Welcome to the
Vale of Glamorgan Council

CABINET

 

Minutes of a meeting held on 17^th November, 2010.

 

Present:  Councillor G.C. Kemp (Chairman); Councillor T.H. Jarvie (Vice-Chairman); Councillors Mrs. J.E. Charles, G.A. Cox, A.M. Ernest, A.D. Hampton, H.J.W. James, R.L. Traherne and Mrs. D.M. Turner.

 

Also present: Councillor N. Moore.

 

 

C1114                        APOLOGY FOR ABSENCE -

 

This was received from Councillor P. Church.

 

 

C1115                        MINUTES -

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd November, 2010 be approved as a correct record.

 

 

C1116                        DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -

 

The following Councillors declared interests as shown:

 

Councillor A.M. Ernest	Agenda Item No. 12 - Lives near to coast and erosion could affect the house. (Councillor Ernest vacated the room whilst this matter was under consideration).
Councillor Mrs. D.M. Turner	Agenda Item No. 12 - Lives near to coast and erosion could affect the house. (Councillor Turner vacated the room whilst this matter was under consideration).   Agenda Item No. 13 - Member of Local Health Board.

 

 

C1117                        JOINT CONSULTATIVE FORUM -

 

The following minutes of a meeting held on 8^th October, 2010 were submitted:

 

Present: Councillor Mrs. J.E. Charles (Chairman); Councillors Mrs. M.E.J. Birch, Mrs. V.L. Ellis, A.D. Hampton, Mrs. M. Kelly Owen and Mrs. M .Randall.

 

Representatives of the Trade Unions: Mr. G. Beaudette (NUT); Mr. T. Cox (NASUWT); Mr. R. Phillips (GMB); Messrs. P.S. Carter, N. Hart, I.A. John, G. Moseley and J. Swan (UNISON); Mr. N. Patterson (UNITE). 

 

 

(a)       Apologies for absence -

 

These were received from Councillor M.R. Wilson, Mr. N. Stokes (GMB) and Ms. K. Tyre (Vice-Chairperson: UNISON). 

 

At that juncture Mr. Carter indicated that Mr. N. Hart would be appointed Vice-Chairperson for the meeting.

 

 

(b)       Minutes and Matters Arising -

 

The following matters were discussed under “matters arising”:

 

·                    the use of mobile phones in vehicles, the Head of Visible Services indicating that a letter clarifying the position was on its way to staff in Cleansing and Waste Management

·                    the Director of Learning and Development stated that a report on facility time would be presented to Cabinet on 3^rd November and that a copy would be sent in advance of that meeting to Mr. Cox

·                    Mr. Carter indicated that discussions were hopefully going to take place between himself, the Head of Human Resources and Regional Trade Union representatives in respect of other potential cases of trade union discrimination with the aim of resolving the issue

·                    consultation.

 

In respect of consultation, Mr. Carter raised concerns about the rumours circulating amongst staff at Dyffryn Gardens about potential organisational changes, rumours which the unions had no knowledge of until they were notified by staff. Mr. Carter referred to a previous instruction issued by the Chief Executive whereby managers were told that the consultation on organisational change must take place with the unions and staff affected. That instruction had been re-issued some time ago when the attention of the JCF had been brought to the fact that the instruction was not being implemented consistently across the Council.  Mr. Carter expressed concern that some managers remained unaware of the protocol for consultation.

 

The Head of Human Resources indicated that the concern had been raised with him and then appropriate action had been taken to seek to rectify the situation.  It was accepted, however, that there had been an initial failure to discuss the matter with both staff and unions.

 

The Chairman indicated that training on the consultation process had now been put in place for managers.  The Head of Human Resources confirmed that a framework for consultation had been developed which had been shared with Heads, OMs and the unions.  He asked that he be made aware of any particular areas of concern, stressing that such matters should be raised at the Directorate Consultative Groups rather than the JCF.  Mr. Hart reiterated the concerns expressed by Mr. Carter above, reminding Members that this very issue had been raised at the JCF on several occasions.  Mr. Hart questioned the ability of some managers to take on board that instruction.  He inferred that different action would be taken if he or his colleagues were to ignore an instruction from the Chief Executive and indicated that the views of the unions were in fact ignored in that the bulk of the minutes of the JCF were simply “noted”. The Chairman stated that the Head of Human Resources would remind all Chief Officers in writing of the consultation process and of the fact refresher training courses on that topic were being provided.

 

AGREED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 9^th July, 2010 be accepted as a correct record and the matters arising referred to above either actioned as indicated or noted.

 

 

(c)        JCF Constitution -

 

In accordance with the decision taken at the previous meeting, a review of the JCF Constitution had been undertaken and a revised Constitution had been submitted by the Joint Secretaries for consideration.  The Chairman congratulated both the Joint Secretaries on their efforts in producing the agreed document.  In response to a question from Mr. Carter as to the e-mail sent to the Head of Human Resources on 5^th October, the Head of Human Resources confirmed that he had responded to four of the five questions but required clarification as to what was meant in relation to paragraph 7.6 of the Constitution.  Following a discussion as to the amendment required to paragraph 7.6, it was agreed that paragraph 7.6 be amended to read “The meeting can be adjourned for short periods during the meeting at the discretion of the Chairperson following requests from either employer or employee representatives to allow discussion on agenda items”. 

 

Attention was also drawn to the fact that in the final sentence of paragraph 7.5, the reference to Chairman should be amended to Chairperson.

 

AGREED - T H A T the Constitution as amended above be agreed.

 

Later in the meeting, the Chairman allowed discussion to take place on the content of the e-mail referred to above and to the responses given.  It was accepted that the roles, duties and responsibilities of the JCF were set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Constitution.  As regards the JCF being notified of any recommendations referred to Cabinet, the Head of Human Resources explained that the Joint Secretaries approved the minutes and were therefore aware of any matters which would be referred to Cabinet.  Such details were accessible to all. 

 

Question 1 in the above e-mail had asked whether the power of the JCF was absolute or whether matters were required to be reported to Cabinet prior to any action being taken.  The answer given was that the JCF was a consultative body.  When the Forum made recommendations on issues relating to those set out in paragraph 4.1 of the Constitution, those recommendations had to be referred to Cabinet for decision.  Matters such as the agreement of JCF Constitution were, however, a matter for the Forum to determine itself.  Mr. Hart indicated at this juncture that the JCF was seen by staff as a last resort but, in fact, the JCF had no power and was merely a talking shop.  He questioned its value both in terms of its lack of authority and questioned, given the current economic climate, whether the costs associated with the administration of and attendance at the JCF were in the best interests of Council tax payers. 

 

The Head of Human Resources referred to the need for a JCF as part of the employee relations framework and examples where work had been progressed effectively over the last few years.  He countered the statement made by Mr. Hart that the consultation process was failing on all levels and pointed out that significant improvements had been made in this area as already acknowledged by his trade union colleagues on the Forum.  Mr. Carter had referred earlier in the meeting to the process working well within Social Services, Learning and Development and at the Alps. 

 

The Head of Human Resources indicated that continued membership of the Forum was a matter for individual representatives.  In conclusion the Chairman suggested that any member dissatisfied with the current way in which the JCF was run should contact her in writing.

 

 

(d)       Minutes of Directorate Consultative Groups -

 

AGREED – THAT the minutes of the undermentioned meetings, as appended to the report, be accepted:

 

(i)         Learning and Development: 16^th June, 2010

(ii)        Social Services: 1^st March, 2010

(iii)       Social Services: 12^th April, 2010 – Mr. Carter drawing attention to the fact the grievance within the VICS Service had been resolved by the G.M.B. prior to the summer and commenting that he hoped the good working relationship between the unions and management enjoyed in Social Services, Learning and Development and at the Alps would be rolled out across the Council.

 

 

(e)       Health Fairs-

 

The report reminded Members that the annual Health Fair was taking place at the Alps Depot on 28^th October 2010 and that, on 26^th January 2011, a further Health Fair would be held in the Civic Offices whereby all employees would have the opportunity to have health checks along with access to other well- being activities.  The Chairman encouraged all present to attend.

 

Mr. Carter then asked what progress was being made about the testing of the immune system of certain members of staff.  The Corporate Health and Safety Officer indicated that High Street Surgery had previously undertaken the testing but that the Council had now decided it could be done in-house.  The collation of the necessary information had taken some time as had the agreement with Llandough Hospital to undertake the necessary tests.  She indicated that the process should commence within the next couple of months.  The Chairman, at this juncture, suggested that the Trade Union representatives should remind their members that flu injections were now available.  

 

 

(f)         Job Evaluation Update-

 

The Head of Human Resources confirmed that discussions had been undertaken with both local and regional Trade Union representatives but that those consultations had been kept confidential by mutual agreement.  Those consultations had so far covered a range of issues including checking of outcomes of the job evaluation process, proposals on the new single status pay structure and the streamlining of current pay, plus rates and allowances.  A response was anticipated in mid-November with a view to sharing that information with staff in January / February 2011.  Implementation would hopefully take place on 1^st April 2011. 

 

 

(g)       Handling Organisational Change-

 

The Operational Manager Human Resources updated Members on the current position which included a few additional matters since he had last spoken to the Terms and Conditions Group.  He referred to the ongoing restructuring exercises across the Council, the situation regarding potential redundancies and the efforts being made to avoid such redundancies.  As part of his report, the Operational Manager referred to two members of staff within the Directorate of Legal, Public Protection and Housing Services indicating that one of those members of staff had now confirmed acceptance of a new post and that another was comfortable with his trial redeployment.  Mr. Carter indicated that he did not understand that to be the case since he felt there was an ongoing grievance.  Whilst not naming those individuals, Mr. Carter did refer to their area of work thereby allowing them to be identified.

 

Mr. Cox then asked that a protocol be set up in respect of the consultation process within schools to be undertaken to manage organisational change which would help in relation to the issues relating to the development of the Penarth Learning Community.  The Operational Manager indicated that the Teaching Associations were aware of the current position, that discussions were ongoing and that there was no guarantee at this stage that the Penarth Learning Community project would in fact get off the ground.  Mr. Cox urged that an overarching protocol to manage the process be in place prior to the project being taken forward.

 

 

(h)       Feedback on Policy Development -

 

Details were submitted relating to the above, which included those policies recently approved, those about to be submitted for approval, those subject to ongoing discussions and those in the process of being drafted.  Attention was also drawn within the report to the fact that subsequent training programmes were being developed to ensure that managers were effectively trained in the revised policies, those policies being available in electronic format on StaffNet and a number of other channels. 

 

Mr. Carter then referred to the need for a redeployment / redundancy pack to be prepared in order that staff could be informed of the process to be followed if at risk.  The processes needed to be clearly set out and staff informed at whom to contact.  The Chairman agreed that it was extremely important that staff were fully aware of the processes to be adopted and that the preparation of a pack would be undertaken.  The Operational Manager indicated that he would be pleased if Mr. Carter would raise this at the next meeting of the Terms and Conditions Group. 

 

- - - - - - - - - -

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the minutes of the Joint Consultative Forum be noted.

 

 

C1118                        SAVINGS CHALLENGE (L) (SCRUTINY - CORPORATE RESOURCES) -

 

Cabinet were provided with an update on the internal Savings Challenge campaign.

 

Corporate Management Team had approved an internal campaign inviting staff from across the Council to submit ideas on how the Council could make savings.

 

All ideas had been considered by a Panel comprising the Head of Performance and Development, Head of Accountancy and Resource Management, Operational Manager Finance and Systems, Web Editor and Business Process Re-Engineering Team Lead.

 

To date over 80 ideas had been submitted from colleagues across all Directorates of the Council.  A list of the ideas for which responses had been received from Service Managers or where the idea had been classified as a 'quick savings tip' was listed at Appendix A to the report. 

 

Corporate Management Team had been given weekly updates on the progress of the campaign and this would continue until the end of November 2010.  At this time, all ideas submitted would be reviewed and CMT would then decide which ideas should be implemented.  Should ideas continue to be submitted by staff, a second phase of the scheme would operate in early 2011. 

 

Ideas with CMT approval would be assigned to the relevant Head of Service to implement.  Schemes would be included in Service Plans and monitored by this mechanism.

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the contents of the report be noted.

 

Reason for decision

 

To ensure Cabinet are aware of the staff suggestions being submitted to the Savings Challenge.

 

 

C1119                        TREASURY MANAGEMENT (L) (SCRUTINY - CORPORATE RESOURCES) -

 

Cabinet received a mid year report on the authority's treasury management operations for the period 1^st April, 2010 to 30^th September, 2010, as required by the 2009 edition of the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services: Code of Practice.

 

Council had approved the 2010/2011 Treasury Management Strategy at its meeting on 3^rd March, 2010.

 

The authority's investment strategy was to secure the best return on its investments whilst having regard to capital security within the parameters laid down. 

 

The authority's borrowing strategy had estimated that it would borrow £6,222,000 of new external rooms to support the capital programme for 2010/2011.  Council officers, in conjunction with the treasury advisers had, and would continually monitor the prevailing interest rates and the market forecasts, and adopt a pragmatic approach to changing circumstances in respect of its borrowing needs. 

 

The Director of Finance, ICT and Property was pleased to report that all treasury management activity undertaken during the period complied with the approved strategy, the CIPFA Code of Practice and the relevant legislative provisions.

 

The authority's Treasury Management advisors had provided the following information:

 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had expanded by 0.4% in Quarter 1 and by a healthy 1.2% in Quarter 2 2010.  Manufacturers in particular benefited from the recovery in the global economy by increasing export volumes.  The recovery was less impressive in the service sector due to depressed business and consumer confidence.  Improved economic conditions did however help financial institutions to repair some of the damage the recession caused to their balance sheets, alleviating some credit risk concerns and partially reopening the 'frozen' financial markets.

 

Inflation had remained above Bank of England's target rate of 2% since late 2009.  The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate peaked in April at 3.7% and eased back over the past few months as the effects of a number of temporary factors waned.  Despite inflation remaining over target, the Bank of England had maintained a Bank Rate at 0.5% to avoid the risk of a further downturn in economic growth.

 

Looking ahead, the economic recovery was expected to slow as central government spending cuts and tax rises dampened demand.  The Bank of England expected this to weigh on inflation, causing CPI to fall below target in the medium term, suggesting that the Monetary Policy Committee was unlikely to increase rates any time soon.  It was therefore very likely that the Bank Rate would remain at 0.5% for the remainder of the financial year, with there being only modest rises in money market rates. 

 

The following table summarised the treasury management transactions undertaken by the authority during the first half of this financial year.  All activities were in accordance with the authority's approved strategy on Treasury Management.  The table set out the money borrowed/repaid during the period. 

 

Loan Type	Opening Balance	Received	Repaid	Closing Balance
	01/04/2010			30/09/2010
	£’000	£’000	£’000	£’000
PWLB	97,768	0	(469)	97,299
Other Long Term Loans	6,010	0	0	6,010
Temporary Loans	225	0	(100)	125
Totals	104,003	0	(569)	103,434

 

·                         Loans borrowed from the PWLB are intended to assist Local Authorities in meeting their longer term borrowing requirements.  The above loans are all at fixed rates of interest. The rate paid on each loan is largely dependent upon the original duration of the loan and date taken out.

·                         Other Long term loans represent those non-PWLB loans that are repayable at least 1 year or more from the date they are advanced.  The bulk of this debt is represented by two market loans of £2,000,000 and £4,000,000. The balance of this debt is local bonds. These total £9,800 and are made up of small individual sums that are invested with the Authority for a number of years by members of the public.  

·                         Temporary Loans represent those loans that are borrowed for a period of less than 1 year. They are borrowed on 7 day notice. 

 

External interest at an average rate of 5.634% and amounting to £2,929,718 had been approved on these loans for the first six months of 2010/2011. 

 

The authority had made the following investments for the period 1^st April, 2010 to 30^th September, 2010:

 

Borrowing Institution	Opening Balance	Invested	Returned	Closing Balance
	01/04/2010			30/09/2010
	£’000	£’000	£’000	£’000
Banks/Building Societies	0	5,000	0	5,000
Debt Management Account Deposit Facility	91,475	1,012,450	(1,003,525)	100,400
Totals	91,475	1,017,450	(1,003,525)	105,400

 

Interest, at an average rate of 0.25% and amounting to £132,799 had been earned from these investments for the first six months of 2010/2011. 

 

Since the approval of the current investment strategy on 3^rd March, 2010 the outlook for credit risk had slightly improved.  There was no proposed amendment to the investment strategy criteria and the authority continued to invest the majority of its funds with the Debt Management Account Deposit Facility (DMADF), though monies had been placed with Barclays Bank PLC in a 'Fixed Interest Bearing Current Account'.  This deposit provided a slightly more favourable return compared with the DMADF. 

 

In light of the very low level of short term investment rates currently available, internal funds had been used to finance capital expenditure and no external loans had been borrowed to date this year. 

 

The authority measured its exposure to treasury managements risks and the following indicators as at 30^th September, 2010 were noted:

 

Interest rate exposure

 

·                         This indicator was set to control the authority's exposure to interest rate risks.  The exposures to fixed and variable rate interest rates, expressed as an amount of net principal borrowed were:

 

	Limit	Actual	Met
Upper limit on fixed rate exposures	137m	97.30m	√
Upper limit on variable rate exposures	+/- 134m	-99.28m	√

 

Fixed rate investments and borrowings were those where the rate of interest was fixed for the whole financial year.  Instruments that matured during the financial year were classed as variable rate.

 

Maturity structure of borrowing

 

·                         This indicator was set to control the authority's exposure to refinancing risk.  The maturity date of borrowing was the earliest date on which the lender could demand repayment.  The maturity structure of fixed rate borrowing as at 30^th September, 2010 was:

 

	Upper Limit	Lower Limit	Actual	Met
Under 12 months	20%	0	6.2%	√
12 months and within 24 months	20%	0	0.9%	√
24 months and within five years	30%	0	9.4%	√
Five years and within 10 years	30%	0	7.7%	√
10 years and above	100%	0	75.8%	√

 

Principal sums invested for periods longer than 364 days

 

·                         This indicator was to control the Council's exposure to the risk of incurring losses by seeking early repayment of its investments.  The total principal sums invested to final maturities beyond the period end were:

 

	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13
Limit on principal invested beyond year end	£30M	£30M	£30M
Actual principal invested beyond year end	0	0	0
Within limit?	√	√	√

 

This was a matter for Council decision.

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T Council be recommended to note the Treasury Management mid year report for the period 1^st April, 2010 to 30^th September, 2010.

 

(2)       T H A T Council be requested to note the latest Treasury Management Indicators.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

(1)       To present the Treasury Management mid year report as required by the CIPFA Treasury Management in the Public Services Code of Practice.

 

(2)       To present an update of the Treasury Management Indicators which are included in the treasury management strategy.

 

 

C1120                        INITIAL HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT BUDGET PROPOSALS 2011/2012 AND REVISED BUDGET 2010/2011 (L) (SCRUTINY - HOUSING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION) -

 

Approval was sought for the revised estimates 2010/2011, and the initial budget proposals for 2011/2012, so that they may be submitted to Scrutiny Committee for consultation. 

 

During the course of the year, local authorities must review their HRA expenditure and income and, if on the basis of the information available, the account was heading for a deficit, they must take steps to prevent this deficit. 

 

Each Local Authority should endeavour to have a working balance on the HRA, for any exceptional circumstances that may arise. 

 

The level of rent increase was based on the Subsidy Determination issued by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG).  This was not due for release until January 2011, although a provisional figure was due during December 2010.  An average rent increase of 3% based on the latest Business Plan had been included in the 2011/2012 initial budget proposals. 

 

Set out below is a table comparing the original budget with the proposed revised estimate:

 

 

1.	2010/2011 Original Budget	2010/2011 Proposed Revised Estimate	Variance Favourable (-) Adverse (+)
2.	£'000	£'000	£'000
Housing Revenue Account	3.                  (2,426)	4.                  (2,236)	5.                  (190)

 

Housing Revenue Account

 

The net decrease of £190,000 in the budget was due to several reasons.  The staff budget had been revised to the most recent restructure with savings of (£179,000) an increase in rent income due to less right to buy (RTB) sales than anticipated (£50,000) and the Hostel closure for refurbishment was anticipated to be decrease premises costs (£58,000).  Other budget savings had resulted in further savings of (£176,000).  These savings had been off-set by a decrease in anticipated interest earned on HRA balances (£120,000), an increase in recharges (£46,000), Hostel voids (£96,000), general voids (£67,000) and the incentive to move scheme (£75,000) for which no budget previously existed had been identified for the future.  Additionally, a (£250,000) revenue contribution to capital expenditure had been approved to increase the Council Housing Adaptations capital scheme. 

 

Base Budget 2011/2012

 

The Budget Strategy for 2011/2012 outlined that, in order to establish a baseline, services should prepare revenue budgets for next year based on the cost of providing the current level of service and approved policy decisions.  This meant that the cost of price increases and pay awards should be included. 

 

Due to the nature of the HRA in that it was ringfenced, and any growth had to be funded from the balance, no Cost Pressures had been formally identified. 

 

The proposed 2011/2012 budget was set out at Appendix A to the report. 

 

·                         HRA (General) - this budget head related to general expenditure such as insurance and audit fees and income from rents.  It included an estimated increase in rents and an estimate of the Housing Subsidy payable to WAG.  However, no increase in the Management and Maintenance Allowance per property, as distributed via the Housing Subsidy had been taken into account. 

·                         General Management - this budget head related to the general management of the Council's housing stock, for work carried out within the Housing Service and for various issues relating to the Council tenancies excluding the repairs and maintenance function.

·                         Special Services - this budget related to the running expenses and the cost of staff employed directly within the Housing Service, in relation to functions such as sheltered housing schemes, running the hostel etc.

·                         Housing Repairs Fund Contribution - this budget related to the repairs and maintenance service for the Council Housing Stock. 

·                         Central Support and Operational Building Charges - this budget related to the services provided by other Departments within the Council, and the cost of office accommodation occupied by the Housing Services staff.

·                         Capital Financing - this budget included debt charges for any capital works undertaken relating to the Housing Revenue Account. 

 

Proposed Increase in Charges

 

The charges for rent and other services provided by the Housing Services were reviewed annually.  These would be subject to a future report once the information had been received from WAG.  Set out below was a table summarising the original budget for 2010/11 with the proposed budget for 2011/12:

 

2010/2011 Original Budget	Inflation /    Pay Award	Committed Growth / Savings	Estimated Rent Increase	2011/2012 Proposed Budget
£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
(2,426)	15	376	(420)	(2,455)

 

A provision for general inflation was included, but no allowance had been made for any pay award in 2011/12, except for employees under the £21,000 p.a. threshold who had been awarded a £250 pay award for 2011/12.  A 1% increase in pay amounted to approximately £13k.

 

The committed growth of £376,000 was due to a number of factors:

 

·                         a decrease of increments and staff changes £125,000

·                         a reduction in Building Maintenance recharges £57,000.

 

These had been off-set by:

 

·                         £375,000 increase in the expected HRA Subsidy payable to WAG during 2010/2011, taking into account any expected reduction in stock and an increase in guideline rents of 3%.  This did not take into account any increases in the Management and Maintenance Allowance.

·                         An increase in Central Support recharges of £126,000.

·                         Other budget adjustments totalling £57,000.

 

Next Steps

 

The next stage was for the estimates to be submitted to Scrutiny Committee for consultation.  Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) was the lead Scrutiny Committee and would consider both the Initial Housing Revenue Account Revenue Budget Proposals and any comments that the Scrutiny Committee (Housing and Public Protection) had made.

 

The Cabinet Working Group would hold a series of meetings in November with the relevant Cabinet Members and officers to consider the budget proposals.  They would submit their recommendations so that the Cabinet may make its final budget proposals no later than 23^rd February, 2011.  Before making its recommendations, the Budget Working Group would consider the comments made by Scrutiny.

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T the revised budget estimate for 2010/2011 be approved.

 

(2)       T H A T the initial budget proposals for 2011/2012 be approved for consultation with Scrutiny Committee (Housing and Public Protection).

 

(3)       T H A T the increase suggested for rent and other services be subject to a future report as soon as the information is available from the Welsh Assembly Government.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

(1)       To facilitate monitoring of the revised budget.

 

(2)       In order that Cabinet be informed of the comments of Scrutiny Committee before making a final proposal on the budget.

 

(3)       In order to meet the statutory deadline to notify tenants of the new charges as required by Statute.

 

 

C1121                        INITIAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2011/12 (L) (SCRUTINY - CORPORATE RESOURCES) -

 

Approval was sought for the revised capital programme for 2010/11 and the initial capital proposals for 2011/2012 so that they may be submitted to Scrutiny Committee for consultation.

 

The following information was provided with regard to the 2010/11 capital programme:

 

Director of Education

 

Cowbridge Comprehensive School re-modelling - the school had now been reopened but there were certain items that were added to the specified contract, such as upgraded lighting and sound system for the sports hall, cricket pitch and additional fixtures, furniture and equipment.  These requests from the school had a value of £147,000 and had all been agreed to be funded by the school.  It was requested that Cabinet approve that the capital budget be increased by this sum to account for these items.

 

Pendoylan Primary School re-modelling - a sum of £388,000 had been approved as a contribution towards a large re-modelling project run by Pendoylan Church in Wales School in the 2010/11 capital programme.  The external architect had experienced problems obtaining planning consent to construct the new bus turning area which had substantially delayed the original project.  Preliminary works had now started on site, but the delay had consequently reduced the anticipated spend this financial year.  Fees and a proportion of build costs would be due this financial year amounting to an estimated £100,000 with the remaining £288,000 required in 2011/12.

 

Ysgol Pen y Garth Classroom Extension - the budget of £440,000 had been approved for works to a two classroom extension at the site.  Concerns had been raised regarding potential traffic congestion.  Consultants had been appointed to undertake traffic flow checks and had been investigating options to alleviate any potential traffic problems, such as one way traffic flow and changes to the car park layout.  WAG had approved the sum of £240,000 towards the extension works and if work were delayed much longer, there was a potential that the full grant could not be spent.  Cabinet would be updated on the situation as it progressed.

 

Director of Social Services

 

Extra Care/Elderly Mental Infirm - the sum of £250,000 during the current years capital programme had been approved in order to progress the scheme to build a second extra care unit in the Vale of Glamorgan.  This would provide accommodation and support for older people, particularly those with dementia.  This would in turn reduce the requirement for residential and nursing care.  The scheme had not progressed as planned to date due to problems with locating a suitable site. 

 

Director of Legal, Public Protection and Housing Services

 

Community Safety CCTV and Alleygates - earlier in the year, the Home Office had allocated a grant of £25,055 towards the installation of CCTV cameras and Alleygates.  It had been decided by the Safer Vale Partnership that the whole £25,055 be used for CCTV cameras at Llantwit Major Square which had been highly prioritised.  Unfortunately, the lowest quote for the CCTV equipment came in at £34,000.  Additional funding of £8,945 had been approved from the Home Office's Crime Reduction and Anti-Social Behaviour Capital Fund.  In addition to this, the Home Office also approved a further £7,200 to install gating and fencing at the perimeter of the existing grounds of Cadoxton House in order to reduce criminal damage and vandalism.  Chief Executive's Emergency Powers had been exercised in order that procurement could progress in time to allow a full spend by the end of March and to include both sums into the Capital Programme for 2010/11.

 

Director of Environmental and Economic Regeneration

 

Penarth Heights S106 Highway Works - as part of the sale of the Penarth Heights Development, Crest Nicholson has signed a Section 106 legal agreement which obliged them to pay the sum of £260,000 for highway works.  Highway works "means feasibility, design and construction works which may include, but shall not be limited to, upgrading the road junction to ease traffic congestion at the junction of Cogan Hill and Terra Nova Way and upgrading the road junction of Windsor Road and Plassey Street and subsequently to provide maintenance of the said works for up to 20 years."  The authority had received the sum of £80,000, and the remaining balance of £180,000 was due prior to occupation of the 50^th dwelling on the site which, under the current planned timeframe would be around April 2012.  It was requested that Cabinet approve the inclusion of the initial £80,000 in the 2010/11 capital programme in order that feasibility studies on the above sites may commence.

 

Waste Reduction/Recycling Initiatives - a sum of £122,745 had been given by WAG in order to provide support for capital initiatives to achieve waste prevention, reuse of items and recycling materials.  The grant had to be spent by the end of the current financial year and it had been agreed that the authority uses this funding to procure a further food waste vehicle to progress the food waste recycling initiative.  In addition, a supplementary allocation of £82,000 had also been approved for some or all of the items on the following list:

 

·                         Provision of a specialist front-end loading collection vehicle and recycling 'Bring Site' containers/wheelie bins for the 'in-house' provision of the Council's existing Bring Site Service.  A further report needed to be submitted to Cabinet regarding the future of Bring Sites before the purchase of vehicles could proceed.

·                         The provision of 'Haz-safe' storage containers at the Council's two existing Household Waste Recycling Centre for the disposal of paints and other household hazardous wastes. 

·                         The provision of undercover facilities at the new Atlantic Trading Estate Household Waste Recycling Centre for the preparation for use of bulky household items collected by the Council.

·                         The provision of a weatherproof and secure container at the new Atlantic Trading Estate Household Waste Recycling Centre for the storage and delivery of kitchen food caddies and bags within the kerbside collection service.

 

The decision on which of the above options could be completed by the end of March had not been finalised but Cabinet would be advised once it was agreed.  In order to avoid delays in progressing the projects and ensure completion before year end, it was requested that Cabinet include a total budget of £204,745 in the Capital Programme 2010/11. 

 

Dyffryn Gardens Phase 1 - this scheme was behind profile due to the tender on the glasshouse being delayed, awaiting Heritage Lottery Fund agreement of the re-design which was required in order to reduce costs to within the available budget.  The contract had now been let, and works replacing the glasshouse were now underway.  To reflect these delays, an extension to the agreed grant deadline had been approved until 31^st May, 2011.  To this end, it was requested that Council approve that the sum of £50,000 be slipped forward into 2011/12 in order to finalise the scheme.

 

Barry Island Footbridge - the sum of £565,000 was available this year to deliver this project (comprising £250,000 Department for Transport Grant 2010/11 and £315,000 Council Funding).  Delays caused by Network Rail in progressing the project, and a subsequent increase in the price of steel meant that the project costs were now estimated to total £635,000.  Discussions with WAG had revealed that they would consider funding the shortfall of £70,000 as well as the Council's contribution of £315,000 from their 2010/11 Regeneration Area Grant.  This would be considered on the condition that the Council allocate the sum of £315,000 from the 2011/12 Capital Programme to support schemes which reflected the aims and objectives of the Barry Regeneration Area.  A bid for the funding had been made and the outcome should be known in early December. 

 

Merrie Harrier Gyratory/Cardiff Road Bus Lane - the works on the new bus lane were completed and the new layout was fully functional.  The works were completed at an anticipated cost of £580,000 this year and were finalised some six weeks ahead of profile.  The underspend had been highlighted to the grant provider, South East Wales Transport Alliance and they had agreed that the £32,000 from the predicted underspend could be vired to the Barry Waterfront Park and Ride feasibility project, as described below.  It was hence requested that Cabinet approve the reduction in the current year budget on Merrie Harrier Gyratory/Cardiff Road Bus Lane to £580,000.

 

Five Mile Lane - this 100% grant funded scheme for ongoing design development and environmental survey work, associated with enhancing road safety on the A4226, had run into delays as WAG had recently requested a full Welsh Transport Planning and Appraisal Guidance Stage 1 Assessment Report.  This would delay studies programmes for the current financial year.  These studies would be undertaken next financial year as their value and timescale would traverse two financial years and without funding in place for 2011/12 these studies could not commence.  Therefore full grant spend could not now be achieved this financial year and it was therefore requested that approval be granted for the reduction in budget on this scheme to £252,000. 

 

Barry Waterfront Park and Ride - this allocation comprised three smaller grants that had previously been reported to Cabinet as SEWTA Transportation Grants.  One of the schemes included within this budget was £35,000 for design fees for Barry Waterfront Park and Ride.  WAG had now approved a larger grant for this work and, along with the £32,000 virement from the Merrie Harrier scheme outlined above, had approved an additional £60,000 grant which would increase the total available budget to £127,000 this year.  As such, it was requested that approval be granted for the inclusion of this Barry Waterfront Park and Ride Scheme in the Capital Programme and reduce the SEWTA Transportation Grant's budget by £35,000 in order to reflect the transfer to the new scheme.

 

Policy

 

OneVale Systems Integration - this budget of £280,000 had been intended for the integration of various systems into Oracle in the latter part of this financial year.  An upgrade is required on the current Oracle e-Business Suite and would need to be completed before November 2013.  Should the planned integration be done before this, it would mean that the Council may have to undertake some 're-work' after the system upgrade as the system configuration may need altering.  As such, it was proposed that the planned integration works be delayed until after November 2013 in order to avoid any duplication of time and money.  It was therefore requested that Cabinet approve that the current budget be reduced to £47,000.  This sum had already been spent on a central storage facility for Council data and was unaffected by the upgrade. 

 

With regards to the 2011/12 Capital Programme, WAG was expected to announce the provisional 2011/12 General Capital Funding on 22^nd November, 2010.  It had been forecast that a 41% cut in cash terms would be imposed upon the Council's General Capital Funding allocation and specific capital grants from WAG from 2011/12 onwards.  This had been reflected in the table at Appendix B to the report.  The phasing of the cuts was based upon a forecast received from the Welsh Local Government Association and represented a 25% cut in 2011/12, an additional 6% cut in 2012/13 and a further 10% cut in 2013/14. 

 

The Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) which was the grant that provided capital funding to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), for 2011/12 had not yet been announced by WAG.  Cabinet would be advised once the announcement was made.  An assumption had been made in Appendix B to the report that the grant would continue at the current allocation of £2.7 million in 2011/12.  HRA capital expenditure on the Housing Improvement Programme had not been included in Appendix B, pending the decision on the Housing Stock Transfer.

 

In addition to funding from WAG, the Council would finance part of the capital programme from its own resources, e.g. capital receipts and reserves. 

 

Appendix B to the report outlined the proposed 2011/12 Capital Programme, and the report detailed the General Capital Funding and internal resources required to fund the proposed schemes. 

 

With regard to the Capital Bids for 2011/12, as with last year, due to the anticipated reduction in future capital funding for 2011/12 onwards, and to review historic priorities, all those budgets previously included in the indicative future Capital Programme were withdrawn, other than those schemes which would be contractually committed by the end of March 2011.  Officers had been asked to re-bid for those sums that they still regarded as a high priority as part of the 2011/12 bidding round. 

 

The Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) had been consulted on the capital bids submitted by services. 

 

The SDWG identified schemes for which there was particular support, or concern.  They also highlighted schemes which, if approved, they wished to consider in more detail following completion of a SD checklist.  Their comments were summarised in Appendix D to the report.

 

The Budget Working Group had prioritised bids based upon the recommendations of the Corporate Asset Management Group (CAMG).  The method of prioritisation used was detailed in the Authority's Capital Investment Strategy, and was reproduced in the report.

 

However, given the drastic cut in funding available for new capital schemes, the criteria used in assessing bids needed to be refined and the Budget Working Group consequently amended the priorities for schemes demonstrating good economic sense from a Priority 3 to a Priority 2.  As such the amended priorities listing was as follows:

 

1          Health and Safety Legislation

2          Other Legislation / Statutory Requirement / Economic Sense

3          Corporate Plan / Sufficiency

4          Condition / Suitability

5          Welsh Assembly Government Objectives

6          Low Priority.

 

In addition to the capital bids shown in Appendix B to the report, Appendix C listed capital bids received that were unsuccessful and had not been put forward for inclusion in the 2011/12 programme.

 

There were two schemes for which funding had been reserved but not included in the Capital Programme was yet.  In the event that the authority was successful in attracting grant funding from the Welsh Football Trust, in partnership with Sports Wales, it was proposed that the sum of £60,000 be reserved for a new exemplar football pitch at the Colcot Sports Centre.  Should the grant application be successful and minimum grant of £100,000 be approved, the £60,000 would be allocated to this scheme.  The second reserved scheme was that of the Penarth Learning Community.  The authority's funding requirement stream for the scheme was as shown below:

 

Penarth Learning Community -  Match Funding for WAG bid
		£
General Capital Funding		6,000,000
Prudential Borrowing		1,000,000
Capital Receipts		4,500,000
s106 receipt		500,000
		12,000,000

 

The first two items in the above list were already included in Appendix B.  The anticipated capital receipts (from school buildings disposals) and S106 agreement were not expected to be realised until the scheme was completed.  As such, in the interim, in order to fund the proposed scheme, it was proposed that an additional £5,000,000 be retained as a reserve and would potentially be funded from further prudential borrowing pending receipt of the cash. 

 

The next stage was for the estimates to be submitted to Scrutiny Committee for consultation.  Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) was the lead Scrutiny Committee and would consider both the initial Budget Proposals and the comments that other Scrutiny Committees had made.  The responses of Scrutiny Committee must be made no later than 21^st December, 2010.  It was also proposed to consult with the LSB. 

 

Part of the report was to be referred to Council as it was contrary to and not in accordance with the budget. 

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T the initial budget proposals for the 2011/12 and future Capital Programme be approved for consultation with Scrutiny Committees.

 

(2)       T H A T Council be recommended to adopt the following change to the Capital Programme:

 

·                         Cowbridge Comprehensive School Re-modelling - increase the budget by £147,000 (funded by the school)

·                         Pendoylan Primary School Re-modelling - reduce the budget to £100,000 (carry forward £288,000 into 2011/12)

·                         Dyffryn Gardens Phase 1 - reduce the budget to £478,000 (carry forward £50,000 into 2011/12).

 

(3)       T H A T the following changes to the Capital Programme 2010/11 be approved:

 

·                         Community Safety - CCTV and Alleygates - increase the current budget by £16,145, funded from a Home Office grant

·                         Penarth Heights S106 Highway Works - include a budget of £80,000 in the current Capital Programme funded from S106 developer monies

·                         Waste Reduction/Recycling Initiatives - include a budget of £204,745, funded from WAG grant

·                         Merrie Harrier Gyratory/Cardiff Road Bus Lane - reduce the current budget to £580,000

·                         Barry Waterfront Park and Ride - include a budget of £127,000 (funded from WAG grants)

·                         South East Wales Transport Alliance grants - reduce the budget by £35,000 to £20,000 (to reflect the transfer of grant to Barry Waterfront Park and Ride Scheme shown above)

·                         OneVale Systems Integration - reduce the budget to £47,000.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

(1)       To allow full consultation on the future Capital Programmes.

 

(2&3)  To amend the 2010/11 Capital Programme.

 

 

C1122                        INITIAL REVENUE BUDGET PROPOSALS 2011/12 (L) (SCRUTINY - ALL (WITH LEAD SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - CORPORATE RESOURCES) -

 

Cabinet approval for the amended budget for 2010/11 and the Initial Revenue Budget proposals for 2011/12 was sought in order that they may be submitted to Scrutiny Committees for consultation.

 

The Council's budget was determined largely by the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) settlement set by the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG).  The provisional RSG settlement was not expected to be announced by WAG until the week commencing 22^nd November, 2010.

 

Appendix 1 to the report set out the necessary transfers to the original estimate for 2010/11 which were required to be made as follows (there was no overall effect on the net budget of the Council):

 

·                         Asset rents - movement was due to changes in net charges for asset rentals

·                         Recharges etc - movement in charges between internal Council services

·                         Adjustments - budget adjustments reflected mainly transfers of functions and responsibilities between services.  Primarily this related to:

·                   following a change in responsibilities, there was an increase to the Education Budget and a corresponding reduction to the Human Resources budget of £47k. in respect of an allocation of costs of the Director of Learning and Development no longer required

·                   a transfer from Visible Services to Planning and Transportation of £57k. in respect of the Highways Development Section

·                   a transfer from Private Housing to Chief Executive of £125k. in respect of a newly created Corporate Partnership Team

·                   a transfer from Chief Executive to Policy of £18k. in respect of arts grants

·                   a transfer from Policy to Finance, ICT and Property and Chief Executive (Contact Centre) of £43k. and £37k. respectively in respect of an Oracle Software Licence

·                   a transfer from Policy to Human Resources of £44k. in respect of managing sickness.

 

Details were contained within the report of the amended original budget with the projected outturn for 2010/11.

 

Overall, the Education Budget was projected to outturn with a surplus of £55,000 as a result of projected underspend against Additional Learning Needs Transport.  This would be set against a predicted overspend on the Lifelong Learning budget due to an inability to meet the savings target associated with the Community Enterprise Service.  The Welsh Assembly Government was currently investigating whether grant funding could be identified to support the service and it was expected that the position would be confirmed in January.  Any remaining savings would be available to redirect to the School Investment Strategy or other reserves.  It was projected that the Lifelong Learning Service would outturn with an adverse variance of £55,000 which would be funded by the projected underspend in the Education Budget. 

 

It was anticipated that Catering would outturn within budget.  However, it was appreciated that external factors could affect the outturn for the service. 

 

The year end projected outturn for Children and Young People's Services was an underspend of £135,000.  The service itself was actually projected to outturn on target, but an underspend in the Social Services Strategy Division would reduce the recharge to Children and Young People Services and create an underspend.  Children's Placements could outturn £343,000 over budget partly due to some high cost remand placements.  However, other underspends within the budget, mainly on staffing would off-set this position. 

 

The year end projected outturn for Adult Services was for an overspend of £135,000.  However, this service itself was projected to outturn £470,000 over budget.  An underspend in the Social Services Strategy Division would reduce the recharge to Adult Services and therefore reduce the overspend.  The overspend was due to a delay in achieving the required budget savings resulting from the proposed closure of Bryneithin and there was an increased demand for Community Care packages.  The overspend had been calculated after off-setting some underspends from within the service such as staffing vacancies/reorganisations and increased income.

 

The revised estimate for Planning and Transportation showed a favourable probable outturn of £147,000 to the amended original budget.  This was primarily due to savings on employee costs of £85,000 as a result of holding vacant posts.  There was an increase in income of £73,000 as a result of better than expected planning application fees following submission of some key developments.  This was off-set by increased pressure on supplies and service budgets of £11,000.

 

The revised estimate for Economic Development and Leisure showed an adverse probable outturn of £147,000 to the amended original budget.  This was primarily due to the reduction in income of £75,000 in respect of the workshops and market income as a result of the economic climate.  There was a £47,000 increase in salaries in relation to Dyffryn, following a budget correction.  There was an increase of £22,000 in premises costs in respect of both the miscellaneous properties and the Business Service Centre.  There was a small growth in supplies and services of £3,000.  Funding of the adverse probable outturn was to be found from the £147,000 savings within Planning and Transportation and a virement was requested.

 

The revised estimate for Visible Services equalled the amended original budget.  Even though the overall budget had been balanced, there were variances within Visible Services.  It was projected that the employee's budget would be £55,000 overspent mainly due to agency costs within the Highways and Engineers Service.  Repairs budgets were projected to be overspent by £155,000 which was mainly attributable to the level of repairs required to the highway network as a consequence of the last two severe winters.  There was a projected overspend on transport costs of £195,000 with the main contributing factors being the increasing cost of fuel and also high repair costs for some vehicles.  To off-set these projected overspends, there had been a saving within Waste Management of approximately £160,000 due to reducing waste disposal costs as the tonnage to landfill reduces.  Also, £150,000 of reserves was to be used to help fund the increased cost of repairing the highway as described above.  Finally, there had been an increase in the income estimate for Visible Services of £95,000.

 

The revised estimate for Building Services equalled the amended original budget.  Due to restructure within the Building Twin Hat Service which included the loss of the operational manager post, the overall recharge to clients had dropped by £165,000.

 

Legal, Democratic and Registrars etc. - market conditions had had, and continued to have a detrimental effect on the level of land charges income expected for 2010/2011.  It was anticipated that income would be £50,000 lower than originally estimated.  The shortfall was to be funded from within the Directorate's existing resources. 

 

Private Sector Housing/Community Safety - the service was anticipated to outturn on target. 

 

Policy - this service showed a balanced budget.

 

There was an estimated Council Tax surplus for 2010/11 in the sum of £900,000.  This would be transferred to the Council Fund. 

 

General Reserves as at 1^st April, 2010 amounted to £7.0 million.

 

Base Budget 2011/12

 

Cabinet approved the Budget Strategy on 21^st July, 2010, and the Medium Term Financial Plan on 29^th September, 2010. 

 

The Government in October 2010 outlined the initial results of their Comprehensive Spending Review.  This would most certainly result in a significant reduction in both capital and revenue resources for Welsh Authorities.  The impact of the spending review on the Council in particular would be clear when the Welsh Assembly Government announced its provisional 2011/12 settlement on or around 22^nd November, 2010.

 

A summary of the overall base budget for 2011/12 was attached at Appendix 2 to the report.  This had been arrived at by adjusting the 2010/11 budget for items such as inflation and unavoidable growth. 

 

Asset rents FRS 17 and Recharges- these related to accounting items and expenditure outside the control of services.  They reflected changes to services for the use of capital assets, changes to inter-service recharges and adjustments in respect of pensions to comply with accounting standards. 

 

An adjustment of £602,000 to the 2010/11 base had been made as there had been no pay award for April 2010 (excluding teachers). 

 

Budget Transfers - budget adjustments to the reflect transfers of functions and responsibilities between services.  It was reported that, primarily, these related to:

 

·                         following a change in responsibilities, there was an increase to the Education Budget and a corresponding reduction to the Human Resources budget of £47,000 in respect of an allocation of costs of the Director of Learning and Development no longer required

·                         a transfer from Lifelong Learning to Education of £91,000 in respect of staff transfers

·                         transfer from Lifelong Learning to Policy of £33,000 in respect of a corporate saving following the senior management review

·                         a transfer from Planning and Transportation to Chief Executive (Contact Centre) of £12,000 in respect of provision of reception services

·                         a transfer from Economic Development and Leisure to Chief Executive (Contact Centre) of £9,000 in respect of provision of reception services

·                         a transfer from Visible Services to Planning and Transportation of £158,000 in respect of the Highways Development Section

·                         a transfer from Visible Services to Policy of £300,000 in respect of a one off addition in 2010/11 for highway repairs

·                         a transfer from Visible Services to Policy of £15,000 in respect of the corporate saving following the senior management review

·                         a transfer from Public Protection to Policy of £69,000 in respect of the corporate saving following the senior management review

·                         a transfer from Private Housing to Chief Executive of £125,000 in respect of the newly created Corporate Partnership Division

·                         a transfer from Chief Executive to Policy of £18,000 in respect of Arts grants

·                         a transfer from Policy to Finance, ICT and Property and Chief Executive (Contact Centre) of £43,000 and £37,000 respectively in respect of an Oracle software licence

·                         a transfer from Policy to Human Resources of £44,000 in respect of managing sickness.

 

The figure for inflation (£2.633m) related to general price increases and the part year effect of the teachers pay award (2.3%).  No allowance has been included for pay awards for other staff. 

 

Committed Growth totalled £998,000 and related to the following items:

 

·                         Economic Development and Leisure - £40,000 repayment into the Project Fund for the advance of £200,000 in respect of Rural Local Development Business Plan 2

·                         Visible Services - £278,000 for Landfill Tax annual increase

·                         General Policy - £180,000 increased cost of funding the capital programme and £500,000 use of balances during the 2010/11 budget.

 

A list of 2011/12 cost pressures as identified by Services was attached at Appendix 3 to the report.  These were not shown in any order of priority.  Altogether these totalled £8.111m and some would need to be met for some services.  They excluded the cost of redundancies, which may be incurred in order to maintain the budget within the resources available. 

 

The Medium Term Financial Plan included savings targets for Services for 2011/12.  It included a 2% efficiency target (£3.447m) based upon the net controllable budget together with other savings that totalled 150% of the further savings required for 2011/12.  The table below set out the target savings over Directorates:

 

6.                   7.	Efficiency £000	Other £000	Total  £000
8.                 Learning and Development	1,817	8,539	10,356
9.                 Social Services	819	3,850	4,669
10.            Environmental and Economic Regeneration	470	2,207	2,677
11.            Public Protection/Private Hsg	79	369	448
12.            Corporate
13.            Director of Legal, Democratic And Registrar's	39	185	224
14.            Director of Finance, ICT And Property (inc HR and Policy)	147	693	840
15.            Chief Executive  Youth Offending Services	65    11	306    54	371   65
16.            Total	3,447	16,203	19,650

 

A breakdown of options for achieving the savings above was included at Appendix 4 to the report. 

 

All services, with the exception of Social Services, had identified options that met the target in a full year.

 

The next stage was for the estimates to be submitted to Scrutiny Committees for consultation.  Scrutiny Committee (Corporate Resources) was the lead Scrutiny Committee and would consider both the Initial Revenue Budget Proposals and any comments that other Scrutiny Committees had made.  The responses of Scrutiny Committees must be made no later than 21^st December, 2010. 

 

It was also proposed to consult on the Initial Budget Proposals with Local Service Board partners.

 

Cabinet's final budget proposals would be considered by Council at a meeting to be held on 2^nd March, 2011.

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T the amended budget as set out in Appendix 1 to the report be approved.

 

(2)       T H A T the budget for Planning and Transportation for 2010/11 be amended to £3.114m and for Economic Development and Leisure budget to £7.463m.

 

(3)       T H A T the Initial Revenue Budget proposals for 2011/12 be approved for consultation with Scrutiny Committees.

 

(4)       T H A T Directors take the necessary steps to ensure a balanced budget for 2010/11 and identify measures to achieve their savings targets for 2011/12.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

(1&2)  To incorporate changes in projected spending.

 

(3)       In order that Cabinet be informed of the comments of Scrutiny Committees before making a final proposal on the budget.

 

(4)       To ensure a balanced budget and measures to achieve savings targets.

 

 

 

C1123                        HOUSING STOCK TRANSFER - COUNCIL'S OFFER TO TENANTS (L) (SCRUTINY - CORPORATE RESOURCES) -

 

Cabinet received a report which:

 

·                         sought approval of the Council's Offer Document to tenants in relation to the proposed housing stock transfer

·                         updated Members on the impact of the latest Welsh Assembly Government guidelines on the Council's retention Housing Business Plan.

 

Council had resolved to ballot its secure and introductory tenants on stock transfer options on 14^th October, 2009.  This gave tenants the right to choose whether or not the stock should transfer to a new landlord.  In order for tenants to make an informed decision, the Council needed to be clear on what it could offer tenants in comparison with a new landlord. 

 

With regard to the proposed stock transfer, the Council was required to consult its secure and introductory tenants, and the Offer Document was part of this formal consultation with tenants.

 

WAG required that all Local Authorities who wished to retain their stock submit an annual Housing Business Plan projected for 30 years.  Those Councils who had resolved to ballot tenants were not required to do so but this Council had drawn up a retention plan and Cabinet were informed of the latest revision to the Housing Business Plan. 

 

The Offer Document was attached at Appendix A to the report.  This was the formal consultation document (or Stage 1 Notice) which set out what would happen if the transfer went ahead and what the retention option would mean for the Council's tenants.  It also explained how the tenants key rights would be affected if the transfer went ahead and contained the form of the tenancy agreement which would be offered to qualifying transferring tenants by Heritage Coast Homes (HCH).  In addition, the Offer Document compared what the Council and HCH would be able to deliver. 

 

The Offer Document took into account the relevant statutory requirements under the Housing Act 1985 and also the Welsh Assembly Government's statutory guidance on consultation requirements and the Housing Transfer Guidelines (2009). 

 

In addition, the Offer Document took into account the results of the Council's informal consultation with tenants on what they would like to see in the Offer Document.  Those tenant 'aspirations' which were fundable within HCH Business Plan had been embodied into the Offer Document.

 

In the event of a 'Yes' vote, the promise contained in the Offer Document would be made legally binding on HCH, through a covenant included in the transfer agreement between Heritage Coast Homes and the Council.  There was usually a clause in the transfer agreement which allowed a delay or deference of delivery of certain promises in certain circumstances e.g. if the transferee was in a financial difficulty.  This clause also normally stated that the Council would not enforce the promises while the specified circumstances (i.e. financial difficulties) subsist provided that the transferee took various specified steps.  WAG also had a role in monitoring the performance of the new landlord including the delivery of WHQS programme. 

 

There could be no change to the Offer Document after the Stage 2 Notice was issued.  Should HCH fail to honour the promises made in the Offer Document, then the Council would have a contractual right to enforce the delivery of the promise by HCH.  The Council would monitor the performance of HCH to ensure that the promises were being delivered. 

 

If there were a 'No' vote then there would be no contract to make the promises contractually binding on the Council i.e. no third party would have a contractual right to seek performance by the Council or make it deliver the promises outlined in the Offer Document.

 

There was a formal consultation process which Councils who proceeded to ballot tenants on transfer must comply with, this being:

 

·                         Stage 1 Notice - this is the formal consultation document.  The Stage 1 Notice must be issued to all secure and introductory tenants.  The aim of this consultation document was to explain the Council's proposal to tenants and to seek their views on it.  Tenants had 28 days to submit their views by completing and returning a tear off response card to the Council.

·                         The Council was then required to consider tenants responses and make a decision as to whether it should proceed to ballot. 

·                         Stage 2 Notice - this was the formal notice which must be issued to all secure and introductory tenants once the consultation responses received during the Stage 1 process had been considered by the Council.  It must set out any significant changes to the Offer Document.  The form of Stage 2 Notice must be approved by WAG.  Tenants would then have a period of 28 days for any representations to be made to WAG.  WAG may take these representations into account in considering the application from the Council for the necessary consent to transfer the stock.  Ballot papers would be sent out shortly after the Stage 2 Notice to tenants.  The ballot would be managed by an independent external organisation and both the Council or Heritage Coast Homes had no involvement in the ballot process.  Latest timescales suggested that the ballot would be concluded in April 2011 and the results posted on the independent website. 

 

After the ballot, the Council was required to write to tenants to notify them of the results of the ballot and whether it intended to proceed with the transfer proposal.  Tenants would then be able to make further representations to the Welsh Assembly Government within a period of 28 days if they so wished. 

 

The Offer Document was based on financial projections for HCH produced by the Council's consultants, Tribal.  To a large extent the assumptions coincided with those of the Council in its Business Plan, except for known differences between the different financial regimes the two organisations operated within. 

 

The Offer Document was based on an assumption that 200 properties would not be renovated but demolished and rebuilt.  This was an estimate only and the actual number may be different, depending on the details of the scheme progressed by HCH following consultation with residents.  The Council's plan included about £8.7m for improvements to these properties.  The cost of the replacement homes was included within the £25m that HCH proposed to spend on estate design issues.  HCH's financial projections also included a sum of £1.2m for component renewals on these properties in later years.

 

The Tribal projections showed that the maximum amount of debt outstanding at any time would be £94.3m, cash reserves in year 30 would be nil and debt outstanding in year 30 would £7.8m.  HCH would operate under a different financial regime to that of the Council and the projections assumed that any surplus cash be used to reduce debt before any cash reserves were built up. 

 

It was the view of Tribal that the promises in the Offer Document were deliverable, HCH could withstand a reasonable degree of risk and would be on a sound financial footing. 

 

The Welsh Assembly Government had recently issued new guidance on the parameters to be used in drawing up the Council's Housing Business Plan for retention.  The main changes related to projected increases to rents and the calculation of future subsidies.  Previously, projected increases to rents were to be no greater than the inflation target (2%) plus a 2% uplift.  This had now changed to be no greater than 1% above the inflation target for those authorities, which include the Vale, where the rent (on average) is at the RSL rent benchmark.  Previously, increases to the Management and Maintenance Allowance in the housing subsidy were limited to be no greater than the inflation target plus 2%.  This had now changed so that local authorities were able to use local judgement in relation to the projected increases to the Management and Maintenance Allowance.  However, they must ensure that the total HRA Subsidy increases by no more than the inflation target on a year to year target.  To achieve this, Management and Maintenance Allowances were no assumed to increase by 3.6% (previously 4%) annually. 

 

The Housing Business Plan had been revised to take into account the above and in addition now included the latest projection for capital receipts arising from the disposal of Penarth Heights.  Other assumptions were as those used in the Plan approved in September 2010.

 

The Offer Document set out in detail the difference between the level of improvement to properties and services to tenants that the Council currently planned to provide compared to that which would be provided if the stock transferred to HCH.  The report provided a summary of the main financial differences. 

 

There were a number of risks associated with the assumptions used in the financial projections for the Stock Retention Business Plan and Stock Transfer Offer.  Some of the potential risks had been modelled in the table below for both the Retention Business Plan and Transfer Offer, debt for the Council refers to unsupported debt as supported debt is effectively paid for through the subsidy system.  The list was not exhaustive, but outlined some risks to the main financial parameters and provided an indication of its impact.  For either organisation they may encounter one or a combination of factors for a period greater or less than that modelled below.  In addition, some of the sensitivities had an 'upside' e.g. if repairs cost increases were less than assumed. 

 

	HCH						Council
Sensitivity	Peak Debt	Debt repaid in 30 years?		Cash Reserve year 30			Peak Debt	Debt repaid in 30 years?	Cash Reserve year 30
Base Case	£94.3M	No (Debt outstndg at yr 30 £7.8M)		Nil			£35.1M	Yes in 2034/35	£58.7M
1.Inflation is 1% higher than assumed	£96.8M	Yes in 2038/39		£31.3M			£39.2M	Yes in 2035/36	£58M
2.Cost of revenue repairs & capital improvements rises by 1% more p.a. than assumed to year 7	£107.9M	No (Debt outstndg at yr 30 £73.8M)		Nil			£42M	Yes in 2037/38	£22.7M
3.Cost of revenue repairs & capital improvements rises by 1% more p.a. than assumed for 30 years	Current Plan not viable						£50.1M	No (Debt outstndg at yr 30 £27.9M)	£0.8M
4.MRA/Dowry is half that assumed	Current Plan not viable						£67.5M	No (Debt outstndg at yr 30 £37.5M)	£0.8M
5..MRA/Dowry stops after 7 years	Current Plan not viable						£79M	No (Debt outstndg at yr 30 £60.5M)	£0.8M
6.Interest rates are 1%  p.a. higher than assumed	£165.8M		No (Debt outstndg at yr 30 £162.3M)			Nil	£36.5M	Yes in 2035/36	£50.2M
7.Rent increase is 0.5% less than assumed	Current Plan not viable						£35.0M	Yes in 2033/34	£60.3M
8.Management & Maintenance increases by 1% p.a. less than assumed	Not applicable						£58.1M	No (Debt outstndg at yr 30 £45.5M)	£0.8M
9.VAT “shelter”  is reduced to 10 years	£94.3M		No (Debt outstndg at yr 30 £46.5M)		Nil		Not applicable

 

A further risk for the Council would be changes to the financial regime in which it operated e.g. rules on potential borrowing so the Council would be unable to borrow to carry out improvements.

 

The above table shows that there was capacity for both HCH and the Council to absorb a degree of risk however, significant changes to some assumptions could have a severe impact. 

 

For sensitivities 4, 5 and 8 whilst the Council's Housing Business Plan was technically viable, this level of peak debt could be potentially viewed by the Council as an unacceptable level of risk.

 

Whilst the inflation sensitivity had a small adverse impact on the Council, it had a beneficial impact on HCH.  This was because it would result in increased income from rents which would outstrip increased expenditure.

 

Reductions to the MRA or Dowry or increases in the costs of repairs and improvements represented a significant risk to both the Council and HCH. 

 

HCH were impacted significantly by changes to interest rates.  The impact was greater than that for the Council because of the level of debt and differing financial regimes. 

 

HCH would be particularly impacted by changes to rent levels and like the Council where increases or decreases to rent levels were mitigated by a corresponding increase or decrease in the level of subsidy that had to be repaid.  Under current rules neither HCH nor the Council had total control over the level of annual increase as this was determined by WAG. 

 

In relation to sensitivity 9, unlike the Council, HCH would be unable to reclaim any VAT paid on its expenditure.  In recognition of this, a 'VAT shelter' on major repairs could be negotiated whereby for a period the VAT could be reclaimed.  This could be for up to 15 years.

 

In assessing HCH's overall position on risk, Tribal had commented that they had taken a prudent approach on the assumptions made for the financial projections. 

 

There were extensive monitoring and regulatory arrangements in place that guarded against a registered social landlord failing and govern the Council's finances.  In reality both organisations would have to take steps to avoid severe financial consequences and the risks were consequently more likely to impact on the level of improvement to properties and level of service provided to tenants. 

 

One of the major risks to the Council of retention was the impact of Prudential (Unsupported) Borrowing which would remain with the Council should stock transfer take place at some point in the future and would therefore have to be repaid from the General Fund.

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T the draft Offer Document as attached at Appendix A to the report be approved.

 

(2)       T H A T delegated authority be given to the Director of Legal, Public Protection and Housing Services in consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing and Community Safety to approve any subsequent necessary changes to the Offer Document.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

(1)       To approve the Offer Document as the basis for formal consultation with tenants on the proposal to transfer the Council's homes to Heritage Coast Homes.

 

(2)       To enable changes to be made with regard to accuracy, presentation and to accommodate comments from the Welsh Assembly Government, Council Officers and other advisors (including legal advisors).

 

 

C1124                        REPRESENTATION ON CARDIFF AND VALE UNIVERSITY HEALTH BOARD STAKEHOLDER REFERENCE GROUP (L) (SCRUTINY - CORPORATE RESOURCES) -

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the nomination of Councillor Mrs. V.L. Ellis to sit on the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board Stakeholder Reference Group be endorsed.

 

Reason for decision

 

To ensure Council representation as allocated.

 

 

C1125                        SEVERN ESTUARY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 (VBS) (SCRUTINY - ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT) -

 

Cabinet were requested to confirm adoption of the second Severn Estuary Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2). 

 

A report entitled 'Severn Estuary Shoreline Management Plan 2and Swansea and Carmarthen Bay Shoreline Management Plan 2 - Proposed Preferred Policy Options' had been presented to Cabinet on 17^th March, 2010.

 

Cabinet had resolved

 

(1)       That the preferred policy options, as set out in the two draft SMP2 documents attached to the report at Appendix B and Appendix C be accepted, with the amended position of 'Hold the Line' for Penarth Esplanade.

 

(2)       That the final SMP2 documents, when published following the completion of the consultation process, be adopted as the Council's high level policy for the management of the coastline and the coastal zone.

 

The current Shoreline Management Plan had been reviewed and a Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2) had been produced.  This document was a high level evaluation of the shoreline that included:

 

·                         large scale assessments of the coastline - how the coast would change over time with erosion, sea level rise and climate change in 3 epochs, the next 20 years, 20 - 50 years and 50 - 100 years

·                         identification of the risks to both, the historic and natural environment as the coast changes

·                         policy frameworks to address the risks in a sustainable manner - an indication of how the coastline should look under the promoted policies in 20, 50 and 100 years.

 

The main objective of the SMP2 was to identify sustainable long term management policies for the coast.  This plan recommends changes to the current approach in some areas, however, it would help manage these so that the people, places, industry and wildlife affected could adapt at a reasonable pace. 

 

The shoreline management options that had been considered were those defined by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).  These were summarised as:

 

·                         Hold the Line: maintain the existing defence

·                         Advance the Line: build new defences seaward of the existing defence line

·                         Managed Realignment: allow the shoreline to change with management to control or limit movement

·                         No active intervention: a decision not to invest in providing or maintaining defences.

 

The Vale of Glamorgan coastline was divided between two coastal groups, namely the Severn Estuary Coastal Group (SECG) and the Swansea and Carmarthen Bay Engineering Group (SCBEG).  The report before Cabinet dealt only with the SECG. 

 

The section of the Council's coastline within the SECG extended from Lavernock Point to Penarth Head and consisted of two policy units, Penarth 1 (PEN1) which extended from Lavernock Point to Forrest Road and Penarth 2 (PEN2) which extended from Forrest Road to Penarth Head. 

 

The preferred policy adopted for PEN1 was one of 'No Active Intervention' whilst for PEN2 it was one of 'Hold the Line'.  The issues arising from the policy for PEN1 were that in time the coastline would naturally erode in land through cliff regression.  At this point the major asset is a section of coastal path that was at the moment wholly or publicly owned land.  When the land was removed by cliff regression, the footpath would need to be diverted partly onto privately owned farmland.  Elsewhere within the unit was an area of public open space which would narrow until it eventually reached the residential properties located behind it (this was not expected within the life of the SMP2). 

 

The issues arising from the policy for PEN 2 were greater in as much as a large section of it contained far more defences.  The unit was divided into three sections being a public open space, between Forrest Road and Cliff Hill, The Promenade and Pier between Cliff Hill and Beach Road and private residences between Beach Road and Penarth Head.  This was one of the main leisure areas of Penarth containing the Promenade and Pier.  The public open space contained a miniature golf course and play ground with associated parking and food outlet.  Located along the Promenade were a large number of residential properties including a number of multi occupancy units, a number of business premises, a Welsh Water pumping station and a RNLI Station.  There were also two public slipways and an adopted highway.  Finally, this section of coast between the Promenade and Penarth Head contained The Kymin and a large number of private residences including a number of multi occupancy units and was undefended.  These formal defences were at the end of their useful life (or very close to it) and would require upgrading and/or reconstruction to maintain the existing level of defence.  The undefended section would erode inland through cliff regression eventually reaching the residential properties located behind it (this was not expected within the life of the SMP2). 

 

SMP2 would assist in determining the most sustainable way to manage risks of coastal erosion and flooding whilst continuing to protect the environment and heritage beaches.  It would feed into strategies for the maintenance of existing and design of future defence schemes and would inform future planning decisions and the emerging Local Development Plan. 

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the final SMP2 be adopted as the Council's strategic policy for the management of coastline and coastal zone.

 

 

Reason for decision

 

To ensure that all the Council's future strategic decisions involving the coastline and the coastal zone are taken with the full knowledge of the issues that have been included in the Severn Estuary Shoreline Management Plan 2. (SMP2).

 

 

C1126                        SALE OF LAND MURCH JUNIOR SCHOOL (ELL) (SCRUTINY - LIFELONG LEARNING) -

 

Approval was sought to enter into negotiations with Brackely Developments for the sale of surplus land at Murch Junior School to the Local Health Board for development of a proposed new medical centre.

 

The provision of a new medical centre in Dinas Powys was a key priority for the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board and the local community as was the need for interagency collaboration to meet the needs of the community.

 

Part of the school playing field had attracted interest from the Local Health Board as a site for a new Health Centre.  The Local Health Board had made an offer for the land which comprised of an indoor sports facility for the school and a net receipt that could be used to support the School Investment Strategy.  The land had been declared surplus by the School Governing Body subject to replacement with a sports facility of suitable specification to be provided by Brackely Investments on behalf of the Local Health Board. 

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T the Director of Learning and Development be authorised to instruct the Director of Finance, ICT and Property to enter into negotiations with Brackely Developments for the sale of surplus land at Murch Junior School for the development of a new medical centre.

 

(2)       T H A T the Director of Finance, ICT and Property agree terms and conditions for the sale of the land to Brackley Developments in consultation with the Leader, Director of Learning and Development and Director of Legal, Public Protection and Housing Services.

 

(3)       T H A T the Director of Legal, Public Protection and Housing Services be authorised to complete all necessary documentation in order to complete the disposal.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

(1)       Cabinet approval is required to sell the land.

 

(2)       To ensure that the capital receipt generated from the sale of the land is maximised and terms and conditions are appropriate.

 

(3)       In order to complete the sale.

 

 

C1127                        21^ST CENTURY SCHOOLS STRATEGIC OUTLINE PROGRAMME (ELL) (SCRUTINY - LIFELONG LEARNING) -

 

Approval was sought for the attached 21^st Century Schools Strategic Outline Programme. 

 

The draft 21^st Century Schools Strategic Outline Programme was reported to the Scrutiny Committee (Lifelong Learning) on 11^th October, 2010 and was referred to Cabinet for approval subject to some further minor amendments.  All amendments had now been made including removal of a number of references to the St. Athan Development.

 

Authorities had been originally required to submit a 21^st Century Schools Strategic Outline Programme (SOP) by the end of October 2010.  The time available to prepare the SOP had been very limited particularly as guidance was still being issued as late as the end of July.  As recommended by the Assembly Government/WLGA Programme Team, the Vale's draft SOP was submitted to the team on 3^rd September so that it could advise on whether the content met the criteria before the deadline for final submissions.

 

Pending the start of the programme, 3 tranches of 21^st Century Schools transitional funding had been made available to local authorities on a bidding basis.  The Council successfully bid for £5,000,000 towards the cost of Cowbridge Comprehensive School under the first tranche and £1,032,000 in the second tranche towards the cost of feasibility and design works for Penarth Learning Community and Llantwit Learning Community.  WAG had confirmed that the bid for tranche 3 funding for Penarth Learning Community had been approved in principle subject to submission of a full business case. 

 

Following assessment of the SOPs, authorities selected for investment would be required to submit Outline Business Cases (OBCs).  The format of the SOP and the length of text boxes within are fixed.  The WAG/WLGA Programme Team had advised that the SOP should focus on the aspirations of the Council over the next 10 years and was merely a mechanism by which the Council's direction of travel could be assessed and investment slots within the programme planned. 

 

Developments in relation to Llantwit and Welsh Medium had already been recognised as priorities and feasibility work was in progress.  These priorities were shown under Bands B and C in the programme.  Whilst it was relatively straight forward to identify schools with development need on the basis of condition and suitability surveys where there was a considerable amount of work to be carried out in relation to the organisation and possible rationalisation of schools and prioritisation of investment needs.  Given this, the Barry Cluster and Rural Vale Cluster Projects shown under Bands C and D were speculative at this stage. 

 

The wider Penarth Cluster was not included in the programme due to the significant investment in the Penarth Learning Community in Band A.  However, a range of investment needs existed in relation to the remaining schools in the cluster.  Following completion of the work referred to above and a full assessment of all relevant information, the projects and priorities in future submissions were subject to change and it was possible that Penarth Schools could feature in the revised programme depending on relative priorities. 

 

Councils were required to include the plans of Diocesan Authorities within the SOPs, and Cabinet noted the inclusion of a Faith School project in Band D of the programme.  This has been based on initial discussion with the Diocesan representatives and required further feasibility work to be carried out.  The project was also subject to the Diocesan Authorities providing the necessary funding contribution. 

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T the strategy for developing 21^st Century Schools in the Vale of Glamorgan be noted.

 

(2)       T H A T the Strategic Outline Programme, attached at Appendix A to the report be approved.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

(1)       The 21^st Century Schools Programme is a significant national initiative that the Vale was required to respond in order to secure future investment funding.

 

(2)       Cabinet approval is required for this key strategic programme prior to submission to the Welsh Assembly Government.

 

 

C1128                        EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC -

 

RESOLVED - T H A T under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 4 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act, the relevant paragraphs of the Schedule being referred to in brackets after the minute heading.

 

 

C1129                        JOB EVALUATION / EQUAL PAY (HRE) (EXEMPT INFORMATION - PARAGRAPH 15) (SCRUTINY - CORPORATE RESOURCES) -

 

Cabinet received an update on the progress of the Job Evaluation/Equal Pay review and the associated consultation exercise with the Trade Unions. 

 

The work in progressing the review had involved:

 

·                         The evaluation of over 700 posts across the Council (excluding schools) using the Greater London Provincial Job Evaluation Scheme.  The evaluated jobs covered some 2800 employees.

·                         The design of a new pay structure to accommodate or evaluate posts.

·                         The review and streamlining of current pay related allowances in order to achieve greater consistency and transparency.

·                         The review of other terms and conditions including the allocation of extra statutory holidays. 

 

Good progress had been made in relation to the consultation exercise.  Monthly meetings had been held since February with both local and regional union representatives and was chaired by the Head of Human Resources. 

 

Whilst both parties had been committed to seek a collective agreement there had been realistic and honest discussions about the difficulties of doing so in the context of ongoing equal pay litigation across England and Wales. 

 

The consultation had been progressed on a 'nothing agreed until everything agreed' basis and accepting that any final proposal in relation to a new pay structure would need to be approved by both Cabinet and Full Council.  The unions had been equally clear that they would need to seek clearance from their national legal advisors before agreeing to recommend any proposals to their members in a ballot. 

 

For the reasons set out above, it had been accepted that nothing would be shared with employees until the consultation process had been completed. 

 

The consultation process was now drawing to a close and the unions had agreed to give a final response to the proposals by the end of November.  This would be informed by advice from their national legal/equal pay advisors and would hopefully lead to them recommending the proposals to their members in a ballot in early 2011. 

 

It was proposed to bring a further report to Cabinet in January 2011 which would:

 

·                         update Members in the response from the Trade Unions in relation to their support or otherwise for the proposals and position regarding a union ballot

·                         seek approval in relation to the finalised pay structure proposals following the completion of the consultation process

·                         seek approval in relation to the implementation strategy of the new pay structure or next stages of a continuing consultation strategy.

 

The progressing of the next stages of the review would clearly represent a significant step for the Council and for this reason, it was suggested that all Members be invited to a briefing session prior to submission for approval by Full Council. 

 

With regard to the management of equal pay claims, Cabinet were advised that the Council currently had approximately 500 'live' equal value claims lodged before the Cardiff Employment Tribunal and 650 related grievances.

 

The claims were being robustly defended on an 'all-Wales' basis alongside claims lodged with other Welsh Local Authorities. 

 

An update would be included in a report to Cabinet in January 2011.

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the progress being made in seeking an agreement on a new pay structure be noted, and that a further report be brought before Cabinet once the consultation exercise is completed.

 

Reason for decision

 

To ensure that the Council responds to a national agreement to complete a pay review for all employees on former manual and administrative, professional and technical conditions of service (now under Single Status/Green Book conditions of service).

 

 

C1130                        DYFFRYN HOUSE AND GARDENS (EDR) (EXEMPT INFORMATION - PARAGRAPH 12) (SCRUTINY - ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT) -

 

Cabinet received a report which addressed a number of issues in respect of the future of Dyffryn House, Gardens and Arboretum and to secure appropriate authorities.

 

In recent years, the Council had invested considerably in the external fabric of the House, which was currently largely unused.  This had made the building weatherproof and significantly enhanced its outward appearance.  Internally, however, the Grade II* Listed Building was in disrepair although key architectural features remained.  On 7^th January, 2009, Cabinet had agreed the submission of applications for Grant to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and Cadw, for the restoration of the ground floor and first floor principal rooms of the House. 

 

Subject to these grant funds, the intention was to restore those key parts of the House which were of highest conservation value, and use the rooms for events, public access, weddings etc.  A Business Plan was in place addressing these opportunities for the Gardens and House as a whole operation, which was currently being updated. 

 

Cabinet received a report which addressed a number of related issues, and which provided an update on the site as a whole and would also set out some proposed ways forward. 

 

The report covered the following areas:

 

·                         House restoration

·                         Garden restoration

·                         Marketing opportunities

·                         Staff review/issues

·                         Partnership.

 

This was a matter for Executive decision.

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T authority be granted to submit a second round bid for Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) grant to the value of up to £600,000 for the partial restoration of Dyffryn House.

 

(2)       T H A T the new post of 'Marketing and Events Officer' for Dyffryn Gardens and Arboretum be created, with a clearly defined set of performance targets, funded as set out in the report.

 

(3)       T H A T formal negotiations for a partnership agreement for the management of the site, as set out in the report, be approved.

 

(4)       T H A T a further report be brought before Cabinet to address HLF grant/partnership agreements prior to implementation.

 

(5)       T H A T a full survey of buildings on site be commissioned, as set out in the report.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

(1)       To secure a viable future for the House.

 

(2)       To realise the income potential for the facility.

 

(3)       In order to explore all opportunities for the long term management of the site.

 

(4)       In order to address all options.

 

(5)       In order to identify liabilities.

25/