COUNCIL SUMMONS
You are hereby summoned to attend a Meeting of the COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA to be held in the Council Chamber, County Hall, Swansea on Thursday, 10th April 2008 at 4.00pm
The following business is proposed to be transacted:
Page No’s 1. Apologies for Absence.
2. To Receive Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City & County of Swansea. (NOTE: You are requested to identify the Agenda Item / Minute No. Planning Application No. and Subject Matter to which the interest relates).
3. To receive and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the following Council meetings :
Extraordinary Council of 25th February 2008. 1-11 Council of 28th February 2008. 12-19
4. Presiding Officer’s Announcements.
5. Leader’s Announcements.
6. Public Questions in accordance with Procedure Rule 16. Questions must relate to matters on the open part of the Agenda of the meeting and will be dealt within a ten minute period.
7. Public Presentations:
8. Cabinet Member Report(s)
(A) Community Leadership & Democracy Portfolio (1) Membership of Committees. 20
(B) Social Services Portfolio (1) Health, Social Care and Well Being Strategy 2008-2011. 21-27
(C) Environment Portfolio (1) Post Inquiry Modifications to the City and County of Swansea Unitary 28-46 Development Plan. (2) Award of Costs at Planning Appeals. 47-50
(D) Community Regeneration Portfolio (1) Safer Swansea Strategy 2008 -2011. 51-52
(E) Culture, Recreation and Tourism Portfolio (1) Swansea Climbing Higher – Sport & Physical Activity Strategy and 53-57 Action Plan.
9. Report of the Scrutiny Coordinating Group (1) Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme 2007/08 - Update. 58-64
10. Report of the Monitoring Officer (1) The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2008. 65-82
11. Report of the Chief Executive (1) Senior Management Restructuring. 83-100
12. Report of the Performance Scrutiny Board (1) Scrutiny Review of the Council’s eGovernment Programme. 101-140
13. Councillors’ Questions under Procedure Rule 15 No questions received.
14. Notice of Motion from Councillors A Lloyd, D Phillips, J Burtonshaw, C Thomas, M Child, J Miles, D Thomas, R Stewart and R Francis-Davies
There are more people enslaved today than there were 200 years ago when William Wilberforce led the fight to abolish slavery. Human Trafficking, the modern day slave trade, is the fastest growing form of international crime with 600,000 – 800,000 people trafficked across international borders each year. While women and children are particularly vulnerable to trafficking for the sex trade, human trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation. Across the world men, women and children, some as young as three years old, are bought and sold into prostitution, forced labour, domestic servitude and forced organ donation to name a few "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
Women are involved in 77% of trafficking cases worldwide, with sexual exploitation a factor in 87%. Forced labour is also a motive behind trafficking. The UK is a major destination for trafficked women. Police believe that about 4,000 have been brought in to the country by criminal gangs and forced to work as prostitutes. Police say that victims are found "all over the UK, not just in metropolitan areas"., police say.
Often, women are lured by adverts in their home countries for jobs such as restaurant staff, maids and child minders. The age of victims varies widely, but most are between 18 and 24. Police have also rescued a number of children. Victims can end up in any town or city
where brothels operate. They are found in all the major towns and cities in the UK. The fate of many victims is unclear.
“I am not for sale, we are not for sale no-one should be for sale”.
Council therefore resolves • to adopt a ‘Not For Sale’ policy
• that on behalf of the Council the Lord Mayor and Leader of the City and County of Swansea sign The Council of Europe’s Declaration on the Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings, which the U.K Government has already signed ratified.
Council recognizes that the creation of resource centres, which provide specialised assistance to trafficked human beings, should be priority. Such centres would co-ordinate all aspects of victim care through the provision of secure walk-in shelters and longer term refuges, medical and psychological assistance and a 24 hours emergency telephone hotline.
To this end Council further resolves to initiate dialogue with our neighbouring local authorities, community groups, South Wales Police and the Welsh Assembly Government to determine the best and most efficient way that such centres could be created.
Council also notes that the sex industry plays a major part in human trafficking, particularly of women. Trinity Mirror Plc, which publishes the Western Mail, South Wales Echo and Wales on Sunday decided in November 2007 not to accept classified advertisements from massage parlours and other so-called “Health Clubs”.
Council also resolves to call on the South Wales Evening Post and other local Newspapers to follow this lead and refuse adverts such as those for “Happy Niki”, “Maria’ Massage” etc.
15. Notice of Motion from Councillors Darren Price, Adrian Rees, Rhodri Thomas, Vanessa Webb
Council condemns the Post Office closure programme by the Westminster Government, which could see 2,500 Post Offices close across the UK.
Council regrets the closure of so many Post Offices within the City and County of Swansea over previous years and reaffirms its commitment to the protection of this vital network.
Council sees the Post Office Network as a valuable social resource and acknowledges that there is potential to develop the network.
Council therefore resolves to enter talks with the Post Office and other relevant agencies prior to the upcoming consultation period in an attempt to minimise the number of Post Office closures in the City and County of Swansea.
Council notes that this may take the form of re-locating branches to other public buildings such as schools and libraries.
16. To authorise the affixing of the Common Seal to any document necessary to carry into effect any resolution passed or confirmed at this meeting.
Dated 3rd April 2008
Georgie Thomas Head of Community Leadership & Democracy County Hall, Swansea To: All Members of the Council Z: Agenda /Council /2008April10
CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
HELD AT COUNTY HALL, SWANSEA ON MONDAY, 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 AT 4.00 P.M.
PRESENT: Councillor R J Lloyd (Presiding Officer) presided
Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s):
V N Abbott M H Jones A R Richards P M Black W E A Jones I M Richard G H Burtonshaw R H Kinzett D A Robinson J E Burtonshaw E T Kirchner A M Seabourne M C Child R D Lewis G Seabourne A R A Clement S M Lewis M Smith G G Clement A Lloyd R L Smith A M Day A T Lloyd R C Stewart J Evans K E Marsh R J Stanton W G Evans P May D G Sullivan E W Fitzgerald P Matthews C Thomas R Francis-Davies J T Miles D W W Thomas M E Gibbs W K Morgan L G Thomas J B Hague J Newbury J R Thomas M J Hedges J T G Peters R M Thomas C A Holley D Phillips N J Tregoning P R Hood-Williams G Phillips D P Tucker D H Hopkins C L Philpott C M Waller B J Hynes D Price E V Webb J V Jardine T H Rees A R Welsby D I E Jones S J Rice
185. APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors W J F Davies, P Downing, D H James, A H Rees, R Speht, S M Waller and J Woodman.
186. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea no personal interests were declared.
1 Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
187. PRESIDING OFFICER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Presiding Officer expressed thanks to Members on behalf of Councillor S Waller for their support since her partner’s admission to hospital.
188. LEADER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Leader made no announcements.
189. BUDGET 2008/09 - OVERVIEW REPORT
The Section 151 Officer submitted an overview report to highlight the key issues running through the technical analysis and in particular to make clear the connections to the previous budget reports, relevant audit reports and comments particularly in the Relationship Manager’s Annual Letter.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
190. CAPITAL BUDGET AND PROGRAMME 2007/08 - 2011/12
The Section 151 Officer submitted the proposed Capital Budget for 2007/08 - 2011/12.
It was noted that spending in the current year would be £118.426m, an increase of £39.110m over the original estimate of £79.316m. Details of the changes were outlined in Annexe C of the report. The net additional spending of £39.110m will be financed as follows:
£ m
Use of Prudential Borrowing Powers 13.861 Grants and Contributions 17.588 Other financing 7.661 Total additional financing 39.110
The Capital Budget for 2007/08 - 2011/12 comprised:
(a) schemes financed from Council borrowing and Capital receipts; and
(b) schemes financed by grants and contributions from other bodies; and
(c) for completeness, schemes financed from Housing Revenue Account (HRA) resources.
Schemes falling within the scope of (b) and (c) would not result in any implications for the Council’s General Capital Borrowing Requirement. Schemes falling within the scope of (a) were detailed in Annexe B of the report.
2
Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
The financing of the overall Capital Budget was detailed in Annexe B and the financing of the requirements set out in Annexe B was as follows:
£ m
Borrowing supported by Welsh Assembly Grant 66.222 Capital Grant 21.579 Capital Receipts 26.735 Use of Prudential Borrowing Powers 79.823 Total Financing 194.359
RESOLVED that:
(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 approved.
191. CAPITAL PROGRAMME - PRUDENTIAL CODE AND PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS FOR 2007/08
The Section 151 Officer reported that under the Local Government Act 2003 and subsequent Regulations, a Local Authority was required to comply with the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities when setting its Budget.
He advised that as Capital expenditure and financing decisions impacted directly and significantly on revenue expenditure, a report should be considered alongside the Revenue and Capital Budget Reports.
It was a requirement of the Code that the setting and revising of Prudential Indicators was done by the same body that agreed the Authority’s Budget and was completed prior to the year to which the Prudential Indicators relate.
He set out in detail the Prudential Indicators recommended for approval.
RESOLVED that the Prudential Indicators and proposals set out in the appendix to the report by approved.
3 Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
192. HOUSING CAPITAL ACCOUNT (HRA) - REVENUE BUDGET 2008/09 AND CAPITAL BUDGET 2008/09 TO 2010/11
The Section 151 Officer submitted a report jointly with the Director of Regeneration and Housing which proposed a Revenue Budget 2008/09, a Capital Budget 2008/09 to 2010/11. It also detailed the rent increase 2008/09, revised estimate 2007/08, estimate 2008/09, rent harmonisation proposals and proposed fees, charges and allowances. The report also included the 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 Capital Budgets based on the assumption that the main source of funding for the Capital Budget, the Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) would not change significantly over the three years.
RESOLVED that the following Budget proposals be approved:
(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) continue the policy of rent harmonisation as detailed in Section 3 of the report;
(3) approve the increase for fees, charges and allowances as outlined in Section 4 of the report;
(4) approve the revenue budget and capital programme as detailed in Section 5 and the Appendix of the report.
193. REVENUE BUDGET 2008/09
The Section 151 Officer submitted on the proposed Revenue Budget and Council Tax levy for 2008/09.
He advised of a forecast net underspending for 2007/08 of £1,640,000 arising as follows:
Table 1 £000 Service budgets overspending (before transfers to/from reserves) 2,364 Additional Discretionary Rate Relief 20 Less: Contingency Fund (offset against above overspending) -1,500 Reduced Capital Financing Charges -2,124 Increased Council Tax income -400 Net underspending -1,640
He stated that net service expenditure amounted to £317,435m, an increase of £2,364,000 after adjusting for transfers to and from reserves as outlined.
4 Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
The recommendation was amended by the Finance Cabinet Member, so that the line described as “Residents Parking Charges” on page 102 be deleted with a corresponding increase in the residual savings requirements in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12.
An amendment was moved and seconded that the line described as “Child and Family Services review including Ty Gwaun and Ty Cwm residential units” on page 103 be deleted for full consultation with stakeholders. There will be a corresponding increase in the residual savings requirements in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12. The budget shortfall in 2008/09 of £406,000 will be financed from the Contingency Fund.
The amendment was put and agreed.
The amended motion therefore became the substantive motion.
The substantive motion was then put and agreed.
RESOLVED that:
(1) a revised budget for 2007/08 be approved;
(2) a budget for 2008/09 be approved subject to the following amendments:
(a) Page 102. The line described a “Residents Parking Charges” under the heading Service Savings Proposals be deleted with a corresponding increase in the residual savings requirements in 2009/10, 2020/11 and 2011/12.
(b) Page 103. The line described as “Child and Family Services Review including Ty Gwaun and Ty Cwm residential units” be deleted for full consultation with stakeholders. There would be a corresponding increase in the residual savings requirements in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12. The budget shortfall in 2008/09 of £406,000 would then be financed from the Contingency Fund.
(3) a Budget Requirement and Council Tax levy for 2008/09 be approved.
194. TREASURY STRATEGY STATEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR 2008/09
The Section 151 Officer submitted a report recommending the Treasury Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy for 2008/09.
5 Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
RESOLVED that the Treasury Management Strategy and Investment Strategy, as set out in the report, be approved.
195. RESOLUTIONS TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS IN THE SETTING OF THE COUNCILS ACTS 2008/09
RESOLVED that
(1) the Council notes and adopts the statutory resolutions set out below.
(2) it be noted that at its meeting on 6th December 2007 the Council calculated the following amounts for the year 2008/2009 in accordance with Regulations made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 -
(a) 85,625 being the amount calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (Wales) Regulations 1995,as amended, as its Council Tax base for the year.
(b) Parts of the Council’s Area -
Bishopston 1,940 Clydach 2,524 Gorseinon 2,845 Gowerton 1,959 Grovesend 404 Ilston 331 Killay 2,090 Llangennith, Llanmadoc & Cheriton 482 Llangyfelach 886 Llanrhidian Higher 2,250 Llanrhidian Lower 305 Llwchwr 3,109 Mawr 720 Mumbles 9,404 Penllergaer 1,168 Pennard 1,460 Penrice 443 Pontarddulais 2,007 Pontlliw 1,034 Port Eynon 390 Reynoldston 285 Rhossilli 186 Upper Killay 566
6
Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Regulations, as the amounts of its Council Tax base for dwellings in those parts of its area to which special items relate;
(3) that the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2008/2009 in accordance with Section 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 -
(a) £592,586,530 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Sections 32(2)(a) to (d) of the Act
(b) £231,201,000 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Sections 32(3)(a), 32(3)(c) and 32(3a) of the Act
(c) £361,385,530 being the amount by which the aggregate at (3)(a) above exceeds the aggregate at 3(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the year
(d) £285,350,475 being the aggregate of the sums which the Council estimates will be payable for the year into its Council Fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates, and revenue support grant less discretionary Non Domestic Rate relief
(e) £888.00 being the amount at (3)(c) above less the amount at (3)(d) above, all divided by the amount at (2)(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year
(f) £749,274 being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act
(g) £879.25 being the amount at (3)(e) above less the result given by dividing the amount at (3)(f) above by the amount at (2)(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special items relate
7
Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
(h) Parts of the Council’s Area -
Bishopston 895.06 Clydach 896.29 Gorseinon 898.23 Gowerton 896.20 Grovesend 891.63 Ilston 887.75 Killay 889.78 Llangennith, Llanmadoc 893.77 & Cheriton Llangyfelach 899.57 Llanrhidian Higher 921.47 Llanrhidian Lower 889.09 Llwchwr 900.23 Mawr 919.33 Mumbles 890.84 Penllergaer 914.35 Pennard 911.44 Penrice 899.57 Pontarddulais 917.12 Pontlliw 910.20 Port Eynon 886.94 Reynoldston 895.39 Rhossili 889.65 Upper Killay 911.05
being the amounts given by adding to the amount at (3)(g) above the amounts of the special items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area mentioned above divided in each case by the amount at (2)(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(3) of the Act, as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.
8 Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
(I) Parts of the Council’s Area -
Band Band Band Band Band Band Band Band Band A B C D E F G H I £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £
Bishopston 596.71 696.16 795.61 895.06 1,093.96 1,292.86 1,491.77 1,790.12 2,088.47 Clydach 597.53 697.11 796.70 896.29 1,095.47 1,294.64 1,493.82 1,792.58 2,091.34 Gorseinon 598.82 698.62 798.43 898.23 1,097.84 1,297.44 1,497.05 1,796.46 2,095.87 Gowerton 597.47 697.04 796.62 896.20 1,095.36 1,294.51 1,493.67 1,792.40 2,091.13 Grovesend 594.42 693.49 792.56 891.63 1,089.77 1,287.91 1,486.05 1,783.26 2,080.47 Ilston 591.83 690.47 789.11 887.75 1,085.03 1,282.31 1,479.58 1,775.50 2,071.42 Killay 593.19 692.05 790.92 889.78 1,087.51 1,285.24 1,482.97 1,779.56 2,076.15 Llangennith, Llanmadoc 595.85 695.15 794.46 893.77 1,092.39 1,291.00 1,489.62 1,787.54 2,085.46 & Cheriton Llangyfelach 599.71 699.67 799.62 899.57 1,099.47 1,299.38 1,499.28 1,799.14 2,099.00 Llanrhidian Higher 614.31 716.70 819.08 921.47 1,126.24 1,331.01 1,535.78 1,842.94 2,150.10 Llanrhidian Lower 592.73 691.51 790.30 889.09 1,086.67 1,284.24 1,481.82 1,778.18 2,074.54 Llwchwr 600.15 700.18 800.20 900.23 1,100.28 1,300.33 1,500.38 1,800.46 2,100.54 Mawr 612.89 715.03 817.18 919.33 1,123.63 1,327.92 1,532.22 1,838.66 2,145.10 Mumbles 593.89 692.88 791.86 890.84 1,088.80 1,286.77 1,484.73 1,781.68 2,078.63 Penllergaer 609.57 711.16 812.76 914.35 1,117.54 1,320.73 1,523.92 1,828.70 2,133.48 Pennard 607.63 708.90 810.17 911.44 1,113.98 1,316.53 1,519.07 1,822.88 2,126.70 Penrice 599.71 699.67 799.62 899.57 1,099.47 1,299.38 1,499.28 1,799.14 2,099.00 Pontarddulais 611.41 713.32 815.22 917.12 1,120.92 1,324.73 1,528.53 1,834.24 2,139.95 Pontlliw 606.80 707.93 809.07 910.20 1,112.47 1,314.73 1,517.00 1,820.40 2,123.80 Port Eynon 591.29 689.84 788.39 886.94 1,084.04 1,281.14 1,478.23 1,773.88 2,069.53 Reynoldston 596.93 696.41 795.90 895.39 1,094.37 1,293.34 1,492.32 1,790.78 2,089.24 Rhossili 593.10 691.95 790.80 889.65 1,087.35 1,285.05 1,482.75 1,779.30 2,075.85 Upper Killay 607.37 708.59 809.82 911.05 1,113.51 1,315.96 1,518.42 1,822.10 2,125.78
All other parts of the Council area 586.17 683.86 781.56 879.25 1,074.64 1,270.03 1,465.42 1,758.50 2,051.58
being the amounts given by multiplying the amounts at (3)(g) and (3)(h) above by the number which, in the population set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of the categories of dwellings listed in the different valuation bands.
(4) that it be noted that for the year 2008/2009 the South Wales Police Authority have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of dwelling shown below -
9
Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
Band Band Band Band Band Band Band Band Band A B C D E F G H I £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £
South Wales Police 92.92 108.40 123.89 139.38 170.35 201.32 232.30 278.75 325.21 Authority
(5) that having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at (3)(I) and (4) above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2008/2009 for each of the categories of dwelling shown below -
Band Band Band Band Band Band Band Band Band A B C D E F G H I £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £
Bishopston 689.63 804.56 919.50 1,034.44 1,264.32 1,494.18 1,724.07 2,068.87 2,413.68 Clydach 690.45 805.51 920.60 1,035.67 1,265.82 1,495.96 1,726.12 2,071.33 2,416.55 Gorseinon 691.74 807.02 922.32 1,037.61 1,268.19 1,498.76 1,729.35 2,075.21 2,421.08 Gowerton 690.39 805.44 920.52 1,035.58 1,265.71 1,495.83 1,725.97 2,071.15 2,416.34 Grovesend 687.34 801.89 916.45 1,031.01 1,260.12 1,489.23 1,718.35 2,062.01 2,405.68 Ilston 684.75 798.87 913.00 1,027.13 1,255.38 1,483.63 1,711.88 2,054.25 2,396.63 Killay 686.11 800.45 914.81 1,029.16 1,257.86 1,486.56 1,715.27 2,058.31 2,401.36 Llangennith, Llanmadoc 688.77 803.55 918.36 1,033.15 1,262.74 1,492.32 1,721.92 2,066.29 2,410.67 & Cheriton Llangyfelach 692.63 808.07 923.51 1,038.95 1,269.83 1,500.70 1,731.58 2,077.89 2,424.21 Llanrhidian Higher 707.23 825.10 942.98 1,060.85 1,296.59 1,532.33 1,768.08 2,121.69 2,475.31 Llanrhidian Lower 685.65 799.91 914.20 1,028.47 1,257.02 1,485.56 1,714.12 2,056.93 2,399.75 Llwchwr 693.07 808.58 924.10 1,039.61 1,270.63 1,501.65 1,732.68 2,079.21 2,425.75 Mawr 705.81 823.43 941.08 1,058.71 1,293.98 1,529.24 1,764.52 2,117.41 2,470.31 Mumbles 686.81 801.28 915.75 1,030.22 1,259.16 1,488.09 1,717.03 2,060.43 2,403.84 Penllergaer 702.49 819.56 936.65 1,053.73 1,287.89 1,522.05 1,756.22 2,107.45 2,458.69 Pennard 700.55 817.30 934.06 1,050.82 1,284.34 1,517.85 1,751.37 2,101.63 2,451.91 Penrice 692.63 808.07 923.51 1,038.95 1,269.83 1,500.70 1,731.58 2,077.89 2,424.21 Pontarddulais 704.33 821.72 939.11 1,056.50 1,291.28 1,526.05 1,760.83 2,112.99 2,465.16 Pontlliw 699.72 816.33 932.96 1,049.58 1,282.82 1,516.05 1,749.30 2,099.15 2,449.01 Port Eynon 684.21 798.24 912.28 1,026.32 1,254.39 1,482.46 1,710.53 2,052.63 2,394.74 Reynoldston 689.85 804.81 919.80 1,034.77 1,264.72 1,494.66 1,724.62 2,069.53 2,414.45 Rhossili 686.02 800.35 914.69 1,029.03 1,257.70 1,486.37 1,715.05 2,058.05 2,401.06 Upper Killay 700.29 816.99 933.72 1,050.43 1,283.86 1,517.28 1,750.72 2,100.85 2,450.99
All other parts of the Council area 679.09 792.26 905.45 1,018.63 1,244.99 1,471.35 1,697.72 2,037.25 2,376.79
10
Minutes of the Meeting of the Council (25.02.08) Cont’d
196. COMMON SEAL
RESOLVED that the Common Seal be affixed to any documents necessary to carry into effect any Resolutions passed or confirmed at this meeting.
The meeting ended at 8.00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN
S: Council - 25 February 2008 (JT/CEB) 27.02.08
11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
HELD AT COUNTY HALL, SWANSEA ON THURSDAY 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 AT 4.00 P.M.
PRESENT: Councillor R. J. Lloyd (Presiding Officer) presided
Councillor(s): Councillor(s): Councillor(s):
P M Black D I E Jones S J Rice G H Burtonshaw M H Jones I M Richard M C Child W E A Jones A R Richard A R A Clement E T Kirchner A M Seabourne G G Clement S M Lewis G Seabourne A M Day A Lloyd R L Smith P Downing A T Lloyd R C Stewart J Evans K E Marsh R J Stanton W G Evans P N May D G Sullivan E W Fitzgerald P Matthews C. Thomas R Francis-Davies J T Miles D W W Thomas M E Gibbs W K Morgan L G Thomas J B Hague J Newbury J R Thomas C A Holley J T G Peters R M Thomas P R Hood-Williams D Phillips N J Tregoning D H Hopkins G Phillips D Paul Tucker B J Hynes C L Philpott C M Waller D R James D Price E V Webb Y V Jardine T H Rees A R Welsby
197. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J E Burtonshaw, W J F Davies, D H James R Kinzett, A H Rees, M Smith, S M Waller and J Woodman.
198. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea, the following personal interests were declared:
Councillor A M Day - Minute No. 192 - Swansea Bay Strategy - Report on Public Consultation and withdrew from the meeting during its consideration.
12 Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (28.02.08) Cont’d
Councillor D Phillips - Minute No. 192 - Swansea Bay Strategy - Report on Public Consultation and withdrew from the meeting during its consultation.
199. MINUTES OF COUNCIL
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Council held on 17th January and 14th February 2008 be agreed and signed by the Presiding Officer as a correct record.
(NOTE: The Leader undertook to provide an answer to Councillor M C Child with reference to Minute No. 177. The issue of written answers being included within the Minute Book be referred to the Constitution Working Group.)
200. PRESIDING OFFICER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Visit of HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
The Presiding Officer referred to the forthcoming visit of HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh to Swansea on 7th March 2008 and was pleased to inform Council that the visit would commence with the opening of the LC to be followed by a civic luncheon at the Brangwyn Hall. This would be followed by a visit to the St. Thomas Community School where they would tour the building and meet representatives of the local community.
Resignation
The Presiding Officer reported that Councillor Doreen Jones had submitted her resignation as a Councillor with effect from the end of this month due to ill health. He paid tribute to the service she had rendered to the City and County of Swansea and former West Glamorgan County Council for many years.
Presentation
The Presiding Officer presented the Basic Skills Employers Pledge for work done on Supporting the Basic Skills Needs of CCS employees to Nicky Simons, Mick Kingston and Peter Purdue and congratulated all involved.
13 Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (28.02.08) Cont’d
201. LEADER’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Small Casino
The Leader was pleased to announce that Swansea had been included in the list of locations for a Small Casino and that interested parties would soon be invited to submit applications for interview by a Selection Panel.
LC
The Leader was pleased to announce that the LC would open to the public on St. David’s Day, 1st March 2008 and congratulated all who had taken part in this very successful project. The LC would close on 6th March for security reasons prior to the Royal opening on 7th March 2008.
202. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Five (5) Public Questions were asked in relation to matters on the Council Summons.
Mr R Jones asked a question relating to Agenda Item 13 - Councillors’ Questions (question no. 3). The Leader responded.
Mr H Parsons asked a question relating to Agenda Item 13 - Councillors’ Questions (question no. 4). The Environment Cabinet Member responded.
Mr A Beddow asked a question relating to Agenda Item 8(A)(1) - Tall Building Strategy. The Economic and Strategic Development Cabinet Member responded.
Mr S Samson asked a question relating to Agenda Item 8(B)(1) - Swansea Bay Strategy. The Economic and Strategic Development Cabinet Member responded.
Mrs L Davies asked a question in relation to Agenda Item 15 - Councillors’ Questions (question No. 1). The Social Services Cabinet Member responded.
203. PUBLIC PRESENTATION - MENCAP
Council received a presentation by Simon Stranks assisted by Dawn Gullis on the work of MENCAP.
14 Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (28.02.08) Cont’d
The Cabinet Member for Top Performance and E-Government thanked the presenters for their interesting and informative presentation.
204. TALL BUILDING STRATEGY
The Economic and Strategic Development Cabinet Member reported jointly with the Environment Cabinet Member on the draft Tall Building Strategy which had previously been approved by Cabinet as a basis for consultation. The consultation process had now been completed and the report outlined the consultation undertaken and a summary of the responses received. The schedule attached to the report also set out the recommended changes to the draft document based on full consideration of the points raised.
RESOLVED that the draft Strategy be deferred to a future meeting of Council for the Officers to consider the issues now raised and that any further comments from Members be incorporated.
205. SWANSEA BAY STRATEGY - REPORT ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The Economic and Strategic Development Cabinet Member reported that following approval of the draft strategy by Council on 19th April 2007, extensive consultations had been undertaken in the development of the Draft Vision and Action Plan for the Swansea Bay Strategy and a detailed public consultation had been undertaken. The report outlined the consultation process undertaken and summarised a wide range of views and comments received as part of the consultation exercise. It also responded to those views and comments and recommended amendments which would clarify or refine proposals contained in the Vision and Action Plan.
RESOLVED that:
(1) subject to the proposed amendment set out in Appendix 2 of the report and to the following amendments, the Swansea Bay Strategy Vision and Action Plan be adopted as the Council’s policy for the regeneration of the Swansea Bay area;
(2) the first paragraph of Section 4.2 of the Action Plan “together with expansion for the university and residential accommodation” be deleted;
(3) the following addition be made to the second paragraph on page 23 of the Action Plan “the City and County of Swansea to consider the long term future of the Slip Bridge, including the
15 Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (28.02.08) Cont’d
possible reinstatement of a bridge crossing on present abutments as part of the enhancement and development proposals for the St. Helen’s area;
(4) last paragraph of page 52 of, the Action Plan be amended to read “public art should help unify lighting, seating and planting in a creative way and can involve local community groups and professional artists to celebrate cultural and historical elements along the way.
206. COMMUNITY FOCUSSED SCHOOLS
The Education Cabinet Member submitted an update on the development of Community Focussed Schools and sought approval to agree and implement the policy and strategy via a series of pilot initiatives at selected schools.
RESOLVED that the Community Focussed Schools Policy Strategy and Implementation Plan be approved.
207. RESPONSE TO THE RELATIONSHIP MANAGER’S ANNUAL LETTER 2006-07
The Cabinet Members for Top Performance and E-Government and Finance submitted the response to the Relationship Manager’s audit letter for 2006-07, presented to Council at its last meeting held on 17th January 2008.
RESOLVED that the response be not approved.
208. RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF MOTION REGARDING COUNCIL CONTRACTS
The Head of Legal Services submitted a report in response to the Notice of Motion agreed by the Council at its meeting on 6th December 2007 regarding the inclusion of a clause requiring attendance at Scrutiny Meetings to be concluded in Council contracts and financial payments to be made public.
RESOLVED that:
(1) the report be noted;
(2) the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules be amended to incorporate in the Council’s Standard Terms and Conditions for contracts over £20,000, the clause set out in paragraph 2.3 of the report;
16 Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (28.02.08) Cont’d
(3) the Head of Legal Services be afforded the Delegated Power to amend or omit the clause referred to in paragraph 2.3, in consultation with the Group Leaders, in circumstances where it is considered appropriate to do so;
(4) that a further report be submitted in six months to analyse the effect of these changes.
209. SCRUTINY STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAMME 2007/08 - UPDATE
The Presiding Officer presented the report of the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Group updating Council on the Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme for 2007/08 and progress in relation to the priorities of the eight Scrutiny Boards.
RESOLVED that the report be noted.
210. AMENDMENT TO DATE OF MEETINGS
The Presiding Officer reported that the Performance Scrutiny Board had submitted a request to change the date of the meeting of the Performance Scrutiny Board scheduled to meet on Wednesday, 2nd April 2008 to Monday, 31st March 2008. The time of the meeting would remain at 4.30 p.m.
RESOLVED that the request of the Performance Scrutiny Board be agreed.
211. REVIEW OF THE ELECTION OF LORD MAYOR AND DEPUTY LORD MAYOR PROTOCOL
The Presiding Officer reported that the Council at its meeting on 2nd August 2007 had considered a number of amendments to the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor Protocol. It had resolved at that time that the matter be referred to the Constitution Working Group for discussion. The Constitution Working Group had considered amendments to the Protocol on 28th August 2007 and agreed that the matter should be discussed at the Chief Executive/Political Group Leaders’ Meeting. Following that meeting on 16th November 2007, the issues/concerns expressed had been addressed and a revised Protocol had since been considered by the Constitution Working Group on 11th and 19th February 2008. The amended Protocol was submitted.
17 Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (28.02.08) Cont’d
RESOLVED that:
(1) the revised protocol for the election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor Protocol be adopted by Council;
(2) all necessary changes to the Council Constitution be made in relation to the terms of reference of the Constitution Working Group and the election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor Protocol.
212. NOMINATIONS OF LORD MAYOR AND DEPUTY LORD MAYOR ELECT 2008/09
The Presiding Officer referred to the protocol for the election of the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor approved under Minute No. 198 and in accordance therewith submitted the following nominations for the 2008/09 Municipal Year:
Lord Mayor 2008/09 - Councillor D G Sullivan.
Deputy Lord Mayor 2008/09 - Councillor A Lloyd.
RESOLVED that the nominations be approved.
213 COUNCILLORS’ QUESTIONS UNDER PROCEDURE RULE 15
Four (4) Member questions were submitted under Council Procedure Rule 15. The relevant Cabinet Members responded by way of written answers. Supplementary questions in respect of questions 1-4 were dealt with and the relevant Cabinet Members responded.
214. NOTICE OF MOTION BY COUNCILLORS P N MAY, R. SPEHT, P M BLACK, S RICE, J EVANS AND K E MARSH
Proposed by Councillor S Rice, seconded by Councillor P N May. “This Council calls on the Welsh Assembly Government to change its planned budget for the next three financial years to allow local government in Wales a greater uplift in its grant to at least 1% above inflation”.
RESOLVED that under the provisions of Procedure 11.5 the matter be referred without discussion to the Finance Scrutiny Board.
18 Minutes of the Council of the City and County of Swansea (28.02.08) Cont’d
215. COMMON SEAL
RESOLVED that the Common Seal be affixed to any documents necessary to bring into effect any decision made at this meeting.
The meeting ended at 7.58 p.m.
CHAIRMAN
S: Council - 28 February 2008 (SHR/HCR) 6th March 2008
19 Item No. 8 (A) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Community Leadership and Democracy
Council – 10th April 2008
MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES
Summary
Purpose: That Council agrees the nominations for membership of the Groups below.
Policy Framework: None
Reason for Decision: To agree nominations for Committee Membership.
Consultation: Legal.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:
1) That Council agrees the nominations for membership of the Committee outlined.
1.1 The Council, at its Annual Meeting on 14th May 2007, agreed membership of the various Committees / Boards as reflected in the lists submitted by the political groups to the Head of Community Leadership and Democracy.
2. CHANGES TO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP/OUTSIDE BODIES
2.1 The Groups shown have since submitted further minor changes/nominations which are outlined below.
Licensing Committee Remove Councillor A Seabourne and replace with Councillor P Matthews
3 RECOMMENDATION
That Council
(1) agrees the nominations for membership of the Committee outlined.
Background papers: Local Government & Housing Act 1989, the Local Government (Committees & Political Groups) Regulations 1990.
Contact Officer: Gareth Borsden 01792 636824 02.04.2008 Z: Word /Committee /Reports/Council 20 Item No. 8 (B) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Social Services
Council – 10th April 2008
HEALTH SOCIAL CARE AND WELL BEING STRATEGY 2008-2011
Summary
Purpose: To inform Council about the development of the Health Social Care and Well Being Strategy for 2008 – 2011 and seek approval by Council.
Policy Framework: Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Strategy
Reason for Decision: To approve the Health Social Care and Well Being Strategy
Consultation: Consultation has taken place within the Local Authority with officers from Legal and Finance.
A twelve week public consultation has been carried out.
Recommendations: It is recommended that the Health Social Care and Well Being Strategy is approved by Council.
1. Introduction
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide information about the development of the second Health Social Care and Well Being Strategy for Swansea.
1.2 The current Health Social Care &Well Being (HSC&WB) strategy in Swansea is now in its third and final year. By April 2008 the Local Authority and the Local Health Board have a joint statutory duty to develop the subsequent strategy which will have an operational period from April 2008 – March 2011 and to have regard to that strategy in the exercising of their functions. The strategy remains one of the four key plans following plan rationalisation.
1.3 The statutory framework which supports the development and implementation of the strategy is set out in Section 40 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, the HSC& WB Strategies (Wales) Regulations 2003 as amended by the HSC&WB Strategies (Amendment) Regulations 2007 and the HSC&WB Strategies Guidance (Wales) 2007.
1.4 The strategy is set within the broader local context of the Swansea Community Plan which identifies the vision for improved health and well being, that by 2020 Swansea will become a place where:
21
• Everyone is supported to achieve the best level of health and well being possible living longer healthier lives • Appropriate care is delivered in the best location at the right time by a range of organisations working together • Communities and individuals are well informed and take responsibility for their own health and well being.
1.5 The strategy is a twin track approach delivering demonstrable improvements in health and well being and streamlined and effective health and social care services offering consistently high standards of care.
1.6 The expectation as set out in the Guidance is that the second strategy will:
• Present a consolidated vision of what the local partnership, led and informed by the statutory partners – expect success to look like in March 2011, and • Acts as the commissioning context for the statutory bodies in using their resources jointly to achieve this vision.
1.7 By regulation it is required that the strategy addresses:
• The state of health and well being of the local population • The health and well being needs of the local population • The existing provision of health and well being services to the local population • Gaps or deficiencies in the provision of health and well being services to the local population • Risks to the health and well being of the local population • Factors affecting the health and well being to the local population including:
- social economic and environmental factors, - health promotion and education, health protection and nutrition, - the safety of food, - community development and regeneration and sustainable development, - inequalities in health and well being – including a new amendment to include the equality agenda - the access of the local population to health and well being services and inequalities in access to such services - the availability and access to public and community transport, education, training and employment and - the standard and condition of housing of the local population
22 2. Partnership Arrangements
2.1 In developing, implementing and reviewing the strategy the Local Authority and the Local Health Board have a duty to co-operate with:
• NHS Trusts • Health Commission Wales • Community Health Councils • County Voluntary Councils and • Other voluntary, business and private organisations with an interest in the provision of health and well being services.
2.2 The Health Challenge Swansea Partnership Board has been responsible for the development of the strategy on behalf of the statutory organisations. It has representation from the Local Authority, the LHB, Swansea NHS Trust, Swansea Council for Voluntary Services, Swansea Community Health Council and Swansea University. The Partnership Board first established in 2003 was responsible for the development of the first strategy and the oversight of its implementation. It is supported in these functions by a number of key partnership arrangements including a joint executive steering group, a HSC&WB Needs Assessment steering group, a prevention priority group, the health and social care planning framework and an involvement and consultation group.
2.3 Representatives from the other key partnerships in Swansea have also been involved in the development of the strategy particularly through the needs assessment revision arrangements, the wide ranging membership of the prevention priority group, joint work with the Children and Young People Framework Partnership and the Older Peoples partnership. This has sought to strengthen links with the other key themes contained within the community plan maximising opportunities to work together to tackle challenging issues and reflecting the view that the improvement of health, social care and well being lies beyond the remit of health and social care service provision.
3. Needs Assessment
3.1 To support the development of the strategy a substantial revision of the 2003 HSC&WB Needs Assessment has been undertaken. This has sought to take a wide ranging look at factors that effect health and well being. The approach taken to revise the Needs Assessment has been more comprehensive, with more robust information on client groups, geographical communities. There has been a greater involvement of stakeholders such as service users, carers, and the voluntary sector. In total 1000 pages of information across thirty eight different topics have been collated.
3.2 In order to provide a clearer link between the key findings and action to be included in the strategy four filters were devised by the partnership that allowed the identification of:
23 • areas where Swansea was significantly different, • where there are substantial inequalities within Swansea, • what the evidence tells us we can do something about and • what is perceived to be ‘messing up the system.
3.3 A presentation of initial findings was made to members via a seminar in March 2007 and an executive summary was made available to Members in October 2007. In summary the key themes that emerged were:
• There are inequalities in health experienced across Swansea due to social an economic deprivation or by different groups in the population • There are particular risks to the health and well being of children and young people • Many people are still leading unhealthy lifestyles • The evidence is saying more could be done to prevent ill health • There is an impact on health and social cares services due to accidents, injuries, alcohol and substance misuse and a dependant ageing population • There is an inefficient use of services and over reliance on secondary care services • More could be done to work effectively across agencies and sectors.
4. Strategy development – proposals for 2008-2011
4.1 The strategy retains the original vision as set out in the community plan. Five strategic aims support this vision, which are to promote healthy lifestyles and personal responsibility, to reduce inequalities, to increase people’s independence, to develop better more accessible services and to improve the protection of vulnerable groups.
A thematic approach to the strategy has been undertaken with three key priority themes reflecting the existing strategic aims above. These are:
• Prevention of ill health and reduction in health inequalities • Better, more accessible Services • Supporting Infrastructure
4.2 The results of the local Needs Assessment, a review of progress made against the first strategy, together with relevant national targets have informed the development of proposed priority areas for the period April 2008 -2011.
These priority areas were contained within a draft strategy which was approved by cabinet as the basis for public consultation on the 1st November 2007. The priority areas are summarised in Appendix One.
24 5. Consultation Process
5.1 It should be emphasised that prior to the formal consultation exercise substantial efforts had already been made to ensure wide inclusion of stakeholders including service users, carers and the voluntary sector in the assessment of need within Swansea and the identification of priority areas for the coming three years.
5.2 The draft strategy has been subjected to a twelve week public consultation exercise which was completed on the 4th February 2008. An involvement and consultation group co-ordinated efforts on behalf of the partnership and, in summary, activities included:
• Preparation and publication of supporting materials – draft strategies and a public summary which was piloted and widely distributed throughout Swansea. This included a questionnaire that sought views on how important or unimportant each individual priority area contained with in the draft strategy was. This was a much more comprehensive approach than the first time around when people were asked more generally whether they agreed with the priorities in total.
• Undertaking specific consultation events held to obtain views on the priorities and how they could be implemented with a BME group, the Older Peoples HSC&WB forum, two classes of schoolchildren, and learning disabled adults.
• Participation in local events to reach other groups included attending the young single homeless day, community first events in Bonymaen and Castle and the healthy minds at work conference.
• Undertaking events aimed at the general public/staff at the Quadrant shopping centre, within Swansea NHS Trust (2) and the DVLA (2).
5.3 This represents significant efforts to ensure a wide ranging consultation exercise which has included a more targeted approach to facilitate comments from specific population/hard to reach groups.
6. Consultation results
6.1 A total of 266 responses have been received by the consultation date of 4th February 2008. This is broken down as follows:
Questionnaires 243 E mails 16 Letters 7
* it should be noted that some individual responses have been sent on behalf of a larger group of individuals -
25 In addition the specific event/s attendance was as follows:
Older People Forum 16 Voluntary Sector event 43 BME event 7 Children and Young People 42 Learning Disabled 105
6.2 From the above it can be ascertained that at least 470 people have been involved in responding to the consultation.
6.3 The feedback from both the questionnaires and the events indicated a high degree of support for the priority areas. In relation to the questionnaires all of the priority areas attracted support from 80% of respondents identifying them as such, and in most cases this was much higher.
6.4 There was a large amount of qualitative input as to how the priority areas could best be achieved or what specific focus they should include.
6.5 Feedback from the events together with comments made on questionnaires/ letters have been analysed and taken together key points arising from the consultation response are
• Overall there was a high degree of support for the priority areas
• Healthy Eating again attracted significant endorsement from a range of responders – this included responses that our own services need to improve nutrition e.g. day services and hospitals
• Free/ affordable sports were particularly highlighted by children and young people, and other groups (BME, Older People and Learning Disabled) highlighted the need for appropriate services to allow participation
• The provision of more information – this is highlighted within the strategy by both the prevention priority group as a key supporting principle and by several of the population group specific priority areas – however comment was made by a number of responders that more general information on how to keep healthy, how to access a wider range of services and on illnesses/ conditions was a missing priority area.
• Housing has been identified by a relatively large number of people as a missing priority – both from the perspective of needing to improve the standard of housing and the way in which the home should be seen as the environment for prevention of ill health.
• Opportunities for social activities/ overcoming social isolation was particularly highlighted by a number of groups including older people, BME group and children and young people
26
• Access to family health care, both in terms of GPs and health checks/ screening received a relatively large amount of comment as a priority area that should be identified.
6.6 The Partnership Board met to consider the results and recommended the following:
• That the current priority areas within the draft strategy are endorsed for inclusion in the final strategy
• That a stronger emphasis is included in the final strategy on
- the provision of information, - joint working with communities to promote social activities/ inclusion, - access to primary health care
• That the approach to the prevention of ill health specifically considers the home as a key part of the approach and the reference to the Housing Strategy for Swansea is strengthened.
• That the consultation results are fully utilised and fed back to other relevant partnerships and planning groups/ priority leads to take into account when the supporting implementation plan for year one is developed.
6.7 Following the consultation exercise the Health Social Care and Well Being Strategy has been completed taking account of the results of the consultation exercise and the recommendations of the Partnership Board.
7. Recommendation
7.1 It is recommended that the Health Social Care and Well Being Strategy is approved by Council.
Copies of the Strategy will be available for inspection in the Members’ Lounge and an email version has been forwarded to all Councillors.
Contact Officer: Chris Maggs Interim Director of Social Services 01792 636249 cm82068
27 Item No. 8 (C) (1)
Report of the Environment Cabinet Member
Council – 10th April 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.
28 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
29 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
30 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.
31 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,
32 (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
33 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)
34 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”
35 • 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
36 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”
37 • 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
38 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.
39 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
40 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
41 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
42 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
43 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
44 • 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)
45 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
46 Item No. 8 (C) (2)
Report of The Director of Environment
Council - 10th April 2008
AWARD OF COSTS AT PLANNING APPEALS
Summary
Purpose: This report provides details of applications for awards of costs at Planning Appeals, and provides information on the costs awarded since 1st April 2006.
Policy Framework: Section 322A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 Section 30 Planning & Compensation Act 1991
Reason for Decision: No decision required.
Consultation: Legal & Finance
Recommendation(s): That the report be noted.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is brought forward for information on the amounts of costs awarded in the last year in relation to planning appeals.
2.0 REPORT
2.1 Further to the report to Council on the 10th November 2005 the following claims have been submitted, and costs awarded, against the Local Planning Authority at appeal:-
2006/07
APPLICATION MADE DECISION AMOUNT PAID Land at R/O the Globe Inn, Refused Nil Glais Tir Gil Farm, Llanrhidian Refused Nil Langland Court Refused Nil
TOTAL PAID - NIL
47 2007/08
APPLICATION MADE DECISION AMOUNT PAID Carreglwyd Caravan Park Allowed £18,000 Summerfields, Sketty Road Allowed Est. £45,000 under negotiation.
No applications for costs were made by the Local Planning Authority during this period.
COMMENTS ON SUCCESSFUL CLAIMS
3.0 CARREGLWYD CARAVAN PARK
3.1 This award relates to an application for costs relating to an appeal lodged against the failure of the Council to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use relating to the use of the land as a caravan site at Carreglwyd Caravan Park, Port Eynon. The appeal was heard at a public inquiry on 30th January 2007. Whilst the Inspector accepted that a deemed permission granted in 1960 did not encompass the whole of the present application site, he agreed with the appellant that it had been in use as a caravan site for more than 10 years and was therefore immune from enforcement action at the time of the application.
3.2 On the basis of Counsel’s opinion the Council decided that the rights the 1960 permission conveyed had been lost by virtue of the implementation of a permission granted on appeal in 1994. However, the Inspector did not concur and he contended, in the particular circumstances, that the change of use from touring caravans to static caravans would not be a material change of use and to hold otherwise was unreasonable. He reached this decision, on the basis of late evidence which had been submitted to the Inquiry in support of the long user claim. The inspector acknowledged in his decision notice that this evidence was not available to the Council when it took its decision. This is reflected in the Council’s witness statement of evidence which states that this element of the applicant’s claim was supported by no evidence whatsoever. It is the case that no evidence was submitted until after the appeal against non-determination had been lodged and the Council had confirmed that they would have refused the application. However had the evidence been submitted beforehand this would have been sufficient to persuade the Council that a lawful use therefore existed.
3.3 The award of costs against the Council is therefore particularly disappointing as the Inspector did not have regard to the fact that this important evidence was only produced at the Inquiry and was not submitted with the application. In the event that the further evidence had been submitted prior to the Inquiry the Council would have requested an adjournment for a resubmission of the application. The Planning Inspectorate were subsequently advised of the Council’s concerns regarding this decision to award costs against the Authority but no further action could be taken..
48 4.0 SUMMERFIELDS, SKETTY ROAD, UPLANDS
4.1 This award relates to an application by McCarthy & Stone Ltd for the erection of 33 Category II sheltered housing apartments, commercial facilities and associated car parking at Summerfields, Sketty Road.
The application was refused permission on the 19th December 2006 at the Area 1 Development Control Committee, contrary to my recommendation, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development by virtue of its scale design and external appearance would be out of keeping with the character of the site and its surroundings, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy H2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No 1.
2. The proposed development by virtue of its close proximity to Corrymore Mansions would give rise to unacceptable overlooking, particularly from the proposed balconies with adequate loss of privacy to the occupiers of these flats contrary to Policies H2 and BE2 of the Swansea Local Plan Review No 1.
The application for costs was considered under the provisions of Circular 23/93. Whilst the Inspector agreed that the reasons for refusal were in themselves, precise, complete, specific and relevant to the application, he noted that no specific reference had been made in the reasons for refusal to the Council’s concerns regarding the impact of the development on the residents of Sarlou Court and he did not accept that the general reference to local plan policies could be taken to include reference to a specific impact on a particular property.
Despite the objections of residents and the ward member who appeared at the inquiry, that the scheme would result in the loss of outlook to the local residents, the Inspector concluded such an objection was without foundation and the interest concerned was not one that local plan policies or national guidance sought to protect.
With regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the locality the Inspector contended that this hinged solely on whether the proposal is an example of good design. He stated that the handling of the application was a good example of the approach advised in TAN 12 and resulted in an unequivocal recommendation of approval by the officers including the Council’s Urban Design Architect.
The recommendation was however not accepted on the basis that the loss of the building on the site was unacceptable. In his view this was not a yardstick for the site’s future development and amounted to unreasonable behaviour.
49 He further found that the evidence of the Council did not amount to an arguable case sufficient to substantiate the reasons for refusal and in his view this also amounted to unreasonable behaviour.
Finally the inspector contended that whilst there would be an element of overlooking of the windows of some of the flats in Corrymore Mansions and a resultant loss of privacy any harm has to be balanced against the positive aspects of the proposal. The Council did not seem to have balanced the various factors properly in making its decision and the arguments on overlooking were lacking in substance. The appellant had incurred unnecessary expense in having to go to appeal as a result of the Council’s unreasonable behaviour, and the inspector therefore considered a full award of costs to be justified.
4.0 RECOMMENDATION
4.1 That the above report be noted.
For information
Local Government Act 1972 (Section 100)(As Amended)
The following documents were used in the preparation of this report: Welsh Office Circular 23/93. Appeal decisions relating to all cases referred to
Contact Officer: B Graham Extension No: 5730
Date of Production: 20 February 2008 Document Name: R190DG/DVH
50
Item No. 8 (D) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Community Regeneration
Council – 10th April 2008
SAFER SWANSEA PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY 2008-2011
Summary
Purpose: To present the Safer Swansea Partnership strategy for 2008-2011.
Policy Framework: Swansea Community Plan and Home Office Cutting Crime Strategy 2008-2011
Reason for Decision: It is a requirement of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that the Partnership has a strategy in place and this requires Council approval.
Consultation: Safer Swansea Steering Group, Council departments involved in community safety and partner agencies.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Safer Swansea Partnership 2008-2011 be approved.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Safer Swansea Partnership – the City’s Community Safety multi- agency team which tackles crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour – has produced a draft strategy outlining what the partnership plans to do over the next three years to achieve continued reductions in crime, anti- social behaviour and address the fear of crime.
1.2 The Council has a statutory duty under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to participate in partnership arrangements with other private and statutory bodies to reduce crime and disorder. This duty is discharged through the Safer Swansea Partnership.
1.3 The Council, Police, Fire and Rescue service, Health Services and Probation Service are the statutory partners responsible for producing and contributing to the strategy, supported by other voluntary partners.
2. The Strategy
2.1 The three year document contains a summary of Safer Swansea Partnership audit findings, an outline of the consultation process undertaken and details of the identified six priority areas for the next three years. This will be translated into action with an annual action plan, which will be subject to regular review and an annual update.
51
2.2 The key priority areas are: - Working Together - Children and Young People - Anti Social Behaviour - Alcohol and Drugs - Protecting the Public - Volume Crime
2.3 The strategy also contains four over-arching themes: - Reassurance (communication) - Community Cohesion - Community Engagement - Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPO) strategy
2.4 The strategy has been subject to consultation with Safer Swansea partners and the wider partnership, including community groups, councillors and the general public.
2.5 After consultation, amendments were made and the draft strategy has now been approved by the Safer Swansea Partnership Steering Group.
3. Financial Implications
3.1 The Safer Swansea Partnership is reliant on grant funding from the Home Office and Welsh Assembly Government. The actions arising from this strategy document will have to be carried out within the grant allocations received from these grant bodies.
3.2 The Safer Swansea Partnership receives money from five main funding pots: Basic Command Unit; Crime Reduction and Anti Social Behaviour; Safer Communities, Substance Misuse Action Plan and Domestic Abuse (as outlined on Page 28 of the strategy).
4. Legal Implications
4.1 The strategy is required by the obligations imposed on the Council by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
5. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Safer Swansea Partnership 2008-2011 be approved.
Copies of the Strategy will be available for inspection in the Members’ Lounge and an email version has been forwarded to all Councillors.
Background Papers: Safer Swansea Partnership draft strategy 2008-2011
Contact Officer: Katy Williams, Reassurance Communication Officer 01792 635233 File Reference – SSP strategy report2
52 Item No. 8 (E) (1)
Report of the Cabinet Member for Culture, Recreation and Tourism
Council – 10th April 2008
SWANSEA CLIMBING HIGHER - SPORT & PHYSICAL ACTIVITY STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN
Summary
Purpose: To seek approval to adopt and implement Swansea Climbing Higher, the Sport and Physical Activity Strategy and action plan for the City & County of Swansea.
Policy Framework: Welsh Assembly Government National Plan for Sport & Physical Activity; Sports Council for Wales Framework; Corporate Plan; Culture & Tourism Service Plan.
Reason for Decision: To adopt and implement Swansea Climbing Higher, the Sport and Physical Activity Strategy and action plan for Swansea.
Consultation: Finance, Legal Services, Regeneration and Housing, Ward Members, Environment, Education and Social Services Departments, Swansea Local Health Board, National Public Health Service, Swansea Council for Voluntary Services, voluntary groups and Clubs.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended that:
1) Council approves the adoption and implementation of the Swansea Climbing Higher Strategy and action plan.
2) That a further report be presented to Cabinet for consideration detailing the Local Authority Partnership Agreement between the Council and the Sports Council of Wales.
1 Background
1.1 The Welsh Assembly Government’s long-term strategy for sport and physical activity, Climbing Higher, sets out its strategic direction for Wales for the next twenty years. The purpose of Climbing Higher is that, within 20 years, sport and physical activity will be at the heart of Welsh life and at the heart of Government policy.
1.2 The City & County of Swansea will be the first local Authority in Wales to deliver its own Climbing Higher strategy.
53 2 Swansea Climbing Higher
2.1 The Swansea Climbing Higher strategy will signify Swansea’s commitment to supporting the National Climbing Higher strategy and subsequent action plans, maximising the contribution that sport and physical activity can make to health and well-being and national success in Wales
2.2 The Swansea Climbing Higher strategy acknowledges, links and contributes to key national and local strategies, including the Swansea Community Plan, the Health, Social Care & Well-Being Strategy, Children & Young People Strategy, Environment Strategy and UDP plans.
2.3 Improving sport and physical activity participation levels will only be achieved through ongoing reviews of key local policies and identifying new approaches to delivery and management, both in professional and voluntary organisations. Swansea Climbing Higher will bring together all Public, private and voluntary groups/organisations who deliver sport and physical activity. They will need to work together with local communities under a single action plan to deliver this agenda.
2.4 Swansea Climbing Higher aims to increase sport and physical activity participation rates across all sectors of the community. Therefore the underpinning principle of the whole strategy and action plan is to make ‘More People, More Active, More Often’.
3. The impact of Swansea Climbing Higher
3 At the heart of the national and local agendas is the need to improve both the health and the social, environmental and economic well-being of all communities. The Welsh Assembly Government has recognised that sport & physical activity is a key facilitator in all these areas and therefore the Swansea Climbing Higher Strategy will have a major impact on all of the issues identified above.
3.1 In addition, Swansea Climbing Higher will contribute to safer communities, education, children and young people and economic development.
3.2 Through Climbing Higher, Swansea will need to ensure that it maximises the use of the resources available to deliver this 20 year strategy. This will include maximising the potential of existing resources whilst making the most of appropriate and innovative use of any national, local or private investment opportunities, to ensure the creation and maintenance of a strong and healthy sports and physical activity infrastructure for future generations.
4. Delivering Swansea Climbing Higher
4.1 Swansea Climbing Higher aims to be a leading light in providing and developing sports and physical activity at a local level. To fulfil this aim, local partners delivering the strategy will need to work with the local community and with national partners including the Welsh Assembly and Sports Council for Wales in outlining, designing and delivering programmes, club development opportunities and facilities.
54
4.2 It is anticipated that action plans will be implemented every 5 years, allowing for regular evaluation of the relative success of chosen actions and an opportunity to reflect on the direction that programmes, clubs and facilities are continuing to follow. The action plans will be developed and implemented within in a coordinated framework, involving a number of partners.
4.3 The Climbing Higher Partnership will be at the heart of a single delivery system for community sport and physical activity. The Partnership will unite and coordinate work with major investors and deliverers.
4.3.1 The Partnership structure includes;
• The Climbing Higher Strategic Board • The Climbing Higher Steering Group • Five Framework Management Groups
4.4 The Climbing Higher Strategic Board has responsibility to define and approve the overall strategic vision and to promote and support changes that are introduced. The Board will consist of Directors, Heads of Service and political representatives who are responsible for making decisions on the investment, direction and frameworks required to achieve the desired objectives of Swansea Climbing Higher.
4.5 The Climbing Higher Steering Group will have the overall authority for the services and programmes delivered and are responsible for their initiation, direction, and ongoing evaluation. This group must ensure that services and programmes are delivering appropriate value for the time and resources being invested. Within the confines of the strategy and action plan the Senior Management Steering Group is the highest authority, responding only to the Board.
4.6 Framework Management Groups in 5 priority areas have been formed to ensure that facilities, services and programmes included in Swansea Climbing Higher action plans are fit for purpose and will achieve the overall targets set for the next 20 years.
4.6.1 The Framework Management Groups are;
• Active Adults • Active Children & Young People • Developing Participation, Performance & Excellence • Developing People • Developing Places
4.7 The Board, Steering Group and Framework Management Groups will connect local policy makers to local deliverers and national agencies. They will drive key resource investment within the local authority. Unlocking this resource requires a credible delivery plan and measurement. The Partnership, via the Steering Group and Board, will provide the main link to other key strategic partnerships within the City and County of Swansea, including the Local Service Board and Community Plan Partnership.
55
4.8 Community Activity Networks will be developed within strategic areas of the City. The Climbing Higher process will empower local deliverers to develop coordinated local plans for their communities.
4.9 These Community Activity Networks will be vital to increase participation. They will aim to unite representation of sport & physical activity at the local level, providing a citizen-centred approach to delivery.
4.10 The City and County of Swansea, as a key agency, will drive the development of these networks but not control them, as local residents must have ownership of local plans and the Climbing Higher Partnership will provide local strategic direction to ensure all local partners are working to a shared vision.
5 Action Plan
5.1 A robust consultation and action planning process, covering a period of almost 2 years, has resulted in key actions for sport and physical activity being identified within a coordinated action planning framework.
5.2 All Departments with a remit to deliver sport and physical activity have contributed to the action plan and their key targets are identified within it.
5.3 A detailed action plan has been prepared for the 2008/2009 financial year with an outline plan for the following 2 years.
5.4 The Climbing Higher action plans will complement the key outcomes of the Community Plan and key strategic documents and the partnerships will integrate appropriate Climbing Higher actions within their own plans.
6 Additional Information
6.1 Full details of the draft strategy and action plan can be found on the Council’s website. Copies of the documents are also available in the Members’ Lounge and with Democratic Services.
7 Financial Implications
7.1 The Strategy and action plan does not commit the Council to providing any new facilities or improvements to existing facilities. It is concerned with the development of plans and programmes to increase participation. These will be developed by existing staff and within existing budgets. Improvements will be made where additional funding is available.
7.2 The City & County of Swansea currently receives in the region of £800k a year from the Sports Council for Wales. This investment is significant, but it is also fragmented, not always coordinated and requires a significant amount of officer time in the application, processing and reconciliation systems required to track each separate grant.
7.3 As part of implementing the Swansea Climbing Higher Strategy, the Local Authority will enter into a Local Authority Partnership Agreement (LAPA) with
56 the Sports Council for Wales. This Agreement will not only protect and secure the current investment by the Sports Council for Wales, it will simplify the process by which the grant aid is received, with the annual figure agreed in advance and allocated in full each year.
7.4 In addition to the prescribed annual sum, the Authority will also be able to apply for a sum of up to £300,000 over 3 years for additional priority areas identified in the Swansea Climbing Higher Action Plan.
8 Legal Implications
8.1 In determining the detailed nature of the “Partnership structure”(paragraph 4.3.1) and the Local Authority Partnership Agreement referred to in paragraph.7.3 the advice of the Head of Legal Services as to the exact legal nature of the “Partnership” and the roles and responsibilities of any Officer or Member involved and any potential liability to the Authority should be sought. This advice will include any issues pertinent to any mitigating indemnities and insurance. Prima facie the above Agreement will create a legally binding relationship with the Sports Council for Wales and should not be entered into without seeking the advice of the Head of Legal Services
8.2 In addition, any contracts for goods, services and employment entered into as a consequence of the “Partnership” or the Local Authority Partnership Agreement should be undertaken in accordance with the appropriate Rules as set out in the Constitution and again advice should be sought from the Head of Legal Services
9 Conclusion
9.1 The Climbing Higher Strategy and action plan incorporates our vision and our aims for sport and physical activity in the City and County of Swansea. It sets out our key objectives for more people more active more often which in turn will benefit all communities and ensure that Swansea continues to grow as a distinctive European cultural and sporting destination.
10 Recommendation
10.1 That Council approves the adoption and implementation of the Swansea Climbing Higher Strategy and action plan;
10.2 That a further report be presented to Cabinet for consideration detailing the Local Authority Partnership Agreement between the Council and the Sports Council of Wales.
Background Papers: 1. Swansea Climbing Higher Draft Strategy 2. Climbing Higher Summary Action Plans 2008 – 2011 and detailed Action Plan 2008/09
Contact Officer: Iwan Davies 01792 635406 (R68 Council Report Climbing Higher 10th April 2008)
57 Item No. 9 (1)
Report of the Scrutiny Coordinating Group
Council – 10th April 2008
SCRUTINY STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAMME 2007/08 - UPDATE
Summary:
The report updates Council on the Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme for 2007/08 and progress in relation to the priorities of the eight Scrutiny Boards.
FOR INFORMATION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In order to ensure a co-ordinated approach to scrutiny, Scrutiny Boards Work Plans operate within the framework of an overarching Annual Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme, which is agreed by the Scrutiny Coordinating Group (SCG). The SCG is responsible for ensuring that the work of scrutiny is manageable, realistic and achievable and will have the maximum impact.
1.2 The key principles underpinning the work programme are that:
• The work of scrutiny should be strategic, relevant and add value. • Scrutiny Boards are independent of the executive and ultimately responsible for their own Work Plans which should be focused around the Council’s corporate priorities and the monitoring of agreed action plans, including those arising from audit and inspection activity. • Co-ordination ensures a consistent approach, the best use of resources and that duplication is avoided. • The demands of the scrutiny programme as a whole should be proportionate to the resources realistically available to deliver it.
2. SCRUTINY STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAMME 2007/08 - UPDATED
2.1 Each of the Council’s eight Scrutiny Boards has an agreed work plan and these work plans taken together were adopted as the Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme by the SCG in July.
2.2 Progress in relation to the Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme is presented to every meeting of the SCG and it forms the basis of this report to Council on the work of the Scrutiny Boards.
58
2.3 The Scrutiny Strategic Work Programme has been updated since last being reported to Council on 28th February. It should be noted that the work of scrutiny involves a mix of overview reports, audit / inspection reports (from the Regulatory Plan) and follow up reports (from previous scrutiny reviews) as well as topics for in-depth review.
2.4 Appendix A shows the in-depth scrutiny reviews currently underway and progress, future reviews, and a reminder of reviews completed during 2006/07 which the Boards are following up.
3. PROGRESS WITH IN-DEPTH SCRUTINY REVIEWS
3.1 It is expected that by the end of this municipal year the status of the various in-depth scrutiny reviews will be as follows:
Board Review Status
Audit Use of Consultants Complete Community Population Estimates & Complete Leadership & the Census Democracy Education & Lifelong School Attendance Draft Final Learning Report Environment Swansea Metro Project Ongoing / Strategic Waste Procurement Health & Social Effectiveness of Health Some further Care Partnerships evidence gathering required / conclusions Performance E-Government Complete Programme Regeneration & Working with the Complete Culture Community to Reduce Crime
3.2 Those reviews which are incomplete will be carried forward into the new municipal year and the new Scrutiny Board(s) will be responsible for agreeing the final reports. Work marked as ongoing is expected to continue into the new municipal year however not as the subject of ‘in-depth’ review but as matters of interest which the new Scrutiny Board may wish to continue to monitor.
3.3 Those reviews which are complete will be submitted to the Executive for response and scheduled for the earliest available Cabinet meeting.
59 4. ANNUAL WORK PLAN REVIEWS
4.1 As the Scrutiny Boards approach the end of the municipal year the Boards are taking the opportunity to review the work that they have carried out over the course of the year.
4.2 Each Board is receiving a report at its final meeting which will:
• provide a summary of work completed • encourage Board Members to reflect on achievements and issues • identify matters outstanding from current work plans that may be carried forward • ask Members to consider ideas and discuss priorities for future work.
4.3 Whilst the actual work plans for 2008/09 will be agreed by each of the Scrutiny Boards in the new municipal year, the work plan reviews provide a good opportunity to give time to the consideration, assessment and prioritisation of future work, at an early stage. The priorities arising out of these work plan reviews and discussion will feed into and provide a foundation for the development of new work plans by the Scrutiny Boards in the new municipal year.
FOR INFORMATION
Background Papers: None
Contact:
Scrutiny Support Team
Brij Madahar Delyth Davies Michelle Roberts Jenna Sullivan Scrutiny Scrutiny Support Scrutiny Support Scrutiny Coordinator Officer Officer Research Officer 637257 637491 637256 637732
E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.swansea.gov.uk/scrutiny Blog: Open Swansea - A Window into Community Leadership & Democracy at the City and County of Swansea http://openswansea.cityandcountyofswansea.info/blog/
Date: 1st April 2008
60 SCRUTINY STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAMME 2007/8:
Board Current Review Status Future Reviews Completed Reviews 2006/7
Audit The Council’s Use of Consultants Final Report • Making the Connections • Compact with the Voluntary and Community Sector Chair: Cllr D Price (Cabinet 26 Apr / Council Vice-Chair: Cllr G 21 Jun 07) Burtonshaw
Community Population Estimates and the Census Final Report • Recording Member Leadership Attendance (Cabinet 7 Sep 06) Chair: Cllr T Lloyd • Public Engagement with Vice-Chair: Cllr C the Community Strategy Thomas (Cabinet 9 Aug / Council 13 Sep 07)
Education & Lifelong School Attendance Conclusions • School Exclusions • School Occupancy Levels Learning • Pupil Attainment and Innovative Solutions • Nutritional Value of (Cabinet 7 Jun / Council 21 Chair: Cllr J Miles School Meals Jun 07) Vice-Chair: Cllr A Rees Environment Swansea Metro Project / Strategic Ongoing • Street Cleansing • Relationship with Statutory Waste Procurement • Traffic Calming Undertakers (Cabinet 19 Chair: Cllr J • Packaging Jul / Council 2 Aug 07) Burtonshaw Vice-Chair: Cllr DIE Jones
NOTE: In addition to the in-depth Reviews detailed above the Boards are also engaged in: - Considering Overview Reports on Service Areas - Questioning Cabinet Members and Directors / Heads of Service on matters of concern - Following Up Recommendations from Previous Scrutiny Reviews - Reviewing and Monitoring Performance & Actions arising from External Reports (Audits; Inspections etc) 61 SCRUTINY STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAMME 2007/8:
Board Current Review Status Future Reviews Completed Reviews 2006/7
Finance & Property • Review of Council owned • Energy Management Buildings and Land (Cabinet 7 Jun / Council Chair: Cllr D Thomas 21 Jun 07 ) Vice-Chair: Cllr G Seabourne
Health & Social Care Effectiveness of Strategic Partnerships Evidence within Health & Social Care Gathering Chair: Cllr J Davies Vice-Chair: Cllr V Webb
Performance E-Government Programme – Savings Final Report • Performance • External Communications from Phase 1 Measurement & (Cabinet 15 Mar / Council Chair: Cllr R Kinzett Management 19 Apr 07) Vice-Chair: Cllr M Child
Regeneration & Working with the Community to Conclusions • Youth Facilities Culture Reduce Crime
Chair: Cllr R Stewart Vice-Chair: Cllr P Downing
NOTE: In addition to the in-depth Reviews detailed above the Boards are also engaged in: - Considering Overview Reports on Service Areas - Questioning Cabinet Members and Directors / Heads of Service on matters of concern - Following Up Recommendations from Previous Scrutiny Reviews - Reviewing and Monitoring Performance & Actions arising from External Reports (Audits; Inspections etc) 62 Item No 10 (1)
Report of the Monitoring Officer
Council 10th April 2008
THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT) (WALES) ORDER 2008
Summary of Report
Purpose: To advise Members of the Standards Committee of the revised statutory Members Code of Conduct and to recommend its adoption at Council on 10 April 2008.
Policy Framework: None.
Reason for Decision: To comply with the statutory requirements to adopt a new Code of Conduct for Members.
Consultation: Legal
Recommendation(s): 1. That Members note the revised draft statutory Model Code of Conduct for Members; and
2. That Council is recommended to adopt the draft Model Code with effect from 2 May 2008 subject to the Local Authority (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2008 coming into force before that date.
1. Background:
1.1 Members will be aware of the Welsh Assembly Government’s consultation on significant changes to the existing Model Code of Conduct during the past two and a half years.
1.2 It is understood that the revised draft Model Code attached is due to be made on 20 March 2008 and is to come into force on or after the 18th April 2008. The revised draft Code is attached at Appendix 1 to this report.
1.3 The requirements of the new Code which must be adopted by all County, County Borough and Town and Community Councils in Wales are now presented to the Committee for consideration.
63 2. Key Changes
Some key changes to the present Code are as follows:
2.1 Disclosure of Personal Interests – there is a simpler approach to disclosure of interests, with greater flexibility for members to participate in authority business. The revised code adopts the approach used in England of a two stage test of a ‘personal and prejudicial interest’. The requirement to disclose personal interests will apply to a slightly wider range of circumstances where members may influence decisions including telephone conversations, correspondence and whilst attending meetings of other organisations. However there is now only one test in respect of action to be taken as a result of such personal interest. If it is objectively viewed as being “prejudicial” then the member affected must take no part in relation to any decision on that matter and must withdraw from any meetings they are present at where it is discussed. There remains the option of seeking a dispensation from the Standards Committee but the wider range of exemptions/dispensations effectively provided for under the new Code should make specific exceptions relatively rare. The old “halfway house” measure where members could speak in certain circumstances but not vote has now been removed. The only exception to this is that there is a new provision whereby even if a member has a prejudicial interest he or she may speak at a meeting where the public has similar rights to speak. This will not permit any involvement in the decision making of course.
2.2 Exemptions/dispensations – A wider range of exemptions/dispensations from normal impact of a prejudicial interest is provided in order to maximise the opportunity for members to participate in Authority business, where this is appropriate. Members who come within these expanded exemptions/dispensations will be able to take a full part in the meeting including speaking and voting where this is available. Some additional and amended exemptions where the member will be regarded as having a personal but not a prejudicial interest are :
• Any business that relates to another relevant authority of which the member is also a member. • Where that business relates to another public authority or body exercising functions of a public nature in which the member holds a position of general control or management. • A body to which the member has been elected, appointed or nominated by their Authority. • Where the member has a role as a school governor (where not appointed or nominated by their Authority) unless it relates to the school of which they are a governor. • The members’ role as a member of the Local Health Board, where they have not been appointed or nominated by their Authority.
In relation to the above group, there are still restrictions when issues such as approvals, consents, licences, permissions and registrations are under consideration.
64
• The members’ role as a community councillor in relation to grants, loans or other financial assistance to community and voluntary organisations up to a maximum of £500.
2.3 Duty to uphold the law – A recent change in primary legislation following the Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England (2006) case reinforces the requirement not to bring the authority or office of member into disrepute in both the members’ personal and official capacities. In addition the current requirement not to commit a criminal offence whilst acting in their official capacity or otherwise is removed from the code as it will be caught under the requirement not to bring the office or authority into disrepute. The duty to report actual or likely criminal behaviour remains, but will not apply to behaviour which is punishable by a fixed penalty.
2.4 Respect for others – the requirement not to use bullying behaviour or harass any person is now specifically included, in addition to the existing principles of behaviour
2.5 Members’ Interests - the requirement to pre-register members’ interests has been enshrined in the new Code.
There are a number of other changes which members will no doubt find as they read the new Code. However, it is important to note that the provisions of the attached code are mandatory for all Councils to adopt. It is possible for additions to be inserted locally which go beyond the statutory requirements but none of the mandatory provisions can be excluded. As things stand the Monitoring Officer would recommend adoption of the Code as it is statutorily drafted at least initially.
3. Timescales
The timescales for The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2008 (‘the 2008 Order’) are as follows:
3.1 The Order is due to be made by the Minister on the 20th March 2008 and is scheduled to come into force on or after the 18th April 2008.
3.2 The 2008 Order revokes the current Conduct of Members (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2001 and previous amending statutory instruments and imposes a revised Model Code.
3.3 By virtue of s.51 (2) of the Local Government Act 2000 the Authority will have 6 months from the date ‘the 2008 Order’ is made in which to adopt a new Code based upon the revised model code. It is recommended that the Authority adopt the new Code with effect from 2nd May 2008 to coincide with the assumption of office of the newly elected members following the local government elections on 1st May 2008. This will of course all be subject to the Assembly Minister fixing a date for commencement before the 2nd May.
65 In accordance with the Local Government Act 2000 s. 52 (1), current members must, before the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the date on which the code is adopted, sign up to the new code, in the form of an undertaking. Therefore if the Authority does adopt the Code with effect from the 2nd May 2008, the current members will have until the 1st July 2008 in which to sign up to the new code. However any new members who are elected will need to sign up to the new code before they are able to act in that office.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 That Members note the revised draft statutory Model Code of Conduct for Members; and
4.2 That Council be recommended to adopt the draft Model Code with effect from 2nd May 2008 subject to the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2008 coming into force before that date.
Background Papers:
None.
Contact Officer: David Daycock 01792 636086 20.3.08
66 WELSH STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
2008 No. (W. )
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WALES
The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2008
EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Order)
Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 (“the Act”) established a new ethical framework for local government in Wales. Section 50(2) of the Act provides that the National Assembly for Wales (“the Assembly”) may by order issue a model code as regards the conduct which is expected of members and co-opted members of relevant authorities in Wales. This function of the Assembly is transferred to the Welsh Ministers by paragraph 30 of schedule 11 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Relevant authorities in Wales for the purposes of this Order are county councils, county borough councils, community councils, fire and rescue authorities and National Park authorities. Police authorities are not relevant authorities for the purposes of this Order. A code of conduct issued by the Welsh Ministers under section 50(2) of the Act must be consistent with the principles specified pursuant to section 49(2) of the Act currently set out in the Conduct of Members (Principles) (Wales) Order 2001. Section 50(3) of the Act entitles the Welsh Ministers to revise a model code which has been issued. This Order revokes the Conduct of Members (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2001 and previous amending statutory instruments and issues a revised model code in pursuance of section 50(2) and (3) of the Act. This Order also continues the disapplication of statutory provisions relating to (among others) the National Code of Local Government Conduct in Wales.
67 The revised model code is in the Schedule to this Order. Part 1 of the model code deals with interpretation. Part 2 of the model code provides for the general provisions of the model code. Part 3 of the model code concerns personal interests and prejudicial interests and disclosure of and participation by members and co-opted members in respect of such interests. Part 4 of the model code concerns the register of interests, registration of gifts and hospitality.
68 WELSH STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
2008 No. (W.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WALES
The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2008
Made [ ] 2008 Laid before the National Assembly for Wales [ ] 2008 Coming into force [ ] 2008
The Welsh Ministers, in exercise of their powers conferred on the National Assembly for Wales by sections 50(2), 50(3), 50(4), 50(4E), 81(2), 81(3) and 105 of the Local Government Act 2000(1) and now vested(2) in them, having carried out such consultation as is required by virtue of section 50(5) of that Act and being satisfied that the model code of conduct being issued under section 50(2) is consistent with the principles specified in the Conduct of Members (Principles) (Wales) Order 2001(3) made pursuant to section 49(2), make the following Order:
Title, commencement and application 1.—(1) The title of this Order is the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2008 and it comes into force on [ ] 2008. (2) This Order applies to each relevant authority in Wales.
Interpretation 2. In this Order —
(1) 2000 c.22. Section 50 is amended by section 183 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (c.28). (2) The functions of the National Assembly for Wales under sections 50, 81 and 105 were transferred to the Welsh Ministers under paragraph 30 of Schedule 11 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c.32). (3) S.I. 2001/2276 (W.166) as amended by S.I. 2005/2929.
69 “the Act” (“y Ddeddf”) means the Local Government Act 2000; “co-opted member” (“aelod cyfetholedig”) has the meaning set out in Part 1 of the model code in the Schedule to this Order; “member” (“aelod”) has the meaning set out in Part 1 of the model code in the Schedule to this Order; and “relevant authority” (“awdurdod perthnasol”) has the meaning set out in Part 1 of the model code in the Schedule to this Order.
Model Code of Conduct 3.—(1) A model code as regards the conduct which is expected of members of a relevant authority is set out in the Schedule to this Order. (2) For the purposes of section 50(4) of the Act, the provisions of the model code are to be regarded as mandatory.
Provisions to be disapplied 4.—(1) Where a relevant authority which is a county, county borough or community council or fire and rescue authority has adopted a code of conduct or such a code applies to it, the following will, where applicable to the relevant authority, be disapplied as respects that authority — (a) sections 94 to 98 and 105 of the Local Government Act 1972(1); and (b) any regulations made or code issued under sections 19 and 31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989(2). (2) Where a relevant authority which is a National Park authority has adopted a code of conduct or such a code applies to it, the following will, where applicable to the relevant authority, be disapplied as respects that authority — (a) paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 7 to the Environment Act 1995(3); and (b) any regulations made or code issued under sections 19 and 31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. (3) Section 16(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978(4) will apply to a disapplication under paragraph (1) or (2) above as if it were a repeal, by an Act, of an enactment.
(1) 1972 c.70. (2) 1989 c.42. (3) 1995 c.25. (4) 1978 c.30.
70 Revocation 5. The following orders are revoked: (a) the Conduct of Members (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order 2001(1); (b) the Conduct of Members (Model Code of Conduct) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2004(2); and (c) the Conduct of Members (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2004(3).
Transitional and Savings 6. The orders referred to in article 5 continue to have effect for the purposes of and for purposes connected with — (a) the investigation of any written allegation under Part 3 of the Act, where that allegation relates to conduct that occurred before the date when, pursuant to section 51 of the Act(4)— (i) the relevant authority adopts a code of conduct incorporating the mandatory provisions of the model code of conduct in the Schedule to this Order in place of their existing code of conduct; (ii) the relevant authority revises their existing code of conduct to incorporate the mandatory provisions of the model code of conduct in the Schedule to this Order; or (iii) the mandatory provisions of the model code of conduct in the Schedule to this Order apply to members or co-opted members of the relevant authority under section 51(5)(b) of that Act; (b) the adjudication (or determination) of a matter raised in such an allegation; and (c) an appeal against the decision of a standards committee, an interim case tribunal or case tribunal in relation to such an allegation.
(1) S.I. 2001/2289 as amended by S.I. 2004/163; S.I. 2004/1510; S.I. 2005/2929; and S.I. 2006/362. (2) S.I. 2004/163 (W.18). (3) S.I. 2004/1510 (W.159). (4) Section 51 of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended by section 35 and paragraphs 1 and 3 of Schedule 4 to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 and by section 183 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
71
[Name] Minister for Social Justice and Local Government, one of the Welsh Ministers.
Date
72 SCHEDULE
THE MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT
PART 1 INTERPRETATION 1.—(1) In this code — “co-opted member”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a person who is not a member of the authority but who — (a) is a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or (b) is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority, and who is entitled to vote on any question which falls to be decided at any meeting of that committee or sub-committee; “meeting” means any meeting — (a) of the relevant authority, (b) of any executive or board of the relevant authority, (c) of any committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee of the relevant authority or of any such committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint-committee of any executive or board of the authority, or (d) where members or officers of the relevant authority are present other than a meeting of a political group constituted in accordance with regulation 8 of the Local Government (Committee and Political Groups) Regulations 1990(1), and includes circumstances in which a member of an executive or board or an officer acting alone exercises a function of an authority; “member” includes, unless the context requires otherwise, a co-opted member; “relevant authority” means— (a) a county council, (b) a county borough council, (c) a community council, (d) a fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004(2) or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies, (e) a National Park authority established under section 63 of the Environment Act 1995(3); “you” means you as a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority; and “your authority” means the relevant authority of which you are a member or co-opted member. (2) In relation to a community council, references to an authority’s monitoring officer and an authority’s standards committee are to be read, respectively, as references to the monitoring officer and the standards committee of the county or county borough council which has functions in relation to the community council for which it is responsible under section 56(2) of the Local Government Act 2000.
(1) S.I. 1990/1553 as amended by S.I. 1991/1389; S.I. 1993/1339; S.I. 1998/1918; and S.I. 1999/500. (2) 2004 c.21. (3) 1995 c.25.
73
PART 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.—(1) Save where paragraph 3(a) applies, you must observe this code of conduct — (a) whenever you conduct the business, or are present at a meeting, of your authority; (b) whenever you act, claim to act or give the impression you are acting in the role of member to which you were elected or appointed; (c) whenever you act, claim to act or give the impression you are acting as a representative of your authority; or (d) at all times and in any capacity, in respect of conduct identified in paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 7. (2) You should read this code together with the general principles prescribed under section 49(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 in relation to Wales.
3. Where you are elected, appointed or nominated by your authority to serve — (a) on another relevant authority, or any other body, which includes a police authority or Local Health Board you must, when acting for that other authority or body, comply with the code of conduct of that other authority or body; or (b) on any other body which does not have a code relating to the conduct of its members, you must, when acting for that other body, comply with this code of conduct, except and insofar as it conflicts with any other lawful obligations to which that other body may be subject.
4. You must — (a) carry out your duties and responsibilities with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people, regardless of their gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age or religion; (b) show respect and consideration for others; (c) not use bullying behaviour or harass any person; and (d) not do anything which compromises, or which is likely to compromise, the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, your authority.
5. You must not — (a) disclose confidential information or information which should reasonably be regarded as being of a confidential nature, without the express consent of a person authorised to give such consent, or unless required by law to do so; (b) prevent any person from gaining access to information to which that person is entitled by law.
6.—(1) You must — (a) not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute; (b) report, whether through your authority's confidential reporting procedure or direct to the proper authority, any conduct by another member or anyone who works for, or on behalf of, your authority which you reasonably believe involves or is likely to involve criminal behaviour (which for the purposes of this paragraph does not include offences or behaviour capable of punishment
74 by way of a fixed penalty); (c) report to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales and to your authority's monitoring officer any conduct by another member which you reasonably believe breaches this code of conduct; (d) not make vexatious, malicious or frivolous complaints against other members or anyone who works for, or on behalf of, your authority. (2) You must comply with any request of your authority’s monitoring officer, or the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, in connection with an investigation conducted in accordance with their respective statutory powers.
7. You must not — (a) in your official capacity or otherwise, use or attempt to use your position improperly to confer on or secure for yourself, or any other person, an advantage or create or avoid for yourself, or any other person, a disadvantage; (b) use, or authorise others to use, the resources of your authority — (i) imprudently; (ii) in breach of your authority's requirements; (iii) unlawfully; (iv) other than in a manner which is calculated to facilitate, or to be conducive to, the discharge of the functions of the authority or of the office to which you have been elected or appointed; (v) improperly for political purposes; or (vi) improperly for private purposes.
8. You must — (a) when participating in meetings or reaching decisions regarding the business of your authority, do so on the basis of the merits of the circumstances involved and in the public interest having regard to any relevant advice provided by your authority's officers, in particular by — (i) the authority’s head of paid service; (ii) the authority's chief finance officer; (iii) the authority's monitoring officer; (iv) the authority's chief legal officer (who should be consulted when there is any doubt as to the authority's power to act, as to whether the action proposed lies within the policy framework agreed by the authority or where the legal consequences of action or failure to act by the authority might have important repercussions); (b) give reasons for all decisions in accordance with any statutory requirements and any reasonable additional requirements imposed by your authority.
9. You must — (a) observe the law and your authority's rules governing the claiming of expenses and allowances in connection with your duties as a member; (b) avoid accepting from anyone gifts, hospitality (other than official hospitality, such as a civic reception or a working lunch duly authorised by your authority), material benefits or services for yourself or any person which might place you, or reasonably appear to place you, under an improper obligation.
75 PART 3 INTERESTS
Personal Interests
10.—(1) You must in all matters consider whether you have a personal interest, and whether this code of conduct requires you to disclose that interest. (2) You must regard yourself as having a personal interest in any business of your authority if — (a) it relates to, or is likely to affect — (i) any employment or business carried on by you; (ii) any person who employs or has appointed you, any firm in which you are a partner or any company for which you are a remunerated director; (iii) any person, other than your authority, who has made a payment to you in respect of your election or any expenses incurred by you in carrying out your duties as a member; (iv) any corporate body which has a place of business or land in your authority’s area, and in which you have a beneficial interest in a class of securities of that body that exceeds the nominal value of £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; (v) any contract for goods, services or works made between your authority and you or a firm in which you are a partner, a company of which you are a remunerated director, or a body of the description specified in sub-paragraph (iv) above; (vi) any land in which you have a beneficial interest and which is in the area of your authority; (vii) any land where the landlord is your authority and the tenant is a firm in which you are a partner, a company of which you are a remunerated director, or a body of the description specified in sub-paragraph (iv) above; (viii) any body to which you have been elected, appointed or nominated by your authority; (ix) any — (aa) public authority or body exercising functions of a public nature; (bb) company, industrial and provident society, charity, or body directed to charitable purposes; (cc) body whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy; (dd) trade union or professional association; or (ee) private club, society or association operating within your authority’s area, in which you have membership or hold a position of general control or management; (x) any land in your authority’s area in which you have a licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy for 28 days or longer; (b) a member of the public might reasonably perceive a conflict between your role in taking a decision, upon that business, on behalf of your authority as a whole and your role in representing the interests of constituents in your ward or electoral division; or (c) a decision upon it might reasonably be regarded as affecting — (i) your well-being or financial position, or that of a person with whom you live, or any person with whom you have a close personal association; (ii) any employment or business carried on by persons as described in 10(2)(c)(i); (iii) any person who employs or has appointed such persons described in 10(2)(c)(i), any firm in which they are a partner, or any company of which they are directors; (iv) any corporate body in which persons as described in 10(2)(c)(i) have a beneficial interest in a
76 class of securities exceeding the nominal value of £5,000; or (v) any body listed in paragraphs 10(2)(a)(ix)(aa) to (ee) in which persons described in 10(2)(c)(i) hold a position of general control or management, to a greater extent than the majority of— (aa) in the case of an authority with electoral divisions or wards, other council tax payers, rate payers or inhabitants of the electoral division or ward, as the case may be, affected by the decision; or (bb) in all other cases, other council tax payers, ratepayers or inhabitants of the authority’s area.
Disclosure of Personal Interests 11.—(1) Where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you attend a meeting at which that business is considered, you must disclose orally to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest before or at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent. (2) Where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you make — (a) written representations (whether by letter, facsimile or some other form of electronic communication) to a member or officer of your authority regarding that business, you should include details of that interest in the written communication; or (b) oral representations (whether in person or some form of electronic communication) to a member or officer of your authority you should disclose the interest at the commencement of such representations, or when it becomes apparent to you that you have such an interest, and confirm the representation and interest in writing within 14 days of the representation. (3) Subject to paragraph 14(1)(b) below, where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you have made a decision in exercising a function of an executive or board, you must in relation to that business ensure that any written statement of that decision records the existence and nature of your interest. (4) You must, in respect of a personal interest not previously disclosed, before or immediately after the close of a meeting where the disclosure is made pursuant to sub-paragraph 11(1), give written notification to your authority in accordance with any requirements identified by your authority’s monitoring officer from time to time but, as a minimum containing — (a) details of the personal interest; (b) details of the business to which the personal interest relates; and (c) your signature. (5) Where you have agreement from your monitoring officer that the information relating to your personal interest is sensitive information, pursuant to paragraph 16(1), your obligations under this paragraph 11 to disclose such information, whether orally or in writing, are to be replaced with an obligation to disclose the existence of a personal interest and to confirm that your monitoring officer has agreed that the nature of such personal interest is sensitive information. (6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4), a personal interest will only be deemed to have been previously disclosed if written notification has been provided in accordance with this code since the last date on which you were elected, appointed or nominated as a member of your authority. (7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), where no written notice is provided in accordance with that paragraph you will be deemed as not to have declared a personal interest in accordance with this code.
Prejudicial Interests 12.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority you also have a prejudicial interest in that business if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest. (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), you will not be regarded as having a prejudicial interest in any business
77 where that business— (a) relates to — (i) another relevant authority of which you are also a member; (ii) another public authority or body exercising functions of a public nature in which you hold a position of general control or management; (iii) a body to which you have been elected, appointed or nominated by your authority; (iv) your role as a school governor (where not appointed or nominated by your authority) unless it relates particularly to the school of which you are a governor; (v) your role as a member of a Local Health Board where you have not been appointed or nominated by your authority; (b) relates to — (i) the housing functions of your authority where you hold a tenancy or lease with your authority, provided that you do not have arrears of rent with your authority of more than two months, and provided that those functions do not relate particularly to your tenancy or lease; (ii) the functions of your authority in respect of school meals, transport and travelling expenses, where you are a guardian, parent, grandparent or have parental responsibility (as defined in section 3 of the Children Act 1989) of a child in full time education, unless it relates particularly to the school which that child attends; (iii) the functions of your authority in respect of statutory sick pay under Part XI of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, where you are in receipt of, or are entitled to the receipt of such pay from your authority; (iv) the functions of your authority in respect of an allowance or payment made under sections 22(5), 24(4) and 173 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972, an allowance or pension under section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 or an allowance or payment under section 100 of the Local Government Act 2000; (c) your role as a community councillor in relation to a grant, loan or other form of financial assistance made by your community council to community or voluntary organisations up to a maximum of £500. (3) The exemptions in subparagraph (2)(a) do not apply where the business relates to the determination of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration.
78 Overview and Scrutiny Committees 13. You also have a prejudicial interest in any business before an overview and scrutiny committee of your authority (or of a sub-committee of such a committee) where— (a) that business relates to a decision made (whether implemented or not) or action taken by your authority’s executive, board or another of your authority’s committees, sub-committees, joint committees or joint sub-committees; and (b) at the time the decision was made or action was taken, you were a member of the executive, board, committee, sub-committee, joint-committee or joint sub-committee mentioned in sub- paragraph (a) and you were present when that decision was made or action was taken.
Participation in Relation to Disclosed Interests
14.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained a dispensation from your authority’s standards committee — (a) withdraw from the room, chamber or place where a meeting considering the business is being held— (i) where sub-paragraph (2) applies, immediately after the period for making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business has ended and in any event before further consideration of the business begins, whether or not the public are allowed to remain in attendance for such consideration; or (ii) in any other case, whenever it becomes apparent that that business is being considered at that meeting; (b) not exercise executive or board functions in relation to that business; (c) not seek to influence a decision about that business; (d) not make any written representations (whether by letter, facsimile or some other form of electronic communication) in relation to that business; and (e) not make any oral representations (whether in person or some form of electronic communication) in respect of that business or immediately cease to make such oral representations when the prejudicial interest becomes apparent. (2) Where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you may attend a meeting but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose, whether under a statutory right or otherwise. (3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not prevent you attending and participating in a meeting if — (a) you are required to attend a meeting of an overview or scrutiny committee, by such committee exercising its statutory powers; or (b) you have the benefit of a dispensation provided that you — (i) state at the meeting that you are relying on the dispensation; and (ii) before or immediately after the close of the meeting give written notification to your authority containing — (aa) details of the prejudicial interest; (bb) details of the business to which the prejudicial interest relates; (cc) details of, and the date on which, the dispensation was granted; and (dd) your signature. (4) Where you have a prejudicial interest and are making written or oral representations to your authority in reliance upon a dispensation, you must provide details of the dispensation within any such written or oral representation and, in the latter case, provide written notification to your authority within 14 days of making the representation.
79
PART 4 THE REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS
Registration of Financial and Other Interests and Memberships and Management Positions
15.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), you must, within 28 days of— (a) your authority’s code of conduct being adopted or the mandatory provisions of this model code being applied to your authority; or (b) your election or appointment to office (if that is later), register your financial interests and other interests, where they fall within a category mentioned in paragraph 10(2)(a) in your authority’s register maintained under section 81(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 by providing written notification to your authority’s monitoring officer. (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) You must, within 28 days of becoming aware of any new personal interest or change to any personal interest registered under sub-paragraph (1), register that new personal interest or change by providing written notification to your authority’s monitoring officer. (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to sensitive information determined in accordance with paragraph 16(1). (4) Sub-paragraph (1) will not apply if you are a member of a relevant authority which is a community council when you act in your capacity as a member of such an authority.
Sensitive information 16.—(1) Where you consider that the information relating to any of your personal interests is sensitive information, and your authority’s monitoring officer agrees, you need not include that information when registering that interest, or, as the case may be, a change to the interest under paragraph 15. (2) You must, within 28 days of becoming aware of any change of circumstances which means that information excluded under sub-paragraph (1) is no longer sensitive information, notify your authority’s monitoring officer asking that the information be included in your authority’s register of members’ interests. (3) In this code, “sensitive information” means information whose availability for inspection by the public creates, or is likely to create, a serious risk that you or a person who lives with you may be subjected to violence or intimidation.
Registration of Gifts and Hospitality 17. You must, within 28 days of receiving any gift, hospitality material benefit or advantage above a value specified in a resolution of your authority, provide written notification to your authority's monitoring officer of the existence and nature of that gift, hospitality material benefit or advantage.
80 Item No. 11 (1)
Report of the Chief Executive
Council - 10th April 2008
SENIOR MANAGEMENT RESTRUCTURING
Summary
Purpose: To propose the next stages in our review of senior management structures following the interim arrangements agreed by Council in June 2007.
Policy Framework: The Council’s Constitution and its terms and conditions of employment.
Reason for Decision: To agree the next stages in our senior management restructuring process.
Consultation: Consultation has taken place with Directors, Cabinet Members and Group Leaders.
Recommendation(s): It is recommended:
That Council notes and accepts the management arrangements as set down in this report, to carry us through the foreseeable future, but recognising the need for continuous review of arrangements to respond to changing circumstances and financial pressures.
1. Background
1.1 In June 2007, Council received a report from the Chief Executive entitled Senior Management Restructuring. The report reviewed the previous interim arrangements, and proposed that:
That Council notes: 1. That the interim arrangements for financial management, at CMT/Head of Service level, introduced in March 2006, be terminated. 2. That the other interim arrangements created in March 2006 remain (noting that recent changes following the departure of the Head of Transport & Engineering affect the location of the Central Transport Unit). 3. That the management arrangements set out in 2.7 of that report be implemented, with effect from 2nd July 2007. 4. That a further report on senior management arrangements be brought back within 6/9 months, addressing the broader challenges facing the Council, and reviewing the changes set out in this report.
81 5. That thanks be passed to the Interim Director of Finance for his work during his time in the post, along with the other officers who have acted up during this period.
That Council agrees: 1. That the statutory designation in respect of the s151 Finance role as set out in 2.7 (f) of that report be agreed.
1.2 For ease of reference, the specific arrangements proposed in paragraph 2.7 of that report were:
Proposal a) That the opportunity be taken to reduce the number of Directors, at least in the interim, by combining functions in a different way; b) That, in the first instance, this involve asking the Director of Social Services & Housing to take on all of the Finance functions currently managed by the Interim Director of Finance (as outlined above), recognising the wish to combine Finance with the Asset Management functions already managed through this directorate since March 2006; c) That the functions carried out by the Head of Housing, and currently managed by the Director of Social Services and Housing, be transferred to the Director of Regeneration, also on an interim basis; d) That the Social Services, Finance & Asset Management post be designated Executive Director, and that the additional duties and responsibilities be recognised by way of an appropriate salary adjustment; e) That the Director of Regeneration be redesignated Director of Regeneration & Housing, and the additional duties also be reflected financially; f) That the Executive Director become the designated s151 Officer for the Council (he holds the necessary qualifications for this), with the deputising roles returning to the arrangements which were in place prior to March 2006. This ensures that the s151 responsibility remains at the CMT table. g) That the Executive Director continue to hold the statutory Social Services responsibility, to ensure that this profile also remains at the CMT table. h) That CMT continue to consider the longer term allocation of functions at Directorate level, to ensure that a reasonable balance is achieved between Directors, and also considers any impacts at Head of Service level.
1.3 Council approved the recommendations, but asked for a further report to be brought back, developing proposals for permanent structural arrangements, within six months. It was clear that the arrangements were commonly felt to have only limited validity, since they included some unusual bundling of responsibilities, and Members did not want to see these continue indefinitely.
1.4 More recently, with the departure of the Assistant Chief Executive, the opportunity has been taken to put in place some interim arrangements,
82 primarily based on the drawing together of all of our ‘central’ functions under one Director, and the creation of a dedicated Social Services Director post to give focus to the challenges we face in these services. This was set out in my statement to Council on 17th January, a copy of which is attached as appendix 1 to this report.
2. Current Situation
2.1 At the time of the June report, I was able to report my reflections of the particular challenges which we faced, and which may benefit from structural change. I reported that, in my first few months, I had been able to begin to take stock of the current senior management arrangements, and to consider them in the light of the changing internal and external challenges facing us. Whilst my thoughts were still developing, the following is a sample of some of the issues which CMT and myself had recognised: • The need to give significant attention to the development and implementation of a major asset management programme to address the backlog in building deterioration, including schools. The recent emergence of the major guildhall project is an example of this. This is a major issue for the Council, and it is likely that such a programme will have a life span of many years (perhaps 15/20) • The need to ensure that we are equipped to manage the development of a multi-agency Local Service Board, including the need to take a ‘community leadership’ lead on the development of new scrutiny arrangements. • The need to review Members Support and Scrutiny Support within the Council, to best serve the changing needs on Councillors, and to ensure that Scrutiny has the appropriate level of independence whilst being related to the Cabinet’s work programme and without exceeding staffing capacity. • The need to review the current arrangement of functions managed by our Heads of Service to ensure that we have the best arrangements in place to meet developing challenges. • The need to develop a robust Medium Term Financial Plan, based on clear, rationalised, and achievable corporate priorities, which will assist us to move to a stable financial position over future years. • The need to ensure the best possible interface between our Regeneration and Planning functions, as key players in supporting economic regeneration and inward investment. • The need to recognise the increasing tendency towards joint working across local authority boundaries, to serve customers in a more joined-up way and to achieve efficiencies. The ‘making the connections’ agenda, the ‘spatial plan’ working, the ‘best value’ agenda, and the WAG encouragement of ‘multi-area agreements’ all reinforces this trend. • The need to further consider the potential benefits and/or disadvantages associated with combining education and other children services to support the Children &Young People Plan, as developed in English authorities.
83 • The reduction to four statutory plans and the increasing trend towards ‘theme’ working rather than traditional service function models.
2.2 So significant were the above challenges that I expressed the wish to spend far more time considering with senior managers and members how we should best adjust management arrangements in the future to achieve ‘fit for purpose’.
2.3 Since that time, the issues raised are still totally relevant, and can be increased by adding the following: • We face severe financial challenges in 2008/9 and future years and, given the proportion of our budget which is spent on staff, some of the necessary savings need to be made at senior management level. • Other challenges such at the Equal Pay an Job Evaluation work carry financial uncertainties which could add to the overall budget pressure. • A number of Members have expressed the view that our current structure is not well aligned to our business needs, with the distribution of functions between services sometimes causing confusion. • Our Child & Family Services are facing particular pressures following a challenging CSSIW review. • There is also some feeling that our structure is not well suited to delivering the Council’s priorities, with an imbalance across Directorates. • General discussions within CMT and with others in the organisation have raised a significant number of questions about structure, which all point to the benefit to be gained from some change. These include: - Are Directors truly corporate and strategic, or does the organisation still require them to be focused on their services - Have we got the right balance between what is coordinated centrally, and what is left to each service - Even within services, do we encourage flexible working, or do sections stick too rigidly to there core tasks - How well do we coordinate and deliver marketing and external communications - How well coordinated are we in our partnership working with the third sector, including provision of grants - Is there scope for increased partnership working between our Adult Social Services and partners in Health - Have we exploited the possibility of shared services adequately - Have we integrated project and programme management into core business - Have we embedded a culture of continuous improvement, seeking efficiencies, and focus on the need to save money - Do we achieve the best outcomes from procurement work across the Council
2.4 At the most senior level, it is my understanding that Members, at the last time of restructuring, were generally of the view that Directors should still be closely associated with service management, rather than moving to the more ‘corporate’ model adopted by some Councils. This is an important consideration again this time around, since there is a clear dichotomy – on
84 the one hand we would probably not have as many directors as now if we moved to the truly corporate model; but on the other it is hard to reduce the current number of directors further without such a change.
2.5 This issue is one of principle, which impacts on the rest of the thinking about management structures. It determines what we expect from Heads of Service and our approach to what type of management/structural ‘culture’ we want for the organisation.
2.6 Whilst we have been considering this point, circumstances have altered with the departure of the Assistant Chief Executive to a new post with another local authority. This has resulted in a new challenge facing us, in respect of the leadership of key corporate services and projects, but also the opportunity to build the new structure from a base which is smaller in numbers than before.
3.0 Corporate Priorities
3.1 Whilst the corporate priorities existing at any particular point in time should not, by themselves, determine the structural arrangements, they provide an important context for structure, in terms of ‘fit for purpose’.
3.2 Overarching all of our priorities are the mission and vision already established in the corporate plan and the community strategy, which are currently:
Mission – The Council will provide services that are amongst the best in the UK and will achieve the vision for Swansea.
Vision – By 2020 Swansea will be a distinctive European city: * A city that compares with the best * A city that invests in the future * A city where everyone matters * A city that values its culture and heritage.
3.3 We currently have 25 corporate priorities, which are all understandable in terms on importance, but result in confusion. Effectively ‘everything’ is a priority, or conversely ‘nothing’ is. Members will be aware of the review which has been underway during recent months, including a focused councillor forum’ event. The outcome of this work to date has been a proposal that we move towards a citizen centred arrangement with the following type of aims:
1. We want to continue to improve and protect our environment so that everyone has a great place to live. 2. We want to continue to improve the transport infrastructure so that everyone has access to the transport they need. 3. We want to continue to reduce crime and the fear of crime (including anti social behaviour), so that everyone feels safe.
85 4. We want to continue to improve Swansea’s economic performance so that everyone is part of a prosperous economy. 5. We want to continue to improve services for children and young people so that everyone has the best possible start in life, and to raise standards of attainment and achievement, so each can achieve their potential. 6. We want to continue to improve health and social care services for adults so that everyone can enjoy the best possible health. 7. We want to continue to make the best use of our resources so that everyone’s services are the best they can be.
3.4 Supporting each aim would then be a series of specific priorities and projects with fixed timescales where relevant, and reviewed every four years. It will be important that our final scheme of aims matches that of the new community strategy being developed through the Better Swansea Partnership, whilst the specific priorities are likely to be a mixture of areas specific to the council’s own responsibilities, and issues which need to be tackled in partnership with others.
4.0 VALUES
4.1 Over a period of time a group of staff have been developing a scheme of ‘values’ which should be applied by all staff working for the council, in order to demonstrate appropriate behaviours and support the ‘one council’ ambition. These have received good support from managers and focus groups, and I intend rolling them out over the organisation in future weeks and months. They are:
• Teamwork – In one way or another, we all work for each other. Everyone has a clear role, but no-one works in isolation. • Openness – To be successful we all have to be open, honest, accountable and have the desire to achieve. • Innovation – We all need to seek to drive the Council’s services forward, leading the community through innovative service delivery. • Respect – We should treat colleagues, customers and citizens as we would wish to be dealt with ourselves. • Enthusiasm – Enthusiasm is contagious, motivation breeds achievement. Nurture them and success will be ours. • Caring – Caring about the services we offer ensures we continuously improve so that we deliver first class services.
5.0 The Detailed Proposals
5.1 The current substantive senior management structure from 2007 is shown at Appendix 2; the current interim senior management structure (from January 2008) is shown at Appendix 3; and the proposed new structure is shown at Appendix 4. The changes, compared to the arrangements existing two years age, are significant, but, to provide some degree of continuity and
86 consolidation, I am only proposing relatively modest changes to the Interim arrangements which were so well received by Council in January 2008. I have also had in mind the perception that Council does not wish to expend substantial resources on achieving change (e.g. through wholesale change). Furthermore, I am suggesting that the proposed structure may need to be reviewed further throughout future months and years, as a number of internal and external changes may suggest new alignments of functions. It is generally accepted that no structure will have a shelf life beyond three years in the changing environment that we operate in. There are also some ongoing functional reviews which could lead to further incremental change in future months and we must be aware of the continued need for management savings to play their role in achieving the overall targeted savings set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan. Finally, I am recognising that the local elections may result in new executive portfolios and scrutiny arrangement, which, in turn, might suggest some functional adjustments, although there should not necessarily be a direct relationship between the two, since themed working is becoming commonplace across all portfolios in any event. Within my proposals, whilst there is a strong functional linkage for Directors, I also want to build up our culture of matrix management on a thematic basis, so that any Director could carry leadership for a cross- cutting theme, and all services should play their role in achieving corporate aims. Taking each directorate in turn, the details are as follows:
5.2 Education. I am proposing no major changes within this Directorate, which is already huge and which is responsible for a significant part of the council’s budget. Instinctively, I would prefer to create a ‘children’s services’ directorate, which is a model required in England and adopted by some Welsh authorities. I have stepped back from this route at this time, since our Education service already faces the huge school reorganisation challenge, and there are too many risks associated with adding in our Child & Family Services unit from Social Services just when that service is focusing on recovery from the CSSIW inspection outcome. I am proposing to retain the current Head of Service roles, but the departure of the former Head of Education Effectiveness has given the opportunity to adjust the next tier own, in a way which will offer up a significant saving, which is recognised in the financial implications to this report. I would like to revisit the possibility of combining services to create a Children’s Services directorate in the future, when current challenges have clear direction, and the national debate over integration is clearer. In the meantime, the Director of Education will continue to lead the Children & Young Peoples Partnership, which will lead the integration of services both within the council and with partner agencies.
5.3 Social Services. I am proposing to confirm the dedicated Social Services function as introduced within the current interim structure from January 2008. This will allow a clear focus on both the recovery of children’s services from the CSSIW ‘serious concerns’ protocol, and the evolving challenge for adult services. The latter is particularly important
87 given the developing WAG policy. There are significant issues that will need to be addressed as a result of organisational change for both the NHS Trusts and Local Health Boards. The need to further improve partnership working will be a key challenge and the proposal to have a dedicated Social Services function will provide a focus for future developments. Social Services are a significant budgetary area of the Council’s expenditure, at around £80 million, and clear direction will be needed to guide us through the challenging times ahead. I am proposing to advertise the permanent Director of Social Services role openly, in line with Council policy. It is also my intention to retain the two Heads of Service position until the Director is appointed and is able to review the situation. I see the Director of Social Services as the corporate lead for the Health, Social Care and Well Being Strategy.
5.4 Regeneration. I am proposing to retain the combination of regeneration and housing which was put in place in the 2007 interim structure, and to also bring into this directorate the Corporate Building Services team. The latter service has a close working relationship with our Housing Service, providing for them the housing repairs service, but also deals with all other public buildings. As such it could have been located elsewhere, but, for reasons of overall balance I am proposing to place it within this directorate at this time. This director will lead us corporately on economic regeneration, the spatial plan, and community safety. My proposals also confirm the continuation of the Community Regeneration Service, which has been subject to interim management since the departure of the previous head 18 months ago. I see this service as holding a key role in the economic inactivity challenge, and am also hoping to combine our corporate liaison with the third sector, including the grant awarding functions, under this unit.
5.5 Environment I am proposing to retain the mix of services within this directorate, and to continue with the split responsibility between transportation and highways which has been created since the departure of the former head of service last year. This will allow a strong focus on ensuring the improvement and maintenance of the highway infrastructure, whilst enabling the planning for transportation in the context of the new regional agenda to be fully considered along with such new initiatives as decriminalised parking. The new structure proposed under the two heads of service, will, through internal recruitment, create an ongoing saving which is taken account of in the financial implications. This director will lead us corporately on the UDP, SWWITCH and waste, with the latter becoming of huge corporate significance over forthcoming years. I have paid particular attention to the issues of ‘planning’ and ‘regeneration’ which have been subject to much discussion over the last year, with a well voiced perception that our planning services are sometimes not supportive enough or responsive enough to regeneration ambitions. I have reached a view that this is not an issue which will simply disappear by structural change; it is more about the culture of the services and the need for more effective joint working. This is a classic area where the effectiveness of cross-cutting
88 working can make all the difference. Wide-ranging discussions with officers from both Planning and Regeneration have developed a commitment towards a comprehensive ‘development team’ approach, especially focused on the delivery of our key strategies and major development projects. Key features of the approach include:
* multi-disciplinary implementation teams * designated lead officer responsibilities * a regeneration programme board, chaired by the Director of Regeneration, and including the Director of Environment, Head of Economic & Strategic Development, and Head of Planning Services (reporting to the Strategic Development Forum) * a one-stop-shop approach to major development enquiries (marketed through the Economic & Strategic Development web-site) * action plans with clear target dates * project management methodology * leadership and commitment to a ‘can do’ culture
5.6 Resources. As Members will recall, the current interim structure (January 2008) was stimulated by the departure of the Assistant Chief Executive, and resulted in the bringing together of almost all of our ‘central’ and ‘support’ services within one directorate. I am proposing to confirm this arrangement, deleting the post of Assistant Chief Executive (Performance). The Director will lead us corporately on a wide range of key strategies, plans, and programmes, including the medium term financial plan, the corporate plan, the asset management plan, e- government, equal pay and pay & grading. Whilst many of the functions exist to support other services, and the corporate organisation, it should not be forgotten that many key front line services are also located in this directorate, including housing/council tax benefits, and the corporate contact centre. The opportunity is being taken to reduce the number of ‘finance’ heads, with consequent savings, and I am proposing to combine ‘legal’ and ‘democratic’ services (including elections) together, and to locate these within the directorate. This removes the ambiguity which has existed between the role of the monitoring officer and the functions managed by the head of community leadership & democracy.
5.7 Chief Executive’s Office As well as managing the group of directors, I currently hold direct line responsibility for the Head of Legal Services, the Head of Community Leadership & Democracy, and the Executive Director of Swansea Bay Futures. Since the January interim arrangements have been in place, this has been added to with the Head of Marketing & Communications. I am not proposing to replace the Assistant Chief Executive post, but am now proposing to adjust the functions directly managed by my office as follows: a) Confirm the direct reporting line for the Head of Marketing & Communications
89 b) Transfer the Head of Legal Services to the Corporate Director (Resources), whilst recognising the need for an ongoing direct ‘monitoring officer’ relationship with myself. c) Delete the post of Head of Community Leadership & Democracy d) Add the Democratic Services function to the Legal Services one to create a Head of Legal & Democratic Services e) Add the remaining functions from c) - that is, engagement and scrutiny – to those directly managed by the Chief Executive, and combine with the marketing and communications functions under one head of service. Further add to this the other corporate consultation functions (e.g. Swansea Voices) currently managed elsewhere. f) Move management of CMT support team from c) to the new Head of Service in the Chief Executive’s Office.
In this model, the issue of Scrutiny deserves some further attention. Members will recall that, following a review of support for scrutiny, Council (25th January 2007) resolved that the current level of support is inadequate and that “…scrutiny support should be a dedicated separate “stand alone” section, a specialist model adequately resourced and staffed.” The Chief Executive was asked to report back to Council with recommendations of how this might best be achieved and this is now being progressed under the umbrella of the Senior Management Review.
From recent discussions with political groups, and with the Scrutiny Coordinating Group, there is a general wish to hold back any detailed proposal for the level and nature of scrutiny support until after the local elections, and I am happy to do so. However, my current management proposals seek to position the scrutiny function in a way which meets the earlier wish of council, whatever its ultimate structure and size. Immediately, these proposals create some more capacity for the future scrutiny support function, and create a better sense of ‘independence’ as sought by members.
5.8 On-Going Work There is already a wide range of ongoing consideration of structural arrangements linked to the principles set out above. These include:
• proposing to move the leadership of voluntary sector liaison and grants work to Community Regeneration, as long as this can be properly resourced; • further consideration of the linkages between community regeneration functions and ILM/Employment Training (the latter currently operating successfully within Education) • the best long term and sustainable location for the social inclusion unit, which has been subject to far too much shift in previous years • the extent to which corporate consultation arrangements should be consolidated within the Chief Executive’s unit • the extent to which corporate and broader marketing functions should be combined and located within the Chief Executive’s unit • proposing to reconnect the Lord Mayor support function with the corporate marketing unit • the longer term location of community safety, the youth offending team, and the property functions
90 • the balance of functions and lead responsibilities across directorates.
I would envisage directly implementing the outcome of some of these issues when the time is right, but would bring any further significant change back through the Member domain.
6.0 Financial Implications
6.1. This restructuring debate has taken place at a time when the Council needs to make significant savings to achieve balanced annual budgets during the medium term financial planning period. I have assumed that the senior management arrangements should enable appropriate contributions to be made towards these savings, and the proposals achieve this in the following way:
a) Deletion of former post of Deputy Chief Executive – I put this forward within my earlier interim arrangements report and now propose to confirm the permanency of the arrangement. Net saving of around £130,000 per annum. b) Adjustments to the Transport & Engineering service unit including the continuation of the split of responsibility of highways and transportation resulting in a net annual saving of up to £65,000 in 2008/09 and £70,000 in a full year. c) Adjustments relating to the Head of Educational Effectiveness post resulting in a saving of up to £25,000 in 2008/09 and £68,000 in a full year. d) Deletion of post of Head of Community Leadership & Democracy – With functions moving to three different areas as explained in the report. This results in an annual net saving of up to £40,000 in 2008/09 and £53,000 in a full year. e) Restructuring from three to two Heads of Service within Finance, resulting in a net annual saving of up to £73,000 in 2008/09 and £79,000 in a full year. f) Deletion of the Assistant Chief Executive post, but matched by the creation of the Corporate Director (Social Services) post.
6.2. The financial target (excluding one-off costs in 2008/09) set within the recently approved budget for savings from senior management restructuring is £275,000 in 2008/09 and £300,000 in each full year thereafter. Even allowing for some knock-on impact from the changes, the above proposals contained within this report provide for total annual savings of up to £370,000 (with up to £300,000 being achieved in the first year).
6.3 In addition, the attached proposals provide for the permanent deletion of the Head of ICT and Head of Performance & Strategic Planning posts following the retirement of the post holders and the subsequent assimilation of their responsibilities by other Heads of Service. If the saving arising from these posts is included, the overall saving achieved as a result of the restructuring proposals is over £500,000 in a full year.
91
6.4. It has been assumed throughout that no compulsory redundancies should result from this restructuring, and all of the deletions and mergers are possible without this occurring. The one-off costs associated with savings in this report will be provided for in the 2007/8 accounts. These one-off costs amount to £260,000, showing how quickly the real savings begin to accrue.
7.0 Legal Implications
7.1. There are no specific legal implications arising from the report.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 In this report I have attempted to consolidate the positive aspects of the recent interim changes applied to our senior management arrangements, whilst tweaking arrangement further and reducing the number of Heads of Service by two. The principles behind the approach recognise the need to focus on key priorities, to make financial savings, and to balance stability with change. Most importantly, they recognise that internal and external factors will drive further change in the future and we must be prepared to see this as a dynamic process. The forthcoming elections, and nationally introduced changes are both likely to create pressure fro further change.
9.0 Recommendations
9.1 It is recommended:
That Council notes and accepts the management arrangements as set down in this report, to carry us through the foreseeable future, but recognising the need for continuous review of arrangements to respond to changing circumstances and financial pressures.
Background Papers:
1. Report of Chief Executive to Council, 15th December 2005 (‘Review of Corporate Management’) 2. Report of Leader to Council, 16th February 2006 (‘Appointment of an Interim Chief Executive’) 3. Report of Interim Chief Executive to Council, 2nd March 2006 (‘Interim Management Arrangements’) 4. Report of Chief Executive to Council 21st June 2007 (‘Senior Management Restructuring’)
Contact Officer: Paul Smith, Chief Executive 01792 637500
92 Appendix 1
Statement from Chief Executive
At Council on 6th December 2007, the following motion was agreed:
That this Council notes the departure of the Assistant Chief Executive, which will take place in January, and further notes that this departure marks the third successive resignation from this Authority by officers who were either in direct or indirect control of the Authority’s eGovernment programme.
This Council calls upon the Cabinet Member, Leader and/or Chief Executive to make an urgent statement to Council, by the next Ordinary Meeting at the latest, to inform Members as to the future governance, structure and direction of the eGovernment Programme.
The motion clearly recognises the importance which Members attach to the role carried out by the ACE (Performance), and I am happy to report back as follows:
By way of background, the post of Assistant Chief Executive (Performance) includes responsibility for the following services and functions:
• Information and Customer Services – including ICT Client, Customer Services, Contact Centre, Information Management; • Performance & Projects – including Business Performance, Risk Management, Resilience/Business Continuity, Strategic Programme Office, Corporate Strategy, Access to Services (including Equalities and Welsh Language) • Marketing & Communications – including Press and Media Relations, Internal Communications, External Communications, Corporate Marketing/Branding, Corporate Events • Human Resources & Organisational Development – including Employee Services, Payroll, Job Evaluation, Health & Safety, Employee Development and Training. • Major Programmes/Projects including – eGovernment Programme, Equal Pay, Pay & Grading Review, Civic Centre Project • Lead Officer in relation to Welsh Audit Office and Council’s external auditors • Member of Corporate Management Team • Relevant support for Cabinet, Scrutiny, and Council as a whole.
As Members will be aware, the departure of Michelle Morris comes at a critical time in respect of a number of these areas. By way of example:
• The Civic Centre project is coming to completion, but continues to require senior leadership; • We need to build up the robustness of our ‘business continuity’ and resilience plans, in liaison with the Local Resilience Forum; • The Equal Pay proposal has been agreed, but the implementation process needs to be properly managed;
93 • The Pay & Grading Review needs to build up pace following the emphasis on Equal Pay over the past year. • The e-Government contract is in a sensitive stage of negotiation, on which the roll-out of the Payroll module depends. The length of continuation of a dedicated approach to the work, as opposed to ‘business as usual’ depends o this outcome;
So, the challenge facing us is to:
a) Ensure continuity of leadership for the key programmes/projects; b) Make appropriate arrangements for managing the service areas in the interim period; and c) Put in place permanent management arrangements for these services as soon as possible.
Logically, the quicker that c) can be put in place, the less concerning are a) and b).
My current intention, through the Senior Management Restructuring review, is to create the post of Director (Resources) which I envisage will manage the Council’s ‘central’ support services. This will include all of the areas currently managed by the ACE (Performance), with the exception of Communications & Marketing, which I would see reporting directly to me, at least in the interim future. It would also include the range of finance and asset management functions, as well as potentially our legal and democratic services. Carrying the s151 responsibility, it is clear that the Director (Resources) is the post into which I see Jack Straw moving. This will end the temporary arrangement which Members supported last June, which involved Jack managing the Social Services functions as well as the financial/asset management ones.
Although I have not quite completed the senior management review, I am proposing that the following arrangements take place from Monday 28th January 2008:
• The Executive Director post includes management of the follow services – Information & Customer Services; Performance & Projects; Budgets & Grants; Financial Services; Corporate Procurement; Human Resources & Organisational Development; Corporate Property/Asset Management; and Corporate Building Services. • It also includes sponsorship/management of the following programmes/projects – eGovernment, Civic Centre, to their completion as discrete projects. • The Head of Human Resources & Organisational Development will take direct responsibility of the Equal Pay and Pay & Grading Projects following the release of the consultancy support, and will work to the Executive Director as these go forward. • The Head of Communications will report directly to myself. • A post of Interim Director of Social Services be established to manage the Social Services functions currently managed by the Executive Director. This post to be filled through internal arrangements, and continue pending the full senior management review. The post to become a member of the Corporate Management Team.
94
I hope that this gives Members the necessary comfort regarding the leadership of the key programmes and projects. I intend to bring forward a full report on senior management restructuring to Council within the next two cycles.
Paul Smith Chief Executive
95 96 97 PROPOSED STRUCTURE – APRIL 2008 APPENDIX 4 DIRECTORATE & FUNCTIONS (Heads of Service) PARTNERSHIP/ STRATEGY LEAD MAJOR PROJECT LEAD CABINET PORTFOLIO & SCRUTINY (Current)
Chief Executive: Better Swansea Partnership Community Strategy Portfolio: Leader • Marketing & Communications* Local Service Board • Community Engagement & Scrutiny* Local Resilience Forum Scrutiny: Community Leadership • CMT Support* Cabinet (* Managed by a single Head of Service) Council
Corporate Director (Resources) • Information & Customer Services Personnel Polices/Terms & Conditions Business Improvement & Efficiency Portfolio: Finance • Performance & Projects Medium Term Financial Plan Equal Pay Top Performance and e-Govt • Legal & Democratic Services (inc Monitoring Performance Framework Pay & Grading Officer role) Procurement Strategy Civic Centre (Contact Centre) Scrutiny: Finance & Property • Finance Corporate & Service Plans Asset Management Plan Audit • Procurement & ISIS Development Risk/Resilience & Business Continuity Guildhall Project Performance • Human Resources & Organisational Development IT Strategy Capital Maintenance Programme • Corporate Property/ Asset Management Workforce Plan Pension Fund
Corporate Director (Environment) Health Promotion Waste Management Portfolio: Environment • Highways Unitary Development Plan Transportation • Transportation Environment Forum/Strategy Streetscene Scrutiny: Environment • Environmental Management & Protection South West Wales Integral Transport Highways Asset Management Plan • Environmental Health Consortium/Regional Transport Plan Planning & Licensing Committee • Planning & Conservation Waste Forum Strategy
Corporate Director (Education) Q.E.D. 2020 – School Organisation Portfolio: Education • Education Effectiveness C&YP Partnership Strategy • Education Inclusion Learning Partnership Children & Young People Strategy Scrutiny: Education & Lifelong Learning • Education Planning & Resources Lifelong Learning (including Children & Young South West & Mid Wales Consortium People’s Plan)
Corporate Director (Regeneration) Swansea Economic Regeneration Partnership City Centre Regeneration Portfolio: Culture, Recreation & Tourism • Housing Spatial Plan/Convergence Programme Leisure Centre Economic & Strategic Development • Corporate Building Services Safer Swansea Partnership Welsh Housing Quality Standard Community Regeneration • Economic Development/ Regeneration Climbing Higher (Housing Futures) Housing (and Building?) • Culture, Leisure & Tourism Local Housing Strategy • Community Regeneration City Centre Partnership Scrutiny: Regeneration & Culture Swansea Bay Strategy Health & Social Care (Housing) Finance & Property
Corporate Director (Social Services) Health Social Care & Wellbeing Children’s Service Improvement Plan Portfolio: Social Services • Adult Services Youth Offending Team Older People’s Project • Child & Family Services Social Inclusion Health Service Changes Scrutiny: Health & Social Care (Social Health Service Partnerships Services) 98 I:\Corporate Management Team\Chief Executive (PS)\Miscellaneous\Directorates and Functions Jan 2008 A4 version.doc
Item No. 12 (1)
Report of the Performance Scrutiny Board
Council – 10th April 2008
SCRUTINY REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL’S eGOVERNMENT PROGRAMME
Summary:
This report informs Council of the findings, conclusions and recommendations resulting from the recent Scrutiny Review of the Council’s e-Government Programme.
FOR INFORMATION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Council is provided with the findings, conclusions and recommendations resulting from the recent Scrutiny Review of the Council’s e-Government Programme, for information.
2. SCRUTINY BOARD REPORT
2.1 The Performance Scrutiny Board has spent the last year undertaking a Review of the Council’s e-Government Programme, focusing on the achievement of savings / benefits from Phase One of the Programme.
2.2 Following a wide range of evidence gathering and analysis the Board produced a report of the findings, conclusions and recommendations resulting from this work. This was considered by the Board at its meeting on 31st March 2008 and approved for submission to the Council’s Executive.
2.3 The final report is structured in the following way:
• Title of the Report • Why This Matters • Summary • Aims of the Review • Evidence Considered • Conclusions • Recommendations • Acknowledgements • About the Performance Scrutiny Board
2.4 The full report of the Performance Scrutiny Board is attached as Appendix A.
99
3. CABINET DECISION
3.1 The report will be submitted for formal consideration at the earliest available Cabinet meeting, where a response to the report and recommendations will be given and a decision made by Cabinet with regard to the acceptance of those recommendations.
3.2 The outcome following the report’s submission to Cabinet for decision will be reported to Council in due course.
4. FOLLOW UP
4.1 The relevant Scrutiny Board will be responsible for following up the implementation of recommendations which are agreed by Cabinet and reviewing progress.
FOR INFORMATION
Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Brij Madahar Scrutiny Coordinator 01792 637257
1st April 2008
100
City and County of Swansea
A Review of the Council’s eGovernment Programme
Performance Scrutiny Board
March 2008
101
Why This Matters
Cllr René Kinzett (Chair) Cllr Mark Child (Vice Chair)
The Board has completed its Review of the Council’s e-Government Programme as a topic of in-depth scrutiny.
On 30th December 2005 the Council entered into a strategic partnership with Capgemini to deliver the Council’s e-Government Programme. The Board agreed to conduct a review following initial consideration of overview reports on the e-Government Programme and the ICT Service, and emerging issues in relation to the achievement of the benefits and savings targets from the first phase of the Programme.
When the Board met in March 2007 it was informed of various delays in the project and difficulties in the achievement of benefits. It was noted that the benefits, although realistic, would be longer to achieve than originally envisaged in the business plan. Additional benefits of £852,000 were required to meet the target benefit of £1,200,000 for 2007/08 and that the signed off benefits would have to be revisited when the system was fully operational.
The Board were concerned about the difference between the level of benefits/savings identified at the start of the Programme and those actually signed off to date. The Board wanted to review the process by which the e- government aims were pursued via the contract with Capgemini, and the means by which this contract was implemented.
The Board felt that by undertaking a review of this topic it could establish the veracity of this means of meeting e-government targets and the reasons for the variance between project targets and what has been achieved.
By doing this work the Board aimed to provide lessons and advice for the council to aid in the effectiveness of large contracts and large projects it undertakes in future.
We would like to thank the Members of the Board, those that gave evidence and the support staff for their participation and assistance in the Review.
102
Summary
1. Aims of the Review 1.1 The aim of this review was to explore the processes undertaken and the conclusions reached by the Authority when arriving at agreed savings figures, across all departments and service areas, prior to the signing of Phase One of the Council’s e-Government programme.
2. Evidence Considered
2.1 Overview of the e-Government Programme and Further Evidence from the Council’s former Assistant Chief Executive (Performance). 2.2 Evidence from the former Head of ICT. 2.3 Evidence from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and Findings from various PwC reports (April 2007). 2.4 Evidence from Cabinet Members for Top Performance & e- Government and Finance. 2.5 Evidence from Strategic Directors / Heads of Service. 2.6 Evidence from Capgemini. 2.7 Evidence from Joint Trade Unions. 2.8 Findings from the Designated Independent Person’s Report (DIP) into the e-Government Programme (October 2007). 2.9 Evidence from Deloitte. 2.10 Evidence from former Interim Chief Executive of the City and County of Swansea, Bob Carter. 2.11 Various documents in relation to the e-Government Programme. 2.12 Research into the implementation of e-Government Programmes elsewhere.
3. Conclusions
3.1 There was a clear need for the modernisation of the Council’s systems. 3.2 The Council’s e-Government Programme was an ambitious project which could have been more effectively delivered through a series of smaller projects. 3.3 The governance structures to manage and undertake the project were complicated and confusing. 3.4 The e-Government Project was driven forward by a small number of people, and opportunities for the robust challenge were limited to the commentary of external audit bodies whilst internal challenge was not given sufficient consideration. 3.5 The evidence points to a situation where Corporate Management Team, prior to the contract with Capgemini being entered into, was clearly divided in their views on the Programme, and the issues were not shared or resolved satisfactorily at the time with Cabinet Members. 3.6 The lack of robust and balanced independent advice to, and appropriate training of Cabinet Members, was to the detriment of good political decision making.
103
3.7 There was insufficient Member engagement in and scrutiny of the project. 3.8 The introduction of Strategic Sourcing presented a false picture of the viability of the programme as a whole. 3.9 It is evident that insufficient benchmarking was carried out. 3.10 The decision to switch the responsibility for change management from Capgemini to the Authority had a major effect on the project. 3.11 A substantial amount of money of the e-Government Programme was spent on external advisors but their role and the advice given to decision makers lacked clarity. 3.12 Opportunities to review the project at a number of key stages were not taken. 3.13 The continued failure to achieve the projected financial benefits will have a marked effect on future budgets of the Authority. 3.14 The future success of the project rests upon strong leadership and a management structure that has a clear commitment to the project, builds a consensus amongst Members and Officers, and remains publicly accountable and transparent.
4. Recommendations
The Board recommends that Cabinet:
4.1 considers the feasibility of projects of this scale and complexity being broken down into constituent parts and where possible delivered in discrete packages. 4.2 ensures that governance structures in managing contracts and projects of this size are clearly defined and understood, with clear reporting structures, arrangements for the resolution of issues, and proper minute taking / recording of decisions. 4.3 likewise ensure that where external consultants are employed their roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and readily understandable. 4.4 ensure that the distinct roles and responsibilities of the Authority’s Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer are kept separate from project sponsor, manager and other responsibilities to ensure financial and legal overview is not compromised. 4.5 request the Chief Executive to re-examine and clarify the distinct roles and responsibilities of, and relationship between, Cabinet Members and Corporate Management Team in project governance to ensure that the relationship is as productive as possible and leads to better decision making. 4.6 should have its own ‘independent’ advice, with direct reporting to the Cabinet, and ensure the appropriate training of Cabinet Members before projects of this size are entered into. 4.7 apply pre-decision scrutiny on all major projects, incorporating the regular engagement of all Councillors to provide updates and progress reports.
104
4.8 should always carry out a review and analysis of the impact of any major changes in the design of a project (e.g. the introduction of Strategic Sourcing in the e-Government Programme). 4.9 produce a comprehensive action plan taking together the various learning points and recommendations made by PwC and the Designated Independent Person in their reviews, and the findings of the Performance Scrutiny Board.
1. Aims of the Review
1.1 The primary reason for the review was to explore the processes undertaken and the conclusions reached by the Authority when arriving at agreed savings figures, across all departments and service areas, prior to the signing of Phase One of the e-Government programme.
1.2 More specific aims and objectives of the Review were to:
• Explore and evaluate the processes used to determine the savings figures identified prior to the signing of Phase 1 of the e- Government Programme • Assess the robustness and effectiveness of consultation processes used to assist decision making • Determine the effectiveness of measures in place to monitor and manage risks associated with the e-government programme and associated savings
2. Evidence Considered
Date Activity
1st November – • Overview of the e-Government 2006 Programme from the Assistant Chief Executive (Performance) 29th November – 2006
21st February – • Overview of the ICT Service 2007 • Agreement to undertake Review of e- Government Programme
21st March 2007 – • Agreement of Scope of the Review • Further Evidence from Assistant Chief Executive (Performance)
11th April 2007 – • Further Evidence from Assistant Chief Executive (Performance) • Review of Elements of the e-Government Programme - Report from
105
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
18th April 2007 – • Discussion with Lynne Hine, PwC. Regarding their Review of Elements of the e-Government
23rd May 2007 – • Evidence from Cabinet Members for Top Performance & e-Government and Finance 13th June 2007 – • Evidence from Strategic Directors / Heads of Service
11th July 2007 – • Discussion regarding evidence to be given by Capgemini
1st August 2007 – • E-Government Milestone Challenge – Report from PricewaterhouseCoopers (from Regulatory Plan) and Council Response
8th August 2007 – • Evidence from Capgemini
17th September – • Council Response to PwC Review of 2007 Elements of the e-Government
31st October 2007 – • Written Submission from Joint Trade Unions • Discussion of Evidence Gathered to Date
16th November – • Discussion re. Conclusions from the 2007 (Task & Board’s Review Finish Group) 27th November – • Consideration of Findings of Designated 2007 (Task & Independent Person’s Investigation – e- Finish Group) Government Programme • Discussion re. Conclusions from the Board’s Review
3rd December – • Evidence from Deloitte 2007 7th January 2008 – • Evidence from former Interim Chief Executive of the City and County of Swansea, Bob Carter
25th January 2008 – • Analysis of Evidence Gathered (Task & Finish • Discussion of Key Findings Group)
106
11th February – • Consideration of Conclusions 2008 (Task & Finish Group) 6th March 2008 – • Consideration of Conclusions and (Task & Finish Recommendations Group)
31st March 2008 – • Final Report Agreed
3. Conclusions
3.1 There was a clear need for the modernisation of the Council’s systems.
3.1.1 It is widely accepted that the Council needed to modernise out-dated ICT systems and processes within ‘back office’ services, and invest in new systems. The Council’s e-Government Programme was designed to address these needs, improving the efficiency of the Council and enabling the release of efficiency savings.
3.1.2 The key drivers for the Programme were identified as a number of the Council’s corporate priorities including those to:
• Improve the efficiency of the Council through improved business processes, streamlining services and investment in new ‘back office’ corporate IT systems. • Improve the capability and efficiency of the workforce through modern working practices, improved project management and investment in technology • Continue to improve the Authority’s integrated, corporate, performance and financial management with the focus on Top Performance
In developing the business case for the Programme the Council identified financial and non-financial benefits.
3.1.3 Although the principles of the Council’s e-Government Programme were sound, there is some debate about whether it represented the appropriate means (including the decision to procure a strategic partner) to address the Council’s problems.
3.2 The Council’s e-Government Programme was an ambitious project which could have been more effectively delivered through a series of smaller projects.
3.2.1 The Council agreed in July 2003 to appoint a strategic partner to support the delivery of the Programme. This was recognised as important because the Council did not have all of the experience and skills needed to deliver a Programme of this scale and complexity. The
107
procurement process commenced in July 2003. Independent Advisers were also appointed to support and advise the Council through the process. As a result of this procurement process Cabinet appointed Capgemini as its preferred partner in December 2004.
3.2.2 In December 2005 Cabinet approved the award of a contract (strategic partnering agreement) to Capgemini to deliver Phase One of the e- Government Programme.
The scope of the contract included:
• Resource@Swansea – the development and implementation of a new integrated back office ICT system to deliver finance, procurement, human resources and payroll services. • Information Management – the development of an Information Management Strategy and Framework. • Strategic Sourcing – the improvement of procurement practices and processes and knowledge transfer to Council staff. • ICT Service – the responsibility for the operation and support of the Council’s existing ICT systems.
3.2.3 The Contract Award report to Cabinet on 1st December 2005 set out the total estimated costs and benefits for Phase One as follows:
The figures cover a ten year period.
Table One Cost / Benefit (£ million) Contract Cost (See Table Two) 83.3 Council Costs 15.5 Total Programme Cost 98.8 Current Budget (e.g. ICT budget and new (90.3) investment) Financial Benefits Target (See Table Three (26.2) overleaf) Net Benefit (17.7)
The contract costs were further detailed across the different elements of the contract, as follows:
Table Two Cost (10 years)
ICT Service £60.8 million
New Build (e.g. ICT Systems/Hardware & £17.8 million Software/Change Management etc)
Financing Charges £4.7 million Total Contract Cost £83.3 million
108
In addition, the report highlighted Council costs of £15.5m resulting in an overall programme cost of £98.8m to be financed from the existing ICT budget (£52.9m), new investment (£37.4m) and part of the forecast cash benefits (£8.5m).
Whilst some expenditure occurs evenly over the period (e.g. ICT – approximately £6m per annum), other expenditure occurs in the early years (e.g. new systems build).
3.2.4 The basis of the original business case was that part of the financial benefits (£8.5 million) would be needed to fund Phase One, with the remaining benefits (£17.7 million) being available to invest in Phase Two – Service@Swansea. The report to Cabinet also stated that should the base benefits not be achieved by the Council, there would be less funding available for the subsequent investment in Phase Two.
3.2.5 During the procurement phase (2004) Capgemini undertook work to estimate the financial benefits that could be achieved from the Programme. In December 2004 Cabinet approved Capgemini as its ‘preferred partner’ and the Council entered into a Pre-Contract Works Agreement in 2005 which enabled Capgemini to do further design work to refine the benefits case. The targets quoted below were those stated as ‘confident’ by Capgemini.
Table Three Benefit
Resource@Swansea (staffing reductions) 8.8 Strategic Sourcing (improved procurement) 17.3 Total Benefit 26.2
3.2.6 In addition the report provided examples of the non-financial benefits:
• Replacement of 25 ICT systems which previously supported finance, HR and payroll services • Reduced number of payrolls reduced from 23 to 11, releasing significant efficiency savings • Modernisation of ICT systems and processes to improve the efficiency of service delivery • Improved and quicker management information for managers and Members in relation to the spend on goods and services, budgets and staffing data e.g. sickness absence data • Eliminating multiple data entry with new integrated system now sharing data across a number of disciplines e.g. projects and finance • More efficient system for purchasing and paying for goods and services • Visibility of expenditure to enable the greater use of corporate contracts and reduce the opportunity for ‘maverick’ spending
109
• Improved process for updating employee data, submitting time and expenses claims
3.2.7 Capgemini was contractually incentivised to achieve these targets through a profit at risk mechanism. Capgemini’s profit on the contract (new build) is 5% of its value (£17.8 million). This means that up to £890,000 may be recovered by the Council should the base cashable financial benefits target not be identified or achieved. This profit at risk is linked to the achievement of incremental milestones which were detailed in the contract.
3.2.8 The e-Government Programme is recognised as an ambitious project and the key risk identified as the potential failure to achieve the financial benefits. The key issues for the Programme as reported to the Board in November 2006 were: • Completion of implementation of a new back office ICT system • Roll-out of the new systems to all users within the Council • Delivery of both financial and non-financial benefits.
3.2.9 It became apparent early on that the achievement of benefits was extremely challenging and that targets may not be met. This has led the Board to question whether the goals were attainable in the first place.
3.2.10 The Board has considered whether the Council’s e-Government Programme was too large a project for the Authority to confidently manage, and whether the Council was sufficiently equipped to deal with the project. It was a unique project in scale, and the presence of a strategic partner as expert in this field did not ease the complexity of the Programme. There has been considerable opinion that the Programme represented a number of large projects and should have been delivered in stages / manageable chunks.
3.2.11 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) found in their report on elements of the e-Government Programme (April 2007) that the Resource@Swansea project was significantly large to have been treated as a project in its own right and evaluated as such. They further reported that the Contract Award Report does not give a detailed explanation of why the programme elements have been split between Phases One and Two in the way that the Authority has.
3.2.12 Other views are that whilst it was not an unusual nor groundbreaking project in terms of ambition and size as compared to experiences elsewhere, the way it was done was unusual, for example the Authority short listing to 3 bidders at such an early stage of the process without robust specifications in place for what was required from the project. To Deloitte’s knowledge there are about 10 companies who could provide the type of “partnership” services sought by the Council from Capgemini.
110
3.2.13 It has been noted that there had been 100 expressions of interest received for the Programme when the broad scope of partner arrangements was advertised. 10 bidders were assessed and 3 selected. The bidders were required to do very detailed work and to select more than 3 was beyond the resources of the Council. The issue of the order that things were done (as stated by Deloitte) was perhaps more debatable than the narrowing of bidders to 3. There was confidence that these were the best 3. It is impossible to say whether the Authority would be in any different position now had a different partner been selected. 3.2.14 It is noted that the documentation behind the contract and negotiations between the Authority and Capgemini were extremely complex.
3.2.15 Capgemini have experienced difficulties and complications, particularly with regard to HR & Payroll, associated with the preparation of data. The Board was informed that a great deal of work was undertaken to understand the environment and the whole procurement process had been thorough and expensive. There were some assumptions that Capgemini had to make i.e. that the complexities would be no more difficult than have been experienced in other Local Authorities. Data that has been required at certain points has been particularly difficult for the Council to draw together, possibly as a consequence of the length of time existing systems had been in place. This further supports the view that the Authority may have benefited from focusing on the different elements of the overall Programme as discrete projects.
3.3 The governance structures to manage and undertake the project were complicated and confusing.
3.3.1 The governance structure of the programme and the respective roles & responsibilities of the various Working Groups and reporting requirements / expectations seemed to be unclear and hard to understand, an example of which being the plethora of groups with overlapping membership and lack of clear accountability, reporting and minutes. There was concern about the relationship and lines of communication between different parts of the project – e.g. Benefits Working Group, Finance Working Group, Project Board, Programme Board, and Corporate Management Team (CMT). Mr Carter agreed that the set of officer advisory groups established from the selection of preferred bidder stage was complex.
3.3.2 The Board highlighted the findings of the Benefits Working Group in August 2005 and the governance/reporting arrangements for the issues raised and its relationship with the Finance Working Group. The structure for analysing the projected benefits was unclear. There was not a widespread knowledge of who was doing the work, what their outputs were and where those outputs were to be reported. Although the Benefits Working Group appeared to arrive at valid conclusions these were filtered out before any Cabinet decisions. The structure also
111
did not allow for concerns / issues / risks raised outside of the formal framework to be adequately considered. The work of the Benefits Working Group (BWG) only went to Mr Carter who was both advisor and manager. He was also chair of the Finance Working Group therefore one can call into question the strength of checks and balances within that system. The matter is further confused by the fact that no minutes of BWG exist so could not be reported.
3.3.3 PwC’s own report states that the Council proceeded with the contract even though the Benefits Working Group described its confidence in the Purchase to Pay (P2P) savings of £7.1m as at best medium and the assumed reductions in staff numbers had not been shown to all Heads of Service, and that the evidence from the Benefits Working Group suggested the savings were not “secure” at the time of the contract award.
3.3.4 The need for a clearly documented and well understood governance process has been highlighted, and the importance of clarifying the respective roles of the Corporate Management Team and the Strategic Programme Board recognised. This has also been noted by PwC in their own work, and the Authority should review information / communication flow in respect of major projects to ensure that there are clear structures and a clear record of information.
3.3.5 In his report (October 2007), the Designated Independent Person (DIP) makes an interesting point about a lack of clarity about the role / expectations of the Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer. There is the issue of officers carrying out 2 roles – e.g. when was the Section 151 Officer acting as that or as the project sponsor for the e- Government project and the same can be said of the Monitoring Officer. He has recommended that Members and senior managers to be advised/reminded of the roles and expectations of the Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer. The Board supports this view that the potential conflict of interest must be addressed.
3.3.6 The DIP also recommends that Financial Procedure Rules (FPRs) and Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs) be reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure that whilst managers are responsible for their respective budgets and contracts there is a continuing financial and legal overview in place to ensure consistency and highlight any potential compliance issues at an early stage. The DIP further recommends that the Authority reviews its current training programme to ensure that there is adequate and ongoing training for senior managers in FPRs and CPRs.
3.3.7 The absence of Councillor representation within the governance framework has also been remarked upon, and the question raised at what point should escalating costs be reported to Members – e.g. the spend on consultants which mushroomed during the course of the
112
contract process, and what sort of budgetary information should come before Members.
3.3.8 One of the Learning Points already identified in PwC’s report (April 2007) is that the concerns of the Benefits Working Group should have been reported more explicitly to Members. Clear documentation should be retained as to how concerns of project working groups are considered and addressed through the project governance process. As a result of their own work PwC have already recommended that the Council needs to ensure that the decision making pathways within the programme and between executive decision making forums such as CMT are explicit as to their respective responsibilities.
3.4 The e-Government Project was driven forward by a small number of people, and opportunities for the robust challenge were limited to the commentary of external audit bodies whilst internal challenge was not given sufficient consideration.
3.4.1 Tim Thorogood was appointed as Chief Executive in 2003 with a clear mandate to transform the Council and brought with him experience of local government modernisation and change. It was clear that the modernisation of Council systems would involve an investment in technology to effect that transformation. The early view was to secure strategic partners to work alongside the Council as the necessary expertise did not exist in the Council. The NCC Group (IT Consultants) had provided a report to the Council which gave an indication of the cost of implementing electronic government and strategy however this was considered inadequate. Instead, with Deloitte as the commercial and financial advisor, it was considered possible for several million pounds to be released to fund a programme that would include back office transformation, ICT transformation and Service@Swansea. £4m provision was made in the Council budget. The Invitation to Negotiate process followed as did a protracted preferred bidder process.
3.4.2 The Regulatory Plan 2005/06, agreed between the Council and the Wales Audit Office, includes a Milestone Review of the e-Government Programme. The purpose of this review was to support the Council in the delivery of the Programme and to specifically review governance and benefits management. The Review would be undertaken in a number of phases as the Programme rolls out.
3.4.3 It is unquestionable that the former Chief Executive had a great deal of personal enthusiasm and drive with regard to the e-Government programme, with former and current Leaders of the Council driving the projects forward politically. What has concerned the Board is the extent to which associated risks and concerns were considered, and the ability for challenge to be made, given this drive.
113
3.4.4 It is clear to the Board that there were a number of people within the Authority who were passionate about the delivery of the Council’s e- Government Programme however it is led to doubt whether these sentiments were more widely felt across the Authority as a whole. It is reasonable to conclude that was there limited enthusiasm, with wide or varying levels of commitment to the way the Programme would be delivered.
3.4.5 It may be easy to underestimate the impact of the industrial dispute by members of the Authority’s ICT staff on staff attitudes across the Authority. It cannot be ruled out that staff did not trust the project, feared it would lead to job losses and privatisation, as had happened to ICT staff, and may not have been supportive of its goals. The strike certainly did not set the right frame of mind and may have led to an enhanced resistance to change, and coloured the background of the e- Government Programme.
3.4.6 Having examined the period in the run up to the contract award and relationships within Corporate Management Team, it is clear that there was some doubt, or misunderstanding, within senior officer circles about the delivery of the Programme. There are certainly well documented events which led the Board to conclude this. PwC noted that in October 2005 the Directors of Education, Environment, Regeneration, Social Services and Housing and the Assistant Chief Executive (Governance) wrote to the Chief Executive raising concerns about the e-Government Programme and declining to support progress to contract signing. The Board would highlight the lack of unity within the Corporate Management Team at the time of the Contract Award.
3.4.7 Mr Carter acknowledged that concerns had been expressed by Directors that the savings would not be achieved. The Authority was 6 months late getting to contract and it coincided with a difficult budget process. He sated that it was evident Directors had been asked under the budget process to make hard decisions affecting their service areas at the same time as seeing a budget for the e-Government programme ‘protected’. His view was that this was an undoubted undercurrent, particularly relating to strategic sourcing, and he felt that Directors and Cabinet Members would naturally be concerned about the effect on their departmental budgets. He assured the Board that efforts were made by the Assistant Chief Executive (Performance) to allay concerns about the implications of the Contract Award report.
3.4.8 Whilst the Leader and Chief Executive officers were driving the project, clearly senior management, as should be expected, were challenging but the Board is concerned about the extent to which concerns were given sufficient weight. It further brings into question the governance structures of the Programme which clearly were not adequate enough for such concerns (resulting in the submission of letters) to be raised within.
114
3.4.9 There was also a period where there was much confusion about the project costs and benefits, which called into question the transparency of the project, and this may have affected the credibility of the project – There is a strong feeling amongst the Board that the project developed a life of its own and became the goal, rather than the achievement of benefits and creation of greater efficiency within the Council being the goal, as opposed to the project being a vehicle for improvements. In Mr Carter’s view the programme was about transforming the Council and not just about saving money and that the objectives were mandated by the Council. However the Board would point to the business case which the Programme was founded on and proceeded upon – and the importance of the achievement of benefits to the success of the project.
3.4.10 Much has been written about the concerns of the Benefits Working Group - a Group which was part of the formal governance structure of the e-Government Programme, and to what extent their advice (and what it actually meant) was taken into consideration pre-contract. Mr Carter recalled that the Benefits Working Group met on 10/12 occasions. Most meetings related to the methodology of measuring benefits and improving processes of Council. The Group’s summary was concluded in February 2006, after the report to Cabinet. In his opinion, the Group felt that the benefits indicated reflected a fair assessment. Most of the benefits case was technical. He added that the work of the Benefits Working Group was mostly about the methodology for the achievability of benefits, both cash and non-cash, the biggest part of which was about non-cash. He stated that the report of the Benefits Working Group of 31st August 2005 was never meant to be reported to Cabinet, but was discussed by the Finance Working Group.
3.4.11 The Benefits Working Group did highlight some concerns before the contract was signed, and according to its report on 9th August 2005 the Benefits Working Group had low confidence in the projected savings. This point is featured in PwC’s own assessment. There has appeared to be very little knowledge amongst the Council’s partners in the Programme about any ‘concerns’. Capgemini stated that they had put a substantial amount of investment in the Programme with a client who thought that the benefits were achievable.
3.4.12 The absence of internal challenge through Member engagement and robust scrutiny is covered further on in this report.
3.5 The evidence points to a situation where Corporate Management Team, prior to the contract with Capgemini being entered into, was clearly divided in their views on the Programme, and the issues were not shared or resolved satisfactorily at the time with Cabinet Members.
115
3.5.1 The Board’s investigation reveals that there were clearly differences in opinion within CMT which did not get resolved through the management team processes. This clearly did not assist the Cabinet Members to receive consistent advice from (their) Directors when being briefed. Whilst individual relationships with Cabinet Members may have been strong it was inevitable in the circumstances that different briefings would be given to different Cabinet Members according to the perspective of the individual Director.
3.5.2 According to Deloitte, there are a number of factors that can affect success, generally speaking: one would be the relationship between officers and members – a climate where robust discussions do not take place and proposals that officers fear might be dismissed by members are not considered; a fear of taking hard edged commercial decisions that will affect livelihoods.
3.5.3 No sensitivity analysis of the impact of savings not being realised had been presented to Members neither were the concerns of the Benefits Working Group and Directors brought to the attention of Cabinet when they were presented with the Contract Award report. The awareness of Cabinet Members of these concerns has been the subject of much debate. Also, the timing in which affordability issues were raised by the Authority was considered unusual by PwC i.e. relatively late in the procedure.
3.5.4 Whilst the record may show the system working there were concerns. The Benefits Working Group had identified problems. Directors had concerns. Were Cabinet Members aware of opinions with the CMT or of letters of concern being sent to the Chief Executive? When Directors were raising concerns over a long period about the viability of the project, there is no evidence that Cabinet Members were at all aware of this concern. The Board is in no doubt that they should have been and it would be odd that no discussions would take place between Members and Officers about these concerns. However there is no record of CMT / Cabinet Member discussions.
3.5.5 There is no justification for the lack of reporting of concerns. There were many verbal reports to Cabinet Members which has resulted in a lack of clear written record about the process. The Board is left to question whether problems were satisfactorily reported. If people do not know what is expected of them they cannot be criticised but it is an indication of a lack of communication on a project of such a scale. There should have been a presumption of more reporting, and a more hands-on approach.
3.5.6 In projects of this size it is expected that senior management would operate as a team and take account of concerns.
116
3.6 The lack of robust and balanced independent advice to, and appropriate training of Cabinet Members, was to the detriment of good political decision making.
3.6.1 Having considered the content of the Contract Award report agreed by Cabinet on December 2005, the Board highlights the need for balanced advice and fuller coverage of risks to be given to Members. One of the Learning Points arising from PwC’s work is that Cabinet should have been presented with the fuller options appraisal together with all alternative options for splitting to the programme into phases.
3.6.2 The view of Mr. Carter was that although some changes to the Programme were made and there was a changing view of cashable benefits, the Contract Award report gave best estimates and view of benefits. He made a key point about the need to present politicians with clear advice. The Board raised an interesting point - to what extent should Cabinet have leant on the advice of those advocating the project? Should it have sought independent assistance due to the scale of the project? Did Cabinet not need to know the scenarios of things going wrong?
3.6.3 Ultimately responsibility for decisions taken must lay with the Cabinet Members. However it is the Board’s view that a degree of responsibility falls on officers. Mr Carter spoke about clear advice but what about options and risks? Were Cabinet Members asking enough questions and challenging enough and robustly monitoring their portfolio with regard to e-Government targets? Did the Authority really consider the possibility of not achieving i.e. was our insurance any good? The Board further discussed the depth of information that should be placed in front of Cabinet Members and their responsibility to ask questions of the advice being received. Amongst the main issues and learning points from the review by PwC was whether the flow of information to Cabinet was sufficient in the run up to the contract being awarded.
3.6.4 In effect, the Cabinet Members relied wholly on what officers told them. They had no independent knowledge or advice, they asked for none, and had no experience of handling major projects and a contract of this size. The Board is led to doubt whether the Cabinet were satisfied that relevant questions had been asked in relation to projected savings and has no evidence of what processes had the Cabinet undertaken to check the voracity of figures given or whether Cabinet had exercised its duty of challenge with external advisers.
3.6.5 Mr Carter stated that the Contract Award report had to be clear to Cabinet, with firm advice, and it was the best and most reasonable estimate that could be provided. Cashable benefits figures were intimately linked to Capgemini’s profit at risk. In hindsight he did state that it would have better if the Authority could have budgeted on gross costs and redirected benefits to improve services.
117
3.6.6 His view was that officers had given clear advice to Members. There were extensive informal processes where all political parties had been briefed and given opportunity for challenge. A standard A3 spreadsheet had been produced summarising stages of the contract. Cabinet Members were briefed more than anybody else. The financial advisers had concluded that the financial provisions contained in the strategic partnership agreement formed an acceptable basis for the Council to proceed to contract. He believed that Directors who were concerned about the savings’ would have briefed their Cabinet Members. Mr Carter stated that even with the benefit of hindsight he would not change the advice he gave to Members at the time. Also, the role of specialist advisors was to enable Members to be given clear advice.
3.6.7 The Board would comment that it is very difficult to assess what Cabinet Members were told or whether they were fully apprised of the risks – given the lack of paper evidence. With the nature of the political process, there must be scope for informal verbal briefings but whether the balance was right was perhaps a learning point from this experience.
3.6.8 Mr Carter informed the Board that the Award report was not written through rose-tinted spectacles and those involved had a real will for it to succeed and worked extremely hard. The Council had wanted radical change and appointed a person to deliver that. It was acknowledged that in real time there may have been shortcomings and corners cut to get the job done, and the organisation should learn from this.
3.6.9 The Board feels that there is a need to recognise that Councillors (including Cabinet Members) are lay people, and need training and support to assist their decision-making. It has found that the support and training of Members in regard to the e-Government Programme, and efforts to improve their skills and expertise to understand what is in front of them is, questionable. It is possible that lead officers who were both advising the Cabinet and driving the project forward may have found it difficult to give critical advice and information. Cabinet Members did not have the benefit of independent advice or a significant degree of knowledge to base a challenge, or at least a challenge that is documented. Independent project management advice should be available so that Members can question and challenge with confidence.
3.6.10 The DIP in his report (October 2007) also recommends that Members are provided with appropriate procurement training before being allowed to participate in significant procurement exercises such as the e-Government Programme. It suggests Cabinet Members were unprepared for the task ahead and going forward need a greater depth of training to carry out its functions effectively, with an element of compulsion.
118
3.7 There was insufficient Member engagement in and scrutiny of the project.
3.7.1 The Board highlights the lack of analysis, scrutiny and challenge to the e-Government Programme. The importance of pre-decision scrutiny cannot be understated. Whilst the principle of e-Government was accepted by the Council and the desire for efficiencies is supported, more regard should have been made to the involvement of non- executive Members in challenging the programme. In hindsight the lack of scrutiny and challenge, even visibility, has been to the detriment of the programme. In the political climate that existed at the time there was no pre-decision scrutiny. It is the Board’s opinion that scrutiny as a ‘critical friend’ surely has a legitimate role in the development of major projects, and the achievement of cross-party consensus on the key issues facing the Authority.
3.7.2 There was intermittent information to political groups but this did not expose issues concerning risk or lack of achievability. It was more about progress and all being on track. Engagement was minimal and not effective. There must be more openness when dealing with Elected Members. Council never debated e-Government as a decision post 2003. Whilst the contract may have been an executive decision, this should not have meant the exclusion of Council in debating progress. Council has a role and should be a tool for raising issues and seeking advice, and at the very least should have regular reports on major projects.
3.7.3 One of PwC’s recommendations is that the Council should ensure that reporting to Cabinet and Members on significant issues around the e- Government Programme is regular and timely, capturing the most current issues and risks. The Board would echo this view as applicable to other areas of significant work. Stakeholder engagement a key factor in success.
3.7.4 There was an e-Government Member Working Group (MWG) however the view of some of those involved in this Group is that it was not robust, had little value and amounted to a dressing up of Member involvement with no powers, behind closed doors. It was largely promotional and not used as opportunity to test out ideas and figures. Resources to support the MWG would have been better diverted to pre-decision scrutiny. The MWG also served to cloud the role of the executive and role of the non-executive member.
3.7.5 Deloitte confirmed that there was very little contact with Elected Members during the E- Government procurement process at the time of their work. They did meet Members on a couple of occasions. This was mainly as a result of the industrial dispute and a resulting discussion about employment models. It was less than Deloitte had experienced elsewhere and given the size of the project greater engagement would be expected.
119
3.7.6 The project was only discussed formally in Cabinet meetings, without discussion with other Councillors and the Board has already mentioned the doubt that exists about the extent to which the project was driven by senior members of Cabinet and not adequately challenged by other Cabinet Members.
3.8 The introduction of Strategic Sourcing presented a false picture of the viability of the programme as a whole.
3.8.1 Strategic Sourcing was proposed by Capgemini in order to generate efficiency savings. The requirement to deliver efficiency savings from the Programme was agreed by Cabinet in October 2003 and detailed in a Procurement Brief released to bidders in December 2003. As a result of this Council requirement both Capgemini and another bidder ITNET, identified efficiency savings within their bids based upon the implementation of new systems and improved procurement.
3.8.2 In December 2004 the Council appointed Capgemini as its preferred partner. The delivery of Strategic Sourcing was part of the Capgemini proposal to the Council and during 2005 further work was done to validate the level of savings to be achieved from this project.
3.8.3 Capgemini produced a Benefits Case in August 2005 which detailed how they had reached their target for the projected benefits for the Programme, including Strategic Sourcing. The target for Strategic Sourcing was to identify £1.9 million of savings per annum (equating to £17.3 million over 10 years). This level of benefits was described by Capgemini as ‘confident’. Stretch levels were provided by Capgemini but were never used in the business case for the Programme.
3.8.4 The Board was informed that whilst the Council did not perform a detailed benchmarking exercise to verify the benchmarks provided by Capgemini in respect of Strategic Sourcing, benchmarks obtained by Capgemini were weighted downwards to reflect probability of achievement and the Council performed reasonableness checks on these weighted benchmarks by applying to 04/05 Council spend. In addition to this the projected savings were discussed within the context of the Gershon savings expected from English Authorities and the National e-Procurement Project (in England).
3.8.5 The Council’s former Assistant Chief Executive (Performance) informed the Board that it is not possible to say for certain how the benefits would have been viewed if the Council was only considering Phase One of the e-Government Programme, as this was not the situation at the time.
3.8.6 Capgemini confirmed that Strategic Sourcing was first discussed with the Council during the bidding process in the second half of 2004. It’s view was that Strategic Sourcing was within the scope of the Strategic Partnering Agreement which Capgemini agreed with the Council and
120
therefore considered a part of the Council‘s e-Government Programme. They added that e-Government can mean a lot of things to different organisations. Strategic Sourcing may not always be a part of e- Government programmes but it can be. To Capgemini, Swansea was striving to streamline and it seemed an obvious extrapolation of process efficiencies, and Strategic Sourcing was dovetailed with the agreement of the Council.
3.8.7 What has concerned the Board is the extent to which the projected benefits of Strategic Sourcing – which is the area in which the Authority has found most challenging – influenced decision-making and provided comfort to the financial viability of the overall e-Government Programme.
3.8.8 Strategic Sourcing was a major change in the specification of the e- Government project, brought in externally during the process of arriving at a preferred bidder. The Board is concerned that not enough analysis was done or challenge to ensure this was what the Council wanted and would deliver the benefits projected. The Board is left to wonder whether the absence of Strategic Sourcing would have led to a more honest appraisal of spending / savings gap. The Board’s view is that the Strategic Sourcing element was a key factor in making the project appear to be viable, and would pay the way for Phase Two of the Programme, and was not verified. Mr Carter informed the Board that the achievement of savings from Strategic Sourcing was accepted by the procurement professionals and any assessment of the achievability as low was because it was difficult to validate these savings. He added that whilst there were reservations the advice was positive.
3.8.9 PwC’s report states that there was limited evidence of the Council carrying out due diligence on the percentages used to estimate strategic sourcing savings of £17.3m. The confidence of the Benefits Working Group in achieving the benefits was low. Furthermore the Benefits Working Group made it clear that it had not verified the reasonableness of the savings. The Board would highlight the absence of any reference to this in the Contract Award report considered by Cabinet.
3.8.10 Capgemini considerably overestimated the potential in Strategic Sourcing for this Authority. The Council had in fact been quite efficient in a number of areas of purchasing before the Strategic Sourcing and Purchase to Pay elements were implemented, and this had not been realised beforehand. This was due to Capgemini saying that in their experience a level of savings would be expected. It is worth noting that that the way the Authority was perceived (in terms of efficiency) may not have been accurate and this perception may have been shared by those driving the Programme. During the evidence session with members of CMT the Board was given details of progress being made with Strategic Sourcing. The view was expressed that the Council’s procurement efficiency work had not been recognised. Examples were
121
given of commodities procured corporately and the advantages to the Authority of being a member of the Welsh Purchasing Consortium.
3.8.11 The view of Capgemini regarding Strategic Sourcing is that the Council have found it difficult to obtain the quality data which Capgemini require to perform analysis. The Council has also chosen to achieve savings towards target benefits by other routes such as joint procurement with other Welsh agencies. The Council has not found it easy to contemplate more radical solutions where these represent a significant departure from established ways of working. It is always challenging to adopt new systems (in particular to adjust current ways of working to the processes and procedures which are ‘designed into’ the package). However, given strong leadership and willingness to change, organisations (whether from the public or private sectors) inevitably benefit from improved efficiency and effectiveness once these initial challenges have been overcome.
3.8.12 The Board challenged Capgemini that the Authority’s procurement processes were already well developed so should Strategic Sourcing have been included in the contract? Capgemini admitted that Strategic Sourcing was tougher than expected. It has been difficult to gain information about particular commodities and some resistance to change has been experienced. The project was rebased at the start of the year and now excludes Building Services, ICT Commodities, Cleaning and Security, which has been frustrating. Capgemini were not asked to pursue certain commodities as the Council was achieving best practice or have other collaborative arrangements in place. Capgemini was focusing on other commodities and these are being driven to a successful conclusion and assured the Board that collectively we will deliver. They added that knowledge has been transferred to Council employees to drive forward the process.
3.9 It is evident that insufficient benchmarking was carried out.
3.9.1 The Board shares the view of PwC in this conclusion. The main issues and learning points from the review by PwC included:
• whether the Council and its advisors carried out the necessary benchmarking/options appraisal and adequate risk assessment; • whether the assumed achievement of benefits from the programme was well founded.
3.9.2 PwC found that that the Council have relied on the negotiated procedure procurement route to deliver value for money. Insufficient benchmarking was undertaken at key stages in the process to challenge whether the procurement would achieve value for money; and that more work should have been undertaken to verify the savings proposed by the bidders, particularly in respect of Strategic Sourcing. This should have included visits or discussions with reference sites and benchmarking against the results of other similar projects.
122
3.9.3 Whilst the Council and its advisors visited reference sites to verify the credentials of the potential partners, these visits did not provide sufficient benchmarking in respect of the value for money of the potential partners’ proposals. Neither does the evaluation report provide any evidence that the costs of various elements of Resource@Swansea had been benchmarked. The visits should have been supplemented by qualitative information. PwC had not been able to find any evidence that the Council was aware of how much other Councils were paying for similar ICT services.
3.9.4 PwC reported that the Council secured limited risk transfer to its partner in respect of the programme savings. Their report indicated that examples of other contracts with significantly higher levels of risk transfer had been seen.
3.9.5 The learning points emerging from their work include:
• More work should have been undertaken to verify the savings proposed by the bidders. This should have included visits or discussions with reference sites and benchmarking against the results of other similar projects.
• The Council should carry out an evaluation of how its costs for supporting the programme compare with other authorities.
• External factors should form an important consideration of future project evaluations particularly given the “Making the Connections” agenda.
3.9.6 The Board is led to doubt whether the savings figures had been meaningfully analysed and evaluated and whether enough attention was paid to benchmarking current levels of service (including the ICT service). There was a visit to sites, including Liverpool post 2004 elections, though in Liverpool’s case they had set up a joint company with the supplier with a robust structure (registered company). The Authority’s benchmarking was not rigorous enough and probably did not have the expertise to question and gain significant learning from such visits, particularly in respect of exploring methods and targets / outcomes.
3.9.7 The Board heard views that the work of external advisors would have included benchmarking however this has been a weak assumption. The Board was informed during its evidence session with members of CMT that the formulation of the benefits had been given by ‘expert advice’ and was based on a detailed assessment. The employment of consultants cannot be used as excuse to not do benchmarking. Separate benchmarking should have been done and the Authority needed to satisfy itself.
123
3.9.8 Mr Carter confirmed that the cost implications of the transfer of IT service element changed. Final costs were not received from Capgemini until very late in the negotiation process and of course impaired its affordability. The delay in part resulted from the industrial action by IT staff. However, the cashable benefits were not the principal objective in undertaking the programme. It was an ‘enabler’.
3.9.9 The view expressed by Capgemini however is that they have taken a significant degree of risk and would disagree with PwC’s view on this.
3.10 The decision to switch the responsibility for change management from Capgemini to the Authority had a major effect on the project.
3.10.1 Change management involves making sure organisations in all forms, staff, partners, Elected Members and stakeholders understand and are aligned and move in a common direction - lots of projects fail because of this. The Board was informed in November 06 that change management arrangements were an important element of the contract with Capgemini supporting the Council team in dealing with the stakeholder management, communications, role and organisation design and training effort. The investment in change management has been significant, with important skills and knowledge transfer to Council staff throughout the process. However it appears that Capgemini did not have a significant role to play in reality.
3.10.2 The Board found that Capgemini, as strategic partner, was originally expected to take responsibility and invest resources in change management / business process re-engineering but as the process reached contract stage the contract was amended for reasons of cost and early year’s affordability. This resulted in a reduced cost of the contract but meant the Authority itself assuming responsibility for change management. Was it wise to have adjusted such a key element of the project? Did it amount to cutting corners to the detriment of the programme? Did the Authority consider what effect it might have on the project and achievability or savings?
3.10.3 The Board was informed that responsibility rested with Directors and Heads of Service ultimately. It was explained to the Board that much work went on within the Authority with regard to change management particularly through the important role of the change leads, representing every department at different levels (i.e. people who knew systems) to provide input on the assessment of benefits. They were meant to have the ear of their Directors / Heads of Service, and it was up to the Directors / Heads of Service to raise any issues. It was recognised that unless new working practices were adopted to take advantage of systems there was little point in the programme. Savings would be deliverable but depended on the right working methods being adopted.
124
3.10.4 Managing change is considered to be a specialist skill and the Board has questioned whether the Authority had the skills, time and resources to tackle reluctance to change and organisational inertia. Was the structure of the Council appropriate to enable success of the project, and to deal with the ever changing environment? It must be noted that the ICT strike may have had an impact on the motivation of staff across the Authority. It may have perpetuated a view that big savings translated into staff cuts. The industrial dispute was not seen in examples elsewhere.
3.10.5 Capgemini’s view is that the Authority has not done well enough with change management, and had it been requested to manage change it would have made greater progress, but did they raise concern at the time? Were Capgemini and other external parties forceful enough to guide the Council? It is reasonable to have expected more assistance from the contractor. Capgemini may have possessed greater expertise for driving change management, but the fact it did not had a major effect on the success of the Programme.
3.10.6 Deloitte also commented on the reluctance to change within the Authority. In Deloitte’s experience, it is the client, not the contractor who determines the success of a project. From experiences of strategic partnership procurement, the level of benefit derived will depend not only on the implementation of modern integrated systems but also on the creation of new working practices, some of which involve difficult decisions on staff numbers and working conditions, and can take some time to take their full effect. Many projects fail because of change management being lacking. Change Management was not part of the remit given to Deloitte.
3.10.7 There is a glaring difference in evidence between Directors stating that the savings could have been realised if the systems were fully operational, and Capgemini stating that the savings could have been realised if the Council had been flexible enough to use the systems to their fullest. The views of the Authority and those of Capgemini with respect to the achievement of savings are at odds. It was clear that Directors felt that once systems come on line savings can be realised, however Capgemini’s view was savings are dependant on the Authority working and being organised in a different way.
3.10.8 The Board feels that the expression of benefits through ‘part’ posts is complicated and impersonal and asks whether there was there enough of an understanding of how this would work out in practice. Some of the Issues highlighted by officers included:
• the targeted benefits had not been delivered because the system was not working as anticipated; • the integration of the complicated new system had teething problems and had resulted in disbenefits. Additional costs had been incurred;
125
• the potential savings had been identified and agreed subject to the new system operating satisfactorily; • the training provision for operating the new system was not sufficiently robust. Training needs had probably been underestimated.
3.10.9 The Board explored reasons for difficulties in the achievement of planned savings, and Capgemini informed the Board that the Council have responsibility for identifying and committing to savings which are then counted towards the target benefits. The Council have experienced challenges in committing to achieve savings primarily in the areas of Purchase to Pay (P2P) and Strategic Sourcing where Capgemini state that they have observed particular (though not unprecedented) resistance to change.
3.10.10 When asked how Capgemini have assisted the Council to overcome resistance to change, as a strategic partner to the Authority, the Board was informed that every Local Authority faces challenges on budgets and services. In relation to the e-Government scheme there are 2 areas where savings or benefits might be achieved: internal efficiencies and spending less money. Capgemini is able to provide a technological platform to close the gaps by improving back office systems and drive efficiencies. The system is substantially in place but the benefits are yet to accrue. Implementation is always difficult as the system starts to go live as people, naturally, challenge the system and this can result in a lag. A robust change management culture within the Council is required to support and realise those benefits and remove inefficiencies and the responsibility lies to a great degree with the Authority.
3.10.11 A senior manager decision was taken in May 2007 by Capgemini to provide additional assistance with regard to the implementation of finance system and transitional issues. In their view, the Council needs to be more rigorous and disciplined in the way it works. New systems can be perceived to be the problem but in reality it is about how the systems are used. Capgemini are working closely with the Council in terms of agreeing a rigorous plan and to encourage more positive and co-operative working. Most organisations have legacy systems and it is quite normal for staff to be possessive about what they do. This is a management challenge for the Chief Executive and Senior Management Team.
3.10.12 The Board asked why Capgemini couldn’t have predicted these difficulties with resistance to change, and the compatibility of old and new systems, and were told that the original brief for the Programme included a significant role for Capgemini in managing the change process. However, Capgemini were not contracted to undertake this role. Despite that Capgemini maintain that it has put a lot of profit at risk which demonstrates a commitment to the realisation of benefits. Capgemini is putting in extra effort to assist the delivery of benefits,
126
and appreciate the long term relationship with the Council and is doing all it can to complete the contractual bargain. The Council is still positioned to be successful, though Capgemini accept it has been more difficult than they would have wished.
3.10.13 In response to a question about failure to meet savings targets Capgemini stated that regarding P2P the Council have not committed to achieve savings in line with the target benefits. Capgemini noted some resistance to change together with general difficulty in identifying ‘whole’ people (in other words while it has been possible to save a significant proportion of an individual‘s time that person is unavailable for re-assignment until the whole of their time has been saved).
3.10.14 The Board asked how much effort Capgemini was putting in to realising the benefits and how much is that in addition to their original plans? Their response was that, recognising its commitment to complete the Strategic Sourcing project, Capgemini has deployed resources which amount to almost double the original estimate. However, it is important to stress that whilst Capgemini can (and has) put great effort into identifying potential sources of savings, ultimately Capgemini is entirely dependent on the Council committing to savings in order to realise the target benefits. Winning the commitment to the savings necessary for the achievement of target benefits will involve tough management decisions regarding efficient business processes and practices with particular emphasis on change.
3.10.15 The Council recognises that once systems are stable and working there is a real opportunity to do things in a different way. Once the systems are in place you can get people on board and start to make it pay. It is to be accepted that introducing a new corporate system is a major event. The Authority will make progress but it depends on a corporate commitment and focus on people using systems and processes within the organisation, and supporting it. If there were doubts, Capgemini would have welcomed opportunity to convince CMT that the Programme was well founded and that the ambition was right for this Authority. E-Government Programmes are about people, processes and technology in equal measure and it implies culture change.
3.10.16 The Board asked whether it was fair to say that there has been more organisational resistance in Swansea than in other Local Authorities. Capgemini responded that there is always some degree of resistance to change but Swansea would be placed at the high end of their experience. Swansea has changed less and has been subject to fewer external pressures. Swansea has a relatively lower staff turnover and is a more static body which can lead to a greater resistance to change
3.11 A substantial amount of money of the e-Government Programme was spent on external advisors but their role and the advice given to decision makers lacked clarity.
127
3.11.1PwC reported that an analysis provided by the Council’s finance department in February 2007 shows that £4m had been spent on advisors, met from the Service@Swansea budget, which was part of the Council’s approved Revenue Budget. The advisors costs can be split as follows: 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 Total • Financial advisors - £2,363,342 • Legal advisors - £844,643 • Technical advisors - £846,177
Total: £4,054,162
Concerns about the costs of the programme and specifically the costs of consultants were raised by the Directors of Environment, Regeneration and Social Services & Housing in their report to the interim Chief Executive in September 2006.
3.11.2 It has been admitted that little or no experience of the development, implementation and delivery of an e-Government Programme, on the scale proposed, existed within the Authority, certainly across the Senior Management tier of the Council, hence the engagement of financial, legal and technical advisors by the Authority. In Capgemini’s view it is clear that the Council took a lot of advice during the procurement process and was a thorough, but very expensive, process.
3.11.3 The Board took evidence from the Council’s financial advisor of the Programme, Deloitte. Deloitte were appointed in 2003 at the point of which decision made to implement Service@Swansea programme as a major external advisor to the Authority during the pre-contract stage of the e-Government Programme. Deloitte were paid £2.36m spread over a four year period, but argued that this price was not unusual when dealing with a contract of this scale. For a £100m contract one would expect consultancy fees in the region of 5% and this is the percentage suggested by the Office of Government Commerce. With regard to its role, the focus of Deloitte’s work was on the procurement process/contract, financial implications and value for money and affordability. Deloitte provided advice to the Project Board. When it arrived at a shortlist of 3 providers, City & County of Swansea wanted professional advice to help with strategic partner procurement, managing programme, and Deloitte provided expertise and advice on procurement, negotiations and specifications.
3.11.4 Deloitte helped introduce programme management into organisation and set up financial evaluation work. The work of Deloitte ultimately led to the preparation of a financial evaluation report in November 2005. Deloitte also worked with other departments on programme management advice. Several people were on site for the majority of time, right up to the signing of the contract. Programme management involves the identification of all projects that are going on in
128
organisation and ensuring that they align under single frameworks to Authority’s objectives.
3.11.5 There has been much confusion and difference of opinion about the role of advisors in the e-Government Programme and it is evident that assumptions which have been made about their role, particularly with regard to financial advisors, have been found to be incorrect. An example of which would be the uncertainty about the extent to which Deloitte analysed / endorsed the robustness of projected benefits, and undertook responsibility for benchmarking.
3.11.6 PwC also highlighted that the role of the financial advisors needed clarification i.e. what were the terms of reference given to the advisors? The Board has found that it has not been easy to find the answer to this. Should they have done more with regard to benchmarking? Given the commercial sensitivity of contracts it is not always easy to benchmark however, PwC expected the Council’s financial advisors to have been able to provide some benchmarking figures. How much value did the Authority gain from the external consultants used? What value was added to the process?
3.11.7 It was striking during the evidence sessions the difference of opinion regarding the extent to which Deloitte were involved in the project. Were Deloitte involved from top to bottom and did their advice report represent a stamp of approval to the Programme, including benefits projections? The Board has not been able to confirm the contract which the Authority entered into with Deloitte and exact nature of their remit. Deloitte maintain that they were instructed to carry out specific work and this did not cover all aspects of pre-contract works. There is mixed opinion on whether the advice provided by Deloitte represented an endorsement of the Programme including projected benefits.
3.11.8 Deloitte prepared a report which involved a financial evaluation and set out the financial risks associated with the contract. The report which was part of the Contract Award report considered by Cabinet on 1st Dec 05. In Deloitte’s opinion, they used explicit language about risks to the Council if benefits were not realised and encouraged the Deputy Chief Executive to be confident and assured before proceeding to contract signature. The Board was informed that the wording used here was stronger than has been used in experiences elsewhere. The non- realisation of benefits would have budgetary implications for the Council as it would need to address the shortfall or increase Council Tax if they proved incorrect. It was pointed out that turning savings into cash can be a painful process, and you would need to be comfortable before proceeding.
3.11.9 Deloitte’s report actually states that: “We consider that the financial provisions contained in the strategic partnership agreement (as described in this report) form an acceptable basis for the Council to proceed to contract. The negotiation of fixed price arrangements for
129
both the new build and ICT service elements of the contract should mean that the Council has sufficient and accurate financial information, and as much certainty as is possible in a contract of this nature, as to the expected costs of the contract, which has been subject to prolonged and detailed negotiations with the full involvement of qualified accountants from Deloitte and senior members of the Council’s finance department”.
3.11.10 Mr Carter informed the Board that issues regarding affordability and financial benefits were indicated in Deloitte’s report and were not regarded as strong expressions of concern and confirms his view that Deloitte were satisfied. The financial benefits were referred to in the Contract Award Report and should these not be achieved the report stated that it would generate less than the £17.7m to fund Phase Two of the programme. No opinion was expressed by Deloitte on a shortfall in benefits, it was simply stated as a risk. When the matter was reported to Corporate Briefing prior to the 1st December Cabinet meeting all advisors had been invited to talk frankly to Members.
3.11.11 He explained that the advice report of Deloitte summarised the key financial aspects of the strategic partnership agreement and should be read in conjunction with the Award report drawn up by Council officers and also those of the Council’s legal advisors, Pinsent Masons and the technical advisers, NCC Group. This implied that Deloitte were content with the report and that the benefits case had been validated by both Council officers and advisers.
3.11.12 The Board was informed that Deloitte was not invited / present for meetings of the Benefits Working Group, and not invited to validate / verify the benefits projections. In their view, Capgemini had considered a range of savings including business processing improvement, procurement / strategic sourcing, lower ICT costs, and removal of legacy systems. Deloitte agreed that these were all plausible areas to look at but that it was a responsibility of the Authority to ask whether these were realistic and would work in Swansea. Deloitte were not part of any debate regarding the realism of the projected benefits, though it was unusual that the financial advisors were not included in this. They accepted this position to facilitate the relationship building between the Council and Capgemini. Deloitte informed the Board that it was not asked to comment on any reports produced by the Benefits Working Group, though in hindsight it could have argued to be involved in the Benefits Working Group, as Deloitte’s absence meant a gap in the Council’s thoroughness. Whilst the contract stacked up financially, it was on the assumption that benefits could be realised. Deloitte was not aware of any explicit view of the Benefits Working Group, not of any concerns raised by the Corporate Management Team. If there were, Deloitte would have expected these to filter through to it.
130
3.11.13 Deloitte added that whilst it is not unreasonable for a contractor and client to hold discussions and build their relationship, Deloitte could have been used to provide a third party view on benefits. It is easy for observers to criticise Deloitte as financial advisors but their view was that it was not in their remit to analyse benefits and comment on their achievability. PWC have also picked this up as an omission from the pre-contract review. Deloitte added that the Council would have benefited from its experiences elsewhere without adding significantly to the consultancy fee. Deloitte did highlight affordability issues but were not involved in validating or recommending the decision to split the contract.
3.11.14 Deloitte maintain that the report provided to Cabinet was a robust analysis of the contract and financial implications. It was added that the Council was already realising value from Capgemini, and the contract does allow for the withholding of all payments if requirements are not met meaning that 100% of payments to Capgemini are ‘at risk’.
3.11.15 Mr Carter confirmed that Deloitte were not formal members of the Benefits Working Group, but were represented on the Finance Working Group and were the main interface between the Council and Capgemini and all appreciated that the cashable benefits were part of the net cost of the programme. It was not credible that Deloitte would not be including this in their assessment. Certainly Deloitte have done no favours to the Authority if it did have concerns.
3.11.16 On reflection it does not appear that the wording of Deloitte’s report was as strong or as stark as they suggested to the Board and any reference to risks could be read as the usual disclaimers that one would expect to see in advice reports. The Board is surprised however that Deloitte were not asked by the Council to be part of the Benefits Working Group and the detailed analysis and assessment of benefits.
3.12 Opportunities to review the project at a number of key stages were not taken.
3.12.1 The Board has heard evidence about large projects taking on a life of their own, gathering momentum and becoming irreversible from a certain point or at least reversal is not contemplated as it would be the more difficult course of action – perhaps legally and financially. There is a real danger that projects become the end rather than the means to an end. The Board is told that a sequence of decisions had been taken and it was difficult to go back and unpick. The Cabinet Members had been briefed on the implications of ‘walking away’.
3.12.2 The Board concludes that opportunities to review the project presented themselves to the Authority, but were not exploited. Such opportunities include: the change in administration following the Council elections of 2004; the ICT strike; the arrival at preferred bidder stage; the introduction of Strategic Sourcing (between late 2004 and mid-2005);
131
when the programme / contract was split into 2 phases; pre-signing of the Contract.
3.12.3 PwC have also highlighted in their learning points to the Authority that a fuller appraisal of all alternative options should have been undertaken when it became apparent that the programme was not affordable. The Board is concerned that once the project was split into 2 phases not enough questions were asked about whether the Council should proceed on this basis.
3.12.4 The Council did not re-assess the project following the Council elections in 2004. It was driven on by a new, and it is fair to say, inexperienced Council Leader. The Board concludes that this was a key point of review missed. Whilst it is acknowledged that there was debate, and a visit made to Liverpool to see an example of e- Government elsewhere, no alternatives were explored. The point already made about support and independent advice to Members can be made here and capacity to challenge.
3.13 The continued failure to achieve the projected financial benefits will have a marked effect on future budgets of the Authority.
3.13.1 During 2006 it became visible that the Council could not commit to the achievement of the savings necessary to achieve the target benefits. The Council has a benefits manager to monitor progress against targets on a monthly basis which are shared with Capgemini and this provides the basis for views on the achievement of savings.
3.13.2 There have been delays and issues with the implementation of systems. Capgemini stated (in August 2007) that it was working on the re-planning of Payroll and addressing issues. It had completed the support phase for the HR system with some minor queries to be resolved. The Finance system was working though there were issues on the business side. The Board was informed that Capgemini would continue to assist the Council to get better use of system and were confident that they were not far away from the right solutions. Capgemini added that in their experience organisations (whether from the public or private sectors) do continue to improve ways of working for some time following the implementation of new systems. Capgemini believe that in the future the Council should be able to commit to further savings towards its target benefits.
3.13.3 PwC have much to say about the costs of the Programme and highlight the following Learning Points:
• The Council should have considered greater risk transfer in respect of the savings as a major element of their contract evaluation criteria given the importance of savings to the business case for the project.
132
• The profile of costs to be capitalised should be carefully reviewed to prevent any further audit adjustments impacting on the Council’s revenue position.
3.13.4 The Board is concerned about budget implications – the knock on effect of the lack of savings is yet to be fully felt and cannot be quantified. The Board is concerned that the long term cost of the Council’s financial position may impact on services and jobs. The Board has accepted that in early years additional effort is often needed to get things off the ground and the reality has been that the cost of implementation has been greater due to level of technical problems the Authority has experienced.
3.13.5 The Board was informed during its evidence session with members of CMT that more prudent assessments had been made in the Budget for 2008/09 about the realisation of benefits.
3.14 The future success of the project rests upon strong leadership and a management structure that has a clear commitment to the project, builds a consensus amongst Members and Officers, and remains publicly accountable and transparent.
3.14.1 The report of the Board would not be complete without recognition of achievements resulting from the e-Government Programme. There are benefits that have been achieved e.g. in respect of back office financial systems (ISIS – Integrated System in Swansea; payment of invoices). A key milestone had been reached with the launch of ISIS on 1st November 2006. This was the third of the 5 core modules and covers Finance, Procurement and Projects. Progress was being made with regard to the P2P system (June 07); also the Council have committed to achieve savings in the area of HR/Payroll which in total will be in excess of the target benefits for this area. There is much potential in the HR self serve system.
3.14.2 Back in November 2006 the Board was informed that the main challenges for Phase One of the Programme remained as:
• the full delivery of the new “back office” system which will be achieved in January 2007 when Payroll will go live; • the roll out of the new system to all ICT users across the Council which will take place during 2007 (including Procurement and HR self-serve); • the completion of the further work needed to achieve the financial and non-financial benefits targets agreed for Resource@Swansea; • the completion of the Strategic Sourcing Project (Groups 2 and 3).
And that the key issues for the Programme were:
• Completion of implementation of new back office ICT system; • Roll out of the new systems to all users within the Council;
133
• Delivery of both financial and non-financial benefits.
It is fair to say that progress has been disappointingly slow, particularly the delay in delivering the HR and Payroll modules of Resource@Swansea. The delay has of course affected the achievement of benefits and it cannot be quantified as yet as to the impact that the delay will have. The Board has acknowledged that disbenefits may exist in early years, and benefits can still be realised.
3.14.3 It has been stressed to the Board that now was not the time to test benefits realisation. Once all the systems are installed, implemented and rolled out and allowed to run for 12 months it would be a better time for assessment. Benefits realisation depends on rigorous action to implement systems as they should be and the discipline to use those systems and stop people buying independently and uneconomically. In summary it was too early to regard the project as a failure and there is confidence that benefits would be realised in time.
3.14.4The Board was informed during its evidence session with members of CMT that departments were working towards making savings and trying to bring together the functionality of the system and maximise benefits. The Board was also informed that the implications of not achieving sufficient savings on the e-Government Programme were being considered by CMT and other savings options would be presented to Members in due course; and that there was a genuine desire/commitment of staff to make the savings and adopted a positive approach.
3.14.5 Strong management is vital to the search for solutions, taking the project forward and delivering future benefits. The personal involvement of the Chief Executive and support for the Board’s work and the role of scrutiny has been excellent and is an encouraging sign going forward. There is some work to be done to restore some confidence in ICT projects, build positive relationships with partners, and ensure the learning points and recommendations from this and other studies are followed.
3.14.6 It is interesting to note the findings of a work by the National Audit Office and Office for Government Commerce to develop a list of common causes of failure in IT-enabled projects:
These include:
a) Lack of clear link between the project and the organisation’s key strategic priorities including agreed measures of success b) Lack of clear senior management and Ministerial ownership and leadership c) Lack of effective engagement with stakeholders d) Lack of skills and proven approach to project management and risk management
134
e) Lack of understanding of and contact with the supply industry at senior levels in the organisation f) Evaluation of proposals driven by initial price rather than long- term values for money (especially securing delivery of business benefits g) Too little attention to breaking development and implementation into manageable steps h) Inadequate resources and skills to deliver the total delivery portfolio. (C&AG Report: Improving IT procurement, HC (2003-4) 877)
3.14.7 The Council’s Chief Executive, Paul Smith, has indicated that there were three components to the learning process in respect of the e- government Programme, namely: the PwC report; the report of the Designated Independent Person; and the Board’s review. These would all be rolled together and considered for the production of one action plan to be reported to Council, following completion of the Board’s work. The Board expects to see its work reflected in an Action Plan and dovetailed alongside the proposals which have emerged from work carried out by PwC and the findings of the Designated Independent Person’s Investigation.
4. Recommendations
The Board commends Cabinet to consider all issues and ideas raised by this review and, in particular, the recommendations set out below.
The Board recognises that the Authority (a) will need to ensure that any subsequent actions are legal and meet the requirements of any relevant legislation; (b) has a responsibility to make the best use of limited resources and that any additional costs will need to be considered carefully as part of the annual budget setting process.
The Board has kept these principles in mind in the course of its investigations.
The Board recommends that Cabinet:
4.1 considers the feasibility of projects of this scale and complexity being broken down into constituent parts and where possible delivered in discrete packages.
4.2 ensures that governance structures in managing contracts and projects of this size are clearly defined and understood, with clear reporting structures, arrangements for the resolution of issues, and proper minute taking / recording of decisions.
135
4.3 likewise ensure that where external consultants are employed their roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and readily understandable;
4.4 ensure that the distinct roles and responsibilities of the Authority’s Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer are kept separate from project sponsor, manager and other responsibilities to ensure financial and legal overview is not compromised.
4.5 request the Chief Executive to re-examine and clarify the distinct roles and responsibilities of, and relationship between, Cabinet Members and Corporate Management Team in project governance to ensure that the relationship is as productive as possible and leads to better decision making.
4.6 should have its own ‘independent’ advice, with direct reporting to the Cabinet, and ensure the appropriate training of Cabinet Members before projects of this size are entered into.
4.7 apply pre-decision scrutiny on all major projects, incorporating the regular engagement of all Councillors to provide updates and progress reports.
4.8 should always carry out a review and analysis of the impact of any major changes in the design of a project (e.g. the introduction of Strategic Sourcing in the e-Government Programme).
4.9 produce a comprehensive action plan taking together the various learning points and recommendations made by PwC and the Designated Independent Person in their reviews, and the findings of the Performance Scrutiny Board.
136
Acknowledgements
The Board is very grateful to the following for their participation and contribution to the Review:
Paul Smith, Chief Executive, City & County of Swansea Bob Carter, former Interim Chief Executive, City & County of Swansea Michelle Morris, former Assistant Chief Executive (Performance), City & County of Swansea Huw Williams, former Head of ICT, City & County of Swansea Jack Straw, Executive Director, City & County of Swansea Reena Owen, Director of Environment, City & County of Swansea Steve Evans, Head of Financial Services, City & County of Swansea Chris Maggs, Interim Director of Social Services, City & County of Swansea Martin Nicholls, Head of Corporate Building Services, City & County of Swansea Councillor Mary Jones, Cabinet Member for Top Performance & e- Government, City and County of Swansea Councillor John Newbury, Cabinet Member for Finance, City and County of Swansea Lynne Hine, PricewaterhouseCoopers Ian Howse, PricewaterhouseCoopers Jeff Brown, PricewaterhouseCoopers Steve Morgan, Account Director, Local and Devolved Government Practice, Capgemini Tom Marsden, Vice President, Technology Services Business, Capgemini Jeff Baker and Joint Trade Unions Mark Lawrie, Deloitte Anthony Kenny, Deloitte Patrick Arran, Legal Services, City & County of Swansea Tracey Meredith, Legal Services, City & County of Swansea Brij Madahar, Scrutiny Coordinator, City & County of Swansea Jenna Sullivan, Scrutiny Research Officer, City & County of Swansea
Further Information
Agenda Papers and Minutes of the Performance Scrutiny Board (November 2006 – March 2008)
137
About the Performance Scrutiny Board
The Performance Scrutiny Board is a body of Councillors who are not members of the Cabinet. Their role is to scrutinise the performance of Council services and to make recommendations about how services can be improved. As well as reviewing Performance Monitoring Data for the whole Authority, the Performance Scrutiny Board, one of eight Scrutiny Boards, has responsibility for scrutinising the following service areas:
• ICT • e-Government • Performance &Strategic Projects • Communications • Human Resources
Members of the Board 2007/08
Cllr. Rene Kinzett (Chair) Cllr. Mark Child (Vice Chair) Cllr. Mike Hedges Cllr. David I E Jones Cllr. Roger Smith Cllr. Rob Speht Cllr. Nick Tregoning Cllr. Claire Waller Cllr. Sue Waller Cllr. Vanessa Webb
For further information contact:
Brij Madahar Scrutiny Coordinator City and County of Swansea [email protected] 01792 637257
Website: www.swansea.gov.uk/scrutiny
31st March 2008
138