Docstoc

CABINET

Document Sample
CABINET Powered By Docstoc
					                                    CABINET
                MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18TH AUGUST 2003


Present:

       Mr. D.A.W. Turnbull (in the Chair)   Human Resources, Finance, Property and
                                            Corporate Affairs

       Mr. R. Banham                        Waste Management and the Environment
       Mr. J.R. Baskerville                 Commercial Services
       Mr. A.J. Gunson                      Planning and Transportation
       Mr. H.A.S. Humphrey                  Fire and Community Protection
       Mr. C.M. Mowle                       Social Services
       Mr. S.P. Murphy                      Libraries, Museums, Records and the Arts
       Mr. A.D. Tomkinson                   Economic Development

Apologies for Absence:

       Mr. A.J. Byrne and Mrs. A.L. King

Cabinet Support Members Present:

       Mr. L.E. Austin                      Human Resources
       Mr. S. Dorrington                    Planning and Transportation
       Mr. J.R. Gretton                     Libraries, Museums, Records and the Arts
       Mr. L.G. Randall                     Fire and Community Protection
       Mrs. B.M. Ravencroft                 Social Services

Also Present:

       Mr. D.A. Baxter                      Mr. G.B. Hemming
       Mr. A.A. Blyth                       Mr. E.S. Littler
       Ms. C.M. Cameron                     Ms. G.P. Loveday
       Mrs. C. Cant                         Mrs. J. Middleton
       Mr. M.V. Castle                      Mr. I.A.C. Monson
       Mr. N.G. Chapman                     Mr. W.J. Northam
       Mr. W. Davison                       Mr. J.H. Perry-Warnes
       Mr. T. East                          Mr. R.C. Rockcliffe
       Mr. D.B. Forgan                      Mr. M. Taylor
       Mrs. B.M. Hacker                     Mr. T.J. Wainwright
       Mr. P.J. Harwood                     Ms. S.J. Whitaker

Officers Present:

       Mr. P. Adams                         Director of Corporate Resources
       Mr. M. Britch                        Managing Director, NPS Property Consultants Ltd
       Mr. H. Bullen                        Department of Finance
       Miss P. Cary                         Legal Services
       Mrs. L. Christensen                  Director of Social Services
       Mrs. R. Claridge                     Social Services Department
       Miss C. Clarke                       Democratic Services
       Mr. D. Cumming                       Planning and Transportation Department
       Mrs. J. Dane                         Department of Finance
     Mr. R. Elliott                        Chief Fire Officer
     Mr. K. Hounsome                       Head of Law
     Mr. G. Insull                         Democratic Services
     Mr. J. Joyce                          Planning and Transportation Department
     Mr. B. Marfleet                       Planning and Transportation Department
     Mr. D. Pearson                        Planning and Transportation Department
     Mr. S. Ralph                          Deputy Director of Planning and Transportation
     Dr. B. Slater                         Director of Education
     Mr. R. Summers                        Director of Finance
     Mr. A. Tidmarsh                       e-Service Director
     Mrs. V. Trevelyan                     Head of Museums and Archaeology Service
     Mrs. R. Vahey                         Education Department
     Mr. P. Weavers                        NPS Property Consultants Ltd

     The Chairman welcomed Mrs. J. Middleton, the independent Chairman of the
     County Council’s Standards Committee, to the meeting.


1.   MINUTES

     The Minutes of the meeting held on 14th July 2003 were confirmed as a correct
     record and signed by the Chairman.

2.   DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

     There were no declarations of interest.

3.   MATTERS OF URGENT BUSINESS

     The Chairman agreed to accept the following matters of urgent business:

        Cinema City Capital Programme
         The final application for funding had to be made to the Arts Council by 5th
         September 2003.

        Norfolk Constabulary Premises Improvement Fund Bid Joint Venture with the
         Fire Service
         The Police Authority needed a commitment to the project from the Fire Authority
         in order for it to proceed.

4.   MOTION REFERRED TO CABINET BY FULL COUNCIL – AREA COMMITTEES

     The annexed report (4) by the Head of Democratic Services was received.

     The agenda for the meeting of the County Council on 7th July 2003 included notice
     of a motion relating to Area Committees which was given by Mr. M.V. Castle. The
     motion is set out in full in the report of the Head of Democratic Services.

     Mr. Castle attended the meeting of the Cabinet to speak to his motion. Mr. Castle
     said that he felt that Area Committees helped the decision making of the Authority
     and gave local councillors an opportunity to discuss cross cutting issues at a local
     level.
     He spoke of the benefits of the Great Yarmouth Area Committee and concluded
     that Area Committees enhanced both local democracy and the role of local county
     councillors.

     In response, the Chairman said that Area Committees had a valuable role in the
     urban areas of Great Yarmouth and Norwich, but that rural areas would be better
     served through the development of a system in which the three tiers of local
     government met together with other stakeholders. This was the reason for the
     establishment of Local Strategic Partnerships. The Cabinet agreed with the
     Chairman’s comments.

     RESOLVED –

     That the County Council be informed of the views of the Cabinet:

     (i)    That the motion should not be accepted.

     (ii)   That the current system of Area Committees in Great Yarmouth and Norwich
            and Local Strategic Partnerships elsewhere should continue.

5.   MOTION REFERRED TO CABINET BY FULL COUNCIL – PUBLIC QUESTIONS

     The annexed report (5) by the Head of Democratic Services was received.

     The agenda for the meeting of the County Council on 7th July 2003 included notice
     of a motion relating to public questions which was given by Mrs. B.M. Hacker. The
     motion is set out in full in the report of the Head of Democratic Services.

     Mrs. Hacker attended the meeting of the Cabinet to speak to her motion and said
     that she hoped the Cabinet would support the motion.

     In response, the Chairman said that the public already had adequate opportunity to
     ask questions at the meetings of the Cabinet, Cabinet Scrutiny Committee and
     Review Panels and that there would be nothing to be gained from allowing public
     questions at meetings of the Council. The Cabinet agreed with the Chairman’s
     comments.

     RESOLVED –

     That the County Council be informed of the views of the Cabinet:

     (i)    That the motion should not be accepted.

     (ii)   That the current system of public questions should continue and should not
            be extended to meetings of the County Council.

6.   PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

     The Cabinet had received notice of two public questions from Mr. A. Forder of
     Horsham St. Faith. Mr. Forder was not present at the meeting and, in his absence,
     the Chairman read the following two questions:

     1.     Is there another route the road could take away from Blind Lane?
     2.     How do you envisage to compensate for the property depreciation?
     The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation gave the following response:

     1.    Route options are constrained by the airport boundary. The only alternative
           to the route passing Blind Lane, without involving property demolition, would
           be to follow a route to the north of Horsham St Faiths.

     2.    In Mr. Forder’s case, he could be indirectly affected by the route as it passes
           to the north of the Airport. In this situation, compensation is covered by Part
           1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and claims for compensation for
           depreciation of property value are entitled to be made 12 months after the
           opening of the road.

     The Cabinet Member added that Mr. Forder had also asked a number of other
     questions in a letter to the County Council and a response was being prepared
     which would be sent to him in the next few days.

7.   QUESTION RECEIVED FROM MS. C.M. CAMERON

     Ms. C.M. Cameron asked the Cabinet the following question:

     I was concerned to hear that Norfolk County Council agreed to pay £115,000 to a
     Mr. Thomas Ward as an out of court settlement following allegations that Mr. Ward
     received no education from the age of 14 other than ‘inappropriate home tuition’.

     Could you please explain the implications of the settlement in terms of any potential
     future liabilities?

     Could you also detail the number of under 16’s who have not received full-time
     education for a period of more than one term because they have either been
     excluded from or expelled from school and indicate how many hours of education
     they receive?

     The Chairman gave the following response:

     The claim related to incidents in the early 1990s when the standards and
     procedures in place were very different from current standards. Furthermore the
     claim itself, although heard in the High Court, sets no precedent for the Authority.
     However, as with all claims, whether successful or not, the implications will be
     considered and any lessons to be learnt from the case will be implemented. Full
     details of the case and the background to the settlement are set out in the
     confidential report on today's agenda.

     It would be a lengthy process for the Education Department to review all the
     records relating to under 16 year olds who have been excluded from school since
     the early 1990s. It has been possible, however, to review the education provided to
     those pupils permanently excluded since September 2002. Full details have been
     set out in the report referred to earlier. For confidentiality reasons, it is not
     appropriate to provide details of each case in public. However, the figures can be
     summarised as follows: There have been 58 permanent exclusions since
     September 2002. Of these 10 children did not receive full time education (i.e. 5
     hours supervised education per school day). Each of them has been receiving an
     individual package of provision related to the need to return them to full time
     education in a sustainable way. Again the report sets out the reasoning.
     The duty is on the local education authority to provide suitable education for
     children not necessarily full time education at each stage in each individual case.
     The position has been reached where full time education will be provided in each
     case from September 2003.

     Ms. Cameron then asked the following supplementary question:

     Referring to the comments of the Ombudsman on page 213 of the agenda relating
     to special educational needs, the 2002/03 Best Value Performance Indicators
     relating to school exclusions and the implications of the report at item 30 on the
     agenda, Ms. Cameron asked whether the Administration would agree that these
     presented cause for concern and asked that a full report be made on the measures
     taken to address these problems together with the outcomes likely to be achieved
     in the next six months.

     The Chairman replied that steps were being taken to address the issues raised by
     the Ombudsman. In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Education, the
     Chairman said that he was unable to answer the rest of the question but that Ms.
     Cameron would receive a full written reply.

8.   REPORT OF THE SERVICE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON
     6TH AUGUST 2003

     The annexed report (10) of the Service Development Committee meeting held on
     6th August 2003 was received.

     RESOLVED –

     That approval be given to the termination of the Best Value Reviews of School Staff
     Development and Management of School Buildings and Sites.

9.   SECOND REPORT OF THE CABINET SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORKING
     GROUP ON PASSENGER TRANSPORT

     The annexed report (11) by the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee was received.

     This report was presented by Mr. E.S. Littler who was Chairman of the Cabinet
     Scrutiny Committee Working Group on Passenger Transport.

     Decision

     RESOLVED –

     That the recommendations and action plans contained in the report be approved.

     Reasons for Decision

     The Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the working group as sensible and
     constructive results from a very productive scrutiny exercise.

     Alternative Options Considered

     There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.
10.   2003-2004 REVENUE BUDGET AND CAPITAL PROGRAMME MONITORING

      The annexed report (12) by the Director of Finance was received.

11.   NORFOLK AUDIT SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER
      ENDED 30TH JUNE 2003

      The annexed report (13) by the Director of Finance was received and the overall
      opinion on internal control for the quarter was noted.

12.   NORWICH AREA             TRANSPORTATION           STRATEGY       PROPOSAL         FOR
      CONSULTATION

      The annexed report (14) by the Director of Planning and Transportation was
      received.

      The Chairman said that the Norwich Area Transportation Strategy (NATS) did not
      just affect households in the immediate Norwich area as all residents in Norfolk
      were likely to be affected by it. At the suggestion of the Cabinet Member for
      Planning and Transportation, the Cabinet agreed that all Parish and Town Councils
      in Norfolk should be consulted on the proposed strategy.

      The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation drew attention to bullet point
      5 in Appendix 1 on page 71 of the report which referred to a new park and ride site
      at Drayton/Taverham. He said that inclusion in the Strategy of comments from the
      work done as part of the NATS review was premature as the Cabinet was still
      awaiting a report from the Director of Planning and Transportation on park and ride
      facilities in Norwich. The Cabinet agreed that reference to these comments should
      be deleted from the consultation.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      (i)     That the proposals for consultation be agreed as set out in Appendix 1 to the
              report, subject to the deletion of the comments in bullet point 5 on page 71 of
              the report which are referred to above.

      (ii)    That all Parish and Town Councils in Norfolk be included in the consultation.

      (iii)   That, subject to further discussions with the Joint Highways Agency
              Committee, the work on the ring roads outlined in Appendix 2 to the report
              be added to the Local Transport Plan capital programme for future years,
              subject to funding.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed that the proposals for consultation (as amended) were
      acceptable and that people throughout Norfolk should be asked whether they
      supported the various components in the strategy, asked for their views on whether
      they supported a northern distributor road and, if so, which route option(s) they
      preferred.
      Alternative Options Considered

      There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.

13.   NORWICH NORTHERN DISTRIBUTOR ROAD

      The annexed report (15) by the Director of Planning and Transportation was
      received.

      The Deputy Director of Planning and Transportation drew members’ attention to the
      following amendments to the report:

             Paragraph 5.3, fourth line – amend ‘to the north east of Norwich Airport’ to read
              ‘to the north west of Norwich Airport’.

             Paragraph 5.4, fourth line – amend ‘just north west of Fir Covert Road’ to read
              ‘just north east of Fir Covert Road’.

      The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation said that he believed that the
      whole of the northern distributor road was needed to dual carriageway standard.

      Endorsing the comments made by the Cabinet Member for Planning and
      Transportation, Mr. T. East (Costessey), spoke strongly in favour of the western
      (orange) route adding that one of the benefits of this route was that developer
      funding would be available for the construction of part of the route.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      (i)        That the outline programme be agreed.

      (ii)       That approval be given to the routes shown in Appendix 1 to the report for
                 consultation as part of the Norwich Area Transportation Strategy review.

      (iii)      That the outcomes of the consultation be reported to a future meeting with a
                 view to selecting a preferred route option and standard for further
                 development to planning application stage.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to start public consultation on the route options for a northern
      distributor road as need for the road could be justified objectively on traffic grounds
      which was essential to moving forward the planning and Compulsory Purchase
      Order process.

      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 9 of the
      report.
14.   20 MPH SPEED LIMITS AND ZONES

      The annexed report (16) by the Director of Planning and Transportation was
      received.

      The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation referred to the
      recommendations of the member task and finish group appointed by the Planning,
      Transportation and the Environment, Waste and Economic Development Review
      Panel and proposed that recommendation 5, paragraph 2, third line should be
      amended from ‘when they are provided’ to ‘if they are provided’. Cabinet members
      agreed to this amendment. Mr. Gunson added that the County Council had no
      intention of insisting that 20 mph speed limits should be automatically applied to all
      new residential estates.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      (i)     That future use of 20 mph limits in Norfolk be limited to particular locations
              where this would be appropriate to the road environment/conditions and
              where reasonable compliance could be expected due to the nature/character
              of the road layout.

      (ii)    That 20 mph zones, that is with physical measures, be used where there is a
              need to get speeds down to 20 mph because of the number/nature of
              vulnerable road users using the road. This needs to be on the basis of
              individual circumstances and combined with, for example, the need to
              produce a school travel plan for zones around schools and that the following
              criteria be agreed:

                 It has to be appropriate for a particular location, need and circumstance,
                  for example, on frontages to school/elderly persons home.

                 It should be confined to (vulnerable road user/traffic) conflict points where
                  practicable.

                 In assessing need, there has to be a careful balance between the
                  vulnerable road users and the importance/purpose of the route.

                 The school travel plan approach should be extended to develop solutions
                  with local communities where appropriate.

      (iii)   That the current five area-wide 20 mph trial limits be retained and that there
              be a measured revisit of the pilot schemes to see if some minor
              improvements would improve compliance with 20 mph limits.

      (iv)    That the pilots/monitoring continue on campaigns to improve compliance
              with existing 30 mph speed limits in appropriate locations.

      (v)     That the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation write to the
              appropriate government department asking that it be made possible to use:
                 20 mph part-time advisory signs (this could be on the basis of a pilot in
                  Norfolk)

                 The Traffic Regulation Order process be amended to automatically apply
                  20 mph zone status to new residential estate roads on their adoption as
                  public highway if they are provided as an integral part of a new
                  development designed to restrict traffic speeds to 20 mph or less.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to limit future use of 20 mph speed limits in Norfolk as they
      achieved poor compliance with the limit and improve compliance with existing 30
      mph limits as speed at around 30 mph seemed to be viewed by some drivers as
      acceptable and safe. Current 20 mph trail limits would be retained as constraining
      traffic at this speed reduced the severity of personal injury.

      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 2 of the
      report.

15.   DELIVERING BEST VALUE IN HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE – CODE OF
      PRACTICE FOR MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT – PROGRESS ON REVIEW

      The annexed report (17) by the Director of Planning and Transportation was
      received.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      (i)     That the contents of the report be endorsed.

      (ii)    That the contents of the report be adopted as County Council policy.

      (iii)   That the recommendations in the report be incorporated in the 2003/04
              maintenance plan.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to adopt the principles of the code as best practice within the
      authority.

      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 3 of the
      report.

16.   REVIEW OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY FUNCTION

      The annexed report (18) by the Director of Corporate Resources and Heads of
      Audit and Scrutiny and Democratic Services was received.
      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      (i)    That approval be given to the action plan at Appendix 1 to the report.

      (ii)   That the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee be asked to review progress against
             the plan in April 2004 and report to Cabinet on progress.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to the recommendations and actions arising from the review as
      the best way of progressing the overview and scrutiny function within Norfolk
      County Council.

      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative option outlined in paragraph 5 of the report.

17.   MEMBERS ALLOWANCES – REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT PANEL

      The annexed report (19) by the Head of Democratic Services was received.

      The Chairman referred to paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the Panel’s report which
      included recommendations that provision be made to withhold allowances or to
      require repayment of allowances paid in cases where a member was suspended or
      partially suspended. He believed that where a member had been partially
      suspended, it would be sensible to allow flexibility as to the extent to which an
      allowance should be withheld or repayment required. He proposed that Cabinet
      recommend to Council that the new scheme of allowances should include provision
      for the Standards Committee to decide the level of deduction or repayment in such
      circumstances. The Cabinet agreed accordingly.

      The Chairman drew Cabinet’s attention to paragraph 4.5 of the report and the
      recommendation of the Independent Panel that members of the County Council
      should not be given access to the Local Government Pension Scheme but that it
      was willing to reconsider the issue in two or three years time particularly if it
      became apparent that the arrangements in Norfolk were significantly out of line with
      those in other local authorities.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      That the report of the Independent Panel be referred to the County Council for
      determination and approval, subject to the amendment agreed above.

      Reasons for Decision

      The County Council was required to make a new scheme of allowances in
      accordance with new regulations on or before 30th September 2003.
      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 5 of the
      report.

18.   PROPOSED OBJECTIVE 2/EEDA BID ON BEHALF OF NORFOLK MUSEUMS
      AND ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE AND NORFOLK HERITAGE ORGANISATIONS

      The annexed report (20) by the Head of Museums and Archaeology was received.
      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      That the Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service continue to co-ordinate this
      bid.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to continue this bid as objective 2 provided the opportunity to
      invest in Norfolk’s significant cultural heritage and improve the services and
      facilities for residents and visitors.

      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 8 of the
      report.

19.   CONTRACT STANDING ORDERS

      The annexed report (21) by the Head of Law was received.

      Decision

      RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL –

      That the revised draft Contract Standing Orders be adopted.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to recommend adoption of the revised contract standing orders
      as a result of a review undertaken by the Head of Law.

      Alternative Options Considered

      There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.

20.   CODE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

      The annexed report (22) by the Head of Law and Head of Audit and Scrutiny was
      received.

      Decision
      RESOLVED –

      That approval be given to the updated draft Code of Corporate Governance as set
      out in Appendix A to the report.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed that the introduction of the aspects of the model code not yet in
      place was appropriate.

      Alternative Options Considered

      There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.

21.   EDUCATION ACT 2002 SCHOOL INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT

      The annexed report (23) by the Director of Education was received.

      The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation asked that members be
      given further details of the composition of the different categories of governing
      bodies.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      That the Director of Education be authorised to approve the making of Instruments
      of Government by the governing bodies of maintained schools in Norfolk and their
      sealing by the Head of Law.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to delegate authority for the making of Instruments of
      Government as the most efficient way of dealing with this.

      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative option outlined in the report.

22.   A STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
      LOOKED AFTER

      The annexed report (24) by the Director of Social Services was received.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      (i)   That Ferry Road, West Lynn be declared surplus to requirements subject to
            replacement beds being available.
      (ii)    That the proposal to develop two small units either by identifying and
              refurbishing existing buildings, leasing from a housing association or
              providing through new build be supported, subject to satisfactory funding
              arrangements being put in place.

      (iii)   That the purpose and function of the two medium term units to a more
              specialist function be reviewed.

      (iv)    That the proposal to explore the reprovision of Repton House and an
              additional unit for young people with challenging behaviour jointly with health
              on the Blithemeadow Court site be supported, subject to satisfactory funding
              arrangements being put in place.

      (v)     That the proposal to develop the existing Marshfields building to meet care
              standards be supported and that the further expansion to provide two
              additional beds for children with health or multiple needs continue to be
              negotiated with health.

      (vi)    That the bids for capital funding, where required, to enable the
              implementation of the above proposals be supported. The approvals for
              funding and land transactions will be subject to the appropriate corporate
              approvals procedures.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed these proposals for the provision of residential facilities for
      children looked after in view of the need to improve performance, maintain best
      professional practice and achieve best value.

      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 2 of the
      report.

23.   ANNUAL LETTER FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN

      The annexed report (25) by the Head of Democratic Services was received.

      The Cabinet was informed that the first line of paragraph 2.3 of the report should be
      amended to read ‘The Education Department have confirmed that an officer has
      already been nominated to address performance in this area.’

      The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation suggested that the number of
      complaints made and the number upheld should also be made public together with
      a comparison to the numbers over the last few years.

      The Chairman asked that the annual letters be appended to future reports.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      That the contents of the report be noted and that the public be informed of the
      contents of the annual letter.
      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to make this information available to the public in order to
      inform the public of the progress made with the management of complaints.

      Alternative Options Considered

      There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.

24.   TERMINATION OF THE CAPITA CONTRACT

      The annexed report (26) by the e-Service Director was received.

      RESOLVED –

      That the urgent decision taken by the Leader of the Council and the actions taken
      to put this into effect be noted.

25.   CINEMA CITY CAPITAL PROGRAMME

      The annexed urgent business report by the County Arts Officer was received.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      That approval be given to a contribution of £10,000 as partnership funding towards
      the refurbishment of Cinema City in the current financial year as the second
      instalment of a contribution of £30,000 over three years.

      Reasons for Decision

      The Cabinet agreed to this contribution as Cinema City was an important cultural
      organisation in Norfolk and its refurbishment would enhance and expand the
      services offered.

      Alternative Options Considered

      The Cabinet considered the alternative option outlined in paragraph 4 of the report.

26.   NORFOLK CONSTABULARY PREMISES IMPROVEMENT FUND BID JOINT
      VENTURE WITH THE FIRE SERVICE

      The annexed urgent business report by the Chief Fire Officer and Managing
      Director of NPS Property Consultants Ltd was received.

      Decision

      RESOLVED –

      (i)   That the proposal to develop joint facilities at Long Stratton and Harleston be
            supported in principle, subject to formal approval of the detailed terms.
       (ii)    That the proposal to build a fire station on part of the police service site at
               Downham Market be supported in principle, subject to formal approval of the
               detailed terms.

       (iii)   That the use of part of the savings made in the development of the
               Downham Market fire station to fund the balance of the capital cost for the
               joint ventures at Long Stratton and Harleston be supported in principle on
               the basis that the surplus capital allocation is returned to the general capital
               pot for reallocation.

       Reasons for Decision

       The Cabinet agreed to support the development of these joint facilities in principle
       as they offered an excellent opportunity for joint working with the police service.

       Alternative Options Considered

       The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 5 of the
       report.

27.    EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

       RESOLVED –

       That the public be excluded from the meeting under section 100A of the Local
       Government Act 1972 for the following item of business on the grounds that it
       involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 4 and
       12 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

28.    SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

       The Cabinet received a report, containing exempt information, by the Director of
       Education and the Head of Law which provided details of recent legal proceedings
       initiated against the County Council in relation to special educational needs and set
       out the current position for excluded pupils.

       The Cabinet was informed that the first and second lines of paragraph 4.2 should
       be amended to read ‘all currently permanently excluded’.

       Ms. S.J. Whitaker (Lakenham), queried the figures in paragraph 2.26 of the report
       and raised concerns regarding the child of one of her constituents.

       The Director of Education confirmed that the figures in the report were correct and
       the Chairman advised Ms. Whitaker to raise in confidence the matter relating to her
       constituent with the Director of Education.

       RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

       (The meeting closed at 1.00 pm)



                                         CHAIRMAN
GH/CABINET/MINUTES/030818 MINS

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:11
posted:12/4/2011
language:English
pages:15