AGENDA
Cabinet Meeting – 13th March 2008 at 2.00 p.m. Page No. 1. Apologies for Absence.
2. To receive disclosures of personal interests from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea.
3. Minutes of the Cabinet meetings held on 21st February 1-15 2008.
4. Leader’s Report(s).
5. Public Question Time.
6. Cabinet Members’ Reports:
(A) Economic & Strategic Development Portfolio (1) Canolfan Gorseinon Centre Gorseinon Development Trust 16-18 Loan. (2) Felindre Joint Venture Agreement and Investment 19-26 Programme.
(B) Environment Portfolio (1) Post Inquiry Modifications to the City and County of Swansea 27-45 Unitary Development Plan. (2) Proposed Transfer of Windrow Composting from Tir John to 46-52 Abergelli Farm, Felindre, Swansea. (3) A Review of the Houses in Multiple-Occupation (HMO) 53-60 Licensing Policy including Proposals for an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme and a Revised Fee Structure. (4) Framework Agreement for Highways Planned Maintenance, 61-69 Improvement and Construction. (5) Landfill Tax and the Expansion of Recycling Schemes. 70-76 (6) South West Wales Regional Waste Management Committee 77-108 – Formalisation of Arrangements.
7. Exclusion of the Public
The Proper Officer has determined in preparing these reports that by virtue of paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Variation Order 2007 should apply; his view on the public interest test is that whilst he was mindful of the need to ensure the transparency and accountability of a public authority in respect of decisions taken by them in relation to the spending of public money, regard also has to be made to any relevant prejudice which might be caused to the Council in the full context of any
disclosure. It is considered in this instance that maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information in that the Council could be financially prejudiced if this report was not so exempt. Members are asked to consider this factor when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
8. Cabinet Members’ Reports:
(A) Top Performance and eGovernment Portfolio (1) Equal Pay 109-114
(B) Economic & Strategic Development Portfolio (1) Proposed Disposal of Land for Development at Riverside 115-119 Business Park Swansea Vale.
(C) Culture, Recreation and Tourism Portfolio (1) Operational Arrangements for the New Indoor Bowls Centre. 120-124
Georgie Thomas Head of Community Leadership and Democracy 07.03.08 Contact: Georgie Thomas 01792 637290 Z: Agendas/Cabinet/08Mar13
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
MINUTES OF THE CABINET
HELD AT COUNTY HALL, SWANSEA ON THURSDAY 21ST FEBRUARY, 2008 AT 2.00 P.M.
PRESENT:- Councillor C A Holley (Leader) presided
Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s):
A M Day M H Jones D G Sullivan (for part) E W Fitzgerald J Newbury L G Thomas J B Hague J T G Peters
194. APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE
An apology for absence was received from Councillor G G Clement.
195. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea, no interests were declared.
196. MINUTES OF THE CABINET OF 21ST FEBRUARY 2008
The Minutes of Cabinet held on 21st February 2008 were accepted as a correct record.
197. LEADER’S REPORT
No reports were made.
198. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Liz Davies asked the relevant Cabinet Members the following questions:-
(1) the possibility of Dunvant School being considered for Community School status. The Cabinet Member of Education responded;
(2) would the net overspend referred to in paragraph 2.3.9 of the Revenue Budget report be offset by a reduction in adult services. The Cabinet Member for Social Services responded;
(3) the net cost of the Leisure Centre Scheme as referred to in paragraph 3.10 of the Capital and Budget Programme report for 2007/08. The Leader responded.
1 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
199. BUDGET 2008/09 - OVERVIEW REPORT
The Section 151 Officer submitted an overview report to highlight the key issues running through this technical analysis and in particular to make clear the connections to:-
• The Budget Reports to Council in February 2007.
• Relevant Audit Report and comments particularly in the Relationship Manager’s Annual Letter.
CABINET DECISION
The overview report be noted and referred to Council.
Policy Framework
None.
Reason for Decision
To agree a Revenue Budget, Capital Budget and Council Tax 2008/09.
Consultation
Cabinet Members and Corporate Management Team.
200. CAPITAL BUDGET AND PROGRAMME 2007/08-2011/12
The Section 115 Officer submitted a report which detailed:-
• Revised capital expenditure and financing proposals for 2007/08; and
• Capital expenditure and financing proposals for 2008/09-2011/12.
CABINET DECISION
(1) The current practice of pooling capital receipts be amended in relation to the QED 2020 Programme (and other projects which rely on capital receipts funding) subject to the achievement of the overall capital receipts target.
(2) The revised budget for 2007/08 and budget 2008/09-2011/12 be endorsed and referred to Council for approval.
2 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
Policy Framework
None.
Reason for Decisions
To agree a revised budget for 2007/08, a budget for 2008/09-2011/12.
Consultation
Cabinet Members and Corporate Management Teams.
201. CAPITAL PROGRAMME - PRUDENTIAL CODE AND PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS FOR 2008/09
The Section 151 Officer submitted a report which outlined the CIPFA Prudential Code and set prudential indicators for 2008/09.
CABINET DECISION
The prudential indicators and proposals set out in the appendix to this report be endorsed and referred to Council for approval.
Policy Framework
Prudential indicators must be an integral part of the budget setting process by Council.
Reason for Decision
Under the Local Government Act 2003 and subsequent regulations, a local authority is required to comply with the CIPFA Code when setting its budget and must determine and keep under view how much it can afford to borrow.
Consultation
Legal and Finance.
202. REVENUE BUDGET 2008/09
The Section 151 Officer submitted a report which detailed:-
• The revised budget 2007/08. • The Local Government Finance Settlement 2008/09.
3 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
• Budget proposals 2008/09. • Risks and uncertainties. • The Medium Term Financial Plan 2009/10-2011/12. • Reserves and Contingency provision. • The Overall Budget Requirements and Council Tax 2008/09.
CABINET DECISION
The following budget proposals be endorsed and referred to Council for approval.
(1) A revised budget for 2007/08.
(2) A budget for 2008/09.
(3) A Budget Requirement and Council Tax levy for 2008/09.
Policy Framework
None.
Reason for Decision
To agree a revised budget for 2007/08, a budget for 2008/09 and a Council Tax levy for 2008/09.
Consultation
Cabinet Members and Corporate Management Team.
203. TREASURY STRATEGY STATEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR 2008/09
The Section 151 Officer submitted a report which recommended the Treasury Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy for 2008/09.
CABINET DECISION
The Treasury Management Strategy and Investment Strategy as set out in the report be endorsed and referred to Council for approval.
Policy Framework
None.
4 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
Reason for Decision
To allow the proper management of the Council’s borrowing and investments, to comply with statute and the adopted CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities and the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice.
Consultation
Legal and Finance.
204. HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT - REVENUE BUDGET 2008/09 AND CAPITAL BUDGET 2008/09 TO 2010/11
The Section 151 Officer and the Director of Regeneration and Housing submitted a report which detailed a Revenue Budget 2008/09, a Capital Budget 2008/09 to 2010/11 and a rent increase for properties within the Housing Revenue Account.
CABINET DECISION
The following budget proposals be endorsed and referred to Council for approval.
(1) In line with the Wales Assembly Government guideline, to increase rents by £3.17p per week (average of 5.7%) over a 50 week rent year as detailed in section 1 of the report.
(2) Continued the policy of rent harmonisation as detailed in section 3 of the report and table D in the appendix provided a more detailed analysis.
(3) Approve the increase for fees, charges and allowances as outlined in section 4.
(4) Approve the Revenue Budget and Capital Programme as detailed in sections 2, 5 and appendix.
Policy Framework
None.
Reason for Decision
To agree a revenue and capital budget as indicated and a rent increase for 2008/09.
5 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
Consultation
The Cabinet Members for Housing and Finance, Director of Regeneration and Housing, Finance and Legal.
205. SWANSEA BAY STRATEGY - REPORT ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The Leader submitted a report which outlined the public consultation exercise undertaken on the draft Swansea Bay Strategy Vision and Action Plan.
CABINET DECISION
Subject to the proposed amendments set out in Appendix 2 of the report, the Swansea Bay Strategy Vision and Action Plan be endorsed and referred to Council with a recommendation that it be adopted as the Council’s Policy for the regeneration of the Swansea Bay area.
Policy Framework
Swansea Community Plan - Environment and Prosperity themes, draft Unitary Development Plan, Tourism Strategy.
Reason for Decision
To consider the comments of members of the public, statutory and non statutory organisations and to consider any necessary refinements of the Draft Vision and Action Plan to allow its adoption as Council Policy for the regeneration of the Swansea Bay area.
Consultation
Financial Services, Legal Services, Planning, Engineering and Transportation.
206. OYSTERMOUTH SQUARE
The Leader submitted a report which sought endorsement in principle to an agreement which gave the development company the assurance, subject to safeguards that the Council would negotiate exclusively with EP Leisure in respect of land disposal. The reference to ‘Swansea City Council’ in paragraph 2.2 was amended to ‘City and County of Swansea’.
6 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
CABINET DECISION
(1) The City and County of Swansea will in principle agree to negotiate with E P Leisure in respect of the disposal of CCS land required to bring forward the implementation of a scheme or schemes for Oystermouth Square.
(2) Such negotiations will be dependent on open book appraisal and the approval of an independent valuer (District Valuer or equivalent).
(3) The in principle agreement to be time limited for a three year period with an eighteen month review stage. Such agreement to be formally documented and to contain such terms as the Head of Legal Services deems appropriate and further the Head of Legal Services be authorised to enter into such document on behalf of the Council and any necessary supplementary document.
(4) A critical path development programme with milestones be agreed and progress assessed at the agreed review date.
(5) The details of land disposal to be reported back to Cabinet for decision.
Policy Framework
Approved Development Brief for Oystermouth Square, Unitary Development Plan (Pre Inquiry Modifications) Swansea Local Plan Swansea Bay Strategy (Consultation Draft).
Reason for Decision
To provide the development company with an assurance that following the preparation of a scheme or schemes and the securing of planning permission the progression to implementation can be viewed as a realistic proposition.
Consultation
Chief Executive, Financial and Legal Services.
207. COMMUNITY FOCUSED SCHOOLS
The Cabinet Member for Education submitted a report which updated the development of Community Focused Schools and sought approval to agree and implement the policy and strategy via a series of pilot initiatives at selected schools.
7 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
CABINET DECISION
The Community Focused Schools Policy, Strategy and Implementations Plan be endorsed and referred to Council.
Policy Framework
Single Education Plan, Children and Young People Plan.
Reason for Decision
To comply with the Education Act 2002.
Consultation
Chief Executive, Education, Finance, Legal, Social Services and Regeneration.
208. REGIONAL TRANSPORT PLAN: DEVELOPING THE DRAFT PLAN
The Cabinet Member for Environment submitted a report which outlined the Regional Transport Plan Consultation and sought approval for a prioritisation mechanism to create a pool of transport projects for the draft plan.
CABINET DECISION
(1) The overall outcome of the consultation process as set out in Appendix A of the report be noted.
(2) The eighty three projects which meet the Regional Transport Guidance criteria are adopted for the draft plan programme pool.
(3) The mechanism for the prioritisation within the draft programme be approved.
Policy Framework
The Transport (Wales) Act 2006, the Draft Wales Transport Strategy, Guidance on Regional Transport Plans.
Reason for Decision
To allow the submission of a working draft Regional Transport Plan to the Welsh Assembly Government by 31st March 2008.
8 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
Consultation
Legal and Finance.
209. DRAFT CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE SINGLE PLAN 2008 TO 2011
The Cabinet Members for Top Performance and e-Government, submitted a joint report regarding the draft Children and Young People Plan 2008 to 2011.
CABINET DECISION
The draft Children and Young People Plan 2008 to 2011 be accepted and consulted upon in accordance with the Welsh Assembly requirements for a period of 12 weeks with those organisations and individuals as outlined in section 6 of the report.
Policy Framework
This will be a new policy which would replace the current Single Education Plan, the Young People’s Partnership Strategic Plan and the Children and Young People’s Framework Partnership.
Reason for Decision
A twelve week consultation period is required with key individuals and organisations for the Children and Young People Plan 2008 to 2011 be accepted and consulted upon in accordance with the Welsh Assembly requirements for a period of 12 weeks and with those organisations and individuals as outlined in section 6 of the report.
Consultation
Finance, Legal, Children and Young People, Executive Board.
210. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE MONITORING - 3RD QUARTER 2007/08
The Cabinet Member for Top Performance and e-Government submitted a report which detailed the breakdown of performance for the third quarter 2007/08.
CABINET DECISION
The comments and results in the report be noted.
9 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
Policy Framework
The Corporate Plan and the Improvement Plan.
Reason for Decision
For information.
Consultation
Corporate Management Team, Legal and Finance.
211. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY - ANNUAL REVIEW 2006/07
The Cabinet Member for Top Performance and e-Government submitted a report which outlined a draft of the City and County of Swansea’s first joint annual Equality and Diversity Review.
CABINET DECISION
The content of the review be noted and published on the internet.
Policy Framework
Race Equality Scheme, Welsh Language Scheme, Disability Equality Scheme. Also requirements under the Equalities Act 2006.
Reason for Decision
Statutory reporting requirement relating to the Welsh Language Act 1993, Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and Disability Discrimination Act 2005 along with the Equalities Act 2006.
Consultation
Corporate Management Team, Legal and Finance.
212. RESPONSE TO THE RELATIONSHIP MANAGER’S ANNUAL LETTER 2006-07
The Cabinet Member for Finance submitted a joint report which indicated the responses to the overall summary point in the Relationship Manager’s Audit Letter for 2006-07.
10 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
CABINET DECISION
The response to the Relationship Manager’s Annual Letter 2006-07 as indicated in the report be endorsed and referred to Council.
Policy Framework
Corporate Plan, Improvement Plan.
Reason for Decision
To agree actions to respond to Relationship Manager’s recommendations.
Consultation
Corporate Management Team, Cabinet Members, Legal and Finance Audit Scrutiny Board.
213. LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY GOVERNOR APPOINTMENTS
The Cabinet Member for Education referred to a report on the recommendations of the Education and Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Board in relation to the policy and procedure for the appointment of LEA Governors. Councillor J Miles, the Chairman of Education and Lifelong Learning had been invited to present this report, however, he was unable to attend.
CABINET DECISION
The report be noted.
Policy Framework
Policy and Procedure for Appointment of LEA Governors and Establishment of an LEA Governor Panel - Council 14th April 2005. Call in procedure in the Council Constitution.
Reason for Decision
To enable Cabinet to consider the recommendations of the Education and Lifelong Learning Scrutiny Board on the appointment of LEA Governors.
Consultation
Legal Services, Finance Services.
11 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
214. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
The Committee was requested to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as set out in paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Variation Order 2007. If following the application of the public interest test the Committee resolves pursuant to the Act to consider these items in private, the public will be excluded.
The Public Interest Test: The Proper Officer (the Monitoring Officer) had determined in preparing these reports that paragraph 14 should apply.
His view on the public interest test in relation to paragraph 14, that whilst he was mindful of the need to ensure the transparency and accountability of a public authority in respect of decisions taken by them in relation to the spending of public money, regard also has to be made to any relevant prejudice which might be caused to the Council in the full context of any disclosure. It is considered in this instance that maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information in that the Council could be financially prejudiced if this report was not so exempt. Members were asked to consider this factor when determining the public interest which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
It was recommended that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
The Committee having considered paragraph 14 and the public interest test as applied by the Proper Officer (Monitoring Officer) moved that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information and resolved to exclude the public.
215. THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SURFACE LEVEL CAR PARK AT MARINER STREET, SWANSEA
The Leader submitted a report which sought approval for the disposal of land to the private sector to secure appropriate regeneration of the site.
CABINET DECISION
The Council as landowner support the redevelopment proposals of the Mariner Street site and that the following key actions be approved:-
12 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
(1) The Heads of Terms between the Council and the Developer.
(2) The Heads of Terms between the Council and Network Rail.
(3) The Director of Regeneration and Housing in consultation with the Head of Corporate Property and the Head of Legal Services be authorised to continue with the negotiations with the developer and Network Rail.
(4) The Director of Regeneration and Housing in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, the Head of Finance and the Head of Corporate Property be granted delegated powers to finalise all terms necessary to progress the scheme and that the Head of Legal Services be authorised to enter into any necessary documentation to secure delivery of this scheme.
(5) The financial implication and return to the Council including the likely impact on car parking income be reported to Cabinet once agreement had been reached with the developer.
(6) A project group be set up to include project officers, the Leader of the Council and appropriate Cabinet Members to receive updates and discuss progress of the scheme.
Policy Framework
Swansea City Centre Strategic Framework.
Reason for Decision
To enable the Development Agreement and all the associated documentation to be completed with the developer which will allow the developer to progress the development of the Marina Street site.
Consultation
Financial Services, Legal Services, Planning, Transportation, Corporate Property.
216. FORMER NURSERY PREMISES WALLACE ROAD/KINLEY STREET, ST. THOMAS
The Leader submitted a report which sought to dispose of Council property in accordance with the Council’s Surplus Property Disposals Policy.
13 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
CABINET DECISION
Approval be granted for the disposal of the freehold interest in the site indicated edged black on Plan 1 to tenderer no. 6 subject to the developer obtaining planning consent for his proposals and to such other terms considered appropriate by the Head of Economic and Strategic Development and the Head of Legal Services.
Policy Framework
CCS Asset Management Plan.
Reason for Decision
To facilitate the disposal and redevelopment of the site.
Consultation
Corporate Property, Financial Services, Legal Services, Planning Services and Regeneration.
217. SWANSEA CENTRAL LIBRARY, ALEXANDRA ROAD, SWANSEA
The Leader submitted a report which requested approval to openly market the Central Library which had become surplus to requirements.
CABINET DECISION
The Central Library be openly marketed as soon as possible requesting expressions of interest.
Policy Framework
Swansea City Centre Strategic Framework.
Reason for Decision
To enable the property to be openly marketed.
Consultation
Financial Services, Legal Services, Corporate Property, Corporate Building Services.
14 Minutes of Cabinet (21.02.08) Cont’d
218. LEISURE TRUST - FUNDING REQUIREMENT
The Leader submitted a report which detailed the VAT requirements and the funding arrangements of the Leisure Centre by the Trust.
CABINET DECISION
An adjustment be approved in the grant awarded to Bay Leisure Ltd to fully account for the VAT requirement during the first full year of the operation of the Leisure Centre.
Policy Framework
Cabinet Reports 11th January 2007, 5th April 2007, 20th September 2007 and 20th December 2007.
Reason for Decision
A decision is required to increase the funding of Business Plan for 2008/09.
Consultation
Legal Services, Finance, Performance and Corporate Property.
The meeting ended at 3.15 p.m.
CHAIRMAN
S: Cabinet/07-08/CBNT080221 (JT/EJF) 21st February 2008
15
Item No. 6 (A) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Economic & Strategic Development
Cabinet - 13th March 2008
CANOLFAN GORSEINON CENTRE GORSEINON DEVELOPMENT TRUST LOAN
Summary
Purpose: To approve early release of part of the CCS loan to Gorseinon Development Trust as agreed by Cabinet on Policy Framework: 25th August 2005.
Reason for Decision: To allow the Trust to begin their staff recruitment, develop marketing material, and purchase specialist equipment not covered by the project funding for the scheme prior to the centre opening.
Consultation: Financial Services, Legal Services, Community Regeneration, Gorseinon Development Trust.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that 1) £30,000 of the already approved £110,000 interest free loan be released to GDT in March 2008 prior to the Lease being granted.
1.0 Background
1.1 The Council, in a report to Cabinet on 25th August 2005 agreed that Canolfan Gorseinon (known as Pentre Menter), a Multiuse Resource Centre be entered into the Council’s capital programme. The Council has entered directly into an Agreement for Lease with the Trust, which on practical completion of the build period will trigger a Lease for a term of 125 years at a peppercorn rent.
1.2 Cabinet also agreed that a £110,000 interest free loan be provided to the Trust by means of a Loan Agreement when the Lease is granted to assist with the cash flow during the early stages of operating the centre.
1.3 Practical completion is scheduled for 18th June 2008. GDT aim to be open for business Autumn 08.
16
2.0 Gorseinon Development Trust
2.1 Since the Council approved the report in August 2005, the role of the Trust in running the facility has evolved which has resulted in a request for early release of part of the £110,000 loan.
2.2 Initial plans to rent out the café and childcare facilities it is felt will not provide sufficient revenue funding for GDT to sustain the facility. Therefore, the Trust will now operate the centre themselves, providing the staff to manage and run all the facilities. Five income generating enterprises within the building will contribute to the revenue streams of the facility:
• Healthy Living Café • Child Care Facility • Managed workspace, training space and business start up support • Conference Facilities • Community and social use
2.3 These additional enterprises have resulted in the following additional costs which could not previously have been anticipated:
• The need to recruit additional staff prior to the centre being open. In particular, catering and childcare managers. This will allow a sufficient time period for recruitment, necessary registration with CSIW, policy development and equipping the centre ready for use.
• Production of marketing material in order to promote early uptake of space in the centre.
• Purchase of specialist equipment for the café and child care facilities which are not covered by the project grant, for inspection purposes in order to enable certification.
This will enable, at the earliest opportunity, the trust to income generate from the new facility, greatly reducing the risk of placing cash flow implications on the trust for the operation of the centre.
3.0 Legal Implications
3.1 GDT has entered into an Agreement for Lease for this site. Therefore, if GDT is unable to sustain the facility the following could occur: 3.1.1 GDT may not be able to fulfil its obligations under that Agreement. Legally CCS would have the right to sue GDT for breach of contract. 3.1.2 CCS obtained the grant funding for the Centre and any changes to its financing or ownership must be agreed in advance by WEFO as failure to do so may result in the termination of the grant and repayment of part or the whole of any grant paid. 3.1.3 CCS as the freehold owner of the site is ultimately responsible for what has already been built upon the site should GDT fail in all respects to sustain the buildings.
17 3.2 CCS should require GDT to enter into a legal charge in order to protect the Council’s interest for the amount to be loaned against a security available in respect of such a loan. The security in this case could be the Centre itself but GDT will not become the legal owner until such time as the final lease is agreed in June 2008. GDT is a registered charity and therefore has very few assets. However, CCS is working in partnership with GDT and the aim of both parties is to provide Community Facilities. If CCS were to pay out part of the loan at this stage, it could view it as a short term risk until such time as GDT gains an interest in land upon the granting of the lease in June when a Legal Charge can then be obtained with the Centre acting as the security.
4.0 Financial Implications
4.1 The Trust’s business plan has been amended in order to generate additional income to support its operation. The intention to provide services in house, to achieve this extra income, will require some up front funding as stated in the report. 4.2 Running in house services may increase the trust’s financial risk and commitments eg employer commitments. 4.3 Providing part of the loan prior to opening of the facility and prior to the lease being formalised means the loan advanced is additional risk to the council. 4.4 The interest free loan of £110,000 will be used for: Purchase of equipment £17000 Working capital £93000 4.5 When the lease is signed in June of this year, repayment terms will then be agreed with the Trust.
5.0 Recommendation
£30,000 of the already approved £110,000 interest free loan be released to GDT in March 2008 prior to the Lease being granted.and the Head of Legal Services be authorised to enter into any relevant documentation
Contact Officer: Dawn Jenkins Extension: 6112
18 Item No. 6 (A) (2)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Economic and Strategic Development
Cabinet – 13th March 2008
FELINDRE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT AND INVESTMENT PROGRAMME
Summary
Purpose: To agree to the proposed amendments to the draft Joint Venture Agreement outlined in this report. To agree a programme of infrastructure works. To identify the mechanisms for dealing with the revenue implications of this capital programme.
Policy Framework Felindre Strategic Business Park Development Strategy. Swansea UDP Deposit Draft Policy EC1. Cabinet Decision 30th March 2006
Reason for decision To comply with Financial Procedure 7 to approve a capital scheme which is not included in the Capital Programme. To seek authority for WAG to access Council land and carry out infrastructure work in support of delivering our joint regeneration strategy
Consultation: Financial Services; Legal Services; Highways
Recommendations It is recommended that Cabinet:
• agree amendment to the draft Felindre Joint Venture Agreement as outlined in this report and reaffirm approval for the Council to enter into the Joint Venture • approve the capital schemes set out in the programme of infrastructure works for 2008/09 as contained in the Implementation Action Plan • approve the provisional programme of works from 2009/10 to 2016/17 subject to further reports in each future year. • The service charge be set at a level to ensure that future revenue costs are funded by income and not a charge on the Authority. • authorise that a license be granted to WAG to allow access to Council land to undertake infrastructure works and that the Head of Legal Services enter into the necessary legal agreements
19 1.0 Background
1.1 Felindre is a strategic employment site of a size, in a location and with a dedicated junction to the M4 which makes it unique in Wales and probably Britain. It is of regional significance particularly within the context of the Wales Spatial Plan. The Felindre site comprises some 195 hectares of land in the ownership of the WAG and CCS.
1.2 Phase 1, which is owned by the Council, comprises some 61ha of brownfield land which was previously occupied by the Felindre Tinplate Works and which has recently been granted outline planning consent for a strategic business park. An office development is proposed to commence on site in 08/09 delivered via the Welsh Investment Strategic Partnership (a mechanism for delivering large office developments) as a means of stimulating private sector development in line with the strategy.
1.3 Phase 2, which is owned by the WAG, comprises the remaining 134ha of greenfield land, and will only be developed once the majority of the brownfield land has been built out. There are no proposals to undertake infrastructure works on this land at present
1.4 There has been joint working between the WAG (formerly the WDA) and the Council for a number of years to bring the site forward for development. In this context, investment of approximately £25m has already been made in land acquisition, site infrastructure, land reclamation, access roads and a dedicated junction with the M4. Of this total, approximately £17.5m was invested by WAG, £3m from Europe with a further £4.5m invested by CCS and Lliw Valley B.C. Significant further investment in infrastructure, particularly utilities, is needed to enable development of the site to proceed. In order to facilitate this it is intended to grant WAG and their agents a license to enter the site, to carry out these infrastructure works pending completion of the Joint Venture Agreement.
1.5 An Implementation Group, comprising officers of WAG and CCS, has been established to deliver the Felindre project in line with the Development Strategy and the principles of a Joint Venture Agreement. The Implementation Group reports to the Regeneration Partnership Board established between WAG and the Council, and on which there is senior representation at Member and Officer level.
2.0 Development Strategy
2.1 The Development Strategy for Felindre was jointly adopted by WAG and the Council in April 2006 (Council minute 244 refers) to guide the future development and use of the Felindre site.
2.2 The vision for Felindre, as contained in the Development Strategy, is to develop the site as a high level strategic business park serving South
20 Wales. Developments will be of high design quality and the site will be for specific business uses only, to accommodate emerging industries, high tech manufacturing and high level services plus ancillary uses. The key strategic objectives are to: • Develop a high quality sustainable strategic business park in a parkland setting for high level uses • Maximise job creation • Complement the portfolio of lower order employment sites both locally and regionally
3.0 Urban Design Framework
3.1 In support of the adopted Development Strategy, outline planning permission was granted in October 2006 for a Strategic Business Park for specific B1 and B2 (business) uses to accommodate a maximum floorspace of 80,065sqm for emerging industries, high tech manufacturing and high level services on the Felindre site.
3.2 A condition of the planning permission was that an Urban Design Framework, to articulate the vision for the site as contained in the Development Strategy, be submitted and agreed. This will provide overall urban design objectives and principles for the site and illustrate the general site layout, the massing of the built development, movement patterns, structural landscaping, public realm, key views and landmark features. A design/code/manual will also indicate how sustainable development principles will be incorporated into the design process. The Framework has recently been submitted to the Council for approval and to allow the planning condition to be discharged.
4.0 Financial Implications
Capital
4.1 The draft JV Agreement places an obligation on the Implementation Group to prepare an Implementation Action Plan as a means of co- ordinating future investment decisions at the site, and includes a requirement that this Action Plan be reported annually to both JV partners for agreement.
4.2 The provisional Action Plan for 2007/17 is set out in Appendix A and identifies a programme of infrastructure works required for the site to be suitable for development. This programme is based upon delivering the Urban Design Framework described above and includes the costs of bringing strategic utilities to the site such as electric, gas, water, sewerage etc and the cost of laying out the site and servicing individual plots. Timescales and costs of these items may vary over time as development of the site progresses and a revised Implementation Plan will be reported to Cabinet on an annual basis in line with the terms of the JV agreement.
21
4.3 Details of works to be carried out in 2007-2009 are set out below.
WAG land £’000 Masterplan of development 150 Site contamination monitoring 20 Gas supply 150 Water supply 55 Electricity supply 2000 Foul water drainage 2400 Improvements main access 150 roundabout Bridge Improvements Felindre Road 50 Telecom infrastructure 100
CCS land Strategic Structural landscaping 585 (clearing and preparing the site, managing existing vegetation, grass planting, walkways/cycle-ways) Infrastructure for development phases 2435 1 and 2 (earthworks, roads & lighting, drainage, landscaping, CCTV supply)
Contingency Both sites 740 Design Both sites 740
Total Cost 9,575
4.4 The total cost of £9.575m will be fully funded by WAG and /or Convergence Funding and capital receipts.
4.5 There is no requirement for funding from the Authority’s 4 Year Capital Programme. The Authority’s only commitment is to reinvest its share of capital receipts arising from the project as approved in the Joint Venture Agreement with WAG.
4.6 As part of the highway adoption process, WAG will need to enter into a section 38 agreement with the Council. This will require WAG to pay fees for technical approval, supervision and legal documentation in respect of the construction of the highway works. The level of fees and timescale for receipt is to be determined and will be met by WAG.
22 Revenue
4.7 The Implementation Action Plan identifies a significant capital investment programme with a consequent revenue requirement to fund maintenance and operating costs such as:
• Landscaping. • Estate management. • Highway maintenance costs prior to adoption. • Power and maintenance for street lighting prior to adoption
Details are set out in Appendix A.
4.8 In order to limit the Council’s and WAG’s revenue obligations for Felindre, the following mechanisms are proposed and it is recommended that these should be included in the JV Agreement • an amount, to be agreed by the JV partners, to be deducted from Felindre land sales to be earmarked as a commuted sum, to provide interest to part fund future revenue costs to be met by the JV. • developers pay a service charge to cover maintenance costs of common areas.
4.9 It should also be noted that:
• In terms of onsite highway maintenance, the Council will require a further commuted sum to fund future maintenance. This will be agreed between the partners at the time of adoption. Any remedial works required by the Highways authority to allow adoption will be met from the agreed JV budget. • The estimated cost of maintaining the onsite landscaping of the public areas when fully completed in 2017 is £35k per annum. A 5 year maintenance requirement will be built into the contracts for landscaping works and therefore the revenue costs of the first phase of landscaping will not fall on the JV partners until 2013. • Site security will be the responsibility of individual contractors and developers. Only basic CCTV infrastructure supply will be provided and any running costs will fall on individual site occupiers and tenants. • As landowners the Council currently has estate management responsibilities for Felindre and although a specific budget has not been agreed the Council has had to meet the costs of a water supply, removal of travellers and ensuring the site is secure.
4.10 Forecast of revenue costs and income are set out in Appendix A . After taking into account income from commuted sums the service charge will be set at a level to cover any shortfall so that future maintenance costs are fully covered by income and are not a charge on the Authority.
23
5.0 Joint Venture Agreement
5.1 In March 2006 Cabinet gave approval for the Council to negotiate, agree and enter into the Joint Venture Agreement with the WDA (now WAG) for the regeneration and development of Felindre. The Joint Venture Agreement defines the joint working arrangements that will deliver the site’s Development Strategy, and regularise financial arrangements in respect of investment in site preparation and the apportionment of capital receipts from land sales.
5.2 The key elements of the JV agreement as reported to Cabinet are: • development of Felindre to be delivered jointly by the Council and WAG in line with the aspirations of the Development Strategy; • WAG will act as the lead body; • the JV will be for a period of 10 years; • agreement to the distribution of receipts taking into account each party’s contribution to development expenditure; • receipts to be reinvested in further capital and infrastructure works.
5.3 The draft Joint Venture Agreement took no account of the revenue implications emanating from the development proposals and how it would be funded. It is recommended that the mechanism for funding revenue costs over the period of the JV as outlined in 4.12 above be agreed and included in the JV Agreement.
5.4 The Head of Economic and Strategic Development confirms that the amendment referred to in paragraph 5.3 above is the only substantive change to the terms of the proposed JV as approved by Cabinet in March 2006.
6.0 Legal Implications
6.1 The JV is a legally binding contract and therefore the Council will be committed to its terms.
6.2 If the JV is terminated, the Council may be forced to dispose of sites it may otherwise have wished to retain.
6.3 Any grants received by the Council for the benefit of the scheme may contain clawback provisions if grant conditions are not met.
6.4 The authority will with the agreement of the Welsh Assembly Government enter in to a section 38 and adopt the Highway network on completion
6.5 The License referred to in paragraph 1.4 above is designed to be a temporary arrangement; WAG should not be allowed access until the license document is legally completed.
24
7.0 Recommendations
It is recommended that Cabinet:
7.1 agree amendment to the draft Felindre Joint Venture Agreement as outlined in this report and reaffirm approval for the Council to enter into the Joint Venture
7.2 approve the capital schemes set out in the programme of infrastructure works for 2008/09 as contained in the Implementation Action Plan
7.3 approve the provisional programme of works from 2009/10 to 2016/17 subject to further reports in each future year.
7.4 the service charge be set at a level to ensure that future revenue costs are funded by income and not a charge on the Authority.
7.5 authorise that a license be granted to WAG to allow access to Council land to undertake infrastructure works and that the Head of Legal Services enter into the necessary legal agreements
Contact Officer: Neil Ranft 01792 637275
25 Financial Procedure Rule 7 Appendix A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS : SUMMARY
Portfolio: ECONOMIC AND STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT Service : ECONOMIC REGENERATION - OTHER AREAS Scheme : FELINDRE DEVELOPMENT Head of Service - Economic and Strategic Development
1.1. CAPITAL COSTS 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 TOTAL 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 TOTAL GRAND TOTAL £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Committed Expenditure Provisional Expenditure Offsite(WAG land) Main access roundabout 150 150 150 Bridges/Structures Phase 1 50 50 50 Masterplan 150 150 150 Contamination hotspots 20 20 20 Gas supply 50 100 150 150 Water supply 55 55 55 Electrical supply 2000 2000 2000 Telecom supply 100 100 100 Foul water/sewerage 2400 2400 2400
Onsite(CCS land) Strategic landscaping 545 40 585 324 941 350 150 49 113 72 1999 2584 Phase 1 site infrastructure 1255 1255 1255 Phase 2 site infrastructure 1180 1180 1180
Provisional Expenditure Offsite(WAG land) J46 improvements 300 300 300 Bridges/Structures Future Phases 200 200 200 100 700 700 Contamination hotspots 20 20 20 20 80 80
Onsite(CCS land) Phase 1 site infrastructure 150 182 332 332 Phase 2 site infrastructure 150 261 411 411 Phase 3 site infrastructure 1061 285 1346 1346 Phase 4 site infrastructure 490 49 539 539 Phase 5 site infrastructure 1118 176 1294 1294 Central Infrastructure 59 495 811 1365 1365
Contingency 560 180 740 78 148 155 125 125 110 26 767 1507 Design Fees 560 180 740 78 148 155 125 125 110 26 767 1507
EXPENDITURE 275 6,900 2,400 9,575 1,000 1,900 2,000 1,600 1,600 1,500 300 0 9,900 19475
Financing WAG own resource 275 5,900 1,000 7175 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 12175 WEFO - Convergence grant 1,000 1,000 2000 500 500 1,000 3000 Capital receipt 600 600 600 600 600 600 1,500 300 0 4,200 4800 less commuted sum -200 -200 -200 -100 -300 -500
FINANCING 275 6,900 2,400 9,575 1,000 1,900 2,000 1,600 1,600 1,500 300 0 9,900 19475
1.2. REVENUE COSTS 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 FULL YEAR £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Offsite(WAG land) None identified
Onsite(CCS land) Landscaping maintenance 10 15 20 35 35 Highways pre-adoption 5 5 5 10 10 10 0 Lighting power/maintenance - pre-adoption 5 101015202025 Estate Mgt costs 5 5 5555555 5 Other costs 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
EXPENDITURE 0 0 15 20 30 30 35 55 60 70 50 50
INCOME Interest on commuted sum 10 20 25 25 25 25 25 25 Service charge 7 7 20 20 26 26 31 41 41 41 Rent - DVLA 20 10 INCOME 0 27 17 30 40 51 51 56 66 66 66 Surplus/Deficit(-) 12 -3 0 10 16 -4 -4 -4 16 16
26
Z:\Committees\A Agenda Pack\Cabinet\2008\08Mar13\06 (A) (2) - Felindre Joint Venture Agreement and Investment Programme- Appendix 10/03/2008 Item No. 6 (B) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment
Cabinet – 13th March 2008
POST INQUIRY MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Summary
Purpose: This report summarises the Planning Inspector’s Report on the Public Inquiry into objections to the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and makes it publicly available; sets out the proposed Council response to each of the Inspector’s recommendations; recommends further minor changes to the UDP; considers the implications for the UDP of guidance on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Appropriate Assessment (AA); seeks authorisation for public consultation on the Post Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP; and outlines the next stages of the UDP adoption process. Policy Framework: Town and Country Planning Acts 1990-91; Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991; Unitary Development Plans Wales, 2001; Planning Policy Wales, 2002 (and related Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statements and Technical Advice Notes); Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; Wales Spatial Plan 2004; The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Wales) Regulations 2004; The Habitats Regulations (the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) (Amendment) (England & Wales Regulations 2007); Council July & Nov 2006 and Jan 2008. Reason for Decision: To agree the content and publication of the proposed Post Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP to progress the Plan towards adoption Consultation: Legal, Finance and Sustainable Development Unit
Recommendation(s): It is recommended to Council that:
1) The Inspector’s Report is noted
2) The Inspector’s Report recommendations as responded to in the Statement of Decisions on the Report together with the further proposed changes are accepted and incorporated into the Post-Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP.
27 3) Public consultation is undertaken on the Post-Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP in accordance with statutory procedures.
4) Any duly made objections to the Post-Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP are reported back to Council to determine whether further modifications need to be made or a further Public Inquiry held before proceeding to adoption.
5) That a further SEA and or AA of the Post Inquiry Modifications to the UDP be undertaken should it be determined that this is necessary.
1.0 Background
1.1 The Public Inquiry into 1300 objections to the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan was held between March and August last year by Mr Alwyn Nixon, a Planning Inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspector has subsequently prepared a Report setting out all the issues, conclusions, recommendations for modification to the UDP and the reasons for each recommendation. The Report was formally received by the Council on 14th February 2008 and should be made available for public inspection within eight weeks of its receipt. Its inclusion as a background paper to this report has satisfied that requirement.
1.2 At Council on 17th January 2008, the Inspector’s Draft Report recommendations on the Royal Fern Project were noted and recommended for inclusion in the modifications version of the UDP. The recommendations remain unchanged in the Inspector’s Final Report. The Inspector’s Report will be a material consideration in the determination of all planning applications pending formal adoption of the UDP.
2.0 Report Findings
2.1 The UDP’s form and content were generally considered sound; the vast majority of recommendations were minor text amendments and endorsement of the proposed changes put forward in the Pre-Inquiry Modifications (PIMS) version of the UDP published in July 2006. There were relatively few recommended modifications to policies and a summary of these is attached as Appendix 1. The Report should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Decisions on each recommendation and the List of Proposed Modifications. A Post Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP has also been prepared, which incorporates the recommended changes for ease of reference. Copies of these documents, along with the Inspector’s Report, have been placed in the Members’ library. The main findings of the Inspector’s Report are outlined below.
2.2 The spatial strategy of the UDP is sound. It is based on sustainable planning principles that seek to reinvigorate the city centre, regenerate surrounding urban settlements, improve local facilities and services, make the best use of available brownfield land, improve transport and
28 accessibility - especially by means other than the car, and is complemented by restrictions on outward urban spread and the protection and enhancement of urban greenspace and the surrounding rural environment.
2.3 The proposed figure of 12540 additional housing units needed over the Plan period (2001-2016) is robust and adequate and appropriate provision is made for housing land. The sequential approach taken by the Council to identifying sites which can be made available for housing is sound. There is no need to release any additional land for housing or amend the extent of green wedge areas - the non-inclusion of (127) housing omission sites proposed by developers is justified. The clear objectives of urban renewal and regeneration, and protection of the highly valued and pressurised countryside resource around the existing built up area, would be undermined by the release of more greenfield land. The distribution of housing sites reflects the plan’s principles and provides a range and choice of sites to meet the needs of the community. The UDP would be more robust and transparent however, if a clearer explanation of the methodology followed in identifying the amount and location of housing land was included.
2.4 The affordable housing policy provides an acceptable interim basis for seeking to meet affordable housing needs, but a more detailed framework should be developed based on the results of the local housing market/needs assessment and the provisions of the local housing strategy.
2.5 The employment and economic development proposals of the plan are basically sound. However the future development of the Swansea West Industrial Park area and the related highway capacity problems need to be resolved through the development of a robust strategy for the area.
2.6 Further modification of retail policies is required to more clearly specify the circumstances in which new retail development proposals will/will not be permitted. A separate policy on non-retail proposals within existing shopping centres should be considered. There is a concern with the Inspector’s recommendation that criterion (iv) of Policy EC4 (New Retail Development) relating to the compatibility of a proposal with the function, scale and character of a shopping centre be deleted, on the grounds that the test is not reflected in national guidance and that in any event the aims of the criterion are sufficiently provided for in other policy requirements of the Plan. The Authority’s view is that criterion (iv) accords with the objectives, logic and overwhelming thrust of national planning guidance set out in Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement (MIPPS) 02/2005 which consistently refers to the importance of retail development being of an “appropriate” scale and size. The MIPPS also requires the Local Planning Authority to identify a hierarchy of centres based on their function and future role. Development proposals that are shown to be at an inappropriate scale or not in keeping with the established character and retail function could unacceptably detract from a centre to the extent that
29 the overall vitality and attractiveness of that centre is significantly reduced, ultimately to the detriment of the community it serves. For these reasons it is recommended that the Inspector’s recommendation in relation to criterion (iv) of Policy EC4 is not accepted.
2.7 The measures for the reinvigoration of the city centre and its relationship to the urban areas which surround it are basically sound. The Council is right to see the redevelopment of the St Davids/Quadrant sector with a retail-led regeneration scheme as the key opportunity to deliver the necessary revitalisation of the retail core. Parc Tawe is correctly recognised as a prominent and important gateway to the city centre appropriate for redevelopment for a mix of uses.
2.8 Although minerals extraction is not a major planning issue, the Plan does not comply with national minerals policy guidance concerning the identification of strategic reserve minerals safeguarding areas. Safeguarding Zones need to be identified even where there are no plans for extraction at present and reserves are not at this time viewed as commercially viable.
2.9 A policy favouring the broad principles of the Royal Fern Golf Resort Project would be acceptable, but the Plan should not give policy approval for the development of housing in the countryside as an element of such a scheme, or indicate that a particular form of “enabling development” will be permitted as part of the development. The acceptability or otherwise of any particular development mix can only properly be judged in the context of a detailed assessment of the scheme as a whole and its various benefits and disbenefits.
2.10 Other main policy changes include the identification of areas of public parkland, community recreation space and the undeveloped coastline on the Proposals Map, and making policies on conservation areas, advertisement hoardings, agricultural land, planning obligations, gypsy sites and existing caravan sites less restrictive/more accurate to accord with national guidance.
2.11 The only main criticism which applies throughout the Plan was the test of “unacceptable adverse effect” or “unacceptable harm” being the threshold for determining whether development accords with a policy or not. As drafted policies with this wording would allow development that had serious, but not unacceptable effects and therefore fail to serve as an effective safeguard against harm. The test should be “significant adverse effect” or “significant harm”.
2.12 Council officers and in particular the Planning Policy Team and the Programme Officer were thanked for their helpfulness throughout the Inquiry and assistance in completing the Report two and a half months ahead of schedule.
30 3.0 Next stages
3.1 The Council is required to consider the Report and to decide what action to take on each of its recommendations. There is no obligation to accept the recommendations, however there is a requirement to prepare a Statement of Decisions on each recommendation and give full reasons for not accepting any recommendation made by the Inspector. This Statement of Decisions must be made available for inspection at the same time as any modifications are proposed.
3.2 Modifications to the Plan are required if the Council accepts any of the recommendations of the Inspector or proposes further changes to take into account post Inquiry revisions to national policy or to reflect changes in local circumstances that involve making formal amendments to the Plan. Details of these modifications and the reasons for making them must be published in accordance with statutory publicity requirements for a period of six weeks. Objections may only be made in relation to the proposed modifications or the failure to accept any recommendation made by the Inspector.
3.3 The Council must consider all the duly made objections and determine whether it is necessary to propose further modifications or hold a further Public Inquiry, for example, if objections raise matters which were not considered at the earlier stage. However, if it is decided that no further modifications need to be made and a further Public Inquiry is not necessary, notice may then be given of the intention to adopt the Plan after a further period of 28 days. Assuming the latter course of action, the earliest the UDP could be adopted is Sept/Oct 2008.
4.0 Strategic Environmental Assessment/ Appropriate Assessment
4.1 Under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Wales) Regulations 2004, the City and County of Swansea as the responsible authority must determine whether or not the Post Inquiry Modifications to the UDP are likely to have significant environmental effects. The Council must publish a Statement of Reasons why the Modifications will/will not have significant environmental effects and, if necessary, undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Modifications. A similar Appropriate Assessment (AA) also has to be followed under the Habitats Regulations, to consider the implications of the proposed Modifications on designated European Sites. However the AA procedures have recently been reviewed and new guidance is in the process of being issued which is likely to amend requirements.
4.2It is considered that the proposed Post Inquiry Modifications are unlikely to have significant environmental effects for the following reasons: (i) the fact that the PIMS version of the UDP was determined not to have any significant environmental effect, or be likely to have a significant effect on any European Site,
31 (ii) there has been no objection to the further proposed changes made during the Public Inquiry and published on the Council’s website, (iii) the Inspector’s endorsement of the general soundness of the plan without the addition of any new sites, with the exception of the Royal Fern Project - which has been subject of an individual SEA and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), and (iv) the tightening up of policy wording to prevent any significant adverse effect from development proposals.
4.3 Clearly however such a determination, which can be dealt with under the delegated powers of the Director of Environment, is unable to be made in advance of Council’s agreement to the Modifications to the Plan. Any determination must be publicised within 14 days of a decision being made and a Statement of Reasons must be published alongside the Modifications to the Plan. The situation is further complicated by the requirement to obtain the views of the SEA consultation bodies (The Countryside Council for Wales, The Environment Agency and Cadw) prior to making a determination.
4.4In order to avoid delaying the UDP adoption procedure, the consultation bodies have been asked to give screening opinions on the Inspector’s Report and the proposed Modifications in confidence in advance of consideration of this report by Council. Any further modifications to the Plan agreed by Council, other than those now recommended, will also have to be referred to the consultation bodies before a determination can finally be made. If it is determined that a SEA/AA of the Modifications is required, this will need to be undertaken before the Post Inquiry Modifications UDP can be finalised and published. There is no in-house expertise available to undertake a SEA/AA and consultants would need to be engaged at an estimated cost of around £10 -15,000.
5.0 Financial implications
5.1 The costs of the process to date have been contained within the original estimate. The estimated £10,000 costs of producing and publicising the Post Inquiry Modifications version of the Plan in-house and £20,000 cost of the final version is included within the UDP budget for 08/09.
5.2 No provision has been made for the cost a further Public Inquiry – the budgetary implications will be assessed if and when this is required.
6.0 Legal Implications
6.1 The process of finalising the UDP through to adoption must be carried out in accordance with the statutory provisions set out above in the Policy Framework together with any further guidance issued by the Welsh Assembly Government.
6.2 The UDP will form the Development Plan for the City and County of Swansea until 2016. Given that existing Development Plan policies are
32 either time expired or approaching expiry, it is important for the Council to see the UDP through to adoption to provide a sound basis for the determination of future planning applications.
7.0 Recommendation
7.1 It is recommended to Council that:
1. The Inspector’s Report is noted.
2. The Inspector’s Report recommendations as responded to in the Statement of Decisions on the Report together with the further proposed changes are accepted and incorporated into the Post-Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP.
3. Public consultation is undertaken on the Post-Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP in accordance with statutory procedures.
4. Any duly made objections to the Post-Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP are reported back to Council to determine whether further modifications need to be made or a further Public Inquiry held before proceeding to adoption.
5. That a further SEA and or AA of the Post Inquiry Modifications to the UDP be undertaken should it be determined that this is necessary
Contact Officer: Paul Meller Extension: 5740 Date: 5th March 2008 (V4)
Background Papers: • Inquiry into Objections to the Swansea UDP: Inspector’s Report (Feb2008) • Unitary Development Plans – A Guide to Procedures (Feb 2001)
33 Appendix 1 Swansea UDP Public Inquiry - Summary of Inspector’s Recommended Modifications
Unless otherwise stated, the Inspector has accepted the Council’s proposed changes (PCs) as set out in the Pre-Inquiry Modifications version of the UDP published July 2006 and/or the non-environmentally significant further proposed changes (FPCs) to the UDP agreed under the delegated powers of the Head of Planning Services, which were put forward prior to, and during, the Public Inquiry in various Topic Papers and Position Statements.
This report details the key recommended changes and is not an exhaustive list of every minor grammatical modification and text amendment for clarity purposes that is proposed. The main FPCs proposed and recommended for inclusion by the Inspector are incorporated within the summary.
The Inspector’s Report is available to view in the Members’ library and copies are available from Planning Services’ Planning Policy Team.
UDP Introduction Procedures • Add paragraph confirming Plan prepared in accord with the relevant guidance. Delete references to preparation of earlier version of the Plan • Include explanation of Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) procedures (FPC28)
Part 1
C – Spatial Strategy • Provide a clearer summary of full spatial strategy, which is set out in more detail in Part 2 of the Plan • Specify the settlements outside the urban area of Swansea that are identified elsewhere in the Plan as areas of growth/regeneration e.g. Gorseinon, Pontarddulais and Clydach • Include a specific reference to the Swansea Bay Strategy in para (iii) of the spatial strategy and correct the spatial strategy map as appropriate
E – Vision, Goals and Objectives • Reword Objective 1c: “To protect the countryside from development that would cause material harm, particularly where the undeveloped coastline or other areas of high landscape quality are concerned” • Add paragraph relating to the UDP delivering the land use objectives of Council strategies (FPC 135)
F - Strategic Policies • Modify SP2 (Countryside) –adding “Village character will be protected”
34 • Modify SP3 (Heritage) –refer to “materially harmful” rather than “inappropriate” development • Modify SP6 (Retailing) –Further amend in order to better accord with national guidance on retailing • Modify SP7 (Housing) – Revise the total housing figure to reflect amended HC1 total. Provide clarification that the policy includes an allowance for the occupancy of 500 additional units achieved by a reduction of voids
Part 2 Chapter 1: Creating a Quality Environment
EV1 Design • The blanket requirement for additional illustrative material is unduly onerous and should be re-written to only encourage applicants to submit such detail for outline applications where this would be useful and at sensitive locations where the local planning authority considers it necessary
EV3 Accessibility • Consider making the amended policy wording more restrictive and removing the blanket reference to buildings within conservation areas
EV7 Extensions/Alterations to Listed Buildings • Further clarity would be achieved thorough the use of the word “permitted” instead of “supported” within the policy
EV9 Development in Conservation Areas • Reword the policy to provide greater clarity, sense and consistency with national guidance and the statutory duty relating to new development and conservation areas
EV12 Lanes • Extend the title to “Lanes and Public Paths” consistent with the text
EV15 Hoardings and Illuminated Display Panels • Stipulation that hoardings will only be permitted where they are to be used for the purpose of information provision imposes an unacceptable pre-condition contrary to national guidance. Clause (ii) should be deleted from the policy, however it would be acceptable to state that where an advertisement design would also contribute to information provision this will be taken into account in assessing the merits of the proposal • The blanket refusal of proposals for permanent hoardings is not consistent with national guidance or advertisement regulations and should be removed from the policy amplification. Each proposal should be considered on its merits • The sections within the policy and amplification relating to discontinuance notices and actions are too restrictive and should be re- drafted to state that a discontinuance notice should only be served
35 where an advertisement or use of an advertisement site is causing substantial injury to the amenity or endangering public safety
EV16 Small Villages • It is not the intention of this policy to discourage innovative sustainable design and this point should be added to the policy amplification
EV17 Large Villages • Appropriate restriction on new development in and around large villages is applied through this policy. However the rationale and justification for the restriction on the expansion of the large villages and the resulting tightly drawn boundaries needs to be set out in the policy amplification • The clarity of this policy would be improved if the Proposals Map key specifically stated that the limits of the large villages are defined by the boundary annotation for countryside protection polices EV20/21. This point should also be made more explicit in the policy itself • The policy and amplification need to identify more clearly the settlements where small scale rounding off will be permitted and a more rigorous definition of small scale rounding off provided • The definition of “within” should simply relate to the boundary lines on the Proposals Map and not rely on the definition applied to small villages • Provide certainty as to the potential for redevelopment of Penclawdd Old Dock (FPC 123)
EV19 Replacement Dwellings/Chalets • Include reworded explanation of abandonment to provide greater clarity
EV20 New Dwellings in the Countryside • Include additional requirement within policy that dwelling is to accommodate full-time worker • Amend policy amplification to make plainer that it is the functional needs of the enterprise that will determine whether a new dwelling is necessary and define activities as falling within scope of policy as forestry, agriculture and related services, fishing, sustainable tourism and low impact recreational activity
EV21 Rural Development • There is some confusion between Policies EV21 and EC12 with regard to the re-use of rural buildings. There must be consistency and Policy EV21 criterion (iv) should be amended to accord with EC12.
EV23 Green Wedges • “Affordable housing for local needs” and “other uses of land and forms of development which maintain the openness of the green wedge and do not conflict with the purpose of including land within it” should be added to the list of appropriate development within the green wedge. In addition reference should be made to “containing or shaping urban form”
36 • The plan would be more transparent and robust if it contained a concise analysis of each green wedge and a specific written justification for its designation and form in each case
EV24 Greenspace System • Do not show existing areas of parkland and community recreation areas as subject to policy EV24 but instead show all existing areas to which policy HC23 applies on the Proposals Map • Show site HC1(24) Bryn Hawddgar, Clydach as mixed HC1/EV24 site • Include requirement for compensatory provision where appropriate socio- economic development is permitted (FPC 5) • Include reference that no one should live more than six minutes walk (300metres) from their nearest natural open space (FPC 4)
EV25 Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation • Rewrite policy and amplification to reflect the requirements of the Habitats Regulations as set out in Topic Paper 5 (FPC37)
EV31 Protection of the Undeveloped Coastline • The extent of the area to which Policy EV31 applies should be more clearly defined in the amplification and identified on the Proposals Map.
EV33 Sewage Disposal • Amend the policy wording to reflect that private drainage systems should only be permitted within sewered areas where justified as a temporary expedient pending planned improvements to the mains system.
EV36 Development and Flood Risk • Include reference to flood risk advice maps and where these may be viewed (FPC 121) • Further amend policy amplification to clarify that in all cases of new development within flood risk areas appropriate mitigation measures must be incorporated and that proposals to redevelop land will be evaluated against Technical Advice Note (TAN)15 and the conclusions of an associated flood consequences assessment Chapter 2: Developing the Economy Justification of Part 1 Strategic Policies • Provide more detail on the integrated waterfront regeneration plan process and identify the locations that are the focus of this initiative
EC1 General Employment Sites
EC1(4) Swansea West Industrial Park • The contingency site at Keepers Lodge Farm should not be allocated for employment since there is no clearly identified need for additional employment land or a thorough examination of the optimum location and form of release. There is no clearly explained rationale for allocating land on a contingency basis for a strategic need given the existence of
37 Felindre and the likelihood of a single strategic proposal is not strong given the access constraints and existence of a pressure mains. The Council should review and clarify its aspirations and planning requirements for this area
EC1(5) Docks • Add reference to the potential for further releases of land within the Queens Dock for development other than port related activities (FPC 8) • Clarify that proposals to alter the water level within the Prince of Wales Docks will need to be assessed against Habitats Regulations (FPC 72)
EC1(6) Swansea Enterprise Park • Add land south of Alberto Culver as part of employment allocation (FPCM28)
EC1(13) Penllergaer Civic Offices • The site lies within the Penllergaer Historic Park and Gardens and should not be allocated for employment, unless an implementable planning permission exists.
EC2 SA1 Swansea Waterfront • Amend Proposals Map so that it includes the water area of the Prince of Wales Dock
EC3 Established Industrial and Commercial Areas • Modify policy in accordance with Topic Paper 9 relating to redevelopment of industrial/commercial sites not being permitted where this would limit the range and quality of sites available for employment development (FPC 11 &12)
EC4 New Retail Development • The policy does not sufficiently specify the circumstances under which new retail development proposals will/will not be permitted and subsequent retail policies in the Plan are not considered sufficient to address this deficiency. As such, policy should be re-drafted to be clearer as to the tests that need to be satisfied for permission to be granted • Criterion (i) – ‘Need test’ – should be qualified with the proviso of “where this is relevant to determination” otherwise this part of the policy would be contrary to guidance. • Criterion (ii) – ‘sequential test’ – should be reworded to make clear that retail will not be permitted unless the site satisfies the sequential approach. • Criterion (iv) – ‘compatibility with function, scale & character’ – should be deleted since it is not reflected in national guidance. • Delete para 2.4.10 and consider expressing this within the context of a new policy relating to proposals for non-retail uses in shopping centres.
38 EC7 Enterprise Park • The written statement and Proposals Map should refer to the enterprise park ‘retail zone’ throughout, rather than ‘retail core’ - which implies the existence of some other non-core retail area
EC8 Retail Warehouses and Retail Parks • Remove ‘and Retail Parks’ from the policy title since the policy is concerned with the development of warehouses at a range of locations
EC9 Out-of-Centre Retailing • The policy serves a useful purpose and its inclusion is broadly accepted however it lacks consistency with MIPPS 02/2005, since new out-of-centre retail may be appropriate if a proposal is able to meet criteria relating to need/accessibility/sequential test • To resolve lack of consistency with MIPPS, add text to policy and amplification to state that – apart from those types identified as exceptions – retail development will only be permitted if: a) a clearly identified deficiency exists b) the site is accessible c) there are no sequentially preferable sites
EC10 Markets and Car Boot Sales • Modify policy to begin first sentence with “Where planning permission is necessary …”
EC11 Rural Business Development • Reference to ‘mixed use development’ in policy amplification is insufficiently precise and should be replaced with “appropriate small scale rural business development” • Add a further sentence to amplification to draw attention to the subject matter of EC17 Rural Tourism Development.
EC12 Conversion of Redundant Rural Buildings • Change ‘redundant’ to ‘existing’ in policy title to improve accuracy • The requirement that the building be of a ‘substantial nature’ should be deleted since this reference is vague and is unnecessary (FPC157) • Delete reference to ‘at least 10 years’ with regard to establishing the extent of former use of buildings for agricultural purposes (FPC 158) • The policy would be clearer if the distinction between the provision of tourist accommodation and conversion to residential was more explicit. Also, add text in policy amplification to explain the basis for this exception and the means by which a restriction for use as tourist accommodation will be maintained in practice
EC13 Agricultural Land • Delete paragraph relating to agricultural land classification (ALC) • Delete Diagram 6 from the Plan and remove text references, since the ALC Map is not a useful reference diagram
39 EC15 Urban Tourism • The reference to informal ‘Green Opportunities’ at Pluck Lake in policy amplification is too vague and should be amended to clarify development proposals for this area
EC17 Rural Tourism • Reword first sentence of policy to permit rural tourism and recreational proposals to be considered in a wider range of locations • Delete reference in criterion (v) to not prejudicing the viability of the farm as this is not reflected in national guidance
EC20 New Sites • Criterion (i) rightly reflects particular concerns about proposals within the AONB. However the level of test is such that no new site is likely to meet the requirement in practice. Furthermore, this criterion is more stringent than that set by EV26 in respect of all development in the AONB. Therefore, modify criterion to refer to avoidance of a material adverse effect within the AONB. • Modify policy amplification so that it no longer explicitly directs new sites away from the AONB and instead states that new developments within this especially sensitive area will be assessed with particular care. • Modify the policy to require that proposals for new provision within the AONB must be shown to be contributing towards meeting an identified unmet need. • Explain the meaning and scope of the term ‘service arrangements’ within criterion (iii)
EC21 Existing Sites • Consideration should be given as to whether the policy should be expanded or a new policy created to deal with the matter of providing greater capacity for short term periods during peak demand • Delete criterion (b) as it is not appropriate to have unqualified opposition to all proposals in coastal locations. Instead, modify criterion (a) by adding “particularly in coastal locations” after “landscape”. • Modify criterion (c) to enable limited change to static caravan pitches or to chalets in circumstances where a significant overall benefit to the character & appearance of an area would result, otherwise this criterion would be inconsistent with EC20 • Re-cast policy amplification to provide clearer guidance as to the circumstances when changes of use will be permitted and ensure that such changes do not lead to an erosion of the landscape and wider environmental quality of the area within which the site is located • Change policy heading to ‘Existing Chalet, Static Caravan, Touring Unit and Camping Sites’ Chapter 3: Providing Homes and Community Facilities
Justification of Part 1 Policies • The methodology and approach adopted by the Council for the provision of housing land is sound and the Plan is sufficiently robust in terms of
40 the housing requirement assessment. However, this section of the Plan would be improved by providing a better explanation of a) the approach taken to estimate population change and b) the calculations of number of dwellings required • Provide a clearer summarisation of the various components of housing need and supply in accordance with the Council’s Housing Position Statement PS2 • Clarify what is meant by ‘special interest and activity tourism’
HC1 • The schedule of housing sites set out in HC1 is accepted, subject to ¾ Deletion of Chapel Road, Clydach (HC1[48]) – the site straddles opposite sides of a canal and there is no evidence that the two parcels will be developed as one. ¾ Confirmation that site HC1(103), land south of Loughor Road, Gorseinon has two connection points with the adjacent highway and amend Proposals Map to reflect this. If this cannot be confirmed, the allocation should be deleted. ¾ Annotation of sites where assessment under the Habitats Regs is required and include paragraph of explanation (FPC 52) ¾ Update of housing figures to reflect recently approved schemes and clarify the no. of units column is the anticipated figure (FPC 24-26) ¾ Show HC1(56) Craig Cefn Parc as also subject to Policy HC23 • Based on the evidence submitted there is no substantive case for any additional sites to be allocated for housing. Furthermore, none of the HC1 omission (rejected) sites are considered superior or preferable in terms of their locational and environmental characteristics. • There is no need to allocate additional Greenfield sites on the periphery of Swansea. This is neither necessary nor desirable and would undermine the clear objectives of urban regeneration and protecting the County’s highly valued and pressurised countryside resource. • The Plan is right to place greater weight on resisting further spread of the urban limit in west Swansea, particularly to avoid harm to the AONB or the diminution of significant open areas
HC3 Affordable Housing • In policy change ‘suitable sites’ to ‘sites which are suitable in location/accessibility terms and where this is not ruled out by exceptional development costs’ • Amend policy to make clear the details of the lower thresholds that will be applied in large/small villages and in Swansea West • The policy is considered an acceptable interim measure. However give priority consideration to developing a more detailed policy framework for affordable housing, based on the results of the Local Housing Market/Needs Assessment. Such a framework should incorporate the provisions of the local housing strategy and more specific affordable housing targets for localities and sites across the County area
41 HC6 Flat Conversions • Modify policy wording to avoid overlap with HC5 (HMOs)
HC9 Sites for Gypsies • Policy criteria are overly restrictive. It is hard to envisage any locations that would escape conflict with at least one of the policy criteria • The locational criteria make no allowance for the differentiation between proposals for single gypsy families or larger scale sites • Delete criterion (i) and revise criteria (iii) and (iv) so as to enable more balanced consideration to be given to proposals on their merits, having regard to issues of residential amenity and the character and appearance of the countryside
HC17 Planning Obligations • Modify the policy and amplification to improve the precision of the policy and level of detail in accord with national policy (FPC174 &175)
HC18 Leisure Facilities and Areas • Modify criterion (i) by inserting the phrase “Outside existing centres,…” at the beginning of the sentence, in order to maintain consistency with national guidance
HC23 Parks, Recreation and Amenity Space • Consider amending the policy amplification to provide a more precise and less all-encompassing description of the areas to which the policy applies. Identify the locations to which the policy applies on the Proposals Map
HC24 Play Areas/Public Open Space • Modify opening sentence of policy in order to avoid possible misinterpretation and make it plain that the needs of both present and future occupiers will be considered when deciding if a proposed development should provide for additional open space
HC25 Lliw/Llan Valley • Modify the Proposals Map to correctly annotate the extent of both the Llan Valley and the Lower Lliw Reservoir
HC28 Sports Facilities • The policy should not refer to land being “allocated” for new facilities, unless the precise location can be identified on the Proposals Map • Modify the policy to make clear that proposals for new sports facilities will be supported if a defined set of criteria can be satisfied
HC31 Water Based Recreation • Modify the policy by emphasising that any development considered prejudicial to the restoration of the canals or that would damage their fabric/infrastructure will not be permitted
42 New Policy HC32 Royal Fern Golf Resort Project • A new proposal related policy expressing support for a golf resort project at Royal Fern is broadly acceptable. The potential economic and social benefits of such a development are considerable. However, the proposed new policy should not identify residential development as the sole potential means of achieving scheme viability, since this would remove any onus or incentive to examine other possible routes to delivering the scheme (FPC 127). NB the wording of the new policy and amplification were agreed at Council on 17th January 2008
Chapter 4: Resources and Waste General • Modify paragraph 4.3.3 relating to coal reserves and relocate to the amplification of policy R2 • Provide additional text explaining the underlying circumstances concerning the need, distribution and production of each type of mineral, including the situation concerning the maintenance of landbanks. Provide reasons for the overall form and content of minerals policies in the Plan • Insert geological map of the County (FPC 126)
R2 Coal • It is not satisfactory to rely on general countryside protection policies as a proxy for identifying safeguarding areas, therefore amend the text to refer to strategic reserve safeguarding areas. These should be shown on the Proposals Map. Alternatively, provide detailed reasons why no such areas are considered by the authority to exist within its boundary.
R4 Sand/Aggregates • Notwithstanding the clear and significant constraints that exist, the remaining areas of known sand/aggregate resource should be shown for safeguarding purposes on the Proposals Map. This excludes those parts underlying areas that have already been developed as part of the urban form. Modify amplification paragraph accordingly.
R5 Crushed Rock • Modify policy preamble to provide a more detailed justification for the present stance in relation to identification of reserves, landbank provision and safeguarding; and explain more fully how this position will be reviewed in the light of the Regional Technical Statement
R11 Renewable Energy • Criterion (vii) should be modified to make clear that a net gain in biodiversity will only be required where practically feasible • Retain reference to the forms of renewable energy resources outlined in deposit draft paragraphs 4.4.20-4.4.22. These include woodfuel systems, anaerobic digestion schemes and offshore renewable energy developments
43 • Add to policy amplification explanation that onshore wind developments will need to ensure adverse impacts on landscape character are not significant and take account of the cumulative effect of development proposals (FPC117) • Include reference to the preparation of large-scale onshore wind energy Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) - FPC116 refers
R12 Waste Management • Include additional paragraphs clarifying current strategy, the regional approach, updating disposal figures and confirming that there are sufficient sites to accommodate estimated future capacity requirements (FPCs 77-81) • Modify the policy to make clear that waste management proposals will also be permitted on existing B2 sites which are not shown on the Proposals Map, where the relevant policy criteria are met • Change the title of policy R12 to ‘Waste Management’ to more accurately reflect its scope and content
R13 Landfill Sites • Add paragraph explaining the implications of the European Directive on the landfilling of waste (FPC 82) Chapter 5: Accessibility Justification of Part 1 Strategic Policies • Add new text to acknowledge the needs of freight access and how land use policies (especially industrial and retailing) take this issue into account
AS1 New Development Proposals • Insert new amplification text to state that the thresholds set out in TAN18 will be used to determine requirements for a Transport Assessment, unless separate SPG is produced • Modify amplification to make clear the differences between a Transport Implementation Strategy and a Travel Plan and the occasions when they will be required
AS3 Public Rights of Way • Modify amplification to explain that a diversion order must be confirmed before development takes place - secured by planning conditions.
AS4 Public Access Routes • Change criterion (i) from ‘minimising conflict’ to “avoids conflict between users” • Modify amplification to clarify any development that would unacceptably obstruct and/or adversely affect the enjoyment of an existing or proposed new route will be resisted, unless an acceptable alternative route is confirmed (FPC 86-88)
44 AS6 Parking • Change first sentence of policy to “parking provision to serve development will be assessed against adopted maximum parking standards to ensure that proposed schemes make appropriate levels of provision for private cars and service vehicles” • Amend amplification to refer to the use of the Addendum to South Wales Parking Guidelines pending the production of fully revised parking standards as SPG; the development of a regional parking framework and local parking strategy to be adopted as SPG (FPC 18 &19)
AS9 Rail Services • Modify amplification to make reference to the possibility in the longer term of developing rail travel by utilising the Swansea District Line
AS10 Traffic Management and Highway Safety • Modify amplification to make reference to provision for horses to be ridden on a verge or path beside the road being considered, where appropriate, in the design of new roads and improvement schemes (FPC 90)
AS11 Roads • Update amplification to refer to Tawe Riverside Corridor Study proposals (FPC15)
AS13 Swansea Airport • Add a specific reference in the policy amplification to the implications of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designation in terms of the requirements of the Habitats Directive and also to water drainage issues associated with the airports location within a Source Protection Zone
Chapter 6: City Centre
Proposed new policies St David’s/Quadrant (CC3) and Parc Tawe (CC4) • Insert two new site specific policies and corresponding amplification paragraphs relating to the above sites, in accordance with the Council proposed changes set out in Inquiry Clarification Note3 ‘City Centre’ which identifies St Davids/Quadrant as the area of highest priority for redevelopment in the city centre and Parc Tawe as a prominent and important gateway to the city centre appropriate for redevelopment for a mix of uses
45
Item No. 6 (B) (2)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment
Cabinet - 13th March 2008
WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
PROPOSED TRANSFER OF WINDROW COMPOSTING FROM TIR JOHN TO ABERGELLI FARM, FELINDRE, SWANSEA
Summary
Purpose: To seek approval to commit and authorise the scheme as detailed in this report.
Policy Framework: Waste Strategy for Swansea.
Reason for Decision: To comply with Financial Procedure Rule No.7 (Capital Programming and Appraisals) - to commit and authorise schemes as per the Capital Programme.
Consultation: Consultation has taken place with Financial Services, Legal Services and Corporate Property.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:
1) The scheme as detailed, together with the financial implications, is approved subject to satisfactory planning and waste management licence being secured.
2) The Head of Corporate Property is instructed to enter into negotiations with the freeholder in respect of the lease of the site, subject to the above.
1 Introduction / Background
1.1 On 30th March 2006, Cabinet approved a scheme (minute 189 refers) for the proposed creation of a regional compost blending plant to be located at the former extrusion facility at Alcoa. In addition to centralising composting operations, the plant would address the technology of enhancing the quality of compost necessary for the development of end user markets and be open to receiving suitable compost from adjacent authorities.
46
1.2 The scheme was predicated upon a gate fee for the receipt of compost and a £1 million grant from the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG). However, an issue regarding the state aid status of WAG funding arose leading to the WAG eventually withdrawing the grant offer.
1.3 In addition, in Autumn 2006, Alcoa announced that it intended to close its remaining operations in Swansea with a view to disposing of the entire campus and transferring its operations to Europe. In effect this meant that the Council would have to abandon current proposals and consider other options for composting operations.
1.4 Windrow composting is currently carried out at Tir John whilst in-vessel composting (IVC) of food and green waste is carried out at the waste transfer station at Ferryboat Close (former Baling Plant).
1.5 The Environment Agency (EA) is objecting to the continued use of Tir John for windrow composting due to drainage and leachate issues and has for a considerable period requested its urgent relocation elsewhere. The EA has powers to close down windrow operations at the site and has indicated it would do so if necessary. The option of improving the site with the construction of a concrete slab and drainage has been evaluated but dismissed due to the unsuitability of the landfill as an acceptable foundation for a slab.
1.6 The EA has also expressed concerns with regard to odours in respect of in-vessel composting operations at Ferryboat Close. The IVC operations are in a sensitive area close to retail and industrial outlets in the Enterprise Zone and as such have been the focus of complaints. Whilst IVC operations at this site may in the future also be under threat, work is underway with regard to the installation of odour control equipment which could mitigate odour problems sufficiently to satisfy the EA and ensure its continued operation.
1.7 The option of utilising Council land at the Baling Plant in conjunction with the nearby former George Bros. premises for windrowing has been assessed although the sites are not considered to be suitable. Both areas of land are located on flood plains, close to retail and industrial outlets and given the complaints with respect to the IVC, odours would become an additional problem. Furthermore, due to the Baling Plant’s strategic importance with regard to other waste stream activities, it lacks the space for future composting needs.
1.8 In contrast Abergelli Farm, formerly used as a landfill site, enjoys a remote setting, appearing to have none of the disadvantages highlighted in para.1.7 and will enable drying to be introduced for enhancement of quality and potential future marketability of the product. The freeholder has indicated a willingness to enter into a long lease agreement with the Council for a period of 25 years which is extendable.
47
2 Capital Programme Process
2.1 The 2007/08 capital budget approved £1.3 million towards the Waste Strategy specifically earmarked for provision of an integrated composting, recycling and compost blending facility at Alcoa.
3 Objective of Scheme
3.1 The proposals relate to corporate priority L – to develop and implement a waste management and reduction strategy.
3.2 The proposals are relevant to the following objectives within the service delivery plan: • Provide a sustainable municipal waste strategy to meet statutory and non statutory requirements • Meet statutory targets for disposal of municipal waste to landfill. • Provide and improve recycling arrangements for all citizens and visitors to Swansea
3.3 Composting plays a crucial role in meeting statutory and non statutory targets relating to the reduced reliance on landfilling of biodegradable municipal wastes (comprising primarily of green and kitchen wastes). Furthermore, the message from the WAG revised waste strategy is clear. The way for local authorities to meet targets is by avoiding landfill tax and improving recycling and composting performance in conjunction with the rolling out of kitchen waste collections. Unless adequate composting arrangements are secured therefore, the Council will face the risk of financial penalties for non performance under LAS regulations equivalent to £200/tonne over the authority’s set allowance. The Council will also be at increased risk to the escalating cost of landfilling and landfill tax.
4 Description of Scheme
4.1 The scheme comprises the leasing of the former landfill at Abergelli Farm for a period of up to 25 years with option exercisable for further extension. The site includes a 740m2 existing building for product drying which is considered to be at operational standard and will not require any immediate improvements. The scheme includes the construction of a 8050m2 slab for windrowing with peripheral drainage and leachate lagoon and also the acquisition of equipment necessary for screening, turning and shredding of green waste and compost.
4.2 The site and adjacent land is privately owned. The freeholder has indicated a willingness to enter into a lease arrangement with the Council subject to satisfactory agreement of heads and terms. The Council will effectively pay a rent in relation to the occupation of the site.
48
4.3 Subject to any necessary consents being obtained and satisfactory negotiation of lease, it is hoped that the Council would have access to the site for the commencement of works by August 2008 and for operations to commence in October following.
4.4. An application for a waste management licence for the site is in the process of being prepared but is likely to take at least 4 months for a licence to be granted from the Environment Agency and will require planning approval to be in place beforehand.
4.5 It is not intended at this stage to propose the movement of the IVC to Abergelli although this option would need to be reconsidered in the future should its re-location become a requirement. It is estimated that the cost of relocating the IVC including the construction of a suitable building would be in the region of £480,000.
5 Planning Implications
5.1 A new planning application is being processed by the owner with respect to the proposed composting activities.
6 Financial Implications
6.1 Capital The total capital cost of the scheme amounts to £913,000. Details are summarised in Appendix A. The Council will incur loan charges of £6,000 in 2007/08 and £117,000 in a full year. There may be a possibility of a contribution from the Regional Capital Access Fund the potential for which will be explored as appropriate.
6.2 Revenue The estimated annual cost of operating the plant is £163,000 and is additional to the current cost of windrowing at Tir John.
If this proposal does not proceed the Council would have to landfill the waste at a total cost of £816,000 for 2008/09 (based on 12000T and tipping charges of £68/T including landfill tax at £32/T). In addition to this the Council could in the near future be faced with fines of £200 per tonne for failing to meet landfill diversion targets, and be faced with escalating costs as landfill tax is increasing by £8 per tonne per year until 2011 and possibly greater in the future. The cost of landfilling say 8,000T green waste including penalties of £200/Tin 2011 would be in the order of £2.27 million based on tipping charges of £84/T incl. landfill tax at £48/T. The reduced tonnage in 2011 is based on the premise that home collections of green waste would be suspended whilst CA sites would continue as statutory collection points.
49
6.3 The estimated additional net annual cost of £163,000 can be funded from the sustainable waste grant budget.
7 Staffing Implications
7.1 There are no staffing implications as windrow composting operations will be run utilising employees carrying out the existing operations which are conducted by Swansea Waste Disposal Company Limited (the Council’s local authority waste disposal company (LAWDC)).
8 IT/Systems Implications
8.1 There are no implications in this respect
9 Legal Implications
9.1 Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (better known as the Landfill Directive) sets progressive targets for Member States to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. The Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 was enacted to achieve the reductions in the quantity of such waste sent to landfill, as required by the Landfill Directive. The Landfill Allowances Scheme (Wales) Regulations 2004 supplement the Act. As noted at paragraph 3.3 above, the Council would face the risk of financial penalties in the event that it exceeded its landfill allowance. Appropriate composting facilities are therefore a crucial part in meeting the statutory targets.
9.2 As the land will be use in connection with waste management, there may be legal obligations arising on the Council under the contaminated land regime set out in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, particularly with regard to the remediation of the land after use.
9.3 The role of the LAWDC will need to be clarified in order to establish the contracting parties and the terms of all contracts.
10 Recommendations
10.1 It is recommended that:
1. The scheme as detailed, together with the financial implications, is approved subject to satisfactory planning and waste management licence being secured
2. The Head of Corporate Property is instructed to enter into negotiations with the freeholder in respect of the lease of the site, subject to the above.
50
Background Papers:
Waste Strategy for Swansea
Contact Officer : A Cluckie Telephone: 635799 Date: 21st February 2008
51 APPENDIX A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS : SUMMARY
Portfolio: ENVIRONMENT Service : WASTE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF WINDROW COMPOSTING FROM TIR Scheme : JOHN TO ABERGELLI FARM, FELINDRE, SWANSEA Head of Service -
1.1. CAPITAL COSTS 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 TOTAL £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000
Expenditure Excavation and Stockpiling of Spoil 10 10 Concrete Slab incl Drainage/Lagoon 400 400 Shredding equipment 150 150 Windrow turner/Irrigator 200 200 Screen Refurbishment 20 20 Welfare/Messing.Toilet Facilities 20 20 Fees/surveys 525 30 Legal fees 10 30 40 Contingency 1 43 0 43.5 EXPENDITURE 16 897 0 913
Financing Loan 16 897 0 913
FINANCING 16 897 0 913
1.2. REVENUE COSTS 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 TOTAL £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Service Controlled - Expenditure
Lease/Rental Costs 50 70 70 Rates/Electricity/Consumables 35 40 40 Plant/Building/Road Maintenance 15 20 20 Insurance 10 20 20 EA fees 5 5 Contingency 5.5 8 8 Total Expenditure 0 115.5 163 163
The estimated additional net annual cost of £163,000 can be funded from the sustainable waste grant.
52 Item No. 6 (B) (3)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment
Cabinet - 13th March 2008
A REVIEW OF THE HOUSES IN MULTIPLE-OCCUPATION (HMO) LICENSING POLICY INCLUDING PROPOSALS FOR AN ADDITIONAL HMO LICENSING SCHEME AND A REVISED FEE STRUCTURE
Summary
Purpose: To consider a review of the existing HMO Licensing Policy and proposals for an Additional HMO Scheme for Castle and Uplands including a revised fee structure linked to recruitment of additional enforcement officers.
Policy Framework: HMO Licensing Policy 2006 Local Housing Strategy 2008
Reason for Decision: Authority to proceed with proposals for an Additional HMO Licensing Scheme for Castle and Uplands wards and to agree the revised fee structure and recruitment of additional enforcement officers.
Consultation: Legal Services and Finance
Recommendations: It is recommended that:-
(a) A revised draft HMO Licensing Policy is presented to Council which includes an Additional Licensing Scheme for Castle and Uplands wards with a new fee structure as a basis for consultation.
(b) Subject to Council agreeing the Revised Policy, Cabinet agrees to the recruitment of three additional enforcement officers.
(c) The Policy is subject to periodic review.
53 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Housing Act 2004 introduced new provisions for regulating housing standards in the private rented sector. They included licensing of HMOs. In November 2006 Council adopted its HMO Licensing Policy. 1.2 Key elements of that Policy included:-
(a) A commitment to licence all those HMOs that are subject to Mandatory Licensing across the city;
(b) Transitional arrangements for the previous Registration Area of Castle and Uplands. For a limited period of 3 years that area became subject to an Additional Licensing Scheme. This allowed those HMOs that were previously registered to become licensed HMOs;
(c) Adopted standards for amenities and means of escape in case of fire;
(d) A criteria for Fit and Proper persons who may own or manage an HMO;
(e) Mandatory Licensing Conditions and Licence Conditions for those HMOs that were passported under the transitional arrangements;
(f) A fee structure of £400 per application with a discounted fee of £350 per application from landlords recognised in the Swansea Landlord Accreditation Scheme.
1.3 This report reviews the Licensing Policy and proposes an Additional Licensing Scheme for all HMOs in the Castle and Uplands area. That scheme will need to be in place before the transition period comes to an end in July 2009.
1.4 In addition the report examines the potential of linking fee income to staff resources to enable the scheme to be properly enforced.
1.5 The Councils aim is to improve housing and management standards in the privately rented sector including HMOs. Adopting an Additional Licensing will meet a number of key objectives including:- (a) Meeting the statutory obligations of the Housing Act 2004 (b) Helping to eliminate poor property and management standards through enforcement (c) Promoting high standards by supporting good, professional and well intentioned landlords. (d) Encouraging a high quality and vibrant private rented sector.
2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 The Housing Act 2004 introduced two types of HMO Licensing. Mandatory HMO Licensing applies to any HMO which has three or more storeys and is occupied by five or more unrelated persons. It is an offence for any person to own or manage an HMO of this description without a licence.
54 2.2 Additional HMO Licensing applies to those HMOs that fall outside the Mandatory Scheme. This will include smaller two or three storey properties occupied by between three and four persons. Whether or not a Council adopts an Additional Scheme is discretionary. In addition, the Council may decide to apply it across the whole city or to restrict it to certain areas. It may also decide to apply it to certain types of HMOs.
2.3 HMO Licensing fees are not prescribed and it is for Councils to decide on fee structures. Excessive fees not based on realistic demands may be challenged.
2.4 The National Assembly for Wales (NAW) introduced a General Approval in March 2007. This means that Councils may introduce Additional HMO Schemes without specific consent. The NAW has also published Guidance on the Introduction of Licensing Schemes.
2.5 Key principles of the guidance include the following:-
Councils must:-
(a) consider that a significant proportion of the HMOs in the area are being managed sufficiently ineffectively as to give rise to problems either for those occupying the HMOs or for members of the public;
(b) consider whether there are other courses of action available to them that might provide an effective method of dealing with those problems;
(c) that making the designation will significantly assist them to deal with those problems;
(d) consult persons likely to be affected by the designation.
2.6 In addition, Councils must:-
(a) ensure that the exercise of the power is consistent with their overall housing strategy;
(b) adopt a co-ordinated approach in connection with dealing with homelessness, empty properties and anti-social behaviour affecting the private rented sector.
3. PRESENT POSITION
3.1 The Council has a Mandatory Scheme for larger HMOs that are three storeys with five or more occupants. This scheme applies to all HMOs in the city.
3.2 Because the Council had a former Registration Scheme in Castle and Uplands, those HMOs that were registered were passported to licensing. These included those HMOs that were below the threshold for Mandatory Licensing. They included smaller two storey HMOs with five or more
55 occupants. The effect of these transitional arrangements meant that the Council adopted an Additional Scheme by default for a period of three years from July 2006.
3.3 This means that if the Council does not adopt a formal Additional Scheme, the present arrangements end in July 2009. The consequences will be that approximately 50% of those HMOs already licensed will fall outside the remaining Mandatory Scheme and not be subject to any licensing control.
3.4 Facts and Assumptions
(a) The estimated number of HMOs in the city is between 1,700 – 2,000; (b) Estimated number of HMOs in Uplands and Castle is 1,450; (c) Number of HMOs licensed to date 740; (d) Number of HMOs not licensed but should be (approx) 200; (e) 50% of HMOs licensed are subject to Mandatory Licensing; (f) 50% of applications are from Accredited Landlords.
3.5 This means:-
(a) 460 HMOs will be subject to Mandatory Licensing; (b) Around 990 HMOs would not be licensed after July 2009 if the Council does not adopt an Additional Scheme.
Resources and Income
3.6 The number of enforcement officers to service the HMO function is presently four. This will move to five officers with the conversion of a Tenancy Relation Officer post to an enforcement post.
3.7 The income target for the budget 2008/09 is £58,000.
3.8 Since the beginning of licensing the inspection demand for new applications has always been ahead of the resources to deal with them. The waiting period for inspection is presently around 12 weeks. The number of applications waiting for inspections is around fifty at any one time.
4. THE CASE FOR ADDITIONAL LICENSING
4.1 A significant proportion of HMOs are ineffectively managed and this gives use to particular problems. They include:-
(a) Poor external condition including yards and gardens which has an adverse impact on the general character and amenity of the area in which they are located;
(b) Poor internal conditions such as inadequate amenities and overcrowding have an adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare if occupants;
(c) Anti-social behaviour affecting residents and the local community;
56
(d) The lack of proper management giving rise to problem of waste management and associated problems of waste collection and fly- tipping.
4.2 All privately rented houses are subject to the new Housing Health and Safety Rating System. This is a new method of dealing with poor housing conditions. The Council has a statutory duty to deal with high risk hazards and intervene through enforcement. The Housing & Public Health division routinely deals with a reactive service demand of around 3,000 service requests each year.
4.3 All HMOs, whether licensed or not, are subject to the Management of Houses in Multiple-Occupation Regulations 2006. The policing of these regulations bring their own inspection demand.
4.4 The Council is keen to promote high standards of management and encourage good well intentioned landlords through its Accreditation Scheme and the Landlords Forum. However, it is the unscrupulous and evasive landlords that should be the subject of more rigorous enforcement. The Council has recently prosecuted 4 landlords for licence evasion.
4.5 An Additional Licensing Scheme is consistent with the Council’s Local Housing Strategy and links to its Empty Property Strategy and Homelessness initiatives. It will assist the good relationship with the Higher Education Centres and the Landlords Forum and will help in local police initiatives.
4.6 The Council must deal with HMOs through its Housing Act 2004 statutory duties and the HMO Management Regulations. It is clearly appropriate to meet these duties by embracing a Licensing Scheme which will meet those demands and allow greater control through its Licensing Conditions.
4.7 HMOs are concentrated in Castle and Uplands. This area was the former Registration Area. The proposal is to apply an Additional Scheme to the same area. It is a further proposal that all HMOs within the area are made the subject of the scheme. This achieves consistency and fairness and avoids confusion over exemptions.
5. OPTIONS FOR REVISED FEE STRUCTURE
5.1 If the proposal to adopt an Additional Licensing Scheme is accepted then there will need to be an appropriate fee structure to support it. The scheme will present a significant work demand. The fees should be set at an appropriate level which reflects the inspection and enforcement burden without being disproportionately high.
5.2 A flat rate fee is proposed with a discount for Accredited Landlords. This is simple to administer, easily understood and reflects the support that the Council gives to Accredited Landlords.
57 5.3 The licence runs for 5 years. Annual fee income is based on the average income in each year. A number of assumptions are made. They include:-
(a) stock numbers remain broadly the same;
(b) the private rented sector remains viable in the local area;
(c) 50% of landlords join the local Accredited Scheme and subsequently the All Wales Accreditation Scheme.
5.4 The proposal is to set the fee for all HMO Licences at £550 including discount for Accredited Landlords in line with Option 6 in Appendix A.
This provides an average income of £93,200 over the income target.
This allows for the recruitment of three enforcement officers and a part-time administration officer, funded from the balance.
This represents an increase in fees of £150 above present levels. It reflects the inspection and administrative work demand for each licence.
5.5 Set out in Appendix A is the complete set of options.
6. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 The proposal meets the NAW guidance on Introducing Additional Licensing Schemes. It allows the Council to meet its statutory duty in respect of the Health and Safety Rating System. The fees are consistent with other local authorities in England and capable of resisting challenge.
6.2 The legal framework has been set out in paragraph 2 of this report.
7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The proposal involves the recruitment of additional staff at an annual cost of about £93,000. This will be funded from the projected extra income based on the proposed fees and the estimated number of licences.
7.2 As there is a risk with the projected income two of the additional officers will be recruited on short-term contracts.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 This is a demanding area of work which if not effectively controlled can give rise to health and safety risks to tenants and have significant environmental impact on the amenity of an area. The Council is keen to promote high standards in terms of stock condition and management.
58 8.2 Even if the Council does not adopt an Additional Scheme the reactive work demand will remain but it will not be supported by income to allow proper resourcing.
8.3 Applying a comprehensive HMO Licensing Scheme across the whole of Castle and Uplands ensures a consistent and fair approach. Additional resources will allow a greater focus of enforcement on those more unscrupulous landlords whilst providing support to the many good landlords who demonstrate high property management standards.
9. PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTATION
9.1 The NAW Guidance specifies that the Council should take reasonable steps to consult persons who are likely to be affected by the designation and to consider representations.
The consultation will therefore be wide and include landlords, tenants, local residents, letting and managing agents and other members of the community who operate businesses or provide services.
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:-
(a) A revised draft HMO Licensing Policy is presented to Council which includes an Additional Licensing Scheme for Castle and Uplands wards with a new fee structure as a basis for consultation.
(b) Subject to Council agreeing the Revised Policy, Cabinet agrees to the recruitment of two additional enforcement officers.
( c) The policy is subject to periodic review
Contact Officer: Steve Hancock, Housing & Public Health Divisional Officer
Contact No: 5621
Background Papers: - HMO Licensing Policy 2006 - Local Housing Strategy 2008 - National Assembly Guidance 2007
59 APPENDIX A OPTIONS FOR HMO LICENSING FEES
AVERAGE OPTION DETAIL LICENCE AVERAGE INCOME/YEAR NUMBER OF FEE FEE OVER EXISTING FUNDED OFFICERS INCOME TARGET
1. Mandatory Scheme only 400 375 - 23,500 Staff Reductions
2. Mandatory Scheme only 500 475 - 14,300 Staff Reductions
3. Mandatory Scheme only 650 625 0 Retain existing staff
4. Mandatory & Additional Scheme 400 375 50,700 1.5 FTE
5. Mandatory & Additional Scheme 500 475 79,700 2 Enforcement Officers
1 Admin Officer 6. Mandatory & Additional Scheme 550 525 93,200 3 Enforcement Officers
7. Mandatory & Additional Scheme 700 675 137,750 4 Enforcement Officers
8. Mandatory & Additional Scheme 800 775 165,200 5 Enforcement Officers 1 Admin Officer
60 Item No. 6 (B) (4)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment
Cabinet - 13th March 2008
FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWAYS PLANNED MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION
Summary
Purpose: To authorise the award of the framework agreement for Highways Planned Maintenance, improvement and Construction works.
Policy Framework: Top performance and corporate procurement policy.
Reason for Decision: To deliver a range of Highway works in an effective cost efficient manner. To comply with Contract Procedure Rule 13 – Evaluation and Award of Tenders > £1,000,000
Consultation: Legal, Procurement and Finance.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that the framework agreement be awarded to Tenderer Number 2 being the most economically advantageous bid.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Cabinet will recall a previous report setting out proposals for procuring a partner to undertake highway works contracts.
1.2 The process has now been completed and Cabinet approval is required to appoint the successful organisation as the Authority’s partner
2.0 TENDER EVALUATION
2.1 An evaluation model was compiled based on 40% quality and 60% cost model
2.2 A tender evaluation panel met on the 20th February. Appendix A.
3.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 The works will be funded from existing and future revenue and capital maintenance budgets. Specific schemes may also be undertaken to deliver successful grant applications i.e. Regional Transport Grants, Grants for Road safety, convergence funding
61 3.2 There are no consequences for the ongoing revenue budget
3.3 Approvals for spending Capital funding will be sought in the normal manner through the Financial Procedural rule 7, a report to Cabinet
4.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The tender process has been conducted in accordance with Contract Procedure Rules and is recommended for approval in accordance with those rules.
4.2 As stated in the report the memorandum of understanding will be non binding but sets out the principles of the framework. If any specific project work is issued this will be covered under standard form contracts and be legally binding.
4.3 Tenderer 2 is a consortium of two companies. The formal relationship between the two companies within the consortium will need to be clarified prior to award. Under EU procurement rules the Council could require if necessary the consortium to form a legal entity.
5.0 OTHER ISSUES
5.1 The Authority is currently in discussion with the Welsh Assembly’s Value Wales Procurement Unit to promote community benefit through its construction contracts. It is envisaged that the successful contractor will assist the authority in maximising local employment
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 The framework agreement be awarded to Tenderer Number 2 being the most economically advantageous bid
Contact Officer: Carl Humphrey 01792 841603
Background Papers - None
62
Appendix A
TENDER EVALUATION REPORT FEBRUARY 2008
HIGHWAYS PLANNED MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION
1) Introduction
This is framework agreement for Highway and Civil Engineering works undertaken by the Transportation and Engineering service; this will extend to all areas of the City and County of Swansea. Works are to commence in April 2008 for an initial period of 2 years extendable for a further 2 years based on satisfactory performance. The agreement is non binding with a 3 month break clause for both parties Reports to endorse the principle were submitted to CMT and Cabinet in March and April 2007 respectively
2) The Requirement
To undertake Highways planned maintenance, improvement and construction projects as required to meet the Authority’s statutory duty, Further to complete works as to deliver the infrastructure Asset management programme and Transport Plan.
3) Financial implications
3.1 The works will be funded from existing and future revenue and capital maintenance budgets. Specific schemes may also be undertaken to deliver successful grant applications i.e. Regional Transport Grants, Grants for Road safety, convergence funding
3.2 There are no consequences for the ongoing revenue budget
3.3 Approvals for spending Capital funding will be sought in the normal manner through the Financial Procedural rule 7, a report to Cabinet
4) Industry Consultation
A prior information notice was placed in the European Journal on the 27th April 2007. A questionnaire was sent to companies that responded as well as to all companies on the approved list. 76 questionnaires were sent out and 35 responses were received All companies that replied were invited to an open day on the 3rd July 2007. The consultation provided clear requirements from industry, most of which were included in the contract
63
5) Staff Consultation
Consultation was wide and regular and included union briefings at Directors Joint Trade union meetings. There was also regular team briefings to manual and staff employees.
6) Tender Process
A Contract notice was placed in the European Journal on the 18th September 2007, 20 companies declared an interest.
These companies were required to complete a pre qualification questionnaire, 16 of the 20 companies returned. Two companies advised they were to form a consortium if they were successful at the pre qualification stage.
5 companies were successful and invited to Tender one of which was a consortium
Tenders were sent out on 24th December 2007 with a return date of 12 noon on 11th February 2008 to Legal Services.
Tenders were logged on receipt, copy attached, opened by Legal Services on 12th February and collected on the 12th February.
5 tenders returned but 1 was disqualified as it was not received by the deadline and there was no exceptional reason given for the late return. . 7) Evaluation
The contract is constructed to reflect a model of 40% quality and 60% cost. This methodology has been applied to all bids equitably Appendix 1 – Financial summary Appendix 2 – Quality model and summary Appendix 3 – Final scores
The final scores are as follows
Tenderer 1 - 76.2 Tenderer 2 - 84.4 Tenderer 3 - 75.8 Tenderer 4 - 67.3
8) Evaluation Panel
The panel met on the 20th February 2008, those present were Geoff Sheel and Carl Humphrey - Environment Sian Humphries - Legal services Nigel Doyle - Procurement Steve Mathews - Finance The panel confirmed the recommendation set out below, subject to satisfactory references.
64
9) Recommendations
a) The panel recommend that the Tender submitted by Tenderer number 2 is accepted. b) The report to Corporate briefing on 6th March and to Cabinet on the 13th March confirm the panels recommendations
65
Appendix 1
Financial Scoring Chart
Un weighted Weighted Scores Scores
Tender Tender Tender Tender Tender Work Scheme Overall Tender Tender Tender Tender 1 2 3 4 Type Weighting Weighting 1 2 3 4 Job Weighting 1 96.8 100.0 98.2 80.4 0.4 0.24 0.096 9.3 9.6 9.4 7.7 2 91.8 100.0 94.5 70.5 0.4 0.13 0.052 4.8 5.2 4.9 3.7 3 95.3 100.0 91.9 74.7 0.4 0.115 0.046 4.4 4.6 4.2 3.4 4 94.9 100.0 95.3 80.9 0.4 0.4 0.16 15.2 16.0 15.2 12.9 5 89.1 100.0 91.0 55.5 0.4 0.115 0.046 4.1 4.6 4.2 2.6 6 82.7 100.0 71.0 58.4 0.3 0.14285 0.042855 3.5 4.3 3.0 2.5 7 100.0 94.5 78.8 86.6 0.3 0.14285 0.042855 4.3 4.0 3.4 3.7 8 97.0 100.0 84.2 74.5 0.3 0.14285 0.042855 4.2 4.3 3.6 3.2 9 100.0 93.2 59.0 79.3 0.3 0.14285 0.042855 4.3 4.0 2.5 3.4 10 80.3 87.3 100.0 78.3 0.3 0.14285 0.042855 3.4 3.7 4.3 3.4 11 93.4 100.0 77.6 82.5 0.3 0.14285 0.042855 4.0 4.3 3.3 3.5 12 92.9 94.6 100.0 76.8 0.3 0.14285 0.042855 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.3 13 94.3 100.0 76.5 90.7 0.14 0.1666 0.023324 2.2 2.3 1.8 2.1 14 98.5 100.0 89.5 79.7 0.14 0.1666 0.023324 2.3 2.3 2.1 1.9 15 100.0 67.9 81.4 81.9 0.14 0.1666 0.023324 2.3 1.6 1.9 1.9 16 93.7 100.0 81.1 79.6 0.14 0.1666 0.023324 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.9 17 90.3 100.0 95.7 75.3 0.14 0.1666 0.023324 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.8 18 8.2 75.7 43.7 100.0 0.14 0.1666 0.023324 0.2 1.8 1.0 2.3 19 100.0 56.8 76.8 55.6 0.04 0.3333 0.013332 1.3 0.8 1.0 0.7 20 100.0 58.1 72.6 49.1 0.04 0.3333 0.013332 1.3 0.8 1.0 0.7 21 100.0 54.9 65.9 45.4 0.04 0.3333 0.013332 1.3 0.7 0.9 0.6 22 76.5 87.6 100.0 73.2 0.01 0.5 0.005 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 23 100.0 72.0 85.7 61.8 0.01 0.5 0.005 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 24 100.0 84.5 75.2 69.7 0.05 0.3333 0.016665 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 25 70.8 100.0 99.0 81.7 0.05 0.3333 0.016665 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.4 26 86.5 100.0 87.7 68.3 0.05 0.3333 0.016665 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.1 27 93.7 100.0 99.9 62.6 0.01 1 0.01 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 28 100.0 95.0 73.0 87.0 0.01 1 0.01 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.9 29 80.3 100.0 90.2 80.1 0.02 1 0.02 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.6 30 67.6 100.0 80.2 69.2 0.01 1 0.01 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 31 20.8 100.0 54.3 27.2 0.01 1 0.01 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.3 32 83.6 100.0 84.8 80.0 0 0 0 33 61.9 100.0 88.9 85.7 0 0 0 Total 0.99992 90.4 95.1 86.4 75.5 Score 54.2 57.1 51.8 45.3 Financial Score (Total Score*0.6 )
66
Appendix 2
QUALITY SCORING CHART
NOTES:
The quality assessment must be based solely upon the information provided.
Only information requested from the questions must be considered when making the assessment.
SCORE: QUALITY SCORING CRITERIA
10 Exceptional, innovative, will add benefit to the service and covers all aspects without any weakness in Policy or Practice.
9 Very good, more than adequate for the service and covers all relevant aspects without any weakness in Policy or Practice.
8 Generally good, suitable for the service, without any weaknesses.
7 Generally good, considered suitable for the service, lacking some fine detail but no apparent weaknesses.
6 Satisfactory, adequate for the service, some minor weaknesses but not detrimental.
5 Barely adequate, some minor weaknesses which may affect the ability to deliver the service, lacking fine detail.
4 Inadequate, apparent weaknesses and insufficient detail in the reply.
3 Poor, obvious major weaknesses.
2 The response has serious deficiencies.
1 Totally inadequate or deficient.
0 No relevant response.
The tenderers were asked 16 questions and each were marked in accordance with the above
67
QUALITY ASSESSMENT SHEET
NAME OF TENDERER
Quality Submission Weighting Tenderer Tenderer Tenderer Tenderer 2 3 4 1 Client Satisfaction: Question 1 10% 8.25 6.5 6.5 7 Question 2 6% 3.6 5.4 3.6 3 Question 3 6% 3.6 4.8 3.6 3 Question 4 6% 4.8 3.6 3 3 Question 5 6% 4.8 3.6 3 3.6 Public Satisfaction: Question 6 6% 4.8 3.6 3 4.2 Question 7 6% 4.8 3.6 3.6 4.2 Health/Safety: Question 8 6% 3.6 3.6 5.4 3.6 Sustainability:
Question 9 6% 3.6 4.2 3.6 4.2 Resources /Capacity: Question 10 6% 3.6 3 3 3 Question 11 6% 4.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 Question 12 6% 3.6 3.6 3 2.4 Employment: Question 13 6% 3.6 3.6 2.4 3.6 Creativity/Innovation: Question 14 6% 3.6 3 3.6 3 Question 15 6% 4.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 Programme/Estimates/Forecast:
Question 16 6% 3 3 3 2.4 Total Weighted 100 68.25 59.9 55.1 55 Scores
40% Weighted 40 27.3 24 22 22 Score
68
Appendix 3
EVALUATION SUMMARY
Contractor Financial Quality Financial + Quality Score (60%) Score (40%) Score (100%)
Tenderer 1 54.2 22 76.2
Tenderer 2 57.1 27.3 84.4
Tenderer 3 51.8 24 75.8
Tenderer 4 45.3 22 67.3
69 Item No. 6 (B) (5)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment
Cabinet - 13th March 2008
LANDFILL TAX AND THE EXPANSION OF RECYCLING SCHEMES
Summary
Purpose: To seek approval of proposals to mitigate the impact of the landfill tax escalator and expand the availability of kerbside collection of recyclates.
Policy Framework: Waste Management Strategy October 2004.
Reasons for Decision: To comply with Financial Procedure Rule 6 in order to endorse strategy for new recycling proposals. To comply with Financial Rule No. 7 (Capital Programming and Appraisals) to commit, authorise and include new schemes in the Capital Programme.
Consultation: Legal Services and Financial Services.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:- a) the existing kitchen/green waste kerbside collection services is expanded from the existing 35,000 properties to 92,000 properties; b) weekly kitchen waste kerbside collection is introduced to those properties; c) the green waste collection service remains on a fortnightly basis; d) free home composting units are distributed to up to 8,000 outlying rural properties; e) that the introduction of (a) to (d) is planned for January 2009 to allow the procurement and delivery of appropriate vehicles and recycling containers; f) further work is undertaken with a view to introducing a full fortnightly kerbside collection scheme for cardboard, textiles and plastics in 2009/10 subject to further development of the vehicle fleet; g) the scheme for purchase of vehicles and containers in paragraph 4.6 is approved under Financial Procedure No. 7 for inclusion in the Capital Programme.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Every Council in Wales currently has a target to achieve a combined recycling/composting rate of 40% by 2009/10. The target specifies a split of minimum 15% recycling and minimum of 15% composting. The Welsh Assembly Government has recently made a series of statements relating to the introduction of new powers and duties, in respect of waste management. One of the proposed measures is to
70 introduce additional statutory recycling target of 52% by 2012/13 of which a minimum of 15% must be source separated kitchen waste leading to 70% by 2024/25.
1.2 In addition, Regulations made under the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 set statutory targets for reducing the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill presently on a linear basis.
Failure to hit these targets carries, for individual authorities, a £200/tonne fine for each tonne by which the target is missed. It is predicted that this Council currently risks failing to meet the current targets from 2010/11 onwards.
1.3 Landfill Tax, which is currently set at £24 per tonne for 2007/08 is due to increase by £8 per tonne each year between 2008/9 and 2010/11 when the rate per tonne will at £48 per tonne.
At the current levels of waste we send to landfill (approximately 100,000 tonnes per year) this will result in additional revenue costs for waste disposal of approximately £800k in 2008/09, £1.6m in 2009/10 and £2.4m in 2010/11.
There is a strong likelihood that the current landfill tax escalator of £8 per tonne per year will continue to be applied in subsequent years resulting in an ever increasing burden to the authority in relation to landfill tax.
1.4 In order to try and meet both the recycling and landfill allowance targets by the dates set it is essential that the current schemes offering the kerbside collections of recyclate and in particular kitchen/green biodegradable waste are expanded. This may improve our chances of enhanced grants in future years.
Success in expanding the schemes will result in the diversion of increased tonnages from present rates from landfill. This will thus reduce the impact of the increases in landfill tax detailed above and pave the way to effect further participation in the recycling schemes along with associated cost savings.
2. THE OUTLINE PROPOSALS
2.1 The Council currently operates a kerbside recycling collection, on a fortnightly basis, to 35,000 properties for the collection of kitchen/green waste. The recent WLGA Peer Review of Waste Management in Swansea praised the introduction of the current scheme, one of the first in Wales, but felt that it would only be successful if it (a) was extended to all households and (b) ultimately became a weekly collection. This would boost participation levels and allow consideration to be given to the introduction of other recyclates. 2.2 It is, therefore, proposed to:-
71 (a) Expand the existing scheme for the kerbside collection of kitchen/green waste to up to 92,000 properties during the latter part of the financial year 2008/09;
(b) Enable the service to allow for the collection of meat included waste;
(c) Introduce a weekly collection of kitchen waste and continue a fortnightly collection of green waste;
(d) Distribute free home composting units to up to 8,000 outlying properties;
(e) Work towards the introduction of other kerbside collection initiatives for cardboard, textiles and plastics during 2009/10 subject to the availability of the appropriate collection vehicles.
3. THE APPROACH
3.1 When examining the business case for the proposed expansion of kitchen/green waste collections there are a number of factors which need to be considered :-
(a) The gross cost of introducing the expansion (b) The projected savings the scheme could generate (c) The added benefits from any expansion (d) Available funding for the expansion (e) Operational issues (f) The consequences of not expanding
3.2 In addition to the operating costs there will be other costs which will need to be considered to enable the expansion to take place. These will include alterations to the In-Vessel Composting plant to allow the introduction of meat inclusive waste. This is an essential requirement if the scheme is to encourage participation and increase capture rates. It is estimated that the cost of the alterations will be in the order of £100k.
The estimated cost of operating the scheme in 2009/10 is £1.4m and £1.45m in 2010/11.
3.3 Further, it is estimated that, at current participation levels, the expanded scheme will collect approximately 7,500 tonnes of waste per year. After taking in to account an estimate of how much of this is currently being landfilled, and composting processing costs for the material collected, there would be an estimated saving of between £86-£100k per year from the waste disposal budget. These figures are based on 2008/09 costs. However, as previously stated, landfill tax is due to increase by £8 per tonne per year for the foreseeable future which will increase the amount saved per tonne collected year on year.
It is essential that if costs are to be minimised participation levels are maximised as recycling is presently voluntary. It is proposed that as a
72 precursor to expanding the existing scheme-high profile advertising and launch campaigns are undertaken to raise awareness of the issues and to maximise participation in both the new and existing schemes. These campaigns will be funded through the Sustainable Waste Management Grant. Any increase in tonnages achieved will add to the savings projected above.
3.4 It is widely recognised that by offering the collection of kitchen waste on a weekly basis participation levels will increase compared to a fortnightly collection. This will boost the tonnage of material collected and so increase the levels of savings made to our landfill tax/disposal budget. As stated previously an additional benefit of the weekly collection will be the ability to eventually introduce other recyclates. This will have the benefit of increasing the participation rates for our recycling and composting schemes further and freeing up resources which could be used to offset an element of the cost of providing enhanced recycling schemes.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 It is estimated that the costs of the proposals are as follows:-
Set up costs £1,635,000 Operating costs: Jan-March 2009 £400,000 2009/10 £1,450,000 2010/11 £1,500,000
The set up and operating costs for 2008/9 can be funded from the Sustainable Waste Management grant (which next year will be £3.5m), and from an already approved Regional Capital Access Fund grant of £1.2m. The additional operating cost from 2009/10 is dependant for funding upon further significant increases in grant. The financial implications are summarised in Appendix A.
4.2 To date the kerbside collection of kitchen/green waste has been funded by a combination of the Strategic Recycling Scheme (SRS) and Sustainable Waste Management Grant (SWMG). The contribution from SRS ceased in December 2007 leaving the full costs to be met from the SWM grant.
4.3 The Welsh Assembly Government has indicated that additional funding will be made available from 2008/09 to develop and expand recycling initiatives. It has placed particular emphasis on the introduction and expansion of kitchen waste collections and has provisionally indicated that from 2009/10 additional resources will be based of our performance in collecting this material. The increase in grant for Swansea for 2008/09 is £1.1m. The total grant for Wales is expected to increase from £50m next year to £59m in 2009/10, and £73m in 2010/11.
73 4.4 The set up costs include £1.2m for specialist vehicles and containers. These will be purchased from the Regional Capital Access Fund grant recently approved by WAG specifically for the expansion of food waste collection from homes and businesses. The other set-up costs (including advertising) will be funded from the Sustainable Waste Management Grant.
4.5 These proposals are aimed at increasing recycling volumes and reducing landfill volumes. They will:-
(a) reduce the possibility or scale of landfill allowance penalties of £200 per tonne which the authority could face from 2010/11;
(b) mitigate against the extra costs of increasing landfill tax – which is increasing from the current level of £24 per tonne to £32 per tonne this year, to £40 per tonne in 2009 and £48 per tonne in 2010.
4.6 It should be noted that the vehicles and containers are being purchased from capital grants and there is no provision in the estimates for replacement of these in future years.
5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The Landfill (Scheme Year and Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2004 and the Landfill Allowances Scheme (Wales) Regulations 2004, made under the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (“the Regulations”), set statutory targets for each local authority in Wales to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill. Failure to hit these targets carries, for individual local authorities, a £200/tonne fine for each tonne the target is missed.
5.2 In her announcement in October 2007 the Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing stated that there was a possibility, subject to consultation, that recycling targets, which are presently non-statutory, may be made statutory.
6. OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Obviously, with such a major proposed expansion/reorganisation of the waste and recycling services, there will be a need to reallocate resources (both plant and manpower) to ensure that the optimum use is made of both. There will be a need to further review the existing fleet of waste collection vehicles and ensure that future procurement is targeted to providing vehicles which are interchangeable within the services.
In addition to the above, it is also proposed to expand the provision of kerbside recycling to immediately include the collection of card/cardboard in certain areas. It is anticipated that this can be done using existing collection resources and will divert approximately 1,000
74 tonnes of card/cardboard away from landfill. Additional costs will be incurred for the collection and additional processing of the card. It is also proposed to investigate the feasibility of introducing the kerbside collection of textiles and plastics. However, with the collection of kitchen waste an imperative the issue of those collections needs to be considered at a slightly later date due to the need to ensure that the appropriate vehicle fleet is in place.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 The impact of the Regulations and the financial penalties for not achieving the diversion from landfill coupled with the proposed new targets for recycling announced by WAG requires the Council to seek further solutions to achieving these targets.
7.2 WAG has announced an increase in the Sustainable Waste Management Grant which will enable such initiatives to proceed.
7.3 It is, therefore, recommended that:-
(a) the existing kitchen/green waste kerbside collection services is expanded from the existing 35,000 properties to 92,000 properties;
(b) weekly kitchen waste kerbside collection is introduced to those properties;
(c) the green waste collection service remains on a fortnightly basis;
(d) free home composting units are distributed to up to 8,000 outlying rural properties;
(e) that the introduction of (a) to (d) is planned for January 2009 to allow the procurement and delivery of appropriate vehicles and recycling containers;
(f) further work is undertaken with a view to introducing a full fortnightly kerbside collection scheme for cardboard, textiles and plastics in 2009/10 subject to further development of the vehicle fleet;
(g) the scheme for purchase of vehicles and containers in paragraph 4.6 is approved under Financial Procedure Rules No. 7 for inclusion in the Capital Programme.
Contact Officer: Tony Glacken, Head of Environmental Management and Protection Extension: 5603 Background Papers: None
75 Financial Procedure Rule 7 Appendix A
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS : SUMMARY
Portfolio: ENVIRONMENT Service : REFUSE COLLECTION Scheme : EXPANSION OF FOOD AND GREEN WASTE COLLECTION
1.1. CAPITAL COSTS 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 TOTAL £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Expenditure 0 Refuse vehicles 942 942 Containers 269 269 0 0 Budget Code: EXPENDITURE 1,211 0 1,211
Financing 0 WAG grant 1,211 1211
0 FINANCING 1,211 0 1211
1.2. REVENUE COSTS 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 FULL YEAR £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Service Controlled - Expenditure Set up costs 42500 Employees 240 960 1,000 Transport 110 440 450 Cardboard processing 50 50 50 Total Expenditure 825 1,450 1,500
Grant Income 825 1,450 1,500
NET EXPENDITURE 000
Centrally Controlled Expenditure Capital Charge 000 Loan Charges 000
76
Item No. 6 (B) (6)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment
Cabinet - 13th March 2008
SOUTH WEST WALES REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – FORMALISATION OF ARRANGEMENTS
Summary
Purpose: To formalise arrangements with regard to the formation of the South West Wales Regional Waste Management Committee (“the joint committee”) and to appoint representatives to the joint committee
Policy Framework: Waste Strategy for Swansea.
Reason for Decision: To formalise arrangements following Cabinet’s approval in principle to the establishment of the joint committee.
Consultation: Legal, Financial Services.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:
1) Cabinet delegate authority to the Head of Legal Services to enter into an agreement with the other five participating South Wales Local Authorities (Bridgend, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Neath Port-Talbot and Pembrokeshire) to formally constitute the joint committee;
2) Cabinet approve three nominations to the joint committee as referred to in paragraph 2.3 of this report; as follows: -
(i) the Cabinet Member for Environment as the voting member on the joint committee; and
(ii) two other Members (as non-voting members); and
3) Cabinet delegate authority to the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Heads of Legal, Finance and Community Leadership and Democracy, to agree which of the participating South Wales Local Authorities will act as the host authority for the joint committee from time- to-time.
77
1 Introduction
1.1 At the meeting of Cabinet on 9 August 2007, approval was given in principle to the establishment of a joint committee to be known as the South West Wales Regional Waste Management Committee (“the joint committee”). In addition to the City & County of Swansea, the participating authorities are: Bridgend; Carmarthenshire; Ceredigion; Neath Port-Talbot; and Pembrokeshire.
1.2 The overall purpose of the joint committee is to assist in identifying and facilitating regionally collaborative initiatives involving some or all of the participating authorities in the fields of research, procurement and delivery of waste services for the management of the municipal waste stream in the South Wales. As such, the joint committee will have an important role to play in achieving the rigorous targets of the Welsh Assembly Government for recycling and composting of municipal waste.
2 The agreement
2.1 Each of the participating authorities has now reported to their respective Cabinet/Executive Board meetings for approval to establish the joint committee. The next stage in formally constituting the joint committee will be the completion of the agreement by the signature of all of the parties. The draft of the agreement is attached at Appendix 1. The agreement will set the robust governance procedures for the operation of the joint committee and will ensure that all of the partner authorities will own equally the proposed way forward given the urgency of making progress in relation to the targets that will be set by the Welsh Assembly Government.
2.2 The agreement makes provision for one of the participating authorities to serve as “Host Authority” and to provide administrative support to the joint committee. With the agreement of the joint committee, the Host Authority will be able to recover costs which it has properly incurred in undertaking its duties under the agreement. The participating authorities will be able to agree from time-to-time which of their number will act as the Host Authority.
2.3 Each participating authority will be required to appoint three representatives to the joint committee, one of which will be a “voting member” who will exercise the vote of their authority in the event of there being a formal vote at a meeting of the committee. The other two representatives will be non-voting members. A deputy can be appointed to attend and vote in the place of the voting member in the event that that individual is unable to attend a meeting of the committee. It is proposed that the Cabinet Member for Environment be appointed as the voting member on the joint committee and that Cabinet appoint two further non- voting representatives. In the event that the Cabinet Member is unable to
78
attend a meeting of the joint committee, one of the non-voting representatives can be appointed, as provided for in the agreement, to act as the voting member at that particular meeting.
2.4 The Chair and Vice Chair of the joint committee will rotate annually between the participating authorities as provided for in the agreement. The Chair will not have a casting vote at any meeting and decisions will only be implemented where all of the participating authorities vote in support of that decision (the quorum for meetings is six voting members). For the avoidance of doubt, the joint committee will not have the power to approve policies and budgets and will be required to refer these to the participating authorities for consideration and decision in accordance with their respective constitutions.
2.5 The agreement will continue until such time as it is terminated by one of the participating authorities withdrawing and the others not resolving to continue. If an authority wishes to withdraw, it must give notice in writing to take effect twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the notice is given. Liability for costs arising as a result of the termination shall be apportioned equally between the participating authorities.
3 Financial implications
3.1 It is estimated that the administration, servicing and operation of the joint committee will require funding in the region of £25K per annum. It is anticipated that the funding provided through the “Making the Connections Improvement Fund” will support the delivery and operation of the joint committee, and that the joint committee will be the means by which this funding will be allocated to collaborative initiatives across the South Wales region. Projects therefore carried out by or on behalf of the joint committee will be funded by specific grants from the Welsh Assembly Government and other grant making bodies (it is anticipated that the Host Authority will bid for grant funding on behalf of the participating authorities) and expenditure will be limited to the amount of grant funding received, unless the participating authorities agree otherwise.
4 Legal implications
4.1 In entering into the agreement to formally constitute the joint committee, the City and County of Swansea will be creating contractual obligations with the five other participating authorities.
4.2 Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 confers on local authorities, including the City and County of Swansea, the power to establish joint committees and to discharge functions jointly. Waste management is an executive function, and under section 20 of the Local Government Act 2000 and regulation 4 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Discharge of Functions) (Wales) Regulations 2002 (“the Regulations”) the Cabinet has the power to establish the joint committee.
79
This is recognised in the Council Constitution at Article 11.01(b).
4.3 In approving in principle the establishment of the joint committee at its meeting on 9 August 2007, Cabinet asked for clarification of the voting rights of the authorised deputy (see paragraph 2.3 above). In accordance with regulation 12 of the Regulations, where Cabinet has established a joint committee, it may appoint any Member or officer to that joint committee. As regards Members, an appointee does not have to be a member of the Cabinet (but could be), and the political balance requirements do not apply. As Cabinet can appoint representatives to the joint committee, it is reasonable that Cabinet could appoint a deputy (who does not need to be a Member of the Cabinet) to vote in the absence of the voting-member. This is provided for in the agreement and indeed will give the joint committee greater flexibility for securing attendance at meetings and progressing matters in the interests of the participating authorities.
5 Recommendations
5.1 It is recommended that:
1) Cabinet delegate authority to the Head of Legal Services to enter into an agreement with the other five participating South Wales Local Authorities (Bridgend, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Neath Port- Talbot and Pembrokeshire) to formally constitute the joint committee;
2) Cabinet approve three nominations to the joint committee as referred to in paragraph 2.3 of this report; as follows: -
(i) the Cabinet Member for Environment as the voting member on the joint committee; and
(ii) two other Members (as non-voting members); and
3) Cabinet delegate authority to the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Heads of Legal, Finance and Community Leadership, to agree which of the participating South Wales Local Authorities will act as the host authority for the joint committee from time-to-time.
Background Papers: Waste Strategy for Swansea approved by Council 21st October 2004 Report to Cabinet held on 9 August 2007 Minutes of the Cabinet held on 9 August 2007
Contact Officers: C James A Cluckie Telephone: 636696 635799 Date: 20 February 2008
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108