Public Document Pack Agenda

Meeting: Cabinet

Time: 10.00 am

Date: 29 June 2016

Venue: Committee Room 1, County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1XJ

Robert Gould (Chairman) Peter Finney Robin Cook Deborah Croney Colin Jamieson Jill Haynes Rebecca Knox

Notes:

 The reports with this agenda are available at www.dorsetforyou.com/countycommittees then click on the link "minutes, agendas and reports". Reports are normally available on this website within two working days of the agenda being sent out.

 We can provide this agenda and the reports as audio tape, CD, large print, Braille, or alternative languages on request.

 Public Participation

Guidance on public participation at County Council meetings is available on request or at http://www.dorsetforyou.com/374629.

(a) Public Speaking

Members of the public can ask questions and make statements at the meeting. The closing date for us to receive questions is 10.00am on 24 June 2016, and statements by midday the day before the meeting.

(b) Petitions

The Committee will consider petitions submitted in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

Debbie Ward Contact: Lee Gallagher Chief Executive County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ [email protected] - 01305 224191 Date of Publication: Tuesday, 21 June 2016

1. Apologies for Absence To receive any apologies for absence.

2. Code of Conduct Councillors are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 regarding disclosable pecuniary interests.

. Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary interest. . Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done on the form available from the clerk within 28 days). . Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of a dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item.

The Register of Interests is available on Dorsetforyou.com and the list of disclosable pecuniary interests is set out on the reverse of the form.

3. Minutes 1 - 6 To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2016.

4. Public Participation a) Public Speaking

b) Petitions

5. Cabinet Forward Plan 7 - 18 To receive the Cabinet Forward Plan.

6. Panels and Boards To receive the minutes of the following meetings.

a) Health and Wellbeing Board - 8 June 2016 19 - 56 Recommendation 23 - Our Dorset - Our five year sustainability and transformation plan

b) Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee - 13 June 2016 57 - 64 c) Executive Advisory Panel on Pathways to Independence - 17 May 65 - 68 2016 Recommendation 30 - 'Turning the Curve' on adult social care debt (outstanding income)

7. Forward Together Update 69 - 76 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation.

8. Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update 77 - 86 To consider a report by the Leader of the Council.

9. Corporate Performance Monitoring Report 87 - 100 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation.

10. Youth Centres - Asset Transfer 101 - 106 To consider a joint report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation.

11. Youth Justice Plan for 2016/17 107 - 134 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing and Children’s Safeguarding.

12. Dorset Transforming Care Plan 135 - 142 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Audit Health, Care and Independence.

13. Quarterly Asset Management Report 143 - 168 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation.

14. The reprocurement of the Highway Term Services Contract 169 - 214 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Highways.

15. Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site 215 - 242 Management To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Highways.

16. Syrian Refugee Crisis - Dorset response 243 - 254 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation.

17. Forward Together for Support Services 255 - 284 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation.

18. Recommendations from Committees To consider the following recommendations.

a) Recommendation 30 - Proposed Waiting Restrictions - 285 - 322 Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford To consider a recommendation from the Regulatory Committee held on 28 April 2016.

b) Recommendation 43 - Dorchester Transport and Environment 323 - 336 Plan (DTEP) - Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester To consider a recommendation from the Regulatory Committee on 9 June 2016.

c) Recommendation 8 - Draft Annual Governance Statement 337 - 352 2015/16 To consider a recommendation from the Audit and Governance Committee held on 8 June 2016.

d) Recommendation 10 - Dorset County Council Action Plan for 353 - 360 Management of Pollinators To consider a recommendation from the Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 15 June 2016.

e) Recommendation 9 - Mobile Library Service 361 - 390 To consider a recommendation from the People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 16 June 2016.

f) Recommendation 10 - Approval of the principles of Living and 391 - 430 Learning Centres To consider a recommendation from the People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 16 June 2016.

19. Questions from County Councillors To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on 24 June 2016.

20. Exempt Business To consider passing the following resolution:

To agree that in accordance with Section 100 A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public from the meeting in relation to the business specified below it is likely that if members of the public were present, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs detailed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public.

21. Dorset Care Record Procurement (Paragraph 3) 431 - 474

To consider a joint exempt report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation, Cabinet Member for Adult Health, Care and Independence and Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing and Children's. NOT FOR PUBLICATION

22. Future Service Delivery Options For Parking Services (Paragraph 4)

To consider an exempt report by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Highways (to follow). NOT FOR PUBLICATION

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3

Cabinet

Minutes of a meeting held at County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1XJ on Wednesday, 25 May 2016.

Present: Robert Gould (Chairman) Peter Finney, Robin Cook, Deborah Croney, Jill Haynes and Rebecca Knox.

Members Attending: Andrew Cattaway, as Chairman of the Council under Standing Order 54 Toni Coombs, County Councillor for Verwood and Three Legged Cross Beryl Ezzard, County Councillor for Wareham Susan Jefferies, County Councillor for Corfe Mullen William Trite, County Councillor for Swanage Daryl Turner, County Councillor for Marshwood Vale David Walsh, County Councillor for Gillingham

Officers Attending: Debbie Ward (Chief Executive), Richard Bates (Chief Financial Officer), Patrick Ellis (Assistant Chief Executive), Mike Harries (Director for Environment and the Economy), Jonathan Mair (Monitoring Officer), Sara Tough (Director for Children’s Services) and Helen Whitby (Principal Democratic Services Officer).

For certain items, as appropriate: Patrick Myers (Head of Corporate Development), Tracey Old (Programme Manager - Forward Together for Children) and Stuart Riddle (Senior Manager - Change for Children).

(Notes:(1) In accordance with Rule 16(b) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules the decisions set out in these minutes will come into force and may then be implemented on the expiry of five working days after the publication date. Publication Date: Tuesday, 31 May 2016.

(2) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Cabinet to be held on Wednesday, 29 June 2016.)

Apologies for Absence 84 Apologies for absence were received from Colin Jamieson and Nicky Cleave (Assistant Director of Public Health).

The Chairman welcomed Helen Coombes to her first Cabinet meeting as Director for Adult and Community Services.

Code of Conduct 85 There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

Minutes 86 The minutes of the meeting held on 4 May 2016 were confirmed and signed.

Page 1 2 Public Participation 87 Public Speaking There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions There were no petitions received at the meeting in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

Cabinet Forward Plan 88 The Cabinet considered the draft Forward Plan, which identified key decisions to be taken by the Cabinet on or after the next meeting. With regard to the expected Support Services Transformation Progress Update it was explained that as the first meeting of the Forward Together Support Services Programme Board would be held in early June, an update would be provided for the Cabinet’s meeting on 29 June 2016 and six monthly thereafter.

Noted

Forward Together Update 89 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation on the progress of the Forward Together Programme which focused on Living and Learning Centres, community pathfinders and One Council – new services.

It was noted that seven areas had been identified for Learning Centres, community pathfinder pilots were to be held in Beaminster, Christchurch and Weymouth and seed funding had been received from the Department for Works and Pensions for a pilot project (the Local Family Offer) with the Chesil Partnership which it was hoped would be extended to other areas of high deprivation in future.

Members welcomed these developments but highlighted the need for community initiatives to be driven by local people, for local members to be engaged as early as possible as part of these initiatives, and for local people to be asked what the Council could do to help them not provide what it thought they needed.

There was also a plea for more joined up working as not only were the Council creating Living and Learning Centres but the Clinical Commissioning Group were also introducing hubs at the same time. The need for partners, public services and the voluntary sector to work together to reduce any duplication and provide joined up services was highlighted.

With regard to timescales and feedback on the pilots, members noted that these would be reported within future Forward Together updates on a six monthly basis.

Noted

Dorset Green Enterprise Zone 90 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Economy and Growth which set out progress in respect of the purchase of land and construction workspace at Dorset Green for the Enterprise Zone, the establishment of a Management Board and proposals for the construction of a Digital Hub and Innovation Centre and Development Company for the Enterprise Zone. The Zone would come into operation on 1 April 2017 and was being progressed in partnership with Purbeck District Council and the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership. Page 2 3

Members supported this project as it would play a key role in the economic growth strategy. It was suggested that consideration be given to changing the Zone’s name to something more appropriate.

With regard to financial monitoring, the Chief Financial Officer assured members that this would be done through the Management Board and by the Council as accountable body.

Resolved 1. That progress with respect to the purchase of land and construction of workspace at Dorset Green be noted. 2. That the Cabinet Member for Economy and Growth be appointed to represent the Council’s interests on the Dorset Green Enterprise Zone Management Board. 3. That the proposals for the construction of a Digital Hub and Innovation Centre and Development Company for the Enterprise Zone be supported in principle.

Reason for Decisions Successful delivery of the Dorset Green Enterprise Zone would make a significant contribution to the economic growth of Dorset, providing high quality and skilled jobs.

Dorset Minerals and Waste Development Scheme - Updated Milestones 91 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Economy and Growth which set out revised milestones for the Local Development Scheme, prior to public consultation on the Dorset Minerals and Waste Development Scheme.

Toni Coombs, County Councillor for Verwood, asked whether Hampshire County Council had shared their proposals with Dorset. The Director for Environment and the Economy confirmed that Hampshire had consulted Dorset but this had not been forwarded to consult local members for which he apologised. Members stressed the importance of local members having sight of such important documents as early as possible in future.

Resolved 1. That the proposed milestones for the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme be agreed. 2. That officers be authorised to make minor changes to the written contents of the Local Development Scheme including any changes needed to reflect the revised milestones. 3. That the scheme come into effect on 26 May 2016.

Reasons for Decisions 1. To ensure the scheme was compliant with legislative requirements in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). 2. To ensure that the interests of the County Council as set out in the Corporate Plan (in particular the aim to enable economic growth) reflected the continued commitment to deliver up-to-date minerals and waste development plans, and to support equivalent aims in the corporate plans for Bournemouth and Poole.

Youth Centre - Asset Transfer 92 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation which set out details of the transfer of youth centre buildings to community bodies for community use.

The Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation reported that, following consideration of a change to youth service provision on 13 January 2016, nineteen communities had submitted business cases for the transfer of youth centre buildings for community use. Page 3 4

Susan Jefferies, County Councillor for Corfe Mullen, drew attention to the position with regard to the Corfe Mullen Youth Centre and her disappointment that the Parish Council’s bid had been ignored in favour of that from the local school. She highlighted several areas of concern; that there had been no discussion between the Parish Council, the Youth Club and the local school about a shared bid; that the Parish Council had received no help in the development of its bid; that advice given had been obstructive; the lack of member involvement in the evaluation of bids; that figures for Youth Club use were inaccurate; the Parish Council’s ability to use their precept to support the Youth Club; and the support of the local community for the Youth Club. She asked the Cabinet to defer the decision in relation to Corfe Mullen Youth Centre to allow discussions between the Parish Council, the school and interested local parties to take. Officers responded to the areas of concern highlighted and in particular why the school bid had been recommended for acceptance over that from the Parish Council.

Attention was drawn to a letter sent to Cabinet Members by Councillor Paul Harrison with regard to the case of Corfe Mullen Youth Club and asking the Cabinet to let this lease to the Parish Council.

Having heard the concerns raised, members agreed that they needed more information on the Corfe Mullen Youth Centre in order to make an informed decision about its future. They also recognised that some facilitation might be needed between the interested parties and that a meeting of the Executive Advisory Panel might be needed. They agreed to defer the decision until the Cabinet meeting on 29 June 2016. The Monitoring Officer clarified that at that meeting the Cabinet would only be considering the asset transfer of Corfe Mullen Youth Club.

Councillor Toni Coombs, was concerned that the Executive Advisory Panel on Forward Together for Children’s Services which had been established to evaluate the business cases and consider risks and issues had not met to do so. As the County Councillor for Verwood she referred to the recommendation that where Youth clubs were on school sites they would be absorbed into the relevant school and highlighted the case of Verwood Club which was on a shared school campus and she asked for a lease arrangement rather than a freehold in order to make it easier should the school become an academy in due course. She also referred to transferred properties being sold at a later stage and the Council’s intention about recouping 100% of any capital receipts. She also asked that local funds be included in the transfer of any assets.

It was clarified that no change to current policy and procedure had been made. The transfer would be on terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy and the specific arrangements for any subsequent sale would normally be included in the legal agreement. He confirmed that for any asset enhanced by communities, the Council would not take 100% of any subsequent sale figure.

David Walsh, County Councillor for Gillingham, was concerned that the hard work involved in taking forward proposals for Gillingham would be put back if decisions were delayed.

Councillor Beryl Ezzard, County Council for Wareham, spoke in support of the case of Corfe Mullen Youth Centre being deferred.

The Cabinet Member for Learning and Skills highlighted the confusion by Youth Workers in Blandford about the ownership of the Youth Centre buildings and asked that, when devolving services in future, the Council provide as much support as possible in the transfer process.

Page 4 5 The Leader confirmed that local centre funds and equipment would be retained by Youth Centres. It was also confirmed that Blandford Youth Centre formed part of the school which was owned by the Foundation Governors.

The Leader paid tribute to Councillor Toni Coombs and the officers involved in the successful outcome of the changes to youth service provision and welcomed the response by communities to take over responsibility. He hoped that lessons learned from the process would inform any future service delivery changes.

The Chairman of the Council added commented that there had been a high level of satisfaction with the outcome of the process and he hoped that this would be highlighted in a press release. Councillor Beryl Ezzard added that any press release should include an appreciation of the amount of work carried out by local communities.

Resolved 1. That the use of the County Council’s general power of competence to grant a freehold transfer, assignment of lease, or long leasehold interest in the youth centre buildings at Somerford, Burton, Gillingham, Bridport, Dorchester, Crossways, Sherborne, Southill, STEPS, Verwood, Wareham and Swanage to the respective community bodies on terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy, after consultation with the Director for Children’s Service and the Monitoring Officer be approved. 2. That the surrender of the leasehold interests in the youth centre building at The Lighthouse, upon terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy be approved. 3. That the absorption of Sturminster Newton youth centre by the relevant school be approved. 4. That the actions recommended in respect of the youth centre buildings which have not been subject to business cases from community groups be approved. 5. That the transfer of local youth centre funds to community groups upon terms to be agreed by the Director for Children’s Services be approved. 6. That the establishment of a new targeted youth service which will positive impact on the lives of young people, with particular focus on their emotional and mental wellbeing; education, employment, and training; personal safety; and ability to contribution to their community be noted. 7. That a decision with regard to the absorption of Corfe Mullen youth centre by the relevant school be deferred to allow local discussions to be held, a meeting of the Executive Advisory Panel to be arranged, if necessary, and a report to be provided for the Cabinet’s next meeting.

Reasons for Decisions To ensure that the County Council achieved a balanced budget. To implement the decision at Cabinet on 13 January 2016. To support the County Council aims:-  Enabling economic growth  Promoting health, wellbeing and safeguarding  To contribute to the County Council asset management strategy of reducing the net floor area of the non-schools estate by 50% between April 2010 and March 2020.

Page 5 6

Questions from County Councillors 93

Meeting Duration: 10.00 am - 11.15 am

Page 6

Cabinet Forward Plan (Cabinet Meeting Date - 7 September 2016)

Explanatory note: This work plan contains future items to be considered by the Cabinet. It will be published 28 days before the next meeting of the Cabinet.

This plan includes matters which the Leader has reason to believe will be the subject of a key decision to be taken by the Cabinet and items that are planned to be considered in a private part of the meeting. The plan shows the following details for key decisions:-

(1) date on which decision will be made (2) matter for decision, whether in public or private (if private see the extract from the Local Government Act on the last page of this plan) (3) decision maker (4) consultees (5) means of consultation carried out (6) documents relied upon in making the decision

Page 7 Page Any additional items added to the Forward Plan following publication of the Plan in accordance with section 5 of Part 2, 10 of Part 3, and Section 11 of Part 3 of The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to information) (England) Regulations 2012 are detailed at the end of this document.

Definition of Key Decisions Key decisions are defined in the County Council's Constitution as decisions of the Cabinet which are likely to - "(a) result in the County Council incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the County Council's budget for the service or function to which the decision relates namely where the sum involved would exceed £500,000; or (b) to be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more electoral divisions in Dorset."

Agenda Item 5 Membership of the Cabinet Robert Gould (Chairman) Leader of the Council Peter Finney (Vice-Chairman) Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Highways Robin Cook Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation Deborah Croney Cabinet Member for Learning and Skills Jill Haynes Cabinet Member for Adult Health, Care and Independence Colin Jamieson Cabinet Member for Economy and Growth Rebecca Knox Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing and Children’s Safeguarding

1

How to request access to details of documents, or make representations regarding a particular item If you would like to request access to details of documents or to make representations about any matter in respect of which a decision is to be made, please contact the Democratic Services Manager, Corporate Resources Directorate, County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ (Tel: (01305) 224191 or email: [email protected]).

Date of Matter for Decision/ Decision Consultees Means of Documents Lead Officer meeting Consideration Maker (4) Consultation (6) (1) (2) (3) (5)

7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Cabinet to receive None Patrick Myers, Head Open additional report on of Business Procurement of External Cabinet Member for consultancy and Development Support Organisational balanced advice as Development and requested. Transformation (Robin Cook)

Page 8 Page 7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet None Vanessa Glenn, Open Head of Families and Ofsted Action Plan Cabinet Member for Children Health and Wellbeing and Children’s Safeguarding (Rebecca Knox)

7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Directors and Heads Notification of None Patrick Myers, Head Open of Service process and practice of Corporate Temporary Staff - Procurement Cabinet Member for Development Route Organisational Development and Transformation (Robin Cook)

2

7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Through, discussion, Dorset Energy ESIF Dorset Low Anthony Littlechild, Open workshop and Partnership and Carbon Economy Corporate Approval of European Structural Cabinet Member for working groups. wider partners. To programme Contract Sustainability Officer Investment Fund contract with Economy and include - Dorset Agreement with DCLG, for the 'Dorset Low Growth (Colin Local Authorities and DCLG. Carbon Economy Programme' Jamieson) housing associations, ESIF Full application Kingston Maurward for the Dorset Low College, Future Carbon Economy Solent. Programme. EEOC report 19th Jan 2016 – ‘Partnership bid for European Structural Investment Funds for ‘Dorset Low Carbon Economy Programme’

Page 9 Page

3

7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet  Network Rail Meetings As this has been an Kelly Rand, Open  Office of Rail and Regular Purbeck on-going matter since Sustainable The Future of Wareham Foot Cabinet Member for Road Community Rail 2009 there is a Transport Officer Level Crossing Environment,  Local Members Partnership Meetings wealth of Infrastructure and  Dorset County Public events documentation Highways (Peter Council Legal organised by available including Finney) Services Network Rail legal agreements and  Dorset County Planning Application stopping up orders Council Estates Hearings from the 1970’s and and Assets 1980’s; feasibility  Dorset County studies from 2007 Council Highways and 2012 as well as Bridges and correspondence from Structures Team 2009 when there was  Purbeck the possibility of the Community Rail crossing closing previously.

Page 10 Page Partnership

 Purbeck District Council  Wareham Town Council  Purbeck Planning Committee  Wareham Residents 7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Internal consultees Purbeck District Purbeck Local Plan - Richard Dodson, Open across services Council have Review Document Planning Obligations Purbeck Local Plan Review Cabinet Member for provided by the consulted Dorset Manager Economy and Council. County Council on Growth (Colin the review of its Local Jamieson) Plan – Dorset County Council have consulted internally for views on the review document.

4

7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Internal consultees Borough of Poole Poole Local Plan Richard Dodson, Open across services Council have Review Document Planning Obligations Poole Local Plan Review Cabinet Member for provided by the consulted Dorset Manager Economy and Council. County Council on Growth (Colin the review of its Local Jamieson) Plan – Dorset County Council have consulted internally for views on the review document.

7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Report, Scheme Andrew Brown, Fully exempt 3, 7a, 7b Plans, Land Plans Project Engineer Compulsory Purchase Order Cabinet Member for and Location Plans (Democratic) Dorset (CPO) for B3073 Hurn Environment, Highways Roundabout Improvements Infrastructure and Highways (Peter

Page 11 Page Finney)

7/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Not applicable Not applicable None Jonathan Mair, Fully exempt 3 Monitoring Officer Monitoring Officer Report under Cabinet Member for Section 5 of the Local Adult Health, Care Government and Housing Act and Independence 1989 - Adult Services (Jill Haynes) Commissioning

16/03/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Members where an Property Asset Management Peter Scarlett, Estate Open item affects their Management Group; Plan; Quarterly Asset and Assets Manager 29/06/16 Quarterly Asset Management Cabinet Member for division/ Environment Asset Management Management Reports Report Organisational Directorate / Group; specific 28/09/16 Various decisions regarding Development and Children’s Services / briefings. property performance, property Transformation Adult & Community 30/11/16 transactions, project variations and (Robin Cook) Services / Corporate project commit to invest Resources

5

28/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet  Holistic Transport Various reports, Cabinet Report Andrew Shaw, Open Review Board meetings, working Business Justification Dorset Travel Team Contract model for the Cabinet Member for  Director for groups and Risk Register Service Manager procurement of transportation Environment, Environment & discussions. EQIA services in Dorset Infrastructure and Economy TAS Report Highways (Peter  Head of Economy Finney) Service  Dorset Travel Leadership Team  Taxi Operators  Bus Operators  The TAS Partnership Ltd 28/09/16 Key Decision - No Cabinet Internally with key Workshops, Dorset County Anthony Littlechild, Open staff. discussions and Council Corporate Approval of revised Dorset Cabinet Member for meetings. Environmental Sustainability Officer Page 12 Page County Council Carbon and Environment, Policies and action Environmental Management Infrastructure and plans, EEOC Report Policies and Action Plans and Highways (Peter 19th Jan 2016 – Summary Carbon Management Finney) ‘Dorset County programme to 2020 Council Environmental performance & greenhouse emissions 2015’

6

28/09/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet  Holistic Transport Various reports, Cabinet Report Andrew Martin, Head Open Review Board meetings, working Business Justification of Highways Procurement of Dorset's revised Cabinet Member for  Director for groups, discussions Risk Register transportation network Environment, Environment & and public EQIA Infrastructure and Economy consultation. TAS Report Highways (Peter  Head of Economy Public consultation Finney) Service summary  Dorset Travel Leadership Team  Taxi Operators  Bus Operators  The TAS Partnership Ltd.  Parish/Town Councils  District Councils  Neighbouring

Page 13 Page County Council  Special Interest Groups  Schools  Businesses  Members of the Public 26/10/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Not applicable. Not applicable. None Paul Leivers, Head of Part exempt 3 Early Help and Approval of the principles of Cabinet Member for Community Services Living and Learning Centres Learning and Skills (Deborah Croney)

11/02/16 Key Decision - No Cabinet Not applicable. Not applicable. None John Alexander, Open Performance and 16/03/16 Corporate Performance Cabinet Member for Policy Manager Monitoring Report Organisational 29/06/16 To consider and comment on Development and performance against the budget Transformation 26/10/16 and corporate plan. (Robin Cook)

7

26/10/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Environment and To be considered by European Strategy David Walsh, Open Economy Overview Environment and Draft Enabling Economy & European Strategy 2016-2020 Cabinet Member for Committee Economy Overview Growth Strategy Enterprise Team An element of the Enabling Growth Economy and Committee at 19th Leader Economy Strategy approved 28th October Growth (Colin January 2016 2015 Jamieson) meeting

26/10/16 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Members and Seminars and Richard Bates, Chief Open officers, briefings for Financial Officer 14/12/16 The County Council's Budget Leader of the representatives, members and and precept for 2017/18; Council (Robert Citizens’ Panel and officers, Overview Medium Term Financial Gould) general public. Committee meetings, Strategy 2017/18 to 2019/20; information on and Capital Programme dorsetforyou.com 2017/18 to 2019/20 and questionnaires for business

Page 14 Page community and the public.

To be Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Children’s Services Briefing paper and Dorset Children and Tom Smith, determined Open leadership team. discussion at Young Contracts and Children's Services expenditure Cabinet Member for Children’s Services Marketing on housing related support for Health and Leadership Team on Development young people following the Wellbeing and 1st September 2015. Manager tendering exercise led by Adult Children’s Services Safeguarding (Rebecca Knox)

To be Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Children’s Services Briefing paper and Dorset Children and Tom Smith, determined Open leadership team. discussion at Young Contracts and Tendering of the operational Cabinet Member for Children’s Services Marketing management of Children's Health and Leadership Team on Development Centres Clusters in East Dorset Wellbeing and 1st September 2015. Manager and Weymouth and Portland Children’s Safeguarding (Rebecca Knox)

8

To be Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Dorset Waste Report to meeting on Karyn Punchard, determined Open Partnership Joint 30 May 2012 Interim Director of Development of a strategic Cabinet Member for Committee DWP waste facility with Bournemouth Environment (Peter Subsequent and Poole Borough Councils - Finney) [consultation also consultation incurring capital expenditure as undertaken by arrangements to be host authority of the Dorset Bournemouth and determined Waste Partnership Poole Borough Councils] Page 15 Page

9

Private Meetings The following paragraphs define the reasons why the public may be excluded from meetings whenever it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that exempt information would be disclosed and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public. Each item in the plan above marked as ‘private’ will refer to one of the following paragraphs.

1. Information relating to any individual. 2. Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual. 3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). 4. Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority. 5. Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. 6. Information which reveals that the authority proposes:- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. Page 16 Page 7. Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.

10

Dorset County Council

Business not included in the Cabinet Forward Plan

Agreement to Is this item Date of meeting of Matter for Exception, Reason(s) why the item was not included a Key the Cabinet Decision/Consideration Urgency or Decision Private Item

NONE

The above notice provides information required by The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to information) (England) Regulations 2012 in respect of matters considered by the Cabinet which were not included in the published Forward Plan.

Page 17 Page

11

This page is intentionally left blank Public Document Pack Agenda Item 6a

Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board

Minutes of the meeting held at County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1XJ on Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Present: Rebecca Knox (Chairman)

Members Attending Helen Coombes (Dorset County, District and Borough Councils' Officers), Bernie Davis (Christchurch Borough Council), Darran Gunter (Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service), Margaret Guy (Healthwatch), Jill Haynes (Elected County Council Members), Mike Harries (Dorset County, District and Borough Councils' Officers), Helen Horsley (Voluntary Sector), Rebecca Kirk (Dorset District and Borough Councils' Offices), Patricia Miller (Local NHS Provider Trust), David Phillips (Dorset County, District and Borough Councils' Officers), Sara Tough (Dorset County, District and Borough Councils' Officers) and Simone Yule (Locality Executive Teams).

Other Members Attending Benjamin Chennell, Local Executive Teams (Reserve) and Mark Cooper, Dorset Police (Reserve).

Officers Attending: Rachel Partridge (Assistant Director of Public Health), Alan Betts (Deputy Director Transformation and Change, DCC), Paul Compton (Senior Communications Officer, Public Health Dorset), Richard Conway (Environment Manager, Purbeck District Council), Robin James (Service Development Officer, DCC), Miriam Maddison (Better Together Programme Director, DCC), Ann Harris (Health Partnerships Officer, DCC) and Rebecca Guest (Senior Democratic Services Officer, DCC).

(Notes: (1) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board to be held on Wednesday, 31 August 2016.

(2) Board agendas and reports are available via https://www.dorsetforyou.com/countycommittees)

Election of Chairman 15 Resolved That Rebecca Knox be elected Chairman for the remainder of the year 2016-17.

The Chairman welcomed a number of new members to the Board, namely Darran Gunter, Mike Harries and Helen Coombes. She confirmed that Debbie Simpson was now a member of the Board but was unfortunately unable to attend.

Appointment of Vice-Chairman 16 Resolved That Dr Forbes Watson be appointed Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the year 2016-17.

Apologies for Absence 17 Apologies for absence were received from Tim Goodson, David Haines, Karen Kirkham, Suzanne Lane, Margaret Lawrence, Debbie Simpson, Forbes Watson and Mike Wood.

Page 19 2 Code of Conduct 18 There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

Terms of Reference 19 Members received the Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board’s Terms of Reference.

Minutes 20 The minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2016 were confirmed and signed.

Matters Arising Minute 10 – Integrated Locality Working in District and Borough Areas A member sought reassurance that integrated locality working between locality executive teams and elected district/borough members would continue following the Clinical Commissioning Group’s reorganisation. It was confirmed that negotiations were on going to determine what locality teams would look like, but support would continue.

Public Participation 21 Public Speaking There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions There were no petitions received at the meeting in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

Draft Dorset Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy, 2016/2019 22 The Board considered a joint report by all Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board partners that sought members’ further consideration on the draft Dorset Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy (JHWS). It was intended that a consultation period be held from 22 June to 25 July 2016 to enable stakeholders to comment on and contribute to the JHWS and that a delivery action plan be developed, based on the principles and priorities outlined.

The report also highlighted the work done in the intervening period by partners following Board members’ comments at the meeting on 2 March 2016. In particular the JHWS had been better aligned with the Bournemouth and Poole JHWS to ensure consistency, and links had been strengthened with the Clinical Commissioning Group’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan.

The Assistant Director of Public Health Dorset reviewed the JHWS and outlined the 3 priorities in the plan and a shift to focus on early intervention and prevention. She highlighted that the draft had already been seen at a development session of the Bournemouth and Poole Health and Wellbeing Board, and while well received, they had asked that the outcomes be widened to include more wellbeing.

Members discussed the document and the following comments were made: - That the draft strategy and 3 priorities were supported. - That the document read like a health strategy rather than a health and wellbeing strategy. The emphasis should be adjusted and prevention be placed at the forefront. - That mental health should flow throughout the whole strategy for people of all ages. - The use of the natural environment should be greater expressed within the document. Page 20 3 - The contribution residents themselves could make and their role in improving their own health and wellbeing should be addressed. Could rural communities contribute more with a greater use of technology? - There needed to be a more obvious link to the Clinical Commissioning Group’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). - There was regular use of jargon within the document and there was a concern that not everyone would understand the contents. - That tackling inequalities needed to be more explicit within the document.

The reporting officer thanked the Board for their contributions. She advised that in order to keep the JHWS concise, some of the emphasis on the strategy’s aims may have been lost and consideration would be given as to how this might be amended accordingly while not losing the focus of the document. By way of further explanation, the Director of Public Health advised that when the first JHWS was written it was based on wide consultation with the result that there were a large number of priorities reflecting the diversity of views. Despite this level of engagement there was little ownership of activity and little evidence of impact. Now there were strategic plans across several areas which took a systems approach, the focus of the strategy was not to replicate existing plans but to describe some common themes.

The Board were again reminded that this was a strategic document, hence the high level and lack of specific targets within it. It was for partners to bring back actions.

A member highlighted that the consultation period included a holiday period. A concern was given that the document may not therefore reach the right people at the right time. The timescale for production of the JHWS was discussed and members confirmed that they did not wish to delay the production of the strategy and the suggested consultation period would remain.

In closing the discussion, the Chairman asked that when the JHWS returned for the Board’s consideration, more explanation of the 3 priorities be given.

Resolved 1. That the draft Dorset Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy be supported. 2. That the draft Dorset Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy be circulated for comment between 22 June and 25 July 2016. 3. That the undertaking of further work by a steering group to develop a work programme and performance plan be agreed. 4. That greater explanation be given to the 3 priorities when the Strategy is next presented to the Board.

Our Dorset - Our five year sustainability and transformation plan 23 The Board considered a report by the Chief Officer, NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), and accompanying presentation given by the Chief Executive of Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, that set out the CCG’s five-year Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for radically transforming health and care across the county. The plan aimed to drive a genuine and sustainable transformation in health and wellbeing outcomes for the residents of Dorset over the longer-term.

Members noted that the plan was a significant part of a vision to bridge health and wellbeing gaps and offer sustainable services while closing financial and efficiency gaps. The plan aimed to achieve this through delivery of three programmes of work, supported by two enabling programmes. As an overarching strategic plan, the STP covered all elements of the Health and Wellbeing Strategies, Clinical Services Review, and Integrated Community Services programme, which had been co- developed with partner organisations, patients and the public.

Page 21 4 The Chief Executive reviewed the challenges facing health and care services and re- affirmed the need for change. Members of the STP project group had worked closely with colleagues drafting the refreshed Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies to ensure there was alignment and the plan also recognised the closer working across GPs and their primary care teams, the three Dorset acute providers, Dorset Healthcare community and mental health provider, South Western Ambulance Service, the three local authorities in Dorset, patient representatives and many others. The plan was to be submitted to NHS England by 30 June 2016. Although this was listed as the final plan submission date, it was anticipated that work would continue on the plan after that date. In particular work on the operational delivery plan that lay underneath the high level STP, and she asked members to look upon the plan as the gateway process.

Once received, NHS England would review every plan and compare these nationally to determine whether to allocate transformation funding. The funding gap for NHS Dorset CCG for 2021 was estimated to be in excess of £200m. This compared favourably with our neighbours in Devon whose gap was almost double that figure. Initial feedback was positive.

Members thanked the Chief Executive for her informative presentation and a general discussion followed. The following comments were made: – the plan had little visibility on children or young people. While there may be an assumption that they were included, the language used in the document was not specific enough. – the document was written with health at its centre, this needed to be balanced with wellbeing. – the need to acknowledge the benefits and challenges of technology, as it could be a lifeline to some but a tool to bully others. – the need to identify what ‘prevention of scale’ meant in this context, with the aim of finding common ground with all parties. It was felt that prevention at scale traversed all three programmes of work and that the plan incorrectly compartmentalised prevention within a single area in the plan. – correct allocation of funding in the medium term to address the funding gap. – the need for greater focus on prevention.

The Chairman queried whether a cross agency working group was needed to maintain the pace and to identify what prevention was. She commented on the Board’s composition and suggested that a recommendation be added to ensure all policies be acted upon by all partners of the Board. Members of the Board supported this and added that the Board was best placed to influence different organisations on a strategic level. This would be a clear demonstration of a commitment to working together. She also suggested that the third recommendation within the report be deleted as it was surplus to requirements. This was agreed.

The Board welcomed future sight of the work programmes that would sit beneath the plan to make it operational and also additional further information on the on going Clinical Services Review (CSR). The Chairman reminded members that the CSR, although aligned with the STP, was a separate piece of work and this was yet to be finalised. Future sight of STP programmes would be looked at in conjunction with further consultation on the CSR.

Resolved 1. That the next steps for the document be noted. 2. That Board members act upon all appropriate policies to strategically influence partner organisations and increase health and wellbeing benefits throughout Dorset. 3. That a cross agency working group be set up to maintain the pace and to identify ‘prevention’.

Page 22 5 Recommended That Dorset County Council’s Cabinet be recommended to approve the Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan, welcoming the future consultation required in the Clinical Services Review.

Reason for recommendation To drive forward local sustainable transformation that would mean the NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group provided services that better met the needs of local people and delivered better outcomes.

The Better Care Fund 2016/17 24 The Board considered a report by the Interim Director for Adult and Community Services, Dorset County Council, that summarised the new Better Care Fund (BCF) plan for 2016/17. Included within the report was the plan’s scope, risks and issues.

The Interim Programme Director, Dorset County Council, advised that the plan had been submitted on 3 May 2016 and was subject to a final assurance process by NHS England. Initial indications were very positive (including support from NHS Southern Region) but due to further analysis of comparative data with previous years, it would be another couple of weeks before a decision was made.

The Board noted that in year performance statistics were currently unavailable, but it was agreed that these would be sent to members of the Board via email at the earliest opportunity.

The Interim Director for Adult and Social Services, Dorset County Council, emphasised the links between the BCF and other items on the agenda. She stated that this was an opportunity to build trust and relationships and for partners to work closer together. She asked members to draw on their experiences to overcome challenges, and for them to broaden into other areas such as social care and housing to make a greater impact for residents.

In order to assist the Board at future meetings, the Interim Programme Director was asked to provide an update on each scheme, with detail of the partners involved and practical examples.

As a result of integrated working practices and in acknowledgement that parts of the delivery were attributed to voluntary sector colleagues, reference was made to the implications on the voluntary and community sector. The Interim Programme Director agreed to discuss this further with the elected member for Christchurch Borough Council outside the meeting.

Resolved 1. That members receive in year performance statistics via email at the earliest opportunity. 2. That a future report be presented to provide an update on each scheme, with detail of the partners involved and practical examples.

Dorset Accessible Homes Service - A proposal for a county-wide policy for the use of increased allocations for Disabled Facilities Grant 25 The Board considered a joint report by the County and District & Borough Councils in Dorset that advised members how commissioning partners planned to develop the Dorset Accessible Homes Service (DAHS) following an increased Better Care Fund allocation.

Members of the Board welcomed the proposals and the increased partnership working. They commented on the exciting opportunity to make the most of available funding and for different organisations to deliver a shared outcome. Page 23 6

Officers confirmed that the DAHS was a county wide service and so the proposed policy would have to be considered by the six District and Borough Councils and the County Council independently. Members suggested that the Board write a letter of support for the proposals for officers to present to the District and Borough Councils.

A member asked that the Board be kept abreast of developments and it was agreed to do this within a future Better Care Fund report. This should include, as a relatively new commissioned service, what outcomes there had been for residents and whether any lessons had been learnt during its delivery.

Resolved 1. That the proposal for a revised county wide policy for the use of the increased allocation for Disabled Facilities Grants be supported. 2. That the Board’s support for the service be confirmed in a letter to the six local housing authorities. 3. That the development of the Dorset Accessible Homes Service be presented to the Board within a future Better Care Fund report.

Road Safety 26 The Board considered a joint report by the Chairman of the Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board and partners that sought members support on future collaborative work by core partners following the thematic review by the Board in 2015.

The report highlighted that as a result of on going work, it was evident that core partners within the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership could work together, to a far greater extent. Each authority was to play a key role and each had identified various actions required to reduce road traffic collisions in the County. The preventative measures which partners had highlighted as a priority were education across the life course and to review the current programmes and activities, all of which were involved in delivery.

Clarification was given to the enforcement role the road safety team had, in contrast with the Board’s role of education and prevention, and co-ordinating different organisations across Dorset to do this work.

The Chairman sought assistance from the Director for Children’s Services, Dorset County Council, to engage with schools and place road safety around schools on the schools’ agenda. This was agreed. The Director also commented that a natural place to share data for schools at a multiagency level would be the local zones referred to in the last agenda item. These zones would enable partners to be brought together, with children in mind, to engage at a local community level. She also referred to the work being carried out to educate children with special educational needs to ensure that they had the necessary skills to use roads safely.

Members discussed the proposals outlined in the report and stressed the need to ensure that the available resources were better aligned and, where possible, and sensible, a joint targeting approach be adopted within a locality. It was noted that while all parties had a statutory duty regarding road safety, there was no multiagency approach.

It was acknowledged that a mapping exercise was currently being coordinated by the Police, with a deadline of the end of June 2016, and the information gathered would be reviewed. An update on the action following this review would be made available at the next meeting. A member highlighted that better interpretation of data was required to find causes and offer a better response. In an attempt to do this, Dorset Police were collaborating with local universities.

Page 24 7

The Chairman suggested that a working group be established to outline action plans to take forward, but she asked that the additional evidence be supplied before this was considered in detail. The group which had actioned the thematic review outcomes would continue to progress this further.

Resolved 1. That the approach outlined in the report be supported. 2. That the Director for Children’s Services engage with schools in regards to road safety around schools. 3. That a further paper be presented to the Board including accident data analysis. 4. That the Board consider establishing a working group to outline action plans to address road traffic collisions in the County following receipt of the information noted in recommendation 3.

Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board communications and engagement arrangements 27 The Board considered a report by the Director for Public Health Dorset, that proposed to move responsibility for strategic communications and engagement for the Dorset and Bournemouth & Poole Health and Wellbeing Boards to the Dorset Health and Social Care Communications and Engagement Group. The proposals aimed to better support the Board to deliver its strategy.

The Senior Communications Officer, Public Health Dorset, highlighted that the proposals aimed to progress communications from its current status to link up with key priorities in social care and health and wellbeing and to better align with projects. He outlined some of the existing challenges in engaging with larger groups and his concerns about duplication. He encouraged the Board to consider how members could influence communication and recommended a development session for both Health and Wellbeing Boards on communications and engagement.

The Chairman welcomed the proposed approach and asked members to engage as much as possible, by signing up to and using twitter, by distributing any health and wellbeing communications to as wide an audience as possible.

Members referred to the role of the Board and asked whether maximum impact was being achieved in educating and influencing others; including educating residents to improve their own health. While there were resources that worked internally, members suggested challenging the communications used to liaise with different audiences externally. The need to achieve an evidence base and for a coherent and consistent approach with appropriate evaluation was also highlighted.

The Senior Communications Officer thanked members for their suggestions and emphasised that by working in partnership with others, more could be achieved and a wider audience reached.

The Chairman advised the Board that she and the Assistant Director of Public Health Dorset were soon to visit district/borough councils to highlight the work of the Board.

Resolved 1. That the move to health and wellbeing communications and engagement to the Dorset Health and Social Care Communications and Engagement Group be approved. 2. That the Dorset Health and Social Care Communications and Engagement Group produce a strategic action plan for presentation to the Board at the next available meeting.

Page 25 8 Changes to consideration of the Forward Plan 28 The Board considered a report by the Interim Director for Adult and Community Services, Dorset County Council, that updated members on the current forward plan for Board meetings and events, and sought their views as to how best to populate the plan.

Members noted that the current agenda planning process was not all inclusive and they agreed that the forward plan should be discussed at each meeting. Any agenda items were to be put forward at this time. However, should a member wish to add an item before the next meeting, they should contact either the Health Partnerships Officer or Democratic Services Officer. The Chairman of the Board would, at her discretion, agree the addition of any late item to the plan.

Additional items to be added to the work programme were set out in minutes 22.3, 24.2, 25.3, 26.3 and 27.2.

Resolved 1. That the Forward Plan be discussed at future Board meetings as a key agenda item. 2. That the Forward Plan, attached as appendix 1 to the report, be approved. 3. That late items be added to the Forward Plan at the discretion of the Chairman.

Future of Dorset Children's Trust Board 29 The Board considered a report by the Director for Children’s Services, Dorset County Council, that informed them of proposed changes to the way in which the Directorate delivered its services, and the responsibilities of the Dorset Safeguarding Children’s Board (DSCB) and their role in ensuring early help with families.

The Director advised that a review of the Children’s Trust Board (CTB) had been carried out recently. A refreshed plan with proposals to change its governance arrangements and a revised strategy would be brought before the Board. This document would highlight the Directorate’s direction of travel, strengthen the role of the Board and provide greater prevention initiatives within its safeguarding role.

Unfortunately the delivery of this plan had been delayed as a result of a month long Ofsted inspection earlier this year. Strategically, further development was needed at a local level and additional work was necessary to map services across Dorset.

In response to a question, the Director confirmed that it was hoped that the 7 zones would be aligned with locality and community hubs enabling accountable care partnerships on a governance level. This would also enable partners to consider pooling financial resources.

It was anticipated that any decisions regarding the CTB would be made in mid- summer. This would be communicated to all parties in early August/late summer to ensure levels of uncertainty were kept to a minimum.

The Board noted that the CTB had already started to draft a new outcomes focussed Children’s and Young People’s Plan 2016-20. This plan would align its priorities very clearly to the DSCB business plan and to the delivery of the Board’s Strategy.

Resolved 1. That the draft proposal for the new Children’s Trust Board arrangements be noted. 2. That the proposal, looking at the risks and benefits of any new arrangements, including the governance arrangements with Health and Wellbeing Board, be supported.

Meeting Duration: 2.00 pm - 4.15 pm

Page 26 Our Dorset – our 5 year STP

Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board

Date of Meeting 8 June 2016

Our Dorset – our five year sustainability and transformation Subject of Report plan

Report Author Chief Officer Partner Organisation NHS Dorset CCG

Responsible The System Leadership Team Commissioning body

All partners of the Health and Wellbeing Board and the System Delivery partner/s Leadership Team.

Executive Summary Our Dorset sets out our ambitious five-year plan for radically transforming health and care across the county. We want to change our system to provide services to meet the needs of local people and deliver better outcomes. We must overcome three significant changes if we are to achieve our vision for health and care in Dorset: • a health and wellbeing gap • a care and quality gap • a finance and efficiency gap Our plan sets out how we will achieve this through delivery of three programmes of work: • Prevention at Scale • Integrated Community Services • One Acute Network

This work will be supported by two enabling programmes: • Leading and Working Differently • Digitally-Enabled Dorset

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA): Equality impacts have been considered in developing the underpinning workstreams set out in the plan. Central to the plan is an understanding of our health and wellbeing gap and how this

Page 27 Our Dorset – our 5 year STP

can be addressed ensuring that everyone in Dorset has the standard of care they need regardless of who they are and where they live

Locality Impact: Our workstreams within the STP recognise that one size does not fit all, and models will need to be flexible depending on local need.

Budget: A key element of the STP is to describe the potential finance and efficiency gap if we continue as we are, both for the local NHS and for our local authorities. The plan also outlines plans to address this gap, and will provide a framework for how we continue to work together as a system to address this issue.

Once approved the STP will be submitted to NHS England. NHS England have been clear that the road to future success is dependent on the STP, and their strategic direction will be to financially incentivise local areas on the basis of their plans.

Risk Assessment:

(For DCC reports) Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk: HIGH

Current Risk: HIGH – we have identified health and wellbeing, care and quality and finance and efficiency gaps in the STP Residual Risk: HIGH – the STP sets out a plan to deliver, however until the plan is agreed and implemented risk will remain unchanged

Health and Wellbeing Implications: A key element of the STP is to describe the Health and Wellbeing Gap and our plans to address this. The STP clearly highlights the important role of the Health and Wellbeing Boards in leading on this work. In developing the STP we have worked closely with colleagues drafting the refreshed Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies.

Other Implications:

Evidence Base and Use of Evidence: Strategic Alignment Our understanding of local challenges draws on substantial analysis of Dorset’s health services conducted in the winter of

Page 28 Our Dorset – our 5 year STP

2014/15 as part of the Clinical Services Review, work underpinning the Better Together (Better Care Fund) work, and ongoing scrutiny of a wide range of clinical quality and safety data, clinical audit measures, patient and carer experience feedback and finances.

Evidence base with Joint Strategic Needs Assessment: Our understanding has built on work through the JSNA, and contributes to the JSNA.

Community engagement / express need Our workstreams on Integrated Community Services and one acute network have been developed through extensive engagement with partner organisations, patients and the public and will be subject to further consultation later this year.

We will engage further with local people on our prevention at scale programme as part of the consultation on our Joint Health and Wellbeing strategies.

Alignment with the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy: In developing the STP we have worked closely with colleagues drafting the refreshed Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies.

Recommendation The Health and Wellbeing Board are asked to:

• Consider and recommend to the Cabinet for approval the Dorset STP; • Note the next steps for the document; • Recommend to the Cabinet how they wish to enable sign off in June 2016.

To drive forward local sustainable transformation that will mean Reason for we provide services that better meet the needs of local people Recommendation and deliver better outcomes.

Appendices 1 Our Dorset

Background Papers None

Name: Alan Betts, NHS Dorset CCG, Deputy Director Transformation and Change Officer Contact Tel: 01305 368072 Email: [email protected]

Page 29 Our Dorset – our 5 year STP

1. Introduction

1.1 Our Dorset, the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for Dorset, has been developed in response to NHS Shared Planning Guidance for 2016/17. This asked every health and care system to come together to create their own ambitious plan to accelerate the implementation of the Five Year Forward View.

1.2 Our Dorset is a place-based, five year plan for the residents of Dorset and covers a footprint of five NHS Foundation Trusts (Dorset County, Poole, Bournemouth, Dorset Healthcare and South West Ambulance Service) and the three local authorities (Dorset County Council, Borough of Poole and Bournemouth Borough Council). The development of the plan has been overseen by the System Leadership Team on a monthly basis and via planning leads from each constituent organisation.

1.3 The plan aims to drive a genuine and sustainable transformation in health and wellbeing outcomes for the residents of Dorset over the longer-term. As an overarching strategic plan the STP covers all elements of our Health and Wellbeing Strategies, Clinical Services Review, and Integrated Community Services programme, which have been co-developed with partner organisations, patients and the public.

2. Report

2.1 The Dorset NHS and top tier Local Authority organisations have developed a place-based, five year plan for the residents of Dorset. The plan outlines how we will change our system to provide services to meet the needs of local people and deliver better outcomes.

2.2 This plan provides a unique opportunity and fresh impetus to fulfil not just our local ambition in Dorset but the national ambition to see the NHS and Local Authorities better meet the needs of the population.

2.3 To achieve our vision requires unprecedented collaborative action amongst those who work with and for our local communities. Over the course of the last two years we have already seen much closer working across GPs and their primary care teams, the three Dorset acute providers, Dorset Healthcare community and mental health provider, South West Ambulance Service, the three local authorities in Dorset, patient representatives and many others.

2.4 Local needs will be at the centre of all that we do across the whole health and care system. Health and care services and resources will be organised in the best possible way to meet the requirements of local people, rather than around existing organisational structures or facilities. This is important if we are to truly succeed at building a system that works for everyone in Dorset.

2.5 NHS England have been clear that the road to future success is dependent on the STP. The strategic direction is to financially incentivise local areas on the basis of their plans and ensure that future service developments or Page 30 Our Dorset – our 5 year STP

reconfigurations are aligned to the STP. The plans are not seen as a stand- alone product, but as a joining up of other local strategies to provide a single cohesive plan that the local partners are all willing to follow.

2.6 Our plans are underpinned by two approaches to understanding health and care: the effect that different factors in people’s lives have on their health and wellbeing, and the different levels of need experienced across local populations.

2.7 Broadly, the STP has a series of three integrated workstreams to meet these levels of need, supported by two enabling workstreams:

2.8 The Prevention at Scale workstream takes a comprehensive approach to prevention including the wider determinants of health, and including activity at primary, secondary and tertiary levels of prevention and at every stage in life. Our two Health and Wellbeing Boards will be central to this work. Members of the STP project group have worked closely with colleagues drafting the refreshed Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies to ensure there is alignment.

2.9 The Integrated Community Services workstream is using the needs based model as the principle to explore site specific options for delivery – this work is ongoing with stakeholders and joint work is still required to understand the implications of potential consolidation across the community hospital and primary care estate and for adult social care services across the three Councils.

2.10 The headline workstream of a network of acute services is mainly comprised of the Acute Care Vanguard and the Clinical Services Review acute reconfiguration plans – both workstreams are well underway.

Page 31 Our Dorset – our 5 year STP

3. Next Steps

3.1 The Dorset STP has been circulated to all partner organisations to take to their Board, or Health and Wellbeing Board for approval.

3.2 In late May/early June, further work on the design of the document will also take place. This will not make changes to the content, but will provide stronger visuals and improved layout.

3.3 Given national timescales for sign off and scheduling of relevant meetings, it is expected that an appropriate representative at the System Leadership Team will need delegated authority for final sign off of the STP in early June. This will allow any required amendments following all Board meetings to be made. Sign off by all parties will demonstrate our clear commitment to working together.

Tim Goodson Chair of System Leadership Team and Chief Officer of NHS Dorset CCG May 2016

Page 32 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 1

Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan for local health and care

Page 33 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 3

NHS England: Sustainability and Transformation Plans Contents

In 2014 NHS England published the Five Year challengesx. This document, Our Dorset, is Forward View to provide a clear picture of our Sustainability and Transformation Plan. Foreword 4 the scale of change that local health and care systems need to deliver by 2020/21. Detailed information about how Dorset Executive summary 5 is responding to the national ‘must-do’ New planning guidance requires all local priorities and key questions from NHS systems in England to create a Sustainability England are set out in in each of our local 1 Our vision 8 and Transformation Plan setting out NHS organisations’ annual operating plans how they will address a list of national for 2016/17 (see Our Dorset Appendix Our bold ambition for how we want to transform health and care priorities for 2016/17, as well as longer-term document). in order to meet the needs of people across Dorset.

2 Our challenges 9

Our Dorset health Why we need to change because of our population growth, and care system is the changing profile of need, the difficulties in meeting quality working together 13 standards, and limitations with our current workforce and to deliver our finances five-year plan. 2 1 Health and wellbeing 3 1 750,000 Care and quality

1 6 Finance and efficiency

1 Page 34 Page 98 3 Our plans 13 How we intend to deliver and our vision and in so doing tackle the gaps that exist in health and well-being, care and quality and finance and efficiency Over 750,000 people 6 district councils Prevention at scale 16 98 GP practices 1 community and mental 13 community hospitals health provider Integrated Community Services 21 3 district general hospitals 1 ambulance trust One Acute Network of Services 29 2 unitary local authorities 1 clinical commissioning 1 county council group 4 A sustainable approach to funding 38 The local system is also supported by services provided by a range of private and voluntary sector organisations. 5 The national support we need 41

X Delivering the Forward View: NHS planning guidance 2016/17 - 2020/21 (December 2015) 4 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 5

Foreword Executive Summary

Our Dorset sets out our ambitious five-year plan for Our Dorset has been shaped by the views of clinicians, radically transforming health and care in our area to staff and local people and developed by leaders from achieve better health outcomes for local people, with across our health and social care system. higher quality care that’s financed in a sustainable way.

We’ve written this document for NHS Together, we have a successful track record Health and wellbeing gap England, as part of their requirement for and strong commitment to collaborative Much of our expected population growth each area to submit a Sustainability and working across our organisations, so that we will happen amongst the oldest with Page 35 Page Transformation Plan. It is also for everyone act as one integrated system. This has been corresponding increases in long-term who lives in Dorset and everyone who works fundamental to our ability to build a plan of conditions. This will result in an increased in health and care in Dorset – because we this scale and ambition – and puts us in an demand for our health and care services. We want to change so our local people benefit excellent position to deliver it. also have unacceptable inequalities between from a stronger, more successful and the health and life expectancy of different sustainable health and care system. Our vision groups of people in Dorset, including those We want to change our system to provide with mental health problems. To improve By focusing more closely on what, when and services to meet the needs of local people the health and wellbeing of our current and how our population requires health and and deliver better outcomes. This means future population we have to change. care support we have moved our thinking our plan has been built around the needs beyond how we currently deliver health of the people who live here - the current Care and quality gap and care services, and the organisational population of over 750,000, as well as the There is too much variation in the quality boundaries about who delivers what. We are ambitious for Dorset, but big ideas additional 50,000 people we expect to serve of our health and care services. We do will not be enough to realise our goal. by 2023 and those people from outside of not always have enough staff with the This is important if we are to truly succeed We have to be clear about what needs to Dorset that use the same services. right skills in the right place at the right at building a system that works for everyone happen by when. That is why this plan is time. Finding or accessing relevant patient across our county. grounded in the practical reality of making Our ambition is to see every person in information is also more difficult than it change happen. Dorset stay healthy for longer and feel more needs to be. In most cases our local services We already have a successful track record confident and supported in managing their are good, but we have some areas of care and strong commitment to collaborative The road ahead is not without significant own health. We want everyone to have an that do not meet the national quality working across our health and care challenges. We have to change quickly and equal standard of care regardless of who standards. To improve the care and quality organisations, so that we act as one we have to involve and inform more than they are and where they live, delivered of the services we provide we have to integrated health and care system. The last 30,000 staff and over 750,000 local people. by health and care professionals with the change. two years have seen increasingly effective We need to continue to deliver high quality appropriate skills. More of our services will partnership working between our area’s services at the same time as working to be provided closer to home, with improved Finance and efficiency gap GPs and primary care teams, the three local transform the system. We will have to make access seven days a week. We will have the If we can carry on as we are now, we district general hospitals, our community some difficult decisions that will affect the highest level of hospital-based services for forecast that in five years our health services and mental health service provider, the way things are currently done. But we are when people need them. This is how we can will have an annual shortage of £158 million ambulance service, Dorset’s three local committed to making the changes that improve health outcomes and local people’s a year, with a further £56 million shortfall on authorities, patient representatives and will enable us to fulfil our duty to deliver experience of health and care services. NHS England specialised services. Our local many others. It is this approach that has the best possible health outcomes and the authorities also face a significant drop in enabled us to build a plan of this scale highest possible standard of services within Our challenges income, and together our nine councils will and ambition – and puts us in an excellent the budgets we have available. We must overcome three significant changes have to save over £100 million over the next position to deliver it. if we are to achieve our vision for health and four years. As our funding cannot keep pace care in Dorset: with growth in demands and costs, and to get the most from the money we do have we have to change. 6 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 7

Our plan We plan to deliver three programmes of Our plan sets out how we will achieve work over the next five years and beyond, The critical decisions we are our vision over the next five years. We with each programme contributing looking to make have taken a ‘whole system’ approach to individually and collectively to close the gaps addressing issues that impact on people’s we have identified in health and wellbeing, Our three key programmes of work wellbeing and the development of health care and quality, and finance and efficiency. will require us to make critical decisions inequalities. We have also used a ‘needs around the following: based’ approach to identify categories of • The resourcing and co-ordination of need that reflect people’s requirement for our systematic approach to prevention health and care varies over the course of at scale their lives. • The organisation of our primary care services into larger groupings Our three programmes of work • The reconfiguration of our community hospitals with beds to provide more 1 The Prevention at Scale programme will Supported by two enabling programmes: integrated services at scale help people to stay healthy and avoid • The Leading and Working Differently • The reconfiguration of our three getting unwell. programme focuses on giving the acute hospitals in order to deliver the 2 The Integrated Community Services health and care workforce the skills and highest quality of emergency and programme will support individuals expertise needed to deliver new models planned care who are unwell, by providing high of care in an integrated health and care quality care at home and in community system. settings. • The Digitally-Enabled Dorset 3 The One Acute Network programme programme will increase the use of will help those who need the most technology in the health and care specialist health and care support, system, to support new approaches to through a single acute care system service delivery. across the whole county. What this means for local people How national support would help Delivery of our plan will see us provide local We are in a strong position, but national Page 36 Page people with: expert advice and investment would enable • Improved health outcomes us to move faster to deliver the changes • Better patient experience we are aiming for. In particular, we would We have developed our integrated programmes of work to radically transform like assistance to review and strengthen our our health and care system to address the differing needs of our population. • Same standard of care across all health and patient benefit case for the Competition care settings and Market Authority alongside legal, • More care provided closer to home workforce and change management support. We will need access to sustainability • More information, advice and support to and transformational funding along with help people to stay well Highest need Tier 3 endorsement of our case to secure the People with One acute complex needs network of • More choice about when and where to capital to undertake the acute hospital and services receive treatment community services reconfiguration and • Less travelling time to attend information technology investment. Given Moderate need Tier 2 appointments the scale of the transformation we are People with Intergrated proposing we also hope to be given political moderate or Community reoccuring Services support before and during the forthcoming health needs

Digitally Enabled Dorset periods of transition so we can achieve our

Leading and working differently ambitions. Lowest need Tier 1 Whole Prevention population at scale

A sustainable approach to funding 8 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 9

Our vision Our local challenges

Our vision is simple but effective: we want to change We have identified three main challenges that we our system to provide services to meet the needs of local must address if we want to achieve our vision for people and deliver better outcomes. health and care in Dorset:

Local needs will be at the centre of all We want every person in Dorset to: Health and Care and quality Finance and that we do across the whole health and • Stay healthy for longer wellbeing gap gap efficiency gap care system. Health and care services and • Feel more confident and supported in resources will be organised in the best managing their own health Variation in Differences in the The increasing pressure possible way to meet the requirements of the health and quality of care on resources within the Page 37 Page • Have an equal standard of care regardless local people, rather than around existing wellbeing outcomes received by people system, with shortages of who they are and where they live organisational structures or facilities. of different people across our area of some staff and the • Have a more joined up, seamless across Dorset. and shortcoming in prospect of insufficient We will take a broad view of health and care experience of all services reaching national funds to maintain our needs, with a focus on prevention as well as • Be treated by a health and care standards. health and care system treating ill-health. We will support people professional with the appropriate skills in the way it currently to stay well from birth onwards and take to deliver high quality care operates. into account the broader factors that affect individuals’ wellbeing. • Have more control over their own care • Have more access to services seven days We will extend health and care services far a week beyond doctor’s surgeries and hospitals, • Not meeting NHS Constitutional • Have more services delivered closer How these challenges affect into people’s homes and our communities standards such as being seen in A&E to home local people – the places where it is needed most. When within the 4 hour waiting time target people need hospital based specialist care • Have access to the highest level of hospital and national waiting times for cancer All of the problems we have identified we want this provided from centres of based services when they need them referrals and treatment excellence. have a direct effect on local people. Examples include: • Not being discharged from hospital in a timely way • Having to see different doctors, nurses • Not being able to access additional care and other professionals and repeat their at home when needed story each time • Not always being able to access good • Not being able to see a GP at the quality care homes when needed times they would like • Getting different messages and advice • Having to travel for tests and from the professionals that they see. Radical change appointments in different places The health and care system in • Having tests repeated because results Dorset that we have in 2016 is not are not available where they are designed in a way that can support these ambitions. That’s why we’re Our understanding of local challenges draws on a substantial analysis of Dorset’s health embarking on this programme services conducted in the winter of 2014/15 and ongoing scrutiny of a wide range of clinical of radical change. quality and safety data, clinical audit measures, patient and carer experience feedback and finances. We continue to update and deepen our understanding of the range and depth of challenges we face across our health and care system so that our plans are firmly focused on delivering positive change. 10 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 11

Health and wellbeing gap Care and quality gap

By 2023, the population of Dorset will Dorset in the last five years, there has been In Dorset we are proud that recent Care have increased from around 750,000 to a rise in Bournemouth and this is at a time Quality Commission inspections of local over 800,000, with much of the growth when numbers are falling nationally. We organisations have identified areas of good happening among older people. Increased think this variation is unacceptable. practice, despite the pressures in our system. longevity brings new challenges to health However, they have also highlighted areas and care systems, because as we grow older Many factors play a part in creating this where we need to improve: areas where more of us develop long-term conditions gap. The prosperity of an area is one factor. there is too much variation in the quality such as diabetes and dementia. Lifestyle factors are another big reason why of services; where the standards being people may have more ill health. Based on achieved do not meet the targets that People in Dorset generally live healthier current trends, obesity will become an even we expect; where there are not enough and longer lives compared to the average more widespread problem by 2020, by which appropriately-skilled staff where and when for England, but this is not evenly spread time we think 1 in 10 local people could have they are needed; and where finding or across our population – the data reveals diabetes and 1 in 8 could have heart disease. accessing relevant patient information is unacceptable inequalities between different more difficult than it needs to be. groups. We must reduce the gap between There is a difference of up to 20 years in the health of the poorest and richest. There the life expectancy of people with mental National quality standards are rightly high, is a particularly wide health gap for men health problems. We want everyone in and they are continuing to rise. In most living in Bournemouth, where those living in Dorset to receive the same high quality of cases our services are good, but in others the more prosperous areas can expect to live for care, regardless of where they live, what evidence shows we need to do more to meet 11 years longer than those living in the most health condition they have, or any other these standards consistently. For example, deprived areas. Whilst there has been no personal characteristic. We also know that when people are admitted as an emergency change in the numbers of people who die people who act as carers are at high risk of to hospital, they may end up staying early from heart disease in Poole and rural experiencing worse health outcomes, having longer than they need. Dorset is among Better care their employment or education disrupted the five worst-performing areas in England for all and becoming socially isolated, which in turn for delays in getting people home. For impacts on their role as a carer. older people in particular, a longer stay in We want everyone to have the

Page 38 Page hospital increases the risk of falls, infection, highest quality of care no matter increasing confusion and pressure ulcers. who they are or where they live, and whenever their health There are unacceptable variations in the Dorset has more 90+ need arises. quality of care across Dorset. For example, older people and less 85-89 patients with diabetes at some GP practices working age and 80-84 Older young people when people 75-79 are more likely to have better control of compared to the 70-74 their condition, meaning they are less likely 65-69 England average to develop further problems such as heart 60-64 disease. Similarly, there are variations in 55-59 immunisation rates and dental care among 50-54 45-49 children who are in the care of each our 40-44 three local authorities. We want everyone 35-39 people to have the highest quality of care no

Working age Working 30-34 matter who they are or where they live, and 25-29 whenever their health need arises. 20-24 15-19

10-14

5.9 England Average people Young Young 0.4

4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 12 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 13

Finance and efficiency gap Our plans

The NHS in England will have a national government £1.1 billion), and we need to Delivering our vision demands ambitious plans that shortage of £22 billion by 2020/21. In Dorset be sure that we use our resources including are bold in scope and grounded in evidence and we forecast that in five years our health our workforce, technology and buildings, 3 local insight. services will have a shortage of £158 million in a way that brings the greatest benefit a year, with a further £56 million shortfall to local people. More than 30,000 people on NHS England specialised services, if work within our local health and social care Our plans are underpinned by two A needs-based approach we carry on as we are now. Our local system. The way that services are currently approaches to understanding health and People experience varying health and care authorities face a significant drop in income organised means that we don’t always have care: the effect that different factors in needs over the course of their lives. We have that sees a requirement to have to save over staff with the right skills where and when people’s lives have on their health and to be able to design and deliver high quality, £100 million over the next four years. they are needed. We have gaps in some wellbeing, and the different levels of need safe and sustainable services that address Page 39 Page staff, particularly in domiciliary care, nursing experienced across local populations. the full range of health and care needs, As our funding cannot keep pace with staff and GPs. including minor illnesses and injuries, long- growth in demands and costs, and to get the The wider determinants of health term conditions, planned care, unexpected most from the money we do have, we face We have made savings and have been We recognise that there are many complex urgent and emergency requirements and a significant challenge of needing to bring working more efficiently. Our health and often interrelated factors that influence end of life care. By thinking about our our system back into financial balance. This providers have all saved around 2% to 4% people’s health and care needs. These population as having categories of need, means we have to be more efficient; we each year and local authorities have also factors include the quality of housing people which is also known as ‘risk stratification’ need to organise and deliver our services in made significant savings. However, given the live in, the ability to find employment and or ‘population segmentation’, we can make different ways to provide health and care scale of the financial gap, carrying on as we how well schools are performing. Our plans sure we are providing what is required. This that meets our changing needs; and we are is not an option. To achieve our vision, take into account these wider determinants understanding allows us to think differently need to invest more money in prevention. we need to make significant changes. of health and working with local authorities about how we organise our services, and other partners to take a ‘whole system workforce and finances to support each Together the NHS and local authorities in approach’ to addressing issues that impact segment of the population. Dorset spend over £2.5 billion on public on well-being and create health inequalities. services (health spend £1.4 billion, local

Financial impact of doing nothing in Dorset Determinants of health

What works £158m

nts Be ina hav m io r ur te s Expenditure e £0m D Green Physical Mental Forecast gap Employment by 2020/21= Space Activity Health £158m annual Underlying Healthy surplus Education Housing Violence Nutrition Prevention

Tobacco Limit Environment Transport Control Alcohol 2013/14 Break even 2014/15 2020/21 point

Tobacco Control 14 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 15

Our programmes of work A needs-based approach to We have identified three programmes of work that are already underway, which we our integrated programmes will continue to develop and accelerate to enable us to realise our vision for health and of work care in Dorset over the next five years.

Each programme contributes individually We have three interconnected programmes of work to and collectively to close the gaps we have drive forward changes to our services in order that we identified in health and wellbeing, care better meet the differing health and care needs and quality, and finance and efficiency, to of local people. produce a truly integrated system that meets the needs of all our population. There is already a great deal of exciting work going on within these areas that we can learn from and build on.

1 The Prevention at Scale programme will Local Government help people to stay healthy and avoid In developing our plans we have been getting unwell. mindful of the evolving government landscape. The Government has set out 2 The Integrated Community Services the legal framework within which local programme will support individuals who authorities and the public, business and are unwell, by providing high quality care community sector partners can develop at home and in community settings. and deliver devolution opportunities. 3 The One Acute Network programme will As part of the devolution proposals, the help those who need the most specialist structure of councils across Dorset is under health and care support, through a single review and it may lead to local government acute care system across the whole county. reorganisation during the lifespan of this

Page 40 Page To realise these ambitions we have two plan. These proposals have been prepared fundamental enabling programmes: in a context where local authorities in the Highest need Tier 3 area will be losing all Government Revenue People with One acute • The Leading and Working Differently complex needs network of programme focuses on giving the health Support Grant funding over the next five services and care workforce the skills and expertise years and, in some cases, by 2019. needed to deliver new models of care in an integrated health and care system. Moderate need Tier 2 People with Intergrated • The Digitally-Enabled Dorset programme moderate or Community will harness the power of technology reoccuring Services and support digital innovation across the health needs health and care system, to support new Digitally Enabled Dorset approaches to service delivery. Leading and working differently Lowest need Tier 1 Our plans for these two workstreams Whole Prevention are outlined in the Our Dorset Appendix population at scale document.

A sustainable approach to funding 16 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 17

Programme 1 Supporting children to grow and families to thrive: Each local authority supports Prevention at Scale staff working in early years and education settings to build their skills and confidence The Prevention at Scale to improve children’s health, wellbeing programme is the bottom and attainment. Parents will be helped tier of our plans, forming the to become more self-reliance and build foundation to underpin all of the emotional resilience of their family. the work we will do. Prevention We will also ensure improved partnership work also runs through the working to identify vulnerable families and upper tiers of the triangle – Digitally Enabled Dorset children who need extra assistance. Our Leading and working differently our Integrated Community Lowest need Tier 1 Joint Commissioning Board for children are Services and One Acute Network Whole Prevention population at scale leading this work for both our universal and Page 41 Page programmes. targeted services to identify risk, provide early support and extend our reach so that all children across Dorset can make the most of their potential. As part of this approach to prevention we are committed to working in partnership NHS Five Year Creating job opportunities and access to Improving the quality of homes occupied to tackle the wider determinants of health Forward View affordable housing: Dorset’s local authorities by vulnerable people: Older, less energy- – the complex and often interrelated factors have formed a single local economic efficient houses can be difficult to keep that influence people’s health and care needs. partnership (LEP) and produced a county- warm and cold homes are linked with The programme aims to help individuals take “The future health of millions of children, wide strategic plan that focuses on building health problems such as respiratory disease, control of their own wellbeing and make the sustainability of the NHS and the skills, developing the local economy, circulatory problems and increased risk of healthy choices that will keep them well for economic prosperity of Britain all now increasing job opportunities and access to poor mental health. The Dorset Healthy longer. As we plan and deliver services we will depend on a radical upgrade in prevention affordable housing. Bournemouth University Homes programme is a collaboration across consider what effects we can have on health and public health.” and Arts University Bournemouth play a the district, borough and unitary authorities of all our population. key part in and contribute to the growing in Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset, which creative and digital sector in Bournemouth. aims to improve the quality of homes Our two Health and Wellbeing Boards will A comprehensive approach to prevention occupied by vulnerable people. The ambition be central to this work and are currently Any Prevention at Scale programme Revitalising communities: Each local authority is to deliver improvements to around 150 refreshing their Joint Health and Wellbeing must take a comprehensive approach to is leading projects to address housing needs, homes each year over the next three years. Strategies to align with Our Dorset plan. prevention including the wider determinants job opportunities, community facilities and These will go out for consultation with the of health, and including activity at primary, cultural attractions in areas identified as being Encouraging active travel: Dorset local public later in 2016. They will provide a secondary and tertiary levels of prevention in need of regeneration. These areas include authorities have a good history of working common framework and language so that and at every stage in life. Boscombe, West Howe, Bourne Valley and together on sustainable transport projects, all our partners from across health and Melcombe Regis. including the Local Transport Plan 3 which social care, the voluntary sector and the The wider determinants of health highlights the importance of shifting independent sector, can understand how Local authorities in Dorset are already commuter behaviour away from cars and they can contribute to this work. delivering a range of initiatives that are towards healthier alternatives such as walking or cycling. The most recent plans We will have a particular focus on heart designed to tackle the wider determinants include the Dorset-wide Partnerships for disease and diabetes as they contribute the of health. We will build on the experiences Active Travel initiative, which aims to most to health inequalities in Dorset, and we and successes of these initiatives as we promote walking and cycling as alternatives know that early deaths from these causes develop plans for the Prevention at Scale are increasing in some areas. Many of the programme of work. Examples of work actions we take to reduce the impacts of already being done include: heart disease will also reduce the impacts of cancer and dementia, and will help to give the next generation a healthy start in life. 18 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 19

Secondary prevention • The 2011 census identified that we have Secondary prevention focuses on supporting 82,900 unpaid carers providing invaluable people who have already developed a support to people at home. We intend to health problem such as high blood pressure provide more timely access to information or diabetes. It focuses on detecting these and advice to enable carers to help those problems at an early stage and making they care for, as well as support to help sure that they are well controlled so that them maintain their own well-being. the person stays well. An important part of Tertiary prevention this is supporting people in developing the The third type of prevention focuses on confidence, knowledge and skills to manage individuals who have more complicated or their condition. severe health problems. Tertiary prevention • Our My Health My Way initiative will aims to make sure that their condition has continue to provide personalised support as little impact as possible on their quality of to help people self-manage long-term life. conditions and we expect to extend the • Our My Life, My Care service will continue number of people involved. We will also to support people to find the help they work closely with primary care to ensure may need to live independently at home. patients are invited in regularly for check- ups and that a more proactive approach • We will continue to provide short-term is taken for people who do not attend intensive support to help people get back appointments. home after a hospital stay, as part of our to car journeys, among businesses, particularly in more disadvantaged areas, integrated community services programme • We are developing a ‘patient portal’ within (see page 21). employees, apprentices, job seekers and that it works to support people to the Dorset Care Record, as part of our 2020 and students. There are direct economic make the changes they want to their lives. Digital vision (see page x). This will provide benefits arising from switching to active • In 2016/17 LiveWell will also deliver people with access to better information travel (estimated to exceed £4 million training and advice to help employers and decision making support around how over 10 years), there are also likely to be and voluntary organisations reach their to self care. The portal will also provide further health and wellbeing benefits from employees and the communities they serve people with access to their health records

Page 42 Page a reduction in future risk of developing with tailored health and wellbeing advice and link the information held by the My chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, and support. Health My Way and the My life my care. as well as effects on air quality by reducing the number of miles travelled by car. • We will extend our work training teachers • We will ensure our health and care and staff across educational settings in practitioners provide timely and high Primary prevention Mental Health First Aid and Five Ways quality support to help people to Primary prevention is about helping people to Wellbeing so they are better able to consistently control their blood sugar, who are currently well to make these support pupils’ emotional health and blood pressure and cholesterol, especially changes in their lives that will help them wellbeing. for people who have diabetes. This will stay healthy for longer. help to address the variations in health and wellbeing outcomes across our • We will extend our LiveWell Dorset service area, reduce the likelihood of patients to provide more people with help to quit developing further problems and needing smoking, cut down on alcohol, exercise hospital based care. more, lose weight and eat more healthily. The service is currently being evaluated so that our planned expansion will be refined to ensure it reaches more people, 20 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 21

What our Prevention at Scale programme means for local people Programme 2 Integrated Community The focus on prevention across all parts • by becoming more physically active, of our health and care system will lead to eating healthily and moving towards a Services a wide range of positive health outcomes more healthy weight, people will be less Integrated Community Services for local people: likely to develop diabetes, heart disease form the middle tier of our plan. • With improved housing conditions, and mobility problems This programme will transform fewer people will become unwell with • fewer people drinking more than is primary and community health lung problems and fewer people will Moderate need Tier 2 healthy for them will result in fewer and care services in Dorset, so People with Intergrated die early from chronic lung problems or that they are truly integrated moderate or Community people admitted to hospital for alcohol reoccuring Services heart disease. and based on the needs of our health needs related problems including stomach or Digitally Enabled Dorset

• A focus on walking and cycling in local liver problems. local populations. Leading and working differently Page 43 Page transport planning will mean a small increase in physical activity for most It will help people who already have a people, that overall will add up to fewer health problem by: deaths from heart disease. • detecting more health problems at an • Community-based obesity prevention early stage work that brings together different • building confidence and support to help approaches to help people eat well Community based services will be led by unplanned emergency medical admissions people take more control of their own multidisciplinary teams of professionals, and unplanned surgical admissions by 20%. will mean fewer people become obese care and therefore fewer people will go working together to meet the needs of people • Make sure our community services are able on to develop diabetes. Places where • reducing the likelihood that they will who have short-term health needs, individuals to support frail older people with long- this approach has been tried have also need to go into hospital because of their with long-term conditions and those requiring term conditions so that more care can be found that people have a more positive condition specialist care for severe or complex health delivered closer to home. outlook on life, which may mean needs. We will deliver all of these services in a • making sure that people are discharged • Improve personalised care for people with they are less prone to mental health way that makes it easier for people to access from hospital as soon as possible complex needs, including individuals with problems. care when and where they need to, with a • creating an equal standard of care for consistent and high quality experience for learning disabilities. • More children and young people all, with less variation in the quality patients as they move between different parts • Adopt new technologies that will growing, developing and achieving experienced by advantaged and of the integrated system. support a high quality, consistent patient their potential. disadvantaged groups experience throughout the health system, • providing more support to carers. Our priorities are to: with standardised working practices and It will help people to stay well by making • Support people to better manage their seamless communication between health positive healthy choices: own health, with access to appropriate professionals. • reduced levels of smoking will lead to information and support – we expect a 10% • Create integrated teams of professionals less heart disease, lung problems, cancer reduction in new outpatient attendances with the right skill mix (including students) in and dementia and a 25% reduction in follow-ups. improved working environments, to support • Provide care that is based on the needs of the delivery of the model of care as well our local population, with services delivered as enhance skills acquisition and personal development opportunities. “The plans we have for prevention at scale and to empower self-care, at the times and places people need them. represent an exciting opportunity to shift from a focus on the treatment • Enable more people to receive care at • Make sure that our NHS buildings, resources of ill-health to a focus on helping people keep well for longer. This home and in the community, and to self- and finances are used in a cost-efficient way, will require a clear and enduring commitment from all partners to manage long-term conditions, to avoid including by planning care on a larger scale prevention as a central theme of all their work. ” having to visit hospital or being admitted to achieve cost savings. Dr David Phillips, Director of Public Health, Public Health Dorset as an inpatient – we expect to reduce 25% 22 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 23

We will establish a network of community 8 1 Routine care 2 2 Rapid same-day access

3 Self-management support 7 4 Outpatient appointments 3 5 Urgent and unplanned care 6 Secondary care consultations 6 4 7 Rehabilitation 5 8 Specialist care and support

Creating a network of community • People with a very high risk of a Some of the hubs will also offer community We are reviewing the health and care service hubs deterioration in their health, which require beds so that when appropriate, people can existing estate available across the county to To deliver our priorities we intend to create regular supervision and support, including receive care locally instead of being admitted identify options for locating the proposed a network of community service hubs people at the end of life and those with to an acute hospital. These community beds community hubs. The options could involve throughout Dorset. These hubs will enable multiple health and social care needs. will also be used to provide rehabilitation consolidating services on some existing sites, people to access a wider range of health The services will include: after an acute stay, and to support people at with repurposing or development of some services, from routine care to urgent and • Routine care including traditional primary the end of life. buildings to make better use of resources. specialist care, closer to their homes. care, screening, baby clinics and checks, We have modelled the level of demand we In developing our proposed model, we will Mixed teams of health and care professionals contraception services and prevention advice expect for each of the core services that would take into account criteria such as quality of care, access to care, affordability and value for Page 44 Page providing care for people who have physical • Rapid same-day access to GP-led urgent care, be provided, and considered the facilities and mental health needs will staff the hubs. that would be required on each site, such as money, workforce, deliverability and research with on-site diagnostic testing including and development. They will offer services for children, adults and imaging and x-rays the number of consultation, treatment and our growing older population. therapy rooms. We have identified a minimum There is an important interdependency with • Self-management support for patients with population catchment required for each hub, the proposal for our Major Planned Care The health and care system will address a long-term conditions wide range of different needs of our local which will ensure use of the facilities for a Hospital with an Urgent Care Centre as this population, including: • Outpatient appointments minimum of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, site will also provide community beds. with some services being provided 14 hours a • Urgent and unplanned care • People who are mostly healthy but with day for 7 days a week, and use the workforce some recurrent health needs, such as young • Secondary care consultations and minor efficiently. Our planned expanded integrated children, pregnant women and people with procedures teams could deliver more and better services short-term illnesses • Rehabilitation and services to support from a fewer number of sites than the 13 • People at moderate risk of requiring higher recovery after periods of ill-health community hospitals with beds and 135 sudden levels of care need, or sudden care primary care sites that currently operate across • Specialist care and support for people with needs, including those with long-term Dorset. complex needs, including 24/7 crisis support conditions, learning or physical disabilities, to help people receive the urgent care they and frail older people need without going into hospital. 24 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 25

We expect to have our proposal for the programme and to reflect the recently community hub reconfiguration prepared in published General Practice Forward View2. the next two months and we will be asking The strategy will outline our vision for primary the public for their views on the proposals in care and short, medium and long-term plans a large-scale consultation in autumn 2016. for scaling up general practice to provide Before, during and after the consultation improved access to care, including weekend period we will be seeking feedback on services, and cost-effective ways of working our plans from stakeholders across the through strong federations and networks of system. When a final decision is taken and GP practices. implementation begins, we expect that the There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to how service provided within the hubs will be GP practices should best be organised; the jointly commissioned by the NHS and local solution will depend on the needs of the local authorities.

Page 45 Page population. Our additional modelling work An integrated workforce and on-going discussions across primary care We know that we already have most of the will help to determine the right approach for health workforce that we need to deliver each area within Dorset. Our analysis work to community care in these new ways, but we date suggests that the current 98 GP practices have yet to understand the gaps in the social delivering care in 135 sites will over-stretch our care workforce. We expect there will be a workforce and finances, and that a reduction need for some recruitment, changes in the in the number of sites would allow more skill mix across staff groups and new ways of services to be consistently delivered across the home. well as those living with dementia. working, such as developing nursing and allied county for more hours of the day and days of health professional roles across community the week. Transforming mental health services To help to achieve our ambition, in 2015 We are committed to tackling mental health we have begun a Mental Health Acute and primary care services. Transforming community based urgent and with the same energy and priority as we have Care Pathway (MHACP) Service Review to We will reorganise health and social care staff emergency care tackled physical illness in order to deliver identify the changes needed to services into teams with a greater diversity of skills Our plan is to further strengthen the urgent ‘parity of esteem’. Our vision (see page 8) such as inpatient assessment and treatment, and expertise, so that they are better able to care integrated advice and assessment service applies equally to people with mental health psychiatric liaison, crisis response and home respond to specific health needs in community (see page 27) to create one clinical pathway problems. treatment, street triage and community settings. that provides timely access to the most We want to see more being done to prevent mental health teams. For more information about our plans for the appropriate service. This will ensure Dorset is the development of mental health problems, During the view seeking phase we gathered workforce see page 36. best placed to meet the NHS England Urgent Care 12 core standards by April 2018X. We and early intervention across primary care and over 3350 pieces of feedback from local Transforming GP services also want to develop a high quality and other services to NICE standards and national people, carers, staff, the voluntary sector The community hubs will be supported by consistent trauma care pathway that will targets so that people get timely access to the as well as our health, social care and public a strengthened network of GP practices, support the proposed model of care for the help that they need. We want our integrated service partners. We are now in the modelling offering patients a wider range of universal One Acute Network (see page 29). Enhancing community services to support as many people phase of the project and we will shortly be and more specialist services, including urgent the provision of community based urgent and as possible to stay independent and provide producing a short list of the new model care seven days a week. This will involve emergency care is essential if we are to reduce appropriate health and care closer to home. options of care to take to public consultation making changes to how GP practices are inappropriate attendance at A&E, reduce We also want to improve the linkages with our in 2016. The implementation phase is expected currently organised. hospital admissions and deliver care closer to acute services and raise the quality of the care to take place over several years beginning We are working collaboratively with our that is provided at a time of crisis, including for in 2017 after the plans are reviewed and partners over the next two months to people with anxiety and depression as a result approved by Dorset CCG and Pan Dorset Joint further develop our primary care strategy of pain, living with a long-term condition or alongside the Integrated Community Services following an acute physical health event, as

2 NHS England. General Practice Forward View (April 2016) X Commissioning Standards Integrated Urgent Care (September 2015) 26 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 27

"The community teams have very capable expert staff in them. What they haven’t had previously is a way to access medical expertise and that means that managing complex patients often involved referring patients to different services. By making myself available to those teams easier, and often informally, they can continue to manage those patients and I can support the patients at home where necessary. And the patient has to do much less moving around of the healthcare system." Dr Riaz Dharamshi, Geriatrician, Geriatrician, Dorset HealthCare University NHS Foundation Trust

Commissioning Board. covers a network of nine local GP practices For more information about the existing integrated workforce at Bridport Community Hospital The new model will reflect best practice whom together service 74,000 people. It and the Integrated advice and assessment centre watch this video and national guidance, and will be focused operates 8am to 6pm seven days a week, www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHWWudtgaaU on improving patient outcomes. It will also and brings together a wide range of health and social care coordinators working as take account the work of the Integrated An integrated workforce: the impact to date as working through networks or being co- one integrated team. It includes GPs with Community Service and One Acute Network The Better Together Partnership (Better located within hubs. Other practices are still enhanced skills to manage chronic and programmes. Care Fund) has supported the integration developing their plans. We are working to acute illnesses that also require treatment in of 13 health and social care teams. They agree a standard integrated locality model In addition, starting in summer 2016 we are hospital, community nurses, social workers, have helped deliver better management of that allows the flexibility to ensure the undertaking a Dementia Services Review in an old people’s mental health worker, a frail and older people through robust multi- provision is appropriate for local need. The support of our commitment to the 2020 NHS community rehabilitation team nurse, a agency care management arrangements. funding and planning support from the Local Mandate goals for dementia care. This will community matron, a paramedic and an in- They have also enabled earlier discharge from Dorset Vanguard programme is helping to include looking closely at how to improve the reach nurse. Working collaboratively enables hospital, increased intensive rehabilitation and accelerate plans. time it takes to access a diagnostic assessment them to identify and respond to people at the reablement for patients such as those who and post diagnostic support, our inpatient highest risk of needing more health and care. Community based urgent and emergency have had a stroke, and improved end of care. services and intermediate care. We expect The staff use anticipatory care plans and frailty care: the impact to date to identify opportunities to deliver more registers, and have close links to local practices At Bridport Medical Centre this is an We have established a standalone urgent care services to reduce social isolation that could be to strengthen care planning. The hub also integrated health and social care team integrated advice and assessment centre that Page 46 Page provided from the proposed community hubs. has access to local ‘step-up’ community beds. working together to support the most handles enquiries from across the county 24 By 2017 we will also have started a review In its first four months the hub has had 500 vulnerable local people. Our plan is to create hours a day, seven days a week. It is operated of the rehabilitation and recovery pathway referrals, reduced admissions to acute hospitals similar integrated health and care teams that by the ambulance service and sits alongside of people with mental health problems, to and improved care pathways. Staff also report reflect local need across the whole of Dorset. the 999-call centre, NHS 111 control centre include supported housing and employment. feeling more satisfied and motivated. GP services: the impact to date and GP out of hours services. It also operates as a ‘single point of access’ through which all The modelling work we are undertaking to Launched within the last six months, the Local Integrated community services: the impact health and care professionals can organise identify the options on where to locate our Dorset Vanguard programme has provided to date follow-up appointments for individuals in community hubs will also be informed by the CCG funding and additional planning support Important foundations have already been laid need. By having up to date details of what existing work to locate services together in to six GP federations covering all of Dorset, towards realising our integrated community services are available at every hour of the day areas such as Blandford, Bridport, Shaftesbury to help them think how they can work services vision, which will help us to increase the hub can ensure local people are supported and Sherborne. These examples demonstrate differently to provide care to local people the scale and pace at which we can deliver our to access the right care at the right time. Since the benefits we can realise by using our estate that meets their needs seven days a week. ambitious plan. April we have also introduced a new Dorset- more effectively and supporting services and Some of our GP practices have chosen to work Our existing Weymouth and Portland wide labour line that is available directly teams to work more closely together to meet together across bigger localities and combine Integrated Care Hub has the potential to act through NHS 111 and provides support for patient need. primary care services with community, social as a blueprint for the rest of Dorset. The hub care, voluntary and acute care services to plan women in labour or who have concerns about to deliver services in a range of ways, such their pregnancy.

3 Bournemouth University’s Market Research Group independently analysed 3355 views to inform future service model design. Is the report published so it can be referenced? 28 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 29

Mental health services: the impact to date treatment services as an alternative to hospital Programme 3 Since 2014 there has been important work admission; and the establishment of a recovery taking place to ensure there is more equitable house to provide an alternative choice of place One Acute Network Highest need Tier 3 People with One acute treatment and outcomes for people with of care for people in crisis. In Autumn 2016 we of Services complex needs network of mental health problems. will open a female Psychiatric Intensive Care services One Acute Network is the top To improve prevention and increase emotional Unit in the county, as currently local people tier of our plan. This programme resilience more mental health well-being have to travel out of the area. We have also will transform acute services in education is being delivered in educational worked in partnership with 16 organisations on the development and on-going delivery of the Dorset so that they meet the settings with training support for teachers Digitally Enabled Dorset Dorset Crisis Care Concordat. complex and specialist needs of (see page 17). Leading and working differently our local population. Our Dorset talking therapy service, Steps to We have commissioned the Alzheimer’s Wellbeing, is consistently delivering high Society to deliver an innovative pre and post

Page 47 Page recovery rates that are above the national diagnostic support service for people who are target. concerned about their memory. Acute mental health services have changed in Dorset HealthCare Mental Health acute wards The network will assign specialist roles to each inpatient stay, including the provision of line with national models and developments, for adults of working age and psychiatric of our three district general hospitals and more urgent and emergency care which means that there has been a reduction intensive care unit was awarded outstanding create a single skilled network of clinicians in inpatient bed numbers accompanied by and is currently the only outstanding unit in • Invest over £100 million in refurbishments who will provide a consistent, high quality investment and development of crisis and home the country. and enhancements, including a new experience for patients. maternity and paediatric unit Our priorities are to: • Provide an integrated frailty service and What our Integrated Community Services programme means • Establish centres of excellence for patients improved mental health care, working closely with the Integrated Community for local people who need hospital based services Services and supporting the Mental Health • Develop a Major Emergency Hospital to Acute Care Pathway review (see page 25) provide more urgent and emergency care • More choice about when and where to • Easier access to health records and 24 hours a day, seven days a week where • Deliver a range of primary and community receive treatment. information about their treatment. evidence shows it makes a difference to services from our acute hospital sites • Less travelling time to attend Integrated community services will benefit clinical outcomes, including across major • Adopt new technologies that will appointments. everyone in Dorset, but there will be trauma, hyper acute cardiac, stroke, support a high quality, consistent patient • Less time waiting for appointments, particular benefits for older people, who emergency surgery experience throughout the health system, diagnostic tests and test results. make up a large and growing proportion • Develop a Major Planned Care Hospital to with standardised working practices and of our population (see page 10). Making seamless communication between health • Improved health outcomes, with more provide high quality and timely care for a wider range of health and care services planned (elective) and day case surgery professionals. opportunities to be cared for at home available closer to home will help people and in the community rather than in a to stay in their own homes for longer; • Maintain a Planned Care and Emergency • Join our workforce across Dorset into a hospital setting. avoid unnecessary hospital stays which Hospital to provide urgent and emergency single network working together to support the delivery of more 24/7 services across our • Better patient experience, with the can lead to additional health problems alongside planned and specialist care in the and a loss of independence; and regain west of the county hospitals and the Integrated Community same high standard of care across all Service programme, as well as enhance health and care settings and effective independence following a stay in hospital • Establish single acute networks for services with the help of home-based support and skills acquisition and career and personal sharing of information between health such as cancer, heart disease and stroke, development opportunities. professionals. the use of technology. so that consistent services are provided for • Support to return home after a stay in people across Dorset hospital, or closer to home, as quickly as • Support integrated community services to possible. treat where appropriate more people out of hospital and reduce the need for an 30 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 31

Creating three centres of excellence Keogh Urgent and Emergency Care Review During 2016/ 17 we will continue to test Transforming cancer services Our plan is to reconfigure the organisation (2013) which evidence shows saves more lives. our plans for reconfiguration. We will hold A key element of our plans for establishing of our existing three district general hospitals Integrated Community Services, in particular a public consultation in autumn 2016 and One Acute Network is to deliver improved into three centres of excellence with better community hospitals and hubs that form a seek assurance from our local and national outcomes for cancer patients by delivering defined and more specialist roles, to enable single health and care system for Dorset, will regulators. locally the Achieving World Class Cancer them to deliver rapid, high quality healthcare support our acute network. Organising our Dorset CCG’s governing body will make no national strategy and the Wessex Strategic as part of one collaborative network. services in this way – so that they are delivered final decision on the site-specific locations Vision for cancer services. By working more We want to: as part of a single system of health and care in until 2017, following the completion of the closely with all our partners we will be able • Establish a Major Emergency Hospital in the Dorset, transcending traditional organisational assurance and public consultation process. We to address the fragmentation of the current east of the county at Poole Hospital or Royal boundaries – will help us develop a expect the implementation of the early stages care pathway so that patients experience a Bournemouth Hospital, to provide more sustainable, coherent system for current and to begin in 2017 and continue over a number seamless service. We see the development of specialist emergency services for the whole future generations. of years. the Wessex Cancer Alliance as a significant opportunity to strengthen and support our of Dorset, with hyper-acute specialist services As a result of the proposed One Acute An integrated workforce provided at the region’s tertiary centre, local work, in particular around research and Network we expect the bed capacity in Dorset We want our workforce to work across clinical trials, as well as prevention. University Hospital Southampton to reduce to around 1,570 beds, from a level hospital sites and beyond organisational • Establish a Major Planned Care Hospital in of 1,810 in 2013/14. The major change will boundaries in a single Dorset wide network Transforming maternity and paediatric the east of the county at Poole Hospital or result from shifting beds to the planned Major of skilled professionals. Our plan is to services Royal Bournemouth Hospital, to provide Emergency Hospital and a reduced number improve the leadership and organisation of We have ambitions plans to improve the higher quality elective services and a 24/7 being required at the Major Planned Hospital. our workforce so that there will be a single maternity and paediatric services that are Urgent Care Centre (as part of Dorset’s A&E Population changes would have increased culture and aligned behaviours. This will help delivered in our acute hospitals and in the Network) demand for beds to an estimated 2,465. to ensure that local people receive a more community. We intend to offer a larger consistent experience of our health and care and higher quality range of services in the • Maintain planned and emergency services But our plan aims to achieve a 25% reduction community to reduce the need for local at Dorset County Hospital in the west of the in non-planned admissions by improving services. By working more closely together, we can plan and deliver a single clinical pathway people to have to attend hospital. This county. the management of urgent and emergency will include the development of a Dorset- cases and people with long-term conditions, across the county for each specialty rather Across the three hospitals we will increase the than having variation because different types wide children’s community nursing service. amount of consultant-led care, including an and a 20% reduction in planned admissions For pregnant women we will increase the through the Integrated Community Services of services are provided by different hospitals. ambition to deliver 24/7 consultant care at the A single network, supported by an enhanced provision of midwife-led care across the programme. county, which will enable more women to Page 48 Page Major Emergency Hospital. This aligns Dorset’s use of technology (see our Digitally-Enabled plan with the model of care set out in the Dorset programme plan on page 37) will also be able to choose a home birth, and create a allow our clinicians to share their skills and single team of midwives, health visitors and expertise more effectively. nurses. Following detailed modelling and assessing the evaluation criteria of quality of care, access to care, affordability and value for money, workforce, deliverability and other issues such as research and development, Dorset CCG is proposing to consult the public on two options for reconfiguring Poole Hospital and Royal Bournemouth Hospital with a preferred model as follow:

Poole General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust as the Major Planned Hospital with Urgent Royal One network Care Centre (as part of Dorset A&E Network) Bournemouth Hospital "We want our workforce to work Royal Bournemouth Hospital NHS Foundation across hospital sites and beyond Trust as the Major Emergency Hospital with A&E services organisational boundaries in a single Dorset wide network of Poole General Dorset County Hospital skilled professionals." Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Hospital as the Planned Care and Emergency Hospital Insert name, insert organisation with A&E services. 32 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 33

29,000 525 100 pieces of feedback used Attendees at our public Different forums, to inform our Need to meetings to help design meetings and events Change. the models of care. to inform and engage thousands of local people. 12 3,900 18 Page 49 Page meetings with our members of our Health Meetings with our Pan- Clinical Services Review Involvement Network Dorset Engagement Leads Patient, Carer and Public and 150 representatives Forum to plan and deliver Engagement Group of of Supporting Stronger a consistent approach to representatives. Voices have received communications and public regular information and involvement across our been involved. health and care system.

We will reorganised hospital based care by Clinical Services Review This collaborative approach has enabled the • Designed the model of care for One Acute exploring the integration of services between In 2014, the Clinical Services Review was programme to make significant progress Network as detailed on pages 29-32 and Dorset County Hospital and Yeovil District started to help us to identify a future model towards making both our One Acute Integrated Community Services as detailed Hospital such that there could be one site of care to better meet the needs of our local Network and Integrated Community Services on pages 21-26 delivering consultant led obstetric care and population. The project has been managed programmes a reality. We have: • Produced detailed finance, activity and one site with a midwifery led unit. If the by Dorset CCG with leadership from a • Analysed current and future demand for workforce modelling to explore the feasibility of this is not agreed within the next representative group of senior clinicians, our services alongside our existing supply, feasibility of the model of care six months, we follow the recommendation nurses, allied health professionals and our to identify the challenges Dorset currently of the independent Royal College review health and care system’s chief executive, chair • Undertaken extensive communications and faces – our health and wellbeing, care and for a Dorset-wide network. This will see us and lead councillors. engagement activity with the general public, quality and finance and efficiency gaps are move to a midwifery led unit and paediatric patients and carers (see box above). The work to date has been shaped by outlined in Need to Change , which involved assessment unit at Dorset County Hospital the regular and active involvement and examining over 29,000 pieces of feedback Having obtained NHS England Stage 1 with a high-risk obstetric unit and consultant engagement of hundreds of clinicians working from the public assurance in 2015, in summer 2016 Dorset delivered paediatric inpatient site at the Major in primary care, acute, community, mental CCG will be seeking Stage 2 assurance • Reviewed evidence on good practice and Emergency Hospital in the east of the county. health and children’s services, voluntary sector for Our Acute Network and Integrated considered service reconfigurations in other One acute network: the impact to date organisations, our workforce and local people. Community Services models of care. They parts of the NHS and internationally, to help We have two aligned work streams to develop Alongside input from our Patient, Carer will also be seeking the support of the NHS shape our ambitions and deliver our transformation plan for the and Public Engagement Group, Supporting England Investment Committee. Alongside One Acute Network: Stronger Voices and Health Involvement • Considered the services offered outside of this they have been working closely with Dorset, such as specialist services delivered the Wessex Clinical Senate to address their • The Clinical Services Review being led by Network. It has also been subject to valuable from Southampton, patient flows into detailed valuable independent feedback. Dorset CCG scrutiny and assurance from NHS England, Wessex Clinical Senate and our local Joint Dorset from surrounding counties such as In autumn 2016 the CCG intends to hold a • The One NHS in Dorset Acute Vanguard Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as well as Hampshire, and Dorset patients receiving public consultation to obtain views of local programme being led by our three acute the independent advice of a Royal College services from non-Dorset hospitals including people on our plans, including the site-specific provider foundation trusts. Review that we commissioned to examine our Yeovil and Salisbury. maternity and paediatric services. 34 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 35

reconfiguration options for our acute and 2017 - 2020 Acute Hospital@Home older people as well as those with long-term community hospitals. Once the consultation • New joint partnership will be embedded and The Dorset County Hospital Acute Hospital@ conditions are provided with safe, high quality and assurance has been complete, Dorset delivery locations will be organised in line Home service has been delivered as a pilot in care that does not require them to travel. To CCG’s Governing Body will then make a with the Dorset Clinical Services Review. west Dorset to provide aspects of inpatient date there has been an increase in referrals to decision in 2017. We expect to phase in the • Implementation will have been undertaken care in patient’s own homes, to reduce the wider community teams and positive patient implementation of the plans over five years and a significant contribution made to need for additional admission to hospital. The feedback, the intention is to extend the service with the early stages beginning in 2017. improved patient outcomes, clinical and service operates 7.30am to 11pm seven days and embed this work within the Integrated One NHS in Dorset Acute Vanguard financial sustainability. a week, with access to the admitting medical Community Services programme. programme and surgical teams outside these hours. By The intention is to support the development working as part of an integrated team and One NHS in Dorset is an early adopter site of one or more Accountable Care Partnerships as part of NHS England’s national Acute improving communication with primary and who will manage and deliver integrated community care teams (including the use Vanguard Programme. It is focused on health and social care to patients across delivering the workforce and organisational of an electronic discharge summary), Acute Dorset. This will enable us to incentivise Hospital@Home is helping to ensure frail and cultural and behavioural changes to have patient outcomes and support a collaborative a single network of clinical services across approach across organisational boundaries. Dorset providing higher standards of care in a more consistent way, irrespective of where local people live and what service they One NHS in Dorset What our One Acute Network programme means for local people access. By driving more effective leadership and organisation of our workforce it is The nine acute hospital based services • Improved health outcomes, including more • Reduction in cancelled planned care therefore the vital mechanism to accelerate that have been identified as the lives saved by having more care provided operations because of emergency care the implementation of our new models of priorities for our Acute Vanguard 24/7 by consultants. needing to take priority. care, and it can proceed at pace before, during programme. and beyond the external scrutiny of our site • Cardiology • Better patient experience, with the same • Less travelling time to attend specific reconfiguration plans. high standard of care for people across appointments as more diagnostic • Imaging We have recently set out the timetable for the the county and more effective sharing of tests, outpatient appointments and • IT and other transaction related information and health records between rehabilitation will be provided closer to delivery of this programme of work and this services includes: health professionals. home in community settings. • Non-surgical cancer services

Page 50 Page • Less waiting time for access to urgent • More support to return home after a stay 2016 • Ophthalmology • Agreeing the priority activities which will and emergency care and planned care in hospital as quickly as possible. • Paediatrics include determining where to realign with operations. other existing or planned activity • Pathology • Stroke • Agreeing the contracting and financial forms with the CCG along with the framework for • Women’s health the joint partnership decision "These are exciting plans for Dorset’s hospitals that will ensure we • Completing the common IT strategy and have the most modern, high quality and safe hospital based health workforce strategy and implementation plan services for local people. By having more consultant-led care the evidence shows that patient outcomes will be improved. A more consistent quality of service will be enabled by the workforce working together in a single network. This will also help staff to build their skills and feel more supported." Insert name, insert organisation 36 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 37

Two enabling programmes care at the end of life and developing a priority focus on clinical record integration integrated care pathways and developing and record sharing between health and social of work real-time care capacity management systems care practitioners. This will improve safety to help reduce unnecessary delays as people and care for patients, by giving professionals Our Leading and move from one care setting to another. more timely access to the right information to Working Differently Highest need Tier 3 inform their decision-making. People with One acute Enabling programme 2 and Digitally-Enabled complex needs network of Dorset programmes are services Digitally-Enabled Dorset We will also provide more information and fundamental enablers to We intend to harness the power of technology support, along with expanded access to realising our ambitions Moderate need Tier 2 and support digital innovation by rolling out telehealth to enable local people to better People with Intergrated the plans in our Digital Vision 2020 strategy manage their own health. to radically transform moderate or Community reoccuring Services for a Digitally-Enabled Dorset. Dorset’s health and health needs This digital plan is been developed and care system. Digitally Enabled Dorset This will see us align the digital strategies of delivered by our established Dorset Informatics Leading and working differently

Page 51 Page Lowest need Tier 1 local health and care providers into a single group made up of senior clinical, social Whole Prevention population at scale digital plan for our area. We will implement care and technical leaders including Chief the Dorset Care Record, a unified record of Information Officers and clinical leaders. local people’s interaction with services, with

Enabling programme 1 Thames Valley and Wessex Leadership Our System Leadership Team Leading and working differently Academy, the deanery and the Wessex and Our single integrated leadership team has been working We will organise our workforce of around Regional Workforce Strategic Board for together for two years and includes Chairs, Chief Finance 30,000 people more effectively, so they are Nursing and Midwifery. We will also build Officers, Directors, portfolio holders and clinicians. better able to deliver high quality, safe, timely, on the work of our established Primary accessible and sustainable health and care Care Workforce Centre and our recruitment services. campaign www.doorwaytodorset.nhs.uk This will require closer working between We will continue to develop the capability and across teams to deliver an integrated of our single integrated leadership team to seamless service, and to maintain and develop work across organisational boundaries and professional skills. lead the transformation of our system. We Our plans for our workforce will help expect this to lead to more partnerships within to establish Dorset as an exciting and and between organisations and meaningful innovative place to work, so that we can relationships that are capable of sustaining attract the highest calibre of staff into our collaboration alongside competition. local communities. We intend to create To make these major service changes we will TO BE DESIGNED more diverse training placements across support the development of accountable primary, secondary and social care for a care partnerships. We are planning for three AT STAGE 2 range of professions and work closely with Accountable Care Partnerships in the east, mid Bournemouth University to establish a training and west; although we anticipate that this academy approach. may reduce to two over time as the current This work will be delivered by further Local Government Review comes to fruition developing and implementing our workforce and changes are made in NHS care. action plan that has been created with Practical, early wins for each of the director level leadership from across Dorset’s Accountable Care Partnerships in the coming health and social care organisations together year include implementing a single integrated along with Health Education Wessex and hospital discharge team, improving integrated 38 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 39

A sustainable approach to funding

Delivering improvements to our health and care system at a time of increased demand but with a lower growth in resources demands a sustainable approach to funding. This underpins all of our programmes of work.

In March 2016 we calculated that a ‘do The Acute Vanguard plans for networks nothing’ scenario would create an annual and sharing of back office functions will be financial gap in the local health system by a key element in how this is delivered, with 2020/21 of £158 million, with a further £56 estimated savings of £20 million. million shortfall on NHS England specialised 3. One Acute Network programme services reconfiguration these in future as we know that we already We all recognise we need to jointly aim We have done financial modelling work to Once the proposed acute reconfiguration is have most of the health workforce that we towards a further saving of 2% to allow room calculate the impact of implementing our fully operational we calculate it would deliver need to deliver care in these new ways, but we for investment and we will be continuing to plan and to determine that we can close the around £30 million of savings each year. Our have yet to understand the gaps in the social determine the specific plan for achieving this financial gap in four key ways. clinically-led discussions set out that this can be care workforce. Our workforce will need to additional level of savings. 1. Commissioner led savings achieved by a 30% increased efficiency from be reorganised to deliver services in the right having all planned activity on one site, and a Specialised services We could deliver around £63 million of place and with the appropriate skill set. The The largest of our financial challenges potential savings by reducing variation, 20% increased efficiency from bringing our finance working group will be reviewing the emergency activity together. currently rests with specialised services as we bringing down high intervention rates, proposed options for how the public sector continue to face a £40 - £45 million gap over improving the management of long term There would be a £148 million to £189 million estate across Dorset could be organised to the next five years. To address this we are Page 52 Page conditions, stopping some of the work done capital expenditure requirement to improve deliver community services by considering working closely with NHS England to identify in outpatients and moving care closer to the estate and build new wards and units value for money, capital requirements, an appropriate plan. the person’s home – much of which is the for the Major Emergency Hospital and Major feasibility and deliverability. There will be cornerstone to our Integrated Community Planned Care Hospital in the east of the a transition period where we need to run Prevention at Scale Service programme for our lower and medium county. When we get local building costs there some services in tandem, while we train staff There are additional expected finance and need patients. could be a reduction of 20% to 30%. This and develop new care pathways that will efficiency improvements that will be delivered require temporary additional running costs by addressing the wider determinants of 2. Local provider: agreed cost capital investment would be spread be over and investment in parts of our estate. Our health, undertaking more prevention work improvement plans 5 years. plans will ensure that the funding of services and the upscaling of self-help. We intend Our local providers have agreed to find 4. Integrated Community Services will reflect patients’ need, to ensure that the to undertake more work to determine the 2% savings on their costs through cost programme reconfiguration whole Dorset system will remain in financial impact of the Prevention at Scale programme. improvement plans. This would see the We are at an early stage of determining balance. By way of indication of the savings that delivery of more activity with better outcomes the financial implications of the model of could be expected, The King’s Fund and Local for less money by maximising effectiveness care for the Integrated Community Services Government Association have calculated the across the workforce and in areas such as programme. We know that workforce costs following returns on investment for public supplies, information technology and estates. make up around 70% of our local revenue health spending. This could close the gap by £46 million. costs and we do not expect to need to increase

8 Making change possible: a Transformation Fund for the NHS The Health Foundation and The King’s Fund Research report July 2015 40 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 41

• Smoking prevention programmes in schools National allocation can return as much as £15 for every £1 spent, The recent publication of the STP indicative The national support as can anti-bullying interventions. allocations has suggested that Dorset • Getting one more child to walk or cycle to should receive a £53 million sustainability we need and transformation fund by 2020/21. Taken 5 school could pay back as much as £768 or £539 respectively in health benefits, NHS alongside our planned efficiency improvement this will ensure we are able to close the costs, productivity gains and reductions in air We are proud of Our Dorset and the scale of our ambitions to deliver a pollution and congestion. financial gap. transformed health and care system focused on meeting the needs of our • Housing interventions to keep people warm, We will be continuing to refine and check our assumptions and savings plan based on local population. We have a vision that we all support; a plan that we all safe and free from cold and damp could save agree will close gaps in health and wellbeing, care and quality, and finance the NHS £70 over 10 years for every £1 spent. national funding allocations and efficiency requirements, while also closely monitoring and efficiency gaps; and some immediate priorities that we are all focused • Every £1 spent on befriending services saves Page 53 Page how our plans are delivering the required on delivering. We are all committed to working hard and at pace to realise £3.75 in reduced mental health spending savings. Overall, we will spend more in 2020/21 our plans over the next five years. and improvements in health. when compared with current levels but we • Every prevented visit to an NHS service will be ensuring more efficient use of our results in a saving: £31 for a GP visit, £114 available resources to meet the needs of our Our Dorset already has important foundations hospitals are reconfigured. We would like for an A&E attendance and £3283 for an population. in place. Crucially, there is a positive assistance to review and strengthen our inpatient stay in hospital. Given the leadership we have in place and our relationship between the organisations across patient benefit case so that it is likely to be changing culture we are confident that these our health and care system and we have a supported by NHS Improvement and the finance and efficiency interventions will see us track record of working together to devise Competition and Market Authority. address the predicted future financial gap and and deliver services. Recently strengthened As part of our Acute Vanguard programme, ensure we can deliver a financially balanced leadership and governance arrangements we would like legal expertise to help health system, alongside improvements in the will help us to accelerate the delivery of determine the format and structure of the quality and safety of care for all those who use our plans. Our Clinical Services Review and ‘vehicle’ that will be established to deliver our Dorset’s health services. Acute Vanguard programmes mean we are single clinical network and workforce. Support not at a standing start: much of the analysis with shaping workforce models, building skills and modelling work is complete and we are and developing our training plans would also quickly moving towards the implementation help to ensure we grow the right workforce to phases. We can also build on existing good meet our future care models. practice such as the Weymouth and Portland Hub, the integrated health and care teams Our local authorities are seeking peer support operating in a number of community hospitals to understand the approach of other health and the Acute@Home service. and care systems and to share the learning, The recent publication particularly from those who are have been of the STP indicative We are in a strong position, but national early adopters of new ways of working. We allocations has suggested support and investment would enable us to would welcome national support to help us £53m that Dorset should receive move faster to deliver the changes we are set reasonable expectations about the scope a £53 million sustainability aiming for. and pace of partnership working, as well as and transformation fund by Expert advice and support assistance to develop appropriate outcome 2020/21. Receiving national expert support and measures. assistance around patient benefits would We would like support from our local MPs and strengthen our plan. While our modelling elected members for our plans, particularly work has indicated how our proposals will around best use of our estate and our site- benefit local people, we will be working with specific reconfiguration plans. National strict national regulations around maintaining support could help local politicians to feel patient choice and quality standards when 42 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan 43

they can confidently back the need for change integrated community care services. We will and proposed plans for the Dorset health and have a clear understanding of the funds care system. This will be particularly important required once the site-specific modelling has before and during the forthcoming periods of taken place in summer 2016. transition as we embed the changes. We would like national support for Our specialised services are commissioned our capital requirements, to help with nationally by NHS England using national obtaining assurance from the investment guidance and service specifications across a committee so that we are in a position to geographical footprint that is different to bid for transformation funding and that the area covered by our Dorset health and our Foundation Trusts are successful in their care organisations that have developed our application to the Independent Trust Financing plan. While we have been working with Facility . NHS England on the commissioning of these To date, our Acute Vanguard programme services it has been difficult to identify the has received less than 10% of the original specific plans and opportunities that address funding requested. This is going to make it the needs of our local population. Assistance difficult for the leadership and workforce from NHS England to define the health and across our hospitals to allocate the time to wellbeing, care and quality and finance and develop the clinical networks we need. The efficiency gaps within these specialist services Health Foundation and The King’s Fund state would be welcomed. that transformation on the scale we have Investment support outlined will require a period of double There are important elements of our plan running. To deliver our plan, we will need that require financial investment, especially the Acute Vanguard funding that has already to deliver the proposed reconfiguration been committed, plus additional transitional of our acute hospitals. If following public funding. We will spend the funds on training consultation and national scrutiny we progress and education; temporary ‘backfill’ staffing with the site-specific option, from 2018 we are of clinical positions; IT infrastructure; and going to need between £147 and £189 million workforce and organisational development

Page 54 Page spread over five years or more. These capital support. We are confident that investment estimates are based on national best practice now will help to realise the estimated £20 Our Dorset and we anticipate that actual build costs million financial saving as a result of the Our Dorset is a once in a lifetime could be 20-30% cheaper. The £30 million cost programme. opportunity to build a strong and savings come from the reconfigured hospitals integrated health and care system that will mean that the capital investment pays for delivers high quality and safe services itself in four to seven years depending on the that meet the needs of our population. final costs. The health and well-being of people This investment will be required in tranches in Dorset depend on us delivering this over a five-year period as we extend and plan. enhance our hospitals. For instance we would propose to develop our joint pathology capacity first at an initial cost of around £11 million. We will also require investment in our community hospitals and primary care estate, to make sure our estate is appropriate for the planned community hubs and improved 44 Our Dorset Sustainability and Transformation Plan

Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6b Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee

Minutes of the meeting held at Christchurch Borough Council, Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Christchurch, BH23 1AZ on Monday, 13 June 2016.

Present: Anthony Alford (West Dorset District Council) (Chairman)

Members Attending Margaret Phipps (Christchurch Borough Council), Ray Bryan (East Dorset District Council), Barbara Manuel (East Dorset District Council), David Budd (Purbeck District Council), Peter Webb (Purbeck District Council), Alan Thacker (West Dorset District Council), David Walsh (North Dorset District Council), Kevin Brookes (Weymouth & Portland Borough Council) and Graham Carr-Jones (North Dorset District Council).

Other Members in attendance Ian Roebuck, Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (Observer) Jeff Cant, Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (Observer)

Dorset Waste Partnership Officers Attending: Paul Ackrill (Commercial and Finance Manager), Ian Brewer (Operations and Commercial Services Manager), Gemma Clinton (Interim Head of Service - Strategy), Sian Critchell (Finance Manager), Grace Evans (Clerk), Jason Jones (Group Manager - Commissioning), Michael Moon (Head of Service (Operations)), James Potten (Communications and Marketing Officer), Karyn Punchard (Director), Andy Smith (Treasurer) and Denise Hunt (Senior Democratic Services Officer).

Other Officers in attendance Steve Mackenzie (Purbeck District Council), Lindsay Cass (Christchurch and East Dorset Borough Councils), Graham Duggan (Dorset Councils Partnership), Rupert Bamberger (South West Audit Partnership), Rebecca Kirk (Purbeck District Council), Larry Austin and Shelly Standhaft (Bournemouth Borough Council).

(Notes:(1) Publication In accordance with paragraph 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the Joint Committee’s Constitution the decisions set out in these minutes will come into force and may then be implemented on the expiry of five working days after the publication date. Publication Date: 20 June 2016

(2) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Joint Committee to be held on Monday, 12 September 2016.)

Election of Chairman 15 Resolved That Anthony Alford be elected Chairman of the Joint Committee for the year 2016/17.

Appointment of Vice-Chairman 16 Resolved That Michael Roake be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee for the year 2016/17.

Apologies for Absence 17 Apologies for absence were received from Robert Gould, Ray Nowak and Michael Roake.

Page 57 Code of Conduct 18 There were no declarations by members of any disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

Terms of Reference 19 The Joint Committee noted its Terms of Reference.

Minutes 20 The minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2016 were confirmed and signed.

Exclusion of the Public 21 Resolved That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for minute numbers 22 and 23 because it was likely that if members of the public were present, there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in the paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A and the public interest in withholding the information outweighed the public interest in disclosing that information.

Strategic Waste Facility (Paragraph 3) 22 The Joint Committee considered an exempt report concerning the Strategic Waste Facility with Bournemouth Borough Council.

Resolved (i) that the steps set out in the report be approved; (ii) that an update report on progress be received at future meetings.

Reason for Decisions To allow the DWP to provide cost effective management of dry mixed recyclate.

Strategic Waste Transfer Facility for Central Dorset 23 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership which provided an update on the business case for the construction of a new strategic waste transfer facility in central Dorset. This would replace the current waste transfer station (WTS) in Blandford and include a modern Household Recycling Centre (HRC), depot and vehicle maintenance facility to replace the depot in Shaftesbury.

The Joint Committee considered the business justification in the appendix to the report which was exempt information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Director reported that members of the Joint Committee had been invited to attend a site visit to the WTS in Blandford and had also been sent an e-mail video link in order to understand some of the practical difficulties with the existing arrangements.

The need for a waste transfer station had been set out in a previous options report to the Joint Committee in 2011, in order to increase flexibility and reduce reliance on facilities provided by third parties, some of which were due to end.

A greenfield site for a purpose built facility and other potential sites had been identified in the Waste Local Plan. Discussions were ongoing with the owners of the current WTS and the DCC/DWP site in Blandford and these options needed to be investigated and members kept informed of progress.

Members highlighted the need to move forward at pace, particularly given that 1200 new homes had been identified for Blandford in the Local Plan. Members who had participated in the site visit to the Blandford WTS had been made aware of the Page 58 limitations of the site and the detrimental impact on its operation.

The Chairman highlighted that the absence of adequate infrastructure had been identified as a high risk within the DWP risk register and suggested that it would be essential to ensure that the business case was maintained and up to date throughout this process.

Following the discussion and confirmation that there were no questions in relation to the exempt appendix 4 of Item 10 - Finance Report June 2016, the Chairman advised consideration of exempt information by the Joint Committee had concluded and that the meeting would be open to the public and press from this point forward.

Resolved (i) that the proposal for a new strategic waste transfer facility in central Dorset as outlined in the business case to include a household recycling centre, waste transfer station, and potentially depot and vehicle maintenance workshop be approved; (ii) that taking an Option on a suitable site(s) in the Blandford area and land purchase subject to planning consent for the facility if this is considered beneficial by the Director of the DWP after consultation with the Chair of the Joint Committee be approved; (iii) that the application for prudential borrowing through Dorset County Council for construction of the new waste transfer facility be approved; (iv) that extension of the lease or negotiation of purchase of the freehold of the existing waste transfer and HRC site in Blandford, on terms to be agreed by the Director of the DWP after consultation with the Chair of the Joint Committee and the Director for Environment and Economy (DCC) as lessee be approved.

Reason for Decisions To secure a key site(s) in Blandford for the development of a strategic waste transfer facility in central Dorset which would provide the capacity to maximise the benefits of operational efficiency and resilience to provide business continuity now and in future years.

Public Participation 24 Public Speaking There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions There were no petitions received in accordance with the County Council’s petition scheme at this meeting.

Dorset Waste Partnership Forward Plan 2016 25 The Joint Committee considered its forward plan and were informed of the following additional items to be considered at the meeting on 12 September 2016:-

 Bin Replacement Policy  Fly Tipping Fixed Penalty Notices

In response to a question, officers advised that regular updates on a strategic waste transfer facility in central Dorset would be included in the Member newsletter until such time as a formal decision was required by the Joint Committee.

Noted Page 59

Scheme of Delegation and 2017 Schedule of Meetings 26 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Clerk to the Dorset Waste Partnership which recommended a scheme of delegation and schedule of meetings for approval.

The Joint Committee was advised that the scheme of delegation reflected the provisions of the current Inter Authority Agreement (IAA). This was an interim measure until such time as the new IAA was formally agreed and signed by the partner authorities. A further report would be considered in September 2016 with a revised Scheme of Delegation which would reflect the new IAA. Members were reminded that the Scheme of Delegation for People Management Matters applied to DWP staff as Dorset County Council was the host authority.

The Clerk reported that there were different requirements for the number of meetings set out in the current and proposed IAA, the latter requiring the Joint Committee to meet on at least one occasion to set the budget. She confirmed that the schedule of meetings set out in the report would meet the requirements of both and satisfied the budget setting process.

Members were updated that the latest meeting at which a partner authority would consider the IAA would take place on 27 July 2016 which would allow the new IAA to be signed and confirmed at the next meeting of the Joint Committee on 12 September 2016. In response to a question it was confirmed that arrangements for the DWP Scrutiny Group would be clarified at this time and that the Clerk would respond to the member following the meeting in relation to a specific point raised on the nature of the membership of this group.

Resolved (i)That the proposed scheme of delegation be approved; (ii)That the proposed schedule of meetings be approved.

Reason for Decisions To support the delivery of effective public services through the Dorset Waste Partnership.

Financial Report June 2016 27 The Joint Committee considered a joint report by the Treasurer and the Finance and Commercial Manager to the Dorset Waste Partnership. The Treasurer outlined the recommendations contained in the report.

A Member asked whether there would have been a difference in the underspend in the budget in 2015/16 had there not been a significant underspend in capital funding during the year.

The Treasurer confirmed that there would have been a different outturn in 2015/16 had capital funding not been deferred. As this funding had been carried forward it would not have an undue impact on the 2016/17 budget. The capital budget had been effectively postponed and was largely due to the delay in progression of the Blandford scheme.

Resolved (i) That the outturn position for 2015/16 be noted; (ii) That the final capital expenditure position for 2015/16 be noted; (iii) That the discontinuation of the 1% reserve, in anticipation of the adoption of the new Inter Authority Agreement, and return appropriate shares to partners in accordance with Appendix 3 be approved; (iv) That transfer of the 2015/16 revenue underspend of £519,584 to a Budget Page 60 Equalisation Reserve be approved.

Reason for Decisions The Joint Committee monitored the Partnership’s performance against budget and scrutinised actions taken to manage within budget on behalf of partner Councils.

Update on the Dorset Waste Partnership Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 28 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership providing an update on the financial position for the Medium Term Financial Plan.

The Finance and Commercial Manager introduced the report and advised that the Leaders and Chief Executives Group would be discussing the level of savings to be applied to the service in future and that the Commissioning Group had also been tasked to explore significant savings and consider what might be achievable pending a formal position agreed by the partner Councils. The outcome of these discussions would be reported back to the Joint Committee in September 2016.

A Member highlighted that service levels should not suffer in the rush to produce huge savings. The Chairman further expressed the opinion that there should be coherence in terms of looking at the overall service and ensuring that savings were explored from both the collection and disposal sides of the business and not just those parts of the operation that were easiest to cut.

Noted

South West Audit Partnership - Half Yearly Review (including an update on the 37 point action plan) 29 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Assistant Director of the South West Audit Partnership (SWAP) which provided an update on progress of recent audit work on the DWP Project Management and a follow up of SWAP recommendations from previous audits. Members were also advised of the planned programme of work in 2016/17. This was the first of 2 reports to be considered by the Joint Committee each year in order to provide an update on significant findings arising from audit work which would refer back to the 37 point management action plan wherever possible.

The Chairman asked about the status of work in relation to the Waste Management Facility and was advised that this was currently underway and was subject to the decision taken by the Joint Committee that day.

Noted

Performance Indicator Monitoring - Quarter Four and Annual Performance (2015/16) 30 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Interim Head of Service (Strategy) which set out the fourth quarter and annual performance statistics together and new KPI targets for 2016/17. A revised copy of Appendix 6 of the report had been circulated to the Joint Committee due to an incorrect calculation in some data contained in the graphs.

The report was introduced by the Interim Head of Service (Strategy) who highlighted areas in the fourth quarter and annual performance statistics indicated as red using the RAG system. She reported that the number of complaints had decreased overall, but remained high during 2015/16 and that work was continuing to reduce sickness levels. Incidences of fly tipping had also increased which followed a national trend. It was felt that this may have been due to restrictions placed on HRCs at neighbouring authorities, however, it would not be possible to measure this impact.

Members were advised that the direction of travel in relation to the cost of HRC’s per Page 61 household had increased and not decreased as indicated in the report. Further clarification was also given on the direction of travel for performance indicators in relation to kerbside collected food waste and the number of fly tipping incidents.

It was proposed to e-mail the performance information in future to ensure that quarterly data was made available at an earlier stage and that members were kept up to date. The Chairman requested that this information was also communicated to the Partner Authorities so that they could include this information in their own performance reports whenever necessary.

Resolved (i) That the fourth quarter and annual performance of the DWP against the agreed performance indicator targets be noted; (ii) That the 2016/17 targets for the agreed KPI’s be approved; (iii) That quarterly and annual KPI information is received via email for 2016/17 onwards.

Reason for Decisions To inform the Joint Committee of the DWP performance against the performance indicator targets and allow for more timely reporting of information from 2016/17 onwards.

Corporate Risk Register 31 The Committee considered a report by the Interim Head of Service (Strategy) presenting the current corporate risk register of the Dorset Waste Partnership.

A new risk to potential changes to the DWP through unitary and / or combined authority had been added to the register and officers were currently working out what this would mean for the DWP.

A Member asked about the significant risks around the budget outturn and the Treasurer confirmed that both the risk and residual risk remained high due to volatility in the budget.

Noted

Bring Bank Review 32 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership that set out the usage and costs of the bring bank service following introduction of the recycle for Dorset and subsequent rationalisation of bring bank sites.

The Director introduced the report which identified continued reduction in the use of the bring banks and increasing costs. The report recommended an option to remove banks for glass, paper, plastics and cans which formed part of the kerbside collections, whilst retaining banks for textiles (which generated an income), small electrical items, foil and beverage cartons, resulting in a saving of £121,000.

A map demonstrated that Dorset continued to be well served by HRCs and some supermarkets that provided bring banks.

Resolved (i) That the removal of DWP bring banks for materials collected in the recycle for Dorset service and retention of bring banks for textiles, electronic goods, foil and beverage cartons at existing sites be approved; (ii) That authority be delegated to the Director of DWP, after consultation with the Chair of Joint Committee, for any further changes to the bring bank service.

Page 62 Reason for Decisions To further reduce the costs of the bring bank service following the introduction of the recycle for Dorset kerbside service.

Questions from Councillors 33 No questions were asked by councillors under host authority standing order 20(2).

Meeting Duration: 10.00 am - 11.45 am

Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6c

Executive Advisory Panel for Pathways to Independence

Minutes of the meeting held at County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ on Tuesday, 17 May 2016.

Present: David Walsh (Chairman) Steve Butler, Ronald Coatsworth, Fred Drane and Ros Kayes.

Members Attending Jill Haynes, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care.

Officers Attending: Harry Capron (Head of Adult Care), Alison Waller (Head of Partnerships and Performance), Melodie Dean (Team Leader - Credit Control), Michael Ford (Policy and Projects Manager), Adam Fitzgerald (Service Development Officer), Nikki Fowler (Team Leader - Financial Assessments), Derek Hardy (Senior Commissioning Manager), Morag Tyler (Strategic Commissioning Lead), Chris Watson (Commissioning Manager) and Fiona King (Senior Democratic Services Officer).

Apologies for Absence 27 Apologies for absence were received from Peter Wharf and Kate Wheller.

Code of Conduct 28 There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

Notes from Previous Meeting 29 The minutes of the meeting held on 29 March 2016 were agreed.

'Turning the Curve' on adult social care debt (outstanding income) 30 The Panel considered a report which provided members with a brief overview of the approach taken to adult social care debt. The Policy and Projects Manager highlighted to members the shift to outcomes based accountability and the short list of achievable actions to turn the curve.

In relation to the disability living allowance and other benefits, one member questioned how far this council was working with other authorities to explore the changes that were being made and the impact of these on individual cases. Members were advised that a process was in place to identify, from the system, who was entitled to a particular benefit and to therefore update records accordingly. Letters to service users advised them to alert the authority to any change in their financial circumstances also.

Following discussion one member was concerned that it could encourage some people not to pay their bills as they thought it would be written off.

Members were advised that the 10 highest debtors owed 36% of the overall debt. The Head of Partnerships and Performance noted that this team was particularly short staffed at present and work was in progress to recruit to these posts.

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care commented that ‘turning the curve’ was an empowering way of moving forward and it would be helpful to get more members

Page 65 2 involved and it would be important to ensure it was embedded in all of the new committees.

Recommended That the Cabinet be asked to approve the continued involvement of elected members in the Outcomes Based Accountability (OBA) approach to get from talk to action as quickly as possible.

Reason for Recommendation Seeking to improve the lives of people in Dorset and working together for a strong and successful Dorset.

Discretionary Automatic Disregards for Non- Residential Care Services 31 Members considered a report which set out a proposed approach to reviewing the discretionary disregard in the light of identified risks and the need to assess and mitigate the impact on individuals and protected groups. The approach included detailed proposals for communication and consultation with people.

The Policy and Projects Manager highlighted the need to understand the impact on individuals better and made reference to the question of transition arrangements. One member felt that there should be some transitional relief and that an equalities impact assessment should show if there would be an unfair impact on people.

With reference to the wording of the proposal one member felt it was important to include that people would still be supported by an assessment of their needs and their means. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care noted that reference to the ‘means test’ wording should also be included in the wording of the policy proposal.

The Head of Partnerships and Performance noted that the key to successful consultation would be in the communications work to ensure that services were sustainable going forward. It was added that communication would also need to be appropriate for internal staff.

Resolved 1. That the approach set out to identify the impact on individuals (as set out in Section 4 of the Director’s report) be supported. 2. That further work as suggested, including the Draft Communication and Consultation Plan be supported.

Reason for Decisions To help secure a sustainable approach to the County Council’s commitment to helping residents be safe, healthy and independent.

Health and Care Integration 32 Members considered a report which set out the current national and local context around health and social care integration. It also set out the level of complexity and ambiguity surrounding the policy direction in order to inform members of the discussion on the options for the County Council.

The Head of Adult Care highlighted to members some joint working arrangements that were ongoing with Weymouth and Portland. He acknowledged that it was a confusing picture at present and that relationships were complicated. Many of the examples of integration were built around solid relationships and strong partners who were interested in working with the council. There were potentially 3 accountable care partnerships and the configuration of partners would be different for each one. Options would come forward for members at a later date.

Following a question from a member about barriers, the Head of Adult Care Page 66 3 responded that the barriers were huge and included; cultural differences, staff with different ways of working, ICT and budget barriers. One member wondered whether a way to break down the resistance would be to have an Area Board to look at a health and wellbeing plan that could have the capacity to drive changes.

Members felt that a vision of what it would look like would be helpful as things done by piecemeal could be problematic. The Head of Adult Care advised members that the key document which would set out the planned vision would be the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) which would set out how all the health trusts could be sustainable. Public Health had been key in drafting this document.

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care advised members that she was trying to arrange a Dorset wide meeting with GP Practice Managers to try to start the lines of communication and get GPs involved.

Noted

Progress with the market shaping work 33 Members considered a report which summarised Dorset’s approach to market shaping to ensure a sustainable and diverse range of service across Dorset to meet the needs of the local communities. The report also included a detailed summary of progress to date with a strategic look at the care home market across Dorset which had been completed across Better Together Commissioning partners.

The Head of Partnerships and Performance also gave members a presentation on the duty around market shaping. The Strategic Commissioning Lead advised that the same sort of modelling, as was carried out for domiciliary care, was used in this regard.

The Strategic Commissioning Lead highlighted that outcomes were very important in terms of commissioning and officers were working closely with NHS colleagues in respect of reablement services. There were very clear strategies in place and a clear direction of travel with a huge amount of customer engagement.

Following a question from Cllr Kayes, as a member of the Tricuro Executive Shareholder Group, about how this work overlapped with Tricuro, the Head of Partnerships and Performance advised that under the Better Together Programme the 3 commissioning authorities were recommissioning in order to help Tricuro position themselves to be a provider over the next couple of years. At present the County Council block funded Tricuro so therefore they had an interest in the company and relationships were very different.

One member expressed concern that people were still not really aware of personal budgets. The Strategic Commissioning Lead noted the importance of getting more information out and that this was an action on the communication plan. The Head of Partnerships and Performance added that going forward everyone would be offered a personal budget in order to give them more choice and control.

Noted

Oral Update on Proposed Policy Changes 34 The Commissioning Manager advised members that his update linked with the previous presentation around market shaping, in particular the support at home contracts for people with a learning disability. Officers were working on creating a new replacement contract which was part of a dynamic purchasing system.

A new system of delivering domiciliary care had been designed which allocated funding to an individual in order to meet their outcomes. The new system no longer Page 67 4 talked about hours but moved towards a persons’ outcome. An example given was a personal budget being used to commission training in good preparation skills rather than routine food preparation activity. The providers and customers were all keen with this approach and it was noted that savings could also be made. The charging policy as it currently stood was not quite geared up for this and work was ongoing to address this. In respect of learning disability a pilot was in progress. As a result of the new system the concept of ‘missed visits’ would be less of an issue, people could ‘bank’ support, it would lead to a quarterly audit of charges and there would no longer be a need to refund people so often.

Following a question from a member about how people knew what was ‘banked’, the Commissioning Manager advised that the provider of service was responsible for keeping a detailed record of what was in the care plan and what was delivered. Audit and monitoring for personal budgets already existed. There would be a need to establish some guidance for service users and providers if there was a break in the package (e.g. a hospital stay) along with some guidance on how service users could use the service.

The Commissioning Manager advised members that this was ready to go live in June with the original framework extended until September. He highlighted the need for flexibility in the contract and the difficulty of producing a universal policy. The system would run for a trial period for the next few months for people with a learning disability to see how things moved forward.

The Head of Partnerships and Performance reminded members that the market for older people was very different and therefore this system may need to be adapted for them.

Noted

Work Programme 35 Members noted the Work Programme and Timeline for the Panel which had been extended to look further forward and also included the work that needed to be done.

Date of Next Meeting 36 Members agreed that the next meeting of the Panel would be held on Monday 18 July 2016 at 10.00am.

Meeting Duration: 2.00 pm - 4.05 pm

Page 68 Agenda Item 7 Forward Together Update

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Cabinet Member(s) Cllr Robin Cook Local Member(s) All Lead Director(s) Debbie Ward Chief Executive

Subject of Report Forward Together Update

Executive Summary Previous reports to the Cabinet have reported both the background and progress being made through the Forward Together programme across the council. This report is intended to update Cabinet and the wider council on three areas of activity that are important as the programme continues to develop pace.

This report focuses on three areas:

 Working together with Town and Parish Councils  Social Impact Bond  Financial Savings Reporting

This report provides the wider council with relevant information that confirms the ambitions that have been agreed by the council in the corporate plan are being acted on through the Forward Together programme.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

Please refer to the EqIAs will be required to be undertaken for each work stream by the protocol for writing Forward Together gateway process reports. Health and Wellbeing Assessment:

The Forward Together programme is securing the services that we need and making sure our efforts to secure the outcomes for residents are successful, particularly for those that are more vulnerable. The actions of the Forward Together programme as a whole will impact on the achievement of the health and well-being strategy.

Page 69 Forward Together Update

Use of Evidence:

The Forward Together Programme is continually appraised for its delivery against the County Council’s aims and objectives and information such as that provided by ASK Dorset.

Budget:

The Forward Together Programme is the transformation programme for the County Council and includes the delivery of its Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). There is a savings target of £33.4million for the next three years.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk HIGH

The largest risk to the programme currently is that even with the identified major transformation programmes there remains a need to deliver a substantial savings target in the year’s 2017 onward.

There is a requirement to identify the source of the savings required and whilst a variety of approaches are in hand to do this the residual risk has been rated as HIGH in accordance with the risk assessment guidance.

Other Implications:

(Note: Please consider if any of the following issues apply: Sustainability; Property and Assets; Voluntary Organisations; Community Safety; Corporate Parenting; or Safeguarding Children and Adults.)

Recommendation The recommendation is that the Cabinet note and comment on the progress outlined in the report.

Reason for To ensure the Forward Together Programme is fully implemented to Recommendation secure both the organisational benefits and financial savings necessary to deliver a balanced budget, up to and beyond 2016/17

Appendices None

Background Papers None

Officer Contact Name: Patrick Myers - Head of Corporate Development Tel: 01305 228302 Email: [email protected]

Page 70 Forward Together Update

1. Background

1.1 Forward Together is the council-wide initiative which will transform the way the County Council delivers services and the way it works in partnership with stakeholders and other public services within Dorset. It puts customers first, offering the best value for money and ensures what we do spend is spent well and is outcomes focused. Forward Together is a 5 year plan which will deliver the necessary financial savings to enable the authority to undertake its functions for the citizens of Dorset.

1.2 The Cabinet has continued to be assertive in its approach to the budget challenges ahead and applying the necessary interrogation of officer’s actions to address these challenges.

1.3 In line with the Forward Together Programme’s commitment to provide the Cabinet and the wider council with regular information, this report provides some programme highlights.

2. Working Together with Town and Parish Councils

2.1 Local Government re-organisation is an integral part of the Forward Together 2020 programme. The current proposals that have been supported by the Full Council are for two new unitary organisations to be established with the exact composition of each still being debated.

2.2 In any reorganisation the only constant are Town and Parish Councils who will remain as one of the vehicles for local democracy and offer any unitary structure a route to listen to the views, concerns and opinions of residents.

2.3 Working Together has been a theme that encapsulates how the County Council has engaged with Town and Parish councils through the Dorset Association of Town and Parish Councils (DAPTC) and the council continues to have dialogue with the association regarding the challenges and opportunities that reorganisation may bring.

2.4 DAPTC have been very proactive in assessing the potential impact of any reorganisation by making it a key theme at last year’s AGM and holding a conference earlier this year where invited speakers offered their perspectives on the unitary process. The conference called Impact of Local Government Reorganisation on Town and Parish Councils, heard from speakers from the Department for Communities and Local Government, Cornwall, Wiltshire and Somerset.

2.5 The council wants to maintain the momentum of good engagement with Town and Parish Councils. We are organising three events in the late summer where, with the DAPTC, we will work with town and parishes across the county to ask them how they want to participate in any opportunities that reorganisation will bring. Forward Together 2020 and the forthcoming reorganisation mean that we have to make sure that Town and Parish councils are able to play their part in the achievement of outcomes for people and communities.

2.6 The Working Together programme, which is coordinated through the Chief Executives Department, has commenced a range of work streams in collaboration with the DAPTC which align with our Forward Together and Unitary priorities. These include:

 Living and Learning Centres  Rights of Way  Highways Page 71 Forward Together Update

 Superfast Broadband

2.7 The most advanced of these is a Highways prospectus setting out what the Council can do and what the opportunities are for the involvement of Town and Parish Councils in commissioning or carrying out some of the minor maintenance activities which the County Council is unable to finance at present.

2.8 Many communities have contacted Dorset Highways expressing a wish to become involved and a leaflet has been produced to offer Parish and Town Councils a framework to action additional highway maintenance works in their respective areas, should they wish to do so.

2.9 Working Together as a theme for our interaction with Town and Parishes will require a coordinated approach to all parts of the local authority that are providing opportunities such as those above. DAPTC have requested that the council avoids a piecemeal approach and as the future structures begin to emerge we coordinate across all local government organisations so that the 2020 vision becomes a reality.

3. Social Impact Bond (SIB)

3.1 Forward Together as a programme looks to innovation to develop smarter services that have the potential to reduce cost in the longer term.

3.2 A council wide approach is being developed to put in place a service that will support families where the impact of adult mental health, substance misuse and domestic violence (toxic trio) is evident. Families in these circumstances are heavy users of public services and inevitably have poorer outcomes across family members.

3.3 A Social Impact Bond (SIBs) is a relatively new concept, but one that has caused much interest in the UK and overseas, especially in the US. SIBs are becoming an increasingly important way of delivering services and interventions that improve outcomes for individuals and communities in both the UK and overseas. A SIB is a type of Payment by Results (PbR) contract, where the finance needed to make the contract work is provided by social investors rather than by service providers.

3.4 To qualify as a SIB, according to the Cabinet Office Centre for SIBs, there must be:

 A separate contract between a commissioner and a delivery agency sometimes called a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)  Payment from the commissioner for the achievement of one or more outcomes by the delivery agency  At least one investor legally separate from both the commissioner and the delivery agency  Some or all of the financial risk of non-delivery of outcomes sitting with the investor.

3.5 The Forward Together 2020 programme places commissioning at the heart of our planning and decision making. As such the principles behind SIB’s make them a perfect vehicle for the delivery of new innovative services such as the one described above.

3.6 Work has been ongoing with Social Capital Investment Bodies with a view to securing a bond that will cover 4 years of service delivery for the approach outlined above.

3.7 There are two core aims of the proposal:

Page 72 Forward Together Update

1. Increase early identification of vulnerable ‘toxic trio’ families by improving information sharing between partners, pro-actively identifying and managing risks to prevent crisis and chaos. This will be achieved through a dedicated data analyst that can work across agencies to make sure this identification happens thus enabling providers to intervene earlier. 2. Improve social outcomes for ‘toxic trio’ families by delivering intensive, multi- disciplined team approaches that stimulate whole family action. This will be achieved through the application of evidence based programmes such as Functional Family Therapy, bringing about improved outcomes across a range of domains.

3.8 The draft business case is currently with Social Investors for assessment and Cabinet will be informed of the outcome of negotiations that will take place. This is further evidence of the way that Forward Together 2020, through one council approaches, is looking to develop services using innovation and new approaches to securing funding for public services.

Patrick Myers Head of Corporate Development June 2016

Page 73 Forward Together Update

4. Forward Together Savings Report.

Summary - All Savings Assessment of Savings achievement at >>> 18-May-16 2016/17 More On Work Not Savings measure Achieved course Needed achievable

£000's 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 Adults 1602 #### 1,140 221 241 0 Childrens 3865 #### 1,575 1,140 450 700 Adults Env & Economy 2346 #### 425 878 998 45 Childrens Env & Economy Chief Exec's 1214.3 #### 624 490 70 30 Chief Exec's 576 #### Whole Authority 0 142 434 0 Whole Authority Summary - All Savings 2016/17 9,603 3,764 2,871 2,193 775

2017/18 Assessment of Savings achievement at >>> 18-May-16

More On Work Not Savings measure Achieved course Needed achievable £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Adults 4592 #### 0 90 4,502 0 Adults Childrens 1775 #### 0 350 1,425 0 Childrens Env & Economy 1906 #### 0 1,460 421 25 Chief Exec's 1656 #### 50 56 1,550 0 Env & Economy Whole Authority 621 #### 0 205 366 50 Chief Exec's Page 74 Page Summary - All Savings 2017/18 10,550 50 2,161 8,264 75 Whole Authority

2018/19 Assessment of Savings achievement at >>> 18-May-16

More On Work Not Savings measure Achieved course Needed achievable £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Adults 4140 #### 0 0 4,140 0 Childrens 600 0 0 600 0 Adults Env & Economy 100 0 50 50 0 Childrens Chief Exec's 0 0 0 0 0 Env & Economy Whole Authority 905 0 0 905 0 Chief Exec's Summary - All Savings 2018/19 5,745 0 50 5,695 0 Whole Authority

Forward Together Update

All Years Assessment of Savings achievement at >>> 18-May-16

More On Work Not Savings measure Achieved course Needed achievable £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Adults 10334 #### 1,140 311 8,883 0 Childrens 6240 1,575 1,490 2,475 700 Adults Env & Economy 4352 425 2,388 1,469 70 Childrens Chief Exec's 2870.3 674 546 1,620 30 Env & Economy Whole Authority 2102 0 347 1,705 50 Chief Exec's Summary - All Savings All Years 25,898 3,814 5,082 16,152 850 Whole Authority

Page 75 Page

Patrick Myers Head of Corporate Development June 2016

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 1 – Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Cabinet Member Robert Gould – Leader Lead Officer Richard Bates – Chief Financial Officer Subject of Report Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update

Executive Summary This report provides a brief update to Cabinet on the national and local issues impacting on the County Council’s finances. It mentions matters that will need to be taken into account when developing the three-year MTFP from 2017/18 to 2019/20 and highlights work that is already in progress to address the budget gap. The report highlights some of the work already being undertaken through the Budget Strategy Task & Finish Group and asks for Cabinet’s approval of the work that Group has done so far, alongside any further issues the Group might consider. The report also summarises the information provided to the Audit & Governance Committee on 8th June concerning:  the 2015/16 outturn (subject to audit)  balances at 31 March 2016  the most recent 2016/17 forecast of outturn.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: This high level update does not involve a change in strategy. As the strategy for managing within the available budget is developed, the impact of specific proposals on equality groups will be considered.

Use of Evidence: This report draws on proposals and funding information published by the Government, briefings issued by such bodies as the Society of County Treasurers and the content of Dorset County Council reports and financial monitoring data.

Budget: The report provides an update on the County Council’s budget position and potential funding changes for 2016/17 and the following two years.

Page 77 Page 2 – Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update

Major risks that influence the development of the financial strategy include:  views taken – and published information - on changes in grant funding, inflation rates, demographic and other pressures and income from the council tax and non-domestic rates;  success in delivering the savings anticipated from the Forward Together 2020 programme and containing other cost pressures arising;  judgement of the appropriate level for reserves, balances and contingency, to minimise the risk of an unmanageable overspend without tying up funds unnecessarily  pressures arising so far in 2016/17 that had not been factored into the budget; an early indication of the level of concern over these matters is provided.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk HIGH

Other Implications:

Recommendation The Cabinet is asked to consider the contents of this report and: (i) put forward any other issues it wishes to be taken into account in the development of the Medium Term Financial Plan and budget; (ii) note the relevant overspends on service budgets in 2015/16 and consider what action might be required, especially in light of the 2016/17 forecast of outturn; (iii) agree the changes to budgeting assumptions set out in section 2; (iv) note the other work being carried out by the Budget Strategy Task & Finish Group and offer any additional thoughts for the Group to consider; (v) consider the risks associated with signing-up to (and not signing-up to) the four-year funding deal on offer from the DCLG; (vi) note and understand the level and adequacy of General Balances at 1 April 2016.

Page 78 Page 3 – Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update

Reason for To enable work to continue on refining and managing the County Recommendation Council’s budget plan for 2017/18 and the overall three-year MTFP period.

Appendices None.

Background Papers Society of County Treasurers’ briefing papers MFTP reports for budget 2015/16 Outturn and financial management report to Audit & Governance Committee 8th June 2016 Spending review 2016 Final local government finance settlement

Officer Contact Name: Jim McManus, Chief Accountant Tel: 01305 221235 Email: [email protected]

Page 79 Page 4 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

1. Background

1.1 The Cabinet traditionally considers a report at this time of year, to prepare the way for rolling forward the financial plan during the rest of the financial year, culminating in agreeing the budget and the rate of council tax at the February meeting of the County Council. Work has already started on financial planning for 2017/18 and beyond and this report provides an update on that work.

1.2 The report also summarises the content of the report brought to the 8th June Audit & Governance Committee to advise of the 2015/16 outturn and balances position, and reflect the latest 2016/17 forecast of outturn.

1.3 2016/17 and the remainder of the MTFP is potentially covered by an agreed funding position which we can secure with Government if we sign-up to the figures released in the final settlement. There are some risks associated with this and these are explored a little further in this paper.

2. Starting point for 2016/17 and beyond

2.1 Budget 2016/17 was balanced through the use of reserves and balances. What it left us with, in terms of the remaining three years of the spending review period was the following budget gap.

MTFP gap - final settlement and social care precept levy

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Total £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Original budget gap (15.3) (25.2) (12.4) (12.3) (65.2) Forward Together savings 9.0 6.4 1.0 - 16.4 Transitional funding 3.0 3.0 (3.0) - 3.0 Rural Services Delivery Grant 1.1 0.5 (0.5) - 1.1 No negative RSG - - 2.1 (2.1) - Use of contingency, reserves etc 2.2 - - - 2.2 Remainder to be found - (15.3) (12.8) (14.4) (42.5) Social Care Precept - 4.0 4.2 4.5 12.7 Residual budget gap - (11.3) (8.6) (9.9) (29.8)

2.2 So our starting point was the pursuit of savings of around £29.8m over the 3 year period to 31 March 2020. To support this, Cabinet established the Budget Strategy Task & Finish Group (the Group) to look at how the organisation could progress its budget strategy alongside the FT2020 programme and deliver savings whilst transforming the organisation.

2.3 The Group meets monthly with the CFO and the Chief Accountant and has so far received position updates of the financial position and forecasts and has also, at its 15th June meeting, received presentations from Directors to understand the current status of transformation and FT2020 likely outcomes.

2.4 In considering the opening position, the Group has already indicated that the Authority should revisit some of its planning assumptions. Initially this involved reducing the general inflation allowance from 2.25% across the period to 1.75% in 2017/18 and to 1.95% in 2018/19. Consideration has also given to the inflation

Page 80 Page 5 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

allowance built-in for the Tricuro contract and having agreed the figures for 2017/18 the increase has been reduced.

2.5 Other assumptions are still under review and Cabinet will be kept informed, through these regular updates, of the progress being made and to consider approval for changes. The changes made so far have reduced the budget gap slightly, as follows.

2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Total £m £m £m £m Budget round 2015/16 end results (17.7) (9.6) (9.9) (37.2) Amount found in 2016/17 6.4 1.0 7.4 Balance to be found in 2017/18 (11.3) (8.6) (9.9) (29.8) Changes to assumptions 0.9 0.8 0.3 2.0 Remaining budget gap (10.4) (7.8) (9.6) (27.8)

2.6 There have been no changes to the Council Tax (1.99%) and Social Care Precept (2%) assumptions that Cabinet agreed as part of the 2016/17 budget strategy.

2.7 The table above includes everything currently agreed in the Forward Together programme. Beyond that, Directors are working on their wider plans to 2020.

2.8 Adult & Community Services are working on an additional target of £4.1m for each of the next two years. Details are not yet available but the new Interim Director hopes to have plans in place by 31 July. Children’s Services are looking to extend their Transformation programme savings target overall by between £3m and £5m to £10m-£12m. The Environment and Economy Directorate had previously accelerated their programme into 2016/17 and 2017/18 but will now look more formally at opportunities beyond this. The Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership will be attending the next Budget Strategy Task & Finish Group to discuss the DWP savings programme.

3 Issues impacting on the Medium Term Financial Plan

Outturn for 2015/16 and the impact on general balances

3.1 The financial performance for the year (subject to audit confirmation) was an overspend against service budgets of £3.8m. The causes of this were reported in the 8th June Audit & Governance Committee paper and were well rehearsed during the year’s monitoring reports, so they are not repeated here.

3.2 Despite a net service overspend, centrally managed budgets and capital financing budgets were underspent, reducing the overall overspend to £0.7m. This, coupled with the work done on our Minimum Revenue Provision during 2015/16 flowed through to a net increase in our general balances at 31 March 2016 to £14.6m.

Forecast of outturn for 2016/17

3.3 The latest forecast of outturn for the Authority, (AP02, May), indicates an overspend of some £6.6m. The cost pressures continue to be in relation to the costs of care in Adult & Community Services (£1.1m) and Children’s Services (£7.7m). The Environment & Economy Directorate is also forecasting an overspend of £1.6m at

Page 81 Page 6 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

this stage, though the Director is confident this figure will reduce as plans to deliver the savings required in the base budget are firmed-up.

3.4 Members will recall that the budget for 2016/17 contains some £4m of one-off funding for costs to support looked-after children so it is vital to remember that this funding already appears insufficient for current numbers of children in the system.

Confirmation of grants and other funding for 2016/17

3.5 We are now clear on the funding position of the grants that were not finalised when we set the budget; namely extended rights to free transport, the new homes bonus and highways flooding. Although individual grants were different from budgeted assumptions, the net impact is not material. Better Care Fund and Improved BCF 3.6 Dorset County Council is due to receive £11.624m through the Better Care Fund in 2016/17. This is currently £550k less that in 2015/16 and is linked to discussions around Continuing Health Care (CHC) costs and performance. The funding of the difference has been and is subject to on-going debate.

3.7 The “improved” BCF allocations for 2018/19 and 2019/20 are £4.3m and £9m respectively. There is still no indication as to the additional responsibilities that are likely to come with the funding so this funding does not form part of our MTFP yet and our assumption is therefore that it will be cost neutral.

4 Forward Together 2020 programme

4.1 The FT2020 programme continues to be monitored by the FT Board and the financial implications of the programme are also reported through CPMI.

4.2 The latest report, going to the FT Board on xx indicates that of the £9.6m of savings targeted for delivery in 2016/17, the following progress is being made.

More On Work Not Savings measure Achieved course Needed achievable £000's Adults 1602 #### 1,140 221 241 0 Childrens 3865 #### 1,575 1,140 450 700 Env & Economy 2346 #### 425 938 938 45 Chief Exec's 1214.3 #### 624 490 70 30 Whole Authority 576 #### 0 142 434 0 Summary - All Savings 2016/17 9,603 3,764 2,931 2,133 775

4.3 Of the £775k deemed to be not achievable, £700k of this relates to SEN transport savings which Members have already been alerted to through other reports. Directors are currently working on options to replace the unachievable savings with alternative measures.

Business Rates Retention Scheme

Page 82 Page 7 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

4.4 Last year, the Government made the commitment to local government retaining 100% of its business rate revenues by the end of this Parliament. This will bring an additional £10-£12 billion of tax into local government funding.

4.5 These reforms will however be fiscally neutral to the Treasury and local government will therefore need to take on extra responsibilities and functions. Other existing funding streams such as revenue support grant and many specific grants will also be ceased when this new funding comes on stream.

4.6 Various workstreams have been established nationally to take this work forwards, including:-

 Needs and distribution – looking at needs based formulae to replace both the old formula and also encompass the funding streams and responsibilities which are being transferred to local government.  Responsibilities – looking at which grants and responsibilities should be transferred.  System design – looking at the complexities of designing a system which can redistribute business rate income collected in a fair and transparent way to all local authorities, provide stability and appropriate safety nets whilst also incentivising growth.  Technical accounting groups

4.7 Opportunities to input into the process are being provided through government, LGA, County Council Network and the Society of County Treasurers. Updates will be brought to Cabinet as the work of these groups and the potential implications on our finances / risks become clearer.

Academies

4.8 The number of schools requesting to convert to academy has slowed. Four schools converted on 1st April 2016, and there is a further one school expected to convert in July 2016. Three further schools are reviewing their positions but have yet to express a formal interest.

4.9 The Education Services Grant is in the process of being phased out alongside the review of the schools’ funding formula, although it is not yet clear when and will be subject to a consultation. For 2016/17 the County Council is now expected to receive £3.6m in ESG, £0.1m less than when the budget was set due to the academy conversions.

Budget pressures

4.10 Emerging budget pressures, outside of children in care, at this stage of the year are mercifully low, given the current forecast of outturn. Nothing material has yet been brought to the attention of the CFO as being of cause for major concern but we remain vigilant.

5 Economic update

5.1 Speculation about what might happen with interest rates, employment, inflation, and economic growth following possible “Brexit” is rife. Clearly opinion is divided – not just between politicians but also economists – on what leaving the EU might mean and how long this would take to impact. The prospect for many of the indicators we

Page 83 Page 8 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

use as barometers for our own financial planning is clearly uncertain at the moment so there is no formal economic update here, it will instead be featured in the next update to Cabinet.

6 Multi-year settlement and efficiency plans

6.1 This years’ local government finance settlement offered any council the option of taking up a four-year funding settlement, up to 2019-20. The Government commitment is to provide minimum allocations for each year of the Spending Review period, should councils choose to accept the offer and if they have published an efficiency plan.

6.2 The offer covers the figures provided in the final settlement on 9 February 2016 in respect of:-

 Revenue Support Grant;

 Transitional Grant; and

 Rural Services Delivery Grant allocations

6.3 In addition, tariffs and top-ups in 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 will not be altered for reasons related to the relative needs of local authorities, and in the final year may be subject to the implementation of 100% business rates retention.

6.4 This was caveated by the Government with the need to take account of future events such as the transfer of functions to local government, transfers of responsibility for functions between local authorities, mergers between authorities and any other unforeseen events. However, barring exceptional circumstances and subject to the normal statutory consultation process for the local government finance settlement, the Government expects these to be the amounts presented to Parliament each year.

6.5 To accept the offer, a link to a published efficiency plan needs to be received by DCLG by 5pm on Friday 14 October 2016.

6.6 Clearly, a four year settlement, even with the caveats, would be extremely helpful in terms of producing a medium term financial plan and making those longer term decisions in terms of both savings requirements and investment to achieve the transformation of our future service provision. The major dis-benefit would be that whilst the negative Revenue Support Grant figures for 2018-19 were removed by way of transitional grant, the allocation for 2019-20 still remains a negative sum of minus £10.14 million. This would mean that other funding, presumably from the business rates top-up would have to be used to offset this negative grant allocation.

6.7 A further update paper will be bought to Cabinet in due course to provide further details on the pros and cons of accepting or rejecting the multi-year settlement to inform a decision prior to the 14 October deadline.

7 Summary

7.1 As noted earlier in this paper, the balance on the general fund stands at £14.6m at the start of this MTFP round. This is safely above the lower-end of our operating range of £10m but we need to be extremely cautious given the overspend currently being forecast for 2016/17. We also need to urge caution around the imminent EU

Page 84 Page 9 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

referendum and try to understand quickly what funding implications might follow, whatever the referendum result.

7.2 Need to deal with the overspend in 2016/17 and Directors have started to develop their plans with the Budget Task and Finish Group.

7.3 FT2020 programme needs to deliver savings to close the budget gap over the next three years.

7.4 Further work is needed to explore the pros and cons of accepting the multi-year settlement offered by Government.

Richard Bates Chief Financial Officer June 2016

Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Corporate Performance Monitoring Report: Fourth Quarter 2015-16

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Lead Member Cllr. Robin Cook Local Members All Members Lead Officer Debbie Ward, Chief Executive

Subject of Corporate Performance Monitoring Report, Fourth Quarter 2015-16 Report (1 October – 31 December 2015)

Executive This is the final corporate performance monitoring report against the Summary measures and targets in the 2015-16 corporate plan. The 2016-17 plan, which includes a revised outcomes framework organised around the four themes that people in Dorset will be : Safe; Healthy; Independent; with an economy that is Prosperous, was agreed by the County Council at their April meeting.

Corporate Performance, Quarter 4 2015-16

There are 31 performance measures in the Corporate Plan, and a further internal measures reported here that monitor customer service and staff development and wellbeing – making a total of 46 measures. At the end of 2015-16, those 46 measures have the following ratings, where Green = On target, Amber = 0%-5% off target, and Red = More than 5% off target (one measure, the number of people killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads, has been unavailable all year due to data issues at Dorset Police).

For the 31 measures in the Corporate Plan, the equivalent ratings were as follows:

Page1 87 Corporate Performance Monitoring Report: Fourth Quarter 2015-16

Headline issues, Quarter 3 2015-16 Enabling Economic Growth All of the measures in the 2015-16 corporate plan that relate to Economic Growth finished the year either on target, or within 5% of their targets. The percentage of household waste sent for re-use, recycling and composting fractionally missed its 60% target for the year (58.9%), and the percentage of the Growing Places Fund committed to active projects, after a year of being well short of its 90% target, now stands at 88%. Health, Wellbeing and Safeguarding  1030 children had been assessed as being subject to emotional abuse and/ or domestic violence by the end of the year, an increase of 26.2% over the previous year, already exceeding last year’s total by 40 cases. Domestic abuse is presenting in three key areas:  Children who are living with domestic abuse in their household  Children who are perpetrating violence against their parents/family  Children who are experiencing abuse in their own peer relationships Resources are being sought to drive the children’s agenda through the pan-Dorset Domestic Abuse Strategic Group.  The percentage of children subject to a child protection plan for two years or more (3.8%), while off target, has improved significantly during the year from a Quarter 2 high of 8%.  After a problematic year, waiting times for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) remain high.  In Adult Social Care, the rate of delayed transfers from hospital care remains at red and has increased from 21.3% to 23.5% during the course of the year.  Dorset Police continue to be unable to provide road accident data, for the third consecutive quarter – a significant cause for concern. People Matter  Staff sickness has reduced from 7.79 days pro rata per FTE as at the end of Quarter 2 to 7.3 days at year end.  PDR completion rates have improved significantly, meeting their target for the year of 85%.  Only 10% of teams returned feedback forms in quarter 4 to demonstrate that they had received Team Brief. Performance management arrangements for 2016-17 The corporate plan and associated outcomes framework was agreed by the County Council in April. As discussed in previous reports to the Cabinet, the framework is based on the principles of Outcomes Based Accountability (OBA) and strives to articulate the conditions of wellbeing that we are seeking to achieve for Dorset alongside our communities and partners – the “ends” – and work backwards, using the best available evidence, to establish the best “means” of achieving them within the resources available. The framework is comprised of four high level outcomes, reflecting the County Council’s commitment to helping residents be healthy, safe and

Page2 88 Corporate Performance Monitoring Report: Fourth Quarter 2015-16

independent, with an economy that is prosperous. A set of “outcome statements” under each of these headings gives further definition to the particular challenges facing Dorset with regard to each outcome. To enable us to judge whether we are being successful in making a difference to the lives of our residents, we need to monitor achievement in two ways – by looking at: 1. Population indicators, which help quantify the achievement of an outcome for the whole of Dorset, and for which accountability is shared between a number of partner organisations and communities; and: 2. Performance measures, which will be used to quantify the extent to which our customers are any better off as a result of our actions. As an organisation, we are solely accountable for these performance measures. Work is progressing well to finalise an initial suite of indicators and measures. There have been two workshops involving lead officers for performance from across the authority, as well as a number of discussions outside of those forums. A draft set of indicators and measures has now been submitted to the Corporate Leadership Team for their consideration. Following this, the intention is to share a draft performance framework with members during July. A platform has been developed that will make all the relevant data relating to the performance framework, with associated commentary, available to member and officers in real time. Once established, this framework of population indicators and performance measures will strategically align with the revised overview and scrutiny committee structure agreed by the County Council on 15 February. The Economic Growth, Safeguarding, and People and Communities committees will be able to oversee and scrutinise the delivery of the corporate plan as articulated by the “prosperous”, “safe” and “independent” outcomes respectively, with some elements of the “Healthy” outcome also being scrutinised by the People and Communities Committee. The existing Dorset Health Scrutiny Committee will also scrutinise the “healthy” outcome. The Audit and Governance Committee will be able to take a strategic overview of the delivery of the whole framework. Impact Equalities Impact Assessment: There is no change in policy, or impact on Assessment: equalities groups, associated with this corporate performance monitoring

report.

Use of Evidence: The data within this report is updated by a range of officers from across the County Council. Red, Amber and Green (RAG) ratings are used to summarise the performance situation at the end of each quarter.

Budget: Information is provided elsewhere on the agenda for this meeting on the County Council’s performance against the budget set in the Medium Term Financial Plan. Work is underway to strengthen the reporting of the relationship between performance and budgets in future performance

Page3 89 Corporate Performance Monitoring Report: Fourth Quarter 2015-16

monitoring reports.

Risk: ‘High’ risks from the Corporate Risk Register are shown on the final page of Appendix 1.

Other Implications: None

Recommendation That the Cabinet; (i) Considers and comments upon the corporate performance monitoring report for the fourth quarter of 2015-16; (ii) Agrees any future actions they would wish to see with regard to the performance issues raised.

Reason for To ensure members are aware of the County Council’s performance against Recommendation the 2015-16 Corporate Plan.

Appendices Appendix 1: Dorset County Council Corporate Balanced Scorecard, Overall Summary, Quarter 4 2015-16

Background Report to and minutes of the Cabinet 8 April 2015: Papers Draft Corporate Plan 2015-18

Report Name: John Alexander, Policy and Performance Manager Originators and Tel: 01305 225096 Contacts Email: [email protected]

Name: David Trotter, Policy and Performance Officer Tel: 01305 228692 Email: [email protected]

Page4 90 Corporate Performance Monitoring Report: Fourth Quarter 2015-16

Page5 91 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1: Corporate Balanced Scorecard: Q4 2015-16 summary Page1

Corporate Plan 2015-16 Enabling Economic growth Is performance on target? What is the direction of travel?

, 6 , 2 G, 78% A, 22% 78% 22%

Performance in more detail ! Indicates that the measure is linked to a High or Increasing Risk. Baseline Baseline Target Current Date RAG Direction See p5 for risk details, including management responses/ actions in place. period 2015-16 outturn updated rating of travel % of students gaining 5+ GCSE A*-C grades, including Maths & English 58.00% Ac. 2013-14  UK fig* 57.70% Q4 2015-16 

Percentage 93 Page of 16 -18 year olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) 3.80% 2014-15 4% 3.70% Q4 2015-16  Satisfaction of businesses from their contact with trading standards 84% 2014-15 80% 82% Q4 2015-16  % of major non-compliances found at businesses corrected through intervention 94% 2014-15 95% 95% Q2 2015-16  % of the Growing Places Fund committed to active projects 60.90% 2014-15 90% 88.00% Q4 2015-16  Percentage of household waste sent for re-use, recycling and composting 57.30% 2014-15 60% 58.91% 2015-16  Access to fibre-based broadband 84.00% 2014-15 95.00% 95.00% Q4 2015-16  % principal roads where maintenance should be considered ! DH01 5% 2014-15 <5% 3% Q4 2015-16  % non-principal roads where maintenance should be considered ! DH01 10% 2014-15 <10% 4% Q4 2015-16  *52.6%

Dorset: The Economic Context Measures which the County Council cannot directly influence, but which are indicators of the health of the local economy

2011 2012 2013 2014 Latest DoT SW Latest UK Latest Employee productivity (GVA per hour worked) as a percentage of UK average 89.2 90.2 90.2 90.3 90.3  92.5 100 Housing affordability:Ratio of lower quartile house prices and lower quartile earnings 9.71 9.86 9.44 9.44 9.44  7.87(2012) 6.45 (Eng) % of employees in high skill occupations 40.8% 45.1% 45.0% 47% 42%  45.0% 44.0% Claimant unemployment rate (16-64) 1.8% 1.6% *1.5% *1.0% 0.80%  1.2% 1.9% Claimant unemployment aged 16-24 (% of all) 27.5% 28.9% *28% *26% 25.0%  23.0% 23.0% Corporate Plan 2015-16: Health, Wellbeing and Safeguarding Page 2

Is performance on target? What is the direction of travel?

7 8 6 No data: 1 , 7 No change, 3 , 10 No data, 2 32% 36% 27% 5% 32% 14% 45% 9%

Performance in more detail ! Indicates that the measure is linked to a High or Increasing Risk. Baseline Baseline Target Current Date RAG Direction See p5 for risk details, including management responses/ actions in place. period 2015-16 outturn updated rating of travel Prevalence of healthy weight in 4-5 year olds 75.30% 2014-15 79.64% 76.10% Q4 2015-16  Prevalence of healthy weight in 10 -11 year olds 70.40% 2014-15 69.54% 71.00% Q4 2015-16  Child immunisation rate (2 yrs old) 98.40% 2014-15 98.08% 97.10% Q3 2015-16  Child immunisation rate (5 yrs old) 92.20% 2014-15 91.18% 91.10% Q3 2015-16 

No. children 94 Page assessed as being subject to emotional abuse /DV ! CRR01 816 2014-15 <816 1030 Q4 2015-16  % children achieving expected level at Early Years Foundation Stage* 67.60% 2013-14 62% 67.5% Q4 2015-16  Key Stage 2 SEN/ non-SEN gap** 56.00% Ac 2013-14 52% 52.00% Q4 2015-16  Key Stage 4 SEN/ non-SEN gap 48% Ac 2013-14 45% 43.00% Q4 2015-16  Waiting times for children accessing primary care CAMHS* 88% 2014-15 95% 70.00% 2015-16  Waiting times for children accessing specialist CAMHS* 95% 2014-15 95% 72.00% 2015-16  % children subject to a child protection plan for > 2 years ! CRR01 2.10% 2014-15 <2.1% 3.80% Q4 2015-16  Participation in sport and physical recreation 35.00% 2014-15 36.00% 34.20% 2015-16  Number of volunteer days spent on Access and Countryside Management 2833 2014-15 3000 (year) 3078.6 Q4 2015-16  Reduction in killed or seriously injured road casualties from 2005-09 average 271 2005-09 228 No data since Q1 (issues with police database) % adults successfully completing alcohol/ drug treatment in last year 30.30% 2014-15 23% 26.88% Q4 2014-15  Proportion of clients given self-directed support and/ or direct payments 96.00% 2014-15 95% 94.80% Q4 2015-16  % people saying services they use have made them feel safe & secure 80.70% 2014-15 79.20% 66.00% 2015-16  Unpredicted/ avoidable emergency hospital admissions/ 100k pop ! AD04 147.8 2013-14 144.1 147.8 2013-14 NA Effectiveness of reablement/rehab services after hospital discharge ! AD04 89.60% 2014-15 81.90% 85.80% Q4 2015-16  Permanent admissions to residential care per 100k older people ! AD04 602.2 2014-15 <668.4 607.37 Q4 2015-16  The number of delayed transfers from hospital care ! AD04 21.3 2014-15 11 23.5 Q4 2015-16  Satisfaction of people who use services with their care and support (Revised) 63.60% 2013-14 64.90% 63.60% Q4 2015-16  4. Customer Focus Page 3 Is performance on target? What is the direction of travel?

3 1 , 1 No data 1 , 2 75% 25% 25% 25% 50%

Performance in more detail ! Indicates that the measure is linked to a High or Increasing Risk. Baseline Baseline Target Current Date RAG Direction See p5 for risk details, including management responses/ actions in place. period 2015-16 outturn updated rating of travel Media coverage - % positive and balanced media coverage (not negative) 93% 2014-15 87% 91.40% Q4 2015-16  % aggregate channel shift made across top 10 online services New New 45% 45.4% Q1 2014-15 NA % enquiries resolved at the first point of contact by Dorset Direct (external) 83% 2014-15 80% 93.00% Q1 2015-16  % of telephone calls answered within Dorset Direct (external) 86% 2014-15 90% 82.00% Q4 2015-16  5. People Matter

Page 95 Page Is performance on target? What is the direction of travel?

6 1 4 , 6 ,2 , 3 55% 9% 36% 55% 18% 27%

Performance in more detail ! Indicates that the measure is linked to a High or Increasing Risk. Baseline Baseline Target Current Date RAG Direction See p5 for risk details, including management responses/ actions in place. period 2015-16 outturn updated rating of travel % of Personal Development Reviews completed 78% 2014-15 85% 85.00% Q4 2015-16  Staff turnover (excluding schools) 17.63% 2014-15 15%-20% 18.67% Q4 2015-16  Working days lost due to sickness absence 8.24% 2014-15 7.2 7.3 Q4 2015-16  Number of serious injuries or deaths to County Council staff 0 2014-15 0 0 Q4 2015-16  % of employees redeployed whose post has become redundant 17% 2014-15 10% 35.00% Q4 2015-16  % of teams receiving Team Brief, as shown by return of feedback forms 38.80% 2014-15 75% 10.00% Q4 2015-16  Click rates for manager's newsletter New New 33% 11.25% Q4 2015-16  Strategic employee engagement (1): Strategic narrative (Forward Together) 66.00% Q2 2014-15 65% 68.00% Q4 2015-16  Strategic employee engagement (2): Engaging managers 64.00% Q2 2014-15 72% 65.00% Q4 2015-16  Strategic employee engagement (3): Employee voice 48.00% Q2 2014-15 30% 49.00% Q4 2015-16  Strategic employee engagement (4): Integrity 67.00% Q2 2014-15 72% 66.00% Q4 2015-16  6. High/ Increasing Risks: Management Responses and Actions Page 4 a) Corporate Risk Register

Corporate Risk Risk Current Risk Owner (Accountable Risk Causes Management response/ actions in place Code level Officer) 01) Inadequate finance Pathways to Independence Programme includes a to meet legislative, transformation of the whole Directorate which will increase Overspend to the Adult & Community Services Directorate Budget High, no political and public Adults', Catherine Driscoll independence and reduce the need for long term Adult Social ACS 5a and meet the structural deficit change expectations Care; this includes review of the whole system, and a focus (High Risk) on early help and prevention while meeting the requirements of the Care Act.

Failure to achieve Better Care targets across the Dorset public / High, no There is a significant risk that the agreed plans do not Adults', Catherine Driscoll community sector change achieve the savings in line with local government funding reductions. Performance on admissions and delayed transfer AD 02 Unpredicted/ avoidable emergency hospital admissions NA of care continues to be challenging, which will impact on Effectiveness of reablement/rehab services after hospital discharge  performance related funding. Performance indicators are

Page 96 Page Permanent admissions to residential care per 100k older people  lagely based on health performance and therefore whilst the local authority can influence this risk, it cannot control it. The number of delayed transfers from hospital care  Ongoing management focus on this area of overspend. Work commenced in 2015/16 to look at transition planning between Failure to ensure that learning disability services are sustainable High, no AD 05 Adults', Harry Capron children and adults. Further work is also underrway on and cost-effective change developing new models of care for supported living for people with disability.

Accountants are integrating better into services to enable early identification and effective escalation. A successful High, no Chief Executive's, Jim series of budget management training sessions have been FI14 Ineffective and / or non-compliant financial management change McManus delivered to services to raise awareness. DES training is also being widely rolled-out and we are currently consulting on our restructure project following a budget holder survey.

The current year's anticipated overspend will reduce the general balances to a level just above the lower end of the High, no Chief Executive's, Richard operating range. Should we fall below the lower end (£10m) General balances are depleted to a level below operating range FI11 change Bates it would be raised as a matter for concern by our auditors, KPMG.

DCC budget  Corporate Risk Risk Current Risk Owner (Accountable Risk Causes Management response/ actions in place Code level Officer) A paper was taken to the Staffing Committee in July to determine the options associated with undertaking an equal Failure to have in place an equal and legally compliant pay & High, no Chief Executive's, S. VW 02 pay audit and the associated resource implications. It was grading structure change Huntingford agreed by the committee that the review would be postponed until April 2017 at the earliest. High, no Chief Executive's, Patrick The largest risk to the programme currently is that even with Additional savings cannot be identified to bridge the unfunded gap change Myers the identified major transformation programmes there FI 16 remains a need to deliver a substantial savings target from Savings generated by Forward Together the years 2016/17 onwards. This will be responded to via the 02) Failure to protect The Children’s Services Leadership Team continue to High, no the vulnerable children Failure to manage the demands led budget for children in care Children's, Sara Tough monitor performance and impact of budget reductions. South and young people change West Audit Partnership undertook a review of high cost areas from abuse or neglect of provision, including monitoring the pathways of individual in situations that could CRR 05 cases. A task and finish "Prevention & Partnership Strategy have been predicted Children subject to emotional abuse/ DV  Group" has been established to respond to the action plan and prevented from this review. Consultation on restructuring commenced (High Risk) early 2016, including a renewed focus on prevention within Children with Child Protection Plan for 2+ yrs  the Care and Support Team. 04) Failure 97 Page to ensure The majority of sites now have a nominated Premises the health and High, no Responsible Person. However, restructuring of services has EN 07 Health and safety risks associated with occupation of premises Environment, Peter Moore wellbeing of staff, change reduced the understanding of the Directorate Duty Holder service users and the Strategy. The strategy will be ratified. public 05) Inability of the Whilst the likelihood of this risk remains low, it is identified as Council or a key Medium, Chief Executives, Richard CX 13 Resilience of the ICT infrastructure to enable business continuity "worsening", as further work is necessary on our second site increasing Pascoe partner to effectively to reflect the move to Smarter Computing. respond to an incident ​​Other national incidents identify local authorities as a target. or event Chief Executives, Richard RES01 Loss of ICT service or data through a cyber attack High, New The Council has a ICT Continuity Management Group that Pascoe maintains and manages a specific risk register. Medium, Chief Executives, Patrick This will be addressed as part of the Supplier Management CX 14 Lack of understanding and/or management of the key supply increasing Myers project​ 07) Failure to sustain effective relationships across key Failure to sustain an effective relationship across the Dorset Waste High, Internal Interim Director appointed. partnerships Environment, Mike Harries Partnership improving (High Risk) Action Plan largely complete and the final three (of 37 items) are being progressed as separate projects. DWP 07

Progress continues to be reported to Joint Committee at each meeting and SWAP (South West Audit Partnership) are reviewing relevant actions as part of their annual Audit Plan. 07) Failure to sustain effective relationships across key Internal Interim Director appointed. partnerships (High Risk) Action Plan largely complete and the final three (of 37 items) Corporate Risk Risk Current Risk Owner (Accountable are being progressed as separate projects. DWP 07 Risk Causes Management response/ actions in place Code level Officer) Progress continues to be reported to Joint Committee at each meeting and SWAP (South West Audit Partnership) are Percentage of household waste sent for re-use, recycling and  reviewing relevant actions as part of their annual Audit Plan. composting

09) Inadequate Ability to maintain the highways infrastructure to an acceptable infrastructure to meet High, no standard in the face of changing circumstances (e.g. budget Environment, Andrew Martin Council priorities change (High Risk) reductions; climate change)

Roads condition: principal roads  The highway maintenance block allocation increased by 15 % from 2015/16. Further annual business cases will be DH 01 produced for additional capital investment in highway maintenance. Roads condition: non-principal roads  Page 98 Page

Programme of delivery of Basic Need Schools in accordance with agreed timescales/costs is being monitored through High, no CRR 04 Unable to provide sufficient school places (Basic Need) Children's, Anne Salter relevant groups. change

Whilst the framework has been agreed, we are developing a 10) Failure to deliver The masterplan and commissioning model will respond to service transformation Projects do not take a consistent business-like approach to concerns raised over benefits realisation and adequate High, no Chief Executive's, Patrick and necessary savings FI 09 calculating benefits leading to inconsistent assessments, baseline measures as part of the business case. Guidance change Myers through the Forward unrealistic savings targets and the need to find additional savings and tools are incorporated within the supporting project Together programme management toolkit.

The Chief Executives Department was restructured during 2015 and included addressing capacity to support projects. A Capacity of staff to deliver transformation programme as well as High, no Chief Executive's, Patrick prioritisation tool has been developed by the programme ST 06 maintain focus on day to day business change Myers office. Savings targets are being rebased, which may result in a readjustment of programme priorities.

The programme office are mapping projects and Project slippage within an individual workstream impacts negatively Medium, Chief Executive's, Patrick interdependencies to provide a clearer indication of project PR 04 on other projects in the programme increasing Myers timelines and resource needs.

Failure to address cultural issues that may impact on the success High, no Chief Executive's, Patrick Work is ongoing to communicate the Forward Together ST 09 of the transformation programme change Myers message. Further staff surveys are planned. Savings generated by Forward Together Corporate Risk Risk Current Risk Owner (Accountable Risk Causes Management response/ actions in place Code level Officer) 12) Failure to develop services based on Inadequate assessment of the long term impacts/risks High, no Chief Executive's, Patrick Modelling of future demand to clearly highlight pressure evidence and need PR 06 (threats/opportunities) of proposals change Myers points (High Risk)

13) Inadequate ICT The Smarter Computing programme has been re-planned, to infrastructure to meet Current technology within DCC is insufficient and / or inflexible to reflect the issues encountered with the performance of the High, no Chief Executives, Richard TE 01 meet the anticipated needs of the transformation programme (on a underlying platform, issues encountered with key business corporate service change Pascoe priorities technical or contractual basis) software such as RAISE (Children's social care system) and (High Risk) the supply of Surface Pro 3 tablet devices. Smarter 14) Failure to develop, recruit, retain suitably competent / qualified staff compromises Inability to attract and retain suitably qualified specialist High, no Work underway with Bournemouth University to deliver a CS04 Childrens, Vanessa Glenn service delivery (Low safeguarding staff within Childrens Services change programme for social work/childrens services risk, aside from Safeguarding) Page 99 Page Staff turnover  15) Rural public Key risks are public and political opposition to proposals, and transport cannot be failure to reach agreement with the operator. Withdrawal of Budget pressure reduce rural public transport to a level deemed Medium, public services can impact on resource efficiency leading to provided to a level EN 10 Environment, Matthew Piles deemed acceptable to unacceptable to the public increasing higher tender prices for other contracted services. Therefore the public there are risks that budget savings could be significantly reduced. 17) Failure to implement a local Discussions are ongoing at Leader/Chief Executive meetings. government structure Lack of agreement across partner organisations for structure of Chief Executives, Debbie LG 01 High, New A full risk register is in development. to deliver the best local government in Dorset Ward possible outcomes for Dorset residents This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Youth Services – Asset Transfer

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Cabinet Member(s) Robin Cook – Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation Lead Director(s) Sara Tough – Director for Children’s Services

Subject of Report Youth Services – Asset Transfer – Corfe Mullen

Executive Summary This report provides an update on progress since the Cabinet meeting of 25 May 2016. The decision to absorb Corfe Mullen youth centre by Lockyers Middle school was deferred in order to allow local discussions to be held and for Members to have more information to aid the decision. A meeting has been facilitated between the school, the Parish Council and the new youth trust. Parties have been invited to review their business cases and submit on 20 June 2016. These will be reviewed during the period 20 - 23 June 2016.

This is the first of two papers relating to the Corfe Mullen asset transfer. The next paper will provide a recommendation from Asset Management Group to the Cabinet.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

Please refer to the Developing a new model for youth work in Dorset EqIA was protocol for writing completed in December 2015. reports. Use of Evidence:

Engagement with groups and organisations who expressed interest in taking over a youth centre building. Business cases submitted by local community groups.

1 Page 101 Youth Services – Asset Transfer

Budget:

The Forward Together programme has identified the need to transform services within smaller budgets. The proposed total budget available for the delivery of youth services on an on-going basis is £1.2 million per annum. A highlight report of progress toward target will be available at Cabinet.

It formed part of the medium term financial plan and was factored in for 2016/17 when the 2015/16 budget was set. The budget paper was approved by Council on 12th February.

These changes will result in the creation of a targeted youth service which will form a core part of the early action offer for children and young people. This will have a demonstrable impact on outcomes for young people and see a reduction in late intervention costs across the public sector.

The transfer of buildings to community groups will see increased opportunities for new funding to be attracted into local communities, which will have an impact on quality of life for residents and the local economy.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: MEDIUM Residual Risk: LOW

Other Implications:

None

Recommendation It is recommended that the Cabinet notes this paper.

This is the first of two papers. The next paper will make a Reason for recommendation from Asset Management Group. Recommendation

2 Page 102 Youth Services – Asset Transfer

Appendices

Background Papers Report to the Cabinet – 13 January 2016 Report to the Cabinet – 25 May 2016 Dorset County Council – Transfer of County Council Properties to Community Bodies: Guidance Note

Officer Contact Name: Stuart Riddle, Change Lead, Children’s Services Tel: 01305-225539 Email: [email protected] Name: Peter Scarlett, Estate and Assets Service Manager, Environment and Economy Tel:01305-221940 Email: [email protected]

1. Background

1.1. Case for change

Dorset County Council’s children’s services face two major challenges: Increasing demand and a reducing budget. Problems such as substance misuse, domestic violence, child sexual exploitation and parental mental health issues have had a significant impact on the number of children who are subject to a child protection plan or taken into care. Our annual budget, currently £57 million, will have reduced by at least £5m by 2017, and by the same again - or more - by 2020.

Both these challenges relate to late intervention - not addressing the root causes of problems early enough. Not only is this bad for Dorset’s children and young people, but it also costs us more money. Without a doubt it is much better for children and their families if potential issues can be spotted earlier on, and the right support is given at the right time to make sure that problems are nipped in the bud.

1.2. Vision for a new youth offer

We are changing the way that we provide youth services in order to focus less on the provision of open access youth services and more on providing support to vulnerable young people in order to reduce demand for specialist services and help address the reducing budget. The objectives have been set for the proposals for changes to youth services based upon evidence of child development, effectiveness of different interventions, statutory guidance, and the budget constraint. These objectives are:

 Vulnerable young people have access to youth work  Young people are valued members of the communities

3 Page 103 Youth Services – Asset Transfer

 There are places to go, things to do for young people  Dorset County Council (DCC) spends no more than £1.2 million

1.3. What are the changes?

Between 17 November and 16 December we consulted on plans to change the way we provide youth services.

The results of the consultation were considered by the Cabinet on 13 January 2016. After a thorough three-hour debate, with representations from young people, members of local communities and councillors, the Cabinet reached a unanimous decision and agreed the following recommendations:

 That Option 5 within the Strategic Outline Case was approved to provide a proactive targeted youth service, supporting local action, and support communities to provide places to go and things to do.

 That the Council would no longer fund or provide open access, buildings based youth work, or transfer any undertaking.

 That £200,000 be allocated to support communities that wish to provide places to go and things to do for young people and crowdfunding is used to amplify this funding.

 That buildings which are currently used as youth centres will be offered for community use, unless the Council has a strategic interest in retaining the building for other purposes using the following timeline detailed within the Cabinet Members’ report.

 That any properties which are not transferred to community use will be added to the Forward Together “Way We Work” portfolio.

Recruitment to the new targeted youth service is now complete and staff will move into their new roles on 1 September. Existing youth service staff who did not obtain posts in the new service will be given notice of redundancy on 1 June. The new service will deliver evidence based interventions to young people who are identified as vulnerable and requiring early action.

Following the Cabinet decision, local groups and organisations that wanted to take over a youth centre building were asked to express an interest by 10 February 2016.

Many groups and individuals responded positively and discussions have been held between local groups, parish and town councils and County Council representatives to help to identify whether there was potential to develop business cases in each area.

These groups were asked to submit a business case accompanied by financial information by 31 March 2016 to enable their proposals to be considered by the Cabinet.

4 Page 104 Youth Services – Asset Transfer

The business cases were reviewed by a small working group with representatives from Dorset Property, Legal Services, Corporate Development, Children’s Services, and Finance. The group reviewed the individual plans in accordance with the County Council’s Guidance on Transferring a County Council Asset. Recommendations were made to the County Council’s Asset Management Group for consideration on 19 May 2016 and presented to the Cabinet on 25 May 2016 for decision.

2. Cabinet – 25 May 2016

2.1. The Cabinet resolved:

2.1.1. That the use of the County Council’s general power of competence to grant a freehold transfer, assignment of lease, or long leasehold interest in the youth centre buildings at Somerford, Burton, Gillingham, Bridport, Dorchester, Crossways, Sherborne, Southill, STEPS, Verwood, Wareham and Swanage to the respective community bodies on terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy, after consultation with the Director for Children’s Service and the Monitoring Officer be approved.

2.1.2. That the surrender of the leasehold interests in the youth centre building at The Lighthouse, upon terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy be approved.

2.1.3. That the absorption of Sturminster Newton youth centre by the relevant school be approved.

2.1.4. That the actions recommended in respect of the youth centre buildings which have not been subject to business cases from community groups be approved.

2.1.5. That the transfer of local youth centre funds to community groups upon terms to be agreed by the Director for Children’s Services be approved.

2.1.6. That the establishment of a new targeted youth service which will positive impact on the lives of young people, with particular focus on their emotional and mental wellbeing; education, employment, and training; personal safety; and ability to contribution to their community be noted.

2.1.7. That a decision with regard to the absorption of Corfe Mullen youth centre by the relevant school be deferred to allow local discussions to be held, a meeting of the Executive Advisory Panel to be arranged, if necessary, and a report to be provided for the Cabinet’s next meeting.

2.2. Members agreed that they needed more information on the Corfe Mullen Youth Centre in order to make an informed decision about its future. They also recognised that some facilitation might be needed between the interested parties and that a meeting of the Executive Advisory Panel might be needed.

5 Page 105 Youth Services – Asset Transfer

They agreed to defer the decision until the Cabinet meeting on 29 June 2016. The Monitoring Officer clarified that at that meeting the Cabinet would only be considering the asset transfer of Corfe Mullen Youth Club.

3. Progress

3.1. Officers facilitated a meeting on 9 June 2016 with the Head Teacher from Lockyers Middle School, Parish Clerk – Corfe Mullen Parish Council, Councillor Susan Jefferies, and two representatives from the new youth trust, to explore opportunities to collaborate.

3.2. Alternative options were explored for example, the use of other premises in the village or on a different school site, different models of youth work delivery, and ways of sharing space for multiple users. None of these were considered viable options.

3.3. The outcome of the meeting was to explore the possibility of dividing the building into two areas which would enable dual usage. Information relating to the measurement of the building footprint was provided by Dorset Property and was emailed to both parties, in order for them to consider the opportunity to share the building.

3.4. Both parties had the period 9 June – 20 June 2016 to consider whether they would pursue a joint solution or if they would add to or improve their individual business cases, with a deadline for submission of the business case(s) of 20 June 2016

3.5. Given the timeframe constraints it was not possible to convene a full Executive Advisory Panel (EAP) or Asset Management Group (AMG). Consideration of business case(s) will be undertaken during the period 17 – 23 June 2016. The groups involved in this will be Councillor Steve Butler, in his role as Chair of the EAP, and members of the AMG (Assistant Chief Executive, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Estates and Assets Service Manager). Business Cases will be made available in the Members Room on 24 June, so Cabinet members will have an opportunity to view detailed information in advance of the meeting.

3.6. This is the first of two papers relating to the Corfe Mullen youth and community centre asset transfer. The next paper will provide a recommendation from AMG to the Cabinet.

Sara Tough Director for Children’s Services June 2016

6 Page 106 Agenda Item 11 Page 1 – YOUTH JUSTICE PLAN 2016-17

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Officer Sara Tough, Director for Children’s Services

Subject of Report Youth Justice Plan for 2016-17

Executive Summary Youth Offending Teams are required to publish an annual Youth Justice Plan which should be approved by the local authority for that Youth Offending Team and by the Youth Justice Board. Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service works across Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset. Approval is therefore sought from Dorset County Council, as well as from the Borough of Poole and from Bournemouth Borough Council. The Plan will be submitted to the Youth Justice Board once it has been approved by the 3 local authorities.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

Please refer to the The Youth Justice Plan sets out how the Youth Offending Service protocol for writing (YOS) will develop its work with vulnerable groups. The Plan also reports. includes information about some protected characteristics relating to the YOS’s staff and volunteers. No adverse impacts are identified for groups identified by protected characteristics.

Use of Evidence:

The Plan includes performance information relating to the YOS during 2015-16. This information is derived from the Youth Justice Board’s national data collection arrangements.

Budget:

The Youth Justice Plan includes a section setting out the resources available to the YOS. The pan-Dorset Youth Offending Service is overseen by a Management Board which agrees the contributions from all statutory partners for the provision of the service.

Page 107 Page 2 – YOUTH JUSTICE PLAN 2016-17

Risk Assessment:

Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk MEDIUM

The Youth Justice Plan sets out an achievable strategy for the pan- Dorset YOS to deliver continued high levels of service. There is a potential risk relating to budget cuts; the Youth Justice Board announced extra in-year budget cuts during 2015-16, and further cuts for 2016-17. The YOS Board has approved the YOS budget plan for 2016-17 which enables statutory functions to be delivered despite the reduced funding. Future plans for youth justice are subject to a national review which reports in July 2016. The partners who comprise the Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service have signalled their ongoing commitment to the pan-Dorset service being the most effective way to deliver youth justice services locally.

Other Implications:

Recommendation That Cabinet recommends approval of the Youth Justice Plan to the Council

Reason for The draft Youth Justice Plan has been approved by the YOS Recommendation Management Board. The plan reviews achievements in the previous year, details the structure, governance and resources of the Youth Offending Service, and sets out the priorities for 2016-17.

Appendices The full Youth Justice Plan is attached at Appendix A

Background Papers None

Officer Contact Name: David Webb Tel: 01202 453939 Email: [email protected]

Page 108 Page 3 – YOUTH JUSTICE PLAN 2016-17

1 Introduction

1.1 Youth justice services in Dorset were previously delivered by the Dorset Youth Offending Team. Plans were developed for this service to merge with the Bournemouth and Poole Youth Offending Service, which covered the Bournemouth and Poole areas. These plans were scrutinised and approved by the 3 local authorities during 2014. The new ‘Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service’ commenced successfully on 1 July 2015, with Bournemouth Borough Council acting as the lead local authority.

1.2 Youth Offending Teams are required to publish an annual youth justice plan. The Youth Justice Board has issued guidance which stipulates what must be included in the plan, and recommends a structure for the plan. The draft Youth Justice Plan for the Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service is attached at Appendix 1.

2. Contents of the Youth Justice Plan

2.1 The Plan reviews performance during 2015/16 and reports on progress against last year’s priorities. The YOS has continued to perform well against the 3 National Indicators (Reducing First-Time Entrants to the Youth Justice System; Reducing Re- Offending; Reducing the use of Custodial Sentences). Performance in the Dorset area has been particularly strong in reducing the number of first-time entrants into the youth justice system.

2.2 The priorities identified in last year’s Youth Justice Plan have been achieved. The most notable achievement was perhaps the successful merger of the two previously separate youth offending teams to create the new Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service. Bournemouth Borough Council is the lead local authority for the new service.

2.3 The Youth Justice Plan sets out the structure, governance and resourcing of the Youth Offending Service. The Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service is overseen by a Management Board comprised of senior representatives of the key partners, chaired by the Director of Children’s Services for Dorset. The involvement of senior managers from the 3 local authorities and from the statutory partners (police, health and probation) means that the YOS is able to integrate its work with other strategic plans and priorities, including strong links to local safeguarding and public protection arrangements. Details about some of the specific operational links between the YOS and other local initiatives are summarised in the ‘Partnership Arrangements’ section of the Plan.

2.4 The Youth Justice Plan outlines the resourcing of the YOS. Local authority and other partner contributions have remained broadly the same since 2014/15, but the Youth Justice Board grant has reduced in that time from £790,000 to £591,000, and staffing costs have increased. The management of vacancies, and the deletion of some posts, has enabled a balanced budget. Partners have agreed to consider future resourcing of the Youth Offending Service at the YOS Management Board meeting in September. A national review of youth justice is taking place currently, and is due to report in July. It is therefore anticipated that the Board will have a better understanding of future youth justice arrangements by September.

2.5 The creation of the new pan-Dorset YOS and subsequent Youth Justice Board grant reductions have led to some posts being removed, though no redundancies were required. The statutory basis of youth offending teams is the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which mandates minimum staffing contributions from the YOS partners. The combined service continues to comply with these minimum staffing requirements. Page 109 Page 4 – YOUTH JUSTICE PLAN 2016-17

2.6 The priorities for the coming year include the role of the YOS in local multi-agency initiatives to reduce offending by children in care and to reduce the time spent by young people in police custody. Having completed our merger, the team now needs to renew its commitment to developing good practice and meeting the needs of disadvantaged young people. The YOS also aims to improve its collection and use of information, enhanced by the implementation of a new case management system and a new assessment tool.

2.7 The Youth Justice Plan closes with some more detailed plans for improvement under each of the identified strategic priorities.

3 Conclusion

3.1 The Youth Justice Plan provides a summary of the performance, structure, governance, resources and future priorities for the Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service. The full plan is attached at Appendix A. Cabinet is asked to recommend approval of the Youth Justice Plan for 2016-17 to the County Council.

Sara Tough Director for Children’s Services June 2016

Page 110

DORSET COMBINED YOUTH

OFFENDING SERVICE

Youth Justice Plan 2016/17

Page 111 Contents

Introduction ...... 3 Service Targets ...... 3 Summary of achievements ...... 4 Reducing Re-Offending ...... 5 Custodial Sentences ...... 6 Actions from last year‟s Youth Justice Plan: ...... 7 Complete the merger of the previous teams ...... 7 Acquisition of a new case management system ...... 7 Participate in multi-agency arrangements to protect teenagers from sexual exploitation7 Further development of the Out of Court Disposal process ...... 7 Closer working with the 3 local Troubled Families programmes ...... 7 Preparing for the roll-out of the AssetPlus assessment tool ...... 7 Significant changes during 2015-16 ...... 8 Our response to Serious Case Reviews and thematic inspection reports in 2015-16 ...... 8 Serious Case Reviews ...... 8 Thematic Inspection Reports ...... 8 An Inspection to Assess the Effectiveness of the Reporting, Monitoring and Learning . 8 Transition Arrangements: A follow-up inspection ...... 8 Structure and Governance ...... 9 Management and Governance Arrangements ...... 9 Linking the Youth Justice System to other Plans and Structures ...... 10 Partnership Arrangements ...... 11 Safeguarding and public protection ...... 11 Children in Care ...... 11 Sexually Harmful Behaviour ...... 11 Child Sexual Exploitation ...... 11 Preventing Violent Extremism ...... 11 Safe Schools and Communities Team ...... 12 Resources and value for money ...... 13 Staffing information ...... 14 Risks to delivery of YOS outcome measures in 2016-17 ...... 16

Strategic Priorities for 2016-17 ...... 17 YOS Partnership Plans for achieving the Strategic Priorities ...... 18 Approval ...... 21 Appendix A – YJB Grant ...... 22 Appendix B – Glossary of Terms ...... 23

Page | 2 Page 112 DORSET COMBINED YOUTH OFFENDING SERVICE YOUTH JUSTICE PLAN 2016-17

Introduction

This document is the Youth Justice Strategic Plan for the Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service (YOS) for 2016/17. It sets out the key priorities and targets for the service for the next 12 months as required by the Crime & Disorder Act 1998. The Dorset Combined YOS is a statutory partnership between Bournemouth Borough Council, the Borough of Poole, Dorset County Council, Dorset Police, Dorset Probation Service and NHS Dorset. The Youth Justice Strategic Plan:

 reviews achievements and developments during 2015-16

 summarises the YOS structure, governance and partnership arrangements

 outlines the resources available to the YOS and the plan for ensuring value for money

 describes the partnership‟s priorities

 summarises the risks to future delivery of the youth justice outcome measures

 sets out the planned actions to enable delivery of the youth justice outcome measures.

This document sets out the YOS‟s strategic plan. A delivery plan underpins this document.

Service Targets

The Dorset Combined YOS target for 2016/17 is to outperform regional and national averages for the three national performance indicators for youth offending which are detailed in the next section.

Page | 3 Page 113 Summary of achievements

This section reports on achievements during 2015-16 by the Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service from its launch date on 1 July 2015, and by the 2 previously separate teams – Dorset Youth Offending Team, and Bournemouth and Poole Youth Offending Service. Youth Offending Teams continue to be judged against 3 key performance indicators:

 Reducing First Time Entrants into the Youth Justice System;  Reducing Re-Offending by young people in the Youth Justice System;  Reducing the use of Custodial Sentences.

First Time Entrants into the Youth Justice System

Page | 4 Page 114 Working with its local partners, Dorset Combined YOS has continued the excellent performance of the last 6 years to keep local young people out of the criminal justice system. The performance of Dorset Combined YOS in this area is significantly better than the regional and national averages. Dorset Police work closely with Dorset Combined YOS to identify the best way to respond to an offence and where necessary to support the young person to make better decisions. Low level offending is assessed so that suitable cases can be dealt with through restorative justice approaches, avoiding the need for a formal outcome. More serious offences, or repeat offending, leads to a formal disposal and therefore to the young person entering the youth justice system.

Reducing Re-Offending

% Young People Re-offending within 12 months 45

40

offended - 35

30 % YP who% re

25 Apr - Mar 2012 Apr - Mar 2013 Apr - Mar 2014

Period when young people received a YOS Intervention

Bournemouth Poole Dorset

% Young People Re-offending within 12 months 45

40

offended - 35

30 % YP who% re

25 Apr - Mar 2012 Apr - Mar 2013 Apr - Mar 2014

Period when young people received a YOS Intervention

DCYOS SW Region National

Page | 5 Page 115 The information on re-offending relates to the work of the 2 previous Youth Offending Teams, prior to the merger in 2015. This is because time needs to elapse to see whether young people go on to re-offend, after their contact with us. There is a likely correlation between the reducing numbers entering the youth justice system and the increasing rate of re-offending; the YOS now works with a smaller cohort of more complex cases whose re-offending is harder to reduce. The rate of First Time Entrants in Dorset is notably lower than in Bournemouth and Poole, which may connect to the higher rate of re-offending by those who do enter the youth justice system in Dorset.

Custodial Sentences

Use of Custody [per 1000 Young People aged 10 - 17 Years] in the 12 months to December 0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 2013 2014 2015

Bournemouth Poole Dorset

Use of Custody [per 1000 Young People aged 10 - 17 Years] in the 12 months to December 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 2013 2014 2015

DCYOS SW Region National

Although the YOS works with some complex and risky young people, the use of custodial sentences remains low. The YOS has maintained its capacity to provide robust and demanding community sentences for the most risky young people as an alternative to custody. In some circumstances a custodial sentence is the appropriate response to serious or persistent offending. Page | 6 Page 116 Actions from last year’s Youth Justice Plan:

Complete the merger of the previous teams – the new Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service was launched successfully on 1 July 2015. All Dorset County Council and Borough of Poole staff transferred to become employees of Bournemouth Borough Council under TUPE regulations. Case records from the former Dorset Youth Offending Team were transferred to the new service. A partnership agreement was finalised between the 3 local authorities. The operations of the 2 previous teams were merged with the aim of establishing consistent new practices which built on the most successful elements of the 2 previous teams while seeking opportunities to improve outcomes for young people, families and victims.

Acquisition of a new case management system – a procurement process was undertaken to enable the replacement of the YOIS case management system. The successful bidder was Career Vision, with their IYSS product. The new system is due to go live on 10 May 2016.

Participate in multi-agency arrangements to protect teenagers from sexual exploitation – the 3 local authorities, Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset, each has their own process for identifying and supporting young people who are at risk of sexual exploitation. The YOS is an active partner in this work with all 3 local authorities, and with our colleagues in Dorset Police.

Further development of the Out of Court Disposal process – the majority of offences committed by young people are now dealt with „out of court‟ through Youth Restorative Disposals, Youth Cautions and Youth Conditional Cautions. Dorset Police and Dorset Combined YOS have an established and successful consultation process for making case by case decisions on how to respond to low level offences by young people. An independent evaluation of Dorset‟s out of court disposal system, commissioned by the Police and Crime Commissioner, concluded that “the common factors with Youth Disposals are the Youth Out of Court Disposal team and the involvement with external agencies such as the Youth Offending Service. This seems to provide a high degree of rigour and consistency to decisions. In almost all cases the outcomes are appropriate and tailored to the offending identified and the needs of the victims and offenders. This is regarded as good practice and possibly a model for any future arrangements to govern OoCDs more widely”.

Closer working with the 3 local Troubled Families programmes – Poole, Dorset and Bournemouth each deliver the Troubled Families agenda through their own local programme. Each local authority has successfully moved into Phase 2 of the Troubled Families agenda. The new combined YOS has established processes for sharing information between the YOS and the local Troubled Families delivery programmes. The YOS is also working with the 3 programmes to agree a consistent approach to using YOS workers as the lead professional for a family in suitable cases.

Preparing for the roll-out of the AssetPlus assessment tool - further delays to the national implementation of AssetPlus, and delays to our procurement of a new case management system, meant that we now have an AssetPlus implementation date of 13 June 2016. Foundation training for staff and „train the trainer‟ training were completed during the 2015- 16 financial year. The successful implementation of AssetPlus will be an important priority for the team throughout the 2016-17 financial year.

Page | 7 Page 117 Significant changes during 2015-16 - The Youth Justice Board grant to YOTs was reduced at the start of the 2015-16 financial year, as detailed in last year‟s Youth Justice Plan. There was then a further „in-year‟ reduction to the grant, which meant that it dropped from £790,000 in 2014-15 to £653,000 in 2015-16. In September 2015 the Secretary of State for Justice announced a review into the youth justice system, to report in the summer of 2016. The YOS is therefore operating in an uncertain financial and political climate.

Our response to Serious Case Reviews and thematic inspection reports in 2015-16

Serious Case Reviews Two of the Serious Case Reviews undertaken this year by our local safeguarding children‟s boards included YOS involvement. In one case, relating to a sudden unexplained death in infancy, the YOS had worked with the father during the first few months of the pregnancy. In another case, where a young male had been admitted to hospital following a suicide attempt, the YOS had supervised him on court orders until about a month before the incident. The YOS contributed to the learning reviews in both cases. Learning for the YOS included the need to be pro-active to ensure that other agencies respond to information that has been shared by the YOS. In the case of the young male there was also an issue about ensuring that the work done by YOS health workers is visible to colleagues in CAMHS. These case reviews, and other local Serious Case Reviews, also demonstrated the need for all agencies to use agreed escalation protocols when problems persist and cannot be resolved between the practitioners from the agencies involved in the case. The YOS is taking action in response to these Serious Case Reviews, and reporting on its progress to the YOS Management Board, as well as contributing to the Serious Case Review monitoring processes of the local safeguarding children‟s boards.

Thematic Inspection Reports Her Majesty‟s Inspectorate of Probation publishes occasional thematic inspection reports relating to the youth justice system. Such reports are studied by managers within the team, with relevant conclusions being shared with practitioners and with the management board. During 2015-16 the following thematic inspection reports were published.

An Inspection to Assess the Effectiveness of the Reporting, Monitoring and Learning from the Youth Justice Board’s Community Safeguarding and Public Protection Incident Procedures – this report examined the effectiveness of the YJB‟s procedures for learning from serious incidents, i.e. where young people under YOT supervision have been the victims or perpetrators of serious offences. Key messages were shared with the YOS Management Board and with the YOS management group, such as the need to involve other agencies in cases of multi-agency activity and the need to assure the quality of monitoring reports. Transition Arrangements: A follow-up inspection – this report related to young people who transfer from youth offending services to their adult equivalent (the National Probation Service or the local Community Rehabilitation Company). A small number of cases transfer locally each year. As well as making local arrangements to ensure an effective transition we have also followed the new national guidance which has been negotiated between the National Probation Service and the Youth Justice Board. The new guidance gives an enhanced role to the seconded Probation Officers in the YOS, both in facilitating individual Page | 8 Page 118 case transfers and in ensuring staff in each agency are sufficiently informed about the work of each other‟s services.

Structure and Governance

Management and Governance Arrangements The work of the Dorset Combined YOS is managed strategically by a Management Board. The Management Board consists of senior representatives of the statutory partner organisations, together with other relevant local partners.

Membership:

 Dorset County Council (current chair)  Borough of Poole (current vice-chair)  Bournemouth Borough Council  Dorset Police  National Probation Service Dorset  Public Health Dorset  Dorset Healthcare University Foundation Trust  Her Majesty‟s Court and Tribunal service  Youth Justice Board for England and Wales  NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group  Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner  Ansbury (Connexions Provider)

The Management Board oversees the development of the Youth Justice Plan, ensuring its links with other local plans.

The YOS Manager reports quarterly to the Management Board on progress against agreed performance targets, leading to clear plans for performance improvement. The Board also requests information in response to specific developments and agendas, and monitors the YOS‟s compliance with data reporting requirements and grant conditions. Representation by senior leaders from the key partners enables the YOS Manager to resolve any difficulties in multi-agency working at a senior level, and supports effective links at managerial and operational levels. The YOS is party to local multi-agency agreements for information sharing, for safeguarding and for the escalation of concerns. The Management Board also oversees activities by partner agencies which contribute to the key youth justice outcomes, particularly in respect of the prevention of offending.

Page | 9 Page 119

Linking the Youth Justice System to other Plans and Structures

The YOS is a statutory partnership working with children and young people in the criminal justice system and the community safety arena. The YOS is “hosted” by the Children and Young People‟ Service (CYPS) in Bournemouth Children‟s Service. We work within the context of several other key strategic partnerships. The map below gives an overview of the direct and indirect linkages. Page 120 Page

The membership of the Management Board enables the work of the Dorset Combined YOS to be integrated into strategic planning for relevant issues such as Safeguarding, Public Protection, Criminal Justice, Health & Well-Being, and the Children and Young People‟s Plans. The YOS Manager sits on both the local Safeguarding Children‟s Boards, the Dorset Criminal Justice Board and on the local MAPPA Strategic Management Board.

Page | 10

Partnership Arrangements

The previous section outlined the strategic links between the YOS and the other strategic groups and partnerships. Similar links exist at operational levels, enabling the YOS to integrate its work with young people and families with the work done by partners such as children‟s social care across the 3 local authorities and the Child and Adolescents Mental Health Services across Dorset.

Safeguarding and public protection As well as participating in Child Protection Conferences and Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) meetings in respect of specific individuals and families, YOS managers also attend MARAC meetings, local Community Safety Partnership operational meetings, local complex needs panel meetings and meetings in respect of early help and Troubled Families activities in the 3 local authorities.

Children in Care Reducing offending by children in care is a priority for the YOS, for the three local authorities and for our local partners, such as the Police and CAMHS. It is important that we integrate our work with a child in care with the work done by other professionals. Some offences committed by children in care occur in their place of residence. The YOS and the Police have previously worked with social workers and care providers individually to address these issues. We are now working on a more strategic multi-agency approach which will be a priority for 2016-17.

Sexually Harmful Behaviour The YOS works with the three local authorities, and with the Police, to agree the best way to respond to young people who have committed sexually harmful behaviour. Some of these young people are also known to the local authority social care department so it is important that we coordinate our work and, where possible, take a joint approach. The YOS and the local authorities use recognised assessment and intervention approaches for young people who commit sexually harmful behaviour.

Child Sexual Exploitation Young people known to the YOS can also be at risk of child sexual exploitation (CSE). The YOS Manager is a member of the pan-Dorset CSE and Missing Persons sub-group of the 2 local safeguarding children‟s boards. A YOS Team Manager has lead responsibility for the team‟s operational work on CSE, supported by a designated Youth Justice Officer in our Dorchester office. The YOS participates in local multi-agency information sharing arrangements and meetings to identify and protect children at risk of sexual exploitation.

Preventing Violent Extremism All relevant YOS staff have received training in raising awareness of „Prevent‟. A YOS Team Manager has lead responsibility for this area of work and attends the pan-Dorset Prevent Group to ensure that our work is aligned with local initiatives. The YOS has sight of the local assessment of extremism risks. The seconded YOS police officers act as a link to local police processes for sharing intelligence in respect of possible violent extremism. Young people convicted of extremism related offences will be managed robustly in line with the YOS Risk Policy, with appropriate referral to the local MAPPA process and clear

Page | 11 Page 121 risk management plans, including paired working arrangements and support from the seconded YOS police officers.

Safe Schools and Communities Team

The Safe Schools and Communities Team (SSCT) is a partnership between Dorset Police, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner and Dorset Combined YOS. The SSCT plays an important role in preventing offending by young people across Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole. The team provide education, awareness and advice to students, schools and parents. The work of the team is reported to the YOS Management Board as an important element of the YOS Partnership‟s work to prevent youth offending. The SSCT is particularly effective at supporting schools to manage incidents without the need for a criminal outcome, and at supporting internet safety for young people across the Dorset area.

Page | 12 Page 122

Resources and value for money

The YOS is funded by the statutory partners, by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner and a grant from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Local authority staff are employed by Bournemouth Borough Council. Other staff are seconded from Dorset Police, the National Probation Service Dorset and the Health Service. Revenue contributions and the YJB Grant form a Partnership budget. Statutory partners have maintained funding levels for 2015-16 but the Youth Justice Board grant has been cut by 7.6%. The integration of the two previous teams into the new Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service has enabled some efficiencies and reductions to be made. The YJB grant will be used solely for the delivery of youth justice services. More information can be found in Appendix A.

Partner Agency 14/15 15/16 16/17 Movement Staff Revenue Revenue Revenue 14/15 to excluding excluding excluding 16/17 recharges recharges recharges 1 Nurse (substance misuse) and 0.3 FTE

Page 123 Page Dorset County Council £531,900 £531,900 £531,900 £0 Psychologist Bournemouth Borough Council (inc Partnership recharges) £294,100 £294,000 £294,000 £0 Poole Borough Council £257,030 £257,030 £244,000 -£13,030 2.1 FTE Police Officers. Reduction from 14/15 to 15/16 reflects funding of SSCT directly by the OPCC Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset £153,454 £75,305 £75,305 -£78,149 to the Police, no longer via the YOS 2 FTE Probation Officer (reduction from 2.6 FTE up to March 2015, with adjusted funding Dorset Probation Trust £3,174 £3,174 £10,000 £6,826 contribution, after national review) Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group £22,487 £22,487 £22,487 £0 3 Nurses Dorset Healthcare University Foundation Trust £0 Youth Justice Board Good Practice Grant (Details of the use of this grant are contained in Annexe A at the end of this report) £790,414 £653,103 £591,937 -£198,477

Page | 13

Staffing information

The following YOS Structure Chart shows the staffing position at the commencement of the financial year in April 2016. In addition to the staff seconded from partner agencies, outlined in Table 1, the service includes an education specialist and a parenting officer, as well as qualified social workers. The YOS meets the minimum staffing requirements set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Page 124 Page

Page | 14

The table below shows the number of staff and volunteers in the service, by gender and ethnicity.

YOS Staff Male Female

White British 13 39 White Irish 1 0 White Other 0 1

14 40

YOS Volunteers

Male Female

White British 11 16 White Other 0 2

11 18

25 staff members and 8 volunteers have been trained as Restorative Justice Conference facilitators.

Page | 15 Page 125

Risks to delivery of YOS outcome measures in 2016-17

The main outcome measures for the YOS still relate to the numbers of young people entering the youth justice system for the first time, the rate of re-offending by those young people who have committed proven offences, and the use of custodial sentences. The YOS also has a priority to keep the public and young people safe from harm. Particular risks which have been identified include:

 Uncertainty and possible disruption arising from the current national review into youth justice arrangements (led by Charlie Taylor, due to report in July 2016). Changes could include greater local autonomy in deciding how youth justice activities should be delivered. The YOS Partnership is committed to the newly formed pan-Dorset Youth Offending Service as being the best way to deliver youth justice activities across the pan-Dorset area.

 Local authority boundaries and structures in the Dorset area are being reviewed but all parties remain committed to a pan-Dorset Youth Offending Service

 Reduction in resources due to spending constraints, leading to prioritisation of statutory work and negative impact on work to prevent offending and to build resilience

 Increase in re-offending rate in the data to be published this year relating to young people supervised during 2014/15

 Increase in offending by looked after children, linked to increasing numbers of looked after children, difficulties accessing suitable placements and over-stretched support services

 Short-term impact on performance caused by additional pressures resulting from the implementation of the new case management system and the new assessment tool

These risks have been considered when formulating the YOS Partnership‟s Strategic Priorities for 2016-17.

Page | 16 Page 126

Strategic Priorities for 2016-17

The strategic priorities for the Dorset Combined YOS align with:

 our 3 main performance indicators  the strategic priorities of other local partnerships (such as the Safeguarding Children‟s Boards, Community Safety Partnerships and the Criminal Justice Board)  relevant local initiatives to reduce offending, protect the public and safeguard young people  areas identified for YOS improvement. The YOS will take a leading role in local initiatives, including:

 Multi-agency strategy to prevent and reduce offending by children in care  Multi-agency work to reduce the time spent by young people in police custody  Further development of local arrangements to keep young people safe from exploitation  Integration of work to address sexually harmful behaviour by young people  Promotion of a Dorset Restorative Justice strategy for offences by both adults and young people. The YOS will make better use of information to improve the impact of our work:

 Transition to a new case management system for recording the team‟s work  Use of information monitoring to address outcomes for minority groups  Updating the YOS Quality Assurance arrangements and evidence of manager oversight  Enable the YOS health workers to access relevant health recording systems for appropriate and effective information sharing  Finalise the YOS Participation Strategy to ensure we hear and respond to the views of our service users  The YOS will raise its profile with partner agencies and with the community The YOS will improve the quality of its practice to achieve better outcomes for children, young people, families and victims

 Implementation of the new assessment tool for young offenders, „AssetPlus‟  Embed core elements of good practice, including Motivational Interviewing to facilitate positive change and Restorative Justice to repair harm to victims  Develop good practice through improved workforce development  Improving the team‟s knowledge and resources for young people with speech, language and communication needs  Strengthening the team‟s resources for working with parents and building the team‟s capacity for family-based work  Improve the team‟s capacity and expertise for work with young people who exhibit sexually harmful behaviour

Page | 17 Page 127

YOS Partnership Plans for achieving the Strategic Priorities

The strategic priorities listed on page 13 each require a number of supporting actions which are summarised below. Some of these areas of work have their own, more detailed implementation plans. Transition to new case management system

 Work with the supplier, Career Vision, to adapt IYSS to meet local needs  Work with Bournemouth Borough Council IT department to ensure team can access IYSS reliably  Train all YOS staff in the use of the new system  Agree and embed local recording practice to ensure consistent and reliable case information  Develop and use information reporting functions on IYSS to improve YOS data reporting and to inform practice development  Ensure the new system and the way it is used enables the YOS to meet the Youth Justice Board‟s data reporting requirements Use of information monitoring to address outcomes for young people from minority groups

 Monitor outcomes for minority groups, including black, minority ethnic and traveller groups to identify and respond to „disproportionality‟  Embed consistent and reportable recording of „diversity factors‟ in new case management and assessment systems  Share information about outcomes for minority groups with local partners to enable coordinated response to issues of diversity and disadvantage Develop good practice through improved quality assurance and manager oversight

 Agree and implement QA process for AssetPlus assessments and plans  Develop QA processes for specialist areas of work, e.g. Restorative Justice, YOS Health team  Ensure service user feedback contributes to QA processes  Report on service quality to team and to YOS Board, with necessary improvement plans  Agree and implement recording practice on new case management system to show manager oversight Enable the YOS health workers to access relevant health recording systems for appropriate and effective information sharing

 Work with Bournemouth Borough Council to enable YOS health workers to access health recording system on YOS IT equipment  Agree protocols with health partners, e. g. CAMHS, about information recording and sharing  Review consent forms to ensure compatibility with revised information recording and sharing practices Finalise YOS Participation Strategy

 Establish consistent processes for gathering and evaluating service user feedback

Page | 18 Page 128

 Incorporate AssetPlus self-assessment information in service user views data analysis  Include service user views in recruitment processes  Promote client-centred practice methods Raise the team’s profile with partner agencies and with the community

 Confirm YOS attendance at relevant multi-agency meetings  Maintain effective working relationships with colleagues in social care across the 3 local authorities at a time of service reorganisation and workload pressures  Finalise partnership agreements with police and health colleagues  Develop and continue to update YOS web pages  Promote and strengthen the use of volunteers and opportunities for volunteers‟ career development Implementation of the new assessment tool, ‘AssetPlus’

 Update YOS working practices to reflect new assessments and plans  Provide role-based AssetPlus training to all YOS staff  Inform partners and stakeholders of key changes  Agree and implement transition process for existing case records  Embed high standards of assessment and planning through QA and ongoing practice development Embed core elements of good practice, including Motivational Interviewing to facilitate positive change and Restorative Justice to repair harm to victims

 Ensure practitioner training in Motivational Interviewing is up to date  Facilitate access to Motivational Interviewing development groups  Promote team participation in YOS Restorative Justice practitioner group Develop good practice through improved workforce development

 Update YOS induction provision for new staff  Agree core knowledge and skills required for YOS roles and ensure training plan and training records reflect this  Embed post-training learning processes to ensure that learning is applied  Agree career progression pathways for YOS staff

Page | 19 Page 129

Improve the team’s resources for work with young people with Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN)

 Use the AssetPlus SLCN screening tool  Build practitioner links with local authority and Dorset Healthcare Speech and Language specialists  Enable consultancy role to build YOS practitioners‟ knowledge and skills with SLCN  Provide more responsive and effective service to young people with SLCN Strengthen team’s resources for work with parents and families

 Recruit parenting specialist to work in our Bournemouth office  Build on previous work to address adolescent parental violence through integrated work by YOS worker with young person and YOS parenting worker with parent  Share expertise from other YOS specialists, e.g. Restorative Justice lead workers, and YOS health team family therapy skills Improve the team’s capacity and expertise for work with young people who exhibit sexually harmful behaviour

 Train extra staff in AIM2 and Good Lives Model for assessment and interventions for young people‟s sexually harmful behaviour  Agree and implement monthly consultation meetings with specialist provider  YOS psychologist to provide reflective supervision for practitioners working with sexually harmful behaviour  Review screening and assessment tools with local partners to enable early identification of cases requiring extra resources

Page | 20 Page 130

Approval

Signatures of Board Chair and YOS Manager

Sara Tough Director of Children‟s Services (Chair) Dorset County Council

Signed: Date:

David Webb Dorset Combined Youth Offending Service Manager Bournemouth Borough Council

Signed: Date:

NB This Plan is awaiting approval from Bournemouth Borough Council, the Borough of Poole and Dorset County Council.

Page | 21 Page 131

Appendix A – YJB Grant

A condition of the grant from the YJB is to provide a plan for how the grant will be used to meet the YOS‟s key performance indicators. This chart gives an overview of how the grant will be applied to the Youth Justice Plan priorities. Page 132 Page

Page | 22

Appendix B – Glossary of Terms

ASSET Nationally Accredited Assessment Tool AssetPlus Replacement for ASSET CAMHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services CJS Criminal Justice System CSP Community Safety Partnership ETE Education Training and Employment FTE First Time Entrant into the Youth Justice System FTE Full-Time Equivalent (as applied to posts) ISS Intensive Supervision and Surveillance IT Information Technology LSCB Local Safeguarding Children‟s Board MAPPA Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements NEET Not in Education, Employment or Training OOCD Out Of Court Disposals PCC Police & Crime Commissioner RJ Restorative Justice SEN Special Educational Needs SSCT Safe Schools and Communities Team – A Police / YOS project VLO Victim Liaison Officer YJ Youth Justice YJB Youth Justice Board YOS/YOT Youth Offending Service/Team YRD Youth Restorative Disposal

YRO Youth Rehabilitation Order

Page | 23 Page 133 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Dorset Transforming Care Plan

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Cabinet Member(s) Councillor Jill Haynes – Cabinet Member for Adult Health, Care and Independence Councillor Mike Byatt – Member Champion Learning Disabilities Local Member(s) None Lead Director(s) Helen Coombes – Interim Director for Adult & Community Services

Subject of Report Dorset Transforming Care Plan

Executive Summary In the wake of Winterborne View, the Government initiated a programme of work with other national partners to improve services for people with learning disabilities and/or autism, who display behaviour that challenge, including those with a mental health condition. The national plan includes 48 Transforming Care Partnerships across England to re-shape local services to meet individual’s needs. The Dorset Transforming Care Partnership comprises: (i) NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) (ii) Bournemouth Borough Council (iii) Dorset County Council (iv) Borough of Poole (v) NHS England The Dorset Transforming Care Partnership has developed a Transforming Care Plan which was submitted to NHS England. NHS England have cited the Dorset Transforming Care Plan as an exemplar nationally. There are currently over 150 people being monitored in Dorset of whom around a third are a recognised risk of hospital admission. The primary aim of the Dorset Transforming Care Plan is to avoid secure hospital admission unless absolutely necessary. Of equal importance is the need to bring current out of area inpatients back

1 Page 135 Dorset Transforming Care Plan

to Dorset and commission services to enable them to be supported in the community in a sustainable manner. It is difficult to gauge the significance of the revenue impact. People in hospital at present are 100% NHS funded and when they leave, depending upon who is identified as the responsible commissioner, they may be either fully or only partly health funded meaning there may be potential additional costs to the County Council. However, given the very small number of planned discharges for Dorset residents it is unlikely to have a major budgetary impact in any one financial year.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

Use of Evidence:

Commissioners and operational staff have identified 158 people who need to be monitored on a risk basis. A gap analysis has been undertaken to establish where Dorset needs to take action to meet the requirements of the national programme. A full consultation and engagement programme has been developed.

Budget:

Under the Transforming Care Programme there is a small number of people identified to return to Dorset over the next 2 to 3 years. The total annual cost to the County Council could be as high as £239,200 per annum. A joint bid has been made for NHS TCP funding with partners for 50% of these costs.

The national guidance on current and future funding is not sufficiently detailed for local authorities to accurately assess the financial risk but further clarification will continue to be sought at a regional and national level.

The Joint Commissioning Officers Group has also discussed the possibility of using potential reductions in the pooled campus budget to mitigate any adverse funding consequences of this programme. Dorset County Council will consider whether it would want to take this position in the context of funding pressures elsewhere in the adult social care budget both this year and future years

Risk Assessment: Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: MEDIUM Residual Risk: MEDIUM

2 Page 136 Dorset Transforming Care Plan

Other Implications: None

Recommendation The Cabinet is asked to approve the Dorset Transforming Care Plan, noting that there is a degree of financial risk which is not yet sufficiently quantified

Reason for Delivery of corporate plan objective ‘people who do need help Recommendation have control over their care’

Appendices

Background Papers Dorset Transforming Care Plan

Building the Right Support https://www.england.nhs.uk/learningdisabilities/natplan/

Officer Contact Name: Derek Hardy/ Chris Watson Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Tel: 01305225901 or 01305224820

3 Page 137 Dorset Transforming Care Plan

1. Introduction: National Context

1.1 The Transforming Care Programme is led by NHS England and is designed to change how local authorities and clinical commissioning groups commission services so that more people with learning disabilities and/or autism and with behaviour that challenges, can live in the community, closer to home. The programme aims to reduce the reliance on in-patient beds and bring about the closure of some facilities. It focuses on addressing the following long-standing issues:

a) a need to offer more choice for people and their families and more say in their care; b) providing more care in the community, with personalised support provided by multi-disciplinary health and care teams ; c) development of more innovative services to give people a range of care options, with personal budgets, so that care meets individuals’ needs; d) provision of early more intensive support for those who need it; and for those that do need in-patient care, to ensure it is only for as long as they need it.

1.2 The national plan includes the development of 48 Transforming Care Partnerships across England to re-shape local services to meet individual’s needs of which Dorset is one.

2. Dorset Transforming Care Plan (TCP)

2.1 The Dorset Transforming Care Partnership comprises:

 NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)  Bournemouth Borough Council  Dorset County Council  Borough of Poole  NHS England

2.2 The Transforming Care Programme has been integrated with the well-established pan-Dorset Learning Disability Joint Commissioning Board (LDJCB), as this board already has oversight of the Dorset wide response to Winterborne View.

2.3 There are no NHS or independent specialist learning disabilities (LD) hospitals within Dorset. Consequently, those people requiring inpatient care and treatment are placed as close to the county as possible within facilities that are able to meet each person’s individual needs. However, there is a commitment to reduce the number of people currently in hospital and prevent further admissions where possible whilst maintaining a model of no hospital in-patient beds within the county. The current and anticipated numbers of people who may require hospital admission are so small that developing local hospital provision is not a viable option. In cases where individuals require hospital admission they will still be placed out of county but will be closely tracked to ensure that when they no longer need clinical interventions they will return to Dorset for community-based care and support.

2.5 A pan- Dorset Engagement Plan has been produced to ensure the participation of a broad range of stakeholders. There has already been significant engagement with each local authority learning disability partnership board.

4 Page 138 Dorset Transforming Care Plan

3. Baseline Assessment

3.1 Commissioners have been working with operational teams across Dorset to produce the pan-Dorset Transforming Care Risk of Admission and Placement monitoring tool. This tracks all people known within adult services that may be at risk of placement breakdown and/or hospital admission owing to any of the behaviour groupings identified within the national service model.

3.2 There are currently over 150 people being monitored using the tool. It is anticipated that through the interventions set out in the plan including “step up and step down” provision of high support and short-term intensive interventions that very few, if any, of that cohort will need hospital admission. However, going forward we will need to review this position as more young people come through the system.

4. Current Service Provision

4.1 The pan-Dorset Emergency Support Pathway for people with Learning Disability in Crisis has been developed to support people either at home or as close to home as possible.

4.2 The Pathway is just one part of a much wider support system for people with a learning disability and/or autism. Other specialist services include the Community Adult Asperger’s Service, the Street Triage Team and Supported Employment Services. Other care and support services include housing-related support, residential care, shared lives, short break providers and independent day opportunity providers. There are also information, advice and advocacy services and a range of community based voluntary sector schemes.

4.3 Within the Dorset TCP there is a range of housing solutions to meet the needs of this population. Further work is being undertaken to give a clear summary on housing availability and challenges locally in terms of housing cost. There is a need to develop bespoke housing to meet the needs of the small number of current inpatients who will be returning to the area in the future.

5. Transitions

5.1 All three authorities have Transitional Operational Groups in place that oversees the transition of young people into adulthood, with dedicated Transitions Workers to support young people and their families. Dorset is looking to develop a much broader offer for this group of people with transition planning starting at age 14 and continuing its support for people up to the age of 25.

6. Next Steps 2016/17

6.1 The primary aim is to avoid hospital admission unless absolutely necessary. Of equal importance is the need to bring current out of area inpatients back to Dorset and commission services to enable them to be maintained and supported in the community in a sustainable manner. The numbers requiring hospital provision currently and in the near future is believed to be too small to warrant local hospital provision so some people may still be placed temporarily out of area but will be tracked and returned home as soon as clinical hospital support is no longer required.

5 Page 139 Dorset Transforming Care Plan

6.2 The gap analysis has highlighted the following key areas which will inform both the Dorset TCP going forward and the 2016 pan- Dorset Big Plan (the joint Commissioning Strategy for people with learning disabilities across Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole), which is currently in development to be published this autumn:

a) stronger links between Adults and Children’s commissioning; b) bringing autism offer in line with LD; c) understanding the risk of the local population through use of the monitoring tool; d) enhancing and standardising the person-centred approach across the Dorset TCP; e) multi-disciplinary approach to Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans.

The longer term plan is to develop specialist provision within the community working with existing providers and new providers if necessary to develop new models of supported accommodation across the county.

6.3 There is more work required regarding the wider workforce with recognised issues including:

a) a need for skilled providers who can work with people with a learning disability and a forensic history; b) rural challenges in Dorset, with some recruitment issues for some providers across the LD sector; c) availability of qualified social work staff in areas of the County Council, ensuring all staff are competently trained in line with NICE standards.

6.4 We propose to commission new provision such as a small number of specialist bungalows with 24/7 care and support. A bid to the Department of Health (DoH) for £140,000 for one such scheme has been successful and development in North Dorset will soon commence.

7. Longer term Vision, Strategy and Principles

7.1 The pan-Dorset TCP is committed to supporting people either at home, or as close to home as possible, and maintaining a ‘no inpatient bed’ service model within Dorset. The emerging priorities from the early engagement to date show that the issues of health care and choices in housing remain a priority for people with a learning disability, their carers, families and professionals working in this area.

7.3 Positive behavioural support will be commissioned to be intrinsic within assessment, support planning and interventions, as will crisis support plans for those with behaviours which challenge.

7.4 Principles for support going forward include:

a) maximising choice and control; b) supporting a meaningful life; c) promoting community inclusion; d) supporting families and informal carers; e) well trained and competent staff.

6 Page 140 Dorset Transforming Care Plan

8. Financial Implications

8.1 A capital bid to develop a new scheme in North Dorset has been successful. It is difficult to gauge the significance of the revenue impact. People in hospital at present are 100% NHS funded and when they leave, depending upon who is identified as the responsible commissioner, they may be either fully or only partly health funded meaning there may be potential additional costs to the County Council but it is unlikely to have a major budgetary impact in any one financial year.

8.2 A small number of people has been identified to return to Dorset over the next 2 to 3 years. The total annual cost to the County Council could be as high as £239,200 per annum. A joint bid has been made for NHS TCP funding with partners for 50% of these costs. The Joint Commissioning Officers Group has also discussed the possibility of using potential reductions in the pooled campus budget to mitigate any adverse funding consequences of this programme. Dorset County Council will need to consider whether it will take this position in the context of other budget pressures within adult social care this year and next.

8.3 The pooled campus budget (Moving on From Hospital Living) is governed by a Section 75 Agreement between the CCG and the three pan-Dorset local authorities. It is likely going forward that costs for this programme will reduce. In that event it has been agreed that underspends will be returned to the partners in the same proportion as their contribution. There have been discussions in the Joint Commissioning Officers Group about using future underspends to support the Transforming Care Programme. However, the position remains that underspends will be returned to the individual partners who will keep the discretion on how that money will be spent.

8.4 The guidance from the DoH around future funding including dowry funding (where people will take health funding with then when discharged from hospital) is still unclear and will need to be negotiated at a local level. It is therefore likely that current and future need may present financial risk to the County Council and this will need ongoing quantification and risk assessment.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The Transforming Care Plan is on track and has been positively rated by NHS England who have highlighted it as an exemplar of good practice to other partnerships. The development of the plan will also feed into the wider development of the pan-Dorset LD Big Plan 2016. There may be a significant budgetary impact for the County Council over the next three years and we will ensure that further work enables us to anticipate and mitigate any adverse financial pressures.

Helen Coombes Interim Director for Adult & Community Services June 2016

7 Page 141 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Page 1 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

Agenda Item: Cabinet 12

Date of Meeting Cabinet: 29 June 2016

Cabinet Member Robin Cook – Cabinet Member for Corporate Development Local Members All members (local members affected have been consulted/engaged separately) Lead Officer(s) Richard Bates - Chief Financial Officer Mike Harries - Director for Environment and the Economy

Subject of Report Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

Executive Summary The County Council’s Asset Management Plan, which was published in April 2015, sets out the strategic direction for the management of the County Council’s assets. This report is a quarterly update to indicate progress against certain key targets. It also includes sections on each of the main asset classes, of Property, Highways, ICT, Fleet and Waste, covering approvals required and emerging issues.

Some of the key items to note are as follows:

 The Countywide Office Rationalisation has been considered by the Way We Work Programme Board. The business case envisages that by the end of the programme the County Council will operate from just 7 offices in strategic locations around the county. Work will now commence to rationalise the office estate and improve those local offices that the County Council will be retaining, which will enable it to save in the order of £1,000,000 per annum in running costs.  Related to that point, the Cabinet is asked to declare 3 office buildings surplus – Top o’Town House in Dorchester, The North Dorset Local Office in Sturminster Newton and the Bridport Local Office at St. Andrew’s Road. The Cabinet is also requested to declare the vacant school buildings at West Lulworth Primary School and Royal Manor and Southwell Primary Schools surplus, to use its general powers of competence to dispose of the former St. Martins Care Home in Gillingham for extra care development; and to declare two County Farms surplus.

Page 143 Page 2 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

The AMP incorporates various strategies which relate to the whole property portfolio. The most recent equalities impact assessment identified the need to ensure that the interests and needs of the six equality groups are addressed at service level as part of the service asset management planning process, including consultation with users.

Use of Evidence:

The Asset Management Plan makes use of the following sources of evidence:  The Corporate Plan and Community Strategy  Medium Term Financial Strategy  Outcomes from a Members Seminar on 25 September 2014  Periodic public consultation  Local and National property performance data  Service (property) asset management plans  Highways asset management planning data  Corporate IT strategy

Budget:

If all the recommendations in the report are approved, there will remain a sum of £2.180m unallocated up to the end of 2018-19.

Risk Assessment:

Specific project risk registers are in place. None of the recommendations relate to or create high or medium risks.

Having considered the risks associated with these decisions using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk: LOW

Recommendations It is recommended that the Cabinet:

(i) Approves disposal of land at former West Lulworth Primary School on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (para 3.1.1 (c))

(ii) Approves the disposal of the lease at Top O’Town House, Dorchester on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (para 3.1.2 (c))

(iii) Approves the use of the County Council’s general powers of competence to enable the disposal at an undervalue of St. Martins Care Home and former Adult Education Building Gillingham and otherwise on terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy (para 3.1.3 (f))

Page 144 Page 3 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

(iv) Approves The disposal of the former North Dorset Local Office and Annexe, Sturminster Newton on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (para 3.1.4 (b))

(v) Approves the disposal of the former Bridport Local Office, St Andrews Road, Bridport on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (para 3.1.5 (b))

(vi) Approves the disposal of the Royal Manor and Southwell Primary Schools in Portland, once they are returned to the County Council, on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (para 3.1.6 (d))

(vii) Approves the disposal of Gupples Farm, Fontmell Magna and Sea View Farm, Netherbury on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (para 3.1.7 (b))

(viii) Approves the purchase of the Blandford Waste Management Centre site, if suitable terms can be agreed with SUEZ and otherwise on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (para 7.1.1 (b))

(ix) Approves the overall revised estimates and cash flows for projects as summarised and detailed in appendices 1 and 2 (para 9.2)

(x) Notes the emerging issues for each asset class.

Reason for A well-managed Council ensures that the best use is made of its Recommendation assets in terms of optimising service benefit, minimising environmental impact and maximising financial return.

Appendices Appendix 1 Financial Summary and Capital Control Totals Appendix 2 Financial Summary of Approved Capital Projects Appendix 3 Property Performance Indicators Appendix 4 PDF maps of former Lulworth Primary School, Bridport Local Office, Top o’Town House & North Dorset Local Office

Background Papers The Property Asset Management Plan 2015-18 The Highways Asset Management Plan (Vol. 1/Vol. 2)

Officer Contact Name: Peter Scarlett, Estate & Assets Service Manager Tel: (01305) 221940 Email: [email protected]

Name: Tony Diaz, Senior Finance Manager Tel: (01305) 224950 Email: [email protected]

Page 145 Page 4 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

1 Background

1.1 This report provides an update on progress in achieving the County Council’s Asset Management objectives, including property asset reduction and rationalisation. It also seeks approval for a number of transactions and project matters.

1.2 This report covers all the County Council’s asset classes: Property, Highways, ICT, Fleet and Waste (via DWP).

2 Assets/Whole authority performance

2.1 The five key strategies of the new Asset Management Plan (AMP) are:- i) To rationalise the property estate whilst enhancing its service outlets ii) To improve the condition of the retained estate and reduce its environmental impact iii) To seek out income generation opportunities and maximise the value of the property estate vi) To adapt the County Council’s office accommodation in accordance with ‘The Way We Work’ principles v) To invest capital wisely through tight control of the construction programme.

2.2 The rationalisation of the property estate is ongoing. The concept of the Community Offer for Living and Learning was well received at a Members seminar on 21 April. A report from the Director of Children’s Services (Sponsor of Way We Work Programme), including a draft Outline Business Case, was considered by the People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 16 June. Its recommendations, including that the Cabinet grants delegated responsibility to the Director for Environment and Economy after consultation with the Cabinet member for Environment, Infrastructure and Highways and the local County Councillor(s) to enter into such property transactions (whether by acquisition or disposal) as are necessary to make appropriate progress with the introduction of living and learning centres, will be considered under item 17 (d) of this agenda.

2.3 The Youth Service review will enable the County Council to divest itself of approximately 9,200 m2 of accommodation, with property revenue costs in the order of £416,000. In addition, it removes a significant cohort of buildings with high maintenance costs. An update on progress is provided under item 20 of this agenda.

2.4 A business case setting out proposals for the rationalisation of the office estate was presented to the Way We Work Programme Board on 22 June. The proposals entail reducing the number of office buildings that the County Council operates out of, ultimately to just 7 offices located across the county. At the commencement of this exercise, the County Council operated out of 32 office buildings, many of which were poorly laid out and badly equipped, with mainly cellular offices and random furniture. The Countywide Office Reconfiguration programme will introduce consistent layouts in all offices, with generic furniture and will roll out flexible working across all offices. It will enable the County Council to make better use of its office space whilst improving working conditions for staff. The business case has an internal rate of return of 35.46%

2.5 PI 9, in Appendix 3 seeks to reduce the average office floor space per office based employee to below 9m2 per employee. At the commencement of the rationalisation project it stood at 16.4 m2/fte (21 m2/fte, excluding home workers). This figure is based on the entirety of the current office estate, although several office buildings have now been vacated. If the premises that are vacant are excluded from the total office space, the figure comes down to 12.72 m2/fte. Further work is being undertaken to verify accurate numbers of office based workers and this will be reflected in next quarter’s performance indicators. Page 146 Page 5 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

2.6 With regard to the fifth strategy set down in the AMP, Performance Target 10 highlights that although the County Council did not technically meet the CIPFA target of delivering 95% of major construction contracts within + 5% of budget, this was due to the small number of projects falling within this category. However, in overall terms, the seven projects completed were delivered with an overall saving of £2.1 million against their aggregated budget.

3 Dorset Property Asset Management

3.1 Approvals

3.1.1 Disposal of land at former West Lulworth Primary School a) Following the completion of the new West Lulworth Primary School the former school is now surplus to requirements. b) The site is jointly owned by the Salisbury Diocesan Board of Education, Dorset County Council and The Lulworth Estate (subject to a lease to DCC) (see plan at Appendix 4, Page 21 & 22). c) To ensure best value is obtained from the sale it is recommended that the whole site is sold subject to an agreed proportionate split of sales proceeds. The net proceeds of sale from the SDBE land will be payable to DCC. It is therefore recommended that the Cabinet approves the disposal of the former West Lulworth Primary School site on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (Recommendation i).

3.1.2 Assignment or surrender of lease at Top o’Town House, Dorchester a) As part of the initiative to rationalise the County Council’s office estate, it has been agreed that the County Council no longer requires a dedicated training centre. The training facilities currently provided at Top o’ Town House will be re-provided elsewhere within the County Buildings estate and consequently it is proposed to declare Top o’Town House surplus to the County Council’s requirements (see plan at Appendix 4, Page 23). b) The County Council holds the property on a lease, with running costs of approximately £93,000 per annum. An early assignment or surrender of the lease, which expires in December 2017, is therefore important in order to achieve the Way We Work Property Savings target. c) It is recommended that the Cabinet approves the disposal of the Council’s interest in Top o’Town House on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (Recommendation ii).

3.1.3 Update on the former St. Martins Care Home and Adult Education Building Gillingham a) Following Cabinet minute 331.7 on 30 September 2015 approving the possible use of the County Council’s general powers of competence to enable the disposal at an undervalue of the site comprising the former St. Martins Care Home and Adult Education Building at Gillingham for an Extra Care housing scheme, there has been a delay in progressing any scheme as the Government has required registered providers to cut rents charged in family housing by 1% per year for the next four years. Whilst rents in extra care housing have not been restricted in this way, there is concern that the government may restrict these rents, effectively making schemes unviable. Therefore funders and providers with schemes at an early stage have put them on hold until greater certainty is provided.Page 147 Page 6 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

b) The March 2016 QAMR recommended a review of progress in April 2016 and a consideration of the disposal options. c) Whilst the County Council’s initial preferred partner, East Boro Housing Trust, needs to wait for a government decision on rent levels before taking a decision as to whether it is viable to proceed, another registered social landlord (RSL) has offered to provide a 50/60 unit extra care scheme at St Martins in Gillingham. There would be no need for HCA or social investor capital as they are willing to use their own reserves (there is also a potential commuted sum from North Dorset DC planning to support this project) to build, on the basis that the County Council provides the site for free or at a discounted price to made the scheme viable. They would also wish to proceed swiftly with this scheme. d) The Asset Management Plan states that ‘The County Council will work with partners to develop funding models which make the development of extra care housing possible. It will consider making both land and/or capital funding available for such schemes.’ e) The financial business case and model was set out in the Extra Care Strategy which was adopted by Cabinet:

 Where it is appropriate, postponing entry into residential care for one year saves an average of £28,080 per person (National evaluation of POPPs. Personal Social Sciences Research Unit for Department of Health (2010))

 Extra care housing can provide movement from low support needs to very low support needs equating to a potential saving of over £5,000 annually per person ( Establishing the extra in Extra Care: The costs and benefits of living in extra care housing . ILC - UK (2011))

 Where a block amount is charged for care provided at higher FACS levels of care, ILC - UK found that 26% of those who enter extra care on a higher support package experience a decrease in care needs within 5 years. This equates to a potential annual saving for residents who rely on social services contributions, and who move from a higher care package, of £5,432.60 per person or; taking an average scheme of 60 housing with care apartments for older people, this potentially results in annual revenue saving on home care of £326,000 per annum. (Establishing the extra in Extra Care: The costs and benefits of living in extra care housing. ILC-UK (2011). f) It is recommended that the Cabinet ratifies the use of the County Council’s general powers of competence to enable the disposal at an undervalue of St. Martins Care Home and former Adult Education Building Gillingham and otherwise on terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy (Recommendation iii).

3.1.4 Disposal of the former North Dorset Local Office and Annexe, Sturminster Newton a) The former North Dorset Local Office was vacated in September 2015 and the adjacent annexe bungalow is due to be vacated in September 2016. The properties are now surplus to the Council’s requirements and it is recommended that the site outlined in the attached plan is formally declared surplus and marketed for sale as soon as possible and a potential sale agreed subject to vacant possession being obtained on the whole site (see plan at Appendix 4, Page 24).

Page 148 Page 7 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) b) It is recommended that the Cabinet approve the disposal of the site of the former North Dorset Local Office and Annexe at Sturminster Newton on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (Recommendation iv).

3.1.5 Disposal of the former Bridport Local Office, St Andrews Road, Bridport a) The former Bridport Local Office is to be vacated by Adult Services and Children’s Services Teams by the end of November. The building in St Andrews Road is also part occupied by a pre-school under a lease expiring in February 2018. It is recommended that the soon to be vacated elements of the building are declared surplus and the property is marketed as a whole subject to the lease to the pre-school (until February 2018) as soon as possible (see plan at Appendix 4, Page 25). b) It is recommended that the Cabinet approved the disposal of the site of the former Bridport Local Office, St. Andrews Road, Bridport on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (Recommendation v).

3.1.6 Disposal of the Royal Manor School and Southwell Primary School Portland a) The Royal Manor and Southwell Primary Schools in Portland are to be returned to Dorset County Council when the new IPACA Campus at Southwell opens in September 2016. b) Initial discussions have taken place with the Homes and Community Agency (HCA) which has expressed an interest in acquiring both sites for the construction of starter homes for first time buyers, in line with current Government policy. The HCA wishes to acquire the sites on the basis of current planning policy for affordable housing (35% in Weymouth and Portland) and seek to negotiate a consent for 100% starter homes. c) It is recommended that negotiations are pursued to enable the acquisition of these two sites by the HCA at market value, thereby satisfying the Council’s obligations to obtain best value and to assist with affordable and starter housing provision on Portland. d) The Cabinet is therefore requested to approve the disposal of the Royal Manor and Southwell Primary Schools in Portland once they are returned to the County Council, on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (Recommendation vi).

3.1.7 Disposals of Gupples and Sea View Farms a) Gupples Farm, Fontmell Magna and Sea View Farm, Netherbury are two farms on the County Farm Estate. Both of these farms have been identified as non-core farms within the County Farm Estate Management Strategy. Due to the long term nature of the tenancies of both of these holdings, terms have been agreed with the existing tenants to purchase the freehold of the house, buildings and an appropriate area of land. The remainder of both of the holdings will be surrendered back to the County Council for amalgamation with existing holdings. b) The Cabinet is requested to approve the disposal of Gupples Farm, Fontmell Magna and Sea View Farm, Netherbury on terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (Recommendation vii).

3.2 Significant emerging Issues – to note

3.2.1 Proposed Christchurch Primary School

This project is for the provision of a 420 place Primary School. The budget for this scheme was established in January 2014 in the sum £6,787,000 including £1,131,000 Page 149 Page 8 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) Optimism Bias of which £828,000 has been drawn down providing a revised Target Cost of £ 6,484,000 with £303,000 Optimism Bias remaining. The MSP Board approved the ‘Commit to Construct’ request during their meeting on the 19 May 2016 subject to compliance with specified conditions. However, since that meeting and whilst final construction costs have yet to be fully established the new Target Cost projection is £7,320,000. At this stage of the project the protocol would be to retain £141,000 Optimism Bias. Due to the need to maintain the Project’s programme the MSP Board is to be requested to authorise a revised budget of £7,461,000 comprising a Target Cost of £7,320,000 and Optimism Bias of £141,000. The additional funding of £674,000 would be drawn from the overall Basic Need programme.

4 Highways Asset Management

4.1 Approvals

No approvals required.

4.2 Significant emerging Issues – to note

4.2.1 Supply of Street Furniture Equipment Contracts a) This note is to inform Cabinet that a 5 year contract for the supply of Street Furniture and Traffic Signal Controllers has been awarded to Siemens Traffic Control. b) The two previous contracts for the supply of Street Furniture and Traffic Signal Controllers expired on 31 March 2016. These contracts were previously let in collaboration with Bournemouth Borough Council and the Borough of Poole. Initially, due to resource requirements, it was agreed to seek an extension of 1 year to the existing contracts however, at a late stage, the Borough of Poole identified some spare capacity to resource the re-tender of a new single contract to encompass the supply of both Street Furniture and Traffic Signal Controllers for a period of 5 years. c) The work was completed and contract was awarded to Siemens Traffic Control, the incumbent supplier, and came into effect on 1 April 2016. The approximate spend for DCC is £100,000 pa rising to £275,000 pa depending on Capital Budget allocation. d) Due to the late decision to re-tender and awarding this contract, to allow the three authorities to purchase essential items in a compliant manner, this procurement was not previously included in the annual Procurement Summary report to Cabinet in relation to contracts estimated to be valued in excess of £500,000 in 2016/17.

4.2.2 Highway Scheme Updates a) Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan; Revised budget and spend profile was agreed by Cabinet on 24 February 2016 reflecting delay/reduction in the WDDC contribution and potential delay in receiving developer contributions. The delivery programme for the individual scheme elements of DTEP has also been revised to reflect this reprofiling, such that improvements at Great Western Cross are now planned to start in January 2017 followed by improvements at Southgate junction and the environmental enhancements at the lower end of South Street. b) Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership (DLEP); the A338 Major Maintenance scheme was substantially complete on 28 May 2016, with all four lanes open to traffic. Some remaining work will be carried out under night closures during the latter part of June with the scheme fully complete shortly after. It currently remains on programme and under budget. Other schemes on the B3073 corridor are being reviewed and a traffic modelling study carried out to help identify the future programme. Further schemes on the A338 including improvements to Blackwater junction are being designed by a joint team comprising engineers from DCC and BBC. Page 150 Page 9 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) c) The Salway Ash footway was officially opened by Oliver Letwin on 10 June 2016.

4.2.3 Dinah's Hollow, Melbury Abbas a) The outcome of the bid for DfT funding for a north/south strategic link study is overdue (unknown as at 3 June). The more robust concrete barriers were tested by a landslip of around 50 tonnes from the east bank on 9 March 2016. The material was removed and disposed of by DCC. Costs will be recovered from the landowner who has referred the matter to his insurers. The road is currently open. Works to repair Boundary Road and West Lane, damaged by traffic diverting around the closure, will be complete by the end of June 2016.

4.2.4 Springfield Road Update a) The scheme is programmed to start in late August 2016 with a construction period of 20 weeks. However the proposed start date is dependent on continuing land/accommodation works negotiations with property owners and agents. In tandem with land negotiations Legal Services are progressing with the Compulsory Purchase Order which will be required to progress the scheme. Discussions are also taking place with regard to finance as there are concerns that the budget will not be sufficient for construction and land purchase/compensation which is higher than estimated in 2015. DCC's construction partner Hanson is currently producing a target cost to provide more certainty on construction costs. The figure is estimate of £400k for land and estimate £1m for construction including statutory undertakers.

5 ICT Asset Management

5.1 Approvals

5.1.1 No approvals required.

5.2 Significant emerging issues – to note

5.2.1 New case management system supporting adult & children’s social care contract award a) Currently in the Alcatel period.

5.2.2 Digital Technology Strategy – wide area network changes a) The ICT Service has developed a Digital Technology Strategy to underpin the Digital Strategy that has already been shared with the County Leadership Team in draft. In principle, the Digital Technology Strategy proposes a move away from building and managing core infrastructure (e.g. storage, server, and ICT continuity services) and office productivity (SharePoint, email, telephony, Microsoft Word) solutions on site to accessing those services from a 3rd party over the internet. b) The first step towards this vision is to change the architecture of our wide area network, such that it removes a dependency for all council sites on the County Hall datacentre, makes use of the new Superfast fibre broadband infrastructure being delivered across Dorset and moves us away from owning and running our own network hardware to using standard secure public internet connectivity. c) The Council has therefore contracted with DAISY, following a compliant procurement process, to provide an alternative wide area network infrastructure to meet our future connectivity needs and deliver significant cost savings (estimated at c.£900,000 p.a. gross savings on like for like services) Page 151 Page 10 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

5.2.3 Digital Technology Strategy – data storage change a) Another strand of the Digital Technology Strategy is to consider our future data storage infrastructure approach. Our current storage systems are coming end of life, and within the next two years would need investment in the region of £400k to £500,000. b) Our emerging strategy is to consider a hybrid approach to storage infrastructure services that combines the use of existing County Hall based assets (ensuring we get maximum value from those investments) alongside the use of emerging ’cloud’ service offerings (using third parties to provide services over the internet). Investment of up to £250,000 will be required for this alternative approach. c) Work has been completed over the first few months of 2016 to prove the concept, and plans are in train to conduct more thorough testing of the approach and develop a roadmap for change.

5.2.4 DES a) The Information Strategy Group agreed at the May meeting to support a project to upgrade the underlying platform supporting our DES (SAP) infrastructure. This is a key enabler of capability to support the delivery of a more customer friendly user interface to DES, as well as providing capability to support core strands of the Forward Together for Support Services programme (including an e-personnel file, and payroll cockpit capability).

5.2.5 Smarter Computing programme – deployment update a) The Smarter Computing Programme remains on track to complete deployment of desktop installs by the end of June, with the roll-out of Surface Pros to be complete by the end of August. These dates are subject to not encountering unexpected issues related to the operation of our applications on the Smarter Computing environment.

6 Fleet Asset Management

6.1 Approvals

6.1.1 No approvals required.

6.2 Significant emerging issues

6.2.1 No significant issues to report.

7 Waste Asset Management

7.1 Approvals

7.1.1 Blandford Waste Management Centre

a) A request was made late last year to renew the lease on the property at Blandford Heights leased from SUEZ (formally SITA) to allow continued operation of the household recycling centre and waste transfer station in Blandford.

b) The lease is due to expire in August 2016 and SUEZ have suggested that they would prefer to sell the property rather than to continue leasing it to the County Council. Whilst these discussions are at an early stage, the Cabinet is requested to approve the purchase of the site, if suitable terms can be agreed with SUEZ, and otherwise on Page 152 Page 11 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) terms to be agreed by the Director of Environment and the Economy (Recommendation viii).

7.2 Significant emerging issues – to note

7.2.1 No significant issues to report.

8 Financial Performance

8.1 Financial Summary and Capital Control Totals a) The overall financial position is summarised in Appendix 1. Since the previous report two projects which had sums set aside have now been agreed as completed for less than expected. As a result over the next three years the total sum available is £2.180m up to the end of 2018-19.

8.2 Executive Summary of Approved Projects, including significant changes a) Details of approved schemes are set out in Appendix 2. The schemes where project costs exceed their budgets by more than 5% are shown with a  b) The Cabinet are requested to approve the overall revised estimates and cash flows for projects as summarised and detailed in appendices 1 and 2 (Recommendation (ix)).

Richard Bates Mike Harries Chief Financial Officer Director for Environment and the Economy

June 2016

Page 153 Page 12 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 1

DCC CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015-16 to 2018/19 : EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES (GROSS)

DIRECTORATE 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

ENVIRONMENT 37,422 44,681 32,459 15,950

CHILDRENS 18,400 31,099 6,928 9,612

ADULT & COMMUNITY 1,405 1,228 3,039 285

CABINET / WHOLE AUTHORITY 17,268 17,954 7,239 2,158

DORSET WASTE PARTNERSHIP 3,576 6,740 1,184 0

VEHICLES 3,061 1,994 1,371 1,632

STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE 8,311 8,310 7,510 7,510

Slippage (30,000) 15,000 15,000

89,443 82,006 74,730 52,147 TOTAL

Contingency re Risk Items 0 2,499 0 0 (Overcommitted) / Remaining flexibility 0 2,180 0 0 (to meet target)

Gross Predicted Capital Spend 89,443 86,685 74,730 52,147

Page 154 Page 13 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 2

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015/16-2018/19 Project being delivered within or on previously agreed budget and time Project being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time Project not being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time

Before After Total 2015- 2018- Payments 16 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 19  £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

      For start before 2015-16   CHILDREN'S SERVICES       Completed projects awaiting final  31 0 11 20 0 0 0 account  School Access Initiative Schemes <  8,330 7,059 700 496 75 0 0 £250k  Woodroffe School Kitchen  789 785 4 0 0 0 0 Refurbishment  Blandford School STP 1,000 870 13 117 0 0 0   Leeson House - DDA Works 664 274 219 146 25 0 0   Gross Expenditure 10,814 8,988 947 779 100 0 0 ENVIRONMENT     Weymouth Relief Road - Scheme  89,745 83,113 257 3,104 3,271 0 0 Costs   The Weymouth Transport Package for 9,458 9,405 32 21 0 0 0 the 2012 Games - Construction Costs 

Verwood Distributor Rd - Land &  7,915 7,915 0 0 0 0 0 Works (net)  Railway Overbridge Parapet  230 87 52 91 0 0 0 Protection - Fees & Feasibility   Highway and Property Flooding 300 197 0 103 0 0 0  Dorchester Transport and  4,835 566 155 959 1,107 1,198 850 Environment Plan   Visitor Centre at Durlston Castle 6,111 5,947 5 67 92 0 0   Network Traffic Control Centre 300 215 0 85 0 0 0  Re-signalling of the Wareham to  3,232 3,247 0 (15) 0 0 0 Swanage branch line   Implementation of Waste Management Strategy - Bridport HRC 8,900 3,758 5,658 (516) 0 0 0  Phase 2 (Order of Cost)

A3066 Beaminster Tunnel 2,576 2,435 12 129 0 0 0   Shaftesbury Traveller Site 1,099 941 0 158 0 0 0   Hardy's Birthplace Project at  1,119 1,022 22 75 0 0 0 Thorncombe Wood 

Page 155 Page 14 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 2

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015/16-2018/19 Project being delivered within or on previously agreed budget and time Project being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time Project not being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time

Before After Total 2015- 2018- Payments 16 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 19  £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

Springfield Distributor Road,  1,535 439 49 501 546 0 0 Verwood   Lyme Regis Coastal Stabilisation 4,270 2,380 0 1,890 0 0 0  Hayward Main Bridge 1,548 79 51 1,418 0 0 0   Salt Barn - Charminster Depot 460 1 398 61 0 0 0   Dinahs Hollow and Church Slope,  1,744 375 338 277 754 0 0 Melbury Abbas   Bournemouth Airport Access 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 Improvements to existing B3073 

A338 Major Maintenance 21,736 823 12,921 7,992 0 0 0   Chapel Gate Roundabout 3,300 14 105 2,369 812 0 0   Hurn Roundabout 2,400 73 27 2,300 0 0 0   Blackwater Interchange 8,000 0 58 0 7,942 0 0   Longham Mini Roundabouts 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 0 0   A338 Widening Scheme 850 0 0 0 850 0 0   Gross Expenditure 182,913 123,132 20,140 21,069 17,374 1,198 850   ADULT AND COMMUNITY     Christchurch Library Redevelopment  2,030 2,025 5 0 0 0 0 - Ph 2   Dorchester Library & Adult Learning 1,553 1,124 162 126 141 0 0 Centre - Fitting out etc.   Implementation of Replacement 654 200 277 177 0 0 0 Library Management System  Gross Expenditure 4,237 3,349 444 303 141 0 0     CABINET / WHOLE AUTHORITY     Disabled Access to Public Buildings -  1,426 1,306 0 120 0 0 0 (Phase 2)  Superfast Broadband Project 36,993 11,334 10,578 5,758 9,323 0 0   Implementation of Replacement  Childrens Social Care System 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 0  (RAISE)  Implementation of Replacement Adult 3,000 355 114 2,531 0 0 0 Social Care System (AIS)   Dorset Management Information 1,223 827 187 209 0 0 0 System for Children (DMISC) 

Page 156 Page 15 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 2

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015/16-2018/19 Project being delivered within or on previously agreed budget and time Project being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time Project not being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time

Before After Total 2015- 2018- Payments 16 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 19  £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

 ICT - Whole Authority provision for business change, cost effectiveness 4,500 3,486 514 500 0 0 0 improvements & infrastructure  maintenance through ICT

Assets and Workstyles Rollout 300 10 290 0 0 0 0   County Hall Gross Expenditure 36,334 11,517 11,100 11,246 2,471 0 0     DORSET WASTE PARTNERSHIP     Infrastructure, Containers and  28,275 16,775 3,576 6,740 1,184 0 0 Vehicles  Gross Expenditure 28,275 16,775 3,576 6,740 1,184 0 0     Total Pre 2015-16 Starts 262,573 163,761 36,207 40,137 21,270 1,198 850    

For starts in 2015-16 and later  CHILDRENS      Schools Access Initiatives (SAI) 400 0 0 400 0 0 0  APT Projects 1,200 300 300 300 300 0   Carry forward balance 0 0   Gross Expenditure 1,600 0 300 700 300 300 0   ENVIRONMENT     Local Transport Plan ( Integrated  12,516 4,584 3,263 2,501 2,168 0 Transport )  Slippage 0 (3,604) 3,604   Less MFC Efficiency Savings (120) (30) (30) (30) (30)   Carry forward balance 1,849 1,849 0 0 0    Local Transport Plan Maintenance 43,738 11,360 11,050 10,664 10,664 0  Slippage 0 (1,100) 1,100   Less MFC Efficiency Savings (1,360) (340) (340) (340) (340)   Carry forward balance (176) (176) 0 0 0   Corporate Funding 4,325 2,000 2,325 0 0   Repayment of A338 Spur Rd (550) (550) (550) (550)   Contribution (2,200) Local Transport Plan Bridge  10,022 2,618 2,468 2,468 2,468 0 Maintenance  Carry forward balance 499 499   Slippage 0 (350) 350  

Page 157 Page 16 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 2

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015/16-2018/19 Project being delivered within or on previously agreed budget and time Project being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time Project not being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time

Before After Total 2015- 2018- Payments 16 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 19  £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

APT Projects 1,488 372 372 372 372 0   Carry forward balance 150 150 0   Contributions 0 0 0   70,731 0 17,282 23,612 15,085 14,752 0   Gross Expenditure ADULT AND COMMUNITY     Integrated Digital Care Fund 400 0 0 400 0 0 0    Dorset History Centre Extension 2,937 42 42 240 2,613 0 0  Adults APT Projects 1,000 250 250 250 250 0   Carry forward balance 531 531 0 0 0   Libraries APT Projects 140 35 35 35 35 0   Carry forward balance 103 103 0 0 0   Gross Expenditure 5,111 42 961 925 2,898 285 0   CABINET/WHOLE AUTHORITY     Bridport Hub 4,700 0 19 1,601 2,845 235 0   0   County Hall Masterplan - The 1,500 0 340 1,160 0 0 Workspaces Project Contribution to Dorset Green Purbeck 927 0 0 927 0 0 0   APT Projects (County Buildings inc  540 135 135 135 135 0 Printing)  Carry forward balance 139 139   APT Projects (ICT) 5,752 1,438 1,438 1,438 1,438 0   Carry forward balance 4,165 4,165   Slippage 0 (1,097) 1097   APT Projects (Cabinet) 1,400 350 350 350 350 0   Carry forward balance 679 679   Gross Expenditure 19,802 0 6,168 6,708 4,768 2,158 0     Total 2015-16 (& Later) Starts 97,244 42 24,711 31,945 23,051 17,495 0     MODERNISING SCHOOLS  PROGRAMME    Completed Projects awaiting Final 841 25 235 581 0  Account  Project Development Allowance 3,520 3,185 0 335 0 0   Chesil Cove Federation Replacement 9,421 8,338 78 443 562 0  Primary  Pimperne Primary - Replacement 6,170 4,615 911 304 340 0   Queen Elizabeth School - 58,373 57,415 27 931 0 0  replacement  Page 158 Page 17 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 2

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015/16-2018/19 Project being delivered within or on previously agreed budget and time Project being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time Project not being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time

Before After Total 2015- 2018- Payments 16 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 19  £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

  PURBECK SCHOOLS RE-  ORGANISATION    Completed Projects awaiting Final 22 0 9 13 0 0 0  Account  Stoborough 1,239 1,170 0 69 0 0 0   Purbeck School - core works 7,703 7,214 499 114 -124 0 0   St George's Primary Langton 2,754 2,765 4 60 -75 0 0  Matravers  Winfrith Primary 361 345 16 0 0 0 0   St Mary's RC Primary Swanage 3,655 3,173 146 275 61 0 0   Wool Primary 553 565 1 4 -17 0 0   Swanage Primary 837 822 7 8 0 0 0   Corfe Castle Primary 1,302 1,251 24 27 0 0 0   Swanage St Mark's Primary 3,103 2,918 83 8 94 0 0   Lytchett Minster 3,200 3,161 158 -119 0 0 0   St Mary's Catholic Primary Wool 597 585 13 -1 0 0 0   Sandford St Martin 3,746 3,421 68 56 201 0 0   Lulworth Primary 2,938 214 2211 355 158 0 0   Bere Regis 5,351 280 833 4038 200 0 0    Purbeck Review not yet approved / 455 455 OB released / Contingency 

  BASIC NEED PROJECTS     Completed projects & projects < 2,183 1,207 424 437 115 0 0  £500k  Project Development Allowance 1,133 478 32 373 250 0 0   Contribution to Sandford St Martin 700 700 0 0 0 0 0   Manor Park First School 4,104 1,317 2184 363 240 0 0   Christchurch Primary 6,787 22 215 4120 2130 300 0   Damers Replacement 10,371 276 2005 7690 400 0 0   Chickerell Primary 989 133 665 95 96 0 0   Burton Primary 905 105 690 110 0 0 0   Contribution to Lytchett Minster 150 0 150 0 0 0 0    Christchurch School (Twynham) 1,365 542 752 71 0 0 0 school within a school 

Downlands 2,838 279 2,054 505 0 0 0   Highcliffe St Marks 2,808 0 587 1,771 150 300 0   Wimborne First 7,758 0 18 4,037 3,399 304 0  

Page 159 Page 18 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 2

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2015/16-2018/19 Project being delivered within or on previously agreed budget and time Project being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time Project not being delivered within 5% or £250k of previously agreed budget or time

Before After Total 2015- 2018- Payments 16 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 19  £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

St Osmund's 3,685 0 0 2,117 1,387 181   Sherborne Abbey 1,949 0 0 770 1,084 95 0   Other Basic Need Projects not yet 7,129 0 7,129 0  approved    PRIMARY CAPITAL PROGRAMME     Puddletown CE VC First 5,297 4,825 21 76 375 0 0     14 - 19 PROJECTS / SEN PROJECTS     SEN Projects (Yewstock) 3,931 1,967 1788 176 0 0 0   Other Schemes awaiting approval  plus funding available or over 0 (6,605) (3,995) 8,227 0  committed   Modernising Schools Programme 113,288 17,153 29,620 6,528 9,312 0  Control Total    Vehicles 3,061 1,994 1,371 1,632   Structural Maintenance Programme 8,311 8,310 7,510 7,510 

   TOTAL EXPENDITURE 298,326 89,443 112,006 59,730 37,147     TOTAL GRANTS / CONTRIBUTIONS (146,526) (53,558) (39,751) (28,100) (25,117)     TOTAL NET COST TO DCC 151,800 35,885 72,255 31,630 12,030  

 

Page 160 Page 19 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 3

1 Performance Indicator 1 To reduce the net floor area of the non schools estate by 50% between April 2010 and March 2020.

Progress (updated quarterly): 17.02% of the non-schools estate has been disposed of since April 2010 (up by 0.82% since March 2016). 

2 Performance Indicator 2 To accurately capture the gross property spend and to meet the Forward Together Property savings target to reduce the running costs of the non-schools estate by £3.2m by March 2020.

Progress (updated quarterly): The base figure for gross property spend on non- schools estate at the 2014/15 year end is assessed as £7,290,000. To date £493,000 has been removed from the relevant budgets to cover the anticipated Way We Work Savings. However, these savings have yet to be realised from the disposal of the requisite properties. 

3 Performance Indicator 3 To reduce the cost of the required building maintenance to £81m2 by March 2018.

Progress (updated annually): The cost for required building maintenance wef 1 April 2015 is £103/m2 

4 Performance Indicator 4 To reduce the non schools buildings energy consumption per net floor area (kwh/m2) by 10% by March 2018.

Progress (updated annually): Baseline: The non schools building energy consumption wef 1 April 2015 was 168.37 kWh/m2

In March 2016 the non schools building energy consumption was 162.37 kWh/m2. This represents a decrease of 3.6% 

5 Performance Indicator 5 To reduce non-schools buildings CO2 emissions per net floor area (tonnes CO2 /m2) by 10% by March 2018.

Progress (updated annually): Baseline: The non-schools buildings CO2 emissions per net floor area wef 1 April 2015 was 0.0575 tonnes CO2/m2

In March 2016 the non schools building CO2 emissions per net floor area was 0.0536 tonnes CO2/m2. This represents a decrease of 6.78% 

6 Performance Indicator 6 To generate a minimum of £12,500,000 in capital receipts by March 2018.

Progress (updated quarterly): The County Council has generated capital receipts amounting to £4,864,000 since 1 April 2015. 

Page 161 Page 20 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 3

7 Performance Indicator 7 To increase the operational surplus of the County Farms by 6% by March 2018.

Progress (updated annually): Baseline: The operational surplus generated by the County Farms Estate for 2014/15 was £519,193.

The operational surplus for 2015/16 was £558,672, an increase of 7.6% on the previous year. 

8 Performance Indicator 8 To reduce the net area of its office estate by at least 15,000m2 over 5 years, by March 2020.

Progress (updated quarterly): The net area of the County Council’s office estate wef 1 April 2015 is 43,285 m2. To date, the County Council has disposed of 1,549 m2 of office accommodation, which equates to 3.58% of the floor area. However, a further 9,789m2 of space is currently on the market or under offer. 

9 Performance Indicator 9 To reduce the average office floor space per office based employee to below 9m2 per employee by March 2018.

Progress (updated quarterly): Based on staff numbers in DES, which is acknowledged to be inaccurate, the current occupancy level is 16.4 m2/fte (including home workers). If home workers are excluded the figure rises to 21 m2/fte. 

10 Performance Target 10 To deliver 95% of major construction contracts within + 5% of budget, which includes a 10% allowance for optimism bias.

Progress (updated annually): Seven major building projects (>£500k) were completed in 2014/15. Of these, six were within +5% of the original budget, which equates to 86% against the target going forward of 95%.

Whilst one of the projects exceeded its budget by more than 5%, in overall budgetary terms the seven projects were delivered with a £2,111k saving against their aggregated budget which represents a 9% saving on the total original budget. 

Page 162 Page 21 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 4

PDF map of PDF

Former West Lulworth CE VC First School PD3548

Page 163 Page 22 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 4

Former West Lulworth CE VC First School PD3547

Page 164 Page 23 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 4 Top of Town House PD3548

Page 165 Page 24 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 4

North Dorset Local Office PD3542

Page 166 Page 25 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 4

Bridport Local Office PD3543

Page 167 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14 Reprocurement of the Highway Term Service Contract.

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Cabinet Member Peter Finney – Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Highways Lead Director Mike Harries – Director for Environment and Economy

Subject of Report The Reprocurement of the Highways Term Service Contract

Executive Summary 1.0 Background

1.1 The existing Highways Term Service Contract with Hanson Contracting commenced in April 2009, with an initial contract period of five years with the option of five, one year performance related contract extensions.

1.2 The Prior Information Notice (PIN) relating to the Contract and published in the Official Journal of the European Journal in March 2008, stated that the proposed expenditure for the duration of the Contract period, would be between £30 and £70 M.

1.3 As of the end of the financial year 2015/2016 ,the expenditure through the contract totals £65,527,468

1.4 It is in part due to the success of this collaborative partnership model between Dorset County Council and Hanson Contracting that these expenditure levels have arisen so early in the overall contract period. In addition to a significant number of maintenance schemes, notable major projects that have been delivered through the contract arrangements since 2009 include:-

 A338 reconstruction and improvements.  Broomhills waste transfer facility, Bridport.  Beaminster Tunnel stabilisation scheme.  Weymouth Transport Package.

Page 169 Reprocurement of the Highway Term Service Contract.

 Haywards Main bridge replacement, Child Okeford.  Burton Road footbridge replacement, Christchurch.  Swanage household waste recycling facility.

2.0 Legal

2.1 As the level of turnover being awarded through the contract is now approaching the level indicated with the Prior Information Notice, legal advice received has confirmed that in order to protect the County Council`s position against possible legal challenge, it would be prudent to terminate the existing Tem Maintenance Contract two years prior to the full term of March 2019 and seek a replacement provision, commencing 1 April 2017.

3.0 Progress

3.1 The Department for Transport has advised Highway Authorities wherever possible to collaborate when procuring services to maximise potential savings. With this in mind, Officers have liaised with colleagues in Bournemouth and Poole Borough Councils to engage their respective Authorities in this procurement process. Both have confirmed they wish to be involved. The Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership has also been invited to be involved in the procurement process with a view to awarding any future DLEP scheme through this route.

3.2 Review of existing Contract model was undertaken (in conjunction with officers from the Borough of Poole and Bournemouth Borough Council) and a “lessons learned “summary produced.

3.3 The Highway Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP) “Procurement Route Choices for Highway Maintenance Toolkit” has been used to assess alignment of available contract models with current and future needs.

3.4 Following this process, a “Business Justification Case” has been produced which recommends that the future contract model adopted should be an in-house team supplemented by an external private sector partner.

3.5 To ensure the new arrangements can be in place by 1 April 2017 it is essential that a structured programme is followed to allow formal tendering to commence in the Autumn with a contract award in January 2017.

3.6 It is intended, in conjunction with HMEP recommendations, to convene an “Industry Day” to involve prospective tenderers to outline our proposed approach and invite their contribution to the preparation of contract documentation

Page 170 Reprocurement of the Highway Term Service Contract.

that will secure the most cost effective result for the County Council, Partner Councils and the DLEP.

Impact Assessment: 4.0 Equalities Impact Assessment:

4.1 An EqIA screening form was submitted to the Environment and Economy Diversity Group for review.

4.2 Feedback from the group was that equality and diversity considerations should be included within the tender process.

4.3 Equal Opportunity, Diversity Policy and Capability questions are included in the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme pre-qualification questionnaire.

5.0 Use of Evidence

5.1 The Highway Maintenance Efficiency Procurement Toolkit.

5.2 “Lessons Learned” workshop.

5.3 Business Justification (case attached).

6.0 Budget

6.1 The capital budget varies year on year depending on the availability of grants or Government initiatives. The overall budget, whether delivered internally or externally, includes Annual Provisional Total (APT), Local Transport Plan (LTP) integrated transport, LTP bridges and structures, LTP structural maintenance and corporate schemes.

6.2 The previous four financial years have seen the following levels of funding much of which is awarded through the Term Service Contract.

 2013/2014 £32,422,431  2014/2015 £36,373,039  2015/2016 £32,115,651  2016/2017 £58,107,399

7.0 Risk Assessment

7.1 Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as:

Current Risk: MEDIUM Residual Risk LOW

Page 171 Reprocurement of the Highway Term Service Contract.

8.0 Other Implications

None.

Recommendation That the Cabinet approve the recommendations of Business Justification Case for the re-procurement of the Highways Term Service Contract and Officers proceed with the necessary procurement process and award.

Reason for To secure a strategic partner for Dorset County Council`s Recommendation highway service to assist in delivering the capital programme for potentially the next ten years. This will contribute to the corporate aim of Dorset’s economy being prosperous and the service aim to “keep Dorset moving”.

Appendices Appendix 1 Business Justification Case

Background Papers Highway Maintenance Efficiency Programme Procurement Toolkit

Officer Contact Name: Adrian Norcombe Tel: 01305 228124 Email: [email protected]

Mike Harries Director for Environment and Economy May 2016

Page 172

BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION CASE (BJC)

Project: Replacement provision for the Highway Term Service Contract (HTSC)

Purpose: To support the Councils Highways Service in the management of highways infrastructure, through the design and procurement of a new contract model to replace the existing HTSC that will expire 31 March 2017.

VERSION HISTORY

Version Date Brief Summary of Change Owner’s Name Issued Draft V1 15.02.2016 First draft version David McDonald Draft V2 17.05.2016 Second draft version Adrian Norcombe Final 06.06.16 Final version Adrian Norcombe

Page 173

CONTENTS

1. Purpose

2. Strategic context

3. Case for change

4. Available options

5. Preferred option

6. Procurement route

7. Funding and affordability

8. Management arrangements

9. Appendices:

Appendix A - Lessons learned outcomes. Appendix B – Results of procurement route choices Appendix C – Environment Overview Committee 09.10.2014 Appendix D - Procurement timeline Appendix E – EqIA screening form Appendix F – Project risk register

Page 174

ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY COMMISSIONING NETWORK - BUSINESS CASE

1. Purpose

1.1 To seek approval for the reprocurement of the Highways Term Service Contract (HTSC) using the Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP) standard contract documentation. Development of this set of standard documentation was commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT) to encourage the highways sector to deliver efficiency savings through: collaboration and change; procurement, contracting and standardisation; asset management and benchmarking and performance.

2. Strategic Context

2.1 The current HTSC commenced in April 2009 for five years with provision for up to a further five years comprising five x 1 year extensions. The contract has a maximum duration until March 2019 and is in its third annual extension due to end on 31 March 2017.

2.2 The cumulative expenditure throughout the existing contract currently provided by Hanson Contracting, is nearing the upper limit of the £30 to £70M range published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) for the period of the Contract.

2.3 As at the end of the financial year 2015/2016 this sum amounted to £65,527,468. Dorset County Council (DCC) legal team advised that in order to defend the council’s position against possible challenge, it would be prudent to terminate the existing Contract two years prior to the full term of March 2019 and seek a replacement provision.

3. Case for Change

3.1 Prior to any decision being made about how the new Contract would look, a lessons learned exercise was held with council stakeholders to review the existing Contract model together with representatives from the Borough of Poole (BoP) and Bournemouth Borough Council (BBC).

3.2 The outcomes from the lessons learned exercise can be seen in Appendix A.

3.3 Subsequently, BoP and BBC confirmed that they wished to work in collaboration with DCC on this reprocurement project.

3.4 The DfT commissioned the HMEP to produce a toolkit that would allow Local Highway Authorities (LHA’s) to identify and inform on the procurement routes open to them. They have also produced comprehensive procurement and contract documentation packages that are available for use by all LHA’s to significantly reduce the costs of procuring a contract of this size.

3.5 The use of the toolkit and contract documentation is encouraged by the DfT and enables LHA’s to demonstrate they are using best practice when bidding for incentivised funding.

Page 175

3.6 The Procurement Route Choices for Highway Maintenance Services toolkit was used to determine how our current service is aligned with current thinking and which procurement option would be best suited to realise future service ambitions.

3.7 The exercise was conducted with members of staff from DCC, BoP, BBC and the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership (DLEP).

3.8 The results of the exercise (see Appendix B) recommended that an In-house delivery with top-up arrangement was deemed to be the most appropriate contract model, which would provide opportunities for any necessary updates and improvements in service delivery. This had previously been endorsed by the HMEP when they undertook a peer review of Dorset Highways’ contract arrangements in 2014.

3.9 Two alternative options (e.g. a Local Authority Trading Company or wholly In-house Provision) were identified as possible, given the procurement constraints. However when considered as part of the case for change review it was agreed neither option was suitable because they did not retain the strengths of the current delivery model. This view had previously been endorsed in a report submitted to the Environment Overview Committee on 9 October 2014 together with supporting legal advice (Appendix C).

3.10 The detailed responses given to clarify the reason for the decision being recommended can be found in Appendix B however the headline figures are tabulated below.

Core influences Fully Partially Not aligned aligned aligned A. Procurement, contracting, standardisation 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% B. Collaboration and Shared Services 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% C. Asset Management 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% D. Benchmarking and Performance 83.3% 16.7% 0.0% Improvement E. Corporate Strategy and Objectives 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% F. Public Perception 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% G. VFM / Affordability / Finance 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% H. Governance 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% I. Scope 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Overall need for changes summary 60.7% 36.5% 2.8%

3.11 A project timeline has been produced (Appendix D) identifying key milestones for the project in order to meet the procurement deadline of 31 March 2017

3.12 An EqIA screening form has been submitted to the Environment and Economy Diversity Group (Appendix E). The feedback was to include equality and diversity issues into the tender. The HMEP documentation for the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire has a section devoted to this and assigns a 15% weighting towards the overall quality score.

Page 176

3.13 Prior to the Contract documents being published it is proposed to hold an industry day to gauge whether the Contract model is aligned to the needs of the market and vice-versa.

4. Available Options

4.1 Four options of the In-House plus Top Up model were then evaluated as outlined below:

Shortlisted Options

NO. OPTION DETAIL EXAMPLE IN-HOUSE plus Single Full capacity provider, to work Carillion, SW 1 Provider TOP UP all works side by side with Highways Highways in scope service. Specific works excluded e.g. IN-HOUSE plus Single winter service, surface dressing Hanson with supply 2 Provider TOP UP, specific works etc. and delivered by the chain works in scope in-house service (the current model) Multiple term service contracts Raymond Brown, IN-HOUSE plus Multiple with specialist contractors to Mildren Construction, 3 Provider TOP UP, specific cover specific scope of works Tarmac, G Crook & works in scope e.g. Surfacing, Bridges, Son Drainage, Earthworks etc. HCC Gen 3 Use of available Frameworks Framework, SCAPE IN-HOUSE plus Tendered and contracts along with ad-hoc 4 Framework, In- Requirements tenders. (do minimum option for House support comparison) contracts

The evaluation process included a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis which was scored against five evaluation criteria, each with equal weighting. The results of this exercise can be seen below.

SWOT Analysis

OPTION 1 - IN-HOUSE plus Single Provider TOP UP all works in scope Strengths Weaknesses

 Resilience for all services “backup” to  Limited market. ensure need met.  Variable performance in some areas  Engage Private Sector skills in all – no supplier good at all things. areas.  Difficult to terminate single provider.

Page 177

 Easy to administer.  Additional specs delay re-  Consistent Brand. procurement.  No on-going tender costs.  Lack of clarity regarding responsibility.

Opportunities Threats

 Benchmarking with in-house.  Single provider failure.  Sharing Best Practice.  Lack of market interest.  Long term relationship opportunity.  Locked in with single provider.  Cosy relationship.  Loss on in-house skills and staff through under-utilisation.

OPTION 2 - IN-HOUSE plus Single Provider TOP UP, specific works in scope Strengths Weaknesses

 Resilience for works included.  Difficult to terminate.  Early Contractor involvement.  Potential lack of clarity where scope  Engage private sector skills in not defined clearly. specialist areas.  Lack of clarity regarding responsibility.  Expanded market over Option 1 more tenderers.  Improved rates for specialist areas.  Easy to administer.  Consistent brand for works included.  No on-going tender cost for works included.  Simplified specification for tender.

Opportunities Threats

 Benchmarking with in-house.  Single provider failure.  Sharing best practice.  Long term relationship.  Easy support for funding bids (LEP)  Opportunity to share programme and get cross project opportunities.

Page 178

OPTION 3 - IN-HOUSE plus Multiple Provider TOP UP, specific works in scope Strengths Weaknesses

 Increase supply chain in specialist  Co-ordination of works on site. areas.  Increased contract admin.  Better tendered rates in specialist areas.  Expanded market over Option 1 and 2.

Opportunities Threats

 Benchmarking with in-house.  Increased risk of claims for programme  Sharing best practice. delays.  Long term relationship.  Communication issues.  Some opportunity to share programme.  Clarity around responsibility.

OPTIONS 4 – IN HOUSE plus Tendered Requirements Strengths Weaknesses

 Most competitive rates.  Significant contract administration.  No initial procurement costs (i.e. use of  No long term relationship. framework providers).  No early contractor involvement.  Increased risk of claims (culture).  Timescales increase on programme.  No continuity of workload.

Opportunities Threats

 Utilise new frameworks/contracts and  Lack of interest from frameworks. providers that may arise.  Lack of in-house contract management skills outside of partnership.

Page 179

SCORED Evaluation

Evaluation Criteria:

No. Criteria Description 1 Promote the local Ability to use local companies or promote use of local economy supply chain through contract management.

2 Deliver value for money Deliver VFM through competitive tendering, efficiencies, improvements and added value. 3 Deliver flexibility and early Resilience to change in needs, ability to programme contractor involvement works and gain efficiencies. 4 Provide a Unique Brand Ensure high quality of delivery maintained across the business need. 5 Enhance the authority’s Promote skills, information and technology sharing with capability and capacity commercial market. Provide sufficient capacity when required.

All five criteria received an equal weighting in the evaluation.

Scoring Mechanism:

Score Will Criteria be met? 0 Not at all 1 Partially only 2 In some respects 3 In most respects 4 In all but minor respects 5 In all respects

Results Summary:

Capability Total Delivery Local Value for Flexibility Unique and (max Option Economy money and ECI Brand Capacity 25) Single Top- 2 3 5 5 4 19 Up All Works Single Top- Up Specific 3 3 5 5 4 20 Works Multiple Top- Up Specific 4 2 4 3 3 16 Works Tendered 2 2 1 1 2 8 Requirements

Page 180

Results Detail:

OPTION 1 - IN-HOUSE plus Single Provider TOP UP all works in scope

CRITERIA SCORE HOW MODEL MEETS CRITERIA?

Local Restricted market due to wide scope of works. Contract would 2 Economy provide for use of local supply chain. Tendered rates retained for period of contract, provides Value for 3 resilience against any negative market changes. Ability of money contract to manage supply chain tendering Flexibility and 5 In-House capacity retained. ECI guaranteed ECI In-House lead and managing unique Brand. Supported by Unique Brand 5 Single provider Enhance Access to wide scope of skills. Limited innovation in Capability and 4 comparison to other options. Enhanced capacity Capacity

OPTION 2 - IN-HOUSE plus Single Provider TOP UP, specific works in scope

CRITERIA SCORE HOW MODEL MEETS CRITERIA?

Local 3 Contract would provide for use of local supply chain. Economy Tendered rates retained for period of contract, provides Value for 3 resilience against any negative market changes. Ability of money contract to manage supply chain tendering Flexibility and 5 In-House capacity retained. ECI guaranteed ECI In-House lead and managing unique Brand. Supported by Unique Brand 5 Single provider Enhance Access to wide scope of skills. Limited innovation in Capability and 4 comparison to other options. Enhanced capacity Capacity

Page 181

OPTION 3 - IN-HOUSE plus Multiple Provider TOP UP, specific works in scope

CRITERIA SCORE HOW MODEL MEETS CRITERIA? Scope is likely to be open to local specialist supply chain. Local 4 Works likely to be delivered by provider rather than wider Economy supply chain sub-contracting Lacks economies of scale. Additional project management to Value for 2 deliver schemes. Low mobilisation costs as likely to be local money suppliers. In-House capacity retained. ECI guaranteed. Flexibility limited Flexibility and 4 by need to co-ordinate schemes where multiple providers ECI used. In-House lead and managing unique Brand. Limited by Unique Brand 3 multiple providers, but mitigated by co-ordination. Enhance Capability and 3 Access to innovation in specific skill set Capacity

OPTION 4 – IN HOUSE plus Tendered Requirements (do minimum option for comparison)

CRITERIA SCORE HOW MODEL MEETS CRITERIA?

Local Costs/impact of tendering will lead to packaging of works or 2 Economy use of national frameworks with less control of supply chain Potential for attractive rates through competitive tender. More Value for 2 at risk for any negative market position. High tender, contract money management and back office costs. Flexibility and 1 In-House capacity retained. Reduced opportunity for ECI ECI Very difficult to maintain unique Brand without long term Unique Brand 1 relationship and multiple delivery providers Enhance Access to wide market could provide access to most Capability and 2 innovation. Offset by market reluctance to share without long Capacity term contract

Page 182

5. Preferred Option

5.1 The preferred option is Option 2 In-House delivery with Single contractor Top Up covering a specific scope works. While Option 1 also scored highly the advantage shown by Option 2 was in the increased opportunity to engage with the local market. A key factor in this is that the scope of works required for Option 1 would restrict the potential market to large multi-disciplined national organisations.

6. Procurement Route

6.1 The preferred option identified by this Business Case is a contract model with a single provider for a term service contract period between five and ten years. A call off from an existing contract or Framework Agreement will therefore not be suitable. An OJEU compliant Public Tender will need to be undertaken by the Council. Of the five procedures permitted under Public Contract Regulations the most appropriate route for this requirement will be the Restricted Procedure (two stage procurement).

6.2 Restricted Procedure Justification

6.2.1 The contract requirements, service and works, are well known to the authority and can be clearly defined, in particular through use of the HMEP standard form documents. The new contract will be similar to the previous arrangement so there is not a significant change or need for new methods of delivery. The conclusion is that procurement procedures involving negotiation, dialogue or innovation are not a key requirement in this tender process.

6.2.2 It is anticipated that there will be a number of interested providers for this contract opportunity. The tender process will require a significant investment on behalf of tenderers to complete all the required documentation and provide evidence. These factors exclude the Open Procedure and highlight that the Restricted Procedure is appropriate, as it includes the ability to shortlist interested providers before the invitation to tender period.

6.3 Consultation with authorities that have recently undertaken procurements for similar requirements and consultation with the potential market will be key activities to decide the tender process. These consultations will be specifically used to finalise the factors detailed below in part 6.5.

6.4 Timetable

The following table indicates the timescales for the formal activities of the tender process, in particular those required by Public Contract Regulations:

Activity No. of Concurrent days No. of days Publish informal PIN inviting providers to market consultation. 15 15 Market Consultation and collation of responses. 10 25

Page 183

Publish Contract Notice. Invite EOI and PQQ responses. 30 55 Evaluate PQQ responses. Financial checks and obtain 15 70 references. Invitation to Tender. 25 95 Evaluate ITT and Award Decision. 10 105 Standstill Period. Provide feedback. 10 115 Formal Award Decision. Pre-Contract Award meeting 5 120

6.5 Factors to be decided during the procurement development period:

6.5.1 Collaboration with Poole and Bournemouth Councils.

Collaboration between the three Highways authorities in Dorset has been set as a key aim for the new contract model. Officers from both Poole and Bournemouth Councils have been involved in the development of the business case for the new contract.

Before publication of tender there will need to be agreement between the three authorities on the process and commitment to the result. As there is no formal status between the authorities, there will either be one contract (with DCC), and services delivered on a sub-contract SLA basis by DCC, or a separate contract with each authority. The later example will in effect be a collaborative tender process only. Options within this are to tender as three separate contract requirement (lots) to meet each authorities specific requirements, or all three authorities commit to accept a single award decision in order to benefit from economies of scale.

6.5.2 Tender Evaluation.

Tender Evaluation Models are review and approved by the Councils Head of Procurement. The tender and evaluation process is completed electronically using the Councils e-procurement portal, Pro-Contract.

The selection factors, to shortlist providers to be invited to tender, will need to be developed and approved. Use of template PQQ procedures established by HMEP and Crown Commercial Services, will support the need to meet Public Contract Regulations. There will also need to be discussion with the Councils Procurement and Finance support services, to establish criteria to exclude participation of non- compliant providers and shortlist providers for invitation to tender.

The evaluation weighting allocated between price and quality aspects to make the contract award decision will be decided following consideration of, previous tender processes and examples from other authorities. The tender evaluation scoring method will, as a priority, need to demonstrate transparency and equal treatment, in order to reduce the risk of challenge to the whole tender process. Evaluation scoring will be objective, based upon defined criteria and, where possible, model answers. In view of the long contract term, the tender evaluation will require

Page 184

responses to be directly applicable to the performance management of the contract following award.

Evaluators will be selected only from officers representing the Councils collaborating in the process. They will be required to complete a disclosure of interest form before evaluation begins.

7. Funding and Affordability

7.1 The funding for the Contract is 100% capital from the DfT maintenance block allocation to support structural maintenance and works to structures. Funding from the Integrated Transport Block provides funds for identified Highway Improvements. Further funding is available in the form of the Pothole Fund and Cabinet approved corporate top up. Subject to approval, this contract will also be available to deliver capital schemes commissioned from the DLEP.

8. Management Arrangements

8.1 The Contract will be governed by a Strategic Board meeting quarterly, whose role will be to review the performance of the Contractor by means of a series of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) relating to safety, quality, environmental impact, timeliness and financial performance. These KPI’s will be submitted monthly and reviewed annually to ensure continuing improved performance.

8.2 The KPI performance data will provide evidence to base any decision to award possible Contract extensions.

8.3 The Strategic Board will be supported by an Operations Board who will meet monthly to review the Contractors performance, consider and provide recommendations to the Strategic Board on matters such as budget and programme issues, resources and expenditure, training requirements and items of innovation.

8.4 A risk register has been established for the procurement project (see Appendix F) and a risk register would be created for the Contract and reviewed at the Strategic Board.

Page 185 This page is intentionally left blank

HTSC – LESSONS LEARNT & INCEPTION MEETING Monday 25 January 2016

M I N U T E S

Present: Tim Norman (Chair) - DCC Andrew Martin - DCC Julian McLaughlin – Poole Borough Council Ian Kalra – Bournemouth Borough Council Jack Wiltshire - DCC Stuart Allen - DCC Dave Blackburn - DCC David McDonald - DCC Richard Colby - DCC Adrian Norcombe - DCC Martin Hill - DCC Lisa Goodfield (Minutes)

Action 1. WELCOME / INTRODUCTIONS

Everyone introduced themselves to the group.

2. OUTLINE OF THE THREE NEW PROCURMENTS AND THAT HTSC RE-PROCRUEMENT WILL BE PART OF THAT

The existing partnership with Hanson was going to run until 2019 but after A338 works were implemented we had gone over the OJEU limit. DCC Procurement and Legal Services are happy that we are now undergoing a re-procurement and are content with the letter to Hanson extending the contract to end of March 2017. This now gives us a year to re-procure.

Hampshire are currently procuring their Gen 3 contract and DCC have been named on this so we can utilise this from the 1 April 2016. Bournemouth and Poole are also on this. Concern from DCC is that there is no guarantee that you are going to get contractor if everyone is busy. The ability for us to have predictability of costs is significantly reduced from within a multi supplier framework. DCC feel that it is best to also re-procure our third generation partnership. HMEP felt the arrangement we had with Hanson’s was very good and it is seen as good practice.

DCC would like to get collaboration with Bournemouth and Poole and build on what we have done.

If and when we do procure this partnership we could still use the Hampshire Framework so that we can monitor that our partnership is still offering us best value.

Page 187

Dorset Property have repairs and maintenance framework which was used by other authorities. Currently using call off contracts which will expire in June 2017. Dorset travel have major contract with Damory and this is currently being negotiated to extend until April 2017. It has been put forward that teams from these 3 services use the Peer support, cross service challenge to consolidate the processes and documents that come up through this process. Teams will be made up of the services to look at the processes with E&ELT sponsoring and monitoring the process.

AN said that it has been harder to motivate contract to carry out smaller works. JW advised that Hanson are supply and lay contractor and it will be interesting to see how others would approach this contract.

Devon are currently going through procurement with Wiltshire and Hampshire just about to as well. As it stands, by Autumn, Wiltshire will be awarded and Hampshire GEN 3 will be awarded.

3. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT CONTRACT, TIMESCALE TO RUN, UPDATE ON ISSUES E.G. OJEU

TSN presented a summary based on the attached documents issued with the Agenda.

4. REVIEW OF WHAT WENT WELL / NOT SO WELL ON HTSC

See Appendix A.

5. AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT, WISH LIST

See Appendix A.

6. CHANGES IN PROCUREMENT LEGISLATION

DMc advised it has only changed slightly. Now all the tender documents need to be ready before you do a PIN notice. This gives companies more time to look at requirements.

7. RESOURCING THE PROCUREMENT

AM/TN sit on Network Commissioning Group. To move re-procurement forward, AN will lead assisted by SA and DB. All documentation from current HTSC is available but we should be looking at other forms of contract as well. We have from now until 1 August to develop documentation and have completed ready to go to market on 1 September.

8. PROCUREMENT TIMESCALE Mandatory timescale which includes PIN, PQQ, second stage and standstill period is 100 days. This is mandatory and cannot be shortened.

PIN, PQQ and schedule of rates would go out in one.

Page 188

PIN (Prior Information Notice) – minimum of 35 days.

Definitive Timeline – DMc to prepare and circulate to group. DMc

HMAP have produced standard contract documents – if used, we would need to be careful as they have been compiled predominately by the private sector. Previous documents used have worked well for us but we would need to be able to say, if asked, that HMAP contracts have been looked at.

9. GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK (BETTER BUSINESS CASE MODEL)

AN will attend Network Commissioning Group to update on regular basis.

Once we know whether Bournemouth / Poole wish to be in OJEU then AN would liaise with them and get representatives from both authorities involved.

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

AN/SA/DB will put documentation together calling on others to help when required.

11. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Tuesday 29 March 2016 – 2.30 pm, Committee Room 4, County Hall

Page 189

APPENDIX A

HTSC – LESSONS LEARNT & INCEPTION MEETING Review of What Went Well / Not so Well 25 January 2016

Not so Well

 Lack of innovation and investment in new technology.  Innovation restricted.  Recycling disappointing.  Poor performance on some KPI’s.  Reciprocal working – lack of work coming back to DHO.  Inability to undertake smaller schemes.  Some picking and choosing.  Small scheme capability.  Smaller contracts restricted.  Outputs.  Some materials not available (6mm road lay)  Some difficulty in getting poor workmanship rectified.  Delivery of material on time.  Unwilling to lay HRA.  Margins on small projects sliding scale.   Sole provider – risk of failure.  Delivery Issues  Quality.   Unrealistic rates for items of work not used often.  Why do Hanson not like to do smaller improvement projects.

Went Well

 Considerate Contractors Scheme (CCS) participation  CCS – success  Very good safety culture.  Partnership Manager full time.  Good working relationship.  Integrate well with DHO staff workforce.   True partnership working.  Build a solid supply chain.  Cost predictability.  Good value for money.  Good Open Relationships.  Good staff.  Non adversarial.  Governance structure (Ops Group and Board).  Very advantageous bituminous rates.  Good performance on big schemes.  Delivered big complicated politically sensitive schemes well.   Quality and value of output.

Page 190

 One contractor to deal with.  No mini competition.  KPI’s to drive extensions to contract.  Share programme.  Embedded Liaison Manager  Lack of claims.  No blame culture.  Open book accounting.

Wish List

 Use of Recycling.  Emphasis on recycling opportunities.  Low energy asphalt.  Local Supply Chain.  Back office payment process.  Civil / Coastal works.  Focus on Innovation.  Flexible quarry source.  Ability to carry out smaller Improvement and Bridge schemes.  Schedule of rates for small schemes.  More smaller Civils companies in supply chain  Flexible local source supply chain.  Benchmarking – quality – value Vs In-house & External  Sharing technology, i.e. extending IT licences (e-invoicing).  Use Confirm to Admin.  Incentivise Innovations and Savings.  Light on administration.  Testing of Materials.  QS and Engineer combined.  Partnership documentation.  ECI Improvement.  Ability to influence design and minimise contractor risk.

Page 191 This page is intentionally left blank

INFLUENCE ASSESSMENT (CASE FOR CHANGE)

HTSC Replacement 13 April 2016

Following Collaborative meeting 13.04.16

Core influences Fully Partially Not aligned aligned aligned A. Procurement, contracting, standardisation 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% B. Collaboration and Shared Services 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% C. Asset Management 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% D. Benchmarking and Performance Improvement 83.3% 16.7% 0.0% E. Corporate Strategy and Objectives 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% F. Public Perception 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% G. VFM / Affordability / Finance 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% H. Governance 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% I. Scope 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Overall need for changes summary 60.7% 36.5% 2.8%

A. PROCUREMENT, CONTRACTING, STANDARDISATION

1. Are you content that your existing delivery model makes the most of current market conditions? Answer: Yes In House service allows market testing in comparison with the top up contract. The contract has market testing through open book tendering. Current model is robust and proven with the supply chain. Rates have also been market tested and also proven. Main supplier with supply chain has benefits of only dealing with one organisation from a contract perspective but flexibility of supply chain for particular projects. Main Contractor has economies of scale for materials purchase and ability to source / procure specialist equipment nationally, but can use local supply chain where appropriate. Indices reflect changes in prices up and down. Target cost projects under NEC option C ensure actual cost paid plus minimal fee on fee. Effective apportionment of risk between Contractor and Employer. Partnering / Collaborative style of contract promotes trust and minimises claims. ECI in current contract is very effective at making the most of market conditions so that specialist equipment and long lead in materials supply can be secured early without affecting delivery programme or potential loss of expertise with different contractor for main works. There is an opportunity to improve access to small specialist contractors and SME in the supply chain.

2. Do new procurement methodologies exist which are likely to result in a better deal for the authority? Answer: Some/maybe Some, not vastly different but more heavily structured, require higher levels of administration, specific project documentation (for mini competitions) and construction supervision. Competitive with Negotiation. HCC GEN 3 model. Use of HMEP standardised documents. The mixed economy model (In-house plus top-up with single supplier and supply chain) used by Dorset works well as demonstrated by “Lessons Learnt” exercise to review current arrangements and HMEP peer review.

3. Are more flexible contracting arrangements available that are likely to result in a better deal for the authority? Answer: Some/maybe

Page 193

There are other flexible contract models but it is unknown if would result in a better deal. Comparison with GEN 3. For example, there is no guarantee that the contractor you engage in ECI to work with the employer on a contract will win the construction work under GEN 3. ECI benefits are improved with a top-up single supplier contract direct award. It would be useful to encourage SME and specialist contractors in the supply chain for the current arrangements.

4. Would your authority benefit financially from greater standardisation of the service requirements in line with other industry clients? Answer: Some/maybe Existing Contract has standardisation included and benefits are realised. Consideration is being made to use the HMEP standard form of contract in order to realise further benefits and ensure replacement delivery model is delivered within timescales. However, need to strike the right balance to ensure innovation is encouraged.

5. Are you aware of the impact of your current contract on the supply chain community? Answer: Yes Partnership Allows for awareness of the impact to be identified through project development. Dorset is however a smaller authority than some of the neighbouring County councils and so need to be realistic on impact on the market. Good awareness of how large single capital projects, such as the A338 maintenance scheme can impact on the market.

6. Does your current model get the best out of the wider supply chain? Answer: Some/maybe Improvements that can be made include social value? Local suppliers but we currently do get the best out of the wider supply chain i.e. A338. The ability of our current contract arrangements has been instrumental in attracting and being successful in winning external funding / bidding rounds for capital projects. This is due to the saving in procurement time and costs and use of ECI. For example LSTF, Weymouth Transport Package and DLEP projects.

B. COLLABORATION AND SHARED SERVICES

1. To what extent do you currently benefit from collaborating or sharing services with other clients for the procurement of highways maintenance? Answer: No Dorset focused contract. No economies of scale or opportunity to share direct access to the contract with other authorities.

2. To what extent do you currently benefit from collaborating or sharing services with other clients for the delivery of highways maintenance? Answer: Some/maybe Some collaboration on design work (for projects to be constructed using the current HTSC) as a design contract was procured in collaboration with Somerset County Council. Dorset worked with BBC and Poole to jointly deliver LSTF projects

3. Do opportunities exist to join or form collaborative alliances or to share services? Answer: Yes Collaboration Pan Dorset for the future Delivery model. Governance structure for re- procurement exercise includes BBC, PBC and DLEP.

4. Are you currently part of a collaborative alliance? Answer: Yes

Page 194

South West Highway Alliance, Hampshire County Council GEN3 Framework and Somerset County Council Civil Engineering Transportation and Consultancy Services To-up Contract..

C. ASSET MANAGEMENT

1. Do you have the inventory and condition data to manage the key assets in accordance with the TAMP to define your approach to highways maintenance? Answer: Yes This is referring to the HAMP. Dorset uses “Confirm” a Highway Management Systems software package to store and report on the inventory and condition data.

2. Does your contract address the issues raised by the principles of Lifecycle planning toolkit, incorporating default carriageway deterioration models, "Going the Distance" and the Pothole Review? Answer: Yes We have utilised the lifecycle planning toolkit for our carriageway asset, to inform decision making relating to treatment options. We also used the lifecycle planning toolkit to identify the effects of different investment scenarios on condition, which resulted in additional capital investment in support of resurfacing strategies.

Dorset was ranked as a Band 2 authority in the Department for Transport's Self-Assessment Questionnaire, and is making good progress to achieving Band 3. The progression of the Highways Asset Management Plan chapters relating to individual asset groups means lifecycle plans are being developed for other significant asset groups in association with group leads.

Dorset has adopted many of the recommendations in the Pothole Review scoring Band 3 in the self-assessment in relation to this, through proactive treatments and permanent repairs. Dorset's asset management approach aligns with the recommendations set out in the HMEP Highways Infrastructure Asset Management guidance document.

D. BENCHMARKING AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

1. Does your current contract meet your needs? Answer: Yes High level objective to “Keep Dorset Moving” is met through delivery of the Mixed Economy model, In-house plus top-up. On a project by project basis the current performance and delivery needs are being met. The current model is flexible to cover routine, cyclical and improvement works varying considerably in cost and complexity. It is responsive and allows peaks in demand to be managed effectively. There is room for improvement to bring in SME and specialist contractors to the supply chain.

2. Do your KPIs measure your priorities according to your TAMP? Answer: Some/maybe Unclear If this could be included going forward. 3 or 4 existing KPIs have a tenuous link to the HAMP.

3. Is the difference between contract (Specification) and operational performance recognised and measured? Answer: Yes

Page 195

KPIS are effective and improve performance, reviewed at Board and Operational meetings. A dedicated liaison officer to the current HTSC ensures that operational performance is recorded, compared with the specification and reported.

4. Do you benchmark with adjacent or similar Authorities? Answer: Yes ADEPT Benchmarking club and also APSE benchmarking. NHT survey participation. Dorset’s softer experiences with the current contract are also shared at SWHA, and used as a case study in the HMEP procurement route choices.

5. Have you instigated improvement plans based on your performance measures and were they effective? Answer: Yes NHT survey Improvements made re communication. Concerns reported through KPIs for delivery and quality of materials led to the Contractor producing an action plan. This has improved performance measures and resulted in significant investment in the Whatley facility.

6. Is your current contract outcome focused? Answer: Yes Could be improved but outcomes are covered to some extent by the KPIs. High level outcomes set by DCC and the Strategic Board. Use of the Target Cost Option C for Major projects and ECI very much ensures that the delivery team (In-house and Private Sector) is focused on the outcomes for the project. The team work with a partnership / collaborative approach to jointly own problems and share information in an open manner which solves issues and ensures good outcomes.

DLEP could be included in future contract Delivery Model.

E. CORPORATE STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES BENCHMARKING AND Performance

1. Have Corporate strategy and goals changed since you last let a contract where the change must be reflected in the new contract? Answer: Some/maybe Corporate strategy has changed and is expected to do so in the future. But only some of this will need to be reflected in the future delivery model as in general the delivery model will cover most objectives.

2. Does the service being delivered through the current contract meet current and future expectations? Answer: Some/maybe Current expectations are met. Some uncertainty regarding future unitary status, and arrangements for DLEP funding could mean there is a different politically preferred model. However, the Top up arrangement is sufficiently flexible to give a high level of confidence it will meet future expectations as it has coped well with the significant change and challenges experienced in the last 7 years. These years have covered a huge change in the level of funding, capacity in the industry and types and complexity of project put through the contract.

3. Has the shape of the Authority changed such that the new contract needs to be aligned differently? Answer: Some/maybe

Page 196

The move to unitary and future funding arrangement through the DLEP may require a change in alignment for the contract and more evidence to be produced to assure its value for money and effectiveness.

4. Is there evidence that the current contract delivers the required outcomes? Answer: Some/maybe Evidence that the Delivery model is meeting the key objective of Keeping Dorset Moving. Further evidence will be required to show that wider Council and DLEP objectives are met through the Delivery Model.

Monitoring reports for major projects have demonstrated that these projects delivered under this contract have delivered the required outcomes.

F. PUBLIC PERCEPTION

1. Does the Authority participate in the National Highway Survey? Answer: Yes F. Public Perception 2. Is the Authority in the top quartile of the NHS? Answer: Yes

3. Is public satisfaction with the service a priority issue that is currently at an acceptable level? Answer: Yes

G. VFM / AFFORDABILITY / FINANCE

1. Do you measure value for money? Answer: Yes Some Open book accounting tendering through contractor. There is benchmarking with the in-house delivery. HMEP review

2. Do you compare your cost data with other LHAs? Answer: Some/maybe Some Based on revenue spend per km and capital spend through DMG. (Can the Asset and Performance team add more here?)

3. Do you compare favourably against other LHAs? Answer: Yes DH rank 14 In comparison with 33 SW authorities

4. Are the costs, as opposed to price, clearly identified and understood by all parties? Answer: Yes A mixed delivery team (In House and private sector) and open book, especially on option B and C contracts ensures that there is transparency between costs and price.

5. Do you understand and accept who holds or pays for risk? Answer: Yes Option B and C Target Cost contracts clearly identifies, allocates and manages risk through projects. There is clear allocation of risk within the performance management and the contract documents used. Partnership working also enhances this.

Page 197

H. GOVERNANCE VFM / Affordability / Finance

1. Do your current governance arrangements for highways maintenance need improvement? Answer: No There is robust contract governance in place including regular Operational and Board meetings which include regular monthly and annual performance reviews. There is also a dispute resolution procedure that tellingly is very rarely used. Furthermore, there are ad-hoc lessons learnt and team building events to promote a collaborative and partnering ethos. Supply chain partners are invited to governance and project meetings as appropriate. For major project these also have their own supplementary governance structures which include stakeholder representation.

2. Do your governance arrangements provide clearly defined roles and responsibilities of both client and provider? Answer: Yes

3. Do you involve the wider supply chain in contract governance? Answer: Yes Wider supply chain attends the Operational and Board meetings as appropriate to update on performance. Also clear communication between supply chain and DH Management Team.

I. SCOPE

1. Does the scope of your current contract deliver the Highway maintenance service you require? Answer: Some/maybe Will need to ensure that the contract also delivers a range of smaller value works (such as Highway Improvements, Bridges and Structures) to gain full benefit from the top up model. It is likely we need to encourage more SMEs into the supply chain. There may be a need to future proof as much as is practicable to allow for a Pan Dorset Contract opportunity.

Page 198 Environment and the Economy Forward Together Challenge Group 22 September 2014

HIGHWAYS SERVICE DELIVERY

Report by Andrew Martin, Head of Dorset Highways

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The Forward Together Board on 19 March received a report on the options for future highways service delivery and agreed that the following options be progressed to business case stage.

(a) a mixed economy approach - core elements of the service being delivered by in-house teams supplemented by a number of strategic partnerships and framework contracts with private sector providers who provide specific specialist services or supplement in-house service resources at times of high demand and look to optimise or enhance the value we obtain from our strategic partners.

(b) An Arms-Length "Teckal" Company - a wholly owned county council Arms-Length company operating in accordance with EU Procurement Law and trading with private sector markets under the collective arrangement commonly known as the "Teckal Exemption".

2. CURRENT POSITION

2.1 To further inform this process and to offer some additional evidence to support the consideration of these options, a Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme (HMEP) Peer Review was commissioned to give an impartial external perspective on the current service performance and opportunities for improvement. HMEP is a sector led transformation initiative sponsored by the Department for Transport, and a copy of their powerpoint presentation provided at the completion of the three day visit will be available at the meeting (see item 4 on the agenda).

2.2 The opportunities for harvesting savings by establishing a TECKAL company fell into three key areas:

(i) Significantly increase level of external trading.

(ii) Reduce overhead and back office costs through revised central services recharges or establishing shared service arrangements with one or more other local authorities.

(iii) Ability to amend employee terms and conditions of employment to reduce sickness costs and employer's pensions contributions and introduce performance incentives such as profit share and enhanced overtime pay.

Page 199 2.3 It was assumed at the outset of the research into the TECKAL option, that category (iii) above offered the financially advantageous opportunity to generate savings. In relation to Category (i), significant levels of additional business would have to be secured bearing in mind that profit margins within the civil engineering sector are within the 1-5% range. In addition savings in back office savings Category (ii) is dependent on the Whole Council approach to reducing central charges or the appetite, or ability, to the transferring of business support services to a third party and a clear method of dealing with any 'stranded' costs.

2.4 However, from the outset, concerns have been raised about the potential risk to the County Council, of equal pay claims, arising out of any changes to employee terms and conditions. Following the report to the 19 March Forward Together Board updated legal advice has been obtained. The Director for Environment and the Economy provided the Board with an informal verbal summary of the advice, at its meeting on 3 September.

2.5 Legal advice has been commissioned and the detailed advice from Grace Evans, Principal Solicitor is attached as Appendix A. Commented[gel]: Is this my email advice of 28 August?

2.6 Of significant importance is the recent Fox v Glasgow City Council case where the City Council and its Arms-Length Companies attempted to defend Equal Pay Claims on the basis that their wholly owned companies and the council were not "associated" and that the council was not the "single source" responsible for pay equality - they failed.

2.7 The legal advice is clear that the impact of changing terms and conditions regardless of whether 'enhanced' or 'reduced' creates an increased risk of claims and increased liability of both the county council and any Arms-Length organisation. The risk of claims is considered to be further increased due to the predominantly male workforce of any highway company making it a strong comparator for any predominantly female staff groups. Changes to employee terms and conditions proposed are not minor changes, and the ability to change terms and conditions and achieve savings is a key driver for a Teckal company. For those reasons, offering differing employee terms and conditions is strongly advised against.

3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 As a consequence of the legal advice, a Dorset Highways TECKAL company would have to be established without the ability to amend any terms and conditions and as a result this significantly reduces the potential of this option returning efficiency savings to the County Council.

3.2 With this conclusion becoming clearer, a decision has to be made whether we wish to proceed with the production of a detailed business case for the TECKAL option. Indicative costs for commissioning a private sector consultant/expert to carry out this work are in the region of £50,000. Taking into account the above developments, spending such a significant figure on further research into the TECKAL option is difficult to justify or support.

3.3 The current "Systems Thinking" review of the Highways service is on schedule to ensure that the specific targets set within the Forward Together Programme are achieved and that further savings will contribute towards the whole Directorate challenges.

2

Page 200 4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 The mixed economy arrangements currently in place have successfully delivered the highways service for a number of years despite decreasing resources. In the coming months, the service review will be completed and new more efficient working arrangements put in place. This will form part of the second phase of the Directorate's restructuring and initial indications are that the service specific targets and contributions to the wider Directorate programme will be achieved.

4.2 It is recommended that in view of the legal advice outlined above and within the Appendices, the option of exploring the formation of a Dorset TECKAL Company should not be progressed any further.

4.3 Furthermore that the "Mixed Economy" service model be progressed including further work to optimise and enhance the value we obtain from the use of our strategic partners. Our approach will be informed by the Peer Review and aided by use of the Systems Thinking process to ensure the Forward Together financial targets are achieved.

4.4 The Challenge Group's comments on this way forward are sought, which will be reported back to the Forward Together Board in October, seeking agreement.

Andrew Martin Head of Dorset Highways September 2014

3

Page 201 APPENDIX A

Highway Delivery Options - Teckal company

Legal Advice relating to employee terms and conditions

I am asked to provide advice, about the ability of any County Council owned Highway Company, to change its employees' terms and conditions, and any subsequent scope for employees to bring equal pay claims. •

In this advice note I am looking at the scope for employees to bring equal pay claims. That does not mean that any claims would be likely to succeed, which would depend on whether it could be shown that differentials in pay and other terms and conditions of employment are discriminatory on the grounds of gender.

The bullet points below set out the position that has existed (pre-Fox) and summarises the advice given to Cormac and Cornwall County Council by Counsel in October 2011 and Trowers advice to us in April 2014.

• Under the Equality Act 2010 and for the purpose of an Equal pay claim, a permissible comparator includes an employee of an "associate" of the claimant's employer. And under the same Act employers are associated if (a) one is a company of which the other has control, or (b) both are companies of which a third person has control.

• A Council owned Highway company and controlling Council will be "associates".

•. A Council owned Highway company.and another Council owned company would also be "associates" if both are controlled by the Council (a third person). '"r~.

• Employees across the companies and Council could be permissible comparators if they work at the same establishment, or at different establishments but common terms apply.

• Comparison is also permissible where an employee and comparator are employed in the same service with a single source of terms (Le. one body with the power to restore equal treatment).

• Employees of a Council owned Highway company would probably be able to bring equal pay claims citing employees of the County Council as comparators (or vice versa) on the basis the Highway company is controlled by the County Council and:

• employees transferring f,romthe County Council will satisfy the "common terms and condltlons't llrnb of the test; and,

• new recruits will be able to show they are in the "same service" with a "single source". -v.

• Highway company employees who are transferred from the County Council under TUPE would be more likely to be able to satisfy the tests and bring claims than new recruits to the Highway company who have never worked for the County Council.

Page 202 • There is an additional and increased risk of equal pay claims between new recruits to the Highway company and those company employees who transferred from the County Council, if the new recruits are on different terms.

• The risk of equal pay claims is increased where the employees (company or council) are in predominantly single gender dominated roles.

• It is possible to mitigate the risk of claims by job evaluation study, equality impact assessments (impact of implementing proposals on protected groups) and not giving employees in an area of business which is predominantly one gender, more favourable terms and conditions than other employees. Trowers suggested that the governance arrangements between the Council and Highway company could give the company absolute responsibility for setting terms and conditions of employment. Quite apart from whether that is something we would want to do, this is not a tried and tested mitigation. It is not clear if that alone would be sufficient to defeat a .claim, and nor is the impact on "Teckal" status clear. For example, I am not clear if transferring control of employees to the Highway company would result in our failing the Teckal test, by no longer exerting the same control over the company as we would an internal department. We would need case law to assess those options, and there are currently no cases on those points.

• Alternatively, an employer may be able to defend equal pay claims on the basis of an "objective justification" of differing terms and conditions - i.e, the difference is due to factors unrelated to gender.

The Fox v Glasgow City Council case involves a claim by female claimants of arm's length external organisations set up and controlled by Glasgow City Council. Glasgow and the arm's length companies had attempted to defend proceedings on the basis the companies between them and Council were not associated and the Council was not the single source responsible for pay equality. They failed. The case now continues to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

The impact of this case is to give clarity, that in setting up different or complicated organisational structures, councils and the organisations they set up and control will not escape equal pay liability. It clarifies that Community Interest Companies and Limited Liability Companies in particular can be "companies" capable of being an "associated employer". In short, it confirms the position set out in the bullet points above.

I advise that, whilst this County Council may establish a wholly owned Highway company, and offer different employment terms and conditions to new recruits and/or TUPE'd employees, that would create a substantially increased risk of equal pay claims against the County Council and/or any other arm's length organisations that exist or may be established in the future. It would create a new and potentially substantial liability for the Council and any other organisations we establish and control. The risk of such claims is further increased due to the predominantly male workforce of the intended Highway company.

Given the impact of changing terms and conditions, the increased risk of claims and increased liability of both the County Council and its arm's length organisations, I would strongly advise against offering differing terms and conditions of employment to employees of any Highway company.

2

Page 203 If a decision is taken to proceed with the Highway company, then assessments and mitigations would need to be carried out as part of the preparation of a Business Case.

This advice looks at Equal pay issues only and does not include any TUPE or pensions advice.

Grace Evans 28 August 2014

3

Page 204 ID Task Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors 16 May '16 23 May '16 30 May '16 06 Jun '16 13 Jun '16 20 Jun '16 27 Jun '16 04 Jul '16 11 Jul '16 18 Jul '16 25 Jul '16 01 Aug '16 08 Aug '16 15 Aug '16 22 Aug '16 29 Aug '16 05 Sep '16 12 Sep '16 19 Sep '16 26 Sep '16 03 Oct '16 10 Oct '16 17 Oct '16 24 Oct '16 31 Oct '16 07 Nov '16 14 Nov '16 21 Nov '16 28 Nov '16 05 Dec '16 12 Dec '16 19 Dec '16 26 Dec '16 02 Jan '17 09 Jan '17 16 Jan '17 23 Jan '17 30 Jan '17 06 Feb '17 13 Feb '17 20 Feb '17 27 Feb '17 06 Mar '17 13 Mar '17 20 Mar '17 27 Mar '17 03 Apr '17 Mode W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1

2

3 Cabinet Approval 29 days Thu 19/05/16Wed 29/06/16

4 Issue of initial draft cabinet report 0 days Thu 19/05/16Thu 19/05/16 19/05

5 Review and amendments 17 days Thu 19/05/16Fri 10/06/16 4

6 Issue of final report 0 days Fri 10/06/16 Fri 10/06/16 5 10/06

7 29/06

Page 205 Page Cabinet Meeting 0 days Wed 29/06/16Wed 29/06/166FS+9 days

8 Cabinet approval received 0 days Wed 29/06/16Wed 29/06/167 29/06

9

10 OJEU Open procedures 142 days Wed 29/06/16Mon 30/01/17

11 Prepare PIN 4 days Wed 29/06/16Mon 04/07/167

12 Issue PIN 0 days Mon 04/07/16Mon 04/07/1611 04/07

13 Industry Engagement Day 1 day Tue 26/07/16 Tue 26/07/1612FS+15 days

14 Prepare Pre-qualifcation questionaire (PQQ) 9 days Fri 26/08/16 Thu 08/09/1616FS-10 days

15 Prepare Contract Notice 9 days Fri 26/08/16 Thu 08/09/1616FS-10 days

16 Issue Contract Notice 0 days Fri 09/09/16 Fri 09/09/16 13FS+4 days,39 09/09

17 Expressions of interest period and issue of PQQs 24 days Mon Thu 16 (minimum 30 days) 12/09/16 13/10/16

18 Evaluation of PQQs 15 days Fri 14/10/16 Thu 03/11/16

19 Financial evaluation 15 days Fri 14/10/16 Thu 03/11/1617

20 Quality & technical evalution 15 days Fri 14/10/16 Thu 03/11/1617

21 Confirmation of selected tenderers 0 days Thu 03/11/16Thu 03/11/1619,20 03/11

22 Issue of invitation to tender 0 days Thu 03/11/16Thu 03/11/1621,39 03/11

23 Tender period (minimum 25 days) 31 days Fri 04/11/16 Fri 16/12/16 22

24 Dealine for questions and clarification 0 days Thu 17/11/16Thu 17/11/1623SF+10 days 17/11

25 End of tender period 0 days Fri 16/12/16 Fri 16/12/16 23FF 16/12

26 Assessment of tenders 10 days Tue 03/01/17 Mon 16/01/1725

27 Selection and notification of preferred tenderer 0 days Mon Mon 26 16/01 16/01/17 16/01/17

28 Standstill period (10 days) 9 days Tue 17/01/17 Fri 27/01/17 27

29 Issue contract award notice 0 days Mon 30/01/17Mon 30/01/1728FS+1 day 30/01

30

31 Tender Documents 72 days Wed 01/06/16Fri 09/09/16

32 Draft document 60 days Wed 01/06/16Tue 23/08/16

33 Form of contract and contract data 50 days Wed 01/06/16Tue 09/08/16

34 Service Information 50 days Wed 01/06/16Tue 09/08/16

35 Price List, Method of Measurement preamble and 50 days Wed Tue standard details 01/06/16 09/08/16

36 Specification 50 days Wed 01/06/16Tue 09/08/16

37 Review of draft documents 10 days Wed 10/08/16Tue 23/08/1633,34,35,36

38 Amendments to draft documents 10 days Wed 24/08/16Wed 07/09/1637

39 Finalise draft documents 2 days Thu 08/09/16Fri 09/09/16 38

40

41 Implementation 45 days Tue 31/01/17Mon 03/04/17

42 Moblisation period 9 wks Tue 31/01/17 Mon 03/04/1729

43 Pre-contract meeting 0 days Mon 27/02/17Mon 27/02/1729FS+20 days 27/02

44 Contract Start Date 0 days Mon 03/04/17Mon 03/04/1742 03/04

Project: Dorset HTSC Re-tende Task Milestone Project Summary Inactive Milestone Manual Task Manual Summary Rollup Start-only External Tasks Deadline Manual Progress Date: Thu 02/06/16 Split Summary Inactive Task Inactive Summary Duration-only Manual Summary Finish-only External Milestone Progress

Page 1 This page is intentionally left blank

Equality Impact Assessment – Screening Form

Service: Environment and Economy, Dorset Highways.

Title of Strategy, policy, project or service:

The reprocurement of the Highway Term Service Contract.

Type of Strategy (select as appropriate)

Existing: X New/proposed:  Changing/Update/revision  Other please list below

Officers Involved in the Screening:

Adrian Norcombe, Jack Wiltshire, Stuart Allen and Dave Stone

1. What is the aim of your strategy, policy, project or service?

To reprocure the Highway Term Service Contract using the Department of Transport commissioned “Procurement Route Choices for Highway Maintenance Services” toolkit as produced by the Highway Maintenance Efficiency Programme.

2. Who will it impact upon (For example, service users, visitors, staff members)

Staff who are engaged and tasked with producing Contract documentation for the reprocurement exercise to exacting standards within very tight timescales. This will have to be delivered on top of their existing workload.

1 Page 207

3. Does or could the service, strategy, policy, project or change have an impact upon the following:

Positive Negative Neutral Protected characteristic Unclear impact impact impact X Age X Disability X Gender Identity X Pregnancy and Maternity X Race and Ethnicity X Religion or Belief X Sex X Sexual Orientation Other socially excluded groups (Carers, rural isolation, low X income, armed forces personnel))

2 Page 208

4. Does this have any impact on the workforce in relation to the following:

Positive Negative Neutral Protected characteristic Unclear impact impact impact X Age X Disability X Gender Identity X Pregnancy and Maternity X Race X Religion or Belief X Sex X Sexual Orientation Other socially excluded groups X (Carers, rural isolation, low income, armed forces personnel)

5. If your answers to Q3 and 4 are mostly ‘negative ‘or ‘unclear’, you need to consider a full EqIA. If you do not intend to carry out one, please explain why:

We do not believe the task of reprocuring the Contract will have any adverse effect on any of the groups listed above although once the Contract has been awarded then all sectors of society are affected by virtue of the work being carried out on the Highway network. The mitigation measures that are put in place during the existing Contract are as follows and are proportionate to the scale and type of work that is proposed to be carried out.

3 Page 209

 The local member, residents and businesses that are affected by the works are written to in advance of the scheme informing them of the type of work to be carried out, its duration and the degree of disruption envisaged. Contact details and access and egress arrangements are included.

 Information signs are erected at the extremities of the site location are erected two weeks in advance of the scheme to forewarn road users of the works.

 Employing “gatemen” to advise the public when carriageways are closed.

 When working in busy environments having a dedicated “public liaison officer”.

 Posting information regarding upcoming roadworks on D4U and twitter.

 On large projects setting up a dedicated webpage and blog.

 Following completion of the work residents are requested to complete a simple customer satisfaction survey with the responses analysed and acted upon as necessary.

Upon completion of this form, it must be sent to your Directorate Equality lead for approval.

This EqIA Screening Form was approved by …………..……… on behalf of ……………… Directorate Diversity Group.

This EqIA Screening Form was signed off by ………………….. Project Sponsor

Date:

Action Plan review date:

4 Page 210

5 Page 211 This page is intentionally left blank Ref What is the Risk? Current Risk Rating Modified Movement Since Last Review Risk Lead Risk Owner How Do We Currently Manage this Risk? Is the Risk Acceptable? What Further Actions Will Be Taken? Date Identified Status Directorate Service Workstream Risk Register Type Item Type Path

Clear timeline to be shared with Roland Julian;#265;#David support services; determine R Mcdonald;#208;#Adrian early on whether there is a C Norcombe;#20;#Gordon need to "buy-in" expertise; EE01 Lack of capacity or required skills within support services (legal; finance; HR) High 05/05/16 17:07 Unchanged Sneddon;#125 Mike J Harries FALSE need to identify admin support 25/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset Highways;#E&EE&E Commissioning - Environment;#E&E Network -- Highways;#E&EEconomyProject Risk Commissioning RegisterItem Networkcommunity/risk/Lists/Corporate - Travel;#E&E Commissioning Risk Network Register - Property Page 213 Page

Discussions with legal services have provided confidence that approach is reasonable; ability to H01 Slippage in procurement process results in OJEU challenge Low 29/04/16 11:03 New Adrian C Norcombe;#20 Andrew Martinutilise Hants Gen3 framework TRUE 22/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset HighwaysE&E Commissioning Network - HighwaysProject Risk RegisterItem community/risk/Lists/Corporate Risk Register

H02 Service requirements change as a result of changing legislation or policy (i.e. unitaryLow authority status)29/04/16 11:03 New Adrian C Norcombe;#20 Andrew MartinContract would just novate TRUE 22/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset HighwaysE&E Commissioning Network - HighwaysProject Risk RegisterItem community/risk/Lists/Corporate Risk Register

Awareness that increase in costs Carry out testing of market quite forseeable due to increasing (baseline prices), based on H03 Increase in contract costs above and beyond those anticipated Medium 29/04/16 11:03 New Adrian C Norcombe;#20 Andrew Martinmarket rates since last tender FALSE Hants Gen3 framework 22/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset HighwaysE&E Commissioning Network - HighwaysProject Risk RegisterItem community/risk/Lists/Corporate Risk Register

Potential for differing values/desired outcomes between commissioning Ongoing discussions with H04 partners results in less attractive costs Medium 29/04/16 11:03 New Adrian C Norcombe;#20 Andrew Martin FALSE potential partners 22/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset HighwaysE&E Commissioning Network - HighwaysProject Risk RegisterItem community/risk/Lists/Corporate Risk Register

Scoring within tender will Commitment to "prosperous" include weightings for user of H05 Procurement results are deterimental on the outcomes set out in the corporateLow plan 29/04/16 11:03 New Adrian C Norcombe;#20 Andrew MartinDorset outcome FALSE local suppliers 22/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset HighwaysE&E Commissioning Network - HighwaysProject Risk RegisterItem community/risk/Lists/Corporate Risk Register

Based on well used existing H06 Unable to exit from the contract Low 29/04/16 11:03 New Adrian C Norcombe;#20 Andrew Martinframework TRUE 22/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset HighwaysE&E Commissioning Network - HighwaysProject Risk RegisterItem community/risk/Lists/Corporate Risk Register

Based on well used existing H07 Indicators of success are not clear Low 05/05/16 17:41 New Adrian C Norcombe;#20 Andrew Martinframework TRUE Ensure clear KPI's 22/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset HighwaysE&E Commissioning Network - HighwaysProject Risk RegisterItem community/risk/Lists/Corporate Risk Register

Based on well used existing H08 Insufficient skills or capacity to deliver the procurement within agreed timescalesLow 05/05/16 17:41 New Adrian C Norcombe;#20 Andrew Martinframework; project leads identified FALSE Ensure clear project timeline 22/04/16 00:00 Open Environment & EconomyE&E - Dorset HighwaysE&E Commissioning Network - HighwaysProject Risk RegisterItem community/risk/Lists/Corporate Risk Register This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15 Page 1 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Cabinet Member(s) Peter Finney - Cabinet Member for Environment, infrastructure and Highways Local Member(s) Local members whose divisions include part of Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Lead Director(s) Mike Harries - Director for Environment and the Economy

Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Subject of Report Management

Executive Summary The Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site (WHS) is a globally important asset which puts Dorset firmly on the international map. WHS status has delivered significant economic, social and environmental benefits to the area in the fifteen years since its inscription by UNESCO.

To ensure that WHSs are looked after properly, UNESCO require a managing partnership to be created to develop and implement a Management Plan for each World Heritage Site. As co-sponsors of the bid for inscription, Dorset and Devon County Councils accepted this responsibility on behalf of the UK Government. Dorset County Council hosts the small staff team which develops and co-ordinates delivery of the management plan, and acts as accountable body for the Jurassic Coast WHS Partnership, whose Steering Group is the key decision-making body for the Site.

The existing arrangements for delivering WHS management have worked well to date, but as the Jurassic Coast Trust (a registered charity which sits within the existing partnership to support conservation and education) has grown and developed, some duplication of effort between the Partnership and the Trust has become apparent. At the same time, there has been a growing realisation that the Trust may be better placed to access resources, attract volunteers and recruit supporters to support good Site management than are the County Councils.

Page 215 Page 2 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

With continuing pressure on public funds, the Partnership feels that the time has now come to for the Trust to take on a more prominent leadership role in Site management, thus reducing duplication and seizing the opportunity for the WHS designation to deliver even more for Dorset than it has done to date. The County Councils, the Jurassic Coast Trust and the WHS Steering Group have therefore worked together to develop an innovative proposal to take good WHS management to the next level. Under this proposal:

(i) the main co-ordinating functions currently performed by the County Councils will be transferred to the Jurassic Coast Trust, along with the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team.

(ii) the County Councils will continue to ensure that the obligations for WHS management are met via a tapering grant agreement with the Trust, reducing over 3 years to the minimum level required to fund a defined set of core activities, with the Trust setting income targets to enable at least the current level of Management Plan delivery to be maintained.

(iii) the Trust will be reconstituted (ultimately a decision for the Trust, but a pre-requisite of the proposed approach) to modernise its Articles of Association in line with Charity Commission good practice and to ensure it can undertake the new role within revised charitable objects.

The Jurassic Coast Steering Group will be dissolved (ultimately a decision for the Steering Group, but a pre-requisite of the proposed approach), with a successor body being re-formed within the governance arrangements of the Trust to ensure that the Trustees have access to expert advice on management issues.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: an EQIA Screening Report has been completed which suggests no impacts on equalities groups.

Use of Evidence: a public consultation exercise was held, the results of which have informed development of the proposals in this paper. Evidence in relation to the various sources of funding and support for Site management, the costs of Management Plan delivery and the experience of comparable ‘externalisations’ of public services have also been taken into account.

Budget: under these proposals it is anticipated that the annual revenue cost to Dorset County Council for delivery of the Site Management Plan will reduce from the 2016/17 level of funding of £120,000 (£180,000 including Devon CC contribution), to approximately £80,000 (£120,000 including Devon CC) by 2019/20. The precise amount paid annually via a grant agreement to the Trust will be subject to further discussion with the Trust, depending on the range of functions that are transferred.

Page 216 Page 3 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

This represents a minimum reduction of 33% compared to 2016- 17 budgets. Subject to successful fundraising by the Trust, this should enable at least a ‘steady state’ level of Management Plan delivery at significantly reduced cost to the County Council.

There will be some limited VAT implications arising from the proposals compared to the current situations as, while a good proportion of the Trust’s costs under the proposed model would be for staff, grants and materials relating to fundraising, which are all exempt from VAT, everyday items, including IT, consumables and capital goods (e.g. furniture) will be liable for VAT. The Trust can allow for VAT in funding applications.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: MEDIUM Residual Risk MEDIUM

Other Implications:

Voluntary organisations: the proposed change to WHS management arrangements will see the voluntary and community sector supported to take a more prominent role in World Heritage Site management, and will support the development of the Jurassic Coast Trust by ensuring it has the critical mass to grow and develop. TUPE will apply to the current team members hosted by Dorset County Council (see section 8 of the report).

Recommendation That the Cabinet:

1. Endorse the principles of the proposed changes in World Heritage Site Management arrangements as set out in the Executive Summary above.

2. Approve that, in principle, a three-year grant agreement be made between Dorset County Council (on behalf of itself and Devon County Council) and the Jurassic Coast Trust, to support the delivery of World Heritage Site management, on terms to be agreed by the Head of Environment in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment & Economy.

3. Approve that funds contributed by Devon County Council, the Environment Agency and Natural England to Dorset County Council for the purposes of World Heritage Site management be passed to the Jurassic Coast Trust in future for the same purposes, through appropriate agreements on terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment Infrastructure and Highways.

Page 217 Page 4 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

Further recommendations will be brought back to Cabinet in due course if required.

Reason for To support the delivery of corporate plan outcomes in relation to a Recommendation ‘healthy’ and ‘prosperous’ Dorset in particular.

To improve delivery of WHS Management Plan objectives at reduced cost to the County Council.

Appendices Appendix 1: Business Justification Case Appendix 2: Project Risk Register

Background Papers Jurassic Coast WHS Management Plan 2014-19 Economic Social and Cultural Impact Study (2009) Dorset’s Environmental Economy: Jurassic Coast Economic Impact assessment (2015)

Officer Contact Name: Dr Phil Sterling Tel: 01305 224290 Email: [email protected]

Page 218 Page 5 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

1. Background

1.1 The Dorset and East Devon Coast is England’s only natural World Heritage Site and stretches from Exmouth in East Devon to Studland Bay in Dorset. The spectacular cliffs and fossils found along this 95 mile stretch of the south coast tell an incredible geological story through 185 million years of the Earth’s history. For this reason, it was inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site, having “Outstanding Universal Value”.

1.2 The inscription of the Dorset and East Devon Coast (popularly known as ‘the Jurassic Coast’) has had a transformative effect on the status, profile and prestige of the area, bringing significant social, economic and cultural benefits, as well as enhanced conservation and protection of the coastal environment for which it is inscribed. The evidence for this is summarised in three key documents commissioned over the last 15 years:

 Social, Economic and Cultural Impacts of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site (ERA Consulting, 2009): this report highlighted a range of significant benefits that the Site’s World Heritage designation has brought to the area, including; the creation of a new and valuable identity; a strong national and international brand; inward investment to the area; a strong portfolio of social and cultural benefits; business growth and job creation.  Ten year progress report (Jurassic Coast Team, 2011): this report highlighted a wide range of achievements over the previous 10 years of WH Status, including; support for expansions and refurbishments to existing visitor centres and museums; strong fossil conservation; effective use of the brand; success of the Jurassic Coast Bus X53 service; strong engagement with Dorset and East Devon Schools.  Dorset’s Environmental Economy report (Ash Futures, 2016): this report included a case study into the economic value of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. Its finding showed that: the Jurassic Coast was worth up to c. £111M to the local economy each year, with strong evidence to prove that a significant proportion of that is due to the World Heritage Status; the Jurassic Coast supports up to 2000 jobs; businesses have found an average 9% uplift in turnover resulting from the designation; the investment from the County Councils has brought benefits to the area that far exceed the financial inputs; people have a strong ‘willingness to pay’ to access this area.

1.3 World Heritage Site status has helped many communities and individuals the length of the Jurassic Coast fulfil their ambitions to, for example, develop businesses, create visitor attractions and facilities, enhance the public realm and improve the local environment. While the unique geological features for which the Site is inscribed were present long before World Heritage Site status was awarded, it has undoubtedly put Dorset more firmly on the international map. The approach adopted by the partners in Dorset and East Devon, led by Dorset and Devon County Councils, has also won many plaudits as an example of best practice in World Heritage Site management, being the subject of many awards and accolades, most recently in the form of a prestigious award from the Royal Geographical Society.

2. Current arrangements for World Heritage Site management

2.1 As a condition of inscription of the Jurassic Coast as a World Heritage Site, the UK Government, as a State Party to the 1972 World Heritage Convention, accepted the responsibility to protect the site on behalf of all the people’s of the world. Dorset and Devon County Councils, as instigators and co-sponsors of the bid for inscription, agreed to lead on the delivery of this responsibility on behalf of HM Government. In Page 219 Page 6 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

practical terms, as set out in UNESCO Operational Guidelines, this places obligations on the County Councils to maintain a ‘managing partnership’ to co- ordinate development and delivery of a ‘Management Plan’ to ensure the good management of the Site, and a moral obligation to continue to do so indefinitely.

2.2 The ‘managing partnership’ for the Site is known as the Jurassic Coast Partnership, the governing body of which is the Jurassic Coast Steering Group. The Steering Group oversees the development, implementation and periodic review of the Site Management Plan, and is led by an independent Chair. Dorset County Council acts as host and accountable body for the Partnership, and employer of a small staff team, the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team, employed on behalf of the Partnership to take the lead in developing and co-ordinating delivery of the Management Plan. The current Management Plan was last reviewed in 2014 and runs to 2019.

2.3 A key partner in the Jurassic Coast Partnership is the Jurassic Coast Trust, a registered charity set up by partners with the support of the County Councils to raise and receive funds for conservation and education in support of the aims of the Management Plan. The County Councils appoint representatives to the Board of the Trust but do not have a controlling interest over it.

3. The case for change

3.1 As set out above, the current model for World Heritage Site management has served the communities of Dorset and East Devon very well. However, with continued pressure on public funding it has become apparent that, if the same level and quality of Management Plan delivery is to be maintained in future, and the benefits referred to maintained, a new model will have to be found which makes greater use of private sources of funding, and which is less reliant on public funding.

3.2 This realisation has already informed increasingly close working between the Jurassic Coast Trust and the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team, which have operated in recent years under the principle of ‘one body in spirit if not in fact’. In practical terms, this increasingly close relationship has led to development of a joint annual delivery plan and joint funding bids.

3.3 At the same time, this increasingly close working has exposed a significant level of duplication of effort and administration which is arguably disproportionately burdensome to a small partnership with limited resources. For example, in the current governance settlement, there is a Partnership Steering Group and a Management Committee, plus a Jurassic Coast Trust Board and Management Group, all of which cover overlapping business and often involve the same people (some of whom are volunteers).

3.4 Further details of the rationale for change are set out in the Business Justification Case attached as Appendix 1 to this paper.

4. The options for change

4.1 Over the course of the last 18 months, the WHS Steering Group has been considering the options for a new model for World Heritage Site management with the aim of maintaining at least the same level and quality of Management Plan delivery, whilst reflecting the reality of continued pressure on public funding and the need to secure more private funding to support site management. From a long list of initial options, the three most practicable options were identified as:

Page 220 Page 7 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

 Option 1 - Maintain status quo, accepting the likelihood of reduced public funding: this was considered undesirable by the Partnership as, while the current model has worked well, continued reductions on local authority budgets threaten to progressively undermine the ability to maintain the same level and quality of Management Plan delivery.

 Option 2 - Externalise some or all of the management function to a third party in the voluntary/community sector, supported by grant funding from the County Councils to enable them to continue to meet the obligations to the international community. This option was preferred by the Partnership, which expressed a preference for the ‘third party’ to be a reconstituted Jurassic Coast Trust, whose aims and objectives are already largely aligned with those of the wider Partnership and Management Plan.

 Option 3 - Merge the WHS Partnership with other Partnerships (e.g. AONB Partnerships): this was considered undesirable by the Partnership as, while it would enable some efficiencies at the margins, it would not fully address the problem of reduced public funding, nor take advantage of the opportunities presented by externalisation to the voluntary/community sector. This option also presumed that other Partnerships would be willing and able to contemplate mergers, which further examination suggested was not a safe assumption.

4.2 The preferred option of the Partnership is therefore Option 2. Formal integration of Partnership and Trust into a single entity, supported by the County Councils financially, but not hosted by them, offers a number of additional opportunities:

 The opportunity to access resources not available to the County Councils (either because County Councils are not eligible to seek them or unlikely to secure them by virtue of their status as local authorities)  The opportunity to better engage the community and volunteers who are considered more likely to contribute their time and support to a cause led by a charity than one led by a local authority  The opportunity to reduce duplication and bureaucracy by integrating the management and decision-making structures of what are currently separate bodies  The opportunity to free up the Site management function from some of the constraints associated with operating within the public sector

5. Public consultation

5.1 Following legal advice, a period of public consultation was initiated, based on the options identified in section 4 above. Respondents were asked to express their level of agreement with each option, and the results of the consultation were as follows:

 Option 1 (status quo) - 17.9% ‘Strongly Agreed/Agreed’ with this option  Option 2 (externalise to 3rd party) - 58.2% ‘Strongly Agreed/Agreed’ with this option  Option 3 (merge with related partnerships) - 26% ‘Strongly Agreed/Agreed’ with this option

Page 221 Page 8 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

5.2 Significantly, while supporting the Partnership’s preferred option, a number of respondents expressed concern about the resilience, capacity and governance of the Jurassic Coast Trust, as a small charity with limited resources, to take on such a significant responsibility. Comments suggested that:

 Safeguards would have to be put in place in case the Trust model proved unsustainable  The governance of the Trust should be reformed, especially as it would be in receipt of significant public funds  If the County Councils were to support the Trust by means of a grant agreement, this would need to be for a significant initial period of time to help ensure the sustainability of the new arrangement

5.3 Further risks were identified by County Councillors in the context of the consultation exercise in relation to the loss of control by the County Councils as, in the event of failure, the obligations for ensuring the good management of the Site would revert to the County Councils.

5.4 Following the response of the Dorset AONB Management Group to the consultation, we are minded to retain direct oversight of one Management Plan function, which is visitor management, subject to discussion with the Jurassic Coast Trust. Given the synergy between existing roles in the AONB Team covering access, recreation and tourism, and visitor management in the World Heritage Team, the Dorset AONB propose to establish a new shared role to promote sustainable visitor management across the AONB and Jurassic Coast.

5.5 All these issues have been given detailed consideration in the context of a detailed assessment of risks, recorded in a project risk register (see Appendix 2), and mitigations are proposed which would help reduce the risks identified by public consultation.

6. Financial implications

6.1 At the outset, the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team budget, the main element of which is staff costs, was wholly dependent on financial contributions from the County Councils. County Council funding remained stable over the period from inscription until public sector austerity began to bite, since when there have been significant reductions in the County Councils joint contribution – from £283,275 in 2010-11 to £180,000 in 2016-17. While the County Councils are still the major funders, a number of other funding sources now contribute towards the Jurassic Coast Team budget. This underlines the fact that it is already a genuine partnership dependant on a range of funders, including private sources of funding. In this context, the proposed transfer of functions to the Trust, whilst no doubt representing a significant moment in the development of Site management, can be seen to represent a logical extension of an ongoing process rather than a dramatic departure from the current management strategy. It is also important to note that the funding provided to support the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team is a small proportion of the total resources expended by partners collectively to ensure the good management of the Site. As such, the leverage achieved from this modest investment in co-ordination should be taken into account.

Page 222 Page 9 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

6.2 The main funding sources for the Jurassic Coast team budget in 2016-17 are as follows:

 Dorset County Council: £120,000 contributed as accountable body and host under a bi-lateral funding agreement with Devon County Council, renewed annually  Devon County Council: £60,000 contributed as co-sponsor of the bid for WHS status under a bi-lateral funding agreement with Dorset County Council, renewed annually  Environment Agency: £16,500 contributed annually via a 4 year Memorandum of Agreement with DCC, last renewed in 2016, for provision of a range of outputs, this amount currently guaranteed for each of the next four years  Natural England: £33,000 to be contributed in 2016-17 via a Memorandum of Agreement with DCC, this amount subject to annual renegotiation for a range of outputs but with a reasonable expectation of at least part of this amount being forthcoming over each of the subsequent 3 years

6.3 It is envisaged that Dorset County Council will continue to receive the contributions from Devon County Council, the Environment Agency and Natural England under the terms of existing agreements, but, subject to approval of the new arrangements, will pass on these funds as part of a package to enable the Trust to perform the enhanced role envisaged. This will help ensure the sustainability of the proposed approach by putting it on a relatively firm financial footing for the period ending March 2020, and setting an intended base level of support into the future.

6.4 By receiving funds from third parties to pass on to the Trust, the County Council will be accepting a risk in the sense that payment of these funds would be dependent on the delivery of outputs/outcomes by a third party. However, this is comparable to the existing situation as these funds are effectively received by the County Council on behalf of the Partnership and payment is dependent on delivery of outputs/outcomes by the staff team. As such, the risk is not considered materially greater than at present. Furthermore, the Trust will have an obvious incentive to continue to meet the needs of these funders, thus reducing the theoretical risk which would sit with the County Council. The risk will be further mitigated by the integration of these funders within the decision-making machinery of the Trust: Dorset and Devon County Councils already appoint elected member representatives to the Trust Board and, it is envisaged, will continue to do so in future; while Natural England and the Environment Agency have indicated a desire to sit on its Management Plan Advisory Committee (the working title) in an observer or similar capacity.

6.5 Under these proposals it is anticipated that the annual revenue cost to Dorset County Council for delivery of the Site Management Plan will reduce from the 2016/17 level of funding of £120,000 (£180,000 including Devon CC contribution), to approximately £80,000 (£120,000 including Devon CC) by 2019/20. The precise amount paid annually via a grant agreement to the Trust will be subject to further discussion with the Trust, depending on the range of functions that are transferred.

6.6 Additional financial implications arising from potential TUPE transfers of staff are summarised in section 9 below.

7. Legal position

7.1 Dorset and Devon County Councils have no direct statutory responsibility to support the management of the World Heritage Site. However, the World Heritage Convention is an international treaty ratified by the UK in 1984 and so places an obligation on the State Party to the convention to safeguard Sites within its territory. Page 223 Page 10 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

Dorset and Devon County Councils, in taking the lead for the nomination of the Dorset and East Devon Coast, carry practical and moral obligations on behalf of HM Government to take the lead responsibility for co-ordinating the managing partnership, and delivery of the Management Plan, for the Site. One of the helpful outcomes of the review process to date is that it has led the County Councils to develop a clearer definition of their core obligations, and an approximate cost of meeting these, enabling some differentiation between core functions which the Councils envisage supporting into the foreseeable future, and desirable but non- essential functions which it is envisaged will be progressively supported by private as opposed to public funding into the future.

7.2 These core obligations will remain with the County Councils under any future management arrangements, and cannot be avoided without putting the continuation of World Heritage Site status at risk. The County Councils have some flexibility, however, in how they ensure that these obligations are met. Legal advice suggests that they can be met by means of a grant agreement with an appropriately constituted body (noting that legal or regulatory obligations could not readily be delegated to such a body). This negates the need for a competitive procurement process as Dorset County Council (and on behalf of Devon County Council) will be giving a grant to a third party to deliver specified outcomes, rather than specifying services to be delivered via a contract. This is considered desirable by both the County Councils and the Jurassic Coast Trust as both will need a degree of flexibility about how the desired outcomes in the Management Plan are delivered.

7.3 The main legal and regulatory responsibilities for Site protection lie with statutory agencies (Historic England and Natural England) and local authorities (in their capacity as local planning authorities). These responsibilities cannot and would not be transferred to the Trust, as they would be outside the objects of a charity. The statutory bodies would continue, therefore, to perform their responsibilities in the normal way, receiving advice from appropriate staff within the Trust on particular issues relating to good management of the Jurassic Coast – principally in relation to geology, geomorphology, coastal change and conservation, including fossil conservation, and understanding of World Heritage Status and Outstanding Universal Value.

7.4 Other legal questions raised by the potential transfer of staff to a third party are addressed in section 8 below.

8. Human resources implications

8.1 The proposed changes would involve the transfer of all or some of the small staff team currently hosted by Dorset County Council to the Jurassic Coast Trust. Based on the experience of the externalisation of staff to the Dorset Arts Trust, a comparable situation in terms of size, scope and complexity, the key issues such transfers raise, and the proposed approach to their resolution in the case of the Jurassic Coast Team, is as follows:

 TUPE transfer: advice has been taken from HR business partners which suggests that TUPE transfers will be appropriate dependant on the staff structure and job descriptions put forward by the Trust. Based on previous experience, this is achievable subject to appropriate formal consultation with staff. Staff within the team continue to be consulted informally on a regular basis and there is support within the team for the proposed approach and an appetite

Page 224 Page 11 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

for change. Subject to the appropriate mandate from the Cabinet, it is envisaged that formal consultation with potentially affected staff over a potential TUPE transfer would be initiated over the summer/autumn of 2016, once the new structure is known.

 Redundancy liabilities: careful financial management and vacancy management over the past 2 years have enabled a small reserve fund to be created within the Partnership budget, sufficient to make a contribution to redundancy costs of the current staff team in the unlikely event that the entire team were to be made redundant. It is proposed, therefore, that an appropriate proportion of this modest reserve be transferred to the Jurassic Coast Trust at the point of transfer, and held as part of a restricted fund by the Trust for the express purpose of helping to cover redundancy liabilities of staff as they stand at the point of transfer. Redundancy liabilities incurred beyond that point would then sit with the Trust rather than the County Councils. A smaller part of this reserve would similarly transfer to the AONB reserve (held in DCC) in the event that the new shared role to promote sustainable visitor management across the AONB and Jurassic Coast is established.

 Pension liabilities: the pension liabilities associated with staff transferred under TUPE arrangements are significant. This proved to be a particular sticking point in the creation of the Dorset Arts Trust, ultimately resolved by the County Council agreeing to underwrite pension liabilities in the event of the Trust failing. It is proposed that the same principle be adopted in the case of any staff transferred to the Jurassic Coast Trust. While this would result in the County Council retaining a significant liability, it is unlikely that the Trust would be able to carry this liability on its own account. It would still, however, be a reduced liability for the County Council compared to the maintenance of the status quo. Further research into this issue is needed, and further approvals will be sought from Cabinet if required.

9. Key risks and mitigations

9.1 The key risks and mitigations associated with this proposal are addressed in detail in the Business Justification Case (see Appendix 1) and summarised in the project Risk Register (see Appendix 2).

10. Next steps

10.1 Subject to Cabinet approval of the proposed way forward, the next steps in the process would be:

 Development of detailed implementation plan and timeline to the planned transition date of 1 April 2017 (further Cabinet approvals will be sought if required).

 Development of proposed staff team structure within the Jurassic Coast Trust – to be developed in discussion with the County Councils, after which it will be clearer whether or not TUPE transfers will apply, to be followed by formal initiation of consultation and the TUPE transfer process to take effect from 1 April 2017.

 Agreement over the proposed approach to resolution of matters relating to staff transfer, redundancy and pension liabilities.

Page 225 Page 12 – Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management

 Development of an appropriate grant agreement between the County Council and the Jurassic Coast Trust within the parameters set out in this paper in relation to financial limits and risk management.

 Reconstitution of the Jurassic Coast Trust to modernise its Articles of Association in line with Charity Commission good practice and to ensure it can undertake this new role within a revised set of charitable objects. This is ultimately a decision for the existing Trustees, and subject to ratification by the Charity Commission, but is considered a pre-requisite of the proposed approach, and the Trust has indicated an appetite for change.  Dissolution of the existing Jurassic Coast Steering Group and reconstitution of a successor body within the governance arrangements of the Trust to ensure that the Trustees have access to expert advice on management issues which is currently provided by the Steering Group, and to support Management Plan development, monitoring and delivery via a ‘managing partnership’ as required by UNESCO. This is ultimately a decision for the existing Steering Group, but is considered a pre-requisite of the proposed approach, and the Steering Group has indicated it is open for change.

10.2 Ultimately, UNESCO will need to be satisfied by the UK Government that the proposed changes remain sufficiently robust to deliver on the commitments made by the County Councils at the time of inscription. As such, the Government’s statutory advisors on World Heritage – Historic England and, in the context of natural WHSs, Natural England – have been kept fully informed of the proposals, and a dialogue has been opened with DCMS. Both agencies have confirmed that they are satisfied that the process of review has been robust, that the commitment of the County Councils remains clear, and that the proposals which are now being put forward have their support. This provides a high level of confidence that the changes will ultimately be acceptable to HM Government and UNESCO.

Mike Harries Director for Environment & Economy June 2016

Page 226 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION Project Title: Externalisation of the Management of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site

Business Justification Case

Version no: 1.4 Issue date: 3 June 2016

VERSION HISTORY

Version Date Brief Summary of Change Owner’s Name Issued Draft 20.05.16 First draft version P.H. Sterling Draft 03.06.16 Fourth draft version P.H. Sterling

Crown Copyright 1 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 227 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

CONTENTS – BUSINESS JUSTIFCATION TEMPLATE

1. Purpose

2. Strategic context

3. Case for change

4. Available options

5. Preferred option

6. Procurement route

7. Funding and affordability

8. Management arrangements

Crown Copyright 2 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 228 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

1. Purpose

This document sets out the case for Dorset County Council, as the accountable body in Dorset for the management of the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, to externalise this management function to a charitable trust, the Jurassic Coast Trust in line with the County Council’s preferred Business Case Justification methodology.

Currently management of the Jurassic Coast is overseen by the Jurassic Coast Partnership, a body of local, regional and national organisations, and technical specialists, who make key decisions to look after the Site via a Partnership Steering Group.

With continued pressure on local authority budgets, Dorset and Devon County Councils are finding it increasingly difficult to continue funding the management function of the Site at the same level as in the past. At the same time, the ambition of the County Councils and their partners to continue to deliver exemplary World Heritage Site management remains strong.

It is also clear that current management arrangements, while effective for fifteen years, have evolved in such a way that there is now a high degree of complexity and duplication, as there is overlap in the County Council, Partnership and Trust governance requirements. The structures and systems needed for management of the Site during its establishment are less fit for purpose today.

In considering a new approach, Dorset County Council’s primary objective is to ensure more effective and efficient delivery of the management functions at reduced cost to the public purse. These functions are currently undertaken within the context of the Management Plan for the Site, a document that forms the ‘contract’ between the UK Government and UNESCO. The Partnership now believes the time is right to pass on the day-to-day responsibility to a reconstituted Jurassic Coast Trust, equipped to take on a range of management functions, with continued financial support from the County Councils.

There is a growing realisation that the Trust may be better placed to access resources, raise funds, attract volunteers and recruit sponsors to support good site management than are the County Councils. This will enable the economic benefit and prosperity that the status of Site brings to the area to be sustained and enhanced. Dorset County Council will also make savings year-on-year over current contributions, and efficiencies through reorganisation of governance arrangements will enable more resources to be devoted to Management Plan delivery, and less to managing complex governance arrangements.

2. Strategic Context

The Jurassic Coast is England’s only natural World Heritage Site and stretches from Exmouth in East Devon to Studland Bay in Dorset. The spectacular cliffs and fossils found along this 95 mile stretch of the south coast tell an incredible geological story through 185 million years of the Earth’s history. For this reason, it was inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site having “Outstanding Universal Value”.

Crown Copyright 3 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 229 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

The Jurassic Coast is an important driver for economic prosperity in Dorset and Devon, providing employment and wider benefits to the local economy. A recent economic impact study, specifically examining the Jurassic Coast, concluded that:

 It influences c. £103-119M of output per annum (mid-point £111M)  It supports up to 2000 jobs  It is highly likely, from the evidence, that the status as a World Heritage Site has significantly increased the scale of benefits to Dorset, although it is difficult to attribute exact values directly to the designation  There is a high level of brand recognition and a positive view of the impact of the World Heritage Site designation held by visitors, businesses and residents alike  There is a demonstrable positive impact of World Heritage Site status on business performance (based on a survey of businesses)  The Jurassic Coast Partnership has played an important role in developing the economic value of the environment; it has extracted significant additional value from the designation through the leveraging of additional funding from a variety of sources

Since the site was inscribed in 2001, it has brought multiple, tangible benefits, including:

 Improved conservation and recognition of the value and importance of geological heritage  A new identity – the ‘Jurassic Coast’ – which links together people and businesses from across two counties, and which is an internationally recognised brand  New and refurbished visitor centres and other facilities from Swanage to Exmouth  Improved displays and geology collections at Dorset and East Devon museums  The Jurassic Coast bus (X53), and other sustainable transport and signage improvements  Engagement of a wide cross section of the community in volunteering and ambassadorial roles  Hundreds of schools and teachers, and thousands of children engaged in curriculum-linked Jurassic Coast activities  The management of the Jurassic Coast is also highly regarded locally, nationally and internationally, and has been cited as an exemplar of good practice by other Sites in the UK and overseas  The Jurassic Coast is also a special place for people for many other reasons, in particular for recreation, health, quiet enjoyment, learning, and landscape appreciation.

Crown Copyright 4 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 230 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

3. Case for Change

A. Business needs

3.1 Obligations of the County Councils towards the Jurassic Coast

When UNESCO awarded World Heritage status to the Jurassic Coast in 2001, they handed with it a responsibility, that of “protecting, conserving and presenting” the Site and “transmitting it to future generations”. UNESCO say that this responsibility lies with “all the peoples of the world” but in practice it lies in part with the State Party (national Government in the UK), with local Government, and in part with the local communities – the people who live near to and who visit the coast.

Good management of a World Heritage Site is an international obligation, as set out in UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention of 1972, ratified by UK Government in 1984. UK Government has great pride in its 29 World Heritage Sites and aspires to be a world leader in their stewardship.

Dorset and Devon County Councils accepted in 2001 their responsibility to contribute towards the management of the Jurassic Coast now and into the future, so far as they are able. The recognition of the Site is not statutory, but there are significant practical and moral obligations for the authorities to seek to further its interests in perpetuity, and strong public expectation that both authorities will continue to support core activities that maintain the status of the Site, preventing it from deteriorating or otherwise allowing it to be put on a register of Sites at risk of losing World Heritage Site status.

3.2 Current governance and management

Currently management of the Jurassic Coast is overseen by the Jurassic Coast Partnership, a body of local, regional and national organisations, and technical specialists, who make key decisions to look after the Site via a Partnership Steering Group. These decisions are mostly undertaken within the context of a Management Plan for the Site, a document that forms the ‘contract’ between the UK Government and UNESCO. Dorset and Devon County Councils are recognised as ‘accountable bodies’ for the Partnership.

In parallel operates the Jurassic Coast Trust, an independent charity established to support education and conservation along the Jurassic Coast, established in 2002. The Trust raises and distributes funds along the Coast as well as delivering engagement and educational activities directly, including publishing the official guidebooks about the Jurassic Coast and running the HLF-funded Jurassic Coast Community project.

3.3 Current staffing

Day-to-day work of the Partnership to coordinate the actions set out in the Management Plan is undertaken by the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Team. This is hosted by Dorset County Council, paid for by the two County Councils and the Jurassic Coast Trust, with additional contributions from Natural England and the Environment Agency, as well as income from other sources. The Team, shown in Table 1 below,

Crown Copyright 5 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 231 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

undertakes work across a wide range of subjects including Site management, conservation, planning, transport and tourism, participation, learning, interpretation, project development, communication and community engagement.

Table 1. Existing staff structure in the World Heritage Team

Post Type of F/T or P/T Current Funders contract Team Leader and World Permanent F/T Funding Partners Heritage Site Manager Natural England Earth Science Manager Permanent F/T Funding Partners Environment Agency/Natural England Visitor Manager Permanent F/T Funding Partners External funding/earned income Learning and Participation Permanent 0.8 fte Funding Partners Manager Earth Science Adviser* Fixed-term 0.6 JC Team Funding Partners (0.4 Dorset CC) Environment Agency/Natural England Information Officer Fixed-term 0.86 fte Funding Partners JC Trust Projects Assistant* Casual post n/a Used when funding available only Fossil Warden Zero hours n/a Charmouth PC, Lyme Contract TC, National Trust, Jurassic Coast Trust * Currently vacant

The World Heritage Team now works seamlessly with the small staff team employed directly by the Jurassic Coast Trust, operating to a joint Annual Delivery Plan for 2016/17, and staff are largely based at County Hall, Dorchester.

3.4 Problems with maintaining the status quo - financial

The collective annual contribution of Dorset and Devon County Councils (who maintain approx. 2:1 funding ratio between them) to the management function was £202,000 in the 2015-16 financial year, which has reduced to £180,000 in 2016-17. This sum has declined year on year from £283,000 in 2010-11, and with continued pressure on local authority budgets, the County Councils are finding it increasingly difficult to continue funding implementation of the Management Plan at the same level as in the past. The graph below shows decline in funding by Dorset CC since 2011. Devon CC funding has declined at a comparable rate, roughly keeping to the 2:1 ratio.

Crown Copyright 6 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 232 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

Figure 1. Decline in Contributions from Dorset CC since 2010

Contribution from Dorset County Council

£200,000 £180,000 £160,000 £140,000 £120,000 £100,000 £80,000 £60,000 £40,000 Contribution £20,000 from Dorset CC £0 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Continued decline within the current model will inevitably result in further reductions in service, which would undermine the ability to deliver the shared ambitions set out in the Management Plan. An alternative delivery model, however, presents significant opportunities which could avoid this risk.

3.5 Problems with maintaining the status quo - governance

It is clear that current management arrangements, while effective for fifteen years, involve a high degree of complexity and duplication, as there is overlap in the County Council, Jurassic Coast Partnership and Jurassic Coast Trust governance requirements.

B. Benefits

3.6 Overarching

In promoting change, the County Councils are operating to a single key objective for an alternative service delivery model to:

ensure more effective and efficient delivery of WHS Management Plan at reduced cost to the public purse

The Jurassic Coast Partnership believes the time is right to pass on the day-to-day responsibility to the existing Jurassic Coast Trust, to be reconstituted to take on a broad range of management functions. The externalisation is therefore a proposal to release the potential for the Trust to grow to take on management responsibilities for the Site and to provide opportunities for it to raise money and profile where the County Councils cannot or have not been able to.

Crown Copyright 7 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 233 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

3.7 Financial

Opportunity The proposals will give the partners with a shared interest in good WHS management the opportunity to access a wider range of resources and support than are currently available to the County Councils. This will enable the economic benefits and prosperity that the status of Site brings to the area to be sustained and enhanced.

Freeing up the management function from the constraints of operating within the public sector also provides opportunities for sponsorship, grant aid and donations where the intrinsic link with local government either puts potential sponsors off, or otherwise provides a disincentive for businesses and individuals to be more well disposed towards financial support for the management aims of the Site.

Savings Under these proposals it is anticipated that the annual revenue cost to Dorset County Council for delivery of the Site Management Plan will reduce from the 2016/17 level of funding of £120,000 (£180,000 including Devon CC contribution), to approximately £80,000 (£120,000 including Devon CC) by 2019/20. The precise amount paid annually via a grant agreement to the Trust will be subject to further discussion with the Trust, depending on the range of functions that are transferred..

The proposals represents an approximate 33% minimum reduction in revenue support from the current position and are likely to be sustainable and achievable through the next few years of budget planning.

Limits to savings The collective cost envisaged in 2019-20 of delivering the obligations to manage the Site provides an illustration of a minimum below which the County Councils do not currently envisage their contributions falling in the medium to long term. We consider that reductions beyond this level would compromise our ability to meet the obligations for good WHS management and would significantly undermine the prospects for Management Plan delivery. Comparison with other UK World Heritage Sites supported by local authorities suggests that, even at this reduced level, there would remain reasonable parity between funding for management of the Jurassic Coast, and other sites. Funding levels that have been achieved over the past 15 years have also provided a legacy of investment, providing a firm platform from which the Jurassic Coast Trust can develop its business model.

3.8 Governance

Governance structures The governance structures needed for management of the Site during its establishment are certainly less fit for purpose today. They would benefit from rationalisation and modernisation, to enable them to respond to the changing way in which communities, organisations and funders work.

Crown Copyright 8 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 234 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

Following a mandate for externalisation to the Jurassic Coast Trust from the County Councils, the Trust will bring forward a new governance model. While it is ultimately the Trust’s responsibility to do so, the County Councils will seek to ensure that any new arrangement incorporates the following as prerequisites to manage the identified risks:

 reconstitution of the Jurassic Coast Trust to define the Objects of the charity in such a way that the Trust can perform the role anticipated within a revised set of Objects, in particular to include the co-ordination of World Heritage Site management, the maintenance of a managing partnership, and development and delivery of a Site Management Plan  establishment of a governance structure that enables the Board of Directors to run the charity while providing for the key role of experts through establishment of a Management Plan Advisory Committee (MPAC) that will advising the Board on the management of the Site. The role currently provided by the Steering Group will thus be provided by the MPAC.

Member and officer involvement Dorset County Council, at both member and officer levels, will benefit from efficiencies through reorganisation of governance arrangements to remove elements of duplication of effort. This is estimated to be in the region of 0.1 FTE of Service Manager time that would be gained as a non-cash-releasing benefit.

C. Risks

The Risk Register is provided in a separate appendix. The main risks that have been identified, together with mitigations are set out below:

1. Failure to obtain public mandate for externalisation/the externalisation is subject to legal challenge

A consultation exercise has been undertaken to seek the views of the public and interested organisations, resulting in substantial support for the preferred option. The externalisation proposal is being considered in June by Dorset County Council Cabinet with a view to securing the mandate for change.

2. The Jurassic Coast Trust fails to meet expected funding targets during initial years of transition, or they experience unexpected financial issues

New Board Members will be recruited on the basis of knowledge, experience and skills to run the reconstituted charity, to provide the Trust’s staff with the guidance and support they need to succeed. The County Councils will be represented by right on the Board. We are currently considering with the Trust the benefits of other representations by right, such as the National Trust, who own and manage other World Heritage sites in the UK, as well as large sections of the coast of the South West, and are the largest landowner (by length of coastline) along the Jurassic Coast.

Crown Copyright 9 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 235 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

3. The transfer from local authority to charity takes longer and is more complicated than expected

We have learned from the experience gained through externalisation of the Arts service, and are taking legal and HR advice as required. We have established a Transition Working Group between the County Councils, Jurassic Coast Trust and Jurassic Coast Partnership Steering Group to work in an open book way to resolve any issues between the parties as they arise.

4. Lack of staff support in transition

We are already undertaking informal consultation with staff during the process, and will carry out formal consultation over transfer arrangements and the application of TUPE in due course, once the Trust’s new organisational staff structure to deliver the Management Plan is available. Staff are aware that it is a likely option that the Trust would choose to reorganise their structure at the point of transfer, rather than at some later date following transfer. Staff recognise the risks and opportunities of the transfer and we are supporting them to answer questions and resolve any anxieties as they arise.

5. The Trust does not deliver the Management Plan following transition as expected

There will be a grant agreement between the County Councils and the Jurassic Coast Trust that will set out expectations on both sides. The terms of any grant agreement with the Trust will be as specific as possible and will require regular reporting on Management Plan delivery. The County Councils’ managers will support the Trust’s managers as appropriate throughout and beyond the transition in the spirit of partnership.

4. Available Options

The public consultation on the future of the management of the World Heritage Site contained three options, based on prior discussion and agreement within the Jurassic Coast Partnership. The options were:

Option 1: Maintain the status quo, accepting the likelihood of reduced funding Option 2: Externalise all or part of the management function to a third party organisation Option 3: Merge with other Partnerships

Each option was presented with listed benefits and drawbacks.

Respondents were asked to express their level of agreement with each option, and the results of the consultation were as follows:

 Option 1 (status quo) - 17.9% ‘Strongly Agreed/Agreed’ with this option  Option 2 (externalise to 3rd party) - 58.2% ‘Strongly Agreed/Agreed’ with this option  Option 3 (merge with related partnerships) - 26% ‘Strongly Agreed/Agreed’ with this option

Crown Copyright 10 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 236 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

Significantly, while supporting the Partnership’s preferred option, a number of respondents expressed concern about the resilience, capacity and governance of the Jurassic Coast Trust, as a small charity with limited resources, to take on such a significant responsibility. Comments suggested that:

 Safeguards would have to be put in place in case the Trust model proved unsustainable  The governance of the Trust should be reformed, especially as it would be in receipt of significant public funds  If the County Councils were to support the Trust by means of a grant agreement, this would need to be for a significant period of time to help ensure the sustainability of the new arrangement

Further risks were identified by County Councillors in the context of the consultation exercise in relation to the loss of control by the County Councils as, in the event of failure, the obligations for ensuring the good management of the Site would revert to the County Councils.

All these issues have been given detailed consideration in the context of a detailed assessment of risks, recorded in a project risk register (see Appendix 2 of the Cabinet report), and mitigations are proposed which would help reduce the risks identified by public consultation.

5. Preferred Option

Based on the agreement of the Jurassic Coast Partnership and the results of the public consultation, the clear recommendation to the County Councils is that the majority of the management functions of the World Heritage Site should be externalised to a reconstituted Jurassic Coast Trust, with new governance arrangements to undertake these new functions within a revised set of charitable objects.

However, following the response to the public consultation from the Dorset AONB, we are minded to retain direct oversight of one Management Plan function, which is visitor management, subject to discussion with JCT. Given the synergy between existing roles in the AONB Team covering access, recreation and tourism, and visitor management in the World Heritage Team, the Dorset AONB propose to establish a new shared role to promote sustainable visitor management across the AONB and Jurassic Coast. The new role, proposed to be embedded in the AONB Team, would provide the opportunity for closer working with the County Council on transport planning and visitor management, as well as tourism and economic development, while still being an integral part of delivery of the Management Plan. There would also be a modest cashable saving for the County Councils through reduction in contributions currently given to support the separate roles.

6. Procurement Route

We have received advice from Dorset Procurement and DCC’s legal team that it is acceptable to specify outputs and outcomes to be delivered by a third party by means of a grant agreement as long as the awarding body (DCC) is not the direct beneficiary.

Crown Copyright 11 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 237 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

As at present, DCC contributions are for public benefit, so a grant agreement will be appropriate. This process would not require competitive tendering. We intend therefore to offer a grant agreement in due course to the Jurassic Coast Trust.

In the case of the externalisation of Dorset’s Arts Development Trust, with which there are clear parallels, the County Council published a Voluntary Ex Ante Transparency (VEAT) notice which protected the Council from challenge as the contract was not opened up for competition in the usual way on the grounds of there being no cross border interest in it.

During the public consultation on options for the future of the World Heritage Site, discussions were held with other organisations operating in Dorset and East Devon to establish whether they would be interested in taking on the Site’s management function. These discussions indicated broad support for the preferred option, and a willingness to work in partnership with the Trust to the mutual benefit of all. Under these circumstances it seems very unlikely that there would be a challenge to the proposed procurement route, and we do not, therefore consider it necessary to issue a VEAT notice.

Again, in the case of the Arts externalisation, it was also important for both Council and the Trust to be clear that there was no question of state aid which would be unlawful. The regulations were considered in relation to the proportion and quantum of turnover which could be considered to be ‘economic’ and therefore unlawful. The County Council was satisfied that the figure was below the necessary threshold and the Trust Board was aware of the issue and appreciated the need for ongoing monitoring. Further research is required to establish whether the same would apply in the case of the externalisation to the Jurassic Coast Trust.

At this stage, and following legal advice, we believe there is no impediment to the County Councils entering into a grant agreement with a third party for delivery of the World Heritage Site management function. Specifically, though, the proposal for the reconstitution of the Jurassic Coast Trust expressly for the purpose of performing a wider role, is considered prudent in lowering even further the risk of challenge from a third party.

Given the amounts of money involved, an appropriate and proportionate degree of due diligence would be required to satisfy the County Councils as the grant giving bodies that the Trust or successor body has the financial sustainability and sufficiently robust governance arrangements in place to make the transition a success. This will be undertaken in advance of the transition, prior to the signing of a grant agreement and once the new governance arrangements and staff structures have been determined and agreed.

7. Funding and Affordability

Under these proposals it is anticipated that the annual revenue cost to Dorset County Council for delivery of the Site Management Plan will reduce from the 2016/17 level of funding of £120,000 (£180,000 including Devon CC contribution), to approximately £80,000 (£120,000 including Devon CC) by 2019/20. The precise amount paid annually via a grant agreement to the Trust will be subject to further discussion with the Trust, depending on the range of functions that are transferred.

Crown Copyright 12 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 238 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

The proposals represents an approximate 33% minimum reduction in revenue support from the current position and are likely to be sustainable and achievable through the next few years of budget planning.

8. Management Arrangements

The key decisions and management arrangements that need to be put in place to achieve the externalisation are as follows:

 Development of detailed implementation plan and timeline to the planned transition date of 1 April 2017 once Cabinet mandate for externalisation has been obtained (further Cabinet approvals will be sought if required).

 Development of proposed staff team structure within the Jurassic Coast Trust – to be developed in discussion with the County Councils, after which it will be clearer whether or not TUPE transfers will apply, to be followed by formal initiation of consultation and the TUPE transfer process to take effect from 1 April 2017.

 Agreement over the proposed approach to resolution of matters relating to staff transfer (TUPE), redundancy and pension liabilities.

 Development of an appropriate grant agreement between the County Council and the Jurassic Coast Trust within the parameters set out in this paper in relation to financial limits and risk management.

 Reconstitution of the Jurassic Coast Trust to modernise its Articles of Association in line with Charity Commission good practice and to ensure it can undertake this new role within a revised set of charitable objects. This is ultimately a decision for the existing Trustees, and subject to ratification by the Charity Commission, but is considered a pre-requisite of the proposed approach, and the Trust has indicated an appetite for change.

 Dissolution of the existing Jurassic Coast Steering Group and reconstitution of a successor body (working title: Management Plan Advisory Group) within the governance arrangements of the Trust. This will ensure that Trustees have access to expert advice on management issues which is currently provided by the Steering Group, and to support Management Plan development, monitoring and delivery via a ‘managing partnership’ as required by UNESCO. This is ultimately a decision for the existing Steering Group, but is considered a pre-requisite of the proposed approach, and the Steering Group has indicated it is open for change.

 Ultimately, UNESCO will need to be satisfied by the UK Government that the proposed changes remain sufficiently robust to deliver on the commitments made by the County Councils at the time of inscription. As such, the Government’s statutory advisors on World Heritage – Historic England and, in the context of this natural Site, Natural England – have been kept fully informed of the proposals, and a dialogue has been opened with DCMS. Both agencies have confirmed that they are satisfied that the process of review has been robust, that the commitment of the County Councils remains clear, and that the proposals which are now being

Crown Copyright 13 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 239 Appendix 1 – Business Justification Case Future arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site management

put forward have their support. This provides a high level of confidence that the changes will ultimately be acceptable to HM Government and UNESCO.

Crown Copyright 14 Version No: 1.4

Date: 03 June 2016 Author: P.H. Sterling Page 240 Future Arrangements for Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site Management - Appendix 2

IMPACT

Summary of Current Risks Strategic Priorities Financial Health & safety Reputational Service Delivery and Opportunities Likelihood  Risk Register for: 0 High i.e. a greater Major impact (positive Fatality or major injury/ Sustained/long term Unable to deliver Financial impact > £1 than 20% or negative on a illness (long term negative public critical services (levels 4 Medium HIGH million World Heritage Site - Externalisation chance of: strategic priority) incapacity / disability) attention one and two) 10 Low

14 Short to medium term i.e. a greater Financial impact Moderate impact Moderate injury or Unable to deliver impact on public MEDIUM than 20% between £500,000 - £1 (positive or negative on illness (including critical services (level memory (affecting chance of: million a strategic priority) RIDDOR reportable) three) more than one ward) Last Review by: Phil Sterling Peter Moore; Phil Sterling; Sam Rose; Jonathan Parker; Marc Eyre; Amber Ling Date: 10/06/16 Short to medium term Minor/ negligible Potential for minor impact on public Financial impact less impact (positive or injury/illness (requiring Minor disruption to LOW i.e. : memory (affecting one than £500,000 negative) on a strategic minimal intervention or service delivery ward) / minor priority treatment) complaints or rumours

No Risk Description What may cause this risk to happen? Risk Lead Date Identified Current Controls Curren Movement Is the Further actions identified to achieve an Target Date for How do we currently manage this t Risk Since Last current acceptable level of risk further actions risk? High / Review level of Mediu Improving / risk m / Deteriorating / accepta Low No Change ble? 1 Failure to obtain public mandate for Lack of public support for the transition, leading to reduced political support at PM 02/03/16 Following legal advice, a M Improving yesi.e. Yes Further member engagement and secure 29th June Cabinet externalisation / the externalisation is local or national level. consultation exercise has been cabinet mandate in June. subject to legal challenge undertaken to seek the views of the public and interested organisations, resulting in substantial support for the preferred option. The externalisation proposal is being considered in June by Dorset County Council Cabinet with a view to securing the mandate for change

2 Legal challenge to externalisation Legal challenge to process of externalisation or proposed procurement mechanism PM 02/03/16 A consultation exercise has been L No change yes None n/a prevents or delays progress undertaken to seek the views of the public and interested organisations, resulting in substantial support for the preferred option. This presented an opportunity for third parties who might seek to challenge the preferred approach to come forward. The consultaiton led to a dialogue with a small number of third parties, the outcomes of which give a high level of confidence that the risk of challange is very low.

3 Failure to conclude grant agreement Dorset County Council and Jurassic Coast Trust fail to reach agreement over a PM 01/06/16 Ongoing and iterative dialogue M No change N Development of draft grant agreement 1 October 2016 (draft grant agreement to enable transition between key parties via the WHS pursuant to Cabinet mandate being secured grant agreement); 1st Transition Working Group April 2017 (grant agreement signed)

4 The Jurassic Coast Trust fails to meet Implementation of fundraising strategy does not lead sufficient funds being PM 01/06/16 JCT have fundraising specialist in M Improving N Cabinet agreement to 3 year grant 29th June Cabinet expected fundraising targets during generated to maintain at least current level of delivery of Site Management Plan post and are developing strategy; agreement to be sought; Trust fundraising initial years following transition DCC commitment to 3 year efforts to be stepped up; Board of agreement (subject to Cabinet reconstituted Trust to be recruited on the mandate) to put Trust on robust basis of knowledge, experience and skills to footing run the charity effectively.

5 Potential for financial liabilities in Failure to identify financial liabilities attached to staff transferring to Trust; lack of PS 02/03/16 Ongoing and iterative dialogue M Improving N Greater clarity required by both Dorset July-Augus 2016; relation to employment of staff clarity around liabilities and where they sit pre- and post-transition between Jurassic Coast Trust and County Council and the Trust over transfer further approvals will becoming realised as a result of transfer DCC managers, HR and legal of liabilities, particularly on redundancy and be sought from advisers. pensions, and transfer of staff under TUPE Cabinet as required as applicable.

6 Potential for legal challenge from third Third party has right to challenge democratic decision making on the basis that a PS 01/05/16 Dorset County Council employs L Improving N Trust will be required (via grant agreement) 1st April 2017 new party to Trust in offering professional decision was unlawful; e.g. it is theoretically possible that geological advice offered technically qualified staff to advise to maintain appropriately qualified staff to arrangements in place advice to local authorities, e.g. by the Trust to local planning authorities could be challenged by this route, leaving on the implications of its functions. advise local authorities, and encouraged to geological advice on planning and Trust liable for costs in the event of a court upholding the challenge Professional indemnity insurance obtain appropriate level of professional coastal defence matters covers advice offered by staff in the indemnity insurance unlikely event that a challenge is upheld and costs awarded against employer

7 Staffing - lack of support for transfer Insufficient engagement and communication by Dorset County Council and/or PS 02/03/16 Regular informal discussion by DCC M Improving N Continue informal discussion by DCC and Informal consultation proposals Trust with staff prior to transfer. Understanding by Trust of the breadth of roles and Trust with current team staff Trust with all staff. Formal consultaton on ongoing; formal and responsibilities transferring not reflected in proposed staffing structure of and Trust staff. DCC and Trust staff draft staffing structure and job descriptions consultation to be Trust already working to joint delivery once available. HR advice sought throughout initiatied once draft plan in 2016/17 process of transfer staff structure available

8 The transfer from local authority to Lack of understanding of externalisation process; lack of project planning and PS 02/03/16 We have learned from the L Improving N Continued dialogues through the Transition 1st April 2017 new charity takes longer and is more setting of realistic timetable; poor understanding between parties over roles and experience gained through Working Group to resolve any issues as they arrangements in place complicated than expected responsibilities externalisation of the Arts service, arise and are taking legal and HR advice as required. We have established a Transition Working Group between the County Councils, Jurassic Coast Trust and Jurassic Coast Partnership Steering Group to work in an open book way to resolve any issues between the parties as they arise

9 Legal challenge to externalisation Legal challenge to process of externalisation e.g. from disaffected staff, Trustee or PM 02/03/16 Informal consultation with staff and L Improving Yes Ensure appropriate representation of 1st April 2017 new prevents or delays progress other partner wide range of stakeholders ongoing partner organisations arrangements in place

10 The Trust does not deliver according to The Trust developing different or competing priorities which might distract or PM 02/03/16 Early stages of dialogue udnerway M Improving N The grant agreement between Dorset 1st April 2017 new the conditions of the proposed Grant prevent it from fulfilling the terms of the Grant Agreement about scope and terms of grant County Council and Jurassic Coast Trust will arrangements in place Agreement following transition agreement specify the outcomes and outputs that will be expected, with appropriate and proportionate reporting and review arrangements. The County Councils will also have representation on the Board of Trustees. The County Councils’ managers will support the Trust’s managers as appropriate throughout and beyond the transition in the spirit of partnership

11 Insufficient knowledge experience and Failure to retain or recruit staff with the appropriate knowledge, skills and PS 02/03/16 Ensure appropriate training and L Improving Yes Ensure that the County Councils are June 29th skills in staff of JCT to deliver the Grant experience development of relevant staff engaged with the Trust in helping them to Agreement within the newly constituted come forward with a staff structure that Trust makes full use of, and helps to develop, existing staff skill sets 12 Insufficient capacity, skills or experience Recruitment of Trustees fails to deliver adequate balance of skills and experience PM 02/03/16 JCT planning to recruit Trustees L Improving No County Councils to support JCT in April 1st 2017 in Trustees of reconstituted JCT to required onto new Board to cover establishing Trustee roles, and in successfully lead the Trust in future transitional period, and in the recruitment of new Trustees, as necessary longer term

13 Differing priorities between council and County Councils' political and financial interests in the Jurassic Coast decline PM 02/03/16 Articles of Association for M Improving No Cabinet mandate for externalisation 29th June Cabinet; 1st the charitable trust. following externalisation, and / or Trust develops along pathways that do not align reconstituted Trust set out its secured, which sets out longer term April 2017 with its Objects mandate for maintaining and commitment by Dorset County Council to enahancing the World Heritage support management of the World Heritage Site; County Councils will be Site; conditions of 3 year Grant Agreement represented on new Board of will set out delivery of outcomes and Trustees to ensure continuity of outputs interest is maintained

Page 241 1 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 16 Syrian refugee crisis

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 29 June 2016

Cabinet Member Robin Cook – Cabinet Member for Organisational Development and Transformation Local Members All Lead Director Debbie Ward, Chief Executive

Subject of Report Syrian Refugee Crisis – Dorset response

Executive Summary This report is intended to update and inform the Cabinet about the Government’s position on the Syrian refugee crisis and progress being made in Dorset.

The report focuses on the following areas: 1. Background 2. Who are the refugees 3. The process to resettle refugees 4. What refugees need 5. Dorset County Council response 6. Funding arrangements 7. Unaccompanied children 8. Offers of support

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

The purpose of this report is to explore the opportunity for resettling refugees in Dorset, no Equality Impact Assessment necessary at this stage.

Use of Evidence:

Councils that have resettled refugees have been consulted on many issues and best practice.

The Policy and Research team has been used to map service provision provided by directorates and districts/boroughs.

Services have been asked to provide information on service provision and limitations.

Page 243 Syrian refugee crisis

Budget:

Funding is provided to cover the costs of five years. Extra funding is available for extreme cases but it may be that costs have to be covered in advance or costs go above the extra funding that is available.

Dependents of refugees are entitled to join their resettled family in the UK. No funding is available for these individuals.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: MEDIUM Residual Risk MEDIUM

Health and Wellbeing:

Primary and Secondary medical care funding is paid directly to the CCG. Dorset CCG and Public Health have been made aware of the situation and will be involved in looking at specific service provision by area.

Other Implications:

Voluntary and Community organisations will be involved in the resettlement of refugees.

Dorset Police will be involved in the PREVENT aspect of any resettlement and refugees already have security checks carried out in advance by the UNHCR.

This report does not address in detail the more recent Government announcement around Local Authorities resettling Unaccompanied Children; this is a separate issue currently being progressed with children’s services.

Children and adults that come to Dorset will be very vulnerable and at risk of isolation. Voluntary organisations are keen to provide help with orientation and support to families. Service provision will be identified for vulnerable adults and children and taken into account where looking at accommodation locations.

Communications have been involved from an early stage to ensure that messages are co-ordinated and promote the benefits to Dorset whilst dispelling myths.

Recommendation i. That officers continue to progress proactively the process of resettlement based on six to eight families. ii. That officers continue to work with districts/boroughs, partners and the voluntary and community sector to ensure the best outcomes for refugees in terms of location and service provision.

Reason for i. The Government is keen for all local authorities to play their Recommendation part in the resettlement of refugees and Dorset County

Page 244 Syrian refugee crisis

Council has been contacted on several occasions to enquire about progression.

Appendices A – Statement of Requirements

Background Papers Immigration Act 2016

Officer Contact Name: Kelly Haggett and Stephanie Farr Tel: 01305 224355 and 01305 221328 Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

1. Background

1.1. Millions of refugees have fled their homes due to the civil war in Syria since 2011. In response the British Government has made a pledged to settle 20,000 refugees in the UK by the end of this Parliament. It selects people in the most desperate need of help through the Syrian Vulnerable Person’s Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), which prioritises women and children at risk, victims of extreme violence and those at risk because of their gender, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.

1.2. The resettled refugees are given five years’ Humanitarian Protection status, with permission to work and access public funds. After five years they may find out if they are eligible to apply to stay in the UK or they may return to Syria depending on the situation.

1.3. The Government is working with local authorities and the voluntary sector to implement the VRPS. Councils have been invited to make an offer to the Home Office to resettle refugees. South West Councils that have resettled refugee families include Cornwall, Wiltshire, Somerset and Southampton among others.

1.4. In addition to the above, the Government has also recently announced plans to provide resettlement for up to 3,000 vulnerable children (and family members) from conflict situations in the Middle East and North Africa regions, and for an unspecified number of unaccompanied refugee children currently in Europe. This is separate to the VRPS, however will be covered in section seven of this report as there will be crossover.

1.5. In response to the VRPS in Dorset, a meeting took place on Monday 16 May with representatives from Dorset County Council, the districts, Public Health, Department of Work and Pensions, Unison, Dorset CCG and Public Health England. The meeting was to consider the national situation and what Dorset would need to prepare for in making an offer to the Home Office.

1.6. The meeting was also to gain feedback on what else Dorset County Council may need to consider under specific topic areas: Housing, Health, Education, Religious and cultural needs, Employment and benefits and Safety and integration.

1.7. There was also a short briefing on the Government’s position on unaccompanied children.

Page 245 Syrian refugee crisis

1.8. Following the meeting attendees were tasked with looking at their service provision and identifying locations that would have appropriate provision for resettled refugees. .

2. Who are the refugees

2.1. The refugees are from the camps that are in the immediate area around Syria.

2.2. The Home Office works with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to ensure that refugees coming to the UK are matched with the VPRS criteria as specified in 1.1.

2.3. Security checks are carried out by the UNHCR so that the Government is aware of who has come to the UK. Medical checks are also carried out to establish an idea of health needs.

3. The process to resettle refugees

3.1. To make an offer to the Home Office a local authority will contact their local migration partnership representative. In Dorset County Council’s case this would be Sarah Short at South West Councils.

3.2. A local authority is able to say if there are individuals that they would not be able to resettle. For example, if there was no housing available for adaptation for a wheelchair user.

3.3. South West Councils pass on the relevant details from a local authority to the Home Office.

3.4. Local authorities must satisfy the Home Office that they have the relevant services and infrastructure in place as per the Statement of Particulars (attached).

3.5. Families are matched and the local authority is made aware of family makeup, age and any specific needs.

3.6. The local authority is given one week to accept a case and provide details of the estimated costs.

3.7. Further details on medical needs follow after the local authority indicates that they would like to accept the individual(s).

3.8. An arrival date is then agreed.

4. What refugees need

4.1. The Statement of Particulars sets out requirements of a local authority. These include:

4.1.1. Private rented accommodation is preferred over social housing. Accommodation must meet local authority standards, be affordable and sustainable, be furnished and not contain a pre-paid meter. 4.1.2. Daily caseworker support for the first few weeks which then reduces to weekly, then fortnightly and then once a month.

Page 246 Syrian refugee crisis

4.1.3. Signposting, advice and support for benefits, Biometric Residence permits, schools, English lessons, medical care, access to employment. 4.1.4. A support plan for each family for 12 months. 4.1.5. A procedure for refugees to make complaints and report critical incidents. 4.1.6. An information sharing protocol signed by all relevant deliverers of the Programme.

4.2. In terms of education, consideration will need to be made for school places, SEND places, transitional arrangements as some children will have been out of school for some time and isolation from other children.

4.3. In terms of medical needs consideration will need to be made for psychological trauma, complex medical needs or disabilities and GP registration and dental care.

4.4. In terms of religious and cultural needs, consideration will need to be made for access to religious facilities, integration into communities, interpretation services, PREVENT and Channel Panel. Channel Panel is a multi-agency response to identifying and providing support to individuals who are at risk of being drawn in to terrorism.

5. Dorset County Council Response

5.1. Key discussion points from the meeting on 16 May were:

5.1.1. It would be beneficial to have a ‘cluster’ area where refugees are resettled as opposed to spreading individuals or families out across the county due to accessibility and availability of services for example schools and mental health services. 5.1.2. In the first few weeks a daily visit is required to a family which is carried out by a housing officer in other local authorities. It was discovered that the districts do not have this kind of officer and discussion was had about whether this work could be absorbed by the Troubled Families Team upon careful consideration and agreement. 5.1.3. Location was discussed at many points during the meeting due to the need to join up services and to avoid isolation. Many refugees do not bring a driving licence to the UK so there is a need to consider employment areas and public transport links. Attendees were asked to provide a ‘shortlist’ of suitable locations for their respective service areas. 5.1.4. Health colleagues were concerned to hear from other local authorities that medical records are frequently incomplete, inaccurate or not up to date. This issue is being progressed nationally and there were aims for this recording process to be better during phase two of the resettlement scheme. 5.1.5. There was the feeling that mental health practitioners could be given extra training to help individuals who have experienced PTSD or other trauma related to their experiences if families were ‘clustered’ in a similar location. 5.1.6. Housing was discussed at length as there are specific requirements from the Home Office in the Statement of Particulars. There were also concerns about affordability and availability of private rented housing. Housing may need to be secured in advance with landlords being paid rent before refugees arrive in the county. 5.1.7. The need for proactive Communications from one source was also discussed as other local authorities had encountered issues previously. There will be a FAQs style article in the summer edition of Your Dorset to try and address some questions before they arise and a page on dorsetforyou.com will be set up to release messages in time.

Page 247 Syrian refugee crisis

6. Funding arrangements

6.1. The first year after arrival is funded through the Overseas Aid Budget.

6.2. Education, Department of Work and Pensions and Health are funded separately and directly.

6.3. Funding arrangements for the first year are as follows:

Adult benefit Other adults Child Child Child claimant 5-18 3-4 U-3 Local £8,520 £8,520 £8,520 £8,520 £8,520 authority Education £0 £0 £4,500 £2,250 £0 Special £0 £0 £1,000 £1,000 £0 Educational Needs DWP £12,700 £0 £0 £0 £0 Primary £200 £200 £200 £200 £200 medical Secondary £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 £2,000 medical TOTAL £23,420 £10,720 £16,220 £13,970 £10,720

6.4. The second to fifth years are funded as follows (for local authorities only) per person:

Year 2 £5,000 Year 3 £3,700 Year 4 £2,300 Year 5 £1,000

6.5. There is an extreme cases fund to cover additional social care costs worth 15% of the overall tariff costs each year. 6.6. Funding is not ring fenced and can be pooled to provide support to all refugees.

7. Unaccompanied children

7.1. Recently the Government committed to taking in unaccompanied children who were already in Europe before the EU agreement with Turkey. There have been no indications of numbers or funding as of yet but there will be a consultation with local authorities.

7.2. At the moment no local authority is compelled to take unaccompanied children but measures are built in to the Immigration Act to allow the Secretary of State to compel local authorities to take children who arrive in other parts of the UK (e.g. Kent).

7.3. This area of work is currently being progressed with Children’s services colleagues. The work around unaccompanied children will be significant and will inevitably impact upon the Vulnerable Person Relocation Scheme this report relates to. Officers will ensure that they liaise closely as these areas of work develop.

Page 248 Syrian refugee crisis

8. Offers of support

8.1. Officers have received many offers of support from individuals and our voluntary and community sector partners with regards to the resettlement of refugees. Offers including securing housing, offering pastoral care and helping with orientation.

8.2. Officers continue to monitor these offers of practical support and help. Once the Cabinet approves the approach for the Dorset county area, officers will make positive contact to progress these offers of support with our partners.

8.3. Housing officers in West Dorset and Weymouth have confirmed that they will be able to secure accommodation for six families.

8.4. Dorset Libraries Service have offered access to job clubs and orientation events once people are located in areas.

9. Recommendations

9.1. The Cabinet are asked to confirm that officers continue to progress the process of resettlement based on six to eight families.

9.2. The Cabinet are asked to confirm that officers continue to work with districts/boroughs, partners and the voluntary and community sector to ensure the best outcomes for refugees in terms of location and service provision.

Patrick Myers Head of Corporate Development June 2016

Page 249 Syrian refugee crisis

APPENDIX 1

SYRIAN VULNERABLE PERSONS RELOCATION SCHEME STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS

1. Section 1 – Delivery Requirements

1.1 The Syrian VPR scheme is made up of two elements.

1.1.1 Pre arrival – Provision of medical and travel services enabling the migration of accepted Beneficiaries to the UK;

1.1.2 Post arrival – Housing provision, initial reception arrangements, casework and orientation support including English language provision.

1.2 The Authority requires the following deliverables:

2. Post Arrival services

Provision of accommodation:

2.1 The Recipient will meet and greet arriving Beneficiaries from the relevant airport and escort them to their properties briefing them on how to use the amenities

2.2 The Recipient will arrange accommodation for the arriving Beneficiaries which meets local authority standards and which will be available on their arrival and is affordable and sustainable

2.3 The Recipient will ensure that the accommodation is furnished appropriately. The furniture package should not include luxury items. This means that food storage, cooking and washing facilities can be provided but the facilities should not include the provision of other white goods or brown goods, i.e. TV’s, DVD players or any other electrical entertainment appliances.

2.3.1 The Recipient will ensure that the Beneficiaries are registered with utility companies and ensure that arrangements for payments are put in place (no pre pay/card accounts)

2.3.2 The Recipient will provide briefings on the accommodation and health and safety issues for all new arrivals including the provision of an emergency contact point

Casework support service:

2.4 The Recipient will ensure that Beneficiaries are provided with a welcome pack of groceries on their arrival

2.5 The Recipient will provide a cash/ clothing allowances for each Beneficiary of £200 – this is to ensure they have sufficient funds to live on while their claim for benefits is being processed.

Page 250 Syrian refugee crisis

2.6 The Recipient will provide advice and assistance with registering for mainstream benefits and services and signposting to other advice and information giving agencies – this support includes:

2.6.1 Assisting with registration for and collection of Biometric Residence Permits following arrival

2.6.2 Registering with local schools, English language and literacy classes

2.6.3 Attending local Job Centre Plus appointments for benefit assessments

2.6.4 Registering with a local GP

2.6.5 Advice around and referral to appropriate mental health services and to specialist services for victims of torture as appropriate

2.6.6 Providing assistance with access to employment

2.7 The Recipient shall put in place a support plan for each family or individual for the 12 month period of their support to facilitate their orientation into their new home/area.

2.8 The Recipient shall put in place arrangements for the provision of English language classes which Beneficiaries should be able to access within one month of arrival. This should be provided following an assessment to determine the appropriate level of provision. This provision should be delivered by an accredited English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provider. This ESOL provision should be made available until such time as suitable mainstream provision becomes available or until 12 months after arrival (whichever is sooner). The purpose of the language tuition is to ensure that Beneficiaries are able to carry out basic transactions within the communities in which they have been placed.

2.9 Throughout the period of resettlement support the Recipient will ensure interpreting services are available.

2.10 The above services will be provided through a combination of office based appointments, drop in sessions, outreach surgeries and home visits.

Requirements for Beneficiaries with special needs/assessed community care needs

2.11 Where Beneficiaries are identified as potentially having special needs/community care needs the Authority will ensure, as far as possible that these needs are clearly identified and communicated to the Recipient 6 weeks prior to the arrival of the Beneficiaries.

2.12 Where special needs/community care needs are identified only after arrival in the UK, the Recipient will use its best endeavours to ensure that care is provided by the appropriate mainstream services as quickly as possible

Page 251 Syrian refugee crisis

3. General Requirements

Hours of operation:

3.1 The Recipient shall note that the Authority’s offices perform normal business during the times of 09.00 to 17.00 on Working Days

3.2 The Programme as defined in the Statement of Requirements (SoR) shall be provided on each Working Day. The Authority recognises that in the interests of efficiency the exact availability and timings of the various service elements will vary. It is envisaged that some Out of Hours provision will be required from the Recipient

3.3 All premises used to deliver the Programme elements should meet all regulatory requirements and be suitable for the purpose.

3.4 The Recipient and/or its Delivery Partners shall develop, maintain and implement the following procedures:

3.4.1 A procedure for Beneficiaries to complain about the service provided by the Recipient.

3.4.2 A procedure for managing and reporting critical incidents. The Authority must be advised of such incidents as soon as reasonably possible, but in any event by the end of the next Working Day

Personnel standards:

3.5 The Recipient shall ensure that the recruitment, selection and training of its Staff, including persons employed by or as agents or sub-contractors to the Recipient, are consistent with the standards of service required for the performance of the service. The Recipient will fully equip and train staff to ensure they are able to fulfil their roles and ensure that appropriate and sufficient security provisions are made for all staff undertaking face-to-face activities. Also, the Recipient shall ensure that staffing levels are appropriate at all times for the purposes of the service and ensure the security and well-being of all Beneficiaries, dependent children and its staff.

3.6 The Recipient shall ensure that all applicants for employment in connection with the Requirement are obligated to declare on their application forms any previous criminal convictions subject always to the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

3.7 In addition, the Recipient shall ensure that all Staff (including volunteers and sub- contractors):

3.7.1 Employed or engaged have the right to work in the United Kingdom under applicable immigration Law

3.7.2 Disclosure and Barring Service checks are undertaken on any potential Staff member. The results of such checks must be known before any employee undertakes duties requiring contact. Where such checks reveal Page 252 Syrian refugee crisis

prior criminal convictions that might reasonably be regarded as relevant to the appropriateness of the individual to have unsupervised access, particularly to children under the age of 18, or where such checks are not possible because of identification issues, the Recipient shall follow its internal policy and carry out an appropriate risk assessment before an offer of employment is made.

3.7.3 Who are likely to have unsupervised access to children under the age of 18 have been instructed in accordance with National Child Protection Guidelines and Area Child Protection Committee guidance and procedures.

3.7.4 Providing immigration advice should be known to the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) in accordance with the regulatory scheme specified under Part 5 of the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999. The Recipient shall use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that Staff do not provide immigration advice or immigration services unless they are “qualified” or “exempt” as determined and certified by OISC.

3.8 The Recipient shall, on request, provide the Authority with details of all staff (and volunteers and sub-contractor agents) delivering the service in this schedule.

3.9 The Recipient shall, on request, provide the Authority with CVs and/or job descriptions for all members of staff selected to work on the project.

3.10 The Recipient shall use all reasonable endeavours to comply with the requirements of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

3.11 The Recipient shall implement the Programme in compliance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Information sharing:

3.12 The Authority expects the Recipient to share relevant information on the delivery of the Programme and on Beneficiaries by signing a Sharing of Information Protocol with relevant deliverers of the Programme.

3.13 Beneficiaries will be expected to sign a consent form to confirm their willingness to share personal data with executive bodies and relevant deliverers of the programme. The Recipient will retain these forms and will allow inspection by the Authority as requested.

Page 253 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17 Page 1 – Forward Together for Support Services

Cabinet

Forward Together for Support Services

Date of 29th June 2016 Meeting

Cabinet Member Leader and Cabinet Member for Corporate Development Lead Director Assistant Chief Executive This report provides a progress update on the projects which comprise the Forward Together for Support Services programme. It also contains a draft Subject of of the vision for the programme and explains the themes we are using to Report guide the programme. The aim of the themes is to ensure that the programme is more than a collection of savings ideas but that it will actually improve the services.

Executive At its meeting in April, Cabinet agreed to establish the Forward Together for Summary Support Services programme. The savings target for the programme was to save £200,000 in 2016/17 (in addition to nearly £700,000 of additional savings) and £1.55m in 2017/18. The 16/17 savings are nearly complete and good progress is being made against the savings for 2017/18. Attached as Appendix 1 is a progress update which summarises the projects and current progress.

However, Forward Together for Support Services was always about much more than savings. Cabinet’s ambition was for a change in culture, to improve the customer experience and to ensure we had the professional skills we need for the future. Attached as Appendix 2 is a set of slides which try to articulate what that would look like and the difference customers will experience. The slides have been considered by the Programme Board and CLT and Cabinet’s views are now sought.

The slides discuss whether a mission statement is required for the programme and suggest that this is developed as part of a series of workshops around behaviours which are being developed. They also suggest 5 themes to guide the programme:

Page 255 Page 2 – Forward Together for Support Services

• A focus on outcomes

• Invisible services that just work

• Professional services by your side

• Preventing wasted effort by getting it right first time

• The right behaviours.

The themes set out what we are trying to achieve through the programme and are discussed in detail in the slides.

Impact Equalities Impact Assessment: Assessment: The strategic direction for the programme was assessed in February and the individual projects will be assessed as required. Please refer to the protocol for Use of Evidence: writing The programme is based on the Strategic Outline Case considered by reports. Cabinet in December which considered a wide range of evidence and analysis. The programme themes are drawn from the work with customers summarised in that report.

Budget: The Programme is planned to deliver savings of £1.775m over 2 years (£200,000 in 2016/17 and £1.55m in 17/18). We have good confidence that the 16/17 savings will be delivered, mainly through a restructure in Finance which is underway. We have a good line of sight on £1.25m of the £1.55m for 17/18, with additional areas still being scoped and savings yet to be confirmed.

We are also working on the additional investment (beyond the commitment of revenue funded posts) which will be required to deliver the savings. The investment is likely to be both in IT development and backfill in services. The plan is for a report to be considered by the Programme Board in July, setting out the business case for this investment.

Risk Assessment: The risk around these proposals is minimal and a separate risk and issues log is maintained for the programme.

Other Implications:

Recommend That Cabinet note the progress update (Appendix 1) and endorse the ation themes set out in the slides (Appendix 2).

Page 256 Page 3 – Forward Together for Support Services

Reasons for the To provide overall direction for the programme. recommenda tions.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Progress update - NOT FOR PUBLICATION Exempt Information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

Appendix 2 – Themes to be used to shape the programme.

Background Papers

Officer Name: Patrick Ellis Contact Tel: 01305 224116 Email: [email protected]

Introduction

1.1 In July, Cabinet began a strategic review of the Council’s support services, with 3 broad objectives:

 in 3 years’ time the support services cost less as a percentage of the Council’s total expenditure than they do now,  that Customers say the Support Services deliver a good service and  that the Support Services help the whole Council transform

Following a review of various options, the Cabinet decided in February that it wished to establish an in house programme to deliver these objectives. An initial set of projects were identified and, in April, Cabinet agreed to constitute these as a programme - Forward Together for Support Services (FTSS). A Programme Board has been established, containing the Cabinet Member, customer representatives and representatives from the Support Services, and its first meeting was held at the beginning of June.

1.2 The projects are described in the summary table at Appendix 1 which is a confidential appendix. Some of the projects are quite tactical – simply making our existing work more efficient. Others are more transformational, either in shifting the way we work (such as the move to a cloud based IT infrastructure) or in tackling how we work (e.g. the project on culture, which looks at our behaviours). There is also work which is going on outside Forward Together for Support Services, either because it pre-dates the programme or the savings are needed in order to balance the services budget rather than contribute to corporate savings. An example of this is the work in Democratic Services, where we have implemented a customer charter (and are now doing a survey to understand its impact) and where we are delivering savings on the back of the introduction of Modern.gov, the move to paperless meetings and the changes in the Committee Structure.

1.3 The savings target for the programme was to save £200,000 in 2016/17 (in addition to nearly £700,000 of additional savings being made by the Assistant Chief Executive services that year) and £1.55m in 2017/18. Appendix 1 gives an update on the progress being made against these targets:

 the £700,000 of additional, non FTSS, savings have either been delivered or we are confident we can deliver it e.g. for increased income in Legal Services the Income has not yet been earnt but we believe we can meet the target.

Page 257 Page 4 – Forward Together for Support Services

 plans are in place for the £200,000 of FTSS savings due in 16/17. Currently the profiling we have done of the planned FTSS savings shows we could deliver as much as £265,000 of savings in 16/17.  for 17/18 we currently have a good line of sight on £1.2m of the £1.55m of savings. Further savings are being scoped and we are confident they can be delivered.

At this stage, therefore, there can be high confidence that FTSS will meet the financial savings targets which have been set for it.

1.4 However, FTSS was always about much more than savings. Cabinet’s ambition was for a change in culture, to improve the customer experience and to ensure we have the professional skills we need for the future. This is why many of the projects in Appendix 1 are described as enabling i.e. they deliver no cashable savings but are important to the achievement of the overall objectives Cabinet has set e.g. the project on culture change. One of the questions Cabinet asked in April in establishing the FTSS programme was to understand how the projects joined together to achieve the outcomes Cabinet was seeking. Also to understand the experience for customers once they had been delivered. In order to answer that question the slides attached as Appendix 2 and discussed in section 2 have been produced.

Themes to guide the Programme

2.1 The slides begin with a question as to whether the Programme needs to describe a mission statement for the support services. This question was discussed by the Programme Board and it was recognised that using a mission statement had been helpful in other services – Forward Together has the mission statement of Smarter Services, Greater Independence and Empowered Services, and we have used Keeping Dorset Moving as the mission statement in Highways. There were doubts about the ease of having a single mission statement for such a diverse group of services and also whether support services should have an identity which is distinct from the delivery of outcomes for residents. On balance, the view was that a mission statement could be helpful if it emerged from the work we are doing but Cabinet’s view would be appreciated.

2.2 The proposal would be to consider a Mission Statement within the context of some of the work we are doing around culture. The Programme Board has accepted an approach to develop a set of behaviours for the Support Services which sets out how they will work with their customers and equally what they would ask of their customers in return. To add legitimacy to the behaviours, it is proposed that they would be developed through a series of workshops involving support services staff and their customers. Once the behaviours have been identified, interventions are planned with staff to ensure they understand the behaviours and what they mean for them in their day to day work. We have started work with the “third tier managers” in the service to make sure they feel ownership for the behaviours and are able to lead them in their team.

2.3 The other part of the slides sets out 5 themes to describe the type of support services the Council needs. Each theme is described, there is then a slide setting out how the current programme moves us towards this and then some illustrations of how we want customers to feel. The current programme will not deliver the themes in their entirety (there will be more work to do over the next 3 – 5 years) but they are a strong first step.

2.4 The 5 themes are:

• A focus on outcomes: how does the work the Support Services do link to the objectives the Council has set out for residents? How do we measure the impact and the effectiveness of this? This is about clarifying the vision for the services going forward;

• Invisible services that just work: much of what the support services do should be invisible to the organisation because it simply works e.g. providing a network for our IT to run on. These invisible services should consume as little of the organisation’s attention and effort as possible; Page 258 Page 5 – Forward Together for Support Services

• Professional services by your side: the support services should operate simply as part of the team. They should be working alongside customers to creatively solve problems together;

• Preventing wasted effort by getting it right first time: significant cost and frustration can be avoided if we deliver services correct first time. This is about understanding what the root cause of wasted effort is and tackling that rather than dealing with the symptoms it presents;

• The right behaviours: this links back to the culture work discussed in para 2.2. It is about ensuring the staff have the right behaviours to deliver the services.

2.5 The 5 themes have been discussed with managers in the Support Services, by the Programme Board and by CLT. The feedback has been positive and that they are a good description of what we are trying to achieve. However, Cabinet’s feedback on them would be appreciated.

Conclusion

3.1 The initial set of projects comprising the Programme have been identified and have commenced. There can be good confidence they will deliver the savings required in 16/17 and 17/18. Some of the projects are quite tactical but others are more transformative of the way in which we work – the culture project or the move to the cloud for our IT. Five themes have been identified to guide us as we reshape the support services.

3.2 There is no doubt that the coming years will be challenging for the support services. In addition to the change in the programme, the support services need to support change in other Directorates and there is also the question of Local Government Reorganisation, which will have a significant impact on the Support Services. The themes can be used as a touchstone to deliver both this set of initial projects but also as we begin to think about the further work which will be needed in later years.

Patrick Ellis Assistant Chief Executive

Page 259 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 261 This page is intentionally left blank 21/06/16

Forward Together for Support Services – vision for the programme

Patrick Ellis Assistant Chief Executive.

Introduction

In July Cabinet set 3 strategic objectives for the Support Services.

1. In 3 years’ time we cost the Council less as a percentage of total spend than we do now. 2. Our customers say we deliver a good service 3. We help the Council transform.

We have completed a review with PA Consulting looking at various options including Local Authority Shared Services and procuring a private sector partner.

In February Cabinet decided to develop an in house programme to move towards these strategic objectives.

Page 271 1 21/06/16

Getting started

We have scoped projects which we believe will deliver the benefits we are seeking.

But how do the various parts of the programme join together? What are the overall themes? How will this mean the services are different in say 5 years time? How do we describe the programme to staff, customers and members?

The aim of these slides is to answer these questions and provide a vision for the programme. The views of the Programme Board on the slides are welcome.

What is our mission statement?

Do we need a simple mission statement for the Support Services? An equivalent to “smarter services, empowered people and independence” or “Keeping Dorset moving”

If so what should it be? Something around adding value? Making things work? Supporting the delivery of front line services?

Is the very concept of support services wrong as it implies a division between part of the Council? Do we need a new name?

Page 272 2 21/06/16

5 draft themes The work we did with customers as part of the PA report suggests 5 possible key themes for the programme:

• A focus on outcomes • Invisible services that just work • Professional services by your side • Preventing wasted effort by getting it right first time • The right behaviours.

The aim of these themes is to help describe the outcomes we are seeking from the review but also to show how the programme joins together as a whole. They could also be the building blocks for a mission statement.

Structure of slides

For each theme we have set out

•What we are trying to achieve

•How the current programme takes us towards the objective

•What we want customers to say when we get there.

Page 273 3 21/06/16

A focus on outcomes.

What we are trying to achieve

Residents do not pay Council Tax because they want the Council to employ lawyers, accountants, IT experts etc. They pay Council Tax because they want outcomes – safe children, to be able to move around the County.

The support services need to demonstrate what it does to help achieve these outcomes. Sometimes this is easy – child care lawyers help keep vulnerable children safe – but most of the time the connection is not so clear.

If we can’t see the outcome we are delivering – and more importantly whether we are effective in delivering that outcome - we should re direct the resources.

Page 274 4 21/06/16

How the current programme takes us forward

We want to discuss with Customers the outcomes they need from us – where we should focus our efforts and where we should stop.

We want to evaluate how we help deliver outcomes for customers and residents. How can we show that anyone is better off as a result of what we do?

We will record this in a customer charter. This is not an old style SLA. This is a short description of what we do, the standard we do it too, how we will measure this, our behaviours in delivering the service and what we need from customers to help us do it.

What we want customers to say.

My business partner helped us think about a solution from the I can now see how customer point of view and effective our recruitment is- not just took us in a different direction how quickly it was done

There is no “them “ and “us” – people understand how what they are doing contributes to delivering for residents.

I see the link between my The discussion about what my budget, my teams service really needs was great. We performance and outcomes have refocused our support and I for customers, no how to get help if I something goes wrong

Page 275 5 21/06/16

Invisible services that just work.

What we are trying to achieve

Very little of the Council’s focus should go on whether our IT network is working or recruiting a new starter or getting them a computer.

These transactional services should just work and therefore should really be invisible to the organisation.

Self service processes should be easy to use. It should be easy to increase or decrease the number of users. The change in price should be closer to the marginal cost i.e. fixed costs should be reduced.

We should be able to sell more flexible solutions to external customers, not one size fits all.

Page 276 6 21/06/16

How the current programme takes us forward We are automating processes where possible (reducing the number of staff we need) and looking to invest in the user experience to make them easier. For example we are looking into an app to allow people to do some tasks on a smart phone.

We are moving our IT infrastructure to the cloud. This means we can redirect IT staff to customer focused roles, take advantage of the latest software like Microsoft Office 365 and move to a more pay as you go approach.

Reviewing core processes which run across support services (eg starters, movers, leavers) so they work as one process not many and are built around the customer.

What we want customers to say.

A member of my team left and I was worried about the The new app work involved in replacing means I can them. But everything just apply for leave flowed from recruitment to on my phone getting her a computer when I want.

Requests don’t get lost now – I can see where I am in the process and what will happen next. As an external customer of DCC I get a more tailored I don’t need to wait to talk to service now. people, I can get most stuff done on my SurfacePro and via web chat.

Page 277 7 21/06/16

Professional services by your side .

What we are trying to achieve We want to ensure our staff are using their professional skills to support customers – not doing work which could be automated, self service or done at a lower grade.

We want staff to be trusted advisors, working along side customers, effectively as one team.

We need the skills to support a very different Council – developing business cases, using commercial skills, supporting change and using technology to design better services for customers.

We need to help us to work as One Council. This means helping to set policy, coordinating effort and getting the right things done in the right place.

Page 278 8 21/06/16

How the current programme takes us forward We are reshaping our professional teams with customers to make sure we deliver the service they need e.g. OD in HR or the Finance Restructure.

In Finance we are using an assessment centre approach to ensure staff have the skills the Council needs e.g. forecasting the future, not recording the past.

In legal services we are looking at how we meet the needs of internal and external customers, including allocation of work, and opportunities for self-service.

In ICT and Customer Services we are looking at the skills and roles needed to enable digital and customer-centric service design and to make the most of the technology we can offer.

What we want customers to say.

We have the I am having the information and right conversations advice we need now now- not about to really commission process but about servcies how we take my service forward.

The Support Services Smarter Computing means now do a lot of the my accountant can sit with thinking for us on a us and we work as one problem which makes team life a lot easier.

Page 279 9 21/06/16

Preventing wasted effort by getting it right first time

What we are trying to achieve

The Council has decided to embed the principle of prevention at the heart of the Forward Together Programme.

The same principles of acting early to prevent more costly interventions later applies equally well in the Support Services: • if we can give the customer the right advice first time we can prevent unnecessary contact and cost later. • re designing bad process – or fixing the underlying causes – can prevent wasted effort for both customers and support services staff. • using technology can help customers do more for themselves.

Page 280 10 21/06/16

How the current programme takes us forward By looking at the cause of avoidable contact in Dorset Direct we are reducing calls and saving residents time.

The process changes we ae making (eg in Accounts Payable) are preventing cost by getting data and decisions right first time.

The technology we are putting in will allow customers to be more self sufficient.

The move to the Cloud will achieve significant cost avoidance for the Council as well as savings.

What we want customers to say.

I can do a lot more for myself now we We were heading in the wrong have better self direction till some timely service. legal advice got us back on track.

I used to have to explain what I wanted over and over again but it is better My life is a lot easier now. now because the cost data I need is accurate first time.

Page 281 11 21/06/16

The right behaviours

What we are trying to achieve

What we do is important but so is how we do it – our attitude to risk, our focus on finding a solution, how we communicate with customers.

The Council is changing and so are its expectations of us. Not getting these issues right will undermine everything we do.

The Council has a behavioural framework and we now need to set these behaviours in a support services context so staff are clear what is acceptable and what is not. We need to equip our team leaders to lead this change.

Page 282 12 21/06/16

How the current programme takes us forward We propose workshops of support services and front line staff to discuss the behaviours they would expect of each other. Putting this in their own language will help us to embed the expectation.

We will work with team leaders to ensure they understand the programme and can communicate it. We will also involve them in the behaviours work so they lead it.

All support services staff will take part in a workshop (led by their Team Leader) to map and improve at least one of their processes.

What we want customers to say.

I am kept informed about my piece of work. I feel we are working together to solve my problem – there is no I like the way people are constantly “computer says no “ attitude looking for little improvements to make things better. Managers make changes quicker now.

Sometimes I cant get what I We manage risk well want but this is explained now, focusing on the better now and usually we can important areas and fnd a way round it with a lighter touch elsewhere

Page 283 13 21/06/16

Conclusion

There are undoubted challenges ahead – the creation of a Unitary, the risk of lost income from external customers, supporting rapid transformational change.

However, the Support Services are up for this challenge.

We believe these themes should guide us as go forward. What do you think?

Page 284 14 Agenda Item 18a

Recommendation to the Cabinet from the Regulatory Committee held on 28 April 2016

Proposed Waiting Restrictions - Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford 30 The Committee considered a report by the Head of Highways explaining that following the advertisement of proposed changes to parking restrictions on various roads in Blandford, objections had been received to the proposals for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford, which was part of the Persimmons Estate. On 11 June and 8 July 2015 respectively the Regulatory Committee recommended, and Cabinet approved, the proposed waiting restrictions as advertised.

Subsequently it had come to light that further investigation into the bus route through the Persimmons Estate was required before any waiting restrictions could be implemented and the Committee were now being asked to consider whether the Traffic Regulation Order should be made as advertised, modified or abandoned in part. This further consideration also gave the original objectors an opportunity to make their contribution to the debate.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained what had been the reasoning behind the need to originally impose the waiting restrictions and the basis on which the objections had been received. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed where the proposals would be situated, the character of the roads and their setting within the townscape. The need for the proposals had arisen from the experience of service buses using the route having their passage impeded by vehicles parking around the tight bends in that area of the estate. Of particular concern was that not only were buses being affected but emergency, refuse and delivery vehicles were on occasion unable to pass. As the bus route was well used and well established there was reluctance for it to be altered so as to avoid that particular point. Accordingly, the proposed restrictions were designed to alleviate the situation.

Given the issues which had come to light over how the bus route was managed, officers now considered it necessary to review how the entire bus route provision though the estate could be sustained and managed effectively. For this reason it was now being proposed that the existing Blandford parking review should be implemented as advertised, save for - Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue - to provide the opportunity for the entire bus route through the Persimmons Estate to be fully assessed and evaluated so that an acceptable solution might be achieved for both the bus company and residents.

The County Councillor for Blandford, who supported this course of action for the reasons given, considering that it was necessary for the bus route to be preserved and that the safe passage of large vehicles around that point should be assured. Blandford Forum Town Council supported this too. On a wider issue, he considered that more consideration should have been given to the configuration of the road network in the development of the estate. The Committee considered that this was a practical solution and

Page 285 Recommended That Cabinet be asked to:-  revoke its previous decision to implement the proposals for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford  approve the making of the Traffic Regulation Order to implement the parking restrictions in Blandford as advertised, excluding the proposals for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue  agree that parking matters along the whole bus route through the Persimmons Estate be considered separately and in their own right.

Reason for Recommendation  New information has come to light that indicated the advertised proposals for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue were not the most appropriate as they stood;  The remaining proposals for parking restrictions in Blandford remained suitable restrictions and no objections were received to the advertised proposals. The Town Council was supportive of the proposals being implemented as soon as possible.  Further investigation into the bus route through the Persimmons Estate was required to determine whether further parking restrictions were required.

Page 286 Page 1 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

Regulatory Committee

Date of Meeting 28 April 2016

Local Member Cllr Barrie Cooper – Member for Blandford

Lead Officer Denise Thorner, Traffic Engineering Technical Officer, Regulation Team

Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue and Subject of Report Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

Executive Summary Following the advertising of proposed changes to parking restrictions in various roads in Blandford, objections were received to the proposals for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford (part of the Persimmons Estate). On 11 June and 8 July 2015 respectively the Regulatory Committee recommended and Cabinet approved the proposed waiting restrictions as advertised.

Since that decision it has come to light that further investigation into the bus route through the Persimmons Estate is required before any waiting restrictions are implemented. This report considers whether the order should be made as advertised, modified or abandoned in part.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

When the waiting restrictions are implemented the usual exemptions for disabled badge holders will apply.

Use of Evidence:

Site investigations, public consultation and discussions with the Town Council and Local Member.

Page 287 Page 2 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

Budget:

The cost of making the order without Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue is estimated at £2,000 inclusive of advertising charges.

The cost of making another order to cover Sandbourne Avenue, Shottesford Avenue and any other necessary roads within the Persimmons Estate is estimated at £2,000 inclusive of advertising charges.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk: LOW

Recommendation That Cabinet is recommended to (1) revoke its previous decision and (2) to approve the making of the order for parking restrictions in Blandford as advertised excluding the proposals for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue and (3) that parking matters along the whole bus route through the Persimmons Estate be considered separately.

Reason for (1) (1) New information has come to light that indicates the advertised Recommendation proposals for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue are not the most appropriate; (2) (2) The remaining proposals for parking restrictions in Blandford remain suitable restrictions and no objections were received to the advertised proposals. The Town Council is supportive of the proposals being implemented as soon as possible. (3) Further investigation into the bus route through the Persimmons Estate is required to determine whether further parking restrictions are required.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Report submitted to the Regulatory Committee on 11 June 2015 Appendix 2 – Minutes of the Regulatory Committee meeting held on 11 June 2015 Appendix 3 – Minutes of Cabinet meeting held on 8 July 2015 Appendix 4 – Drawing showing the bus route through the Persimmons Estate

Background Papers All background papers are held on file in the Environment and the Economy Directorate.

Report Originator and Name: Denise Thorner Contact Tel: 01305 221709 Email: [email protected]

Page 288 Page 3 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

1. Background

1.1 The Blandford parking review was advertised for public consultation on 27 February 2015. Four objections were received for the Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue proposals in Blandford. There were no objections to the other proposals.

1.2 The objections were reported to the Regulatory Committee on 11 June 2015 but due to staff changes there was an oversight and the objectors were not advised in advance that they could attend and address the Committee.

1.3 The Regulatory Committee and Cabinet resolved that the proposed waiting restriction should be implemented as advertised including those in Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue based on the information reported (see Appendices 1 to 3 attached).

2. Information

2.1 Following the Cabinet meeting on 8 July 2015, officers were contacted by the objectors when it was noticed that markings had appeared to indicate where the restrictions were to be painted.

2.2 A meeting was held with residents of Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue (3 of the objectors and 2 other residents) on 26 January 2016 which County Councillor Barrie Cooper also attended. Another meeting was held on 28 January 2016 with a resident of Shottesford Avenue who was unable to be present at the first meeting.

2.3 It was pointed out by the residents at the meeting on 26 January 2016 that if objections were received to a proposal affecting a bus service then a public inquiry should be held. However, Regulation 9 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Order (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulation 1996 states that the Traffic Authority is only obliged to hold a public inquiry before making an order if the effect of the order is “to prohibit or restrict the passage of public service vehicles along a road and an objection has been made to the order by the operator of a local service of the route of which includes that road”.

2.4 It has also been brought to officers’ attention that the bus service is having difficulties negotiating other parts of the Persimmons Estate, particularly Ghurkha Road.

2.5 The Town Council wish for the remainder of the Blandford parking review to be implemented as soon as possible and are content for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue to be addressed at a later stage in conjunction with other routes in the area including Ghurkha Road.

3. Law

3.1 Sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allow the County Council to make an Order prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the unloading of vehicles. The circumstances where an Order may be made include:

For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road; For facilitating the passage on the road of any class of traffic.

3.2 Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 imposes a duty on the County Council. It must exercise the functions conferred on them by that Act to secure the Page 289 Page 4 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. In doing so, the Council must have regard, so far as practicable, to the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises; the effect on the amenities of any locality affected; the national air quality strategy; the importance of facilitating passage of public service vehicles and the safety and convenience of persons using such vehicles and any other matters that appear relevant.

4. Conclusion

4.1 It is proposed that the existing Blandford parking review is implemented without Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue. The entire bus route through the Persimmons Estate (See Appendix 4) can then be fully assessed and an acceptable solution achieved for both the bus company and residents.

4.2 It is considered that the proposal amended as recommended enables the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians with particular regard to the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises and the effect on the amenities of the affected locality.

Mike Harries Director for Environment and the Economy April 2016

Page 290 Page 1 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

Agenda Item:

Regulatory 7 Committee

Date of Meeting 11 June 2015

Officer Andrew Martin - Head of Highways

Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Subject of Report Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

Executive Summary Following the advertising of proposed changes to parking restrictions in various roads in Blandford, objections have been received to the proposals for Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue. This report considers those objections, and whether the proposals in Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue should be implemented as advertised.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: The proposed waiting restrictions will have the usual exemption for disabled badge holders.

Use of Evidence:

Site investigations, public consultation and support of Local Member, Town and District Councils and the Police.

Budget:

The cost of making the Order is estimated at £2500 inclusive of advertising charges.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk: LOW

Page 291 Page 1 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

Recommendation That having considered the objections received, Cabinet be recommended to approve the proposed waiting restrictions on Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue as originally advertised.

Reason for Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue has a tight bend Recommendation which is frequently obstructed by parked cars. The proposals will improve the movement of larger vehicles especially the bus service that uses the road regularly and will improve access for emergency service vehicles.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Drawing No. 2189/1/65H

Background Papers Four letters of response are available in the Members Room.

Consultation responses from the District and Town Councils, Dorset Police and the local County Councillor are held on file in the Environment and the Economy Directorate.

Report Originator and Name: Andrew Brown Contact Tel: 01305 225142 Email: [email protected]

Page 292 Page 1 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

1. Background

1.1 Proposals were advertised for public consultation on 27 February 2015 for a variety of changes to waiting restrictions in Blandford. The only objections received were to the proposed No Waiting restrictions in Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford. This report considers those objections.

1.2 Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue are located on the Persimmons Estate on the northern eastern side of Blandford. The road has a tight bend that leads further in to the estate.

1.3 There have been parking problems in Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue and the local bus company have requested waiting restrictions. They were particularly concerned that not only buses but emergency, refuse and delivery vehicles were sometimes unable to pass along the road due to parked vehicles. There is no record of any collisions in the area.

1.4 The bus service is well used by Blandford residents and serves other parts of the estate that has a high percentage of potential bus users that will be disadvantaged by the long walk to the nearest bus stop in Holland Way for journeys into Blandford and Poole. Double deck buses are used on the route as they are shorter and therefore more manoeuvrable on the estate roads than longer single deck buses.

2. Information

2.1 Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue are used by residents and visitors to the Persimmons Estate to park. All the houses next to the proposed waiting restrictions have off-street parking.

2.2 County Council officers proposed that No Waiting would be an appropriate restriction on the length of Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue as shown in Appendix 1. This restriction would discourage casual on street parking in Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue by residents and visitors.

2.3 The proposed restriction would improve access for large vehicles including buses and emergency vehicles.

3. Law

Sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allow the County Council to make an Order prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the unloading of vehicles. The circumstances where an Order may be made include:

For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road; For facilitating the passage on the road of any class of traffic;

4. Consultation

4.1 Under Dorset County Council’s procedure, primary consultation was carried out on the proposed scheme and is supported by the Local Member, North Dorset District Council, Blandford Town Council and the Police.

4.2 There have been 4 responses to the public consultation process, and these are summarised below. There are 4 objections to the proposals from residents, 3 who live in Sandbourne Avenue and 1 who lives in Shottesford Avenue:-

Page 293 Page 1 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

Name and Address Summary of Response Mr D Wild, Objects to the proposed yellow lines. The problem has arisen 10 Sandbourne Avenue, since the X8 bus was routed through the estate. If parking Blandford restrictions go ahead it will cause parking problems for visitors in the affected area. Inevitably drivers will start to park away from the yellow lines which could infringe on his property resulting in his driveway being obstructed. The bus route should be re-routed. Mr G Bassford, Objects to the proposed yellow lines. Increase of the average 14 Sandbourne Avenue, speed of traffic flow at and around the junction. The bus is Blandford too large to traverse this junction safely. Worsen the already poor parking facilities throughout the Persimmons Estate. Mr S Cronin, Objects to the proposed yellow lines. The proposed waiting 12 Sandbourne Avenue restrictions will adversely impact on the amenities of the local Blandford area by restricting the very limited casual on road parking for residents. Removing the casual on road parking will allow vehicles to move through this junction far more freely and at a much higher speed therefore increasing the possible risks. The estate roads are not designed to take a double decker bus. Helen Sherwood, Objects to the proposed yellow lines. The proposed 24 Shottesford Avenue, restriction will result in not being able to load/unload outside Blandford her property. Visitors will not be able to park in front of her property. The proposals will degrade the attractiveness of the house to future buyers because of the issues above and as a result it is likely to reduce its value, thus she will suffer financial loss as a direct consequence.

4.3 The 4 residents who object all live and regularly park in Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue. Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue is the nearest on- street parking to their properties. They all consider that there are times when they need to park in Sandbourne Avenue or Shottesford Avenue during the working day, and that the proposed restrictions would be detrimental to them.

4.4 Three objectors state that the estate roads were not built to take double decker buses and that there is not the requirement for the bus to make its way through the estate. They state that there has been bus stops close by for a number of years to serve the residents and do not see the need for restrictions as they are wholly disproportionate response to a perceived problem that does not even exist.

4.5 Having considered all the responses received, it is considered that the current proposals are a reasonable compromise between the differing views of residents in the Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue area. It is considered that the introduction of the proposed restrictions should be progressed rather than leave the situation as existing.

Andrew Martin Head of Highways June 2015

Page 294 Page 1 – Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford

Appendix 1

Page 295 This page is intentionally left blank Regulatory Committee

Minutes of a meeting held at County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester on 11 June 2015.

Present: Councillors David Jones (Chairman) Pauline Batstone (Vice-Chairman) Barrie Cooper, Ian Gardner, Mike Lovell, David Mannings, Margaret Phipps, Mark Tewkesbury, David Walsh and Kate Wheller.

Lesley Dedman, County Councillor for Mudeford and Highcliffe attended the meeting by invitation for minutes 51 to 56.

Officers attending : Andrew Brown (Manager – Traffic Engineering), Roger Bell (Rights of Way Officer), Phil Crowther (Solicitor), Mike Garrity (Team Leader), Phil Hobson (Rights of Way Officer), Sarah Meggs (Senior Solicitor), Vanessa Penny (Team Manager – Definitive Map), Huw Williams (Principal Planning Officer) and David Northover (Senior Democratic Services Officer).

(Note: These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Regulatory Committee to be held on 30 July 2015).

Public Speakers Malcolm Mawbey, local resident, minutes 51 to 53. Barry Rayner, local resident, minutes 54 to 56. Dennis Quilter, local resident, minutes 54 to 56. Andrew Marriner, local resident, minutes 67 to 69. Lorna Jenkin, local resident, minutes 67 to 69. Michael Nisbet, local resident, minutes 70 to 72. Michael Wood, for landowner, minutes 70 to 72. Michael Jupp, Beaminster Town Council, minutes 70 to 72. Marcus Chambers, local resident, minutes 70 to 72.

Apologies for Absence 47. Apologies for absence were received from Steve Butler, Beryl Ezzard, Mervyn Jeffery, Peter Richardson and Daryl Turner.

Code of Conduct 48.1 There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

48.2 With reference to minutes 51 to 53, David Jones, having worked closely professionally with the petitioner Malcolm Mawbey at Christchurch Borough Council as his Vice-Chairman, some years ago, did not consider that this would preclude him in the debate of this matter as he had not prejudged the matter.

48.3 With reference to minutes 54 to 56, David Jones, whilst confirming that he had no disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct, knew the organiser of the proposals for Pinehurst Avenue on a social basis and as a fellow director of a flats management company associated with Pinehurst Road so, on that basis, he would express

Page 297 2 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

his views as a Borough divisional councillor but would play no part in the discussion of this item and would leave the Committee Room when the voting took place. He asked that the Vice-Chairman, Pauline Batstone, take the chair for this item.

48.4 Similarly he confirmed that as he had previously been instrumental in supporting the waiting restrictions proposals for Caxton Close, Christchurch he would once again speak as local member but would play no part in the discussion of this item and leave the Committee Room when the voting took place.

48.5 With reference to minutes 60 to 62, Barrie Cooper confirmed that as he had previously been instrumental in supporting the waiting restrictions proposals for Blandford, he would speak as local member but would play no part in the discussion of this item and would leave the Committee Room when the voting took place.

Minutes 49.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2015 were confirmed and signed.

49.2 David Mannings reported that subsequent to that meeting, the applicant of the Old Granary Close application had expressed appreciation for the way in which that particular application had been determined by Committee.

Public Participation Public Speaking 50.1 There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

50.2 There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions 50.3 There was one petition received in accordance with the County Council’s petition scheme at this meeting, minutes 51 to 53 refer.

Procedure for Petitions - Petition requesting a 20 mph speed limit on the A337 in Highcliffe, Christchurch 51.1 The Committee considered a report by the Head of Highways on the receipt of a petition containing 334 signatures requesting the imposition of a 20 mph speed limit on the A337 through Highcliffe, Christchurch to address the speed of vehicles passing along the road on road safety grounds and to improve the quality of life for those in that area. The petitioners were concerned that as the A337 was a busy, primary route which passed through the Highcliffe Shopping Centre, traffic speeds needed to be regulated particularly as the majority of the shoppers were elderly and had expressed concern about the traffic.

51.2 Given that rush hours caused significant congestion, the petitioners considered that a reduction in the speed limit would be consistent with stated policy of the adopted Core Strategy and with Government guidance to councils on setting local speed limits in shopping areas where there were vulnerable people. The reduction would improve the flow of traffic by giving more time for congestion to clear before the arrival of more vehicles.

51.3 With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the basis of the petitioner’s request. Plans and photographs were shown which provided an understanding of the context of the road, its characteristics and its setting. It also showed its relationship with

Page 298 3 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

development and facilities along the road. The report provided the Committee with a series of options on how they might consider responding to the petition.

51.4 Officer’s explained that the 20 mph Speed Limit Policy allowed parishes to fund speed limits subject to meeting the necessary criteria. However this option was not available to Borough Councils. Alternatively, the request could be assessed and prioritised against criteria for future funds.

51.5 Members noted that there had been 8 reported personal injury accidents in the latest available 5 year period and that there was currently no speed survey data for that section of road. Officers explained that should the Committee agree to the petition request being progressed, the site and suitability should be assessed and prioritised against other proposals to establish if it was appropriate and met the necessary criteria.

51.6 Malcolm Mawbey, the petitioner, explained the background to the petition and what he hoped it would achieve. Given that it was a primary route used by heavy goods vehicles, the reduction of the limit was seen to be of benefit to vulnerable road users, would ease congestion and improve the environment for those who used that stretch of the A337. With the aid of a series of photographs he pointed out the facilities served by the road and its characteristics, including residential and commercial premises, a medical centre and a nursery school. The lowering of the limit would improve access to these when the road needed to be crossed.

51.7 The County Councillor for Mudeford and Highcliffe confirmed that she was wholly supportive of the principles behind what the petition was trying to achieve and that the lowering of the limit would go a long way to meeting the objectives of the petition. As Highcliffe had a considerably high proportion of elderly residents, the reduction in the limit would considerably improve road safety, given that access to facilities used by vulnerable road users was served by the A337. She had experienced the conflict between pedestrians and cyclists and heavy goods vehicles using the A337 and considered that there was a need for this to be addressed. She asked that, in the absence of current speed data, this should be obtained in order to determine how things might be progressed.

51.8 Whilst obtaining 334 signatures was considerable, she considered that if the petition had been more proactively canvassed, those signatories would have increased significantly. She considered that if the scheme was justified, there should be no financial impediment to it being implemented and asked the Committee to support it.

51.9 The Committee considered that the principles of the petition and what it was designed to achieve had merit and should be supported. They felt that there did appear to be an issue which needed addressing and that speed data should be gathered to determine the depth of the problem. Some councillors thought that all speed limits should be lowered to 20 mph in built up areas where facilities for vulnerable users were situated. Other members thought that 20 mph limits should only be used selectively so that their impact was not diluted, where there was deemed to be a real need, and where traffic speeds supported this.

51.10 The Committee recognised that if a 20 limit was to be implemented then it should be properly enforced to ensure that it was successful. This was something which needed to be borne in mind if the issue was to be progressed. Officers confirmed that any further research would include detailed consideration of accident records, speed data and traffic flows.

51.11 On being put to the vote, the Committee decided that research into the matter should be undertaken, the site and suitability of the request should be assessed and

Page 299 4 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

prioritised against other proposals to establish if it was appropriate and met the necessary criteria and the petitioner notified accordingly.

Resolved 52. That the petition be noted and the petitioner be notified that research into the matter would be undertaken and the site and suitability of the request should be assessed and prioritised against other proposals to establish if it was appropriate and met the necessary criteria.

Reason for Decision 53. In the interests of road safety.

Traffic Matters

Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Christchurch (David Jones confirmed that as he had previously been instrumental in supporting the waiting restrictions proposals for Caxton Close, he would speak as local member but would play no part in the discussion of this item and left the Committee Room when the voting took place. Similarly the organiser of the proposals for Pinehurst Avenue as a fellow director of a flats management company associated with Pinehurst Road was known to him on a social basis so, on that basis, he would express his views as a Borough divisional councillor but would play no part in the discussion of this item and would leave the Committee Room when the voting took place. The Vice-Chairman, Pauline Batstone, took the chair for this item) 54.1 The Committee considered a report by the Head of Highways explaining that following the advertising of proposed changes to parking restrictions in various roads in Christchurch, objections had been received to the proposals for Caxton Close, Pinehurst Avenue, Scott’s Hill Lane/Rotterdam Drive and Stuart Road. Consequently, the Committee was now being asked to give consideration to those objections and decide whether to recommend that the proposals should be implemented as advertised.

54.2 With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the reasoning behind the need to impose the waiting restrictions and the basis of the objections received. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed where the proposals would be situated, the character of the roads and their setting within the townscape. It also showed the relationship between the roads and commercial and residential properties and the effect that displaced parking was having on residential streets. Objections received considered that the proposed arrangements would be detrimental to their parking needs and affect trade. However officers considered that the proposals were, on balance, the best achievable to meet competing needs and addressed the issues currently being experienced. Councillors were informed that Christchurch Borough Council had supported the proposals as advertised.

54.3 Officers described the particular necessity for each set of waiting restrictions within the context of their respective roads and how each were designed to address a particular set of circumstances. Consequently, the waiting restrictions varied between roads to reflect those needs and to complement other restrictions in that area. That necessity comprised maintaining the passage on the road, reducing congestion, safety implications and the obstruction of driveways to properties.

54.4 The County Councillor for Burton Grange supported the proposed waiting restrictions, particularly those for Pinehurst Avenue and Caxton Close, him being instrumental in formulating the proposals for the latter.

Page 300 5 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

54.5 Of particular mention were the proposals for Pinehurst Avenue given the issues being experienced on that road. Barry Rayner, local resident, considered that the restrictions were necessary to address the issues residents were having in being able to readily access their properties and in ensuring that visitors had the ability to park. He considered that the primary reason for this was as a result of displaced parking from the Christchurch Harbour Hotel following the development of its car park, which had undoubtedly compounded the situation.

54.6 Dennis Quilter, local resident, expressed similar views in that he attributed the escalation of the parking problems in the road with the development of the hotel car park. This had displaced both patrons and staff so they now had to park on street, with Pinehurst Road seemingly being the most convenient. He suggested other more suitable roads which might be able to better accommodate this displaced parking and which were within close walking distance. Furthermore as Pinehurst Avenue was effectively a cul-de sac, the road was often congested with vehicles seeking to park unsuccessfully and having to negotiate a three point turn manoeuvre.

54.7 The County Councillor for Mudeford and Highcliffe supported the proposals for the roads in her electoral division considering that those proposed for Pinehurst Avenue were designed to improve the quality of life for residents and provide them with improved accessibility. Whilst she acknowledged the benefits that the Hotel brought to the area, she acknowledged that the parking situation in the road had undoubtedly been compounded by the decision to develop the hotel’s car park. The proposed measures would go a considerable way to addressing that issue.

54.8 On a general point, the Committee was of the view that, wherever possible, dialogue between developers and the highways authority should take place so that similar situations might be avoided in future and partnership arrangements should be put in place to facilitate this.

54.9 Having considered the objections received, the Committee considered that the proposed waiting restrictions were necessary to address the issues being experienced and were both reasonable and proportionate in achieving this. Given this, and taking into account the support of the local county councillors and Christchurch Borough Council, they considered that the proposals should be implemented as advertised.

Recommended 55. That having considered the objections received, the Cabinet be asked to approve the proposed waiting restrictions on Caxton Close, Pinehurst Avenue, Scott’s Hill Lane/Rotterdam Drive and Stuart Road, Christchurch as originally advertised.

Reason for Recommendation 56. The proposals should improve the safety aspect of vehicle movements in Caxton Close and Stuart Road, which both have a ninety degree bend with no visibility; safer and improved vehicle movements in Scott’s Hill Lane/Rotterdam Drive for vehicles exiting the road and being faced with vehicles entering off the B3059 at speed. The proposal in Pinehurst Avenue would give priority for parking to residents and visitors rather than all-day parking by employees to a local hotel and visitors to local beaches in the summer months.

Proposed 30 mph Speed limit on the A351 in Harman's Cross 57.1 The Committee considered a report by the Head of Highways on proposals to implement a 30 mph speed limit on the A351 in Harman's Cross. Following advertisement of

Page 301 6 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

the proposed reduction from 40mph to 30 mph, objections had been received and the Committee was now being asked to consider those objections and decide whether to recommend that the proposal should be implemented as advertised.

57.2 With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the reasoning behind the request from Worth Matravers Parish Council for the reduction in the speed limit on road safety grounds. Photographs and plans of the length of road concerned were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed the route, its character and setting within the village and the points between which it ran.

57.3 The configuration of the road was explained to councillors and the relationship of this with residential properties along the route and how other features such as the petrol garage, bus stops and the part access to the Swanage Railway and the village hall has affected officer’s consideration of a speed reduction. Councillors were informed that data from a traffic flow and speed survey undertaken generally supported the lowering of the speed limit along that length of road and given that the road was undulating, with a series of bends, on balance a 30 mph limit was considered to be appropriate and be beneficial to improving road safety.

57.4 Officers explained that the representations received were largely equally supportive of and objecting to the proposals. Those in support were largely residents of Harman’s Cross who considered that lowering the limit would benefit road safety through the settlement, whilst those opposed largely lived elsewhere but regularly travelled through the village and considered the proposal was an unnecessary impediment to their journey times.

57.5 The County Councillor for Purbeck Hills supported the proposal on road safety grounds considering that, as the majority of support had been from residents and that further development in the village would generate greater activity, the proposal should be implemented as advertised.

57.6 With regard to whether the proposals would be enforceable, officers confirmed that in addition to the support of the Parish Council, Langton Matravers Parish Council and Purbeck District Council, Dorset Police were supportive of the measures.

57.7 The Committee considered that as the criteria were met, on balance, the proposals should be implemented as advertised as the lowering of the limit would contribute towards improved road safety throughout the village.

Recommended 58. That the Cabinet be asked to approve the implementation of the proposed 30 mph limit on the A351 through Harman's cross as advertised and as set out in drawing number 2265/2/4 in Appendix 2 to the Head of Highways report.

Reason for Recommendation 59. The proposals would improve the safety of the residents of the village providing an improved environment for those who live there.

Proposed Waiting Restrictions - Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford (Barrie Cooper confirmed that as he had previously been instrumental in supporting the waiting restriction proposals for Blandford, he would speak as local member but would play no part in the discussion of this item and left the Committee Room when the voting took place.) 60.1 The Committee considered a report by the Head of Highways explaining that following the advertising of proposed changes to parking restrictions in various roads in

Page 302 7 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

Blandford, objections had been received to the proposals for Sandbourne Avenue/ Shottesford Avenue in Blandford. Consequently, the Committee was now being asked to give consideration to those objections and decide whether the proposals should be recommended for implementation as advertised.

60.2 With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the reasoning behind the need to impose the waiting restrictions and the basis of the objections received. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed where the proposals would be situated, the character of the roads and their setting within the townscape. The need for the proposals had arisen from the experience of service buses using the route having their passage impeded by vehicles parking around the tight bends in that area of the estate. Of particular concern was that not only were buses being affected but emergency, refuse and delivery vehicles were on occasion unable to pass. As the bus route was well used and well established there was reluctance for it to be altered so as to avoid that particular point. Accordingly, the proposed restrictions were designed to alleviate the situation.

60.3 Officers confirmed that the proposals were supported by Blandford Forum Town Council, North Dorset District Council and Dorset Police. Objections to the proposals were received from local residents who considered that these would have a detrimental effect on their ability to park where they wished.

60.4 The County Council member for Blandford supported the proposals as advertised, considering that it was necessary for the bus route to be preserved and the safe passage of large vehicles around that point assured. On a wider issue he considered that more consideration should have been given to the configuration of the road network in the development of the estate.

60.5 The Committee considered the proposals were necessary to ensure that buses could safely negotiate that point in the estate and should be recommended for implementation as advertised.

Recommended 61. That having considered the objections received, the Cabinet be asked to approve the proposed waiting restrictions on Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford as originally advertised and as set out in drawing no. 2018/1/65H at Appendix 1 in the Head of Highway's report.

Reason for Recommendation 62. Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue had a tight bend which was frequently obstructed by parked cars. The proposals would improve the movement of larger vehicles especially the bus service that used the road regularly and would improve access for emergency service vehicles.

Poole Road, Upton - Amendments to Parking Arrangements (During consideration of this item, David Jones stated that his wife was a blue badge holder but he considered that this did not preclude him from taking part in the debate and voting on the issue) 63.1 The Committee considered a report by the Head of Highways setting out responses to the Draft Order consultation and resulting correspondence relating to the proposal to amend the parking restrictions on Poole Road, Upton and consideration of the modification of the advertised proposal to accommodate concerns of the objection received.

63.2 With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the need for the

Page 303 8 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

amendments to the parking arrangements as a result of highway improvements being made along Poole Road, including the provision of a cycle route scheme and the renewal of the existing footway. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. The parking amendment was proposed to complement the shared use footway/cycleway by moving parking from the immediate vicinity of the pedestrian crossing to improve visibility. The practical effect of the traffic proposals was to move on-street parking spaces westwards away from the pedestrian crossing, resulting in the overall net loss of one disabled parking space.

63.3 Whilst some members did not see the new arrangements as an improvement for those requiring the use of a disabled parking bay, it was explained that, in practice, the space available for disabled parking was limited to a single space, despite the legal order providing for two. The amendment now being sought was designed to address the objection received that the current location of the bay obstructed a property’s access. The proposals were designed to regulate arrangements so that the bays could be legally marked and implemented as soon as possible. The amendments were supported by Lytchett Minster and Upton Town Council and the County Councillor for Lytchett.

63.4 The Committee saw the benefits of the proposals in that they were necessary as a consequence of the improvements made to the visibility splay and the highway improvement scheme introduced.

Recommended 64. That having considered the objection received, the Cabinet be asked to approve the amendment to the prohibition and restriction of waiting in Poole Road, Upton as advertised, subject to a modification to relocate the disabled parking bay as shown on scheme plan HI1025/014/01/a.

Reason for Recommendation 65. The proposals as advertised subject to the modification enabled the implementation of the proposed off-road cycleway from Upton Cross to Upton House on B3067 which achieved the aims of: • Avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the roads, or any other road, and for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising. • Facilitating the passage on the road, or any other road, of any class of traffic (including foot passengers) or of vehicles. • Preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs. • Allowing Disabled Badge Holders to continue to park (in accordance with the concessions available to them under the Blue Badge Scheme).

In addition, the proposed modification accommodated the concerns raised by an objector.

Acknowledgment 66. As this would be Andrew Brown’s final meeting, the Chairman took the opportunity to thank him for his contribution to the work of the Committee over the years and wished him every success in the future. Mr Brown duly responded.

Page 304 9 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

Rights of Way Matters

Dorset County Council (Footpath from Broad Street to Marine Parade, Lyme Regis (known as Teneriffe Path)) Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2013 67.1 The Committee considered a report by the Director for Environment and the Economy which considered new evidence submitted by Lyme Regis Town Council in reconsidering the position to be adopted by the County Council on the submission of the Footpath from Broad Street to Marine Parade, Lyme Regis (known as Teneriffe Path) Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2013 to the Secretary of State following the receipt of objections.

67.2 With the aid of a visual presentation the basis for the application was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed the claimed route, its character and setting within the townscape and the points between which it ran. The documentary and user evidence contained in the earlier reports was referred to, as was the new evidence provided by the Parish Council in January 2014. It was considered that the new evidence added little value.

67.3 The Committee were also provided with an extensive explanation of the background to the application, supplemented by previous reports to Committee, how the position now reached had been arrived at and the part the Roads and Rights of Way Committee had played in what the Committee was now being asked to do.

67.4 The Team Manager – Definitive Map and the Senior Solicitor explained the legal implications of the decisions previously taken by Committee and emphasised the need for a decision which was made by the Committee to support or oppose the confirmation of the Order, should be based on the evidence that was set out in earlier reports in order to avoid the possibility of legal challenge. The Senior Solicitor, officers and the Chairman clarified what issues needed to be addressed and what needed to be taken into consideration by the Committee in coming to its decision.

67.5 Given that the merits of the application were being debated between the applicant, Lyme Regis Town Council, and those opposed to the application, officers considered that the County Council should play no part in its determination. Consequently, officers were recommending that the Order should be submitted to the Secretary of State for determination and that the County Council should take a neutral stance in the proceedings.

67.6 Andrew Marriner, local resident, objected to the application as he considered the new evidence submitted by the Town Council to add no value to what had previously been considered and that the County Council should take a neutral stance, as had previously been the case. He considered there to be insufficient evidence to support the claimed rights, that weight should be given to the evidence to suggest that use was by permission only and that there was uncertainty over the dates being claimed. He considered that no further resources should be diverted by the County Council on this and that the Secretary of State should determine it.

67.7 Lorna Jenkin, local resident, was of the view that the wealth of evidence suggested that the claimed route was a public right of way and that Lyme Regis Town Council had demonstrated sufficiently that this was the case. She considered that the County Council should maintain its position of supporting the Order, as it had in January 2014.

67.8 The Committee asked for clarification of what scope they had to make a decision on this application and on what basis they might be able to do this.

Page 305 10 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

67.9 The Senior Solicitor confirmed that whilst a decision to take a neutral stance did not require a review of the evidence, any decision taken to support or oppose confirmation should be based exclusively on the evidence before them and not on desirability or need, and that any judgement should be made on that basis. The Chairman reinforced this position.

67.10 Officers explained that their recommendation of a neutral stance was based on the practical issues and was a procedural matter. If the Committee were to determine that the rights existed or did not exist then their reasoning for this should reflect their consideration of the evidence.

67.11 Having understood fully the implications of coming to any other decision than to take a neutral stance, and having had the opportunity to consider fully the available evidence before them on the claimed right, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendations contained in the Director’s report.

Resolved 68.1 That the Order be submitted to the Secretary of State for determination. 68.2 That the County Council takes a neutral stance in the proceedings.

Reason for Decision 69. (a) There have been objections to the Order and therefore the County Council must submit it to the Secretary of State for an Inspector to be appointed to consider confirmation; and (b) Continued investment of public resources relating to this matter was not considered to be in the public interest.

Decisions on applications for definitive map modification orders ensured that changes to the network of public rights of way complied with the legal requirements and achieved the corporate plan objectives of: - Enabling Economic Growth • Ensure good management of our environmental and historic assets and heritage - Health, Wellbeing and Safeguarding • Work to improve the health and wellbeing of all our residents and visitors by increasing the rate of physical activity in Dorset • Improve the provision of, and access to, the natural environment and extend the proven health and other benefits of access to open space close to where people live • Enable people to live in safe, healthy and accessible environments and communities

Application for a definitive map and statement modification order to add a footpath from Bridleway 59 to Footpath 58, Beaminster 70.1 The Committee considered a report by the Director for Environment and the Economy which set out details of an application for a definitive map and statement modification order to add a footpath from Bridleway 59 to Footpath 58, Beaminster.

70.2 With the aid of a visual presentation the basis for the application was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed the claimed route, its character and setting within the woodland and the points between which it ran. The documentary and user evidenced contained in the report was referred to in detail. Given analysis of the evidence, officers had concluded that,

Page 306 11 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

on balance, this was insufficient to demonstrate that the claimed right of way between A – B - C - D subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to subsist, and the evidence was inconclusive.

70.3 Michael Nisbet, local resident, supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds that the documentary evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that the route subsisted and because there was documentary evidence contrary to that claim.

70.4 Michael Wood, speaking on behalf of the landowner, considered that the use of the route between A - D would be impractical given the terrain and that the supporting user evidence was inconsistent and incomplete so was not credible and consequently should be disregarded.

70.5 Michael Jupp, Beaminster Town Council, supported the application, and considered that there was evidence to demonstrate that the route had been used for a considerable number of years. However, he hoped that if the Committee decided to refuse the application, arrangements could be put in place so that the route could continue to be used on a more informal basis.

70.6 Marcus Chambers, local resident, supported the application too, considering that the user evidence bore out use of the route and that there was evidence of use over a considerable time. He considered the route to be a medieval route which should be formalised so that use could continue to be made, without hindrance. He considered that this was in accordance with the County Council’s Corporate Plan aims for economic growth, health and wellbeing and access to natural environment.

70.7 The Committee considered that the documentary evidence demonstrated that the full route between A - D was incomplete and inconclusive and, on that basis, agreed with the officer’s recommendation.

Resolved 71. That the application to add a footpath from Bridleway 59 to Footpath 58, Beaminster between points A - B - C - D, as shown on drawing number 13/44/1 in Appendix 1 to the Director’s report, be refused.

Reason for Decision 72. The available evidence did not, on balance, show that the claimed right of way between points A and D subsisted or was reasonably alleged to subsist.

Decisions on applications for definitive map modification orders ensured that changes to the network of public rights of way complied with the legal requirements and achieved the Corporate Plan objectives of: • Enabling Economic Growth - Ensure good management of our environmental and historic assets and heritage. • Health, Wellbeing and Safeguarding - Work to improve the health and wellbeing of all our residents and visitors by increasing the rate of physical activity in Dorset. - Improve the provision of, and access to, the natural environment and extend the proven health and other benefits of access to open space close to where people live. - Enable people to live in safe, healthy and accessible environments and communities.

Page 307 12 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

Application for a definitive map and statement modification order to add footpaths in Whitchurch Canonicorum and Chideock parishes, east of Ryall 73.1 The Committee considered a report by the Director for Environment and the Economy on an application for a definitive map and statement modification order to add a series of footpaths in the parishes of Whitchurch Canonicorum and Chideock and were asked to consider the evidence relating to the status of the routes.

73.2 With the aid of a visual presentation, the basis for the application was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. These showed the claimed route, its character and setting within the countryside, the points between which they ran and their relationship between each other. The documentary and user evidence contained in the report was also referred to in detail. The weight to be afforded to the user and documentary evidence was explained. Officers reported that the evidence on the ground of the status of the routes was inconclusive, with very little being able to be determined from this.

73.3 Officers reported that, from analysis, the available evidence did not, on balance, show that the claimed rights of way subsisted or could be reasonably alleged to subsist. Therefore they recommended refusal of the application.

73.4 Officer’s drew attention to the receipt of a late submission from the applicant. However, it was considered that this submission added little value to the evidence in support of the application.

73.5 Having considered in detail the evidence submitted and having taken into account the officers recommendation, the Committee considered that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim and agreed that the application should be refused.

Resolved 74. That the application to add footpaths in Whitchurch Canonicorum and Chideock be refused.

Reason for Decision 75. The available evidence did not, on balance, show that the claimed rights of way subsisted or was reasonably alleged to subsist.

Decisions on applications for definitive map modification orders ensured that changes to the network of public rights of way complied with the legal requirements and achieved the Corporate Plan objectives of: • Enabling Economic Growth - Ensure good management of our environmental and historic assets and heritage. • Health, Wellbeing and Safeguarding - Work to improve the health and wellbeing of all our residents and visitors by increasing the rate of physical activity in Dorset. - Improve the provision of, and access to, the natural environment and extend the proven health and other benefits of access to open space close to where people live. - Enable people to live in safe, healthy and accessible environments and communities.

Page 308 13 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

Planning Matter

Planning Application 6/2015/0072 - Variation of Condition 3 (alteration of access) of planning permission 6/2014/0437 (erect new school and pre-school) at site for Bere Regis Primary School, off Southbrook, Bere Regis, Dorset. 76.1 The Committee considered a report by the Head of Economy on planning application 6/2015/0072 for a variation of Condition 3 (alteration of access) of planning permission 6/2014/0437 at the site for Bere Regis Primary School, off Southbrook, Bere Regis, Dorset.

76.2 Whilst planning permission had been granted by Committee for the erection of a new Bere Regis primary school and pre-school to be served by a new access at their meeting on 23 October 2014, permission was now being sought for a slightly amended access arrangement. Officers considered the amended arrangement to be of an appropriate standard and its design, layout and landscaping was considered to be acceptable. As the proposed development was considered to be in general accordance with the development plan, approval of the application was recommended.

76.3 With the aid of visual presentation, officers explained what the application was designed to achieve. Modification of the access arrangements was designed to accommodate landowner considerations but would now require the removal of the lime tree at the junction of Southbrook and Southbrook Road which was obstructing the proposed new access. The modification also provided for an alternative means of addressing surface water and its storage. The report explained how this was to be achieved as this alternative solution was now needed as a result of subsequent investigation into how best to address this issue, given that the original means was now deemed impractical. The replacement planning and landscaping arrangements were also described.

76.4 The Committee’s attention was drawn to the removal of the lime tree by the applicant in advance of any planning permission being granted. Officers considered this to be unfortunate, but no more. Whist the Committee acknowledged that the felling of the tree was undertaken in the interests of being able to accommodate the new access and that it held little intrinsic ecological value, they were nevertheless disappointed that this had occurred and had been undertaken prior to consideration of the application. They were particularly unhappy that this was the case given that the application was a County Council one. They saw no real reason why this should have been the case and asked that every effort be made to avoid a similar situation recurring.

76.5 The Committee asked that the landscape feature which was to be removed by the scheme, be replaced wherever practicable and that a replacement lime tree be planted at the nearest convenient location to the original. Notwithstanding this, the Committee understood the need for the modification and agreed that planning permission should be granted on that basis.

Resolved 77. That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 8.2 of the report.

Reason for decision 78. The reasons for granting planning permission were summarised in paragraph 6.22 of the Head of Economy’s report

Page 309 14 Regulatory Committee – 11 June 2015

Review of Development Management Activities for 2014/15 79. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the fourth quarter and end-of-year review of Development Management Activities for 2014-15, together with a list of applications determined under delegated authority, which were available to see on the County Council’s website, dorsetforyou.com.

Noted

Questions from County Councillors 80. No questions were asked by members under Standing Order 20(2).

Meeting duration 10:00am – 1.40 pm

Page 310 Cabinet

Minutes of a meeting held at County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester on 8 July 2015.

Present: Robert Gould (Chairman) Robin Cook, Toni Coombs, Peter Finney, Rebecca Knox and Colin Jamieson.

Members attending: Paul Kimber, County Councillor for Portland Tophill Mike Lovell, County Councillor for Purbeck Hills (Minutes 266-268) Peter Wharf, County Councillor for Egdon Heath (Minutes 260-261)

Officers Attending: Debbie Ward (Chief Executive), Richard Bates (Chief Financial Officer), Nicky Cleave (Assistant Director of Public Health), Catherine Driscoll (Director for Adult and Community Services), Patrick Ellis (Assistant Chief Executive), Vanessa Glenn (Head of Family Support), Mike Harries (Director for Environment and the Economy), Jonathan Mair (Head of Legal and Democratic Services) and Lee Gallagher (Democratic Services Manager).

For certain items, as appropriate Richard Dodson (Planning Obligations Manager), Mike Garrity (Planning Policy Team Leader), Patrick Myers (Head of Business Development) and Mark Taylor (Head of Internal Audit, Risk and Assurance).

(Notes: (1) In accordance with Rule 16(b) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules the decisions set out in these minutes will come into force and may then be implemented on the expiry of five working days after the publication date. Publication Date: 14 July 2015.

(2) The symbol ( ) denotes that the item considered was a Key Decision and was included in the Forward Plan.

(3) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Cabinet to be held on 2 September 2015.)

Apologies for Absence 231. Apologies for absence were received from Jill Haynes, John Wilson and Sara Tough (Director for Children’s Services). Vanessa Glenn (Head of Family Support) attended the meeting in place of Sara Tough.

Code of Conduct 232. There were no declarations by members of any disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

Minutes 233. The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2015 were confirmed and signed.

Public Participation Public Speaking 234.1 There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

Page 311 2 Cabinet – 8 July 2015

234.2 There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions 235. There were no petitions received in accordance with the County Council’s petition scheme at this meeting.

Draft Cabinet Forward Plan 236.1 The Cabinet considered the Draft Forward Plan, which identified key decisions to be taken by the Cabinet and items planned to be considered in a private part of the meeting on or following the Cabinet meeting on 2 September 2015. The draft plan would be published on 4 August 2015.

236.2 In relation to items on the Forward Plan with dates yet to be determined, the Democratic Services Manager undertook to chase officers to ensure dates were included in the Plan.

Resolved 237. That the Forward Plan be updated following the comments outlined in the minute above.

Panels and Boards 238. The minutes and recommendations of the following meetings were submitted:

(a) Executive Advisory Panel on Periodic Electoral Review – 1 June 2015 Recommendation 50 - Dorset County Council Response to LGBCE Consultation: Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Dorset

(b) Executive Advisory Panel on Pathways to Independence – 4 June 2015 Recommendation 50 - Development of Services for People with Learning Disabilities Recommendation 53 - Review of Housing Support Option for Older People

(c) Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee – 15 June 2015

Resolved 239. That the minutes be received and recommendation 50 of the Executive Advisory Panel on Periodic Electoral Review and Recommendations 50 and 53 of the Executive Advisory Panel on Pathways to Independence be approved.

Recommendation 50 - Dorset County Council Response to LGBCE Consultation: Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Dorset 50. That the response to the consultation, attached as an Annexure to these minutes, as the Council’s holding response be recommended to the Cabinet for approval.

Recommendation 50 - Development of Services for People with Learning Disabilities 50. That the Cabinet be advised to approve the further development of services for people with learning disabilities, as set out in the Director’s report.

Reasons for recommendation 51.1 To take forward the work of the transformation programme (SIATP), address anomalies in service provision, deliver Care Act compliance through a focus on

Page 312 Cabinet – 8 July 2015 3

personalisation and promoting independence and contribute to the delivery of Pathways to Independence. 51.2 To support the County Council’s focus on health, wellbeing and safeguarding.

Recommendation 53 - Review of Housing Support Option for Older People 53. That the Cabinet be advised to approve an approach, incorporating consultation, which seeks to remodel sheltered housing services making maximum use of services eligible for housing benefit and seeking to reduce Council expenditure by up to 50%.

Reasons for recommendation 54.1 The current service was a key component of a wider housing and prevention service. 54.2 Housing Benefit rules have developed. This allowed part of the service currently funded by the current contract to be funded by Housing Benefit. 54.3 The need to provide services as cost effectively as possible and deliver savings to the Directorate as part of the Pathways to Independence programme.

Forward Together Update 240.1 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Development on the progress being made through the Forward Together programme across the Council.

240.2 Members supported the progress of the Forward Together Programme in relation to spend analysis, outcomes based accountability and community capacity building. The need to further develop the new principles for future service planning and transformation were endorsed. It was noted that an initial workshop introduction of community capacity building with town and parish councils has been very positive.

240.3 The County Councillor for Portland Tophill supported the report and highlighted the need to make the most from the expertise of volunteers in the community and to use existing community bodies wherever possible. It was confirmed that this would be done.

240.4 It was also recognised that this was an area where all members could make a significant difference within their local divisions to highlight successful community groups and those that could benefit from support and facilitation from the Council.

Noted

Medium Term Financial Plan Update 241.1 The Cabinet considered a report by the Leader of the Council on the Medium Term Financial Plan which included the national and local issues that impacted on the County Council’s finances.

241.2 The Leader of the Council provided a detailed summary of the budget setting process, in advance of the Chancellor’s budget speech expected later in the day. It was noted that the future challenging budget position would be further exacerbated by balances and reserves reducing to the lower end of the Council’s operational range which would prevent the potential write off of any overspends in the future. It was acknowledged that any overspends would have a direct impact on the ability to provide other services which presented a significant risk to the authority.

241.3 Members discussed the report in detail, and it was suggested that recognition be given to the need to spend £50k, as a carry forward from the Environment and the

Page 313 4 Cabinet – 8 July 2015

Economy Directorate, to employ an external advisor in respect of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and airport development.

241.4 The County Councillor for Portland Tophill urged the Cabinet to do everything possible to adopt the living wage and encourage other employers to do likewise.

Resolved 242.1 That the overspend on Adult and Community Services at the end of 2014/15 (£1,122k) not be carried forward by the Directorate into 2015/16. 242.2 That the overspend on Children’s Services, including on SEN/COOS transport, at the end of 2014/15 (£2,277k) not be carried forward by the Directorate into 2015/16. 242.3 That the County Council’s share of the DWP overspend at the end of 2014/15 (£1,750k) not be carried forward into 2015/16. 242.4 That a carry forward of £50k be approved from the Environment and the Economy directorate for LEP and airport development. 242.5 That the level and adequacy of General Balances at 31 March 2015 be noted.

Reason for Decisions 243. To enable work to continue on refining and managing the County Council’s budget plan for 2016/17 and the three years of the MTFP period, and beyond.

Corporate Performance Monitoring Report 244. The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Development on the monitoring of the Corporate Balanced Scorecard, including the Corporate Plan, for the fourth quarter of 2014-15.

Noted

Support Services Transformation 245.1 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Development on the need to develop the Council’s support services to reduce transactional process, reduce costs and provide the capacity and capability to support the wider transformation of the Council.

245.2 The Cabinet Member for Corporate Development summarised the need to review support services to enable transformation, and that this could be done by external expert advisors to give advice and identify options. It was reported that following early procurement research there was a preferred provider of external advice through PA Consulting from a strong field of advisors. It was therefore agreed that PA advisors would be engaged as the external advisors.

245.3 Members felt that it was appropriate to get an external perspective on support services and to provide independent verification. It was also suggested that a focus on organisational development was needed in order to ensure the culture of transformation across the whole authority rather than transactional changes to service delivery.

245.4 The County Councillor for Portland Tophill referred to the need to coordinate and work jointly with other local authorities and to benefit from ideas from staff and the public.

Resolved 246.1 That PA Consulting be appointed as external advisers to advise and assist the Council in the development of an appraisal of the options to transform support services and that the Chief Executive (after consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Corporate Development) be granted delegated authority to agree the option or options for assessment in a business case.

Page 314 Cabinet – 8 July 2015 5

246.2 That the Chief Executive be granted delegated authority, after consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Corporate Development, to publish if needed an appropriate Prior Information Notice and other preparatory procurement activity in order to ensure the Council is ready to take a decision on the way forward in the autumn. 246.3 That officers be instructed to undertake a proportionate consultation with residents on the options for transforming the Council’s support services. 246.4 That the business case and options appraisal be considered by an all member seminar that will inform consideration by the Audit and Scrutiny Committee, which will in turn make recommendations to the Cabinet.

Reason for Decisions 247. To ensure the Cabinet was appropriately informed to take a decision on the way forward for its support services in the autumn.

Asset Management and the Way We Work Property Programme 248. The Cabinet considered two reports in relation to the management of the County Council’s assets as detailed below.

Asset Management Quarterly Report 249.1 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Development as a quarterly update on Asset Management and the need to significantly rationalise the number of properties that the County Council owned, to improve the condition and performance of the retained estate and to seek to deliver services in a different manner.

249.2 Members were updated in relation to the on-going work in Bridport to secure a replacement for Sidney Gale Residential Nursing Home and to provide accommodation for the Bridport Hub. The Cabinet noted that the replacement buildings could fit on the Fisherman’s Arms site, but there was currently no funding allocated for the replacement of the nursing home. It was therefore decided to progress with the feasibility stage in relation to the Bridport Hub on the site with the proviso that the site provided enough space for future development of a replacement home.

Resolved 250.1 That the disposal of Allington Court, St. Swithins Road, Bridport on terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy (paragraph 3.1.1 of the Cabinet Member’s report) be approved. 250.2 That the Bridport Hub project proceed through Gateway 3 – 4 of the Project Delivery Protocols (paragraph 3.1.2 (d) of the report). 250.3 That the purchase of Langdale Farm, Mampitts Road, Shaftesbury for the development of a primary school on terms to be agreed by the Director for Environment and the Economy, subject to final ratification of the suitability of the site for such a development by the Director for Children’s Services after consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People (paragraph 3.1.3 (f) of the report) be approved. 250.4 That an increase in the budget of £58k on the Leeson House project, to provide a revised project budget of £658k (paragraph 3.1.4 (f) of the report) be approved. 250.5 That conducting a procurement process and the letting of a Framework and Dynamic Purchasing System (paragraph 4.1.1 of the report) be approved. 250.6 That additional expenditure of up to £900,000 to allow the completion of the construction of the Bridport Waste Management Centre and payment of the commuted maintenance sum to Highways England. (paragraph 7.1.1 (k) of the report) be approved. 250.7 That the overall revised estimates and cash flows for projects as summarised and detailed in appendices 1 and 2 (paragraph 8.2 of the report) be approved.

Page 315 6 Cabinet – 8 July 2015

250.8 That the emerging issues for each asset class be noted.

Reason for Decisions 251. A well-managed Council would ensure that the best use was made of its assets in terms of optimising service benefit, minimising environmental impact and maximising financial return.

Forward Together – Way We Work Property Programme 252.1 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Development on the Way We Work Property Programme as part of the Forward Together Programme to achieve a property savings target of £3.2m by 2020, and deliver the vision of a modern, flexible, resource efficient and low cost estate.

252.2 The Cabinet Member for Corporate Resources summarised the progress of the programme to date in making better use of property in West Dorset and that options were still being explored for the East of Dorset. The Chief Executive highlighted the need for continual challenge and culture change to enable visible change to the way teams worked in the future.

252.3 Members discussed the future use of small pieces of land by communities, and the use of buildings as community assets. It was clarified that it was possible for both of these uses to be taken advantage of through the programme, but the necessary steps had to be taken through community engagement, the register of community assets and appropriate licences or leases. It was suggested that more flexibility was required to ensure pace in making community use a reality.

252.4 The County Councillor for Portland Tophill asked a specific question in relation to the potential community use of the former Underhill Junior School site, to which officers confirmed that the community had the opportunity to use the site if it was able to make an appropriate market offer for the site in line with the valuation.

Resolved 253.1 That the “Way We Work” Property Programme and progress to date be noted, and the next steps proposed to drive the Programme forward be endorsed. 253.2 That the Asset Management Plan 2015-18 be adapted to take into account the estate implications from the Way We Work Property Programme.

Reason for Decisions 254. To deliver the Forward Together savings target of £3.2m from property by 2020.

Approval of Contracts valued at £500,000 and above 255. The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Development on the approval of contracts valued at £500,000 and above, as the key decision threshold for the Council, within Dorset Procurement category plans for 2015/16.

Resolved 256. That the categories, term and value of contracts for provision of goods and, services as set out in Appendix A of the Cabinet Member’s report be approved.

Reasons for Decision 257.1 To ensure compliance with Dorset County Council’s Constitution. 257.2 To raise the Cabinet’s awareness of existing and proposed contract arrangements. 257.3 Provide innovative and value for money services. 257.4 To ensure the County Council has a planned and co-ordinated approach to category management and procurement

Page 316 Cabinet – 8 July 2015 7

Section 106 Obligations – Monitoring Report 2014-15 258. The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Economy and Growth on monitoring and progress of Section 106 obligations during 2014-15.

Noted

Recommendations from the Audit and Scrutiny Committee 259. The Cabinet considered the following recommendations from the meeting of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee held on 10 June 2015:

Recommendation 117 - Independent Review of the Effectiveness of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee 260.1 The County Councillor for Egdon Health, as the lead member for the review of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee, provided a comprehensive account of the project to assess the Committee’s role, effectiveness and performance in order to improve for the future. He shared the varied views of different members of the Committee in respect of the future approach to scrutiny, and advocated his preference for Overview Committees to take on responsibility for scrutiny for their specific directorates. It was also necessary for the Committee to do less work in order to provide better assurance in the future. It was noted that there were a number of areas that the Committee would address but there was a wider need to address scrutiny for the authority, pan-Dorset scrutiny and the future of the audit function.

260.2 The Cabinet thanked the County Councillor for his full and open description of the progress so far, and agreed that the outcomes would be included in a wider review of the scrutiny arrangements at the Council to ensure that the function was as effective as possible, and addressed the necessary training and culture change required to make any changes. It was agreed that the review, including member engagement, would be reported to the County Council in November 2015. Members also felt that it was not appropriate to make a recommendation to the Council at this time regarding the Ad Hoc Accounts Committee as this should also feed into the wider review.

Resolved 261. That the following aspects of the role of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee be included in a wider review of scrutiny arrangements and be reported back to the County Council in November 2015:- (a) the terms of reference and role of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee and Overview Committees; (b) whether the “Audit” and “Scrutiny” functions continue as a combined Committee, or “Scrutiny” becomes part of the role of the Overview Committees; (c) where the scrutiny of whole Council issues will be performed; (d) where the overview function of the Chief Executive’s Office should best sit; (e) “Call-in” and “Call to Account” powers; and (f) the report production process, to include the drafting and circulation of reports.

Recommendation 125 - Alternative Service Delivery Models - Governance & Due Diligence Checklist Resolved 262. That the Cabinet agree in principle to the adoption of the Governance and Due Diligence Checklist subject to the amendments noted in the minute above.

Recommendations from the Regulatory Committee 263. The Cabinet considered the following recommendations from the meeting of the Regulatory Committee held on 11 June 2015:

Page 317 8 Cabinet – 8 July 2015

Recommendation 55 - Proposed Waiting Restrictions, Christchurch Resolved 264. That having considered the objections received, the proposed waiting restrictions on Caxton Close, Pinehurst Avenue, Scott’s Hill Lane/Rotterdam Drive and Stuart Road, Christchurch as originally advertised be approved.

Reason for Decision 265. The proposals should improve the safety aspect of vehicle movements in Caxton Close and Stuart Road, which both have a ninety degree bend with no visibility; safer and improved vehicle movements in Scott’s Hill Lane/Rotterdam Drive for vehicles exiting the road and being faced with vehicles entering off the B3059 at speed. The proposal in Pinehurst Avenue would give priority for parking to residents and visitors rather than all-day parking by employees to a local hotel and visitors to local beaches in the summer months.

Recommendation 58 - Proposed 30 mph Speed limit on the A351 in Harman's Cross 266. The County Councillor for Purbeck Hills addressed the Cabinet to support the recommendation as the local member, summarised the issues experienced on the road and highlighted local support for the proposed speed limit.

Resolved 267. That the implementation of the proposed 30 mph limit on the A351 through Harman's cross as advertised and as set out in drawing number 2265/2/4 in Appendix 2 to the Head of Highways report be approved.

Reason for Decision 268. The proposals would improve the safety of the residents of the village providing an improved environment for those who lived there.

Recommendation 61 - Proposed Waiting Restrictions - Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford Resolved 269. That having considered the objections received, the proposed waiting restrictions on Sandbourne Avenue/Shottesford Avenue, Blandford as originally advertised and as set out in drawing no. 2018/1/65H at Appendix 1 in the Head of Highway's report be approved.

Reason for Decision 270. Sandbourne Avenue and Shottesford Avenue had a tight bend which was frequently obstructed by parked cars. The proposals would improve the movement of larger vehicles especially the bus service that used the road regularly and would improve access for emergency service vehicles.

Recommendation 64 - Poole Road, Upton - Amendments to Parking Arrangements Resolved 271. That having considered the objection received, the amendment to the prohibition and restriction of waiting in Poole Road, Upton as advertised, subject to a modification to relocate the disabled parking bay as shown on scheme plan HI1025/014/01/a be approved.

Reasons for Decision 272.1 The proposals as advertised ,subject to the modification, enabled the implementation of the proposed off-road cycleway from Upton Cross to Upton House on B3067 which achieved the aims of:

Page 318 Cabinet – 8 July 2015 9

 Avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the roads, or any other road, and for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising.  Facilitating the passage on the road, or any other road, of any class of traffic (including foot passengers) or of vehicles.  Preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road ran.  Allowing Disabled Badge Holders to continue to park (in accordance with the concessions available to them under the Blue Badge Scheme). 272.2 In addition, the proposed modification accommodated the concerns raised by an objector.

Recommendations from the Environment Overview Committee 273. The Cabinet considered the following recommendation from the meeting of the Environment Overview Committee held on 17 June 2015:

Recommendation 81 - Draft Local Plans for the purposes of public consultation: Waste Plan and Mineral Sites Plan 274. Members noted that the draft local plans had been considered and agreed by Bournemouth Borough Council and the Borough of Poole, although there had been one change made by Bournemouth to reduce the options available at the Kinson Site to provide only bulky waste transfer.

Resolved 275.1 That officers be granted delegated authority to carry out public consultation on the Draft Waste Plan and Draft Mineral Sites Plan, anticipated to take place between 15 July and 23 September 2015 (final dates to be confirmed subject to agreement by Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole). 275.2 That officers be granted delegated authority to make further editing changes, corrections and updates to the plan prior to the start of consultation.

Reasons for Decisions 276.1 To progress the preparation of the Waste Plan in accordance with the adopted Minerals and Waste Development Scheme. 276.2 To support the Corporate Plan focus of enabling economic growth, in particular:  work together with our partners to plan for business growth and maximise funding and investment.  work in partnership to ensure the good management of our natural and historic environment.  promote waste reduction, increase recycling rates and manage residual waste effectively.

Recommendation from the Children’s Services Overview Committee 277. The Cabinet considered the following recommendations from the meeting of the Children’s Services Overview Committee held on 18 June 2015:

Recommendation 93 - Revenue Budget Outturn 2014/15 and High Level Budget Monitoring for 2015/16 Resolved 278. That the overspend not be carried forward into 2015/16 in accordance with the decision at minute 242.2 above.

Recommendations from the Adult and Community Services Overview Committee 279. The Cabinet considered the following recommendations from the meeting of the Adult and Community Services Overview Committee held on 25 June 2015:

Page 319 10 Cabinet – 8 July 2015

Recommendation 72 - Trading Standards Service Delivery Plans 2015/16 Resolved 280. That the draft Trading Standards Service Delivery Plan (TSSDP) 2015/16 (which incorporated a specific Food Standards Plan, Animal Feed Plan and the Age Restricted Sales Enforcement Programme) be approved.

Reasons for Decision 281.1 The TSSDP showed how the Service would address its statutory duties, local demands, central government departments’ priorities and contributed to the County Council’s aims and performance measurement. 281.2 To accord with the requirement of the Food Standards Agency’s Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement that the food enforcement authorities produce plans outlining Food Standards and Feed Standards work which were approved by Councils. 281.3 A planned programme of enforcement activity for dealing with the illegal sale of age restricted products helped to protect young people and their communities from the adverse and possible addictive effects of these products. 281.4 Trading Standards Service activities contributed to County Council areas of focus of enabling economic growth; and health, well-being and safeguarding.

Recommendation 75 - Revenue Budget Monitoring 2014/15 and High Level Budget Monitoring for 2015/16 Resolved 282. That the overspend not be carried forward into 2015/16 in accordance with the decision at minute 242.1 above.

Recommendation 86 - Policy Development Panels 283. The Cabinet considered the recommendation and noted that the Executive Shareholder group would be best placed to make appropriate scrutiny arrangements for Tricuro and that this was not the purpose of a Policy Development Panel.

Resolved 284. That the request for the introduction of a Policy Development Panel to scrutinise the work of Tricuro be noted.

Questions from Members of the Council 285. No questions were asked by members under Standing Order 20.

Meeting Duration: 10:00am – 12:00pm

Page 320 Page 321 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18b Cabinet – 29 June 2016

Recommendation from Regulatory Committee – 9 June 2016

Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan (DTEP) - Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester 43 The Committee considered a report by the Head of Highways which explained the proposals to prohibit certain turning movements at Great Western Cross, Dorchester in contributing towards traffic management improvements as part of the Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan (DTEP). Following Cabinet’s decision to pare back the original DTEP scheme, certain key elements of DTEP, such as these improvement works, continued to be progressed. In order to improve the accessibility of the junction for vulnerable road users, enhancements were proposed to be made to pedestrian crossing provision on all major arms of the junction. However, in order that this could be achieved without adversely affecting the traffic capacity of the junction, it was necessary to prohibit certain traffic movements.

With the aid of a visual presentation officers described the proposal, what it was designed to achieve and set out the practicalities of delivering this, including providing an understanding of those traffic flows and manoeuvres undertaken. From this it could be determined which manoeuvres were undertaken most frequently, and those which were less well used. Photographs and plans illustrated the scheme’s setting within the character of the townscape and the local road network, the junction’s and the roads’ configuration and the junction’s relationship with the amenities in the area. Officers were satisfied that acceptable alternative diversionary routes were available to motorists wishing to gain access.

Advertisement of the proposed prohibition of turns had resulted in objections and representations being received and the Committee was now being asked to give these due consideration and whether the proposed prohibition of turns should be recommended for implemented as advertised.

In response to the representations received, a separate traffic regulation order (TRO) to restrict all motor vehicles from Victoria Road, Westover Road, Albert Road (west of Cornwall Road) and St Helen’s Road, except for access, was being progressed which would mitigate the main concerns raised to the proposed order at Great Western Cross, in that the turning bans might well cause inappropriate journeys to be made along those roads.

Officers confirmed that the proposed measures were necessary in order to realise the scheme’s objective of improving access for pedestrians, cyclists, the elderly and the disabled. The scheme would achieve this by providing controlled pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms of Great Western Cross and, as such, the recommendation was that the Cabinet be asked to approve implementation of the Order as advertised.

The Committee heard from Andy Canning, County Councillor for Linden Lea, in his capacity as the local District Council ward member and as a member of the DTEP Project Working Group, who wholly supported the proposals being made to improve accessibility around the junction.

David Sharman, local resident, appreciated the response made by officers to the concerns of local residents about the inappropriate journeys likely to be

Page 323 Cabinet – 29 June 2016 caused as a result of these bans being implemented in providing for the “access only” TRO. However he felt that this in itself was not enough and would need physical measures, like traffic calming, to be installed.

The Committee understood the need for, and the reasoning behind, the proposals and what benefits they would bring to vulnerable road users at the junction. They acknowledged that as part of this scheme being successful, there would need to be effective enforcement of the turning and access prohibitions. Additionally, there was a need for these measures to be adequately publicised so that there was sufficient opportunity for awareness to be raised, given how busy this junction was. On that basis it was

Recommended That having considered the objections received, Cabinet be asked to approve the proposed prohibition of turning movements as advertised.

Reason for Recommendation The proposals should allow the provision of controlled pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms of Great Western Cross without adversely affecting the traffic capacity of the junction.

Page 324 Page 1 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

Background information Regulatory Committee

Date of Meeting 9 June 2016

Officer Andrew Martin – Head of Highways

Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan (DTEP) Subject of Report Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross

Executive Summary In 2003 the County Council agreed with Dorchester Town Council and West Dorset District Council to prepare a plan to enhance the public realm and reduce the negative impacts of traffic. As the plan was developed maintenance and improvement works at various locations in Dorchester were put on hold. In late 2013 public consultation was held on a scheme proposal, which would provide one-way traffic flow in the High Street, but this was not found to be publically acceptable.

In September 2014, Cabinet resolved that elements of DTEP that include deferred maintenance and improvement works, plus some environmental enhancements, but exclude one-way traffic in the High Street, be progressed. This included replacement of the existing obsolete signal equipment at Great Western Cross and improvement of the junction to provide for controlled pedestrian crossing facilities on all major arms. A Local Member Led Project Working Group was set up to oversee development of the project with representation from County, District and Town Councils.

In order to provide the pedestrian crossing facilities without adversely affecting the traffic capacity of the junction it is necessary to prohibit certain traffic movements. Following advertising of the proposed prohibition of turns, objections and representations have been received. This report considers those objections and representations and whether the proposed prohibition of turns should be implemented as advertised.

Page 325 Page 2 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

An equalities impact assessment for DTEP was carried out in 2014. This concluded that there will be no discriminatory or negative consequences for any sector of the community on the grounds of race, gender, disability, faith, sexuality or age.

The proposals at Great Western Cross seek to introduce new pedestrian crossings which will particularly benefit the young, elderly, infirm and disabled.

Use of Evidence:

Traffic surveys and modelling, public consultation and support of Local Members, Town and District Councils and the Police.

Budget:

The overall budget for the project is £3.582 million including contributions from West Dorset District Council, Dorchester Town Council and developer payments relating to the Poundbury development. The estimated cost of the works at Great Western Cross is approximately £494,000, including design and preparation costs.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk: LOW

Recommendation That having considered the objections received, Cabinet be recommended to approve the proposed prohibition of turning movements.

Reason for The proposals should allow the provision of controlled pedestrian Recommendation crossing facilities on all arms of Great Western Cross without adversely affecting the traffic capacity of the junction.

Appendices Appendix 1 - Results of Traffic Survey Appendix 2 - Consultation Plan Showing Proposed Banned Movements Appendix 3 - Proposed Scheme Plan

Background Papers 1. The responses to the Order Public Advert as outlined in Para 4.2 are available to view in the Members Room.

2. Primary consultation responses from the District and Town Councils, Dorset Police and the local County Councillors are held on file in the Environment and the Economy Directorate.

Page 326 Page 3 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

Report Originator and Name: Paul Hannam Contact Tel: 01305 225325 Email: [email protected]

Page 327 Page 4 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

1 Background

1.1 In 2003 the County Council agreed with Dorchester Town Council and West Dorset District Council to prepare a plan to enhance the public realm and reduce the negative impacts of traffic. As the plan was developed maintenance and improvement works at various locations in Dorchester were put on hold. In late 2013 public consultation was held on a scheme proposal, which would provide one-way traffic flow in the High Street, but this was not found to be publically acceptable.

1.2 In September 2014, Cabinet resolved that elements of DTEP that include deferred maintenance and improvement works, plus some environmental enhancements, but exclude one-way traffic in the High Street be progressed. This included replacement of the existing obsolete signal equipment at Great Western Cross and improvement of the junction to provide for controlled pedestrian crossing facilities on all major arms. The design would also make allowance for the Poundbury link in the Dorchester Local Cycle Network to be easily accommodated when it is completed.

1.3 A Local Member Led Project Working Group comprising members and officers of the County, District and Town Councils was set up to oversee development of the project.

1.4 Following a decision by West Dorset District Council in December 2015 to defer support for a link road affecting Fairfield car park, in February 2016 Cabinet again resolved to progress design and construction of improvements at Great Western Cross and the other locations identified in the revised DTEP project.

1.5 In order to provide the pedestrian crossing facilities at Great Western Cross without adversely affecting the traffic capacity of the junction it is necessary to prohibit certain traffic movements.

1.6 The proposed prohibition of turns was advertised for public consultation on 18 February 2016. The objection period closed on 11 March, during which nineteen objections and representations were received. This report considers those objections and representations and whether the proposed prohibition of turns should be implemented as advertised.

1.7 The Director for Environment and Economy had declared a personal interest in the scheme put to consultation, the subsequent Cabinet decisions and the proposals at Great Western Cross, because he lives on a road that could be impacted by the proposals. He has taken no part in the development of the project and the portfolio holder has dealt directly with the design team manager, service manager and head of service. Nevertheless, the Director for Environment and Economy remains the nominal Lead Director.

2 Information

2.1 The existing traffic signal equipment at Great Western Cross is obsolete and in need of replacement.

2.2 A full 12-hour turning movement traffic survey was undertaken in October 2011. The results are shown in Appendix 1. Surveys taken at regular intervals at other sites within the town have shown that there has been little change in traffic flows, despite the various developments which have taken place.

2.3 The existing signals allow all turning movements for traffic. A controlled pedestrian crossing is only available on Cornwall Road and when this operates all traffic through Page 328 Page 5 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

the junction is halted. At peak times the pedestrian crossing operates approximately two out of every three cycles of the signals and significant queuing occurs, particularly on Cornwall Road and Damers Road. If controlled pedestrian crossings were added on the other arms of the junction, to operate at the same time as the Cornwall Road crossing, it is probable that the signal stage would operate more frequently, thereby increasing the time during which all traffic is stopped. Traffic queues would therefore increase.

2.4 Traffic signal designers have proposed that, by prohibiting selected turning movements, controlled pedestrian crossings can be provided on all arms of the junction without increasing delay to vehicular traffic. Indeed, computer modelling of the signals indicates that there would be a small increase in traffic capacity.

2.5 The proposals allow for prohibiting left turns from the station yard into Damers Road so that pedestrians can cross Damers Road whilst traffic is flowing from the station yard.

2.6 Left turns from Damers Road into Cornwall Road and right turns from Great Western Road into Cornwall Road are to be prohibited to allow pedestrians to cross Cornwall Road with traffic flowing from Damers Road and Great Western Road. In addition, right turns into Victoria Road are to be prohibited to deter traffic from Great Western Road using Victoria Road to reach Top o’ Town.

2.7 Right turns from Maumbury Road into Great Western Road are to be prohibited to allow pedestrians to cross Great Western Road whilst traffic begins to flow from Maumbury Road and Cornwall Road traffic is held at a red signal.

2.8 The pedestrian crossings on Maumbury Road and the station access road, when demanded, will operate alternately with the station access traffic.

2.9 The revised arrangements have been assessed using the computer traffic model for Dorchester and this indicates that whilst the changes to traffic patterns are likely to be fairly small the improved capacity of the junction is likely to encourage traffic to use it rather than using side roads to avoid it. There is no indication of any increase in traffic congestion elsewhere in the town.

3 Law

3.1 Sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allow the County Council to make an Order requiring vehicular traffic to proceed in a specified direction or prohibiting its so proceeding. The circumstances where an Order may be made include:

For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising;

For facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians);

For preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs;

Page 329 Page 6 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

4 Consultation

4.1 Under Dorset County Council’s procedure, primary consultation was carried out on the proposed scheme and it is supported by the Local Members for Dorchester, by West Dorset District Council, by Dorchester Town Council and by the Police.

4.2 There have been nineteen responses to the public consultation process, which are summarised below.

Respondent and Address Summary of Response

Resident of Victoria Road, Objects to the banning of right turns from Damers Road Dorchester into Victoria Road. Considers the proposals will increase rat-running in Victoria Road and will restrict exits from Victoria Road. Agrees improved pedestrian facilities are needed.

Resident of Cornwall Road, Objects to the proposals as he feels they will force him Dorchester to use the high street when returning home from east of the town and will cause major congestion at the south end of Victoria Road near the chip shop.

Resident of Victoria Road, Objects to the lack of a controlled crossing on the Great Dorchester Western Station access road and to the turning bans. Considers the proposals will increase rat-running and speeding in Victoria Road and reduce safety.

Subject to the implementation and success of the proposed Victoria Road Access Only Order (referred to in paragraph 5.1) the resident has indicated they would withdraw their objection.

Resident of Victoria Road, Objects to the proposals. Considers the proposals will Dorchester increase traffic both ways in Victoria Road and Westover Road, which are unfit for more traffic.

Resident of Victoria Road, Objects to bans on turns from Maumbury Road into Dorchester Great Western Road, Damers Road into Cornwall Road and Dorchester West Station into Damers Road. Considers the proposals will increase traffic both ways in Victoria Road and Westover Road (which are unfit for more traffic) and reduce safety.

Resident of Coburg Road, Supports the proposals and in particular the improved Dorchester pedestrian access to the station yard and the provision of a pedestrian crossing on Damers Road.

Residents of Victoria Road, Object to the proposals. Consider the proposals will Dorchester increase traffic both ways and reduce safety in Victoria Road and Westover Road.

Resident of Victoria Road, Objects to the ban on turns from Damers Road into Dorchester Cornwall Road. Considers this will increase traffic and reduce safety in Victoria Road.

Subject to the implementation and success of the proposed Victoria Road Access Only Order (referred to in paragraph 5.1) the resident has indicated they would withdraw their objection.

Page 330 Page 7 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

Resident of Cambridge Road, Objects to the proposals. Considers the proposals will Dorchester cause increased congestion in the town centre and in particular increase traffic flows on Victoria Road, Williams Avenue and Bridport Road.

Resident of Rothesay Road, Requests a right turn filter signal for traffic turning from Dorchester Damers Road into Maumbury Road.

Resident of Cornwall Road, Objects to the proposals. Considers the ban on right Dorchester turns into Cornwall Road and Victoria Road will increase traffic congestion in the high street and the ban on left turns into Cornwall Road will increase traffic in Victoria Road.

Resident of Cornwall Road, Objects to the proposals. Considers the ban on right Dorchester turns into Cornwall Road and Victoria Road will make Great Western Road unusable as a route to the property from central and south east Dorchester.

Residents of Victoria Road, Concerned that traffic flow will increase on Victoria Dorchester Road. Also concerned for pedestrian safety due to increased traffic on Fairfield Road.

Resident of Alice Road, Concerned that the proposals will do nothing to deal Dorchester with traffic congestion and will increase traffic flow on Victoria Road. Considers that new pedestrian crossings on Damers Road and Great Western Road are unnecessary.

Resident of Victoria Road, Objects to the proposals. Considers the proposals will Dorchester increase traffic both ways in Victoria Road and Westover Road, creating difficult conditions for residents and reducing safety.

Residents of Victoria Road, Object to the proposals. Consider the proposals will Dorchester result in an increase in traffic using Victoria Road and Westover Road, exacerbating congestion and safety issues, particularly at peak times.

Subject to the implementation and success of the proposed Victoria Road Access Only Order (referred to in paragraph 5.1) the residents have indicated they would withdraw their objection.

Resident of Victoria Road, Objects to the proposals. Considers the proposals will Dorchester turn Victoria Road from a quiet residential street into a rat-run for traffic and reduce safety particularly for local children.

Resident of Victoria Road, Objects to the proposals. Considers the proposals will Dorchester increase traffic in Victoria Road (which is unfit for more traffic) and reduce safety for residents.

Resident of Fourgates Road, Supports the introduction of pedestrian crossings at the Dorchester junction but is concerned about aspects of the operation of the signals, about which he/she is unclear.

Page 331 Page 8 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

4.3 The responses consist of 14 objections (3 of which have been conditionally withdrawn, see paragraph 5.1), 2 expressions of support, 1 request for additional facilities, and 2 expressions of concern about possible effects of the proposals.

4.4 Eleven of the responses were from residents of Victoria Road and ten of these were objections. All of these objectors consider that traffic flow on Victoria Road will increase and some believe traffic speed will also increase. Both expressions of concern and two further objectors also raised the belief that traffic flow on Victoria Road will increase, making a total of 14 of the responses mentioning this point. One additional objector also suggested that there would be congestion at the south end of Victoria Road outside the chip shop.

4.5 The issues raised about the possible impact on Victoria Road largely relate to the lack of suitability of the road to accept more traffic and a reduction in road safety. Some of these respondents also mentioned increase in traffic and reduction in road safety on Westover Road.

4.6 Various suggestions were made for traffic reduction and traffic calming in both Victoria Road and Westover Road.

4.7 Other reasons for objection or concern raised by respondents are: -

 Objection to the lack of a controlled pedestrian crossing on the station access road (one is now to be provided);  Increased congestion elsewhere in the town (the high street, Bridport Road and Williams Avenue were mentioned);  Change of route to properties accessed from Victoria Road;  Concern that traffic congestion will not be reduced;  Concern that pedestrian crossings on Great Western Road and Damers Road are unnecessary;  The lack of a proper pedestrian route on Fairfield Road (across the market site);  The lack of a right turn filter for traffic turning right from Damers Road into Maumbury Road.

4.8 Supporters of the proposals mentioned the introduction of additional pedestrian crossing facilities as their main reason for expressing support.

5 DCC Comment on Representations

5.1 The main cause for concern is potential increased traffic flow in Victoria Road due to the banning of left turns from Damers Road into Cornwall Road. Any such increase should actually be small as a traffic survey undertaken in October 2011 showed only about 10 vehicles per hour undertaking the manoeuvre to be banned and not all of these are likely to re-route through Victoria Road. Nevertheless, given the concerns expressed by residents it is now proposed to progress a separate traffic regulation order to ban all motor vehicles from Victoria Road, Westover Road, Albert Road (west of Cornwall Road) and St Helen’s Road, except for access. This has been agreed by the DTEP Local Member Led Working Group and primary consultation commenced on 28 April 2016. Since that time three of the residents of Victoria Road have withdrawn their objections subject to implementation and monitoring of the proposed access only order.

5.2 A controlled pedestrian crossing is now to be introduced across the station access road. The objection is therefore no longer valid.

Page 332 Page 9 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

5.3 Traffic modelling indicates that traffic patterns will be largely unchanged and there is no indication that there will be increased congestion elsewhere in the town.

5.4 It is inevitable that the banned movements will require some traffic to re-route and some motorists will be disadvantaged. However, most of the banned movements are currently undertaken by only small numbers of vehicles and there are reasonable alternative routes. Banning these movements will allow safe pedestrian crossing facilities to be provided on all arms of the junction without causing additional congestion.

5.5 The proposals are not intended to reduce congestion, but to introduce pedestrian crossing facilities without increasing congestion. Nevertheless, computer modelling shows that there should be a small increase in junction capacity as a result of the changes.

5.6 The responses supporting the scheme confirm the need for controlled pedestrian crossings and this is further confirmed in responses from some of the objectors.

5.7 The lack of a marked pedestrian route across the market site is beyond the control of the highway authority as it is private land (owned by West Dorset District Council) and there are no highway rights across it.

5.8 Provision of a right turn filter for traffic turning from Damers Road into Maumbury Road would decrease the capacity of the junction as compared to the arrangements proposed. However, the design provides for additional road markings to encourage right-turners to avoid obstructing through traffic and the manoeuvre will be easier without the complication of opposing traffic from Great Western Road turning right into Cornwall Road.

6 Conclusion

6.1 The DTEP scheme has been developed as a result of the response to public consultation undertaken in Autumn 2013 and subsequent member led community liaison work in 2014.

6.2 Following concerns raised we are progressing a separate traffic regulation order to ban all motor vehicles from Victoria Road, Westover Road, Albert Road (west of Cornwall Road) and St Helen’s Road except for access, which mitigates the main concerns raised to the proposed order at Great Western Cross.

6.3 Having considered the representations submitted, concerns raised have been mitigated or responded to as detailed in section 5.

6.4 The Highway Improvements team considers that the proposed measures are necessary in order to realise the scheme objective of improving access for pedestrians, cyclists, the elderly and disabled. The scheme will achieve this by providing controlled pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms of Great Western Cross without adversely affecting the traffic capacity of the junction.

6.5 It is recommended that the Committee recommend to Cabinet that the order be implemented as advertised.

Andrew Martin Head of Highways May 2016 Page 333 Page 10 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

Appendix 1 – Results of Traffic Survey

Page 334 Page 11 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

Appendix 2 – Consultation Plan Showing Proposed Banned Movements

Page 335 Page 12 – Proposed Turning Movement Bans at Great Western Cross, Dorchester

Appendix 3 – Proposed Scheme Plan

Page 336 Agenda Item 18c

Cabinet – 29 June 2016

Recommendation from the Audit and Governance Committee – 8 June 2016

Draft Annual Governance Statement 2015/16 8 The Committee considered a report by the Chief Executive setting out the draft Annual Governance Statement for 2015/16 which was a statutory document that set out the key features of the governance framework in the Authority and a review of its effectiveness.

Members were informed that the Statement contained the actions that would be necessary to achieve full compliance with the Local Code of Corporate Governance Compliance Assessment 2015-16. It was suggested that the Committee may want to revisit the document later in the year to ensure compliance had been achieved.

Recommended That Cabinet considers and comments on the draft Annual Governance Statement for 2015/16.

Reason for Recommendation Approval and publication of an Annual Governance Statement by the County Council is a statutory requirement and provides evidence that the County Council maintains high standards or governance and addresses significant shortcomings and risks.

Page 337 This page is intentionally left blank Draft Annual Governance Statement 2015/16

Audit and Governance Committee

Date of Meeting 8 June 2016

Officer Chief Executive

Subject of Report Draft Annual Governance Statement 2015/16

Executive Summary The Accounts and Audit (England) Regulations 2015 require a body such as the County Council to “approve an annual governance statement, prepared in accordance with proper practices in relation to internal control.”

The attached draft Annual Governance Statement for 2015/16 sets out key features of the governance framework in place in the Authority and provides a review of its effectiveness. It has been prepared in line with the recommendations published by CIPFA and SOLACE.

Section 5 of the statement reports on the Council’s Local Code of Corporate Governance Compliance Assessment 2015/16, and in particular the six elements on which the Council is considered to be only partially compliant.

The statement also discusses those risks that are contained in the Councils Corporate Risk Register which are classified as ‘high’ and, as such, represent significant governance issues the Council is currently facing.

Members of the Committee can view both the full Compliance Assessment and Corporate Risk Register from the Intranet links noted in the Evidence section of this report.

Under the 2015 regulations, the accounts are not approved by the

Page 339 Draft Annual Governance Statement 2015/16

Council (or the Committee to which the responsibility is delegated) until after the external audit has been carried out. However, Members are still asked to consider the draft Annual Governance Statement, so that the auditors can review a document that has been subject to member scrutiny.

Final adoption of the Annual Governance Statement will take place, alongside the accounts, at the Audit and Governance Committee later in the year. As the statement has to reflect any significant issues that arise until its final approval, if necessary, subsequent amendments will be made and reported to this Committee.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

Giving appropriate consideration to equalities issues is a key aspect of good governance, but there are no equalities issues arising directly from this report.

Use of Evidence:

Evidence to inform the governance compliance assessment and then to complete the Annual Governance Statement has been provided by senior officers across the organisation. It includes policies and procedures of the County Council, the Constitution, and reports and minutes of Committees.

Members can view both the Local Code of Corporate Governance Compliance Assessment 2015/16 and the full Corporate Risk Register from the Council’s internal Intranet.

Budget:

There are no budget requirements arising directly from this report. The overall financial position of the County Council is one of the significant issues covered in the Annual Governance Statement. Addressing other issues identified in the compliance assessment or the Annual Governance Statement may have budgetary implications, which will be considered in the relevant action plans.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk: HIGH

The Annual Governance Statement refers to risks on the Council’s corporate risk register which have been assessed as being ‘High’.

Page 340 Draft Annual Governance Statement 2015/16

Other Implications:

Section 5 of the draft Annual Governance Statement explains the significant governance issues facing the Council.

Recommendation The Cabinet / Committee is asked to:

i) Consider and comment on the draft Annual Governance Statement for 2015/16 at appendix A

Reason for Approval and publication of an Annual Governance Statement by Recommendation the County Council is a statutory requirement and provides evidence that the County Council maintains high standards or governance and addresses significant shortcomings and risks.

Appendices Appendix A: Draft Annual Governance Statement 2015/16

Background Papers CIPFA / SOLACE publication: Delivering good governance in local government – framework

Report Originator and Name: Mark Taylor, Group Manager (Governance and Contact Assurance) Tel: 01305 224982 Email: [email protected]

Name: Marc Eyre, Senior Assurance manager (Governance, Risk and Special Projects) Tel: 01305 224358 Email: [email protected]

Page 341 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A

Annual Governance Statement 2015/16

1. Scope of responsibility

1.1 Dorset County Council is responsible for ensuring that its business is conducted in accordance with the law and appropriate standards, that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for and that funding is used economically, efficiently and effectively. Dorset County Council also has a duty under the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

1.2 In discharging this overall responsibility Dorset County Council is responsible for putting in place suitable arrangements for the governance of its affairs, which facilitate the effective exercise of its functions and include arrangements for the management of risk.

1.3 Dorset County Council has approved and adopted a code of corporate governance, which is consistent with the principles of the CIPFA/SOLACE Delivering Good Governance in Local Government framework. These include the additional requirements as recommended by CIPFA in March 2010. A report on the code and the latest assessment of compliance with it was published with the Audit and Governance Committee papers for 8 June 2016 or can be obtained from the County Council Offices, County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1XJ. This statement explains how Dorset County Council has complied with the code. It also meets the requirements of the Accounts and Audit Regulations (England) 2015 in relation to consideration of the findings of a review of the system of internal control and approval and publication of an annual governance statement.

2. The purpose of the governance framework

2.1 The governance framework comprises the systems and processes, and culture and values, by which the authority is directed and controlled, together with the activities through which it accounts to, engages with and leads the community. It enables the authority to monitor the achievement of its strategic objectives and to consider whether those objectives have led to the delivery of appropriate, cost-effective services.

2.2 The system of internal control is a significant part of that framework and is designed to manage risk to a reasonable level. It cannot eliminate all risk of failure to meet the targets in our policies, aims and objectives and can therefore only provide reasonable and not absolute assurance of effectiveness. The system of internal control is based on an ongoing process designed to identify and prioritise the risks to the achievement of Dorset County Council’s policies, aims and objectives, to evaluate the likelihood of those risks being realised and the impact should they be realised, and to manage them efficiently, effectively and economically.

2.3 The governance framework has been in place at Dorset County Council for the year ended 31 March 2016 and up to the date of approval of the annual statement of accounts.

3. The governance framework

3.1 Some of the key features of the governance framework are set out in the following paragraphs.

3.2 The corporate plan sets out the contribution we will make to enabling communities in working together for a successful Dorset.

3.3 Delivery of the County Council’s corporate plan is supported by service plans, team plans and individual performance development reviews. These all include targets and, where appropriate, service standards against which service quality and improvement can be judged.

1 Page 343 Appendix A

3.4 The Constitution of Dorset County Council establishes the roles and responsibilities for members of the executive (the Cabinet), Overview, Scrutiny, Regulatory and Standards Committees, together with officer functions. It includes details of delegation arrangements, codes of conduct and protocols for member/officer relations. The Constitution is kept under review to ensure that it continues to be fit for purpose. Proposed changes to the Constitution are overseen by the Standards and Governance Committee (and under the revised arrangements from 2016 will pass to the Audit and Governance Committee). Its views on the suitability of any changes are reported when they are presented to the full County Council for approval.

3.5 The Constitution also contains procedure rules, standing orders and financial regulations that define clearly how decisions are taken and where authority lies for decisions. The statutory roles of Head of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and Chief Financial Officer are described together with their contributions to provide robust assurance on governance and that expenditure is lawful and in line with approved budgets and procedures. The influence and oversight exerted by these posts is backed by the post-holders’ membership of or attendance at the Corporate Leadership Team.

3.6 The primary counterbalance to the Cabinet is the Audit and Scrutiny Committee (and under the revised arrangements from 2016 will pass to the Audit and Governance Committee). The Committee provides a robust challenge to the Executive. The Committee did not identify a need to exercise its ‘call in’ or call to account powers during 2015/16.

3.7 The County Council has reviewed the placement of its scrutiny function and has approved changes to its Committee structures, including separating out of 'audit' and 'scrutiny' functions. The future committee structure will be based on the outcomes defined in the Corporate Plan with Overview and Scrutiny Committees for Economic Growth, People and Communities and Safeguarding, with each of them having responsibility for monitoring a number of specified objectives within it. The Dorset Health Scrutiny Committee also continues in its role.

3.8 A complaints procedure and a whistle-blowing policy and procedure are maintained and kept under review, providing the opportunity for members of the public and staff to raise issues when they believe that appropriate standards have not been met. An annual report analysing complaints received and their resolution is presented to the Audit and Scrutiny Committee and the Standards and Governance Committee. The Standards and Governance Committee has responsibility for overseeing the investigation of complaints against members.

3.9 The County Council has a strong risk management function. The risk management policy and strategy are reviewed annually. The Risk Management Group draws together lead officers from across the authority to ensure that issues and concerns are shared and that a consistent approach is adopted throughout the organisation. Those risks contained in the councils Corporate Risk Register which have been assessed as high have informed the list of significant governance issues later in this statement.

3.10 Appraisal and review processes are the general means of identifying the training needs of members and officers. Appropriate training is made available to staff to ensure that individuals are able to undertake their present role effectively and that they have the opportunity to develop to meet their and the County Council’s needs. An extensive member induction programme is put in place after the County Council elections to ensure that newly elected members can quickly make an effective contribution to the work of the authority. Focussed training will support the new committee arrangements in 2016.

3.11 The County Council is committed to partnership working. The Dorset Compact sets out a framework for voluntary and public sector relationships in Dorset. Guidance on best practice in partnership governance, together with the development of an alternative service delivery model governance and due diligence checklist that has been adopted to ensure that partnership arrangements are as productive and secure as possible.

2 Page 344 Appendix A

4. Review of effectiveness

4.1 Dorset County Council has responsibility for conducting, at least annually, a review of the effectiveness of its governance framework including the system of internal control. The review of effectiveness is informed by the work of the managers within the authority who have responsibility for the development and maintenance of the governance environment, the Head of Internal Audit’s annual report, and also by the findings and reports issued by the external auditors and other review agencies and inspectorates.

4.2 The Chief Executive has responsibility for: o overseeing the implementation and monitoring the operation of the Code of Corporate Governance; o maintaining and updating the Code in the light of latest guidance on best practice; o reporting annually to the Corporate Leadership Team and to Members on compliance with the Code and any changes that may be necessary to maintain it and ensure its effectiveness in practice.

4.3 The Chief Financial Officer has responsibility for the proper administration of the County Council’s financial affairs. This includes responsibility for maintaining and reviewing Financial Regulations to ensure they remain fit for purpose, and submitting any additions or changes necessary to the full Council for approval. The Chief Financial Officer is also responsible for reporting, where appropriate, breaches of the Regulations to the Cabinet and/or the County Council.

4.4 The statutory role of Monitoring Officer is held by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services. The Monitoring Officer is responsible for ensuring that the Council acts within and through the law. Parallel to the responsibilities of the Chief Financial Officer the Monitoring Officer has a duty to report to the Cabinet where it appears to him that any action or intended action by the Council is unlawful or amounts to maladministration. The Monitoring Officer also has responsibilities in relation to the Council’s constitution and in relation to councillor conduct.

4.5 Dorset County Council’s Internal Audit Service, via a specific responsibility assigned to the Head of Internal Audit (the Group Manager, Governance and Assurance), is required to provide an annual independent and objective opinion to the Authority on its risk management, governance and control environment. Since April 2010, internal audit work has been carried out under contract by the South West Audit Partnership (SWAP).

4.6 The review of compliance with the governance framework has involved: o review of the latest position on the core principles by lead officers, including cross- challenge by other leads; o an assessment of the draft compliance assessment and significant governance issues by Corporate Leadership Team; o review of the draft compliance assessment and Annual Governance Statement by the Audit and Governance Committee and the Cabinet;

4.7 Plans to address weaknesses and ensure continuous improvement of the system are recorded in the annual compliance assessment.

5. Significant governance issues

5.1 Governance issues can be put into two groups:

(i) elements of the governance framework for which the compliance assessment has identified that some improvement is necessary to provide full assurance;

3 Page 345 Appendix A

(ii) issues that the governance framework has identified and which require action to mitigate the exposure of the County Council.

5.2 In the first group, there were no elements of the framework for which the judgement is that the County Council is non-compliant. There are however six areas where a judgement of partial compliance has been identified and where improvement is considered necessary.

5.3 Actions needed to achieve full compliance are largely covered by existing improvement plans. The issues and actions can be summarised as follows: (NB: - Further detail is provided against the respective core principles in the compliance assessment. References have been provided at the start of each area for ease of reference):

1g. Decide how value for money is to be measured and make sure that the authority or partnership has the information needed to review value for money and performance effectively.

Agreed Action:- A new performance management framework using Outcomes Based Accountability is currently being developed to underpin and monitor the Corporate Plan. This will be used for quarterly performance monitoring and will be regularly reviewed by Cabinet, Audit and Governance Committee and the Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

The pilot work undertaken within Childrens Services should be rolled out more fully across the Authority. Value for money assessment will feature as a strand of internal audit reports. 2j. Ensure that effective mechanisms exist to monitor service delivery.

Agreed Action:- A new approach to performance monitoring of the Corporate Plan is being developed. This will enable more effective monitoring of service delivery outcomes, including widening out the obsessions tracker for monitoring effective service delivery that is being piloted within Childrens Services.

The new Committee Structure will become operative early 2016. The Audit and Scrutiny functions are separated and the future committee structure should be based on the Corporate Plan with Overview and Scrutiny Committees for Economic Growth, People and Communities and Safeguarding, with each of them having responsibility for monitoring a number of specified corporate outcomes. The changes are to be reviewed for effectiveness. Risks identified during implementation will be regularly reviewed and responded to.

5d. Develop skills on a continuing basis to improve performance, including the ability to scrutinise and challenge and to recognise when outside expert advice is needed.

Agreed Action:- The review of overview and scrutiny arrangements in the council has identified the need for very specific training and skills development as part of implementing new arrangements. The people plan sets out how we will be working differently to help achieve our vision of 'working together for a strong and successful Dorset'

7b. Ensure that the authority maintains a prudential financial framework; keeps its commitments in balance with available resources; monitors income and expenditure levels to ensure that this balance is maintained and takes corrective action when necessary

4 Page 346 Appendix A

Agreed Action:- Rollout of outcomes based accountability will improve accountability of budget managers. However this will need to be supported by executive functions exercising "call to account" to challenge any areas of overspend 7i. Ensure that appropriate management accounting systems, functions and controls are in place so that finances are kept under regular review.

Agreed Action:- Enable more effective engagement for DES and other systems development with the business through the proposed new Corporate Working Group structure. Consider rolling out model adopted by Environment & Economy wider across Council services.

7o. Ensure the provision of clear, well presented, timely, complete and accurate information and reports to budget managers and senior officers on the budgetary and financial performance of the authority.

Agreed Action:- Further work is to be undertaken to engage with the business as to whether the reports provided meet all of their needs. Consider rolling out model adopted by Environment & Economy wider across Council services.

5.4 The second group are issues that represent a significant risk to the County Council and, as such, are assessed as high risks on the Corporate Risk Register in accordance with the councils approved risk criteria.

5.5 A prime purpose of the governance framework is to minimise the occurrence of such risks and ensure that any which do arise are highlighted so that appropriate mitigating action can be taken. These issues are largely substantial challenges to be managed over the long term. A summary of theses ‘significant’ issues are outlined below, together with the council’s response and actions to deal with these issues:

Corporate Causes Council Response Risk 01) Inadequate Overspend to the Pathways to Independence Programme finance to Adult & Community includes a transformation of the whole meet Services Directorate Directorate which will increase independence legislative, Budget and meet the and reduce the need for long term Adult political and structural deficit Social Care; this includes review of the whole public system, and a focus on early help and expectations prevention while meeting the requirements of the Care Act Failure to achieve Better Care targets There is a significant risk that the agreed across the Dorset plans do not achieve the savings in line with public / community local government funding reductions. sector Performance on admissions and delayed transfer of care continues to be challenging, which will impact on performance related funding. Performance indicators are largely based on health performance and therefore whilst the local authority can influence this risk, it cannot control it. Failure to ensure that Ongoing management focus on this area of learning disability overspend. Work commenced in 2015/16 to services are look at transition planning between children sustainable and cost- and adults. Further work is also under way on effective developing new models of care for supported living for people with disability.

5 Page 347 Appendix A

Corporate Causes Council Response Risk General balances are The current year’s anticipated overspend will depleted to a level reduce the general balances to a level just below operating range above the lower end of the operating range. Should we fall below the lower end (£10m) it would be raised as a matter for concern by our auditors, KPMG. Ineffective and / or Accountants are integrating better into non-compliant services to enable early identification and financial management effective escalation. A successful series of budget management training sessions have been delivered to services to raise awareness. DES training is also being widely rolled-out and we are currently consulting on our restructure project following a budget holder survey.

Additional savings The largest risk to the programme currently is cannot be identified to that even with the identified major bridge the unfunded transformation programmes there remains a gap need to deliver a substantial savings target from the years 2016/17 onwards. This will be responded to via the 2020 masterplan. Failure to have in A paper was taken to the Staffing Committee place an equal and in July 2015 to determine the options legally compliant pay associated with undertaking an equal pay & grading structure audit and the associated resource implications. It was agreed by the committee that the review would be postponed until April 2017 at the earliest.

02) Failure to Failure to manage the The Children’s Services Leadership Team protect the demands led budget continue to monitor performance and impact vulnerable for children in care of budget reductions. South West Audit children and Partnership undertook a review of high cost young people areas of provision, including monitoring the from abuse or pathways of individual cases. A task and neglect in finish "Prevention & Partnership Strategy situations that Group" has been established to respond to could have the action plan from this review. Consultation been on restructuring commenced early 2016, predicted and including a renewed focus on prevention prevented within the Care and Support Team.

04) Failure to Health and safety The majority of sites now have a nominated ensure the risks associated with Premises Responsible Person. However, health and occupation of restructuring of services has reduced the wellbeing of premises understanding of the Directorate Duty Holder staff, service Strategy. The strategy will be ratified. users and the public

6 Page 348 Appendix A

Corporate Causes Council Response Risk 05) Inability of Loss of ICT service or Other national incidents identify local the Council or data through a cyber authorities as a target. The Council has a a key partner attack ICT Continuity Management Group that to effectively maintains and manages a specific risk respond to an register. incident or event

07) Failure to Failure to sustain an Internal Interim Director appointed. sustain effective relationship effective across the Dorset Action Plan largely complete and the final relationships Waste Partnership three (of 37 items) are being progressed as across key separate projects. partnerships Progress continues to be reported to Joint Committee at each meeting and SWAP (South West Audit Partnership) are reviewing relevant actions as part of their annual Audit Plan. 09) Inadequate Inability to maintain The highway maintenance block allocation infrastructure the highways increased by 15 % from 2015/16. Further to meet infrastructure to an annual business cases will be produced for Council acceptable standard additional capital investment in highway priorities in the face of maintenance. changing circumstances (eg budget reductions; climate change) Unable to provide Programme of delivery of Basic Need sufficient school Schools in accordance with agreed places (Basic Need) timescales/costs is being monitored through relevant groups.

Whilst the framework has been agreed, we are developing a clear strategy around sufficient school places, which will need to be signed up to by members and partners. 10) Failure to Projects do not take a The masterplan and commissioning model deliver service consistent business- will respond to concerns raised over benefits transformation like approach to realisation and adequate baseline measures and necessary calculating benefits as part of the business case. Guidance and savings leading to inconsistent tools are incorporated within the supporting through the assessments, project management toolkit. Forward unrealistic savings Together targets and the need programme to find additional savings

7 Page 349 Appendix A

Corporate Causes Council Response Risk Capacity of staff to The Chief Executives Department was deliver transformation restructured during 2015 and included programme as well as addressing capacity to support projects. A maintain focus on day prioritisation tool has been developed by the to day business programme office. Savings targets are being (including across rebased, which may result in a readjustment support services) of programme priorities.

Failure to address Work is ongoing to communicate the Forward cultural issues that Together message. A further staff survey is may impact on the planned June/July. success of the transformation programme

Unable to achieve The key risks which are driving this service transformation assessment are the financial and reputational and savings across risks. The main risks are non-delivery of DCC support services financial savings and service improvements (both in the support services and in other parts of the Council) due to insufficient capacity and skills shortages in the support services. The reputational risk is that if savings are made without addressing the fundamental issues identified in the strategic outline case, the service delivery will be impacted which will have an impact on customers both internal and external

12) Failure to Inadequate Modelling of future demand to clearly develop assessment of the highlight pressure points. services long term based on impacts/risks evidence and (threats/opportunities) need of proposals

13) Inadequate Current technology The Smarter Computing programme has ICT within DCC is been re-planned, to reflect the issues infrastructure insufficient and / or encountered with the performance of the to meet inflexible to meet the underlying platform, issues encountered with corporate anticipated needs of key business software such as RAISE service the transformation (Children's social care system) and the priorities programme (on a supply of Surface Pro 3 tablet devices. technical or Smarter Computing is now deployed across contractual basis) most service areas with a plan to complete desktop deployment in July 2016 and Surface Pro 4 mobile device deployment planned to be complete in September.

We are changing the way we deliver core services (WAN, telephony, email, calendar, document sharing and collaboration) which will introduce greater flexibility to collaborate, share and access information with colleagues and partners and improving our service continuity capabilities.

8 Page 350 Appendix A

Corporate Causes Council Response Risk 14) Failure to Inability to attract and Work is underway with Bournemouth develop, retain suitably University to deliver a programme for social recruit or qualified specialist work/children’s services retain suitably safeguarding staff competent/ within Childrens qualified staff Services compromises service Delivery

17) Failure to Discussions are ongoing at Leader/Chief implement a Lack of agreement Executive meetings. A full risk register is in local across partner development. government organisations structure to deliver the best possible outcomes for Dorset residents

5.6 We are satisfied that this statement provides a substantial level of assurance that good governance is in place in Dorset County Council and that appropriate arrangements are in place to address improvements identified in our review of compliance. Progress on these improvements and on addressing and mitigating the risks set out in section 5.5 will be monitored through the year by senior officers and the Audit and Governance Committee.

Debbie Ward Robert Gould Chief Executive Leader

June 2016 June 2016

9 Page 351 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18d Cabinet – 29 June 2016

Recommendation from Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 15 June 2016

Dorset County Council Action Plan for Management of Pollinators 10 The Committee considered a report by the Director for Environment and the Economy on the County Council’s Action Plan for the Management of Pollinators. The Committee acknowledged the essential role pollinators played in providing pollination services for many commercial crops and wild plant species, and their significant value to the UK economy, estimated at over £400 million annually. Given Dorset’s significant agricultural sector, the importance of pollinators to Dorset’s economy and environment was acknowledged despite pollinators such as bees, hoverflies, butterflies and moths being in decline. Pressures such as habitat loss and degradation, pests and diseases, pesticide use and climate change individually, and in combination, were having negative impacts on populations and, as a result, reducing the pollinators effectiveness.

It was therefore proposed that the County Council should play its part in helping to reduce this decline and, where possible, enhance populations, by adopting an Action Plan for Pollinators, in line with similar plans adopted by other public bodies. This would specify the principles by which Dorset County Council would seek to deliver services and projects at an operational level in a way that maximised positive impacts and minimised negative impacts on pollinator species.

The Action Plan proposed a range of positive principles which could be applied to the management of County Council assets, projects and decision- making processes, as well as a prohibition on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, which had been linked to the decline in pollinators, on County Council land where the power to enforce this existed.

The attention of the Committee was drawn to the principles of the Action Plan which was proposed to be adopted with immediate effect, or to be applied to future projects, asset management plans and decision-making processes as and when they were developed and/or reviewed.

The Committee acknowledged the importance of pollinators to Dorset’s economy and environment and the benefits Dorset’s agricultural sector brought to that economy, and accordingly endorsed the proposals, as set out in the Director’s report.

Recommended That the Cabinet be asked to adopt the proposed Action Plan for Pollinators, as set out in section 2 of the Director’s report having taken into account the views of the Committee.

Reason for Recommendation The adoption of the proposed Action Plan for Pollinators would help Dorset County Council meet its aim of a ‘healthy environment’ as set out in the Corporate Plan 2016 outcomes framework.

Page 353 This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 – Dorset County Council Action Plan for Pollinators

Background Information Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee/

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 15 June 2016 and Cabinet 29 June 2016 Cabinet Member(s) Peter Finney – Cabinet Member for Environment Local Member(s) All Lead Director(s) Mike Harries – Director for Environment Subject of Report Dorset County Council Action Plan for Pollinators

Executive Summary Insect pollinators play an essential role in providing pollination services for many commercial crops and wild plant species, services which represent significant value to the UK economy, estimated at over £400 million annually. With a significant agricultural sector, and extensive natural and semi-natural habitats within which pollinators are important, it is likely that Dorset receives a disproportionately high share of this economic value. However, pollinators such as bees, hoverflies, butterflies and moths are in decline. Pressures such as habitat loss and degradation, pests and diseases, pesticide use and climate change individually and in combination are having negative impacts on populations and, as a result, reducing their ability to provide valuable services to human populations.

It is proposed that Dorset County Council should help to reduce this decline and where possible enhance populations by adopting an Action Plan for Pollinators, in line with similar plans adopted by other public bodies. This will specify the principles by which Dorset County Council will seek to deliver services and projects at an operational level in a way that maximises positive impacts and minimises negative impacts on pollinator species. The Action Plan proposes a range of positive principles which can be applied to the management of County Council assets, projects and decision-making processes, as well as a prohibition on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides, which have been linked to the decline in pollinators, on County Council land where the power to enforce this exists.

Page 355 Page 2 – Dorset County Council Action Plan for Pollinators

Impact Equalities Impact Assessment: With reference to DCC equality impacts Assessment: guidance, there are no equalities impacts issues identified for individuals with protected characteristics relating to the subject of this report.

Use of Evidence: A variety of Government and scientific papers have informed development of the proposed Action Plan, as well as the views of both the Country Parks Liaison Panel and the County Farms Liaison Panel (see background papers listed below).

Budget: there are no budget implications associated with adoption of the proposed action plan for pollinators. No increases in existing budgets are envisaged in delivering actions from the Plan, indeed, there is potential for some savings to be made.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk: LOW

Other Implications: There is wide public support for the protection of pollinators and agreement by Dorset County Council to do what it can to protect and enhance these insect populations would be viewed positively by many.

Recommendation That the Cabinet be asked to adopt the proposed Action Plan for Pollinators, as set out in section 2 of this report having taken into account the views of the Committee.

Reason for The adoption of the proposed Action Plan for Pollinators will help Dorset Recommendation County Council meet its aim of a ‘healthy environment’ as set out in the Corporate Plan 2016 outcome framework.

Appendices None

Background Papers What is causing the decline in pollinating insects? Living with Environmental Change (2014) The National Pollinators Strategy: for bees and other pollinators in England DEFRA (2014) Status and Value of Pollinators and Pollination Services, Report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2014) Goulson, D. (2013) An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides State of Nature (2013)

Officer Contact Name: Dr Phil Sterling Tel: 01305 224290 Email: [email protected]

Page 356 Page 3 – Dorset County Council Action Plan for Pollinators

1. Background

1.1 Insect pollinators, which include species of bee, moth, fly, hoverfly, butterfly and beetle, are critical to Dorset’s rich biodiversity and natural beauty, but they also play an essential role in providing pollination services for many commercial crops and wild plant species.

1.2 Insect pollination is extremely important to the UK economy, with estimated values ranging from £430 million to £690 million annually. As well as being important species in their own right, UK bees, both domesticated (honeybees) and the other 250+ species of wild bees and other insect pollinators are very important commercially, and are essential for the pollination of crops, such as oilseed rape, tomatoes, strawberries and apples.

1.3 However, pollinators are in decline, and the UK State of Nature Report 2013 showed that more than half of the bee, butterfly and moth species studied had declined in the last 50 years. Furthermore, in England the number of managed honeybee hives fell by about 50% between 1985 and 2005, and although there has been an increase in the popularity of beekeeping since 2007, many honeybee colonies are lost each year.

1.4 The decline in pollinator numbers can be attributed to individual and combined effects of a variety of pressures, these include:- habitat loss and degradation, pests and diseases, use of pesticides and climate change.

1.5 Habitat loss - A major driver of wild pollinator losses is thought to be the degradation, destruction and fragmentation of the many habitats in the landscape on which pollinators rely for food sources and breeding sites. The main causes of this change are more intensive agricultural practices and urban and sub-urban development of natural and semi-natural habitats.

1.6 Pests and diseases – bacterial infections and parasitic mites can result in the death of any bees, but especially colonial species including honey bee.

1.7 Pesticides – The increased use of pesticides in agriculture has raised concerns about the direct effects on pollinators, in particular the use of neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids (neonics) are now the most widely used insecticides in the world. They are systemic pesticides which can be applied as a seed dressing (the preferred delivery mechanism in England) or spray. As they have high toxicity to insects they are considered by some to provide effective pest control.

1.8 The use of neonics as a preventative measure against insect infestation is, however, contrary to the long-established principles of integrated pest management where a variety of non-chemical controls may be utilised to reduce the potential for infestation such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of agricultural practices and the use of resistant plant varieties along with minimal use of pesticides.

1.9 Neonics are generally toxic to insects even in minute quantities, and recent scientific studies have demonstrated that they can persist and accumulate in soil, and can be found to be present in wildflowers and field margins as well as the crops for which they are intended. As they are water soluble they are also prone to leaching into surface waters such as streams and rivers, and into our groundwater. Most organisms inhabiting arable environments will therefore be exposed to them.

Page 357 Page 4 – Dorset County Council Action Plan for Pollinators

1.10 Much of the controversy over the use of neonics has focussed on their effects on bees. Neonics are routinely used on oilseed rape, maize and winter wheat, and these crops are major forage sources for both managed honeybees and wild pollinators in arable landscapes. Although there is little evidence for direct mortality in bees there is strong evidence for sub-lethal effects which reduce the ability to forage and navigate properly, impacting the viability of colonies. Research has also linked the decline of some aquatic insects, insectivorous birds and butterflies to neonics.

1.11 In December 2013 the European Commission therefore introduced a precautionary ban on the three most common neonicotinoid pesticides. The ban relates to use on crops such as oilseed rape and the sowing of dressed (treated) seed during spring and summer when bees are foraging. It allows continued use on crops less likely to be attractive to bees but does not take into account the impacts on other insects, aquatic invertebrates or birds. It is possible also for areas within Member States to seek temporary exemptions from this ban. The UK Government did not support the restrictions citing a lack of scientific evidence supporting a ban, but has implemented restrictions as required. The Government gave time limited permission to use neonics in July 2015 in four English counties, all in the east/south-east of England. However, they have recently, for the first time, ruled against the use of neonicitinoid pesticides in rejecting an emergency application from the National Farmers Union to treat a third of all Oilseed Rape Crops.

1.12 Climate Change - Insect and plant distributions have already been altered by recent climate change and the different rates of migration of plants and pollinators may lead to disruption of pollination. In addition, minor increases in temperature have interfered with the life cycles of some plants and pollinators making it less likely that plants will be pollinated.

1.13 It is possible for Dorset County Council to address pressures such as habitat loss and the use of pesticides. This could be done by changing and developing some of the ways we work. In particular, in our grounds services, Country Park management, landscaping, County Farms and Planning services.

2. Proposed Dorset County Council Action Plan for Pollinators

2.1 All local authorities and other public bodies have a legal duty, under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in exercising their functions. Dorset County Council’s Corporate Plan reinforces this duty by committing the authority to delivering a ‘healthy environment’ within its outcomes framework.

2.2 In managing Dorset’s green spaces and providing ecological advice to a range of internal and external customers, Dorset County Council’s Coast and Countryside Service already actively contributes to the protection and enhancement of pollinating insects. This has been done through the seeding of wild flowers along road verges, appropriate landscaping of highway developments and other land holdings, cutting and collecting verge arisings, protecting or creating new habitats linked to development planning conditions, and maintaining our Country Parks and Rights of Way in ways which are sympathetic to pollinators.

2.4 Given the pressures being experienced by pollinators throughout the UK and in Dorset, however, and the growing evidence that they, and the benefits they bring, (economic and environment) are at risk, it is recommended that we strengthen our commitment to a healthy environment through the adoption of an Action Plan for Pollinators.

Page 358 Page 5 – Dorset County Council Action Plan for Pollinators

2.5 The proposed Plan outlines how Dorset County Council will deliver services and projects at an operational level in a way that maximises positive impacts and minimises negative impacts on pollinator species.

2.5 The Action Plan consists of the following principles to be adopted with immediate effect, or to be applied to future projects, asset management plans and decision- making processes as and when they are developed and/or reviewed.

 Highway verges: in implementing the strategy agreed by Cabinet in 2014, the County Council will seek to extend the successful verge trials to become the operational norm. Under this model, cuttings are collected where practicable following mowing to reduce fertility and grass growth with the effect of allowing wildflowers to compete with grass for space to grow. Lower fertility verges will, over time, require less cutting, saving money and delivering a higher quality roadside environment. This will be coupled with the sowing of spring and late summer flowering wildflower seed where possible to benefit pollinators.

 Green assets: Dorset County Council Country Parks, green spaces and other land holdings, will encourage the planting where appropriate of flower species and management of habitats that are beneficial to pollinators. Management Plans for such sites will make specific provision for pollinators and include measures to maximise pollinator populations.

 Neonicotinoid pesticides: the County Council will prohibit use of neonicotinoid pesticides on County Council land where the power exists to enforce this. The only exception would be for County Farms where the terms of existing tenancies may prevent such a prohibition being applied. However, current tenants will be encouraged to comply on a voluntary basis, and to implement other actions which might benefit pollinators. The County Council’s Environment Service, with input from the County Farms Liaison Panel, will also examine whether such a prohibition could be included in future tenancy agreements.

 Planning and development: in discharging its functions as a planning authority, and in giving planning advice via its environmental advice services, the County Council will seek to ensure that pollinator habitats are protected and enhanced, and will require, where possible, that new development results in a net gain for pollinators in line with national and locally adopted planning policies.

 Tree and shrub planting: where the opportunity arises, Dorset County Council will, through its arboriculture and Ranger services, endeavour to plant spring flowering trees such as cherry, apple, hawthorn, blackthorn and sallow which will benefit pollinators.

 Hedgerows: where consistent with the maintenance of good health and safety policy and in line with existing environmental land management agreements, the cutting of hedgerows will be carried out less often to allow longer flowering periods for nectar rich species.

 Project development and delivery: the County Council will endeavour to ensure that planning for pollinators is considered at an early stage in any infrastructure projects (e.g. highway schemes) it develops, delivers or influences, applying lessons from the successful Weymouth Relief Road project as a model for how delivery of major infrastructure projects can enhance wildlife habitats.

Page 359 Page 6 – Dorset County Council Action Plan for Pollinators

 Research and evidence: the County Council will have regard to the latest scientific evidence on pollinator health and consider how respond to emerging research (e.g. on the impacts of light pollution on nocturnal pollinators) in its future decision-making, asset management and operational service planning.

2.6 It is proposed that the County Council’s Coast & Countryside Service take the lead in ensuring that other County Council services are informed of the implications of this Action Plan, providing training and support where required to help services mainstream action for pollinators within their operational service delivery. It is further proposed that the Action Plan for Pollinators be kept under review, via periodic reporting to the appropriate Committee, to ensure that further opportunities to benefit pollinators are identified and pursued.

3. Conclusion

3.1 Dorset County Council’s 2016 Corporate Plan recognises that Dorset’s unique environmental assets underpin our economy and well-being and includes ‘healthy environment’ as an important element of our new Outcomes Framework. Key to a healthy natural environment are well-functioning ecosystems in which pollinators play a fundamental role. There is an opportunity for the Council to take a lead and do its part to protect and enhance pollinator populations in Dorset, and encourage partner organisations to do the same. Adoption of the proposed Action Plan for Pollinators will therefore reinforce Dorset’s reputation for environmental leadership, delivering improved prospects for pollinators, whilst maintaining and increasing the many benefits which they provide.

Peter Moore Head of Environment June 2016

Page 360 Agenda Item 18e

Cabinet – 29 June 2016

Recommendation from the People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 16 June 2016

Mobile Library Service 9 The Chairman informed the Committee that written statements had been received from the following parties and he read these out in full:  Ian Gardner, County Councillor for Chickerell and Chesil Bank division,  Pauline Batstone, County Councillor for Blackmore Vale division,  Ros Kayes, County Councillor for Bridport division; and  Friends of Sturminster Newton Library.

A copy of the statements were distributed at meeting and are attached to these minutes as Annexure 1.

The Committee considered a report by the Interim Director for Adult and Community Services that asked members to consider how mobile library services would be provided in the future. The County Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan included savings for the library service and changes to the service were therefore necessary. The report focussed on proposed change for the mobile library service and considered the impact of any change on members of the public.

The Head of Early Help and Community Services advised that the proposal within the report would allow the County Council to provide access to library services to those who could not access the service in any other way, within the financial resources available. Through the Dorset Partnership for Older People Programme (POPP) people who were isolated in rural villages had been identified and it was proposed that POPPs would be greater mobilised to help deliver services to these people. The use of Royal Voluntary Service (RVS) volunteers would also be extended.

Consultation with the public and communities had been carried out during April and May 2016 and the Chairman congratulated officers on the way in which this had been carried out. The Head of Early Help and Community Services reviewed the highlights of the consultation responses and advised that the unusual timescale (December 2016 to March 2017) was to ensure that no service was withdrawn until an alternative via communities themselves, was available. A phased approach was therefore proposed.

The County Councillor for Portland Tophill district, Paul Kimber, was invited to address the Committee. He advised that although he had concerns regarding the proposed closures he acknowledged the need for the proposals. He then commented on the work undertaken by friends groups and he asked whether every library had one. He asked members to consider how they could encourage libraries to set one up and reach isolated people, both in rural and urban areas.

Members sought further clarification as to how services to the most vulnerable and isolated would continue, and they were satisfied that steps would be in place via the use of community groups, RVS, POPP or friends and neighbours before any withdrawal of services were made. They asked

Page 361 officers to speak to existing staff to identify vulnerable people to ensure that no one slipped through the cracks.

Some members gave examples where community volunteers in their local areas had enriched both the library service and community living. There was a general acknowledgement that communities had to reclaim responsibility for their services and members were asked to encourage community schemes. The Head of Early Help and Community Services asked members to note that the required level of assistance by the voluntary sector and the pace at which services could be out in place was unknown at this early stage, hence the longer lead in time for withdrawal of services.

Recommended That the Cabinet be recommended to: 1. note the consultation responses about the proposed changes to the mobile library service; 2. maintain the mobile library service provided by the County Council to residential homes and sheltered accommodation units; and 3. approve the closure of the public mobile library service by end of December 2016 (earliest) and by end of March 2017 (latest) and the development of alternative access to library services where required within the resources available.

Reason for recommendations To meet the council’s Medium Term Financial Plan, ensuring that the County Council achieves a balanced budget.

Page 362 Mobile Library Service

People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Date of Meeting 16 June 2016

Officer Interim Director for Adult and Community Services

Subject of Report Mobile Library Service

Executive Summary The County Council currently provides mobile library services to:

i) The general public via three public mobile library vehicles, visiting 196 stops across the county ii) To residents in residential homes for older people via the Home Library Service mobile vehicle.

The purpose of this report is to consider how mobile library services are provided in the future.

The County Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan includes savings for the library service and change for the service is required. This report focusses on proposed change for the mobile library service and considers the impact of change on members of the public. The proposal is to:

i) Maintain the mobile library service provided through the Home Library Service vehicle provided by Dorset County Council ii) Cease the provision of the current public mobile library service but develop a level of library service for people who are unable to access services which will include:

 focus on providing access for people who are housebound by extending the Home Library Service for individuals in partnership with the Royal Voluntary Service

Page 363 Mobile Library Service

 Develop work in and with communities to enable some people to have access to library services through car sharing and/or good neighbour type schemes etc.

The proposal will allow the County Council to provide access to library services to those who cannot access the service in any other way within the financial resources available.

Consultation with the public and communities has been carried out during April and May 2016. This report includes the consultation results to help understand the impact of the proposal on mobile library users and how the users could access library services in alternative ways and has informed the recommendations for decision. The headline results indicate that 42% initially said that they would still be able to continue to use library services with 32% responding that they would not be able to and a further 26% saying ‘don’t know’. Further analysis of these results shows that 66% of all respondents to this question indicated an alternative way in which they would be able to access the service.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

An Equalities Impact Assessment has been drafted based on the proposed changes. Customers of public mobile libraries when compared to customers of library buildings comprise:

i) Higher proportion of females although the proposal would impact equally on men and women ii) Higher proportion of people aged over 75 years iii) Higher proportion of people with mobility related conditions or disabilities iv) Lower proportion of people in employment.

This information has been used to shape the approach to consultation and to developing the plans to mitigate the impact on people who are unable to travel to a library building.

The assessment is that there will be some impact on some people particularly older people and those in rural communities. Consideration has been given to how people can continue to access to library services in an alternative way to mitigate or minimise any impact.

Further information is provided in Appendix 5.

Use of Evidence:

Information on the level of visits and issues of library books and the results from the Public Library User Survey undertaken in November 2015 have been used in the preparation of this report. The results of the consultation on mobile library services have also been included.

Page 364 Mobile Library Service

The number of active borrowers on the four public mobile libraries for the 12 months prior to October 2015 was 1847. This equates to 2.5% of the total number of active borrowers using Dorset Library Service (72,776). Of these mobile library active users, 200 (10.83%) were aged under 18.

In broad terms the use of the four public service mobile libraries has declined while the Home Library Service mobile has been stable. 9,313 children’s books were issued in 2015/16 which was 12.2% of the 76,459 items issued on the public service mobiles.

Budget:

The Medium Term Financial Plan, approved by the County Council, estimated savings of £126,000 for the mobile library service over the next two years. The current budget for 2016/17 is £168,000.

Reducing the fleet of mobile library vehicles will mean that there will be a reduced need to replace vehicles at a cost of approximately £100,000 each. This means that there is a capital avoidance cost for the County Council.

There will be some residual value in disposing of the vehicles as a one off contribution to the savings.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk: LOW.

There is the risk of change to the network of library buildings arising from other changes. This is a consideration but any impact from other change can be assessed at that future point in time. The alternative is to wait until there is certainty. However this means that savings could not be achieved.

Other Implications:

Providing service for people who are unable to access a library building will require additional services to be commissioned from an existing contract, currently let to a voluntary organisation. Part of the mitigating action plan for providing alternative access to library services includes extending the Home Library Service delivered in partnership with the Royal Voluntary Service. There are potential risks that there may not be sufficient volunteers in the areas where they are required. There are currently 211 active volunteers plus reserves providing the service to over 590 clients. Based on consultation when 42 people indicated an interest in the Home Library Service (approximately 10% of respondents) it is judged that

Page 365 Mobile Library Service

it will be feasible to provide this service.

It should be noted that the proposed change is likely to result in more people needing to drive to their nearest static library rather than walk to the mobile library vehicle. The proposed changes would mean that there would no longer be three mobile library vehicles on the road; these vehicles currently travel approx. 36,500 miles per annum in total (based on routes operated by four mobile vehicles in 2015/16).

Recommendation The Committee is asked to recommend to the Cabinet that:

i) It notes the consultation responses about the proposed changes to the mobile library service. ii) Maintains the mobile library service provided by the County Council to residential homes and sheltered accommodation units. iii) Approval is given to the closure of the public mobile library service by end of December 2016 (earliest) and by end of March 2017 (latest) and the development of alternative access to library services (see paragraph 9.2) where required within resources available.

Reason for To meet the council’s Medium Term Financial Plan, ensuring that Recommendation the County Council achieves a balanced budget.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Consultation questionnaire about proposed changes to the mobile library service. Appendix 2 – Supporting information provided as part of consultation Appendix 3 – Summary of consultation results about proposed changes to the mobile library service from members of the public Appendix 4 – Consultation responses from parish and town councils and district and borough councils. Appendix 5 – Risks and Impact assessment

Background Papers Report to Adult and Community Services Overview Committee – Mobile Library Services 14 March 2016.

Officer Contact Name: Tracy Long, Dorset Library Service Manager Tel: 01305 224458 Email: [email protected]

Name: Paul Leivers, Head of Early Help and Community Services Tel: 01305 224455 Email: [email protected]

Page 366 Mobile Library Service

1. Background

1.1 The County Council has to provide a public library service under the 1964 Public Libraries and Museums Act. The requirement is to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” service for all persons desiring to make use thereof. The Act does not set out any detail on how this should be provided in practice. Guidance from government highlights the need for a clear strategy for the service. The last major review of policy for the library service was undertaken in 2011/12.

1.2 In 2011, the County Council approved the strategy for the library service which set out a new strategic approach for the library service in order to meet its statutory responsibilities of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. In order to fulfil the responsibility to provide a comprehensive and efficient service for all persons who wish to use it, the key features of the library service are:

a) A core network of libraries geographically spread across the county b) A mobile library service c) Supported by a resources fund d) Access to a range of online resources and services via the website e) Work with partners to provide services including enabling local communities to provide a local library service and use of the building for wider community benefit.

2. Budget context

2.1 The Medium Term Financial Strategy identifies the library service and other early help and community services needing to reduce the base budget by £1.065 million over the next three years. This means that by 2019/20 there will be a budget which is some 78% of the budget in 2015/16. Budget savings on this scale means that the savings need to come from a range of areas and initiatives. The mobile library service is one of the areas for consideration.

2.2 The Medium Term Financial Plan approved by the County Council estimated savings of £126,000 for the mobile library service over the next two years. The current budget for the mobile library service for 2016/17 is £168,000.

3. Proposal for change for the mobile library service

3.1 The County Council has to consider how it can best provide library services with a significantly reduced budget. In doing so it has to consider the impact of change on members of the public and how it can maximise access to services through the combination of library buildings, mobile libraries, online access and work with partners and local communities.

3.2 The proposal is to:

a) Maintain the mobile library service provided through the Home Library Service vehicle provided by Dorset County Council b) Cease the provision of the public mobile library service with a view to ensuring that some library service is provided for people who are unable to access services which will include:

Page 367 Mobile Library Service

 Focus on providing access for people who are housebound by extending the Home Library Service for individuals in partnership with the Royal Voluntary Service  Develop work in and with communities to enable some people to have access to library services through car sharing and/or good neighbour type schemes etc.

3.3 In March 2016, the Adult and Community Services Overview Committee considered a report on Mobile Library Services and approved that consultation on the mobile library service be undertaken.

3.4 The report included an overview of the current mobile library service arrangements.

4. Alternative access to library services

4.1 The proposal is to cease the public library mobile service and for users to access library services through: a) The network of 25 DCC managed libraries. In addition there are 8 community managed libraries supported by the County Council b) Promoting the availability of the good neighbour facility where family/friends/neighbours can borrow on behalf of a user with an extended loan period and no overdue charges. c) Access to online resources, information and services. d) Providing the volunteer based Home Library Service for individuals (subject to criteria). This is a different service to that which is provided by the Home Library Service mobile library. The County Council commissions the Royal Voluntary Service to provide a service for individuals who are housebound and unable to access conventional library services and wish to have books and other materials delivered to their home. It is available to individuals living in their own homes, including residents of sheltered housing, within the administrative area of Dorset County Council. It enables such individuals to have access to library materials based on their personal preferences and also provides an opportunity for social contact. The service is available to those, for example, who may be unable to leave the home for health reasons or because they are caring for someone or have difficulty gaining access to a library due to restricted mobility. e) Work with the Partnership for Older People Programme (POPPs) team and local communities to develop good neighbour and car sharing schemes where there is a need and interest.

5. Approach to consultation about the mobile library service

5.1 During April and May 2016, consultation about the proposals for change for the mobile library service has been undertaken with:

a) Library users, with a particular focus on public mobile library users. b) Local communities through parish and town councils. Information was also sent to the district and borough councils. c) Mobile library staff and trade unions.

5.2 The purpose of the consultation with the public was to help better understand the impact of the proposed change on mobile library users. Hard copies of the consultation

Page 368 Mobile Library Service

form (Appendix 1) together with supporting information (Appendix 2), were made available on all the public library mobiles from Monday 4 April to Friday 13 May (6 week period). Forms were also available in all libraries in Dorset. There was an online version on the Dorset for You website.

5.3 During the same period, all parish and town councils, together with district and borough councils were invited to comment on the proposals. In particular, local councils were asked about any support that they could provide to enable community development work that would facilitate access to library services.

5.4 For the Christchurch area, contact was also made with a number of Resident Associations. This follows on from a suggestion from one of the local members as there are no parish or town councils for some of this area.

5.5 Mobile library staff and trade unions have been consulted about the proposals and the likely impact on the staff and there has been the opportunity for staff to comment.

6. Responses to consultation

Consultation with public

6.1 There have been 453 survey forms completed and returned, of which 91% of the respondents are mobile library users.

6.2 The headline results of the consultation are as follows:

a) The majority of the respondents are mobile library users b) 78% use the mobile library every time it visits c) 34% of respondents are getting items on behalf of other people d) 87% walk to the mobile library stop and 8% drive or are taken by car e) Over 90% of respondents are less than 10 minutes from home to the mobile library stop. f) 426 people answered the question about whether they would be able to continue to use the library service in alternative ways. The headline results indicate that 42% initially said that they would still be able to continue to use library services with 32% responding that they would not be able to and a further 26% saying ‘don’t know’. Further analysis of these results shows that 66% of all respondents to this question indicated an alternative way in which they would be able to access the service. g) In response to the question about how people would access the library service if the mobile library service was withdrawn, the responses (multiple options available) were:  61% would use their nearest static library  10% would look to use the home library service  5% would ask someone else to collect books from a library on their behalf  7% would consider using the online library  29% said none of the above. (These do not sum to 100% because people could choose more than one option)

6.3 Further analysis of the questions relating to f) and g) have been undertaken as some people initially answered ‘don’t know’ to the question about continued use of the library service and then when presented with the alternative ways in which to access the service, the respondent went on to specify an option for continued use. This further analysis illustrates that those “able to use the library service” increases from 42% to 57%. In addition, there were a number of people who answered ‘no’ to the question

Page 369 Mobile Library Service

about continued use and then proceeded to select an option when presented with this information. Taking this into account, 66% of people who responded to the question about being able to continue to use the library service (either by yes/no/don’t know) then went onto specify in some way that they could access library services.

6.4 The summary consultation results are attached at Appendix 3. The full consultation results about the proposals for change for the mobile library service will be made available for member reference in the Members’ room.

Consultation with local councils

6.5 5 local councils responded to the consultation. It should be noted that some of the local councils included in the consultation are not served by a mobile library service. Appendix 4 shows the responses from the local councils in detail.

7. Human Resources considerations

7.1 There are eight members of library service staff directly affected by the proposal. These include the three full time Mobile Library Managers and support staff.

7.2 Consultation about the proposals has already been initiated with this group of staff. Subject to any decision, a change management process, in accordance with County Council policies and standard approach, would be undertaken with these staff.

8. Financial considerations

8.1 The Medium Term Financial Plan includes estimated savings for the library service of £1.065 million. Of these, £126,000 savings are estimated from the mobile library services budget over the next two years. If the savings are not realised through the mobile library service, then additional savings will need to be found from other areas of the library service.

8.2 There will be additional costs involved in extending the contract with the Royal Voluntary Service to deliver the Home Library Service. These will need to be negotiated with the RVS as part of the implementation plan. This would be managed within the budget available for the service.

8.3 Reducing the fleet of mobile library vehicles will mean that there will a reduced need to replace vehicles at a cost of approximately £100,000 each. This means that there is a capital avoidance cost for the County Council.

8.4 Following decommissioning, the three mobile library vehicles would be declared surplus and be disposed of at auction in line with normal County Council procedure. There would be some residual value in each of the vehicles which is estimated to be in the region of £2,000 per vehicle (subject to vehicle age and condition).

9. Timescales

9.1 The report to the Adult and Community Services Overview committee in March 2016 identified that a further report would be provided to the next Adult and Community Services Overview committee in June 2016. The committee structure has changed and consequently the report is being presented to People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny committee for their consideration.

9.2 Subject to any decision taken by elected members, it is estimated that the implementation could be from December 2016. The principle that the service will be

Page 370 Mobile Library Service

working to will be to set up and make available alternative service arrangements before the mobile library service is ceased in a local area. This would allow for the alternative service arrangements to be developed to ensure that as the mobile library service is withdrawn, users continue to have access to the library service. This also allows for the conclusion of the staff change process and any redundancy notice periods.

10. Conclusions

10.1 The mobile library service is a much appreciated one for rural areas. However the order of budget challenges facing the Council means that we now need to consider asking people who can travel to a library building to do so and to focus on providing alternative access to library services for those who are unable to access library buildings or online resources.

10.2 The headline results indicate that 42% initially said that they would still be able to continue to use library services with 32% responding that they would not be able to and a further 26% saying ‘don’t know’. Further analysis of these results shows that 66% of all respondents to this question indicated an alternative way in which they would be able to access the service.

10.3 There appears to be some interest in potential opportunities to help people with a small number of people asking for information about community transport schemes or expressing an interest in volunteering in their local community to help people use library services. As part of the implementation of any change, work will be undertaken with the Service Manager, Early Help to develop community activity to support the continued use of the library service.

Helen Coombes Director for Adult and Community Services June 2016

Page 371 Mobile Library Service Appendix 1

Proposed changes to the Mobile Library Service 2016

Please read the supporting information before completing the survey. The survey should take no longer than 10 minutes to complete. Thank you in advance for your time.

You can return this survey via your local library or mobile library and online at www.dorsetforyou.com/mobile-library-consultation

1. Which of the following ways do you currently use Dorset library service? Please tick all that apply. A – Use the mobile library B – Visit a library building C – Online library D – Other

If you selected ‘D – Other’ please specify:

2. Which mobile library stop do you currently use most often?

Page 372 Mobile Library Service

3. How regularly do you use a mobile library?

Every time it visits About once a month Less often

4. When you visit the mobile library, how many people are you getting items for?

Just myself 2 people 3 people 4 or more people

5. How do you currently get to your mobile library stop?

Walk Cycle With a neighbour By car – driver By car – passenger Other

If you selected ‘Other’ please specify in the space provided below:

6. How long does it take you to get to the stop from your home?

Up to 5 minutes 5 to 10 minutes 10 to 20 minutes 20 to 30 minutes 30+ minutes

Page 373 Mobile Library Service

7. After considering the alternative ways of using the library service, will you still be able to use library services?

Yes No Don’t know

8. Having read the different ways to access library services, which of the following options would be best for you? (Please tick as many as appropriate).

I would use my nearest static library I would look to use the home library service I would ask a friend/family member or neighbour to collect books from a static library on my behalf I would use the online library service None of the above

9. If you would use a static library, which library would you use?

Beaminster Blandford Bridport Burton Bradstock Charmouth Chickerell Christchurch Colehill Corfe Castle Corfe Mullen Crossways Dorchester Ferndown Gillingham Highcliffe Littlemoor Lyme Regis

Page 374 Mobile Library Service

Lytchett Matravers Portland Tophill Puddletown Shaftesbury Sherborne Stalbridge Sturminster Newton Swanage Upton Verwood Wareham West Moors Weymouth Wimborne Wool Wyke Regis 10. How would you get to this library?

Walk Cycle With a neighbour By car – driver By car – passenger Other

If you selected ‘Other’ please specify in the space

Page 375 Mobile Library Service

11. If you cannot get to a library or are not able to use the home library service, do you have a friend or neighbour who is able to help you access library services?

Yes No Don’t know

12. Would you like details of local community transport scheme? Yes No If so, please provide name and contact details in the box below

13. Would you be interested in volunteering in your local community to help people use library services? For example, offering to collect books from a static library, taking someone to the library or helping provide local library services?

Yes No

If so, please provide name and contact details in the box below

Page 376 Mobile Library Service

14. Please give some further detail about the impact of the proposed change on your ability to use the library.

15. Do you have any further comments?

About You

In order for us to understand what services are important to different areas and groups of people, we would like to gather a bit more information about you. All information from this survey will be kept confidential and you are under no obligation to provide details.

16. What is your postcode?

17. Are you?

Male Female Prefer not to say 18. Age group

Under 16 25-44 65-74 Prefer not to say 16-24 45-64 75 or over

19. Sexuality

Bisexual Heterosexual Other

Gay man Lesbian Prefer not to say

Page 377 Mobile Library Service

20. Religion

No religion Muslim

Buddhist Sikh

Christian Other faith/religion/belief

Hindu Prefer not to say

Jewish

21. Ethnicity

White British Black/Black British – Caribbean

White Irish Any other Black background

Gypsy/Irish traveller Mixed ethnic background – White and Asian

Any other White background Mixed ethnic background – White and Black African

Asian/Asian British – Bangladeshi Mixed ethnic background – White and Black Caribbean

Asian/Asian British – Chinese Any other mixed background

Asian/Asian British – Indian Any other ethnic group

Asian/Asian British - Pakistani Prefer not to say

Any other Asian background

Black/Black British – African

22. Do you consider you have a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act?

The Equalities Act 2010 defines a disability as: ‘A physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.’ In this definition, long-term is taken to mean a minimum of 12 months.

Yes Prefer not to say

No

Page 378 Mobile Library Service Appendix 2

Dorset County Council’s Mobile Library Service – consultation about proposed changes to the service

Introduction

Budget implications and good business practice has led us to reassess the service we offer and it will help us prioritise the delivery of a library service to residents who are unable to access library buildings.

Dorset County Council is facing unprecedented budget pressures and has to consider how it can best provide library services with a significantly reduced budget.

Currently there are four public library mobile vehicles serving stops across the county. From May 2016, this will change to three vehicles following re-timetabling of routes and the withdrawal of one vehicle. Another mobile, the Home Library Service mobile visits residential homes for older people and sheltered accommodation.

The proposal that we are consulting on is about more change to the mobile library service due to further budget reductions. The consultation is to help us better understand the impact of the proposed change on mobile library users.

What is the proposed change?

 To maintain the Home Library Service mobile to residential homes and sheltered accommodation  To cease providing the public library mobile service and to ensure that people who are unable to access the service in other ways can continue to be provided with a library service.  Why are we reviewing the service?

 Use of the public library mobile service has been in decline over a number of years. This is partly due to changing needs and a growth in car ownership.  The budget for the library service is reducing and the need to find savings means that change is required from a range of areas including the mobile library service.  Alternative ways of accessing the library service

Static libraries

There are 25 libraries managed by Dorset County Council and eight community managed libraries.

Home Library Service for individuals

The Home Library Service is delivered by Royal Voluntary Service (RVS) for people who are housebound and cannot get to a library. This bespoke service delivers books and other resources to customers at home free of charge at regular intervals. This service will continue and be expanded.

Please note that this is a different service to that provided by the Home Library Service mobile.

Page 379 Mobile Library Service

Good Neighbour (or family or friend) If you are unable to visit the library and have a friend, family member or neighbour who would be willing to collect books on your behalf you can sign up under our “good neighbour” library membership category. This will enable you to borrow the same number of items as a regular user although you will not be charged for overdue items. You will be sent a reminder if any items are overdue for return. Online Services You can access the library service online. You can download e-books and e- audio book services, which are free to use and can be accessed 24/7 via the Dorset for You website. You can also reserve books for collection from a library. For more information, visit www.dorsetforyou.com/libraries

Other

There is also the opportunity for community development work to enable some people to have access to library services through car sharing, befriending schemes etc.

What happens next?

Once the consultation feedback has been analysed, the results will be presented to the People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a future meeting in summer 2016 and then a decision will be taken by Cabinet.

Have your say

Your views are important so that we can better understand how the proposals will impact on you.

Please take the time to complete the survey so that we can understand the impact that the proposals may have. You can give your views online at www.dorsetforyou.com/mobile- library-consultation or return this form via the mobile library or any static library.

The consultation is open from 4 April to14 May 2016.

Page 380 Mobile Library Service

Appendix 3

Summary of consultation results about proposed changes to the mobile library service

There were 453 questionnaires completed in total. In response to the question about how people use the library service currently, the following responses were received.

No. of % Answer to question respondents 413 91 Use the mobile library 113 25 Visit a library building 20 4 Online library

8 2 Other Table 1: Number of respondents and % of responses to question: Which of the following ways do you currently use Dorset library service? Please tick all that apply.

Most respondents use the mobile library service every time it visits.

No. of % Answer to question respondents 336 78 Every time it visits 68 16 About once a month 26 6 Less often Table 2: Number of respondents and % of responses to question: How regularly do you use a mobile library?

A question was included about how do users

No. of % Answer to question respondents 364 87 Walk 6 1 Cycle 2 0 With a neighbour 27 6 By car - driver 10 2 By car - passenger 8 2 Other Table 3: Number of respondents and % of responses to question: How do you currently get to your mobile library stop?

The consultation included a question about continued use of library services if the mobile library should cease after considering the alternative ways of using the service.

Page 381 Mobile Library Service

No. of % Answer to question respondents 177 42 Yes 137 32 No 112 26 Don’t know

Table 4: Number of people and % of responses to question: After considering the alternative ways of using the library service, will you still be able to use library services?

In the consultation, a question was asked on how people would access the library service if the mobile library service was withdrawn. 470 responses were received to this question – please note that multiple options could be selected. The responses to that question were:

No. of % Answer to question respondents 253 61 I would use my nearest static library instead 42 10 I would look to use the home library service instead (criteria apply) 21 5 I would ask a friend/family member or neighbour to collect books from a library on my behalf 31 7 I would consider using the online library service 123 29 None of the above.

Table 5: Number of people and % of responses to question: Having read the different ways to access library services, which of the following options would be best for you? Please tick as many as appropriate

Of the respondents that replied that they would use a static library, 70% said that they would drive or be taken by car to the library.

No. of % Answer to question respondents 30 9 Walk 3 1 Cycle 4 1 With a neighbour 191 57 By car – driver 45 13 By car – passenger 61 18 Other Table 6: Number of respondents and % of responses to question: how would you get to this library?

Page 382 Mobile Library Service

For those who said that they cannot get to a library or are not able to use the home library service, a question was asked about accessing library services with the support of a friend or neighbour.

No. of % Answer to question respondents 43 13 Yes 199 58 No 101 29 Don’t know

Table 7: Number of people and % of responses to question: If you cannot get to a library or are not able to use the home library service, do you have a friend or neighbour who is able to help you access library services?

There was very little interest in having more details of community transport scheme with only 11% of respondents requesting this.

There was question asked about interest in volunteering in the local community to help people use library services.

No. % Answer to question 32 8 Yes 358 92 No

Table 8: Number of people and % of responses to question: Would you be interested in volunteering in your local community to help people use library services?

The consultation questionnaire also allowed for respondents to provide further detail about the impact of the proposed change on a customer’s ability to use the library. There was also space provided for any other comments. There were over 500 comments received in total to these two sections. The comments have been analysed and the key themes in the responses can be categorised as follows:

a) Concerns about the loss of a convenient and local service and an opportunity for social, community contact b) Difficulty in accessing their nearest static library due to:  Availability and cost of public transport  Travel distances by car  Fuel and parking costs  Ability to carry books particularly if also carrying shopping c) Important in rural area to provide equality of access d) View that the proposals would negatively impact or isolate elderly people particularly those in rural communities.

There were also other comments made by a number of respondents about:

a) Concerns about the opportunities for children to use the service

Page 383 Mobile Library Service

b) For some, there would be no impact as they would be able to use library services in alternative ways c) For some, the proposal would mean that they stop or use the service less d) Some suggested that the mobile library visit on a monthly basis rather than fortnightly.

In addition to the consultation, a number of individuals contacted the library service directly to make comments either by email or by phone. It should be noted that these people also completed the consultation questionnaire.

Information about respondents

Respondents were asked to complete a section to provide information about their background. The results are as follows:

Gender

No. of % Answer to question respondents 126 30 Male 284 68 Female 10 2 Prefer not to say

Age Group

No. of % Answer to question respondents 5 1 Under 16 1 0 16 -24 years 10 2 25 – 44 years

70 17 45 – 64 years

127 30 65 – 74 years 188 45 75 or over

17 4 Prefer not to say

Sexuality

No. of % Answer to question respondents 10 3 Bisexual 0 0 Gay man 254 75 Hetrosexual

Page 384 Mobile Library Service

1 0 Lesbian 3 1 Other 70 21 Prefer not to say

Religion

No. of % Answer to question respondents 65 17 No religion 1 0 Buddhist 258 68 Christian 0 0 Hindu 0 0 Jewish 0 0 Muslim 0 0 Sikh 3 1 Other faith/religion/belief 53 14 Prefer not to say

Ethnicity

No. of % Answer to question respondents 350 90 White British 1 0 White Irish 0 0 Gypsy/Irish traveller 5 1 Any other White background 0 0 Asian/Asian British – Bangladeshi 0 0 Asian/Asian British – Chinese 2 1 Asian/Asian British – Indian 0 0 Asian/Asian British – Pakistani 0 0 Any other Asian background 0 0 Black/Black British – African 3 1 Black/Black British – Caribbean 0 0 Any other Black background 0 0 Mixed ethnic background – White and Asian

Page 385 Mobile Library Service

0 0 Mixed ethnic background – White and Black African 0 0 Mixed ethnic background – White and Black Caribbean 1 0 Any other mixed background 0 0 Any other ethnic group 27 7 Prefer not to say

Disability

The Equalities Act 2010 defines a disability as: ‘A physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily acitivities.’ In this definition, long term is taken to mean a minimum of 12 months.

No. of % Answer to question respondents 67 17 Yes 307 77 No 27 7 Prefer not to say

Page 386 Mobile Library Service

Appendix 4

Consultation responses from parish and town councils and district and borough councils (consultation period 4 April – 20 May 2016)

Date Parish/Town Council Comments

Support the continuation of the service to Sixpenny Handley and Woodyates as Sixpenny is identified as a Rural Service Centre in the Local Plan being 10 miles from the main towns of Wimborne, Blandford, Salisbury and Shaftesbury. We would pleased to make the Parish Office 06- Sixpenny Handley & Pentridge at 6 Town Farm Workshops available if helpful to the Apr Parish Council service. The council partnership understands the context in which these proposals are made and supports the continuation of the Home Library Service mobile to residential homs. We also suport the continued access to service by those who are housebound via the RVS. We would be happy to enable access to this service and that of the Good Neighbour scheme through our community contacts should this be of help. The future of our discretionary services is currently under review and we will look at 06- opportunities for collaborative working at a local level as Apr Dorset Councils Partnership we review them this year. Concerns about the possibility of losing such a valuable service. Each Cllr is to complete a survey but it was 19- considered that a letter expressing their concern should be Apr Blandford Forum Town Council sent additionally. The proposals for the mobile library service in Dorset were discussed at the Hurn Parish Council meeting on Monday 9 May 2016. Councillors object to the proposal to withdraw 13- the mobile library service which would have an adverse May Hurn Parish Council impact on Residents especially the elderly. The mobile library is an invaluable service to Residents who cannot access static libraries. Public transport links are poor in Hurn as in other rural areas of Dorset. The elderly in particular cannot walk any distance to access public transport. Without the mobile library service, they would become more isolated, with the associated potential Hurn continued health and wellbeing issues.

Page 387 Mobile Library Service

The parish council has concerns regarding the proposal to stop the Mobile library service. 1. The only realistic alternatives are either a separate visit to a library or (if relevant) use of the Home Library Service. 2. The Parish council is concerned that library usage will drop as fewer people will be able to make the trip to a library compared to the number who currently use the Mobile Library Service. 3. The terms for use of the Home Library Service are very limited - many people who use the mobile library service will not qualify but will not be able to visit a library and will thus be marginalised. 15- 4. The Parish Council asks for historical data on use of the May Chideock Parish Council Chideock Mobile lIbrary service.

Page 388 Mobile Library Service

Appendix 5

Risks and impact assessment

Impact assessment

The Public Library User Survey undertaken in November 2015 and the consultation on mobile library services show that customers of mobile libraries when compared with users of library buildings have:

a) Higher proportion of females – however the proposal to withdraw the service will impact equally on both men and women. b) Higher proportion of people aged over 75 years c) Higher proportion of people with mobility-related conditions or disabilities d) Lower proportion of people in employment.

Access to library service buildings requires consideration. 15.5% of households in the 2011 census had no car or van. The drive time to the current network of 25 DCC libraries and the proportion of Dorset’s population within a two and five mile radius of a library are shown in the tables below:

Estimated drive time for population to a library building. Drive time Percentage of population for 25 DCC libraries 5 minutes 77.8% 10 minutes 92.7% 20 minutes 100%

Proportion of population within two and five miles of library buildings Distance from library buildings Percentage of population within specified distance of 25 DCC libraries 2 miles 76.2% 5 miles 94.8%

An Equalities Impact Assessment has been drafted on the basis of the proposal. The implications of the proposal will impact on people of all ages. However the consultation results evidences that there is a higher proportion of older people using the service. There are a number of alternative service options available, or will be developed, to ensure access to library services can continue. These are:

 Home Library Service delivered in partnership with the Royal Voluntary Service (RVS). Individuals who are housebound are provided with a regular visit from a RVS volunteer, delivering a collection of selected books to meet the reader’s profile.  Online library services  Static libraries  Good neighbour/family/friend facility.

There may be an impact on the access to local rural communities because at present the passenger seat on the mobile is used occasionally by partner organisations to access isolated people. In some communities local people have organised regular activities and events coinciding with the mobile library visit e.g., coffee mornings and in one locality a mobile post office visits at the same time.

Page 389 Mobile Library Service

Risks

There is the risk of change to the library network arising from other changes. This is a consideration but any impact from other change can be assessed at that future point in time. The alternative is to wait until there is certainty. However this means that savings could not be achieved.

Part of the mitigating action plan for providing alternative access to library services includes extending the Home Library Service delivered in partnership with the Royal Voluntary Service. There are potential risks that there may not be sufficient volunteers in the areas where they are required. There are currently 211 active volunteers plus reserves providing the service to over 590 clients.

Page 390 Agenda Item 18f Community Offer for Living and Learning

People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Date of Meeting 16 June 2016

Officer Director for Children’s Services

Subject of Report Community Offer for Living and Learning

Executive Summary The Community Offer for Living and Learning is part of the County Council’s Forward Together transformation. This report includes a draft Outline Business Case. It is intentionally presented for scrutiny by Committee at an early stage to secure member comments and contributions to its further development.

Key elements of the Community Offer are likely to include: i) Prevention: priority is given to low cost, earlier interventions which reduce demand for high cost interventions later in the life course.

ii) ‘Channel shift’: services are provided via low cost channels where possible (on-line, telephone, community- based) minimising the services which need to be provided via high cost channels (i.e. face-to-face using staff, buildings)

iii) Integration: the offer will require services to go beyond ‘co-location’ and sharing space, to integration, sharing front of house and back office staff, services and costs

iv) Location: the other services which can only be delivered from buildings will be brought together in integrated Living and Learning Centres – strategically located in our most flexible, efficient and accessible buildings.

Page 391 Community Offer for Living and Learning

The Community Offer for Living and Learning has been developed as a positive proposition for the County Council’s service users and local communities. It is about how and where they can access services in future, which challenges the current narrative of cumulative cuts in local government services. The approach requires working with community organisations and other public services.

Pilot areas to explore and develop the approach are suggested: Weymouth, Portland, Beaminster, Blandford, and possibly Ferndown.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

As this work is developed it will be possible to develop the Equalities Impact Assessment further. One part of the approach is to compile a summary of key issues by way of a community profile, including information on demography, social isolation, education and skills, health and housing. Working with partners and local community organisations and leaders will enable discussion of this information and inform consideration of impact on the community, including people with protected characteristics.

Changes in services to online or phone means of delivery or through consolidation of services currently provided from a number of single service buildings to fewer multi-functional buildings will have impacts which need to be understood and mitigated.

Use of Evidence:

In the 2015 Ask Dorset consultation residents were asked – “Do you think it is a good idea to locate different services, such as care homes, libraries, children’s centres and day centres in one community building?” The majority said they thought this was a good idea. The answers from 1600 respondents were:

 Yes 69%  No 25%  I'm not sure 7%

Speaking to respondents at the public events, people had concerns about mixing particular services i.e. older people and children’s. Respondents felt that it might be a good idea to have other non- council services located in a hub also such as a health centre.

Budget: The Council’s approved budget and Medium Term Financial Plan requires a number of savings to be made from property and service budgets. The community offer for living and learning is working as part of the Council’s Forward Together Transformation programme.

Page 392 Community Offer for Living and Learning

The approach will contribute to £3.2 million savings in relation to property which are envisaged over the next five years. It will also contribute to savings in service budgets. Further work on the approach is needed to clarify the total savings, their inter- relationship and what is affordable in terms of future service provision.

There is the potential to reinvest up to 75% of capital receipts raised through sale of surplus properties if this is judged to be appropriate.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk: MEDIUM

The current high risk principally relates to financial savings targets, which will not be achieved without service and property transformation.

Further work is underway to develop the risk register. Risk will be mitigated by taking a pilot approach in some local areas to learn and develop.

Other Implications:

The approach has an important element in relation to Property and Assets. Voluntary organisations will be involved through the discussion of potential co-location in a building and/or in relation to partnership work on change in service delivery. Discussions with District and Town and Parish Councils will be important in identifying any other opportunities and the scope and potential for community-managed services in some circumstances.

Work through the Joint Asset Management meetings with other public services in Dorset will be undertaken.

Engagement, discussion and agreement will be needed with staff and trades unions in relation to some changes.

Recommendation It is recommended that the Committee:

(i) Recommends to the Cabinet that the development of the community offer for living and learning is progressed, enabling officers to prepare the business case as well as engage both locally and on a countywide level (ii) Recommends to the Cabinet that progress in the pilot areas is approved (iii) Comments on the draft Outline Business Case to contribute to its further development

Page 393 Community Offer for Living and Learning

(iv) Comments on the best way for members to be engaged in development of the approach through a member group (v) Recommends to the Cabinet that delegation is given to the Director for Children's Services to proceed with action in the pilot areas if appropriate after consultation with the Cabinet member for Organisational Development and Transformation, other Cabinet members as appropriate and the local County Councillor(s) subject to the Section 151 Officer being satisfied that there is a sound financial basis. (vi) Recommends to the Cabinet that delegation is given to the Director for Environment and Economy after consultation with the Cabinet member for Environment, Infrastructure and Highways and the local County Councillor(s) to enter into such property transactions (whether by acquisition or disposal) as are necessary to make appropriate progress with the introduction of living and learning centres.

The approach is in line with the Council’s vision of working together for a strong and successful Dorset, is part of the action required as Reason for part of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan and contributes to Recommendation the four corporate outcomes of Safe, Healthy, Independent and Prosperous.

Appendix 1: Draft Outline Business Case – NOT FOR Appendices PUBLICATION Exempt Information under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

Background Papers None

Name: Paul Leivers, Head of Early Help and Community Services Tel: 01305 224455 Email: [email protected] Officer Contact Name: Roger Sewill, Strategic Estate Management Team Manager Tel: 01305 221951 Email: [email protected]

Page 394 Community Offer for Living and Learning

1. Background

1.1 The Community Offer for Living and Learning has been developed as a positive proposition for the County Council’s service users and local communities. It is about how and where they can access services in future, which challenges the current narrative of cumulative cuts in local government services. The concept builds on the Forward Together principles of smarter services, promoting independence and empowering people, and seeks to reconcile the reality that we need to make significant savings with continued high levels of public expectation that services will be maintained, alongside the council’s ambition to transform services. The fact is that not all services will be maintained in their current means of provision, but many can be safeguarded if we save money through the way we deliver them, the media through which they are delivered and the places in which customers and service users receive them.

1.2 The Council’s vision is of working together for a strong and successful Dorset. This vision embodies the vital need for the council to work with others to find a way, together, to deliver transformation. Therefore we need to assess whether other organisations or local communities are better able to deliver some parts of the County Council’s service provision and what action is needed to facilitates and support change to deliver the very best possible outcomes for people and communities while also achieving budget savings.

1.3 The new Corporate Plan is based on a common Outcomes Framework with four Outcomes for Dorset residents; the priority is to have more of a community focus to enable local people to be more directly involved in improving their quality of life. The four corporate outcomes are: Safe, Healthy, Independent and Prosperous.

1.4 Outcomes Based Accountability is the preferred way of working for the Council and is a means to enable residents and partners to get from talk to action quicker to improve outcomes across whole communities.

2. What is the Community Offer for Living and Learning?

2.1 Key elements of the Community Offer are likely to include: a. Prevention: priority is given to low cost, earlier interventions which reduce demand for high cost interventions later in the life course.

b. ‘Channel shift’: services are provided via lower cost service delivery methods or channels where possible (on-line, telephone, community-based) minimising the services which need to be provided via high cost channels (i.e. face-to-face using staff, buildings)

c. Integration: the offer will require services to go beyond ‘co-location’ and sharing space, to integration, sharing direct customer-facing staff and back office staff, services and costs

d. Location: the other services which can only be delivered from buildings will be brought together in integrated Living and Learning Centres – strategically located in our most flexible, efficient and accessible buildings.

2.2 While the approach is about much more than buildings, a key strand of the offer envisages integrating those services which still need to be delivered from a physical (as opposed to a virtual) environment in to one fit-for purpose (but not purpose-built) building. Indeed, this will be essential to contribute to the £3.2 million savings on

Page 395 Community Offer for Living and Learning

property by 2020 to which we are already committed. But it also presents the opportunity to transform service delivery in both staffing terms and by working with local organisations and partners. The programme will determine how closely services, that have traditionally been delivered through functional based buildings can be aligned to provide a joined-up offer, i.e. Children Centres, Libraries, Skills & Learning, Learning Disability Day Centres, CAB. District and Town Council functions. The approach relies on partnership working and change based on agreement with council listening to local organisations and respecting that there may be very good reasons for delivering services from a number of buildings. It is not about a one size fits all approach, but one which recognises the local position and finds the best, most appropriate and affordable way forward in each locality, building on a base model.

2.3 This programme is about public-facing service delivery, and is currently called the Community Offer for Living and Learning as a working title, intending to convey the range of services offered. It is not about office accommodation and consideration of seven office locations across Dorset which is the being addressed through another programme.

2.4 We aim to work with other public and voluntary bodies to make public and community assets work for everyone, regardless of who owns them. So where possible, we will integrate our services with other public sector authorities such as Health; Blue Light Services; District, Town and Parish Councils; Government Agencies; Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) Sector.

2.5 There will be up to five community pilots to roll out this way of working that will be aligned to this community offer to create greater opportunities for making more of a difference and encouraging innovation around how assets are best used. The pilot areas to test the approach are Weymouth, Portland, Beaminster and Blandford and possibly Ferndown. One part of the approach is to collate key information and data about the area and to provide this for local councillors, organisations and the public to comment on to inform future service design. The key questions that will be explored in these pilots are:

 Who are our customers?  How can we measure if the customers are better off?  How can we measure if we are delivering services well?  How are we doing on the most important of these measures?  Who are the partners that have a role to play in doing better?  What works to do better, including no-cost and low-cost ideas  What do we propose to do?

2.6 It will be vital that the public understand what services they can get through the offer so clear promotion and branding will be required. It is also vital that staff are trained and developed, where appropriate, with the required skills and knowledge to deliver the offer.

2.7 To develop and deliver the offer will require:

a. An honest conversation with communities about what the County Council can and cannot deliver in future, but based on a positive offer of something better in contrast to drip-fed reductions in service b. Collaboration between Directorates to facilitate integration, embrace change and accept the compromises that may entail, with leadership from senior managers to make it happen

Page 396 Community Offer for Living and Learning

c. Strong political leadership at corporate and local level with elected members understanding and supporting the concept and feeling able to promote it to the wider community (as supported at Member’s seminar on 21 April 2016) to help raise awareness of and shape the concept at this formative stage) d. An understanding that not all services fit together or are needed in each geographical area. e. Engagement, discussion and agreement will be needed with staff and trades unions in relation to some changes.

3. Draft Outline Business Case

3.1 Appendix 1 includes a draft Outline Business Case which is in development. The work is within the remit of the Way We Work Board which reports to the Forward Together Board.

3.2 The outline timescales are:

ITEM MONTH

Overview and Scrutiny, and Cabinet approval June 2016 Engagement with councillors and partners in pilot areas to From June 2016 inform business case and identify opportunities for action. Development of business case July to September 2016 Business case for programme agreed at the Way We Work October 2016 Board, and Cabinet including Programme timeline Final outline business case to People and Places Committee for October 2016 scrutiny prior to decision by Cabinet.

3.3 The draft Outline Business Case is an early draft and is brought to members for consideration at this early draft stage so that work can be shaped by Councillors. It is important that we make progress with the work, breaking it down to ensure that plans are achievable and delivered. Further work is required to work out how quickly the approach can be achieved throughout the County, recognising that it will not be possible to engage with all local organisations and communities simultaneously.

3.4 Member engagement and contributions to the approach is envisaged in a number of ways, including:  The Way we Work Board  Engagement with Cabinet Members on specific areas as appropriate  Local members being involved in work in the pilot areas

3.5 The work in the pilot areas may result in the identification of opportunities which would be helpful in improving outcomes or in saving money. In order to gain as much experience as soon as possible and maximise the learning it is recommended that there is member steer provided through a group to assist in developing the approach and informing the development of the outline business case. To complement this, and allow us to take advantage of any opportunities which are identified in the pilot areas and make progress with them, it is also recommended that appropriate delegations are given to Directors to proceed if appropriate with consultation of the appropriate Cabinet members and local County Councillors subject to the Section 151 Officer being satisfied that there is a sound financial basis.

Page 397 Community Offer for Living and Learning

4. Conclusion

4.1 The Community Offer for Living and Learning is part of the County Council’s Forward Together transformation. The approach looks to do things differently to achieve outcomes while reducing the budget. It requires close working and development work with a number of other public services, with local communities and organisations. This report is intentionally presented for scrutiny by Committee at an early stage to secure member comments and contributions to its further development.

4.2 Work will then be undertaken over the summer to develop the Outline Business Case, engage with some local areas to develop the approach. This is with a view to a more detailed and developed plan to be presented to the People and Places Committee, and Cabinet in October.

Sara Tough Director for Children’s Services June 2016

Page 398 Cabinet – 29 June 2016

Recommendation from the People and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 16 June 2016

Community Offer for Living and Learning 10 The Chairman informed the Committee that a written statement had been received from the County Councillor for Chickerell and Chesil Bank division, Ian Gardner, which he read out in full to the Committee. A copy of the statement was distributed at meeting and is attached to these minutes as Annexure 1.

The Committee considered a report by the Director for Children’s Services that sought members’ comments and contribution to the further development of the Community Offer for Living and Learning. The report contained a draft outline business case for the proposals that reviewed how and where service users and local communities could access services in future. The approach required working with community organisations and other public services, with pilot areas to explore and develop the approach suggested in Weymouth, Portland, Beaminster, Blandford, and possibly Ferndown.

The Head of Early Help and Community Services reviewed the ambitious proposals and emphasised that it was not a property programme. He acknowledged that one size would not fit all and work would be undertaken with local people to enable the Authority to respond appropriately and to enable local communities to help themselves. The future direction is for more multi-functional buildings and fewer single purpose buildings. Further details would be informed by engaging with councillors and partners in pilot areas, helping to identify opportunities for action and further developing the business case and what was affordable.

Member engagement and contributions to the approach was envisaged in a number of other ways, including The Way We Work Board and engagement with Cabinet Members on specific areas as appropriate. A further report would be presented to the Committee in October 2016 following the pilot period to detail the final outline business case.

The County Councillor for Portland Tophill district, Paul Kimber, was invited to address the Committee. He spoke to the Committee as the Member Champion for promotion of learning through life and advised that he fully endorsed the proposals and recommended the Committee approve the report’s recommendations.

Members discussed the report, commenting positively on the efficient use of the Authority’s resources, both people and buildings. They asked officers to ensure that the final business plan was forward thinking, particularly in regards to potential building availability within a future unitary authority. Members agreed that the proposals, if managed appropriately, would serve the community well and reduce expenditure.

A member commented on the importance of a ‘one stop shop’ to certain individuals who needed to access a range of information in a short period of time. He asked whether this could be extended in order to offer some

Page 399 form of resettlement support for prisoners recently released and whether information could be given to prisoners before their release date.

The Head of Early Help and Community Services advised officers were already working closely with a number of Cabinet Members and also with a number of local members. He welcomed the additional input of Committee members to ensure both a local and strategic balance of views were received. When considering how members could be engaged in the process, it was agreed that a members’ working group would be appropriate.

Resolved That a member working group be set up to engage in the development of the Community Offer. That group to consist of Councillors Fred Drane, Steve Butler, David Walsh and Kate Wheller.

Recommendations That the Cabinet be recommended to: 1. approve the development of the Community Offer for Living and Learning, enabling officers to prepare the business case as well as engage both locally and on a countywide level; 2. approve progress in the pilot areas; 3. delegate powers to the Director for Children's Services to proceed with action in the pilot areas, if appropriate, after consultation with the Cabinet member for Organisational Development and Transformation, other Cabinet members as appropriate and the local County Councillor(s), subject to the Section 151 Officer being satisfied that there was a sound financial basis; and 4. delegate powers to the Director for Environment and the Economy after consultation with the Cabinet member for Environment, Infrastructure and Highways and the local County Councillor(s) to enter into such property transactions (whether by acquisition or disposal), as necessary, to make appropriate progress with the introduction of living and learning centres.

Reason for Recommendations The approach was in line with the Council’s vision of working together for a strong and successful Dorset. Was part of the action required as part of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan and contributed to the four corporate outcomes of Safe, Healthy, Independent and Prosperous.

Page 400 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 401 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 21 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 431 This page is intentionally left blank