CABINET
Minutes of the Meeting held on Tuesday, 18th October 2016 at Worksop Town Hall
Present:Councillor S A Greaves (Chair),
Councillors K Dukes, J Evans,J A Leigh, D G Pidwell,S Scotthorne, S E Shaw andJ White.
Advisory Member:None
Liaison Members:Councillors S Fieldingand T Taylor.
Officers:D Armiger, B Alderton-Sambrook, G Bailey (Agenda Item Nos. 8(b) and 9(a) only), S Brown, J Hamilton,D Hill, L Prime,R Theakstone, N Taylor, andS Wormald.
(The meeting opened at 6.33pm.)
(The Chair welcomed all to the meetingand read outthe Fire Evacuation Procedure. He enquired as to whether any member of the public or press wished to film/record the meeting or any part thereof; however, although there were twomembers of the public present, this was not taken up.)
59.QUESTION TIME - PUBLIC
Council Procedure Rules were suspended for fifteen minutes to allow questions from the public. There were two members of the public present and each asked a question.
Mr Peter Hewkin asked if the Cabinet Member for Housing had received his email about a BDC/A1 Housing policy as he had emailed him but had not received a response to date?
The Leader of the Council asked Mr Hewkin to pass his contact details onto the committee administrator who would ensure that these are passed onto the Cabinet Member for Housing.
Mr Leon Duveen asked what action the District Council was taking in rehousing/resettling any refugees/asylum seekers fleeing from war and conflict in their own country? How many have been rehoused/resettled in the Bassetlaw area?
The Leader of the Council advised that the East Midlands Councils network is working with all local authorities across the East Midlands Region in this regard. He did not have any figures for Bassetlaw itself. The Cabinet Member for Co-operatives and Corporate Services added that there are also other agencies/organisations involved, particularly in resettling children. At least three children have been taken in by families in Bassetlaw. However, Bassetlaw, unlike the cities, does not have a support network, which is needed by the refugees/asylum seekers, although there is a willingness to help.
60.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H M Brand,H Burton andK H Isard.
61.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
(a)Members
There were no Declarations of Interest by Members.
(b)Officers
There were no Declarations of Interest by officers.
62.MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6THSEPTEMBER 2016
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 6thSeptember 2016 be approved.
63.MINUTES FOR ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESOLVED that the Minutes for Action and Implementation be received.
64.OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST
RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes List be received.
65.FORWARD PLAN
RESOLVED that the Forward Plan be approved.
SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC
Key Decisions
66.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER – HEALTH AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING – COUNCILLOR S E SHAW
(a)Children and Young People’s Plan 2016-20 - Update (Key Decision No. 501)
Members were updated on progress against the objectives of the Council’s new Children and Young People’s Plan and support for external activities.
The report outlined: the five outcomes from ‘Every Child Matters’; the objectives of the Plan; the monitoring framework and mechanism for referrals. The dashboard and exception report were appended to the report, which provided information on the status of each objective.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
The objectives adopted allow for the monitoring framework to be adapted to encompass new activity as the Plan progresses to 2020, without significant change to the policy framework. This will also enable the Council to adapt to any changes in County Council policy.
The Council has identified Children and Young People’s issues as an area of priority and development. This has been reflected in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment.
The Council has a statutory responsibility under the Children’s Act 2004 to co-operate in respect of service delivery for children and young people.
RESOLVED that:
- Thecontents of the report and current progress against the Authority’s objectives be noted.
- Portfolio holders address areas of underperformance with service managers.
- A further progress report be presented to Cabinet in June 2017 and six-monthly thereafter for the duration of the Plan.
(b)Food Sampling Policy (Key Decision No. 579)
Members’ approval was sought for the draft Food Sampling Policy, which was appended to the report, in accordance with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) ‘Food Safety Code of Practice’ and ‘Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement’.
The Policy details the Council’s recognition of food sampling as an important tool and integral part of its Food Safety enforcement actions and responsibilities. The Policy details the circumstances and situations where food sampling will be undertaken and specifies that results will be notified to food business operators, most urgently when unsatisfactory, unacceptable or potentially hazardous results are found.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
Production and approval of a Food Sampling Policy is a requirement of the Food Standard Agency (FSA) ‘Food Safety Code of Practice’ and ‘Framework Agreement on Local Authority Food Law Enforcement’. There is therefore no other realistic option than to produce and adopt such a Policy. Failure to produce a Food Sampling Policy could lead to the FSA taking formal action to ensure we do produce such a Policy.
RESOLVED that:
- The draft Food Sampling Policy, as appended to the report, be endorsed and referred to Council for approval and implementation.
- The Food Sampling Policy be reviewed after three years.
67.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER –NEIGHBOURHOODS – COUNCILLOR J A LEIGH
(a)Dog Control Policy (Key Decision No. 580)
Members’ approval was sought for the draft Dog Control Policy which was appended to the report.
The Dog Control Service, based within the Environmental Health Department, takes a lead on the majority of dog control related matters dealt with by the Council. This ranges from the widely recognised and understood work to tackle dog fouling to the less well known work in supporting external agencies. The Policy pulls together these areas and provides a common commitment and direction for such work; it also confirms the Authority’s stance on key issues such as Dangerous Dogs. The Policy supplements, rather than supersedes, departmental procedures, codes of practice and national legislation.
The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods cited examples where the new Policy could combat irresponsibility.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
Option One – Approve the Policy and recommend its adoption by Council. This will provide clear guidance to staff, external customers and partners on issues such as what assistance the Authority can and will provide in given circumstances (e.g. for non-stray dog cases). It is a demonstration by the Council that Dog Control and tackling irresponsible dog ownership are important issues which it takes seriously and is committed to tackling.
Option Two – Ask for amendments to the Policy and defer its approval.
Option Three – Reject adoption of the Policy. This will deny the opportunity for the Council to clearly state its stance and direction on Dog control.
RESOLVED that:
- The draft Dog Control Policy, as appended to the report, be endorsed and referred to Council for approval and implementation.
- The Dog Control Policy be reviewed after three years.
68.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER – REGENERATION – COUNCILLOR J WHITE
(a)Car Park Improvement Plan (Key Decision No. 591)
Members were updated with progress on identifying the key issues with car park provision in Worksop and Retford. Maps appended to the report identified the existing car parks in Worksop and Retford.
Members’ approval was sought for proposals for the next steps in formulating a Car Park Improvement Plan to resolve the current priority issues. An example is for officers to secure funding to allow some further detailed work to be undertaken on traffic flows in Worksop. The report outlined the criteria for the options appraisal.
The Cabinet Member for Regeneration reported that there is a surplus of parking spaces in Worksop but a conflict of users in the popular Town Hall car park, and a shortage of parking spaces in Retford with a conflict between leisure users and shoppers. Parking around Retford train station has been eased recently with the newly extended car park and alternative provision, which resulted from the Council working with landowners and infrastructure providers.
The Liaison Member asked if longevity could be secured for private car parks, particularly in Retford, to avoid their future development; however, this does not lie within the Council’s jurisdiction, any private landowner is free to develop their land as they see fit.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
There have been a number of issues raised and the report highlights the priorities for further work. Officers could re-consider the content of this list but to do so would further delay looking at the potential solutions. By not approving the need for a Car Park Improvement Plan, officers will not have the framework to assess the potential options to determine the best solution (and secure funding where appropriate).
RESOLVED that:
- The key issues to be addressed, as detailed within the report, be agreed.
- Officers be authorised to work on the details of how these issues will be resolved as part of a Car Park Improvement Plan.
- Officers be authorised to secure external funding to deliver the necessary technical work detailed within the report.
Other Decisions
69.REFERRAL(S)
(a)Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 20th September 2016 – Review of Grant Aid
RESOLVED that the recommendations of the Review be considered and Cabinet submits its response to the next available meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
70.LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985
RESOLVED that, in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and after considering the public interest test as set out by the officer in the body of the report, Members agreed that the following items of business involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and therefore, in accordance with Section 100A of the Act, the press and public be excluded from the meeting:
Agenda Item No. 12(a) – Council-owned Industrial Site: Development at Leverton Road, Retford (Key Decision No. 572) – Paragraph 3
Agenda Item No. 13(a) – Abbey Grove, Worksop – Update (Key Decision No. 484) – Paragraphs 1 and 2
Agenda Item No. 14(a) – Land at Radford Street, Worksop (Key Decision No. 585) – Paragraphs 1 and 2
Agenda Item No. 15(a) – Service Review of Council Tax – Paragraph 2
SECTION B – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE
Key Decisions
71.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER –FINANCE – COUNCILLOR J EVANS
(a)Council-owned Industrial Sites: Development at Leverton Road, Retford (Key Decision No. 572)
Members were updated on progress of the Council-owned industrial site at Leverton Road, Retford, and approval was sought to tender for contractors to deliver the site.
The report outlined: the outcome of Savills’ independent review; the outcome of the conservation review; and proposals for the next steps. There is scope for redevelopment of the southern part of the site which offers an opportunity to enhance and improve the heritage of the area.
The Leader of the Council welcomed this initiative which could provide fit-for-purpose units to support the local economy, particularly in light of the shortage of such units in the Retford area.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
It is considered important that officers have a clear steer that the principles of building new units at Leverton Road, Retford, as outlined in the report, are supported by Cabinet. This will allow officers to tender for consultants/contractors to undertake the necessary work to provide a detailed business case for the project to be considered by the Section 151 Officer. Failure to have this support may have an impact on the number of jobs created and the value of the Council’s assets.
RESOLVED that:
- Officers be authorised to instruct external contractors to create detailed designs for the southern part of the Leverton Road site which will inform a robust business case to enable the redevelopment of the site to be progressed.
- A further report be presented to a future meeting of Cabinet with regard to the capital and revenue implications.
72.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER – HOUSING – COUNCILLOR S SCOTTHORNE
(a)Abbey Grove, Worksop - Update (Key Decision No. 484)
Members were updated on progress of the redevelopment of Abbey Grove, Worksop, and approval was sought for officers to continue with the next phase of the development by working with care providers and residents of the current scheme to prepare a detailed plan of the housing options for the current residents whilst work is taking place.
Since Cabinet approval was given in July 2015 to redevelop the current sheltered scheme, officers have undertaken further work to revise the scheme layout in order to be able to meet the design requirements of the Homes and Community Agency (HCA) whilst also complying with the planning restrictions placed on the site due to its proximity to the nearby Priory Gatehouse, which is a Grade 1 listed structure. It was concluded that the development of a larger Extra Care scheme would provide the best outcome in terms of delivering Extra Care in that location. The new proposal is to extend the footprint of the existing scheme to enable a new 50-bed scheme for older adults of which 36 units would be designated Extra Care accommodation. The expected timetable for the redevelopment of the scheme was appended to the report.
The Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods emphasised the sensitivity with which the existing tenants would be approached. The Liaison Member urged expediency as a number of units have already been vacated; the Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhoods added that the HCA also wants a speedy conclusion with regard to the funding. The Cabinet Member for Housing reported that the proposals could incorporate a “community hub” approach.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
It is considered important that officers undertake the consultation with care providers to fully understand all the potential housing options and potential alternative locations. Furthermore, individual meetings will be held with the current residents and their families to explore that the best housing options is for each resident.
RESOLVED that:
- The approval of the demolition of properties 1-32 inclusive on the Abbey Grove site be confirmed, once the site is vacant.
- The issuing of Demolition Notices, as appropriate within the project, be approved.
- All HRA budget income and expenditure adjustments to the HRA 30-year business plan be approved.
- Public consultation with care providers and residents be approved to allow the current Abbey Grove scheme to be redeveloped.
- The suspension of letting all other units within sheltered schemes be approved in order to facilitate rehousing tenants from Abbey Grove.
- The redevelopment of Abbey Grove, Worksop, and priority rehousing for all its tenants be approved.
- A further report be presented to a future meeting of Cabinet regarding design proposals and capitalcosts.
73.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER – REGENERATION – COUNCILLOR J WHITE
(a)Land at Radford Street, Worksop (Key Decision No. 585)
Members were updated on progress of the redevelopment of the former Radford Road allotment site, and approval was sought for officers to discuss potential options for the site with residents and other parties, and also for a number of issues that will assist in the delivery of the project.
Since Cabinet approval was given in December 2015 to consider development of the site, officers have undertaken public consultation and feedback received was generally supportive of housing development on the site, especially if it met local needs. The site has been promoted as a ‘priority site’ with the Sheffield City Region, which has enabled in principle allocation of funding to secure the early delivery of the site. The Cabinet Member for Regeneration outlined the options for the site, as detailed in the report, which also gave a comparison of the pros and cons of the three options.
Further work is required to explore the financial implications of the options, taking account of the need to deliver a scheme which meets the aspirations of local people arising from the previous consultation exercise, as well as delivering the best possible regeneration opportunity for the wider area.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
The site is currently not being used (officially) and in recent years there have been a number of reported cases of fly-tipping, unauthorised grazing and vermin problems. The site’s former use has long since been abandoned and it is regarded that this is a Council asset which could be put to better use. If a more formal use is not found for this site, the Council will continue to be faced with the costs of clearing the site on a regular and ongoing basis. Officers are therefore seeking to explore the most effective options for redeveloping the site with a housing-led scheme and how this could be delivered.