Agenda and minutes

There were none. 

The record of the meeting held on 2 October 2012 was agreed and signed by the Leader as correct. 

There were none. 

Background:

This report sought approval and adoption of a revised Guide to Developer Contributions, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, as a Supplementary Planning Document.

The existing guide, adopted in April 2008, set out the levels of Section 106 contributions that a developer should provide when intending to build 10 dwellings or more. Contributions were to address the impact of development, such as funding for school places to meet the needs of residents of the new development. Members were advised that since the guide was adopted much of the information had changed and some sections in the 2012 draft guide had been significantly revised, with new sections on affordable housing, waste and recycling. The draft therefore reflected current requirements.

The Cabinet had agreed on 17 April 2012 to a consultation exercise on a revised draft guide. The report gave details of the consultation exercise undertaken between May and June 2012 and a schedule of responses was attached at Appendix 2 to the report.

In relation to the options available to the Cabinet, it was reported that if the revised guide was not adopted developers would not have current information available to them and would not understand current requirements.

The Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the draft guide on 4 October 2012 and the report set out details of its comments and recommendation.

A screening assessment for a Diversity Impact Assessment had been completed and was attached at Appendix 3 to the report. It was noted that the screening process had shown that a full assessment was not required.

Reasons:

The revised Guide to Developer Contributions will ensure that this process is up to date and reflects current requirements.

Background:

This report provided details of the annual review of the Council’s Risk Management Strategy and six monthly review of the Council’s Corporate Business Risk Register.

Members were advised that the Strategic Risk Management Group was not recommending any changes to the Risk Management Strategy. However, following review by ‘risk owners’ a number of proposed amendments to the Corporate Risk Register were set out in the report.

It was noted that the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered this report on 25 September 2012 and its comments were set out in paragraph 5 of the report. It was noted that the Committee had recommended that consideration of reducing the risk rating for SR21 Procurement be delayed for six months, to enable the new Category Management Team to become established and embed the new procurement processes across the council.

Reasons:

The establishment of a corporate framework for risk management is recommended by CIPFA and SOLACE and will complement and support the work already being carried out within each directorate to manage risks.

Background:

This report set out details of a new funding formula for mainstream schools and academies.

It was noted that the government had placed a duty on local authorities to formulate a new funding formula. The formula had to adhere to the government’s regulations and would take effect from April 2013. The deadline for notifying the Department for Education of the agreed funding formula was 31 October 2012.

Proposals for the new funding formula had been prepared with assistance from a working group of Medway head teachers, governors and school business managers. Where elements of the current formula were no longer permissible, the group considered which factors should be used in future and this was shown in Appendix 1 (primary schools) and Appendix 2 (secondary schools) to the report. The potential impact of the new formula had been assessed and the results were shown in Appendix 3 to the report.

Members were advised that the new regulations allowed little flexibility but where options were available these were considered in the report, together with the responses from schools, who had been consulted between 18 September and 2 October. Options related to:

·        How to reflect pupil deprivation in the new funding formula

·        The method of funding special educational needs (SEN) in primary schools

·        The provision of a lump sum to ensure small schools remain viable

·        funding for transitional protection

·        Proposals for defining the elements that contribute to each schools notional SEN budget

·        The ‘de-delegation’ of funds for High Needs SEN

·        Proposals for the primary/secondary funding ratio.

The Schools Forum had considered the proposals on 9 October 2012 and its recommendations were set out in the report.

A Diversity Impact Assessment screening had been undertaken on the proposals and was attached at Appendix 4 to the report. It had been found it was not necessary to undertake a full impact assessment.

Reasons:

The local authority is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Background:

This report gave details of the forecast outturn for the 2012/2013 financial year based on actual income and expenditure to September 2012 (the end of the second quarter).

It was noted that on 23 February 2012 the Council had set a General Fund net budget requirement of £180.998 million for 2012/2013, with Council Tax frozen at 2010/2011 levels.

This was the second quarterly report and it indicated, after management action, the outturn forecast for 2012/2013 stood at a potential overspend of £961,000, which compared to an equivalent forecast of £5 million this time last year and an improvement of £5,000 on quarter one.

Directorate management teams would continue to focus attention on identifying action to contain expenditure within the overall budgets.

The Cabinet accepted this report as urgent to enable it to receive and consider the first quarter budget monitoring information at the earliest opportunity.

Reasons:

Cabinet has the responsibility to ensure effective budgetary control to contain expenditure within the approved limits set by Council. Where a budget overspend is forecast, Cabinet supported by the corporate management team must identify measures to remove any excess expenditure.

Background:

This report gave details of the capital monitoring position for the period to September 2012 (the end of the second quarter), with a forecast outturn for 2012/2013.

The approved capital programme for 2012/2013 and future years was £105.6 million, consisting of £83 million in respect of brought forward schemes and £22.6 million of new approvals.

The report commented on the delivery of the capital programme and updated Members on a number of issues. The current forecast showed that £76.045 million of the programme was forecast for spend during 2012/2013.

The Cabinet accepted this report as urgent to enable it to receive and consider the first quarter budget monitoring information at the earliest opportunity.

Reasons:

Cabinet has the responsibility to ensure effective budgetary control to contain expenditure within the approved limits set by Council.

Background:

This report presented details of the Council’s performance for the second quarter of 2012/2013. It included performance against indicators and actions agreed in the Council Plan 2012/2013.

Appendix 1 to the report summarised the status of each Key Measure of Success and Appendix 2 set out detailed performance tables. Members discussed the contents of these appendices. This included specific consideration of the following:

·        NI 117 – 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, employment or training

·        those indicators relating to public confidence and feelings of safety

·        indicators relating to domestic abuse

·        NI 195c – improved street and environmental cleanliness: Graffiti

·        ASC 8 – carers receiving needs assessment or review and a specific carer’s service, or advice and information.

The Cabinet accepted this report as urgent to enable it to receive and consider the latest performance information at the earliest opportunity.

Reasons:

Regular monitoring of performance by management and Members is best practice and ensures achievement of corporate objectives.

Background:

This referral report from the Regeneration, Community and Culture Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 October 2012 related to future road maintenance funding.

The report set out the background to highways resurfacing and included information on national indicators, existing and future financial investment in the highway network, the work of statutory undertakers and utility reinstatement inspections.

The report noted that Members had been advised that an additional investment of £1.275 million per annum would be required to stop further decline in the road network and a briefing note, requested by the Committee, was attached to the report that provided further information as to the monitoring and inspection of utility works in Medway.

The report set out the issues discussed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had referred the report to Cabinet for consideration as part of the budget setting process for 2013/2014.

Reasons:

To enable the Cabinet to look at the issue of future quality of road maintenance and the funding required in detail.

Background:

This report sought approval to revised terms of reference for the International Relations Cabinet Advisory Group.

It was noted that the Cabinet had established the International Relations Cabinet Advisory Group in June 2012 and the group had recently considered its role and existing terms of reference. It was now proposed that the group focused on economic development and international inward investment and former responsibilities for ‘twinning and ceremonial activities’ and ‘student exchanges’ be passed to the Mayor’s Office and officers within the Children and Adults directorate respectively.

Proposed Terms of Reference for the new International Economic Development Cabinet Advisory Group were attached at Appendix 2 to the report.

Reasons:

To focus the Council’s efforts and commitment on international economic development will enable the Council to identify and to follow up on international inward investment opportunities.

Background:

This report presented information on a vacancy that officers had requested approval to commence recruitment for, following the process agreed by Cabinet on 7 January 2003 (decision number 9/2003).

Appendix 1 to the report provided details of the post.

Reasons:

The post presented to Cabinet will support the efficient running of the Council.

Background:

This report set out details of a category management approach to facilities management.

It was noted that facilities management had been identified as one of the four areas to pilot the category management approach. As part of the Council introducing this new approach to procurement, categories of spend within the council were reviewed, rather than contracted spend in separate services and teams.

The report set out details, including the advantages and disadvantages, of two total facilities management options: undertaking an OJEU procurement for a total facilities management solution or establishing a Public to Public joint venture. It was noted that the preferred option was a Public to Public partnership joint venture and the report sought permission to commit the Council to formal discussions in relation to finalising a business case for the preferred option of a joint venture.

Reasons:

This arrangement will enable the Council to better manage the spend on activities related to facilities management, ensure the quality of services and works that are delivered and better safeguard the authority on statutory, regulatory and reputational issues.

Background:

This report reviewed the progress of the tree maintenance contract, currently awarded to City Suburban Limited. This was based upon the procurement process undertaken during 2010 - 2011, which had led to an award of contract on 29 March 2011.

This contract covered safety related work, dealing with dead trees or branches, obstructions to roads, other tree hazards and an emergency response service. The contract also facilitated the completion of tree work to deal with legitimate customer requests for service and complaints. It was noted that some works, such as the twice yearly pruning of trees to remove low branches and the provision of an emergency response service, were undertaken on a planned basis and some following works orders placed by the Authorised Officer.

It was reported that the contractor had fulfilled their requirements in accordance with the service specification and associated contract terms and conditions.

It was noted that this Procurement Gateway 4 report had been approved for submission to Cabinet after review and discussion at a Regeneration, Community and Culture Directorate Management Team meeting on 30 July 2012 and Procurement Board on 5 September 2012.

An exempt appendix contained key information in respect of finance and whole-life costings.

Reasons:

The decision is made on the basis of there being no adverse observations regarding this contract and the contractor is performing to a standard equal or better than set out in the contract specification.