Minutes of a meeting held at the Town Hall, Lowestoft by ls723a4r


									                                                                          CABINET – 18/03/10

Minutes of a Meeting held at the Town Hall, Lowestoft                                           3
on Thursday 18 March 2010 at 7.15 pm

Members present:
M Bee (Chair), S Allen, S Ardley, C Law, W Mawer, M Rudd, M Ryland and K Sale

Also in attendance:
Councillors Ritchie & Woods (Scrutiny Sub-Committee Chairmen)

Councillor Widdowson (Vice Chairman of the Audit & Risk Management Committee)

Officers present:
A McFarlane (Director of Resources), A Charvonia (Assistant Chief Executive), S Archer
(Strategic Director), T Brown (Audit Partnership Manager), D Gallagher (Head of Partnership
Management & Procurement) and D Reed (Principal Planner (Planning Policy)

Also present:

Tom Venables of Aecom


       There were no apologies for absence.


       Councillor Allen disclosed a personal interest in Agenda Item – Southwold Harbour Wall
       – Preferred Option on grounds of being a prospective Trustee of the Southwold Harbour
       Lands Trust.

       Councillor Ardley disclosed a personal interest in Agenda Item - Additional Service
       Transfers to Waveney Norse and Amendment of Existing Payroll Arrangements on
       grounds of being a Member of the Waveney Norse Partnership Board.

       Councillor Mawer disclosed a personal interest in Agenda Item – Local Development
       Framework – Lake Lothing And Outer Harbour, Lowestoft - Area Action Plan Further
       Preferred Options on grounds of being a Board Member of First East.

3      MINUTES

          That the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2010 be approved as a correct
          record and signed by the Chairman.


           Subject to the amendment that the word “board” to read “broad”, the Minutes of the
           meeting held on 9 February 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed by the

CABINET – 18/03/10


      a) Overview and Scrutiny committee and its Sub-Committees

          i) Cycling Scrutiny Review (REP436)

      Councillor Woods (Chairman of the Environment & Regeneration Scrutiny Sub-
      Committee) reported that the Sub-Committee had been undertaking a review on ‘how to
      promote cycling as a mode of transport and a leisure activity within Waveney.’

      There was already a Lowestoft Cycle Strategy in place but this was currently being re-
      freshed by Suffolk County Council, who were the responsible authority in relation to the
      Cycle Network, through the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) process. However, there were
      no Cycle Strategies in place for the four market towns within Waveney and limited links
      between them.

      Suffolk County Council would be undertaking widespread consultation on the LTP3
      process as a whole but had also agreed to work closely with the District Council to
      ensure that these higher level strategic plans were fully informed by and took account of
      issues at a District level. The involvement of Parish / Town Councils (who had already
      been consulted) and the various cycling groups in existence across the District would be
      crucial in ensuring these plans address local issues on the ground. Several of the
      recommendations put forward by the Sub-Committee sought to achieve these

      The Sub-Committee had also suggested that a series of workshops be held across the
      District as a means of engaging local communities on cycling issues and the County
      Council had agreed to explore this as part of its consultation process and would work with
      the District Council to promote widespread engagement and community involvement.

      The six recommendations put forward to the Cabinet attempted to address some of the
      priorities areas identified at the outset of this scrutiny review, although it had been
      appreciated that several of the recommendations would need costing before a full formal
      response could be given. However, all of the recommendations could contribute to the
      Council’s revised Strategic Direction and in particular the priorities for:

         The Greenest County
         A Prosperous & Vibrant Economy
         Safe, Healthy and Inclusive Communities.

      The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration referred to the importance of the work being
      undertaken by the Leisure Management Group responsible for the delivery of tourism
      within the District in helping to develop and promote cycling.

      In response to Members’ comments and concerns about improving the cycle network, the
      Portfolio Holder for Environment confirmed that the Suffolk County Council had agreed to
      work more closely with the District Council and on any future consultation that would be
      held within the District on any revised cycle strategy for both Lowestoft and the Market
      Towns. It was widely acknowledged that there needed to be a more joined up approach
      with the relevant agencies to ensure that the network better served the needs of the
      District and a report would be brought back to the Cabinet on the progress being made to
      implement the recommendations.

      1. That the Council liaise more closely with Suffolk County Council on the promotion of
         cycling in Waveney and identifies a key Waveney District Council Member and Officer
         to facilitate improved communications with the County Council, particularly in relation
         to planning and tourism issues and initiatives.

                                                                             CABINET – 18/03/10

    2. That as the local planning authority, the Council be proactive in seeking opportunities
       to promote cycling.

    3. That as a significant land owner, the Council investigate all options for enhancing
       cycling networks on Council owned land.

    4. That as a major employer, the Council champion cycling to work by:

       (a) Taking part in the "Assisted Cycle Purchase Scheme”.

       (b) Supporting and taking an active part in National Bike Week.

       (c) Improving cycle parking facilities and changing facilities for its employees.

    5. That the Council promote Waveney as a centre for cycle based tourism.

    6. That the Council liaise more closely with groups in the District that promote cycling.

    b) The Audit & Risk Management Committee

        i)   Fraud and Corruption Management Strategy

       The Vice Chairman of the Audit & Risk Management presented the Fraud &
       Corruption Management Strategy that had been recommended for adoption by the
       Committee. It would ensure that the Council adhered to best practice with regard to
       administering fraud and corruption issues.

        That the Fraud and Corruption Management Strategy be endorsed.

    c) The Standards Committee

       The Chairman stated that there was none to report.


    The Portfolio Holder for the Environment reported that it had been intended to bring a
    report on the Shoreline Management Plan to the meeting following its withdrawal as an
    item of business at the last meeting of the Cabinet on 11 February 2010 because an
    assessment had first to be made of recent legal advice before the matter could be
    considered. Additional legal information was still awaited so the matter has had to be
    withdrawn again from this agenda. The intention would now be to submit the matter for
    consideration to the Annual Council meeting on 20 May 2010 upon receipt of the relevant
       That consideration of the matter be deferred pending receipt of additional information
       and referred to Annual Council on 20 May 2010 for decision.


    The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration asked the Cabinet to review feedback from
    consultation on a report giving options for works to repair the Southwold Harbour North
    Dock Wall [North Wall] and agree a way forward for the next phase of the project.

    The North Quay wall at Southwold Harbour was in poor condition with an increasing risk
    of failure. It was forecasted to collapse within 10 years with minor failures likely sooner.

CABINET – 18/03/10

      The potential consequences of wall failure were:
         Injury to persons on or below the wall at time of collapse
         Disruption to navigation of the river Blyth,
         Damage to a services.
         Loss of the launching facility of the RNLI base.

      A consultants report presented options for works that would stabilise the wall. None had
      been taken up due to uncertainty over the viability of investment in the harbour structures
      at that time however, public access control measures had been put in place.
      During the Spring of 2009 a worsening of the wall’s condition prompted a review that led
      to a decision to update the 2008 study. The aim had been to identify a repair option that
      would be sustainable in the context of other estuary and shoreline policy plans and within
      the Council’s funding constraints.

      The study produced a preferred scheme that proposed a piled quay over a minority of the
      frontage with a rock slope behind a cut-down original wall over the remainder. There was
      a public consultation on this through February to early March 2010. The findings of a
      public consultations that had subsequently been held revealed that local stakeholders
      were opposed to the scheme.

      The consultation process had resulted in agreement with key stakeholder groups to defer
      a decision on which scheme to proceed to construction pending further investigation of
      additional funding opportunities and a more rigorous assessment of the detailed design
      and cost of the full piled quay option as the preference of stakeholders.

      The shared objective was now to deliver a cost-effective piled quay solution over the full
      North Wall frontage, subject to this being affordable within an overall project budget that
      included a contribution by the Council of £2m.

      Additional information was circulated at the meeting detailing the findings of the

      The Portfolio Holder for Housing reported that the Harbour Trustees were seeking
      funding for £1.6m of work that included the demolition and construction of a new harbour
      master building.

      The Portfolio Holder for the Environment was pleased to hear that the Trustees had now
      assumed a sense of responsibility to raise fund themselves towards the project.

      1. That the tasks defined above as Design Phase 1 be undertaken.

      2. That a sum of £100,000 be allocated from the £2m capital budget allocation to fund
         recommendation 1.

      3. That a Harbour Business Plan jointly with the SHLT be developed.

      4. That the findings of Design Phase 1 and the Harbour Business Plan be considered in
         a joint report prior to approval of further investment.

      5. That the HR Wallingford Option Appraisal study be completed with minimum further

                                                                           CABINET – 18/03/10

    6. That the Council’s Regeneration Team lead the process with local stakeholders,
       including Southwold Harbour Lands Trust, to establish additional funding streams to
       supplement the North Wall repair budget.
    7. That the recommended course of action will increase the period over which the
       Council is exposed to risks associated with wall failure be noted and that a `Reactive
       – Do Minimum’ approach to manage those risks be maintained.


    The Portfolio Holder for the Environment took the opportunity to express his sadness at
    the recent death of Alan Gilmour. Alan had been respected member of the Waste
    Management team and he wished to express his deepest sympathy to his family for their
    loss and his thoughts along with the rest of the Cabinet were with them at this difficult
    Consideration was given as to whether to enter into a long term Inter Authority
    Agreement (IAA) in relation to the delivery of waste services across Suffolk as part of the
    Suffolk Waste Partnership (SWP). The IAA would supersede the SWP Memorandum of
    Understanding (MoU) which had previously been agreed by all parties in 2007 and would
    be a binding contract between the Waste Collection Authorities (WCA’s), the County
    District Council’s and Waste Disposal Authorities (WDA, Suffolk County Council) for 25
    It included a commitment to reduce, reuse, recycle and composite as much material as
    possible in order to achieve the 60% countywide target and it was estimated that this
    target would be attained within 2 or 3 years as new schemes were implemented and new
    facilities for commercial waste were opened up.
    The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Customer Access took the opportunity of
    pointing out that it was the public that had helped to make the scheme a success.
       That an Inter Authority Agreement for waste services be approved and adopted and
       the Director of Resources be authorised to enter into the IAA on behalf of Waveney
       District Council following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for the Environment
       and the Assistant Chief Executive.


    The Portfolio Holder for Health & Well Being presented a proposal for a one year Service
    Level Agreement (SLA) with North East Suffolk Citizen Advice Bureau and a course of
    action for the remaining SLA.
    It was reported that after 2010/11 further SLA’s would be on a procurement and
    tendering contract.

    The SLA between NESCAB and the Council was due to expire on 31st March 2010.
    Funding of £86,572 had been allocated to NESCAB as a contribution towards the Core
    Services. An informal arrangement was provided by NESCAB to assist in data collection
    required by Revenue and Benefits. Non Discretionary Rate Relief was also awarded to
    NESCAB. It was expected a formal lease would be signed by NESCAB for the Gordon
    Road building, Lowestoft in the near future.

    The one year extension to the SLA, allowed the Council to continue discussions with
    Suffolk County Council to negotiate a three way SLA with them and NESCAB. This
    would be in line with other District Councils within the Suffolk County region.
    It was intended to review the remainder of the SLAs in the final and third year of their
    Agreement in terms of current economic climate and the Suffolk Compact Code of

CABINET – 18/03/10

      1. That a one year Service Level Agreement with NESCAB, up to 31st March 2011, be
      2. That a further report on the remaining SLA’s, as outlined in Appendix A which were in
         the third and final year of their agreements be presented to the Cabinet for
         consideration to a future meeting.



      The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration provided an update on progress on the Area Action
      Plan (‘AAP’) that had been delayed until the adoption of the Core Strategy. Additionally,
      the Cabinet considered whether to broadly endorse the further preferred options for
      public consultation relating to the AAP.
      Before handing over to the consultants, she highlighted how significant the proposal
      would be economically for the District as it represented a major economic redevelopment
      initiative to open up the waterfront at Lake Lothing, Lowestoft to regenerate this area.
      Aecom had been awarded the contract to take the AAP through to adoption with the
      consultation stages, formal submission for examination and adoption being managed by
      the District Council. The Cabinet was introduced to Tom Venables, from the Council’s
      appointed planning and design consultancy, Aecom who proceeded to elaborate on the
      various aspects of planning work that they had covered and would be carrying out.
      A gap analysis had been undertaken to review the evidence base that 1st East and the
      Council had completed since January 2007, to encapsulate changing circumstances and
      identify gaps in the evidence base. As the appointed planning consultants, they had also
      reviewed the previous preferred options consultation responses and Appendix A to the
      report provided a summary of the responses and recommendations for the AAP.
      Cabinet was advised that since the Preferred Options Consultation in 2007 there had
      been significant changes in the context in which the AAP would be taken forward both in
      terms of planning regulations, flood risk, the adoption of other plans and strategies and
      the changing economic conditions. This had included the mothballing of Waveney
      Campus project. He referred to a number of strategic site proposals including the
      redevelopment of Peto Square; the development of Kirkley Waterfront; mix use
      development within Brook Peninsula; a Powerpark to create 1000 new jobs in the energy
      sector; the potential for residential/employment extension to Kirkley neighbourhood
      centre and a East of England Park. The timetable for the adoption of the Further
      Preferred Options for the Lake Lothing and Outer Harbour AAP was also outlined.

      A further consultation was considered to be an appropriate and necessary stage in the
      preparation of AAP. It is proposed that consultation take place for a 6 week period from
      23 April to 4 June 2010.

      The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration informed the Cabinet that the Local Development
      Framework Working Group would continue to oversee the preparation of the AAP
      throughout the process and at appropriate stages reports would be presented to the
      Cabinet and the Council. It was reported that since the publication of the report the LDF
      Working Party at its meeting held on 10 March 2010 had made further changes to the
      document, the details of which were circulated at the meeting. The Planning Inspector
      would examine the documentation and the soundness of the process before the report
      was published with the aim of adopting the Plan in July 2011.


                                                                               CABINET – 18/03/10

     In response to a question by Councillor Shepherd, the Leader of the Council advised that
     the third river crossing could only be an aspiration as it was beyond the scope of the AAP
     document. He added that only the Highways Authority had the powers to make a
     decision about a Third Crossing and there was no funding for its construction. The
     Cabinet supported the principle of the third crossing but it was fully appreciated how
     critical issues it was to only include issues that were material to AAP. The third crossing
     could not therefore form part of the documentation.

     The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration stated that First East was financing an economic
     viability study for the crossing and that might highlight the need for a crossing.
     It was confirmed that a developer had expressed an interest in acquiring land at Brooke
     Peninsular but no business could move onto the site until such time as the AAP had been
     adopted by the Council . Supplementary information to help clarify the position with
     regard to the Third Vehicular Crossing proposal within the revised Preferred Options AP
     were also circulated.

     The Chairman thanked Tom Venables for his attendance and the Principal Planner
     (Planning Policy) and First East for all their hard work.
     1. That, taking into account the response to the Preferred Options 2007, the policies and
        strategic sites set down in the Further Preferred Options for the Lake Lothing and
        Outer Harbour AAP be broadly endorsed for 6 weeks consultation.
     2. That the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration be delegated authority, in conjunction with
        the LDF Working Group, to agree any further changes required prior to consultation,
        that do not affect the broad direction of the policies and strategic sites.


     The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Performance presented the third Quarter
     Performance Monitoring report to enable the Cabinet to address any performance issues.

     The Council focused on under performance and took appropriate action to improve or
     confirm that where particular indicators were not in a priority area that it was satisfied with
     performance at a lower level.

     There were 23 indicators to be reported in the 3rd quarter as detailed in Appendix A to the
     report. They were a mixture of the new National Indicators and some of the old Best
     Value Indicators.

     Red Indicators
     NI196 – Improved street and environmental cleanliness (fly tipping).

     The recommendations from the Board had included the provision of signage at known
     hotspots, promotion of a confidential telephone line to inform when witnessing incidents
     of Fly Tipping and publicity about enforcement action over the Christmas Period to deter
     Improvements to the number of enforcements (incident ticketing scheme), and the
     accuracy and completeness of recording and reporting of these follow-up actions. This
     should potentially improve the annual score by 1 April 2010. The Cabinet concurred that
     as such improvements were currently being implemented it would not be necessary for
     this indicator to be called into the Performance Challenge Board.

     Amber indicators
     NI192 – Percentage of household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting.
     NI193 – Municipal waste landfilled.

     There had been a decrease in the amount of household waste that was reused, recycled
     or composted turning the indicator amber. Given that NII193 “Municipal waste land filled”
     had increased this was a concern. The explanation given that the reduction in NI192 was

CABINET – 18/03/10

      due to the “recession-led reduction in consumables”, needed to be further explored as
      high-streets had reported brisk Christmas trading.

      BV 9 – Percentage of council tax collected by WDC in the year.
      The cumulative collection was lower. The Cabinet noted the explanations given for this
      and the actions that were being taken to clear the backlog. It was noted that the Head of
      Service Revenues, Benefits & Tenant Services was well aware of the issues surrounding
      the performance of this indicator and concurred that it would not be necessary for this
      indicator to be called-into the Performance Challenge Board.

      BV10 – Percentage of non-domestic rates collected.

      The cumulative collection was down but as the Head of Service was well aware of the
      issues surrounding the performance of this indicator, it was felt that it would not be
      necessary for this indicator to be called-in to the Performance Challenge Board.

      BV156 – Percentage of WDC buildings open to the public in which all public areas
      are suitable for, and accessible to, disabled people.

      This indicator was called before the Performance Challenge Board earlier this year as a
      result of which an alternative Local indicator was proposed meeting the needs of the
      Council. The work for this was currently on-going and it was recommended that this need
      not to be brought before the Board again.

      Cabinet was referred to an error in the table in section 2.8. In the far right column “Green”
      and “Q3” The environment row should read 5 not 2 and the total at the bottom of that
      column should read 17 not 14. This meant that when you added up all the Q3 totals they
      add up to 23.

      Overall, the Deputy Leader & Portfolio Holder for Customer Access felt that when all
      issues were considered including the Global economy downturn it was encouraging to
      see that the Council was successfully delivering improvements against priorities.

      Cabinet was referred to the financial performance summary for the 3rd Quarter, which
      was attached at Appendix D to the report.

      A gapping analysis and an action plan relating data quality had been prepared. A Data
      Quality Strategy and a Data Quality Policy would be considered as a separate item on
      the agenda.

      The key initiatives undertaken relating to risk management were detailed within the report

      Cabinet noted the customer complaints updated which was attached as Appendix E to
      the report.

      Cabinet also noted the Customer Service Performance report which was attached as
      Appendix F to the report which was a new item for the performance report. This would
      continue to be reported quarterly.

      The Deputy Leader & Portfolio Holder for Customer Access informed the Cabinet that
      due to priority being placed on the Access to Services and Use of Resources inspections
      the Improvement Plan would be updated and presented with the Fourth Quarter report.

          That NI192 and NI193 be called into the Performance Challenge Board.


      Members received a report in order to decide whether to sign up to ‘the Backing young
      Britain’ initiative as presented by the Deputy Leader & Portfolio Holder for Customer

                                                                             CABINET – 18/03/10

     If the Council formally registered the work that it was doing it would contribute towards at
     least two of the Council’s new priority outcomes. Adopting ‘Backing Young Britain’ would
     bring a renewed focus and act to draw together all of the various activity that had already
     taking place in relation to young people and employment.
         That the ‘Backing Young Britain’ Campaign be signed and the Council register its
         support online on the Backing Young Britain Website.


     Cabinet considered whether to approve the New Data Quality (DQ) Strategy and the
     revised Data Quality (DQ) Policy to ensure that the highest standards of data quality were
     used throughout all departments of the Council.
     That the Council’s New DQ Strategy and Revised DQ Policy be approved.


     The Deputy Leader & Portfolio Holder for Customer Access asked the Cabinet to agree
     to an application being made for accreditation to the Community Safety Accreditation
     Scheme in partnership with Waveney Norse.
     It would further strengthen partnership working with Suffolk Constabulary and Waveney
     Norse, raise the profile of the Council’s involvement within local communities on its
     commitment to Community Safety and contribute towards making people feel safer in the
     area in which they lived.

         That the Council jointly apply with Waveney Norse for accreditation to the Suffolk
         Constabulary Community Safety Accreditation Scheme.


        That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the
        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
        Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.


     The Committee considered a report which sought authority to transfer additional services
     to Waveney Norse.

     The Cabinet agreed to adopt the recommendations of the Overview & Scrutiny
     Committee of 4 March 2010 to transfer some additional services to Waveney Norse and
     for delegated authority to be given to the Head of Partnership Management and
     Procurement to agree the business case and subsequent transfers, following discussions
     in each case with the Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, the Director of Resources
     and approval of the Waveney Norse Partnership Board.

     The recommendations also included a proposed amendments to the existing Payroll
     contract that was unrelated to any Waveney Norse Partnership arrangements. This
     proposal was also agreed but had not been given prior consideration by the Overview &
     Scrutiny Committee.

CABINET – 18/03/10

The meeting was concluded at 9.40 pm



To top