Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of the Executive Leader (Councillor Peter Goldsworthy) and Councillor Kevin Joyce.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any personal interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda. If the interest arises only as result of your membership of another public body or one to which you have been appointed by the Council then you only need to declare it if you intend to speak.

If the personal interest is a prejudicial interest, you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

There were no declarations of interest by any of the Executive Cabinet members in any of the meeting’s agenda items.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Cabinet held on 14 October 2010 (Minutes enclosed).

The minutes of the last meeting of the Executive Cabinet held on 14 October 2010 were confirmed as a correct record for signature by the Executive Leader.

Members of the public who have requested the opportunity to ask a question(s) on an item(s) on the agenda will be asked to put their question(s) to the respective Executive Member(s).  Each member of the public will be allowed to ask one supplementary question within his/her allocated 3 minutes. 

The Executive Leader reported that there had been no requests from any members of the public to speak on any of the meeting’s agenda items.

To receive and consider the enclosed report of the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy.

Recommendation approved.

The Executive Cabinet considered a report of the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy which set out and reviewed the Authority’s performance in respect of the key projects and performance measures included in the Corporate Strategy, together with a number of other national indicators measured locally, during the second quarter of 2010/11.

The report revealed a good positive performance, with 91% of the key projects either having been completed or on track for completion.  The report explained the reasons for the delays in the two projects rated “amber” and the one project rated “red”, each of which were expected to be brought back on track during the current quarter period.

93% of the measures identified in the Corporate Strategy were performing either above target or within the 5% tolerance and action plans had been put in place to improve performance in relation to these four measures.

The report also clarified the circumstances affecting the four performance indicators measured locally, indicating that a full complement of staff within the Development Control Section should assist in the Section’s performance in the processing of planning applications.

Decision made:

That the report be noted.

To receive and consider the enclosed report of the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy.

Recommendation approved.

The Executive Cabinet received a report of the Director of Partnerships, Planning and Policy on the activities of the Chorley Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) particularly through the delivery of the objectives of the Lancashire Area Agreement and the 2007 Sustainable Community Strategy over the second quarter of 2010/11.

The Executive Member (Policy and Performance) highlighted the following significant statistics and trends revealed in the report:

·                    The overall level of crime had reduced by 6.5% compared to the same period in 2009/10, with reductions in most categories of crime.

·                    The target for the establishment of 26 new businesses during the quarter had been exceeded by 7.

·                    7 of the 9 projects commissioned by the Chorley Partnership in 2010/11 were proceeding on or ahead of schedule.  The “amber” rated project to develop the Cotswold Community Kitchen was expected to be progressed following the recent appointment of a Co-ordinator.  Following delays caused by problems arising with the premises proposed to be used by Help the Homeless for the Chorley Help Hub, further discussions were taking place on ways of progressing the project.

Decision made:

That the report be noted.

To receive and consider the enclosed report of the Director of People and Places.

Recommendations approved.

The Director of People and Places presented a report seeking endorsement of a scheme for the collection of food waste from the majority of households within the Borough in accordance with the requirements of the adopted Lancashire Waste Strategy.

Under the scheme, residents provided with a brown bin for garden waste would be requested to place food waste within the brown bin for collection on a fortnightly basis.  Terraced, and other properties without gardens, would be provided with a brown 23 or 25 litre outdoor caddie for food waste, which would be collected on a weekly basis.

The preferred scheme would entail an initial one-off capital cost of £30,000, with collection costs having already been factored into the current 10 year contract with Veolia.

Decisions made:

(1)       That the scheme outlined in the submitted report for the collection of food waste separately for composting from households in the Borough be approved for implementation.

(2)       That the appropriate procurement exercise and publicity campaign be commenced in early 2011 to ensure that the scheme is able to be operated in accordance with the Lancashire Waste Strategy.

Reasons for decisions:

1.         The preferred scheme for collecting food waste will ensure the Council meets the requirements of the Lancashire Waste Strategy, including increasing its recycling rate.

2.         The scheme will enable the Council to continue to receive the £800,000 per annum waste cost share agreement payment from Lancashire County Council.

3.         The preferred scheme represents the lowest cost option, with an initial capital outlay of £30,000 and no ongoing revenue commitment.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

1.         Continuing with the current refuse collection and recycling arrangements would result in the Council being ineligible for the waste cost share agreement payment from the County Council.

2.         An alternative scheme using a small kitchen caddie and compostable liners prior to depositing food waste in a larger receptacle would involve considerably more expenditure.

To receive and consider the enclosed report of the Director of Transformation.

Recommendation approved.

The Director of Transformation presented a report on the Council’s Treasury Management activity and performance up to 30 September 2010.

The report confirmed that the Council continued to comply with the prudential indicators specified in the adopted Treasury and Investment Strategies and that investments continued to be made with only highly rated institutions.

The report also indicated that the Council, on average, had received a return of 0.66% on its surplus cash balances of £8.2m during the first half of 2010/11.  Therefore, in order to achieve the maximum interest, the Executive Cabinet was recommended to endorse an increase in the investment limits in approved institutions within a general control framework.

Decisions made:

1.         That the report be noted.

2.         That the Council be recommended to approve the following increases in its investment limits:

            (a)       term deposits with the part nationalised banks be limited to £3m;

            (b)       term deposits with other institutions be limited to £2m;

            (c)       deposits in call accounts and Money Market Funds be limited to £3m;

            (d)       deposits with local authorities be limited to £3m.

            (e)       no deposit with any one institution shall exceed £3m, and all deposits shall continue to be only with UK institutions.

Reason for decisions:

To enable better placement of the Council’s cash balances, consistent with the overriding priority of security and liquidity, and to optimise returns.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

None.

To  receive and consider the enclosed report of the Director of Transformation.

Recommendations approved.

The Director of Transformation presented a report monitoring the Council’s financial performance during the second quarter of 2010/11 in comparison with the budgetary and efficiency savings targets for the financial year.

The report revealed that savings of £225,000 had already been achieved in the first half of the financial year and that it was anticipated that additional savings would be made during the year sufficient to meet the expected annual overall saving of £360,000.

The projected outturn showed a forecast underspend of around £153,000, which would be added to the Council’s working balances.

Decisions made:

(1)       That the report be noted.

(2)       That approval be given to the use of additional Planning Fee income received in 2010/11 to finance the one-off software upgrade to the Idox system currently in use in the Planning and Building Control Sections.

Reason for decisions:

To ensure the Council’s budgetary targets are achieved.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

None.

To consider the exclusion of the press and public for the following items of business on the ground that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Recommendation approved.

Decision made:

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the ground that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Report of the Director of Transformation enclosed.

Recommendations approved.

The Director of Transformation circulated a report on proposals for a phased implementation of a shared Revenues and Benefits service between Chorley and South Ribble Councils, including Benefit Fraud and residual Exchequer functions.

The aim of the restructure proposals, which had been compiled in close collaboration with affected staff from both authorities, was to create a leaner, flexible, and sustainable shared service that was responsive to customer needs, whilst generating significant financial savings to both Councils.

Decisions made:

(1)       That the proposals contained within the confidential report of the Director of Transformation for a phased implementation of a shared Revenues and Benefits service between Chorley and South Ribble Councils, including Benefit Fraud and residual Exchequer functions, be approved for consultation with staff and trade unions, with a view to firm decisions being made at the next Executive Cabinet meeting.

(2)       That the planned phased approach to effect financial efficiences and transform the Service Delivery Model across both authorities, should the proposals be implemented, be accepted.

Reason for decisions:

In order to facilitate a phased approach to securing a sustainable shared Revenues and Benefits service between Chorley and South Ribble Councils.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

1.         A Revenues and Benefits service hosted externally.

2.         Enhanced single Council service delivery.

3.         One council outsources all Revenues and Benefits services to the other Council.

Report of the Director of Transformation enclosed.

Recommendation approved.

The Executive Cabinet considered a report tabled at the meeting by the Director of Transformation on proposals to restructure the Chorley/South Ribble Shared Financial Services following a review of the efficiency of the current partnership since its inception almost two years ago.

The review had entailed an assessment of the level of resources required to ensure that the structure of the service was “fit for purpose” and able to address future challenges and customer requirements.  The need to focus on core activity and establish structures and procedures that would ensure that the service was delivered in the most efficient and cost effective manner as possible had been paramount in the compilation of the recommendations.

The recommendations under consideration proposed a reduction in the total number of posts undertaking the shared functions and full year budget savings in the region of £120,000 (excluding savings envisaged in respect of the planned Revenues and Benefits shared service) to be shared equally between Chorley and South Ribble Councils.

Decision made:

That the proposals contained within the confidential report of the Director of Transformation for the restructure of the Shared Financial Services unit be approved for consultation with staff and trade unions, with a view to firm decisions being made at the next Executive Cabinet meeting.

Reasons for decision:

The proposed restructure will:

·                    Respond to changing customer needs and improving customer satisfaction;

·                    Provide workforce development and staff resilience at critical periods in the annual accounting cycle and succession planning;

·                    Ensure a ‘fit for purpose’ structure that will be sustainable in the long term,

·                    Achieve continued value for money through efficiencies.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

All feasible structure options have been assessed.

Report of the Chief Executive on the outcome of the consultation on the restructure proposals enclosed.

That decisions on the recommendations contained in the confidential report of the Chief Executive submitted to the last Executive Cabinet meeting on 14 October 2010 for an organisational restructure affecting the People and Places Directorate; Strategic Housing section; Policy and Communications section; and Administrative and Transactional Services be delegated to the appropriate Executive Members responsible for the respective portfolios, but that the decisions be deferred for at least one week to allow all Members to consider further the additional confidential report tabled at the meeting summarising the responses of staff and UNISON on the proposals.

The Chief Executive circulated a report which highlighted the responses received from staff and UNISON to the proposals to restructure teams within the People and Places Directorate; Strategic Housing section; Policy and Communications section; and Administrative and Transactional Services which had been approved for consultation purposes at the last Executive Cabinet meeting on 14 October 2010.

The report summarised the principal concerns, issues and arguments contained within the representations received and recommended, in conclusion, that, following a careful assessment of the responses, no changes be made in the proposed new structures.

While the request that consent to the final decisions on the proposals be delegated to the respective Executive Members, a number of Councillors sought a short delay of the final decisions to allow Members more time to assimilate the consultation responses.

Decision made:

That decisions on the recommendations contained in the confidential report of the Chief Executive submitted to the last Executive Cabinet meeting on 14 October 2010 for an organisational restructure affecting the People and Places Directorate; Strategic Housing section; Policy and Communications section; and Administrative and Transactional Services be delegated to the appropriate Executive Members responsible for the respective portfolios, but that the decisions be deferred for at least one week to allow all Members to consider further the confidential report tabled at the meeting summarising the responses of staff and UNISON on the proposals.

Reason for decision:

To allow Members the opportunity of reading and assessing the feedback from staff and UNISON on the restructure proposals agreed at the last Executive Cabinet meeting for consultation purposes.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

A number of alternative revised staffing structures have been evaluated and rejected.