Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Cabinet is asked to note any apologies for absence received from Members.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors J A Broderick (Leader of the Holland-on-Sea Residents’ Group), I J Henderson (Leader of the Labour Group), M E Stephenson (Leader of the UKIP Group) and E F Whitmore (Deputy Leader of the UKIP Group).

To confirm and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet held on Friday 17 March 2017.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Cabinet, held on Friday 17 March 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Members are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, or other interests, and the nature of them, in relation to any item on the agenda.   

Councillor G V Guglielmi declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to the Disposal of the Riverview Playing Fields at Lawford (Report A.4), as detailed in Minute 177 below.

The Cabinet is asked to note any announcements made by the Leader of the Council.

There were none on this occasion.

The Cabinet is asked to note any announcements made by Members of the Cabinet.

There were none on this occasion.

There are none on this occasion.

There were no matters referred to the Cabinet by the Council on this occasion.

To enable Cabinet to give consideration to a request made to it by the Service Development and Delivery Committee in respect of the above.

That the recommendations of the Commercialisation, Seafronts and Parking Portfolio Holder be approved.

Cabinet was informed that, at the meeting of the Service Development and Delivery Committee held on 27 February 2017, Members had received an update on the Council’s relationship with the North Essex Parking Partnership and especially the offer made by Essex County Council to extend the current term of the Joint Committee Agreement by four years.

The Committee had before it a briefing note prepared by the Head of Public Realm (Ian Taylor) and which was set out under the following main headings:-

(1)  Background;

(2)  Current Position;

(3)  Alternative Options;

(4)  Proposal and Delegated Power;

(5)  Financial Implications and Risk; and

(6)  Risk Management Implications.

The Committee had also had before it a draft letter to Councillor Robert Mitchell, Chairman of the North Essex Parking Partnership which stated that Tendring District Council (TDC) had considered the matter, understood the advantages of continuing with the current agreement for a further four years and was in agreement with the proposal subject to the following provisions:-

(a)  TDC will not budget for any money to cover losses arising from the partnership;

(b)  No Camera enforcement cars will operate within the Tendring District; and

(c)  That the partnership agrees to further develop the arrangement with Civil Enforcement Officers employed by TDC to assist with meeting local requirements for on street parking enforcement.

The Committee had agreed that Cabinet be requested to -

• acknowledge the excellent job that the Parking Services team and their Portfolio Holder have done with regards to the building of relationships with the North East Parking Partnership.

·         be requested to ensure that the North East Parking Partnership Terms of Reference are scrutinised by the relevant committee before the next contract is signed by TDC (likely 2021).

The Cabinet had before it the following recommendations of the Commercialisation, Seafronts and Parking Portfolio Holder made in response to the requests of the Service Development and Delivery Committee:

a)        The Committee be thanked for their supportive comments regarding the work

            done on building relationships with the North Essex Parking Partnership.

b)         It will be ensured that the North Essex Parking Partnership Terms of

            Reference are scrutinised by the relevant committee before the next contract

            is signed by TDC.

Having considered the comments of the Service Development and Delivery Committee and the comments and recommendations of the Commercialisation, Seafronts and Parking Portfolio Holder:

It was moved by Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Ferguson and:

RESOLVED that the recommendations of the Commercialisation, Seafronts and Parking Portfolio Holder be approved.

To enable Cabinet to give consideration to recommendations made to it by the Corporate Management Committee in respect of the above.

That the responses of the Resources and Corporate Services Portfolio Holder, as set out in the Appendix to item A.2 of the Reference from the Corporate Management Committee be approved, subject to the response to (a) being amended to read as follows:

“Noted, and Cabinet agrees that Section 106 monies should be spent as soon as practicable but Cabinet recognises that it may not always be possible, or in the best interests of the Council/community to spend them immediately.”

Cabinet was informed that,at the meeting of the Corporate Management Committee (CMC) held on 13 March 2017 the Committee had considered the contents of the Corporate Budget Monitoring Report for the Third Quarter of 2016/17.

The Committee had agreed to make the following comments to Cabinet:

“Income from Section 106 Agreements

(a)  no monies should ever be left in the “Less than one year column for Section 106 Agreement unallocated/uncommitted monies” i.e. the money should always have been allocated/committed or spent before that point;

Housing Revenue Account

(b)  a robust system should be put in place to protect Council as much as possible from costs arising on-going major repairs/improvements to Council dwellings especially where these are as a result of tenants’ actions;

(c)  Are the HRA properties periodically fully inspected and if not, why not?; and

Supporting People Funding

(d) Essex County Council (ECC) should be urged to reconsider its decision to end the Supporting People funding. The Committee is disappointed that this Council did not make a public protest at the time especially given the short timescale given before ECC’s decision came into effect and is concerned that this may have set a precedent for future ECC decisions. The Committee is also concerned that the blame for any future decision to remove Sheltered Housing Wardens as a result of budgetary pressures will now be placed at the door of this Council.”

The Cabinet had before it as Appendix A to item A.2 of the Reference from the Corporate Management Committee the responses of the Resources and Corporate Services Portfolio Holder to CMC’s comments.

Having considered the comments of the Corporate Management Committee and the responses thereto of the Resources and Corporate Services Portfolio Holder:

It was moved by Councillor G V Guglielmi, seconded by Councillor Stock and:

RESOLVED that the responses of the Resources and Corporate Services Portfolio Holder, as set out in the Appendix to item A.2 of the Reference from the Corporate Management Committee be approved, subject to the response to (a) being amended to read as follows:

“Noted, and Cabinet agrees that Section 106 monies should be spent as soon as practicable but cabinet recognises that it may not always be possible, or in the best interests of the Council/community to spend them immediately.”

To enable Cabinet to give consideration to a request made to it by the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee in respect of the above.

That Cabinet agrees that when the STP Plan is at a more detailed level, the STP Lead be contacted to seek assurance that timely consultation with the wider public will take place and that an All Member Briefing be held as part of this process.

Cabinet was informed that, at the meeting of the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee held on 20 March 2017, Susannah Howard (STP Programme Director) from the Clinical Commissioning Group was in attendance and gave the Committee a presentation on the Sustainability Transformation Plan. This is a high level strategy for transformation of the health service and focuses on a system rather than an organisational approach. The next stage will be to develop operational plans for each strand so that meaningful consultation can take place with a wider audience on what the STP means in practice for front line staff and patients. The presentation covered the following:

(1) Introduction;

(2) NHS structure;

(3) Working together and moving forward;

(4) Suffolk and North East Essex footprint statistics;

(5) The three main areas of the STP Plan;

(6) The required steps to help achieve and deliver the complex programme;

(7) The conclusions of the Kings Fund Review of STPs;

(8) Taking the STP forward;

(9) Work streams;

(10) Governance;

(11) STP programme board – Terms of reference;

(12) Process of aligning work streams to the STP;

(13) Work stream delivery mandate;

(14) Dashboard reporting; and

(15) Forthcoming interactive programme events.

Members had asked questions on various issues which including:-

·         Social care issues and bed blocking;

·         How the high level STP will be communicated down to front line staff;

·         What the impact of the STP will ultimately be on patients;

·         Financial savings;

·         Collaborative working with for example the ambulance service and GP services and how the STP integrated with other health issues such as the urgent care review and the contract for provision to 0 -19 year olds;

·         Engagement with other stakeholders such as Police and Fire;

·         The need to streamline health provision ranging from consultants to chemists and how this could be done.

It had been agreed that Susannah Howard be invited back to a future meeting along with representatives from the North East Essex Clinical Commissioning Group  and Essex County Council in order to discuss a more detailed plan of what STP means for Tendring health staff and patients.

The Committee had agreed that Cabinet be requested to contact the STP Lead to seek assurance that when the STP Plan is at a more detailed level, timely consultation with the wide public will take place.

The Cabinet had before it the following recommendation of the Leisure and Partnerships Portfolio Holder made in response to the request of the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee:

“When the STP Plan is at a more detailed level, the STP Lead be contacted to seek assurance that timely consultation with the wider public will take place.”

Having considered the request of the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee and the recommendation of the Leisure and Partnerships Portfolio Holder:

It was moved by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Turner and:

RESOLVED that Cabinet agrees that when the STP Plan is at a more detailed level, the STP Lead be contacted to seek assurance that timely consultation with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

To consider the principle of the disposal of the playing fields at Riverview, Lawford to Lawford Parish Council.

That Cabinet approves, in principle, the disposal of the playing fields at Riverview, Lawford to Lawford Parish Council subject to the decision as to the terms of the disposal to be taken later in the meeting following the exclusion of the press and public.        

Councillor G V Guglielmi had earlier in the meeting declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to this item.

There was submitted a report by the Leader of the Council (Report A.4), which sought Cabinet’s agreement, in principle, to the disposal of the playing fields at Riverview, Lawford to Lawford Parish Council.

It was reported that Lawford Parish Council currently had a lease for the Riverview playing fields which had started in 1992 and had passed its contractual end date in August 2013. Since 2013 the lease had continued in force under the provisions of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Cabinet was informed that terms for the renewal of the lease had been proposed but after initial acceptance the Parish Council had subsequently declined to accept the proposed increase in rent. The Parish Council had instead applied for the transfer of the freehold of the land under the Council’s Community Asset Transfer Policy to enable them to have certainty going forward and to apply for grant funding. This had been rejected by Tendring District Council as Officers did not consider that the proposal was strong enough to warrant the transfer of the freehold.

Members were advised that the Parish Council had now offered to purchase the land for a cash consideration. In addition to the land that the Parish Council currently rented they would also be purchasing the land which Essex County Council (ECC) rented from TDC. This was because the land currently rented to ECC for school playing fields was effectively land locked by the section of land rented by the Parish Council. If the Parish Council did not buy all of the land then TDC would have no access to land that it owned thereby devaluing that area. The lease to ECC would remain in place and the use of the area would not change.

Having considered the information provided:-

It was moved by Councillor Stock, seconded by Councillor Watling and:-

RESOLVED that Cabinet approves, in principle, the disposal of the playing fields at Riverview, Lawford to Lawford Parish Council subject to the decision as to the terms of the disposal to be taken later in the meeting following the exclusion of the press and public.

To determine whether Ye Olde Cherry Tree meets the criteria set out in the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”) and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 (“the Regulations”) following its nomination as an Asset of Community Value by Tendring CAMRA Branch. No other criteria are pertinent.

That Cabinet agrees that Ye Olde Cherry Tree, Clacton Road, Little Oakley, CO12 5JH meets the definition of an Asset of Community Value, as set out in Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011, and that the building be added to the Council’s list of Assets of Community Value.

There was submitted a report by the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Partnerships (Report A.5), which sought Cabinet’s decision on whether Ye Olde Cherry Tree, Clacton Road, Little Oakley met the criteria set out in the Localism Act 2011 and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012, following its valid nomination as an Asset of Community Value by Tendring CAMRA Branch. No other criteria were pertinent to the decision.

The Cabinet was informed that the Officers, taking the evidence provided into account, were of the opinion that the building nominated did meet the criteria set out in Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 and, accordingly, were recommending that the building should be listed as an Asset of Community Value.

Having considered the report, the valid nomination and the advice of Officers, it was moved by Councillor Watling, seconded by Councillor Ferguson and:

RESOLVED that Cabinet agrees that Ye Olde Cherry Tree, Clacton Road, Little Oakley, CO12 5JH meets the definition of an Asset of Community Value, as set out in Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011, and that the building be added to the Council’s list of Assets of Community Value.

To consider the draft Asset Management Plan, Property Strategy, Property Programme, Procedure Rules and consequent Constitution amendments.

That Cabinet -

a)       recommends and refers the Asset Management Plan and proposed Constitution amendments to full Council for adoption;

b)       subject to Council’s decision on the foregoing, adopts the Property Strategy;

c)       notes the draft Property Programme and procedure rules proposed for separate adoption by the Portfolio Holder and by Officers subject to the adoption of the Asset Management Plan and Constitution changes, as detailed above; and

d)       requests that Officers bring forward delivery plans for the aspirational projects in the Property Programme as resources permit.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Asset Management Plan and the proposed amendments to the Council’s Constitution be approved.

There was submitted a report by the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Corporate Services (Report A.6), which enabled Cabinet to consider the draft Asset Management Plan, Property Strategy, Property Programme, Procedure Rules and consequent Constitution amendments.

The Corporate Management Committee had commented to Cabinet that:

a)    the Council’s attitude should be that “if we don’t need it and its costing us money then we dispose of it”;

b)    robust action/business plans should be put in place to deliver the aspirational aspects of the Property Programme;

c)    the Property Programme should cover at least a three year period in order to take into account the next District Council Elections; and

d)    the need for an Integrated Transport Plan should be included, where appropriate, in the documents.

e)     

The Resources and Corporate Services Portfolio Holder had responded to those comments as set out below. Where applicable the draft documents had been amended to reflect those responses.

The Portfolio Holder’s responses were:

“I thank the Committee for its time and comments.

a)            The Committee is quite right in its view of the need to dispose of surplus property. This approach is in line with the draft documents prepared by officers and will help the Council to achieve a leaner property portfolio that actively contributes to our objectives and is sustainable in the light of our future financial circumstances.

b)            The documents proposed are not the best place to expand on the detailed plans for specific projects. Instead I propose that Cabinet should request that officers prepare plans separately for the delivery of projects.

c)            The Property Programme needs to both reflect long term aspirations and focus on immediate priorities as well as retaining flexibility to deal with changing circumstances. Cabinet will note the change  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

There are none on this occasion.

There were none on this occasion.

The Cabinet is asked to consider the following resolution:

“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 15 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act.”

It was moved by Councillor Stock, seconded by Councillor Turner and:

RESOLVED that, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of Agenda Item 15 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, of the Act.