Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

S T R A T E G Y C O M M I T T E E

28 October 2002 at 7:30pm

MEMBERS: Councillor Sean Brennan (Vice-Chair), and Councillors Angela (All Present) Baughan, Don Brims, Leslie Coman, Colin Hall, Charlie Mansell, Roger Thistle, Graham Tope, Edward Trevor and one vacancy.

Also Councillors Tony Brett Young, Joan Crowhurst and Peter Attending: Geiringer.

The Vice-Chair in the Chair. PART ‘A’

989. SUTTON PERFORMING ARTS NETWORK (SPAN) - UPDATE Further to Minute 896/02, the Executive Head of Leisure Management presented an update on the current position with this organisation and the actions that had been taken since SPAN’s decision to close the Secombe Theatre had been reported.

A Steering Group had been formed comprising representatives from SPAN and the Council. College was also represented as they were involved in the education programme currently provided by SPAN. The group met weekly to share information and progress actions. A complete review had been carried out of SPAN’s trading position and financial arrangements in place. The Steering Group was also working on, and implementing, a closure plan for the Secombe Theatre.

Sutton Arts Council had called a General meeting on 9 October to discuss the closure of the Secombe Theatre. The background and current position surrounding the decision had been explained. It was too early to make firm proposals about the future use of this facility. However, in order to assist this process, arts groups and users of the Theatre had been sent a questionnaire seeking information on the current level of local arts activity in the borough, and their future requirements.

SPAN had produced a business plan linked to the future management of the and Grove Hall, covering the period April 2003 to March 2004. This plan was being analysed to evaluate the assumptions and financial data produced. The outcome of this would be presented to this Committee. Meantime, the Council would be providing operational assistance to SPAN to help strengthen their infrastructure and ability to promote and provide an arts programme.

The Council gave SPAN a grant of £300k in 2002/03 for running the Secombe Theatre, Charles Cryer and Grove Hall, paid in instalments. The final instalment of £60k was due in January 2003. The Committee had authorised the Strategic Director – Resources to bring forward grant payments to SPAN within the current budget, should this be necessary to keep the company viable.

There would be a cost implication to the Council linked to the closure of the Secombe Theatre, connected with NNDR, security, grounds maintenance, insurance and general services. Environment and Leisure Group finance staff were working closely with SPAN to monitor the ongoing financial position. Particular attention was being paid to the Christmas show, in which a lot of funds and resources had been invested. Further reports would be submitted in due course.

This item was considered in conjunction with two petitions submitted by residents who objected to the closure of the Secombe Theatre, elsewhere on the agenda (Minute 992/02).

1076

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

Resolved: (i) To note the work that is currently being undertaken with the Sutton Performing Arts Network;

(ii) To agree that further reports be presented to this Committee in due course.

Written notice having been received from five councillors under Standing Order 17.3 requiring that a decision be taken by the Council on the grounds that Resolution (ii) is insufficiently clear on the future of the Secombe Theatre and they want the Council to add the following words to that Resolution “… including possible ways in which the Secombe Theatre can remain open for public use on the basis that the Council makes a grant similar in future years to that portion given to SPAN in 2002/03 relating to the Secombe Theatre”, Resolution (ii) above is.

RECOMMENDED: for consideration by the Council .

PART ‘B’

990. MIKE COOPER Councillor Sean Brennan paid tribute to the Council’s former Leader, Mike Cooper, who had recently resigned as a councillor. Mike had been a respected and popular Leader and had been admired for his great determination, strong convictions and principles. He had been totally committed to the Council and had enhanced its reputation, both locally and nationally and had played a big part in developing the Liberal Democrat’s vision for Sutton.

A more formal occasion was being organised when he would be presented with a painting. Details would be sent to Members shortly.

Councillor Edward Trevor thanked Mike for his work on behalf of the borough and wished him well for the future.

Councillor Charlie Mansell also paid tribute to Mike’s contribution to the borough and expressed sadness that he had had to stand down for health reasons.

991. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2002 were agreed as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

992. THE SECOMBE THEATRE Two petitions had been received, expressing concern about the closure of the Theatre. The first received, from the Doris Holford Stage School, bore around 120 signatures, with the prayer ‘Save Our Secombe’. The second petition had been signed by approximately 220 residents and also expressed concern about the closure of the Theatre and the way the matter had been handled.

Resolved: To receive the petitions and consider them in conjunction with the report on the Sutton Performing Arts Network elsewhere on the Agenda (Minute 989/02 refers).

993. ESTATE – POST OFFICE AND CHEMIST - PETITIONS Two petitions had been received concerning the future of the existing post office and pharmacy on the Roundshaw Estate. The prayer to the first received, which bore 450+ signatures read:-

“We as residents of Roundshaw need our post office and chemist. These

1077

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

shops are a necessity, providing essential services to all, particularly those most vulnerable, including the elderly and young mothers.”

Mr John Munday addressed the meeting on behalf of all these petitioners, under the provisions of Standing Order 9.

The second petition bore around 1000 signatures, the prayer to which read:-

“We, the undersigned, strongly urge the Council to let Roundshaw Pharmacy continue to serve us from the new unit on Roundshaw.”

An additional confidential letter was tabled in respect of the second petition and Mr Dean addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners.

The Executive Head of Housing & Regeneration explained the background and current situation. It had always been the intention to retain retail units on the Estate to serve the residents. However, the new units were owned and would be managed, initially, by the developers, therefore it was not in the Council’s gift to resolve the problems direct. Nevertheless, officers were working with the residents, their M.P and ward councillors in talking to all the parties to try to facilitate a satisfactory solution and ensure these essential services continued on the Estate.

Notice had been served on the retailers to vacate their properties by 28 November. However, subject to certain safeguards being in place to ensure vacant possession, it was hoped that this could be extended to cover the Christmas period.

Members of the Committee expressed their support for the petitioners and hoped that the matter could be resolved satisfactorily. No answer could be given that evening, but it was recognised that a lot of work and negotiations were going on.

Resolved: To receive the petitions and thank the petitioners for attending.

994. REVENUE BUDGET 2002/03 - REVIEW AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2002 The Executive Head of Financial Services reported the financial position at 30 September for the Council’s spending groups and estimated the full year effects in 2002/03 of current levels of spending and income. The latest position on the General Fund showed an overspending of £1.005k and a projected overspend of £292k for the full year.

Summaries of the latest estimates reflecting service groups’ anticipated expenditure for 2002/03 compared to original estimates, major variances and the reasons for them, and DSOs’ latest trading positions were also reported.

Resolved: (i) To note the current spending position against revised estimates and the impact on the Council’s projected balances;

(ii) To note the continuing pressures identified by Strategic Directors and the actions taken by them to contain projected spending within approved budgets;

(iii) That the position with voids and sheltered housing and alcohol and substance misuse placements be reported to the Social Care Services Performance Committee.

995. CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2002/03 The latest position on capital expenditure and resources for 2002/03 was reported. Capital expenditure at 27 September had been £11,943m. This represented 25%

1078

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002 of the estimate for the year. The comparable spend at the same stage last year had been 19%.

A surplus in resources of £5.051m was forecast. The surplus had increased by £0.102m from the month 5 forecast. This was mainly due to forecast slippage on schemes to replace the fire alarm at the Central Library and to supply additional classrooms for post-16 provision at High School. This had been largely offset by the inclusion of schemes to amalgamate Tweeddale Infant and Junior Schools and to relocate the Rosehill Community Centre, agreed by this Committee at its last meeting.

Transport for London (TfL) gave Sutton grant allocation of £1.46m as part funding for a number of transport related schemes such as road maintenance, local safety schemes, town centre initiatives etc. Such schemes were often subject to delay or even cancellation as they required extensive public consultation and approval by the relevant Area Committee. The Executive Head of Planning and Transportation had advised that TfL were proving less flexible than their predecessors in recognising this difficulty, and it was more difficult to agree substitute schemes under these circumstances. It was forecast that Sutton would be able to use fully the TfL grant allocation, but there were concerns that this might not be possible.

A member queried the amount of time that the stairs on the west walkway had been closed and asked when they would reopen to the public. The closure was inconvenient and it would have been helpful to have details of the work programme and/or signs explaining when the work would be completed.

Resolved: (i) To note the latest position on capital expenditure and resources;

(ii) That the work programme for the west walkway be confirmed and published outside the Civic Offices and in the Weekly Bulletin.

996. UPDATE REPORT FROM PROCUREMENT AND DEBT RECOVERY BEST VALUE REVIEW The Procurement and Debt Recovery Best Value Review Team were reaching the end of Stage 2 of their work and it was anticipated that the full outcomes of the Review would be reported to the next meeting of this Committee.

One of the aspects of the Review had been to look at the Council’s Stores function and make recommendations for the future. The Review Team had commissioned an Internal Audit report to look at the future viability of the Therapia Lane Stores. Details of the outcome of this were before the Committee in the form of an exempt report. As a result of this, the Strategic Director – Resources was recommending that the Stores should be closed at the earliest opportunity, as an early decision would enable losses to be minimised.

If this was agreed, some staff would be displaced, but every effort would be made to redeploy them. The Strategic Director – Environment and Leisure had spoken to the staff affected by this proposal and this matter had also been discussed with the unions.

Details of the exact extent of the savings possible would be reported at a later stage. However, an initial assessment based on the 2002/03 budget suggested they could be in the region of £150k to £200k.

Resolved: To agree the closure of the Therapia Lane Stores at the earliest opportunity as a consequence of the work of the Best Value Review Team.

997. E-BUSINESS STRATEGY

1079

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

A draft e-Business Strategy was submitted for approval. This Strategy drew together the First Contact Best Value Improvement Plan and the former ICT Strategy into one document, focused upon business requirements that would be supported by technology. It set out the Council’s approach to meeting the requirements for achieving 100% electronic service delivery by December 2004.

The Strategy also formed the basis of Sutton’s Implementing Electronic Government (IEG) 2 statement, which had to be submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) by 31 October 2002. This document was also submitted for approval.

Sutton had received IEG funding in 2002/03 of £200k, following approval of its 2001 IEG Statement. A further £200k would be received in 2003/04, subject to its IEG2 Statement being approved by the ODPM. The government had also announced on 12 July additional funding of £310m for the implementation of e- government. This additional funding suggested that IEG statements would have to be submitted in 2003 and 2004 and might attract reward funding beyond 2003/04.

The estimated cost of implementing e-government was £12m over the period 2002/03 to 2004/05, details of which were reported. The estimated cost included projects that might not proceed if funding could not be secured through bids for additional grants. Sutton had not been successful in its bid to join the CRM Pathfinder project, but a decision was still awaited on the expression of interest for Pathfinder status on the development of wireless technology. However, £1.5m had been secured towards the e-government programme through the Local Public Service Agreement (PSA). Sutton was also a partner in the Online Schools Admission project, funded through round 4 of Invest to Save programme. The IEG grant for 2003/04 had not yet been approved, and had not been included in the estimated costs.

The unfunded elements of implementing e-government would need to be considered as part of the 2003/04 capital and revenue budget preparation. As part of this, decisions would need to be taken on which uncommitted proposals could proceed in the light of resources available. No allowance had so far been made for possible savings from Business Process Re-engineering that would take place as part of implementing the e-Business Strategy.

Resolved: To agree the e-Business Strategy and IEG2 Statement as submitted.

998. ROUNDSHAW SRB – FUTURE FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS The Committee considered the confidential report of the Executive Head of Housing and Regeneration on the actions taken for bridging the funding gap for the Roundshaw Redevelopment Project. The options previously reported (Minute 139/02 refers) had now been worked through and prioritised and, where agreed, had already been actioned or were being developed.

The project was currently projecting around a £15.8m deficit for the remainder of the development. However, savings and options totalling £16.1m were now being reported. Officers therefore believed that, subject to their approval and implementation, the options recommended in the report would provide sufficient finances to proceed with the regeneration project until the new build phase 7a required approval in March 2004.

Resolved: (i) To note the current financial position on the project together with the changes that have occurred since Members last received a report on this project;

(ii) To receive a further report on the project in six months time.

999. REFERENCE FROM THE COUNCIL & EMPLOYEES’ JOINT COMMITTEE

1080

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

(3/10/02) Caring Leave Policies Resolved: (i) To adopt the four caring leave policies as set out in the Appendix to these Minutes, for implementation from 1 November 2002;

(ii) That Human Resources officers be asked to look at entitlement to parental leave for short term foster carers.

1000. SELECTION OF REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD (RSL) PREFERRED PARTNERS The Executive Head of Community Living reported on the outcome of a review of future arrangements for current and future housing development. The Housing Corporation and Government Officer for London promoted the concept of “Preferred Partnering” where a local authority chose to work with a small number of RSLs to develop new affordable housing. A Housing Development Focus Group had considered this concept and there had been general support for a move to selecting preferred partners.

The arrangement had a number of benefits both to the Council and RSLs as follows:-

• Able to implement an effective site registration process to prevent RSLs bidding against each other and inflating the price of land. • Easier to recommend RSLs to developers and to involve them early in Section 106 negotiations. • Ability to chose RSLs on the basis of “added value”, rather than just value for money, and select the provider with the best expertise for a particular scheme. • More efficient than preparing large numbers of speculative bids for grant. Particularly helpful for schemes that were difficult to work up and, therefore, carried higher opportunity costs. • A better understanding of what was required, leading to more appropriate schemes, and greater confidence in the RSL partners to deliver schemes to the required local standard. • Preferred Partners’ enhanced and sustained involvement in local strategy would benefit new development. • Greater opportunity for information sharing, exchange of ideas and frank discussions between RSL Preferred Partners, the local authority and the Housing Corporation. • Greater confidence there would be continuity of work.

The proposed arrangement was for New Build and Acquisition of properties, including grant funded and non-grant funded schemes. It was proposed that the selected partners would work with the Council for three years, after which the arrangements would be reviewed. Temporary Social Housing and Regeneration Schemes were not included.

A two stage process to select preferred partners had been started in June 2002, details of which were reported. As a result of this and the subsequent evaluation process, five RSLs had been interviewed in September by an RSL Preferred Partnering Advisory Group. That Group had carried out a detailed analysis of the applicants and had recommended three RSLs to be included on the Preferred Partners list and one non-developing BME partner.

In addition to the identified RSL preferred partners, the Council would continue to work with its major regeneration partners – Hyde/Metropolitan on Roundshaw and Broomleigh on Durand Close – to progress those projects.

1081

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

It was proposed that 75% of the annual Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme (ADP) and Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG) funded development programme should be allocated to the preferred partner RSLs and that the remaining 25% would be open to competition. The Council’s combined annual Housing Corporation ADP and LASHG funded programme was relatively small (£2.9m and £0.4m respectively in 2002/03) and a significant proportion of the former was programmed to fund the final phases of Roundshaw SRB. The contribution made by small local specialist RSLs to housing needs in the borough would be reflected in allocating the 25%. This position would be reviewed once the outcome was known of the government’s review of Housing Capital Finance and in the light of the impact of changes in the way the Housing Corporation proposed to allocate grant funding from 2003/04 onwards.

Resolved: (i) To agree the Preferred Partners Advisory Group’s recommendation that:-

a. Horizon Housing Group, Threshold Housing & Support and Wandle Housing Association be included on a list of Preferred Partners for the development of new affordable social housing in the borough over the next three years; and b. Presentation Housing Association be included as a non-developing Black and Minority Ethnic association to work with the preferred partners;

(ii) To authorise the Executive Head of Community Living to negotiate an agreement with the partner RSLs that formalises the relationship, subject to advice from the Executive Head of Legal Services.

1001. REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS TEAM An external consultant had been commissioned to carry out a review of Sutton’s SEN team. The outcome of this was a proposal for re-organisation intended to address the areas of weakness that had been identified by the Ofsted inspection, enable the Council to meet its statutory obligations in relation to special education and also achieve improvement in value for money on SEN expenditure.

The revised structure had been discussed with staff informally, and was now the subject of formal consultation with them and the relevant unions.

Approval was sought to implement the new structure as soon as possible. The cost of the existing structure was £386k. The full year cost of the proposed new structure, using the same price base, was £462k. The additional costs in 2002/03 could be contained within existing budgets because of the slippage due to the number of staff vacancies. For future years, it was proposed to contain the additional costs of around £76k per year within current SEN budgets by offsetting them against some of the projected savings in the out-borough placement budget.

Resolved: (i) To agree the proposals for restructure set out in the report, subject to formal consultation;

(ii) To authorise the Strategic Director – Learning for Life to implement the re-structure as soon as possible.

1002. THE LONDON WASTE MINIMISATION AND RECYCLING FUND Further to Minute 664/02, progress was reported on a bid to the London Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund (LWM&RF) for funding to construct an in-house composting facility at the Thames Waste Site at Lane. A copy of the bid was tabled at the meeting.

The exact terms of the final agreement were still being negotiated with the

1082

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

LWM&RF and Thames Waste. However, it was anticipated that the cost of the facility would be in the region of £3m, of which Thames Water would fund £1.5m. The remaining £1.5m comprised the bid to LWM&RF, but this would be a mix of capital and revenue funding.

If the bid was successful, the money would be utilised by Thames Waste. Sutton would not be required to contribute any match funding or other monies to the project. The benefit to Sutton would come as a result of a reduction in the disposal costs for green garden waste. The saving on the disposal gate price was expected to be £11 per tonne from the current rate of £31 per tonne.

Sutton would need to sign an agreement with Thames Waste on the minimum and maximum tonnage that could be deposited at the new site from Autumn 2003 for a period of approximately 10 years. The levels were still to be agreed but were likely to be 5,500 and 8,000 tonnes respectively.

The anticipated tonnage for garden waste in 2002/03 was 4400 tonnes. Therefore, the potential saving on the gate fee would be in the region of £48,400. This money had to be reinvested into the service as part of the conditions of the bid. This would enable a further 8 weeks to be added to the existing service of 16 weeks, and increase tonnage by around 1,200 tonnes per year to a level of 5,600 tonnes.

In signing up to the agreement, Sutton would be committing itself to pay for a minimum of 5,500 tonnes per year for the next ten years. Should actual tonnage fall below this level, the Council would still have to pay these rates.

Sutton was taking the lead on this bid, but the risk was being shared between authorities who would each commit themselves to a minimum and maximum level of green waste tonnage for a ten year period. Individual authorities would be accountable and financially responsible for their share of the tonnage targets. Agreement to proceed with the new facility would depend on reaching agreement with individual authorities to achieve a viable level of green waste to be processed by the facility. Support for the bid had been received so far from the London Boroughs of Merton and Croydon, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames and Cory Environmental Limited.

Resolved: To approve submission of the bid to the London Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund.

1003. TENDERING OUT OF HOME TO SCHOOL MINIBUS CONTRACT The Corporate Management Team had set up a project team to review People Transport throughout the Council. The review team had recommended that: the minibus and coach contract for SEN should be retendered for three years; and Community Services should manage the SEN contracts and all other people transport procurement. It was believed that these measures would lead to economies of scale, enable closer monitoring of contractors and would provide a single call centre for all passenger journeys. They would also enable the Council to fulfil its duty of care.

Following consultation, staff affected by the proposals were transferred from Learning for Life to Community Services Group on 1 July 2002.

The work on re-tendering all the existing routes had provided an opportunity to rationalise the service to reduce the overall number of journeys and to test the current market. The number of routes had reduced from 53 to 27. This had been achieved by reallocating pupils from cars to minibuses. Eighteen routes had been advertised for tender, the outcome of which was reported in detail. An evaluation panel had carried out a detailed analysis of three eligible applications and agreed that all three companies were suitable for delivering the service specified.

1083

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

In light of the lowest tenderer only being able to accept eight of the 17 routes, it was recommended that the second lowest tenderer should be awarded the three routes they had tendered for, and the third tenderer should be awarded the seven remaining routes. Details of the routes and the tenders submitted were provided for Members on an exempt appendix.

Financial provision for SEN transport in 2002/03 was £1.46m. This provision covered the costs of car and taxi transport, escorts and transport by minibus. It was anticipated that the new minibus contracts would generate economies of £31,960 in a full year (£95,880 over the 3-year period of the contracts).

Further work was being carried out on rationalising taxi use wherever possible. However, there had been increased demands placed upon the transport service arising from more general pressures associated with SEN. A further report would be submitted in due course outlining the overall budget position for SEN transport.

Resolved: To award a three-year contract to provide transport to pupils with Special Educational Needs to LBM, Pollards and Mitcham Belle for specific routes as set out in the exempt Appendix to the report, with a contract commencement date of 7 January 2003.

1004. THE BARN, CHURCH ROAD, CAREW MANOR, BEDDINGTON: MARKETING RESULTS The Committee considered the exempt report of the Executive Head of Construction and Property on the receipt of tenders for the disposal of this property. A confidential annex to the report gave details of the tenders and an analysis of the proposals, carried out by officers. The bids had been considered in respect of price and whether the proposals received appeared to achieve an acceptable scheme. Tender A was recommended for acceptance as it was the highest and most suitable tender.

The property had not been marketed with an outline planning consent in the usual manner, because these were not available in Conservation Areas. However, it would not have been appropriate to sell with full planning consent as the property was suitable for conversion in a number of ways. Therefore, the contract for sale would be subject to the purchaser obtaining planning permission.

Tenderer A had initially failed to comply with the tender conditions as the tender form had not been signed. However, the Executive Head of Construction and Property reported at the meeting that the tenderer had since visited the offices and had completed this formality.

Resolved: (i) To note the tenders received;

(ii) To note that the highest tenderer has now signed his original tender form;

(iii) To accept the offer from Tenderer A, subject to planning permission being obtained;

(iv) To authorise the Executive Head of Construction and Property and the Executive Head of Legal Services to agree minor revisions to the terms and such other terms as they may consider appropriate to complete the sale.

1005. 48 THROWLEY WAY, SUTTON (THE GARDEN CENTRE) New Force Developments had an option to buy Lewis & Co’s lease on 48 Throwley Way, Sutton. They had recently approached the Council to buy the freehold, having pre-agreed a sale to Horizon Housing Group to redevelop the site for affordable housing.

1084

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

The site comprised a surfaced open yard of approximately 627 m 2, used as a garden centre. The property was not attractive or suitable to a town centre location and was ready for development. The proposal would provide a total of 26 habitable rooms and was supported by the Community Services Group. The Planning Officer had confirmed that the scheme was acceptable in principle, subject to satisfactory parking arrangements, community space, a S106 agreement etc.

Standing Orders provided for surplus Council properties to be offered on the open market. However, because New Force had the option from Lewis & Co., officers believed that a sale on the open market would be likely to generate a lower capital receipt. The Council would also benefit as the proposal would secure 100% of the nomination rights, in perpetuity, for the affordable housing on this site. Therefore, terms had provisionally been agreed for the disposal of the property to New Force as this would be in the Council’s best interests. Details of the provisional Heads of Terms were reported.

If the sale proceeded, there would be a loss of income to the Environment and Leisure Group.

Resolved: (i) To waive Standing Order 44.4 as the disposal price and other benefits accruing to the Council exceed those which could be expected on the open market;

(ii) To approve the provisionally agreed disposal price of [50/02 para 9], plus payment of the Council’s legal, planning and surveyor’s costs, for the sale of the Council’s freehold interest in 48 Throwley Way, Sutton (The Garden Centre) to New Force Developments Ltd;

(iii) To authorise the Executive Head of Construction and Property and the Executive Head of Legal Services to agree minor revisions to the terms and such other terms as they may consider appropriate, including a requirement that New Force proceed with their proposed agreement to sell the site to Horizon Housing Group (or another registered social landlord nominated by the local authority);

(iv) To adjust the revenue allocation for the Environment and Leisure Group to compensate for the loss of rental income due to the sale of the property.

1006. APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE HEAD OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORT By Minute 968/02 the Committee had agreed to appoint to the post of Executive Head of Waste Management and Transport. The Committee was now asked to nominate members to serve on an Appointment Sub Committee to interview candidates and make that appointment.

Resolved: To appoint the following members to serve on the Executive Head of Waste Management and Transport Appointment Ad Hoc Sub- Committee:-

Councillors Sean Brennan, Don Brims, Colin Hall and Sheila Siggins (Substitute: Lyn Gleeson), Edward Trevor (Substitute: Peter Geiringer) and Joe Magee (Substitutes: Charlie Mansell and Andrew Theobald).

1007. URGENCY PROCEDURE Resolved: To note the following decisions taken since the Committee’s last meeting:-

General Provisions and Frozen Food Contract

1085

Strategy Committee 28 October 2002

Decision: To award the General Provisions and Frozen Food Contract to 3663 (the name of the new contractor) from 1 October 2002 for a period of three years, plus extensions.

Appointment of Senior Staff in the Chief Executive’s and Resources Groups Decision: To appoint Councillor Peter Geiringer to be a substitute member of the Chief Executive’s Group and Resources Group Reorganisation Appointment Ad Hoc Sub-Committee for the municipal year 2002.

The meeting ended at 9:46 pm

Chair: ………………………

Date: ………………………

1086