, the dismantling of PCTs, and the establishment of new commissioning arrangements. Our challenge is to manage these significant changes and associated costs whilst maintaining the quality of services at a time of increasing demand and diminishing resources.

In the realm of children’s services the Government has assigned local authorities additional responsibilities for the provision of free nursery places for 2-year olds from the most deprived families. Again there is the uncertainty around who will qualify and whether the finance allocated from central government is adequate to cover demand of this additional responsibility. If not additional pressure will be added to the provision of other services. What is certain, however, is that there has been a freeze on the level of school funding per pupil through the Dedicated School Grant.

In spite of this challenging position, effective leadership and management have allowed us so far to minimise the impact on services to our communities and continue to provide vital services to the most vulnerable. We have continued to promote the principles of fair access to care services, with no change in the eligibility criteria for adult social care. Equally, there has been no reduction in the level of support we provide for vulnerable children and young people. Unlike many, we have also been able to maintain our levels of library and leisure service provision, and we have found additional resources to support the Town Centre and local businesses.

Additionally, the partnership can point to successes and continued progress across a broad range of areas. Levels of educational attainment and skills continue to improve. We have enjoyed great success in reducing the incidence of crime and disorder. The health of local people is improving, growing numbers of people are being assisted to live independently and there is strong satisfaction with the local social care provision. New house building continues to buck the national trend and we have made great strides forward in the standards and choice of housing. Economic development continues with the completion of the new Saints Stadium and additional commercial business space. Local businesses are reporting increases in exports and sales despite the wider economic conditions. Further details of our successes can be found inside St Helens Plan, and we

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 178 4 6 will continue to report progress in our Annual Report on the Council’s website and on the St Helens Together LSP Website.

This is not too say that in the future what we plan to achieve and what we have achieved to date will not be diminished by the far reaching changes to new legislation and funding already outlined.

In the face of both austerity and adversity, together we remain strongly committed to addressing the evidenced priority needs contained within this plan, supporting our most vulnerable people and neighbourhoods, and protecting our front-line services.

Succeeding with these plans will require a shared ongoing effort requiring greater communication, shared intelligence, smarter joint working, revised detailed business and delivery plans, sharing of resources and continual ongoing dialogue.

Please read the Plan and visit our websites to see what is happening, what we are planning to do together, the progress being made and what you can do to help. We would encourage you to get involved and have your say and look forward to continued progress over the course of the next year.

Chairperson, St.Helens Local Strategic Partnership Chief Executive, Leader of St.Helens Council St.Helens Council

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 179 5 6

2. Our Vision for St.Helens

People are at the heart of our Vision and our overall aim is to work ‘Together’ to improve lives and create a better living and working environment for our residents and for visitors to the borough. Since 2002 the Council, our Partners and local people have shared the same long-term vision:

“To make St.Helens a modern, distinctive, economically prosperous and vibrant Borough”

The Plan covers the three years from 2012-2015 and this 2012 revision is themed on ‘People’ and ‘Place’, setting out our main areas of focus and our top priorities for the area that are realistic in the current era of austerity. The Plan and its priorities will continually be shaped by analysis of the very latest intelligence and needs assessment data, by widespread partnership, organisational and community engagement and by externally driven change.

Progress made so far is set out and the Plan is supported by separate detailed 3-year Council Departmental Business Plans and LSP Delivery Plans, outlining how we will progress the vision and deliver services but tailored to an outlook of severe public spending constraints. What can be done will be done and an extensive performance reporting process continually ensures that progress is monitored, maintained and transparent to all. What we want to achieve

Improving People’s Lives We want people to be: HEALTHY & ACTIVE SKILLED & EDUCATED INDEPENDENT & EMPOWERED

Creating a Better Place We want St Helens to be: A SAFER & STRONGER PLACE A CLEANER, GREENER AND ACCESSIBLE PLACE A THRIVING, VIBRANT & COMPETITIVE PLACE

Delivering Effectively Together We want all Partners to: SHARE THE SAME PRINCIPLES & VALUES CONSULT, ENGAGE & EMPOWER OUR COMMUNITIES BE OPEN, ACCESSIBLE & TRANSPARENT BE SUCCESSFUL

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 180 6 3. Improving Peoples Lives 6 We want people to be Healthy and Active

Our aim is for everyone to enjoy a better quality of life by staying healthier for longer. We will work to reduce health inequalities and promote healthy, active and independent lifestyles. We will improve the health and wellbeing of our children and young people so they grow up healthy, happy and able to contribute to the community in which they live.

Successes to date

9People in St.Helens are living longer. Fewer people smoke and the number of premature deaths through cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancers and respiratory diseases continue to reduce.

9Progress in health promotion and tackling health inequalities in all age groups is broad from increased breastfeeding, schools that are SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) qualified, participation in physical activities, improved diets and early medical diagnosis and action to reduce teenage pregnancy, obesity levels and risk-taking behaviour.

9The Health Checks Plus campaign is successfully diagnosing and reducing the risk of major illnesses. In 2010-11 over 7,500 people were checked in St Helens. The programme has been successful in reducing the risk of premature death by identifying long-term conditions that are subsequently treatable.

9A wide range of projects under the ‘Healthy Schools’ banner are successfully promoting the physical emotional and social well-being of children in the Borough. All schools in St Helens have now achieved the Healthy School standard. A key outcome has been the significant reductions in childhood obesity at Reception age.

9The Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), now in its fifth year, is researched and produced by the Council and the Primary Care Trust. It identifies the health and well-being needs of the local population and links them to the wider determinants of health such as housing, employment, environment and health inequalities. The JSNA supports effective health commissioning and targeted service provision

9The Active St. Helens Strategy revised in 2010 increases the focus on healthy living and supporting individuals to make positive health choices. The refurbishment of Queens Park leisure centre showcases how better facilities and more involvement in sports and leisure can increase participation in physical activity and help to improve health and reduce obesity.

Our priorities are:

o Improving health and reducing health inequalities so that local people live longer o Improving the health and wellbeing of children and young people o Increasing participation in sporting and cultural activities

Delivering our priorities

The Government now emphasises the need for fully integrated strategies for public health, children’s services and the NHS. In the duration of this plan, responsibility for public health services will transfer to local authorities and GPs will have a greater role in commissioning services within a St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 181 7 National Framework. Government policy encourages greater social responsibility including doing 6 more to promote and maintain personal and family health, well-being and healthier lifestyles. In a difficult financial climate community and voluntary groups are expected to play an ever more important role in encouraging and supporting people to get involved in sports, the arts and culture.

Our immediate focal points for action are: Key Plans and Strategies supporting delivery: o To work effectively with all partners through the Shadow Health and Well-being Board to St.Helens Council Business Plans and LSP manage the significant changes in national Thematic Group Delivery Plans health policy to ensure the provision of responsive health services that meet local The Adult Support Foundation Plan need and improve outcomes in the long term. St Helens Children and Young People’s Plan o Continuing to tackle inequalities in health Ambition for Health between neighbourhoods and reducing Active St.Helens Strategy 2010-15 premature mortality rates, promoting a preventative approach to ill health to reduce Arts Strategy the risk factors that cause heart disease, stroke, cancers and related diseases. Visit www.sthelenstogether.org.uk for details of key Plans andd Strategies o Reducing infant mortality through: increasing breastfeeding, reducing teenage conception, reducing smoking in pregnancy, increasing immunisation rates and improving access to antenatal care. o To promote a strategic approach to mental health, ensuring the actions of all partners acknowledge the importance of protecting and improving mental health and wellbeing in our local communities. o To ensure action around intervention and effective treatment services to reduce the impact of alcohol on people’s health and on services across the age spectrum. o To revise and implement the weight management strategy to reduce the impact of obesity related conditions. o To continue to implement the new Teenage Pregnancy Plan that includes strengthening the sex and relationships curriculum and improving access to contraception. o To increase the level of physical activity undertaken by children and adults and to promote healthy lifestyles, a series of initiatives are planned or already underway.

o Ensure that transport and spatial planning options are developed in ways that contribute to improved health outcomes.

Our key measures of success are: Ref No Description of indicator

CYP-03a Percentage of infants breastfed at 6-8 weeks

CYP-04 Obesity among primary school children in reception year CYP01 Under 18 conception rate

ASC-05a Mortality rate, all age, all cause (male) per 1000 population ASC-05b Mortality rate, all age, all cause (female) per 1000 population ASC-06 Number of smoking quitters per 100,000 population CC-04 Number of visits to sports centres and attendance at activities supported by sports development

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 182 8 6 Improving People’s Lives

We want people to be Skilled and Educated

Our aim is to increase skills levels and attainment of local people, particularly families and young people. We want children and young people to enjoy their childhood, achieve their potential and succeed as adults. We want people to choose to live, work and study here and help create and attract new enterprises. We will support social and personal development, particularly for marginalised groups, to improve access to wider employment opportunities, and enable people to contribute fully to a thriving local community.

Successes to date

9Educational standards at all school levels have improved hugely in recent years. We perform well against national benchmarks and other similar authorities. At GCSE level in 2011, we achieved our best score to date, with over 82% of pupils achieving 5 GCSEs at grades A* to C.

9Our nursery and primary schools are ensuring the learning and development of young children (0-5 years old) is progressing well. More children from lower-income families are doing better than similar children in similar areas and the gap between the lowest achieving and the average continues to decrease.

9Joint working between the Council, schools and other agencies has seen St Helens achieve the national target for improving school attendance and reducing absenteeism. At the same time we have reduced exclusions from schools, with no pupils being permanently excluded.

9Working age population skills levels have increased and the gap between St.Helens and other NW authorities has decreased. In particular the numbers of young people aged 19 improving their skill levels has increased. Numbers of adult learners continues to grow and the Adult and Community team continues to work with many people who have few or no qualifications to raise literacy and numeracy skills.

9We have successfully secured over £2.2 million in external funding to deliver a programme to increase employment and skills levels across the Borough. Our successful Graduate and School Leaver Programmes continue to create opportunities for young people not in education, training or employment.

9A considerable and successful focus has been placed on developing and supporting employment and training opportunities for people with learning disabilities through the social firm New Ventures.

9We have continued to invest in our libraries, ensuring more computer facilities, homework facilities for young people and more opportunities for adults to develop their skills.

Our priorities are:

o Improving the educational attainment of children and young people. o Improving the skills and learning of local people, particularly families and young people.

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 183 9 6 Delivering our priorities The current economic climate, significant welfare reform, and cuts to funding will add to known local issues of low skill levels, high long-term unemployment and fewer job opportunities compared to some other areas. We must raise people’s skills and qualifications so they can compete for employment, business opportunities and achieve their aspirations. In education, the introduction of the Early Intervention Grant, the growth of academies, the pupil premium, national curriculum changes and reform of the educational maintenance allowance will all have an impact. Pupil attainment has shown year on year improvement, but we must maintain the relationship with our schools to ensure continually improving standards. In particular, continuing a focus on early years provision and narrowing the attainment gap between pupils in vulnerable groups and their peers. Maintaining the numbers of young people accessing training, further education and or direct employment opportunities, will also prove a difficult challenge. Our immediate focal points for action are:

o Improving educational attainment for all children, but particularly for pupils in low-income families and Key Plans and Strategies supporting those with special educational needs, where results delivery: at GCSE level need to improve. We will also focus on school improvement and working with our St.Helens Council Business Plans and LSP secondary schools to improve standards. Thematic Group Delivery Plans The Children and Young People’s Plan o Renewing our focus on children in their early years, working to ensure that our Children’s Centres offer Visit www.sthelenstogether.org.uk high quality and accessible services to all, but also for details of key Plans and focus on supporting those families in the greatest Strategies need. Applying the ‘Think Family’ approach will help reduce the gap in outcomes in early years through family based support and improve educational outcomes for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. o Providing support to marginalised groups, such as vulnerable young people, and adults with disabilities, as well as the wider population, to improve the employment, education and training opportunities available to them. o To assist greater numbers of people into employment and training through the delivery of our employment and skills programme. Continuation of the apprentice and graduate schemes within the Council, partner organisations and local businesses will allow young people to develop new skills and improve their employment opportunities.

Our key measures of success are:

Ref No Description of indicator CYP-05 Achievement of at least 78 points across the Early Years Foundation stages

CYP-06 Achievement at Level 4 or above in English and Maths at KS2 CYP-07 Achievement of 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE or equivalent, including English and Maths CYP-08 Percentage of persistent absenteeism (secondary school) CYP-02 Percentage of 16-18 years olds who are NEET URH-06 Proportion of population aged 16-64 qualified to at least level 2 or higher CC-03 Number of LA adults and community learners

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 184 10 Improving People’s Lives 6 We want people to be Independent and Empowered

Our aim is to engage more with our communities and for local people to feel independent and empowered in their daily lives, with a particular focus on those most vulnerable. We aim to provide quality personalised social care services that are accessible and fully meet the needs of the people reliant on them, promoting independence, respect and dignity. We will ensure that our children, young people and vulnerable adults are safe from harm at home, at work, at school or in the community. We will continue to work closely with families with carers to support their needs and continue to work to implement our child poverty initiatives.

Successes to date

9The results of the National Adult Social Care Survey show high numbers of people are satisfied with the services they receive, feel safe, well-supported and in control. Our performance was the second best in the North West.

9The Personalisation Agenda continues to make strong progress, delivering tailored services to vulnerable people. Successes include the ‘My Life My Choice’ website, specialist advocacy services, more extra care places and a new system to help service users plan their care package.

9Growing numbers of vulnerable people are living independently in St Helens through the increased availability of extracare housing offering access to 24 hr care and support, the provision of assistive technology and simple aids for daily living. Our performance in supporting elderly people to remain in their own homes after discharge from hospital is one of the best in the country.

9Services for carers in St Helens have been recognised as best practice in part of a national evaluation. The Carers’ Centre has continued to provide much needed advice and assistance to improve the quality of carers lives, from personalised breaks and respite, to health and benefits support services.

9Increased paid and voluntary employment opportunities have been successfully provided for disabled people through the New Ventures and Supported Employment Service.

9The work of the First Response Team, has been successful in reducing the number of referrals to children’s social care. Equally, the work of the Early Intervention Service and continued support arrangements for parents and families are beginning to safely reduce the numbers of looked after children. A growing number of successful parenting courses are currently being delivered.

9We successfully developed and introduced in schools the Tell, Tell, Tell model and an e- safety strategy, designed to combat and protect children and young people from bullying.

9St Helens Youth Services have successfully increased the numbers of young people engaging with the service, along with the number of volunteering opportunities.

Our priorities are o Supporting vulnerable adults to improve their quality of life and to live independently through personalised, accessible and inclusive social services. o Ensuring that children and vulnerable adults are safe from harm o Engaging and meeting the needs of local young people

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 185 11 6 Delivering our priorities Key Plans and Strategies A number of proposed Government policies will impact on the supporting delivery: independence and empowerment of local people. The changes proposed through the Welfare Reform Bill will have a marked effect St.Helens Council Business Plans on the more vulnerable sections of the community. Future funding and LSP Thematic Group Delivery arrangements for adult social care are still uncertain. However an Plans aging population and predicted increases in demand for services will Adult Support Foundation Plan call for close working between all agencies, particularly health and social care. The new vision for adult social care aims to promote Children and Young People’s Plan greater personalisation and choice with a greater role for community Access to Services Strategy groups. The challenge will be to work closely with commissioners Community Consultation Strategy and service providers to ensure the continuation of effective, value for money care provision. There is a continued focus on a range of Visit highly sensitive services to support families and children. The www.sthelenstogether.org.uk concept of ‘localism’ encourages family and social responsibility and for details of key Plans and empowering people to help themselves and their local community. Strategies The Transparency Agenda will improve accessibility to information so that people have more choice and are better able to influence decisions about the services they receive Our immediate focal points for action are: o To ensure inclusive and accessible adult social care through the greater promotion of information, advice and advocacy services. We will continue to increase the number of people receiving self-directed support to provide individuals with greater choice and control over the services they receive. o To develop a dementia services strategy to improve services and promote greater prevention and early detection. o Improving the support available to the most vulnerable children and adults in the same family. We will embed the ‘Think Family’ approach, ensuring a focus on early intervention, prevention and intensive support. Our Community Budgets programme will specifically work with those families identified as having complex needs. o To further develop safeguarding arrangements for both children and adults in St Helens by greater awareness raising, the promotion of closer joint working, greater sharing of responsibility and expertise and the strengthening of accountabilities. o Developing a user led organisation to meet the needs of vulnerable disabled people and undertake a review of disability services for children and families. o To implement our Child Poverty Action Plan and pilot a series of interventions to mitigate the impact of child poverty. o Working with community groups and the voluntary sector to maximise youth provision across the Borough and ensure that the needs of young people are continually met Our key measures of success are: Ref No Description of indicator CYP-09 Percentage of children looked after with 3 or more placements CYP-10 Percentage of children becoming subject of a child protection plan for a second or subsequent time ASC-04 Percentage of social care clients receiving self-directed support ASC-09 Percentage of carers receiving needs assessment or review and a specific carers service ASC-07 Percentage of adults (18-69) - with learning disabilities in employment ASC-08 Percentage of adults in contact with secondary mental health services in employment ASC-29 Percentage of initial strategy discussions undertaken within 4 working hours of a safeguarding alert being made to the Contact Centre ASC-30 Percentage of visits to the victim undertaken within 12 working hours of the initial strategy discussion ASC-02 Percentage of people receiving social care and support services satisfied with the services they receive) ASC-03 Percentage of adults aged 18-69 with learning disabilities, known to ASCH, in settled accommodation at the time of their most recent assessment, formal review or other MDT planning meeting St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 186 12 6

4. Creating a Better Place

We want St Helens to be A Safer and Stronger Place

Our aim is to reduce overall levels of crime and anti-social behaviour in line with the local Community Safety Partnership targets, and make St Helens feel even safer. We will develop and support schemes, which encourage residents to take a more active role in their neighbourhoods and help to build and strengthen relationships within communities.

Successes to date

9Crime rates have steadily decreased over the past 4 years, with significant reductions in both violent crime and acquisitive crime.

3Incidents of anti-social behaviour have substantially decreased in recent years. Joint partnership working, delivering a range of diversionary activities for young people, targeted operations and enforcement, has led to this success.

3Resident satisfaction with the Community Safety Partnership is strong and continues to improve, with surveys showing that residents are feeling safer, better informed, more confident in agencies dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour.

9The number of young people entering the youth justice system has reduced, with diversionary and restorative opportunities provided to young people at risk of offending.

9Joint working on the Offender Management Scheme has successfully reduced the number of offences committed by our most prolific offenders with growing numbers refraining from criminal activity. The project has had a particular impact on reducing levels of burglary, robbery and drug related crime.

9St Helens Domestic Violence and Abuse Strategy is having a positive impact on supporting victims, raising awareness of the impact of domestic violence, working with perpetrators and successfully reducing the number of repeat incidents.

9The Stronger Communities Initiative (SCI), a project targeting crime and disorder in one of the Borough’s most deprived areas has met with considerable success and regional acclaim. A dedicated policing team, backed by partners from the Council, Helens Partnerships and other agencies, has achieved a 50% reduction in reported anti-social behaviour in 12 months and was subsequently awarded two Merseyside policing awards.

9We are working with our partners to tackle alcohol and substance misuse and have developed a ten-point alcohol harm reduction plan. The Young People’s Substance Misuse Team targeted young people consuming alcohol in open spaces, and a programme of alcohol confiscation was introduced. Trading Standards continue to successfully target and prosecute illegal sales.

9Community cohesion is improving and Neighbourhood Action Groups successfully engage with residents to encourage people to make a positive contribution to reducing crime and disorder within their communities. Our priorities are: o Reducing levels of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour o Making places feel safer for local people o Reducing the level of harm caused by drug and alcohol misuse o Supporting neighbourhood development and community cohesion St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 187 13 6 Delivering our priorities Legislative changes such as the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill outline ambitions to reform policing, reduce costs and to radically change how we keep our neighbourhoods safe. Police services will be more accountable to local people and an elected Police Commissioner is planned. The ‘localism’ agenda proposals are to give more decision-making powers back to local people. Residents will be encouraged to play their part in cutting crime, attending beat meetings, joining Neighbourhood Watch groups and volunteering to work with the police and criminal justice system.

Our immediate focal points for action are: Key Plans and Strategies o To continue to contain and reduce all aspects of supporting delivery: crime and anti-social behaviour through targeted interventions and thematic campaigns. St.Helens Council Business Plans and Community Safety Partnership o To build on the initial success of the Integrated Delivery Plan Offender Management Programme, where the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy Council and its partners work together to target Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy known offenders, reduce re-offending rate and Visit protect the community. www.sthelenstogether.org.uk for details of key Plans and o Working through Neighbourhood Action Groups, we Strategies will use different media and communications to keep residents informed of actions we are taking to keep neighbourhoods safe, develop opportunities to empower local people to help make their own neighbourhoods safer, and deliver the Community Payback Programme.

o To continue to reduce youth crime and re-offending through delivery of the youth inclusion and support programme, promotion of the active engagement team, and the increased use of triage and restorative justice.

o Continuing to develop a preventative approach towards drug and alcohol misuse, deliver the Drug Intervention Programme and implement a recovery orientated treatment system.

o Eliminating unlawful discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and good relations between people within diverse communities. This includes enhancing support for victims, increasing awareness, and encouraging the reporting of hate crime.

o Continuing to implement the Neighbourhood Management Action Plans in our 3 Neighbourhood Management Areas, whilst actively monitoring progress on delivery. The Stronger Communities Initiative will be rolled out to all 3 Neighbourhood Management Areas. Our key measures of success are:

Ref No Description of indicator SC-02 Serious acquisitive crime rate per 1000 population SC-01 Number of assaults with less serious injury offences per 1000 population SC-05 Number of first-time entrants to the youth justice system per 100,000 population

SC-03 Number of incidents of anti-social behaviour SC-04 Number of multiple contacts with 10-25 year olds SC-06 Reduction in repeat victimisation for domestic violence cases being managed by a MARAC SC-07 Number of alcohol related admissions to hospital per 100,000 population SC-08 Number of successful planned exits from drug/alcohol treatment

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 188 14 Creating a Better Place 6 We want St Helens to be a Cleaner, Greener and Accessible Place

Our aim is to continue to transform St Helens, making it a cleaner, greener, more accessible place for ourselves and future generations. The environment around us is key to our quality of life, the well-being of our community, and our desire for a thriving, vibrant and competitive borough. We recognise the impact that all our activities have on the world around us and will therefore continue to work together to create the kind of sustainable environment that we can all be proud of and which makes people want to live, work in and visit our Borough.

Successes to date

9Significant progress has been made with a redeveloped Town Centre, a redesigned rail station, the new college campus, extensive new housing development and the new Saints Stadium now complete. 9St Helens is now a much cleaner and greener place. Derelict industrial land has been restored to create new habitats and rural public spaces, such as the Mersey Forest, which has led to more than 2 million new trees being planted in the Borough over the past 15 years. The investment in our parks and open spaces has led to the award of 11 Green Flag awards in recognition of their environmental quality. 9Recent surveys have shown an ongoing improvement in the cleanliness of the Borough and we have undertaken effective enforcement action to tackle littering, fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles. Two air quality management areas have been set up in the Borough and an extensive Climate Change Action Plan is in place. 9Roads have become much safer. Less people are killed or seriously injured, road and the national target of a 40% reduction was met. 9The Council and all Partners have progressed the green agenda through the promotion of green procurement, Environmental Management Policies, a Climate Change Action Plan, the Buy Local Campaign, and the purchasing of green energy and fuel. 9Transport successes include reduced congestion, improved accessibility and more cycling and walking routes.

Our priorities are:

o Ensuring a clean and attractive borough o Reducing waste and increasing recycling o Reducing our carbon footprint and impact on the environment o Improving the standard and safety of our transport network and infrastructure

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 189 15 6 Delivering our priorities Key Plans and Strategies supporting Progress on improving the environment will continue. delivery: We will safeguard and enhance both our urban and St.Helens Council Business Plans and LSP rural spaces, through sensitive local development. Thematic Group Delivery Plans We will look to target certain aspects of climate change, particularly waste and recycling and the Local Development Framework: St.Helens reduction in our carbon emissions. We must Core Strategy maximise the opportunities and benefits of newly St Helens Council Climate Change Action emerging environmental policy and legislation, whilst Plan encouraging a change in behaviour across Joint Municipal Waste Strategy communities, businesses and our own organisations Local Transport Plan to maintain an attractive environment and sustainable future. Visit www.sthelenstogether.org.uk for details of key Plans and Strategies Our immediate focal points for action are:

o Promote the sustainable development of the Borough through delivery of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, Development Plan and area action plans including full public consultation and sensitive planning systems. o Further reduce carbon emissions through the delivery of the Climate Change Action Plan and Environmental Management Policy. o Helping deliver the Merseyside Waste Strategy, ensuring we work closely with the public and business to increase recycling and reduce the amount of waste that we produce, focussing on the lowest performing areas of St Helens. o Helping deliver the Local Transport Plan for Merseyside, to bring about a safe and integrated transport network that supports economic growth and inclusion. We will reduce carbon emissions and congestion, whilst promoting increased cycling and walking with a focus on schools. o To continue to maintain and improve the quality of our parks and open spaces, encouraging greater public usage, involvement and ownership. Successful delivery of the £3million Victoria Park restoration project is a key action. o Delivering our Highway Maintenance Programme and continue to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents.

Our key measures of success are:

Ref No Description of indicator

EP-06 Amount of residual household waste per head population (kgs) EP-05 Percentage of land and highways that is assessed as having deposits of litter that falls above an acceptable level. EP-01 Number of green flag awards

EP-02 Percentage reduction in CO2 from LA operations EP-03 Percentage of household waste arisings which have been sent for recycling EP-04 Number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 190 16 Creating a Better Place 6 We want St Helens to be A Thriving, Vibrant & Competitive Place

Our aim is to establish St Helens as a modern, economically diverse town with good business and employment opportunities, quality choices in homes, and a vibrant cultural life. We will continue to adopt an inclusive approach, focussing our efforts to reduce worklessness in our most deprived areas and marginalised groups, whilst promoting the area as a regional choice of location for residents, businesses and visitors.

Successes to date:

3The physical regeneration of the Borough in recent years, an improved transport infrastructure, the growth in new business units and our new Enterprise Centre has done much to promote St Helens as a desirable business location, increasing both investment and employment.

3St Helens City Growth Strategy and our Local Enterprise Growth Initiative have had a significant impact in creating new employment opportunities and growing and diversifying business within the Borough. In 2010-11, the programme supported over 240 new business start ups and created over 650 new jobs, nearly a third of which were in priority areas.

3We have been applauded for our response to the recession and support provided to local people and businesses. Many Partners worked together to advise businesses and community & voluntary organisations of opportunities. Additionally, 250 local businesses employing over 8000 people were supported with the “Be Local, Buy Local” campaign.

3Four successful Regional Growth Fund Bids have been awarded to St.Helens businesses securing over £10 million funding for investment projects worth £65 million.

3We have provided strong support to young people to access employment opportunities through the Council and St Helens Chamber’s graduate placement and apprenticeships schemes. The activities of New Ventures have been successful in increasing supported employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities.

3Multi-agency neighbourhood based initiatives have provided a focus for addressing worklessness within the more deprived areas.

3We announced a £1million package of support to St Helens Town Centre to kick-start the local economy and support local businesses.

3The quality, choice, and availability of housing have improved greatly. Despite the difficult conditions house building in St Helens is going against the national trend with over 430 new houses built or under construction in 2011. Many affordable housing and supported housing schemes are being delivered.

Our priorities are: o Strengthening the local economy promoting business growth, retention and investment o Supporting increased employment and reducing numbers of people not in work o Delivering high quality housing in an attractive environment to meet local needs o Supporting public events and activities to promote a distinctive borough and town centre St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 191 17 6 Delivering our priorities Key Plans and Strategies supporting Following the Comprehensive Spending Review and the delivery: extensive reductions in grants, much of our previous success will no longer be funded. All partners will need to St.Helens Council Business Plans and LSP work closely to exploit future opportunities such as the Thematic Group Delivery Plans Local Enterprise Partnership and the Regional Growth Fund. St Helens City Growth Strategy The welfare reform programme will impact strongly on Housing Strategy local residents and particularly on vulnerable groups. Our Active St Helens Strategy challenges will be to take all economic opportunities and St Helens Arts Strategy to influence changes in welfare to work provision to reflect Visit www.sthelenstogether.org.uk where possible the needs of local businesses and for details of key Plans and residents. Strategies Our top priorities are restated above with the focal points for action being: o Ensuring that we draw maximum benefit from the creation of Merseyside Local Enterprise Partnership and opportunities presented through the Regional Growth Fund and other sources of external funding sources to promote economic growth and create jobs. We will maintain a particular focus on reducing the gaps in economic prosperity within St.Helens. o Supporting existing businesses to improve their long term profitable growth prospects and increasing enterprise. We will encourage residents to set up their own businesses, develop their work skills and access wider employment opportunities. We will continue to fund a number of key projects such as Starting Point, Business Support, Business Start-up and Enterprise in Schools, to help encourage and support business growth in St. Helens; o Providing a stock of high-quality sites and premises fit for modern businesses, attracting more businesses to St Helens to strengthen and diversify the business sector. o Promote the creation of new jobs and development of the local economy through delivery of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, o Improving the range, quality and choice of housing provision across all tenures, whilst maximising investment in housing as much as possible in the current economic climate, o Supporting stronger, more inclusive communities with better opportunities for disadvantaged groups, working within neighbourhoods to develop plans. o Enriching individual lives, strengthening communities and improving places where people live through involvement in cultural activities, including increased take-up of libraries and information services. o Raising our profile as a modern, vibrant and exciting place through a comprehensive town centre events programme

Our Key measures of success are:

Ref No Description of indicator URH-04 Rate of employment (working age) URH-05 Percentage of working age population claiming out of work benefits URH-01 Number of net increases of dwelling stock

URH-02 Number of affordable dwellings provided CC-01 Number of visits to cultural venues supported by St Helens Council CC-02 Number of library service visits URH-07 Number of new business births per year URH-03 Number of households who considered themselves as homeless, who approached St.Helens Plan 2011-2014the local housing authority’s housing192 advice service(s) and for whom housing advice18 casework intervention resolved their situation 5. Delivering Effectively Together 6

Principles and Values

Two core principles underpin our actions:

Sustainable Development - is about making social, economic and environmental progress hand in hand, not in one area at the expense of others, in order to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come.

Equal, Inclusive and Cohesive Communities – is about active, engaged and skilled citizens creating somewhere that people want to live and work that is safe; supportive; offers equality of opportunity and good services to everyone, and fosters a sense of belonging and good relations between people. We remain committed to the aims of St Helens Equality, Inclusion and Cohesion Strategy 2009-2012, including the production of integrated impact assessments.

We also have a series of values, which underpin our objectives and determine how we work. These are:

Community Leadership  Working with all partners and the local community to lead in developing high quality, evidence- based plans and strategies, in taking actions to improve services and in regular progress and performance reports to realise our ambitions.

 We will strengthen governance and performance to ensure all available funding is effectively and flexibly used to achieve the highest benefits for our communities.

Empowerment and Access  We will bring decision-making closer to people by supporting them to make choices about their own lives, fostering trust and encouraging more widespread involvement in developing community solutions and engagement in the democratic process.

Partnership  We will together build positive links with individuals, community and faith groups and organisations in all sectors, encouraging participation in shaping services, sharing knowledge, promoting learning and development and working together to achieve mutual goals. Working ‘Together’ we will achieve more than we could do separately.

Transparency  We will ensure that local people can have confidence in the decision-making and management processes of the Council and all Partners by being open, inclusive, responsive and providing access to full, accurate, transparent and clear information.

Efficiency, integrity and excellence of service  We will make the best use of human, financial and physical resources through effective commissioning and management to deliver value for money, high quality and accessible services and ultimately better outcomes.

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 193 19 6

How We Work: the management, delivery and performance structures of the Council and the Partnership. Full details of the structures, terms of reference, meeting dates, agendas and reports can be found on both the Council and LSP Websites. ST HELENS PLAN 2012-2015 People & Place Improving Peoples Lives Creating a Better Place We want people to be: We want St.Helens to be: - Healthy and Active - A Safer and Stronger Place - Skilled and Educated - A Cleaner, Greener and Accessible Place - Independent and Empowered - A Thriving, Vibrant and Competitive Place

Delivering EffectivelyD Together

St Helens Council St Helens Together Local Partnership 194 Corporate Services & External Affairs Children and Young People’s Board BUSINESS ACTION PLANS Urban Regeneration & Housing Aims Communities and Neighbourhoods Board PORTFOLIOS Children and Young People’s Services Priorities Measures and Targets Adult Social Care & Health Actions Economic Development & Enterprise Board Designated Leads Environmental Protection Milestones Shadow St.Helens Health and Well-being Family Intervention and Safer Communities Budgets Board THEMATIC GROUPS Safer Communities Partnership Culture, Sport and Leisure

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 20 6 Managing our Performance

The diagram below shows the planning and reporting cycle for the St.Helens Plan.

St.Helens Plan reviewed Delivery Plans developed & resources allocated for next year

Monthly and Quarterly Budget and Monthly and Quarterly Budget and performance Reports performance Reports

OCTOBER TO JANUARY TO DECEMBER MARCH (Quarter 4) (Quarter 3) St.Helens Plan and Delivery Plans approved Delivery of St.Helens Plan Review outturn performance

JULY TO APRIL TO JUNE SEPTEMBER (Quarter 1) (Quarter 2))

Monthly and Quarterly Budget and Monthly and Quarterly Budget and performance Reports performance Reports

Council and Partnership Annual reports

The actions to be outlined in the proposed accompanying Delivery Plans will show how the Council and our partners will work together to deliver the shared priorities contained within St Helens Plan.

Regular Budget and Performance Management Reports are submitted to the Cabinet and the Local Partnership Board to monitor progress against our priorities pinpointing strengths, under- performance and corrective actions needed.

The Local Partnership and St.Helens Council produce an Annual Report reviewing the previous financial year, mapping achievements and the way ahead. All our performance reports and annual reports are published on the St.Helens Together and the Council’s websites.

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 195 21 6 Consultation, Engagement and Empowerment

Effective and appropriate engagement with the community has been and continues to be an integral part of the approach of this Council and key local Partners to the development and implementation of our plans, strategies and services.

An evolving, multi-tiered engagement and cohesion programme is harnessing wide ranging involvement from all Partners to individual schemes, from specific consultation and survey work to Neighbourhood Action Groups to St.Helens’ refreshed Voluntary and Community Sector Compact and Health and Social Care’s Local Involvement Networks. The work of the Partnership is researched and consulted upon in many ways to ensure that local needs and priorities are responded to. This Plan is therefore built upon a firm foundation of past and ongoing engagement and cohesion commitments that the recent Equality, Inclusion and Cohesion Strategy will enhance across the Borough.

All members of the Local Strategic Partnership subscribe to the shared values, ideals and principles and to meeting all duties to involve local individuals, groups or organisations through tailored and proportional information, consultation or direct involvement. Community Cohesion is about relationships between and within communities, promoting good relations in a diverse, welcoming community; continuing to reduce inequalities; building on the local sense of identity; and building on our success in making people feel safe and secure living in, working or visiting St Helens.

Strong consultation and engagement, contained in the comprehensive Consultation Toolkit, enable us to understand the views, needs and preferences of all our stakeholders including specific target groups. At the neighbourhood level, we actively involve local people in decisions that affect them and their communities through Councillor surgeries, Neighbourhood Action Groups and the neighbourhood approach. St Helens Compact 2009-2012 sets out the guiding principles for joint action and now includes the voluntary, community, faith and voluntary sports sectors, St Helens Council and Halton & St Helens NHS. Participatory Budgeting and joint management are also in place.

Voluntary and Community Action Sector (VCA) support and development work is critical to the sector being capable of responding to the opportunities for influencing decision making through local partnership working arrangements and through the regular public surveys that feed back local residents and organizations views and concerns.

The new “localism” concept is based around cutting back on state delivery, and empowering communities to work together to deliver services themselves. This could include setting up new schools, training people for work, rehabilitating offenders, running libraries and anything that can be solved in the community setting.

What will add to this remains to be seen. A neighbourhood focus, wider engagement and volunteering opportunities, citizen empowerment, transparency and information, community organisers, more social enterprises, encourage charitable giving and philanthropy, employee- owned co-operatives, a big society bank and the national citizen service will be supported to add to what is already underway.

We will reform and simplify the planning system, adapt to changes in regional strategy making and comply with all requirements to hold referenda and to publish data widely where this is not already done.

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 196 22 6

St Helens Plan 2012-15 Appendix 1

Financial Summary

Overview Success in delivering the priorities identified in St.Helens Plan will depend on both the finite resources available to the Council and wider partnership, and also the approach taken to ensuring that resources are aligned over the period to reflect these shared priorities. The Partnership recognises the need for individual member organisations to plan their services taking into account the spending plans of their key strategic partners. At present a combination of the economic downturn, reductions in Government funding and changes in Government policy are having a significant impact on the level of resourcing available to partners. Given below is a summary of the key budgetary issues facing key partners.

The Government cuts leveled at St Helens Council in the past 2 years have been unprecedented. In 2012-13, the Council is faced with a further £8 million reduction following on from the toughest local government finance settlement in memory in 2011-12, which equated to £28 million. However, the Council still faces the future prospect of further significant reductions, and there are real concerns that the impact of government legislation will create further financial pressures and uncertainty in the provision of key public services and significantly raise the risk profile.

Merseyside Police Authority is again faced with significant budget reductions in 2012-13, following the budget cut announced in April 2011, which meant mean the Authority finding £61.4 million savings over a 4 year period. The Police Authority is responding through the Strategic Options Project and the Excellent Policing Programme, which will review activity, guided by ‘policing principles’, and minimise the impact on operational services. Despite the changes in governance proposed through the appointment of directly elected police commissioners, the force will keep its commitment to working in partnership with the Council and other agencies to support St Helens Community Safety Partnership which continues to deliver strong reductions in crime and disorder.

In 2012-13, the Fire Service’s grant settlement was reduced by a further 3.1%, on top of the 9.5% announced in 2011-12. The Service is undergoing a significant period of change and modernisation, but will continue to invest in its world leading community fire safety work and work with partners to safeguard the lives of people in St.Helens.

Funding cuts have hit a number of St.Helens Chamber projects aimed at boosting business growth locally. However, the Chamber has been successful in securing European funding to continue to fund the Business Advocates, who work with local firms ensuring businesses have access to the right information and advice. St.Helens Chamber and the Council are working closely to pursue new opportunities through the newly established Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership.

The Health Service is experiencing the most significant changes to its structure since its creation. By 2013 PCTs will be abolished and Local G.P. Consortia will be created to commission health services. Local Authorities will take on the public health function, supported by a dedicated public health ring fenced fund. All these changes will place a great emphasis on establishing effective joint working relationships between all partners concerned in order to manage the transition and to continue to provide co-coordinated action to increase healthy life expectancy and reduce health inequalities between our communities.

St Helens Colleges continue to face further financial pressures as their income declines as the Government tighten the criteria for supported courses.

One of the key challenges facing Helena Partnerships is securing investment to enable the provision of decent, affordable homes in line with the national agenda and also specialist housing to meet the needs of vulnerable groups. Access to capital funding is becoming severely restricted. A

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 197 23 6

further financial risk is the proposed changes to the benefit regime and the penalties imposed on families, which in turn could be passed on to the landlord. As the lead agency for neighbourhood management, Helena Partnership will continue to work with the key strategic partners to tackle issues such as anti-social behaviour and worklessness, across our 3 Neighbourhood Management Areas.

St Helens Council Financial Strategy and Medium Term Plans As Community Leader the Council’s Financial Strategy is critical to the delivery of St.Helens Plan. The Financial Strategy aims to support local priorities, whilst recognising national priorities. It is imperative that financial planning underpins the corporate planning processes and identifies how scarce resources are to be allocated to corporate priorities. St.Helens Council has set out medium term (three-year) revenue and capital spending plans to support the St. Helens Plan. The following table summarises the forecast financial position over the next three years based on the above planning process and strategy.

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 Children, Young People & Learning Services 32,658 32,970 33,379 Adult Social Care & Health 45,594 46,179 47,079 Urban Regeneration & Housing 10,890 10,887 10,905 Environmental Protection 21,003 21,032 21,433 Corporate Services & External Affairs 6,547 6,568 6,623 Culture, Sport & Leisure 7,208 7,182 7,296 Family Intervention & Safer Communities 1,795 1,872 1,962 Corporate Income/Expenditure - 1,244 - 1,221 - 2,300 Service Levies 25,263 25,995 26,700 Restructuring Costs 1,910 0 0 TOTAL SPENDING 151,624 151,464 153,077 Formula Grant - 84,608 - 79,683 - 70,221 Council Tax - 65,833 - 67,478 - 69,166 New Homes Bonus/Local Services Support - 1,183 - 1,333 - 1,663 Grant NET FINANCIAL POSITION/SAVINGS 0 2,970 12,027 REQUIREMENT

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 198 24 6

Capital Spending 2012-2015 The Council’s Capital Programme represents the affordable element of those schemes that support both the St Helens Plan and the Council’s Asset Management Strategy. The following table summarises the currently identified demand for capital investment in the Council's assets over the next three years, i.e. Capital Programme.

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 EXPENDITURE Children & Young People’s Services 24,689 5,545 3,198 Environmental Protection - Transport 5,219 2,747 2,634 Environmental Protection - Other 7,442 1,690 787 Housing 3,488 1,021 1,021 Urban Regeneration 1,480 50 50 Family Intervention & Safer Communities 314 0 0 Corporate Services & External Affairs 345 0 0 Adult Social Care & Health 1,366 516 516 Culture, Sport & Leisure 0 0 0

Total 44,343 11,569 8,206 RESOURCED BY Unsupported Borrowing 934 735 700 Grants & Other Contributions 36,457 10,611 7,441 Capital Receipts 6,762 50 50 Designated Revenue Sources 190 173 15

Total 44,343 11,569 8,206

Full details of the Council’s budget and financial plan are available on the financial pages of St Helens Council website.

Details of the Council’s progress on delivery and performance around St.Helens Plan is brought together in our Annual Report and monthly budget and performance monitoring reports available on St Helens Council website performance pages.

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 199 25 6 St Helens Plan 2012-15 Appendix 2

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING TABLES WILL BE COMPLETED ON APPROVAL OF THE 2012-15 TARGET SETTING REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO CABINET ON THE 28TH OF MARCH. The tables below set out the key measures of performance for St Helens Plan and our 3-year targets.Full detail of the performance of the St Helens Council and the Local Strategic Partnership can be found on the Performance page of the Council’s website. Improving People’s Lives

Healthy and Active PI Ref Definition Outturn Projection Target Target Target 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 CYP- % of infants breastfed at 6-8 21.5% 03a weeks CYP- % of infants for whom 99% 03b breastfeeding status is being recorded CYP-04 Obesity among primary school 12% children in reception year CYP-01 % change under 18 -21.6% conception rate ASC- Mortality rate, all age, all 727.5 05a cause (male) ASC- Mortality rate, all age, all 496.5 05b cause (female) ASC-06 Number of smoking quitters 1053.5 per 100,000 population CC-04 Number of visits to sports 987,186 centres and attendance at activities supported by sports development

Skilled and Educated PI Ref Definition Outturn Projection Target Target Target 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 CYP-05 Achievement of at least 78 56.9% points across the Early Years Foundation stages CYP-06 Achievement at Level 4 or 78% above in English and Maths at KS2 CYP-07 Achievement of 5 or more A*- 52.8% C grades at GCSE or equivalent, including English and Maths CYP-08 % of persistent absenteeism 4.9% (secondary school) CYP-02 % of 16-18 years olds who 6.99% are NEET URH-06 Working age population 63.9% qualified to at least Level 2 or higher CC-03 Number of LA adults and 2918 community learners St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 200 26 6 Improving People’s Lives

Independent and Empowered PI Ref Definition Outturn Projection Target Target Target 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 CYP-09 Percentage of children 7% looked after with 3 or more placements CYP-10 % of children becoming 19% subject of a child protection plan for a second or subsequent time ASC-04 Number of social care clients 31.5% receiving self-directed support as a percentage of clients receiving community based services and carers receiving a carers specific services ASC-09 Percentage of carers 29.17% receiving needs assessment or review and a specific carers service ASC-07 % of adults (18-69) - with 4.63% learning disabilities in employment ASC-08 Percentage of adults in 8.63% contact with secondary mental health services in employment ASC-29 Percentage of initial strategy New PI discussions undertaken No Data within 4 working hours of a safeguarding alert being made to the Contact Centre ASC-30 Percentage of visits to the New PI victim undertaken within 12 No Data working hours of the initial strategy discussion ASC-02 Percentage of people New PI receiving social care and No Data support services satisfied with the services they receive (Adult Social Care Survey 2011) ASC-03 Percentage of adults aged 79% 18-69 with learning disabilities, known to ASCH, in settled accommodation at the time of their most recent assessment, formal review or other MDT planning meeting

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 201 27 6

Creating a Better Place

A Safer and Stronger Place PI Ref Definition Outturn Projection Target Target Target 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 SC-02 Serious acquisitive crime rate 9.40 SC-01 Number of assaults with less 3.04 serious injury offences per 1000 population SC-06 Reduction in repeat victimisation 12.3 for domestic violence cases being managed by a MARAC SC-05 Number of first-time entrants to 395 the youth justice system SC-03 Number of incidents of anti-social 6358 behaviour SC-04 Number of multiple contacts with 15156 10-25 year olds SC-07 Number of alcohol related 2371 admissions to hospital per 100,000 population SC-08 Number of successful planned New PI exits from drug/alcohol treatment No Data

Cleaner, Greener and Accessible Place PI Ref Definition Outturn Projection Target Target Target 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 EP-01 Number of green flag awards 10 EP-05 % of land and highways that is 93% assessed as having deposits of litter at an acceptable level EP-04 Number of people killed or 59.3 seriously injured in road traffic accidents EP-02 % reduction in CO2 from LA 3% operations EP-06 Amount of residual household 627 waste per head population (Kg) EP-03 Percentage of household waste 32.55% arisings which have been sent for recycling

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 202 28 6

Creating a Better Place

A Thriving, Vibrant & Competitive Place

PI Ref Definition Outturn Projection Target Target Target 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 URH-01 Number of net increases of 157 dwelling stock URH-02 Number of affordable 87 dwellings provided URH-03 Number of households who 437 considered themselves as homeless, who approached the local housing authority’s housing advice service(s) and for whom housing advice casework intervention resolved their situation URH-04 Rate of employment 69.6% (working age) URH-05 % of working age population 17.1% claiming out of work benefits URH-07 Number of new business 445 births per year CC-01 Number of visits to cultural 47794 venues supported by St Helens Council CC-02 Number of library service 1,010,000 visits

St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 203 29 6

LIST OF MEMBERS

St. Helens Council NHS Halton and St Helens St Helens Chamber Merseyside Police Halton and St Helens VCA Helena Partnerships SHINE St Helens Community Empowerment Network St Helens College St Helens Job Centre Plus Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Merseytravel Pilkington Group Limited Langtree Group PLC St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Connexions Greater Merseyside Barnardos 5 Boroughs Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Age UK Business Link Northwest Starting Point St Helens LINk Merseyside Probation Trust St Helens Magistrates Court

Contact Details

If you would like any further information relating to the St.Helens Plan, St Helens Council or the Partnership please go to the appropriate website: www.sthelenstogether.org.uk, or to http://www.sthelens.gov.uk/. To obtain a hard copy of documents, contact:

Accountancy & Exchequer Services, Chief Executive’s Department, Town Hall, Corporation Street, St.Helens, Merseyside WA10 1HP Email: Tel: 01744 673282 St.Helens Plan 2011-2014 204 30 7

Cabinet 22 February 2012 KEY DECISION Yes DATE ADDED TO FORWARD PLAN

16 December 2011

THE SUTTON ACADEMY – APPROVAL OF FINAL BUSINESS CASE

WARDS AFFECTED

Sutton / Bold / Thatto Heath

EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL ITEM

No

1. PROPOSED DECISION

To seek Members’ Approval for the Final Business Case for the Sutton Academy Redevelopment

2. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION

2.1 The Council’s Cabinet on 3 rd August 2011 approved the Feasibility Study for the Sutton Academy Redevelopment which was submitted to the Department for Education who subsequently confirmed approval of £8,397,126 for the project.

2.2 Following Cabinet Approval a design competition was held that followed the Partnerships for Schools’ (PfS) rules for procurement under the National Academies Framework. Interserve Construction Limited were confirmed as the Selected Panel Member under Delegated Executive Decision 0094 21 st October 2011 which provides details of the full procurement process.

2.3 Officers from Urban Regeneration and Housing have worked with the Sutton Academy’s Senior Leadership Team, Academy Sponsors from St. Helens College & Edge Hill University, and Interserve Construction Limited to develop the Final Business Case for the project which is presented for Members’ Approval.

3. FACTS SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED DECISION

3.1 The Final Business Case uses a standard PfS template which is in Six Sections which are outlined below. A copy of the completed Final Business Case is included as Appendix 1.

Under the new PfS guidance, the Final Business Case is intended to be a shorter and simpler for that confirms the project has been developed in accordance with the details and budget agreed previously for the Feasibility Study.

205 7

3.2 Section 1: Overview and Commitment

Section 1 and Appendix 1 describes the Scheme and confirms the commitment of all parties to the solution for the Sutton Academy, developed by the Selected Panel Member Interserve Construction Limited.

3.3 Section 2: The Local Competition

Section 2 and Appendix 2 describes the details of the tender process (the “local competition”) carried out, including how the preferred bidder was selected and how the final designs and costs for the Sutton Academy were developed.

3.4 Section 3: ICT Procurement

Section 3 and Appendix 3 of this FBC describes how the design has incorporated ICT to date and the proposed delivery approach for the ICT provision together with the interface with the procurement and delivery of the building.

3.5 Section 4: Affordability

Section 4 and Appendix 4 describes the affordability position for the whole scheme, confirming that the approved design is affordable within the funding envelope.

3.6 Section 5: Design and Build Contract and Development Agreement

Section 5 and Appendix 5 detail any derogations from the Design and Build Contract and Development Agreement used within the PfS National Framework.

3.7 Section 6: Readiness To Deliver

Section 6 and Appendix 6 sets out the personnel of the Project Team to illustrate that the Local Competition has been resourced appropriately. It also sets out the arrangements for supervising the delivery of the Design and Build and ICT contracts, and confirms that the necessary statutory approvals are in place.

3.8 Following approval of the FBC the Council will formally sign the contract with the successful contractor Interserve Construction Ltd. and work is scheduled to commence on site in late March 2012. The construction is phased but scheduled for final completion in the summer of 2013.

4. RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DECISION

4.1 PfS and DCSF fixed the funding for the Sutton Academy on the date when the Feasibility Study was agreed. Any delay to the FBC could increase the cost of the scheme. Whilst the contractor takes the risk for cost fluctuations and variations to the building from the point when the scheme has been agreed and the contracts signed, the cost of delays prior to contracts being signed falls to the Authority.

4.2 The project is fixed price but any client changes would have to be funded from the Sutton Academy’s own resources or would be addressed by value engineering in line with the Council’s procedures on its partnering contracts to ensure the Council is not liable for any

4.3 The risk of asbestos being discovered is minimal. The building was substantially rebuilt in the 1990’s following a fire and both the Type 2 survey and Authority’s own

206 7

Asset Management records indicated very limited use in this building. The contractor is liable for the cost of removing all known asbestos and any additional asbestos that a competent surveyor could have found. The Authority would be liable only for the cost of any discovered asbestos that could not have been reasonably forseen.

5. OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Legal – The Authority will enter into a Design And Build Contract with Interserve Construction Limited to construct the works, and a Development Agreement with the Sutton Academy. On confirmation of making good of defects, the D & B contract will be novated to the Academy Trust.

Financial – The Authority has been awarded £8,397,126 in funding for the redevelopment of the Sutton Academy site and all associated ICT Hardware and this is included in the CYPS Capital Programme. £150,000 of this total has been paid as project support funding for the project development costs.

Human Resources – None. TUPE Transfer took place on 31 st August 2010.

Land and Property (Asset) – The Sutton Academy site and buildings will be improved under this contract. Whilst the building will remain the Authority’s Asset, the Academy trust will take a 125 year lease of the site and buildings under the Development Agreement. The Sutton Academy will continue to use facilities at Sutton Leisure Centre under a separate lease agreement, but the Leisure Centre is not part of the Academy Redevelopment.

Anti-Poverty – The redevelopment of the Sutton Academy is part of the CYPS Plan to improve educational attainment and improve life chances for young people within the Borough.

Effects on existing Council Policy - None

Effects on other Council Activities – The project will deliver part of the CYPS Plan in respect of:-

• Raising Attainment • Improving Attendance • Reducing Bullying • Improving post-14 Opportunities

Human Rights - None

Agenda 21 – The refurbishment includes energy improvements and sustainability features that can be delivered within the budget.

Equalities – The refurbishment addressed access and circulation issues and makes other improvements to ensure all facilities are fully DDA compliant and an Impact Assessment was attached to the earlier Reports of 30 th March and 3 rd August 2011.

Asset Management - None

Health – It is intended that secondary schools will provide spaces for multi-agency professionals to deliver and signpost services that support the five outcomes of “Every Child Matters” including that of “Be Healthy”.

207 7

6. PREVIOUS APPROVAL/CONSULTATION

Executive on 3 rd June 2009 approved consultation regarding the creation of the Sutton Academy.

Executive on 26 th August 2009 approved the closure of Sutton High School and creation of the Sutton Academy.

Cabinet on 30 th March 2011 approved entering into a contract for the Sutton Academy redevelopment and to procure the works using the PfS Academies Framework.

Cabinet on 3 rd August 2011 approved the Feasibility Study for the Sutton Academy Redevelopment.

Delegated Executive Decision 0094 21 st October 2011 approved the appointment of Interserve Construction Limited as Selected Panel Member for the Sutton Academy redevelopment.

7. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS THEREOF

Cabinet has given approval for the Council to enter into a contract for the Sutton Academy redevelopment. An alternative design and Final Business Case could be produced that is based on an alternative option but this is unlikely to be approved if it varied significantly from the scheme approved at Feasibility Study Stage.

Development of an alternative option would impact on the delivery programme and is likely to delay the completion date. There is a risk that significant delay might jeopardize final approval of the project.

8. APPENDICES

Appendix 1 The Sutton Academy Final Business Case

R C Hepworth Director of Urban Regeneration and Housing

The Contact Officer for this report is Alan Cartwright, Head of Construction Projects and Procurement, Town Hall, Victoria Square, Corporation Street, St.Helens, WA10 1HP. Telephone Number: 01744 676445.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The following list of documents were used to complete this report and are available for public inspection for four years from the date of the meeting from the Contact Officer named above:

• Cabinet 30 th March 2011 – Approval to the Procurement of a Contract for the Redevelopment of The Sutton Academy • Cabinet 3 rd August 2011 – Approval of Sutton Academy Feasibility Study • Delegated Executive Decision 0094 21 st October 2011– Approval of Selected Panel Member for the Sutton Academy

208 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

Final Business Case for Schemes to be delivered via the PfS Contractors Framework

The Sutton Academy

January 2012

209 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

Document Control

Document Properties Document Owner Academies Director Organisation Partnerships for Schools Title PfS Contractors Framework Template Document Final Business Case Abstract This document is a template for the development of the Final Business Case (FBC) for Academy or other Schemes being procured through the Partnerships for Schools (PfS) Contractors Framework.

The contracting authority should contact their PfS Project Director for guidance where:

• A Local Education Partnership is being used to procure the scheme; • The scheme is not an academy; • The procurement is not led by the Local Authority; or • The party submitting the FBC is not the party that has managed the Local Competition.

The document outlines the requirements for submitting the FBC, which should set out the details of the Local Competition, the affordability of the design solution and the arrangements in place for contract administration and monitoring in sufficient detail to gain approval to proceed with contract award of the Design and Build contract and the delivery of the project(s).

Version History Date Editor Version Status Reason for change

17 Jun 10 PA 1.0 Issued First issue of document 05 Sept 11 PA 2.0 Issued Second issue to cover revised programme requirements

Drafting Notes

1. Non-LA Procured Projects – Where the contracting authority is not the Local Authority, the text should be amended where necessary to reflect this. This may also impact on the requirement for a Development Agreement. 2. Non-Academy Projects – Local Authorities submitting an FBC for non-academy projects should submit all sections of the FBC, but delete references to academy related issues. 3. Submission of FBC – Where possible all appendices should be inserted into the main body of the FBC. Any appendices that cannot be inserted into the main body of the FBC must be named as below and sent in a zip file accompanying the main body of the FBC: • [Local Authority] – [Project Name] - Appendix 6 – Risk Register

210 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. OVERVIEW AND COMMITMENT 4

2. THE LOCAL COMPETITION 5

3. ICT PROCUREMENT 7

4. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 8

5. DESIGN AND BUILD CONTRACT & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 10

6. READINESS TO DELIVER 11

APPENDICES 14

Document History

Document History Date Originator Checker Approver Status

28 Nov 2011 J Tully AJ Cartwright First Draft 06 Jan 2012 AJ Cartwright Second Draft 10 Jan 2012 J Tully AJ Cartwright Third Draft 22 Jan 2012 AJ Cartwright Fourth draft for DG 31 Jan 2012 AJ Cartwright T Brien ICT amended 06 Feb 2012 AJ Cartwright J Tully Circulated to DG 07 Feb 2012 J Tully A Cartwright M Dickens For Cabinet

211 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

1. OVERVIEW AND COMMITMENT

1.1 Strategic Overview

The Scheme described in this Final Business Case involves a combination of new build, refurbishment and maintenance works, including ICT, for The Sutton Academy, Elton Head Road, St. Helens.

St. Helens Council confirms that the strategic objectives are as described in the Feasibility Study and remain unchanged. These are fully reflected in the FBC proposals.

De La Salle Academy, Liverpool will be undertaken by Interserve Construction as a “Future School” referred to in the Future Schools Agreement under the direct control of De La Salle School and their Technical Advisers from Gardiner and Theobold.

1.2 Sponsor/Academy Trust and LA Commitment

The Academy Trust has been fully involved in the work to develop the detailed designs through the Local Competition, has signed off these designs and confirms that they support the Education Brief developed for the Academy.

The Academy Trust and LA can confirm that the standard Development Agreement, developed by PfS, has been agreed and is ready to sign, and that the Funding Agreement, Deed of Gift and all associated documents have been signed and the Academy Trust is in place.

The approval process set out in the Feasibility Study has been followed and all necessary approvals are in place or being sought as follows: o Sponsors’ Approvals via the Design User Group 24th January 2012 o Academy Governors – 15 th March 2012 o Local Authority Approval – St. Helens Council Cabinet 22 February 2012

In addition, the project remains on programme to be granted Planning Permission week commencing 13 th February 2012.

The Local Authority fully supports the proposals for The Sutton Academy as described in this Final Business Case. St. Helens Council is committed to delivering the project through maintaining its close working relationship with The Sutton Academy and its Sponsors. The Authority has fully resourced the project through the feasibility, procurement and design stages and will continue to lead the project through the construction phase and provide all necessary resources.

2 THE LOCAL COMPETITION

The Scheme is a Batched Scheme and includes a design and construction with a mixture of both new build and refurbishment of The Sutton Academy, Elton Head Road, St. Helens. The Academy’s Design Group chose the Selected Panel Member following the ITT process for The Sutton Academy. The process comprised the issuing of full ITT briefing documents and six half-day weekly engagement sessions at the Academy with each bidder.

The proposed scheme for De La Salle Academy, Liverpool was included in the ITT documentation as a future school and will now be undertaken by Interserve Construction through the Future Schools Agreement but without involvement of St. Helens Council or the Council’s External Advisers.

212 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

St. Helens Council confirms that the process followed:

• Was in compliance with the standard procedures for the PfS Contractors Framework; • Allowed for a sufficiently robust analysis of the proposed solution; and • Was appropriately resourced and managed throughout.

2.1 Procurement Process

All Panel Members were contacted regarding the project and Seven Panel Members subsequently returned PITT submissions. From these seven, Interserve Construction Limited and Willmott Dixon Construction Limited were short-listed. The Selected Panel Member, Interserve Construction Limited, was chosen on 11 th October 2011 following evaluation for the key reasons of superior design, management and added value proposals highlighted by the Design Group and noted below:

Design: -

• Outstanding and comprehensive detail which is clearly customised to The Sutton Academy based on the engagement sessions. • Showed a clear understanding of Academy requirements throughout the engagement process and which is demonstrated in the design proposals as noted: - o Circulation - avenue linking with New Reception and other external covered routes works very well. o Community Engagement - Community curriculum proposals are sensible. o Year 7 and Inclusion - Security of Yr 7 and location of Inclusion works extremely well and follows key briefings. o Dining - Excellent location of all ‘Grab and Go’ satellite dining units deliver brief fully. o Adjacencies - There is a balance of curriculum across the building including clear proposals for examinations. Very good linking between formal and informal teaching along with external and internal due to sensible juxtaposition of curriculum areas. o ICT - Excellent proposals for ICT department and use of ICT throughout the building based on key briefings. o Refurbishment - Very good detail provided which is again customised to The Academy and takes account of both new build and refurbishment. o New Build - Good strategy applied to existing buildings and legacy furniture providing for only 80% refurbishment and reduced need for legacy furniture. o Building Services - Good detail provided around M&E including costed legacy table. Significant refurbishment and innovative use of existing buildings.

Organisation and Management: -

• Proposals demonstrate how effectively the work can be carried out with minimum disruption to The Academy. • Programme minimises disruption and assists the Academy management. • Very good detail including clear reference to control of operatives during refurbishment and demonstrated understanding of safeguarding.

213 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

Added Value: -

• As a result of comprehensive detail provided, which includes value added, the pricing is both realistic and achievable. • Good detail that demonstrates clarity around life cycle costings and M&E legacy maintenance. • Very clear and detailed proposals that explain fully both what is being proposed and what cannot be achieved within the budget.

The unsuccessful bidder has been fully debriefed.

The Local Competition was carried out in accordance with the agreed procedures. Since their selection, Interserve Construction Limited has engaged fully with the Academy, Sponsors and Advisers under the direction of the Local Authority’s Project Manager to develop the full scheme proposals.

A public consultation event was held at the Academy on 17 th November 2011 prior to submitting the scheme to Planning on 21 st November 2011. The scheme is on schedule to receive planning approval week commencing Monday 13th February 2012.

The Design Group has approved the appointment of Agilisys as the ICT provider. Since then, the ICT group has met regularly to develop proposals for the project and to liaise with the contractor to ensure clarity over ICT infrastructure and responsibilities of the parties.

The designs and specifications have been developed throughout the period with the Technical Advisers and Local Authority technical staff working closely with Interserve Construction and their designers at Ellis Williams and Spie Matthew Hall to ensure full compliance with the formal Authority’s Requirements and to ensure proposals fully meet the Academy’s needs.

Contract Award is anticipated to occur 1 st March 2012.

2.2 Development of Future Schools

Interserve Construction will undertake the works to De La Salle School, Liverpool under a Future Schools Agreement. The works will be designed and specified utilising the standards, rates and prices established for the Sutton Academy wherever possible, subject to local conditions.

The works will be fully resourced and supervised by De La Salle School and their Technical Advisers, Gardiner and Theobold. St. Helens Council and its Advisers will not be involved in the project.

The process to deliver future school not covered by this FBC, whilst securing value for money, has been agreed with the Selected Panel Member.

2.3 Procurement Costs

The procurement costs are broadly in line with those indicated in the Feasibility Study and the proposed scheme is fully affordable within the PfS agreed funding allocation.

214 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

2.4 Design Quality

The current design is anticipated to achieve a BREEAM rating of Very Good, and the pre-assessment shows that 58% of credits are achievable for the approved design.

It is confirmed that the design meets the design requirements set out in the procurement documentation

Appendix 2:

• A detailed programme of work going forward (Gantt chart including ICT procurement, design, installation, and client commissioning). • A detailed Construction Programme.

215 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

3 ICT PROCUREMENT

The Academy and Sponsors’ ICT Vision for the Sutton Academy’s ICT provision, and the ICT capital budget for hardware, are described in the Feasibility Study and remain unchanged. Procurement of the ICT hardware is confirmed as being delivered via the Authority’s BSF Partner following the preferred option described in the Feasibility Study. These are fully reflected in the FBC proposals.

The ICT hardware is being procured via the St. Helens Council’s Building Schools for the Future ICT Partner, Agilisys who have been engaged in the process since November 2011 as part of the Design Group and ICT Group.

The provision of an ICT contractor has been widely discussed with Sutton Academy. Sutton Academy explored with St Helens Council and PFS ICT Advisor the range of options that were available namely

1. Procuring the ICT on their own 2. Issuing a tender for ICT through St Helens Council 3. Using the PFS ICT framework for Academies 4. Using the BSF ICT Provider for St Helens Council.

Each of those options were reviewed and evaluated in terms of risk and best fit with the Academy vision for teaching and learning. As a result the decision was taken to utilise the BSF ICT Provider, Agilisys, who had experience of delivering complex phased programmes using enterprise class solutions in an educational environment. Agilisys are now in regular meetings with the Academy, the builders and their representatives to ensure that the Sutton Vision for ICT is delivered.

An ICT responsibilities matrix has been agreed with the Selected Panel Member, Interserve. It is understood that any changes to the remit of the design and build contract post-contract award will constitute a formal variation and may require additional financial contributions or adjustments to the project scope to ensure that a cost neutral approach is maintained. There is an on-going strategy to effectively manage the interface risks.

The alignment of and the Design and Construction is highlighted as one of the key risks to the Scheme. A detailed risk register for the ICT project been developed and a clear strategy to manage / mitigate ICT risks has also been put in place.

PfS’s ICT Adviser has reviewed the delivery approach for the ICT provision and confirmed that it is acceptable.

Appendix 3:

• ICT Risk Matrix

216 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

4 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

The Selected Panel Member’s solution for the Scheme has been fully costed. The cost estimate has been checked against the rates included in PfS’s Contractors Framework Agreement and it is confirmed that the overall solution is ‘on market’.

Category Approved Cost of Solution Variance Funding at from Selected (Feasibility Feasibility Study Panel Member at Study funding- FBC FBC costs)

Construction Costs 4,093,777 4,525,199 -431,422 External Works 695,942 570,117 125,825 Abnormals Within Ext Works. 321,997 -321,997 Fees 423,142 529,493 -106,351 FFE 1,197,515 812,320 385,195 ICT Infrastructure Within Construction 348,750 Cost 348,750 D&B Contract sub - total 6,759,126 6,759,126 0 Project Support Funding 150,000 150,000 0 ICT Hardware 1,488,000 1,488,000 0 Total 8,397,126 8,397,126 0

Note: Within the Panel Member Costs, Preliminaries, OH&P and Contingency have been split between Construction Costs, External Works and Abnormals.

4.1 Lifecycle Replacement, Hard FM and Soft FM Costs

Life cycle replacement, hard FM and soft FM costs have been estimated for a 25 year period. The Sponsor/Academy Trust has confirmed their commitment to meeting these costs through their available budget sources. The aggregate estimate takes into account information provided by the Selected Panel Member and is no more than the estimate at Feasibility Study

The estimated costs are:

Cost £/m 2 pa Soft FM 19.09 Hard FM 24.60 Lifecycle 12.03 Total 55.72

217 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

The Academy Trust’s outline strategy for delivering life cycle replacement, hard FM and soft FM services is to implement a Planned Maintenance Programme with a 10 year cost plan, which will be reviewed annually, funded from The Sutton Academy’s own operating budget.

4.2 ICT

ICT funding of the capital costs of the selected ICT option will be met and the means by which the maintenance and lifecycle costs for any ICT works will be afforded.

Capital Costs: - • The Capital Costs for the ICT installation will be within the funding envelope of £1,488,000. • The full ICT solution is still being developed, although there is a clear view of the Central and Networking infrastructure that is needed to support the ICT Vision. Work is ongoing with the specific curriculum specialists to derive their individual requirements in terms of hardware and software. • Agilisys costs and any other 3 rd party costs will come from the Capital allocation as above. This may include Project Management, network and server design, installation of hardware and software, commissioning and handover/training to the In House team.

On-going Costs: - • The Sutton Academy stated that they do not wish to use any of the initial Capital allocation to support Hardware refresh. They will ensure that refresh of ICT is funded from their operating budget. • During the detailed identification of the solution, full costs in terms of licensing, maintenance and refresh will be identified. Before solutions are agreed discussions with be held with the Academy to ensure that the money will be available to support the infrastructure for 5 years i. Figures will also be identified by Agilisys to show the amounts of money that will be needed to refresh those solutions beyond the initial 5 years. • The Sutton Academy have stated that they do not wish to take a managed service from Agilisys and will look to their own in house team to ensure that the equipment is maintained and remains operational to support the teaching and learning activities of the Academy. Monies for this will come from the Academy operating budget.

4.3 Other Sources of Funding

No other sources of funding are provided for the Sutton Academy Project.

Appendix 4:

• Elemental Schedule 1

1 This should be the Selected Panel Member’s ITT Volume 6 Pricing Schedule Part 1 Elemental Schedule as submitted with their Bid, updated if there have been any changes. 218 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

5 DESIGN AND BUILD CONTRACT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

The LA’s Legal Advisers have drafted and agreed the Design and Build Contract with the Selected Panel Member. The contract has been reviewed and all derogations have been sent for final approved by PfS. All land transactions associated with the project and Reviewable Design Data have been agreed. A shared use agreement for the Academy to continue using Sutton Leisure Centre is being agreed.

The LA and Academy Trust agreed the Development Agreement and it is ready to sign. The agreement has been reviewed and all derogations have been sent for final approval by PfS.

All parties have made arrangements for their appropriate and duly authorised officers to be available to sign the formal contracts as soon as Final Business Case approval is received.

Appendix 5:

• Schedule of agreed derogations to the Design and Build Contract • Schedule of agreed derogations to the Development Agreement

219 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

6 READINESS TO DELIVER

Supervising and Monitoring the Delivery of the D&B Contract

The Local Authority will supervise and monitor The Sutton Academy works contract through its in house technical services teams within the Asset Management and Construction Procurement Division.

The Authority’s Head of Construction Projects, Alan Cartwright, who has acted as project manager for Sutton Academy throughout the feasibility and procurement stages and who has overall responsibility for delivery, will oversee the project. Mr. Cartwright will continue to support the Design Group, Sponsors and Academy. The Local Authority project manager will continue to ensure the Authority’s personnel continue to work as a closely integrated team with the Sponsors and Academy Senior Leadership Team.

The Council’s Managing Architect, Stuart Rainbow, will lead the post-contract project delivery team on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Rainbow co-ordinated the technical input during the procurement phase, is totally familiar with The Sutton Academy project and will lead on all design and construction matters, quality control, variations and Reviewable Design Data up to the expiry of the Defects Liability Period. Mr. Rainbow undertook a similar role on the £32m Hope Academy project.

The Council’s Building Services Manager, Frank Kelly, who has also been fully involved in the procurement of The Sutton Academy, will oversee Building Services, Energy and sustainability issues and is one of the project’s ICT Working Group.

Mr. Rainbow will be supported by a team of Architects and will call upon the Council’s building surveyors and structural engineers as necessary. When needed Mott MacDonald, who continue as the Council’s BSF Technical Advisers, will be called upon to provide additional or specialist support to the project team. Motts MacDonald also provides the CDM Co-ordinator and a Clerk of Works for the project.

One of the Authority’s senior quantity surveyor’s will assist Mr. Cartwright with the administration of interim valuations, monthly payments and financial control of the project.

The Authority confirms that the full costs of the supervision of the contract are affordable within existing budgets and the £150,000 project support funding received.

Resources for the duration of the project have been put in place, including post contract, to monitor and maintain ongoing relations with the Selected Panel Member and ensure that performance is continually reviewed.

Supervising and Monitoring the Delivery of ICT

The ICT project will be fully resourced by the Academy, Sponsors and the Local Authority.

The Sutton Academy project has an ICT working group of experts drawn from all parties. The Academy’s own team comprises Stuart Cunningham, Head of ICT at Sutton Academy and Ian Morris the Academy’s ICT Co-ordinator, together with the Academy’s Senior Leadership Team. Dave Rankin and Mark Allinson who are respectively the ICT specialists from St. Helens College and Edge Hill University will represent the Sponsors in support of the Academy team.

220 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

The ICT contract will be supervised by the Council’s in-house ICT lead officer for BSF, Tony Brien who with his team have been supporting the Academy and Sponsor staff throughout the project. Mr. Brien also administers the BSF ICT Contract which will ensure there is consistency with the overall BSF programme. Mr. Brien has the overall contractual responsibility for the ICT contract.

The Authority’s Building Services Manager Frank Kelly is also a member of the working group to ensure continuity between ICT contractor and Building Contractor.

The PfS ICT Adviser Christine Coward has been fully involved in the scheme’s development and will continue to provide expert support.

Statutory Approvals

All necessary statutory approvals have been granted. Planning Permission was applied for on 18 th November 2011, no objections have been received, and remains on programme to be granted on 13 rd February 2012.

Risk

A risk strategy for the delivery phase has been developed at the first Design User Group and continues to be reviewed on an ongoing basis.

A further risk workshop was held on 17 th December 2011 with all stakeholders present including the addition of Interserve as Selected Panel Member and a risk strategy for the delivery phase has been developed.

The Risk Register details:

• The risks identified • Who is responsible for the mitigation • Measures being taken to mitigate each risk

Cash Flow Phasing Schedule

A Cash Flow Phasing Schedule has been completed, using the PfS template, and is included within the appendices. This is consistent with the overall funding provided by PfS and the D&B Contract milestones schedule that has been developed by the Selected Panel Member.

Funding will be allocated to LA

Appendix 6:

• Planning Permission and other Statutory Approvals • Risk Register • Cash Flow Phasing Schedule

221 7 PfS Template Document Final Business Case

APPENDIX 1 – OVERVIEW AND COMMITMENT

An email of support from the Sponsor/Academy Trust

APPENDIX 2 – THE LOCAL COMPETITION

A detailed programme of work going forward (Gantt chart including ICT procurement, design, installation and client commissioning)

APPENDIX 3 – ICT PROCUREMENT

ICT Risk Matrix

APPENDIX 4 – AFFORDABILITY

Elemental Schedule

APPENDIX 5 – DESIGN AND BUILD CONTRACT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

• Schedule of agreed derogations to the Design and Build Contract • Schedule of agreed derogations to the Development Agreement

APPENDIX 6 - READINESS TO DELIVER

• Planning Permission and other Statutory Approvals – TBC 13 th February 2012 • Risk Register • Cash Flow Phasing Schedule

222