; THE CABINET
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

THE CABINET

VIEWS: 98 PAGES: 14

  • pg 1
									                                   THE CABINET

                               14th September 2009

      PRESENT: Councillor Taylor (in the Chair), Councillors Ali, Brophy-Lee,
Couzens, Irene Davidson, Ted Flynn, Maguire, Mulgrew, Sharif and Thirsk.

        OFFICERS: J. Patterson (Executive Director), P. Smith (Executive Director),
A. Zuntz (Executive Director), L. Fisher (Borough Solicitor), P. Rowlinson (Head of
Planning & Regulation Services), D. Forrester (Head of Highways & Engineering
Service), S. Harper (Head of People Management Service), P. Cunningham (Head of
Environmental Management Service), P. Kane (Finance Services), J. Myers and
S. Williams (Adult Care Service), P. Simpson (Planning & Regulation Service),
C. Gallagher (Regeneration Service, N. Riggs (Property Services) and M. Hardman
(Legal & Democratic Services).

Also in attendance: Councillors R. Clegg, Emmott, Lambert, Linden and Rush.

Apologies for Absence: None.

VARIATION IN ORDER
58.     The Chair indicated that Mr. F. Dixon would be permitted to address the
Cabinet in the public agenda in respect of matters relating to agenda item PH1
(Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Water Charges Review) as contained on the
private agenda at the conclusion of public business

The Chair further indicated that agenda items F1, F2, F5 and J2 would be considered
following consideration of submitted minutes.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
59.    In accordance with the Code of Conduct for Councillors and Voting Co-opted
Members, Councillor Taylor declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda
item PB2 (Savings Proposals 2009/10 – 2010/11) insofar as that item related to
saving proposal V1 as identified within the submitted report. Councillor Taylor
vacated the Chair and left the room for consideration of that proposal.

Councillors Brophy-Lee and Mulgrew declared personal and prejudicial interests in
respect of the issues raised by Mr. F. Dixon relating to water charges. Councillors
Brophy-Lee and Mulgrew left the meeting for the consideration of that part of the
meeting.

MINUTES
60.  DECIDED – That the Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 13th
     July, 23rd July and 20th August 2009 be approved.

HEALTH AND SAFETY ENFORCEMENT SERVICE PLAN
61.     The Head of Planning & Regulation Services (CAB.99/09) presented the
Council’s Health and Safety Enforcement Service Plan for 2009/10, identifying
variations from the 2008/09 Service Plan, and providing details of areas for
improvement.

The recommendations were presented to enable the Council to carry out its statutory
duties in respect of health and safety enforcement.
                                                                                       Eligible
Alternatives considered: None, as the production of a Health and Safety Service Plan   for
was required to meet the requirements of the mandatory guidance issued to local        Call-in
authorities by the Health and Safety Executive using its powers under Section 18 of
the Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974.                                           No –
                                                                                        Policy
       DECIDED – That the Health and Safety Enforcement Service Plan for                framework
       2009/10, as contained within the Environmental Health Work Places                item.
       Action Plan 2009-10, be approved and recommended to Council for
       formal adoption.

FOOD SERVICE PLAN
62.    The Head of Planning & Regulation Services (CAB.100/09) presented the
Council’s Food Service Plan for 2009/10, identifying variations from the 2008/09
Service Plan, and providing details of areas for improvement. Authorisation for the
Council’s Food Examiner and Public Analyst was also sought.

The recommendations were presented to allow the Council to carry out its statutory
duties in respect of food safety and food standards and to meet “The Standard” as
detailed in the Food Standards Agency Framework Agreement on Local Authorities’
Food Law Enforcement.

Alternatives considered: None.

       DECIDED – That (1) the Food Service Plan for 2009/10, as appended to            No – Policy
                                                                                       Framework
       the submitted report, be approved and recommended to the Council for
                                                                                       item.
       formal adoption;
                        (2) the actions as identified within Paragraphs 9.3 to
       9.14 of the submitted report be approved;
                        (3) the Health Protection Agency: Food, Water and
       Environmental Microbiology Network (Preston Laboratory) and
       Staffordshire County Council Scientific Services be confirmed as the
       Council’s Food Examiner and Public Analyst respectively.

GREATER MANCHESTER JOINT MINERALS DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DOCUMENT
63.     The Head of Planning & Regulation Services (CAB.103/09) sought approval
in principle to prepare a Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Development Plan
Document and to set in place the governance arrangements for producing the joint
document. These proposed arrangements were broadly similar to those currently
governing the production of the Greater Manchester Joint Waste Development Plan
Document.

The recommendation was presented to agree the production of joint plan, to ensure
proper governance arrangements, to agree a legal agreement between the Districts
on the procedural and decision making process, to agree the Council’s
representative on the Joint Committee and to agree the publication of the programme
for its preparation as an amendment to the Local Development Scheme so that a
formal start could be made.

Alternatives considered: Failure to progress a Greater Manchester Joint Minerals
Development Plan Document risked delaying the production of the Core Strategy
because adequate strategic minerals policies would otherwise need to be developed
as part of the work of the Core Strategy and a supporting evidence base would need
to be developed to support them. Alternatively, a separate plan for minerals would
need to be prepared by the Council for its own area at greater expense, requiring a
greater staff resource which would also delay the Core Strategy. Without a
commitment to developing minerals policies within or outside of the Core Strategy,
the Core Strategy could potentially be found to be unsound at public examination,
requiring certain steps in the Core Strategy production process to be repeated which
would result in delay and increase costs to the Council. The lack of an up to date
Minerals Policy Framework might also lead to protracted public inquiries on individual
sites or proposals for minerals working that could come forward in the future.

       DECIDED – That (1) the production of a Greater Manchester Joint
       Minerals Development Document be approved;
                         (2) responsibility for all stages in the production of the
       Development Plan Document, other than publication/submission and
       adoption which would remain the responsibility of the Council, be
       delegated to either a Joint Committee comprising all the local
       authorities in Greater Manchester or to AGMA as the appropriate Joint
       Committee for the purposes of preparing a joint Minerals Plan;
                         (3) it be noted that an Agreement already exists that
       may establish AGMA as a Joint Committee for such purpose, and that
       the terms of reference governing the establishment and operation of
       this Joint Committee would be prepared;
                         (4) the Chief Executive be authorised to sign any
       Agreement that may be necessary on behalf of the Council for the
       establishment of joint arrangements as detailed in resolution (2) above;
                         (5) the Cabinet Member for Environment and
       Sustainability and a further Cabinet Member to be identified as deputy            No –
       be appointed as the Council’s representative on a Joint Committee;                policy
                         (6) an amendment to Rochdale’s Local Development                framework
       Scheme be made and published to include reference to the production               item.
       of the Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Development Plan Document
       and the agreed presentation timetable, as detailed within the appendix
       to the submitted report;
                         (7) the Council be recommended to concur.

ROCHDALE TOWN CENTRE MASTERPLAN
64.     The Head of Regeneration Service (CAB.108/09) advised that work on a
Regeneration Masterplan for Rochdale Town Centre had produced a final draft
report. The approval of the Cabinet to the Plan was sought.

The recommendation was presented as Rochdale Town Centre held regional
economic significance but was not managing to compete effectively with other town
centres in the region. Plans for regeneration of the eastern quadrant of the Town
Centre were well advanced and, when implemented, would improve Rochdale’s
ability to compete with neighbouring town centres in terms of retail performance,
employment prospects, image and reputation. It was considered an opportune time
to consider how the rest of the Town Centre could take advantage of the fundamental
changes planned and how the Council and partners could work together to ensure
significant improvements were made.

Alternatives considered: failure to undertake the production of a Masterplan could
mean that the Town Centre’s economic performance would not improve to the level
that the Council required.

It was proposed that the Town Centre Masterplan be forwarded to the Heywood,
Middleton and Pennines Township Committees for comment given the significance of
Rochdale Town Centre to the Borough as a regional centre. The Head of Planning &
Regulation Services further advised that the Rochdale Town Centre Masterplan
could be used as a source document for future planned Supplementary Planning
Documents for the Heywood and Middleton Town Centre areas.

In view of the significance of the development, it was proposed that a formal
consultation programme on the Rochdale Town Centre Masterplan document be
compiled.

       DECIDED – That (1) the draft Rochdale Town Centre Masterplan be
                                                                                        Yes
       approved;
                         (2) the Masterplan document be referred to the
       Heywood, Middleton and Pennines Township Committees for comment
       given the importance of the Rochdale Town Centre to the Borough as an
       area of regional significance;
                         (3) the Executive Director in consultation with the
       Cabinet Member for Regeneration develop a formal consultation
       programme on the Masterplan document and report back to the Cabinet
       with a formal process.

RESIDENTS PARKING PERMIT SCHEME – HOLLINGWORTH LAKE
65.     The Cabinet received Minute 28(a) of the meeting of the Pennines Township
Committee held on 7th July 2009 requesting the Cabinet to review the Council Policy
on the implementation of requests for Residents Parking Permit Schemes, the
current arrangement stipulating the proposed schemes should normally be supported
by at least 75% of the affected residents prior to such schemes being introduced.

Councillor Davidson advised that the Pennines Township Committee meeting on 8th
September 2009 had been content with actions being taken by Officers on this matter
and believed that the Committee held powers under the devolution process to
determine this matter. As such, it was suggested that a review of the policy was not
now required at this time.
                                                                                        Yes
       DECIDED – That the item be noted.

FINANCIAL UPDATE 2009/10
66.    The Head of Finance Services (CAB.96/09) updated Members on the
Council’s current financial position for 2009/10.

The recommendations were presented to update the Cabinet on the Council’s
financial position and to enable decision making and early action, where appropriate,
in respect of that position to be taken. Effective financial management was essential
if the Council was to keep spending within available resources and it was vital that
Services made adjustments in spending to ensure that they spent in line with the
approved budget.

Alternatives considered: to not report on financial management put at risk the
achievement of the Authority’s medium term financial plan. Good budget
management was critical to ensuring financial resources were spent in line with the
budget and were targeted towards the Council’s policies. Monitoring enabled the
early identification of variations against the plan and facilitated timely corrective
action.

       DECIDED – That (1) the projected revenue budget position for 2009/10
       be noted;
                         (2) those Services experiencing budget risks greater
       than £150,000 after the approval of the efficiency savings being                   Yes
       considered elsewhere at this meeting produce Service specific plans to
       address those projected risk areas and bring spending in line to an
       appropriate level.

BUDGET 2010/11 TO 2012/13 – GUIDELINES AND TIMETABLE
67.    The Executive Director (Transformation) and the Head of Finance Services
(CAB.97/09) recommended budget guidelines and a timetable to be used in
preparing the detailed 2010/11 budget and provisional budgets for 2011/12 and
2012/13.

The recommendations were presented to gain approval to a timetable and planning
process for the setting of the budget and provisional budgets for the period 2010 to
2013.

Alternatives considered: The Council was legally obliged to set a balanced budget.
The budget setting process was complex and must be undertaken in a planned way;
as such it was important that assumptions used in the preparation of the budget were
agreed, reasonable and consistently applied by all services.

       DECIDED – That (1) the proposed budget timetable as detailed at
       Appendix 1 to the submitted report be approved;                                 No – Policy
                        (2) the assumptions detailed in Paragraph 6 be                 framework
       incorporated into the budget setting process;                                   item, and
                        (3) the budget principles referred to in Paragraph 6.4         item referred
                                                                                       to Policy
       be approved;
                                                                                       Overview
                        (4) the updated budget position for 2010/11 and                Committee.
       2011/12 be noted.

NEWBOLD BUILDINGS, OLDHAM ROAD, ROCHDALE
68.   The Operational Director, Property Services (CAB.98/09) sought approval for
accommodation arrangements for the Bond Board and the Home Improvement
Agency.

The recommendations were presented in order to relieve overcrowding on Floor 2 of
Municipal Offices and to provide accommodation for the additional staff of the Bond
Board and the Home Improvement Agency.

Alternatives considered: The Home Improvement Agency could not occupy Council
accommodation because of conditions attached to its funding. There were no
surplus Council buildings which could accommodate the Service and other premises
considered were not suitable or had excessive adaptation costs.

       DECIDED – That (1) the Council take a sub-lease of the ground and first
       floor of Newbold Buildings for one year from the Shaw Trust;                       Yes
                        (2) the Council grant the Bond Board a sub-lease of the
       ground floor area of Newbold Buildings.

JOINT MAJOR SCHEME FOR HIGHWAY RETAINING WALLS MAINTENANCE
69.    The Head of Highways & Engineering Service (CAB.101/09) sought approval
of expenditure of the Council’s share of a joint Retaining Wall Refurbishment Scheme
using monies allocated to Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside and Stockport Councils from
the Department for Transport (DfT).
The recommendations were presented as, working jointly with Oldham, Tameside
and Stockport Metropolitan Councils, approval had been received from the DfT of
£45 million for a programme of maintenance works on highway retaining walls, the
programme being needed to address a backlog of safety related maintenance and
strengthening works. Full approval had been received for most of the schemes in the
Rochdale Borough and provisional approval granted for the remainder. The
Council’s share was approximately £7.5 million over three years for 17 schemes, of
which 10% had to be provided by the Council: it was acceptable for this contribution
to be taken from the Council’s Local Transport Plan (LTP) Capital Allocation over this
period.

Alternatives considered: Alternatives to the scheme had been robustly addressed as
part of the Major Scheme Business Case that had been approved. Work to repair
retaining walls had been identified and would need to be done at some point. If the
bid was not submitted or not successful, the work would have to be programmed
within the annual LTP allocation for bridges and highways structures, and these
schemes would have to be prioritised with all the other necessary bridge works. It
could therefore take many years to tackle retaining walls by which time they would
have experienced further deterioration.

       DECIDED – That (1) the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council share
       of the Joint Retaining Wall Refurbishment Major Scheme be approved in
       accordance with Financial Regulation 12;
                          (2) the 10% Council contribution for this work be
       approved from the Local Transport Plan (LTP) Capital Programme over
       the three year life of the programme;
                          (3) a joint notice in the Official Journal of the European     Yes
       Union (OJEU) to cover procurement of work in Rochdale and Oldham be
       prepared.

LOCAL ACCESS FORUMS
70.      The Head of Environmental Management Service (CAB.102/09)
recommended withdrawal from the current joint arrangements for the Greater
Manchester Pennine Fringe Local Access Forum (LAF) and the adoption of a new
joint arrangement with Oldham and Tameside Councils.

The recommendation was presented as the current LAF was largely ineffective,
seldom quorate and did not perform its statutory functions to the satisfaction of the
appointing authorities.

Alternatives considered: To continue with the present arrangements for the LAF were
not considered satisfactory. To act as a single appointing authority for a Rochdale
only LAF would leave the Council acting in isolation. To enter into a new joint
arrangement would enable the retention of important strategic roles in respect of
public rights of way, access lands and national trails.

       DECIDED – That (1) the Council withdraw from the current joint
       arrangement regarding the Greater Manchester Pennine Fringe Local
       Access Forum (LAF) and appoint a new LAF under joint arrangements
       with Oldham and Tameside Metropolitan Borough Councils;
                         (2) the Head of Environmental Management Service, in            Yes
       consultation with the Head of Finance Services, agree with the
       appropriate Service Heads from Oldham and Tameside Metropolitan
       Councils which Council would take responsibility for the secretariat and
       location of the new LAF.
DOMESTIC WASTE RECYCLING INTERIM STRATEGIC PLAN 2009-11
71.   The Head of Environmental Management Service (CAB.104/09) presented
proposals to enable the Council to achieve its commitment of a recycling rate of 50%
by 2011/11 and to be the best performing local authority in Greater Manchester.

The recommendations were presented as, while Rochdale was now the most
improved authority for recycling performance in Greater Manchester, this
improvement must be maintained in order to achieve government recycling targets
and the Council aim of being the best recycling authority in Greater Manchester.
Residual waste per household was an indicator within the new Local Area Agreement
and through the Local Strategic Partnership was identified as a key priority for
improvement. The Waste Strategy would be the mechanism and the delivery plan for
this indicator. European and Government legislation had set national domestic
recycling targets rates for governments to achieve, and each local authority had been
set a recycling rate to be achieved; for Rochdale MBC this was 40% by 2011. The
Council had adopted a commitment to achieve a recycling rate of 50% by 2011/12.

Alternatives considered: the Council could decide not to approve the initiatives to
improve the domestic recycling service as a priority service within the Council. If so,
there would be significant financial implications for failing to reduce the waste
destined for landfill as landfill tax of a minimum £150 per tonne of waste would be
incurred, with the likelihood of these taxes increasing further in the future. In
addition, legislation required authorities to reduce the amount of bio-degradable
waste sent to landfill. In order to ensure authorities complied with landfill regulations,
with effect from 1st April 2005 each authority was given the maximum tonnage of bio-
degradable waste that could be sent to landfill and taxes were imposed on tonnages
in excess of the limit set. This figure was likely to increase in the future.

       DECIDED – That (1) it be noted that domestic recycling continued to be
       a high priority service and additional resources would be required to
       continue to meet the national recycling targets;
                         (2) the proposals contained within Paragraph 6 to the
       submitted report to increase recycling to 50% by 2011/12 with the aim to
       become the best recycling authority within Greater Manchester be
       approved;
                         (3) the additional funding outlined in Table 2 to the
       submitted report for the proposals be agreed from the Investment Pot, it
       being agreed that savings on the Waste Disposal Levy arising from
       increased recycling following the introduction of the Waste Strategy are
       ring-fenced to reduce these additional costs, with any relevant
       allocation being returned to the Investment Pot;
                         (4) it be noted that the new disposal contract for
       Greater Manchester Waste with Viridor Laing, while now in place, would
       not have the new disposal facilities to be sited at Waithlands available
       until late 2009;
                         (5) the importance that domestic recycling has in
       relation to the Comprehensive Area Assessment be noted;
                         (6) it be noted that failure to meet increasingly
       challenging domestic recycling rates would result in Government
       intervention measures being instigated in terms of the management of
                                                                                             Yes
       the Waste Service;
                         (7) the financial penalties that would be incurred as a
       result of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme for authorities that
       exceed the landfill tonnage allowances set be noted;
                       (8) the negative environmental impacts that landfill has
       on climate change be noted.

BULKY REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE
72.    The Head of Environmental Management Service (CAB.105/09) sought
approval of additional expenditure to meet the costs of the Bulky Refuse Collection
Service.

The recommendation was presented due to the large number of requests being
received following the introduction of the current Free Bulky Service. Additional costs
being incurred by the Environmental Management Service could not be sustained.
The Service had explored the possibility of financing the delivery of the Service from
existing budgets but, as reported elsewhere, the Service was working to mitigate
significant budget pressures in other areas.

Alternatives considered: alternate approaches to the Bulky Refuse Collection Service
and the addressing of financial matters were detailed within the submitted report.

       DECIDED – That the Waste Services base budget for 2009/10 be                       Yes
       increased by an allocation in 2009/10 of £205,900 from the Investment
       Pot, with the ongoing budgetary position being reviewed as part of the
       budget setting process for 2010/11.

TRANSPORT GOVERNANCE
73.     The Executive Director (CAB.106/09) reported on the consultation process for
the future arrangements for Transport Governance in Greater Manchester and
sought approval to the proposed method of response in relation to the proposed
arrangements for the review to the consultation document.

The recommendation was presented as the Council was required to provide a
response to the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority by 30th
September 2009.

Alternatives considered: not applicable.

       DECIDED – That (1) the report be noted;
                        (2) responsibility for responding to the proposed
                                                                                          Yes
       arrangements for the review and to the consultation document be
       delegated to the Chief Executive after consultation for Leader and
       Deputy Leader of the Council.

NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES SUCCESSION STRATEGY
74.    The Heywood Township Manager (CAB.107/09) outlined matters needing
consideration to drafting the New Heart for Heywood (NDC) Succession Strategy and
sought approval of the submission document to be delegated to the Chief Executive
in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

The recommendation was presented to enable the agreement to the NDC
Succession Strategy being signed by the Chief Executive on behalf of Rochdale
Metropolitan Borough Council.

Alternatives considered: none, as the Department for Communities and Local
Government required the Heywood NDC to consider their Succession Strategy and
for the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Chief Executive to a signatory to the
submission document.
The Executive Director reported on the background to the development of the
Succession Strategy and of consideration given to this matter by the Heywood
Township Committee.

       DECIDED – That (1) the proposals for compiling the New Deal for
                                                                                                Yes
       Communities (NDC) Succession Strategy be noted;
                        (2) authority to sign off the completed NDC Succession
       Strategy be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the
       Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

KEY DECISIONS – AGMA EXECUTIVE BOARD
75.  The Chief Executive (CAB.109/09) reported on the decisions made by the                   No –
AGMA Executive Board at meetings held on 26th June and 31st July 2009.                        Information
                                                                                              item.
       DECIDED – That the report be noted.

WATER CHARGES
76.     Mr. F. Dixon was permitted to address the Cabinet in relation to matters
arising from a contract entered into by the Authority with United Utilities PLC to
collect water charges from Council tenants as part of their gross rent.

Mr. Dixon was thanked for his presentation to the Cabinet.

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
77.  DECIDED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting
     during consideration of the following items of business since it is likely in
     view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the
     proceedings that if members of the public were present there would be
     disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Part 1, Schedule
     12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, namely information
     relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person
     (including the Authority holding that information) (Minutes 79, 80, 81, 84
     and 87); information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or
     contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour
     relations matter arising between the Authority or a Minister of the Crown
     and employees of, or Office Holders under, the Authority (Minutes 79, 80,
     83 and 86 refers); and information which was likely to reveal the identity of
     an individual (Minute 86 refers).

EFFICIENCY PROGRAMME
78.     The Executive Director (Transformation) (EP2/09P) sought approval of the
Efficiency Programme.

The recommendation was presented as the Council faced a significant efficiency
challenge over the next five years, with an accumulative efficiency requirement in
excess of £100 million. In addition, the Council also needed to transform the way it
delivered services to the citizens of Rochdale: low satisfaction scores only reflected this
in part, with a combination of recession and growing citizen expectancy, together with
the prospect of radically reduced central funding, suggesting that resident satisfaction
would fall further unless something was done differently. The recommendations within
the submitted report had been considered by the Efficiency Programme Committee
meeting on 3rd September 2009 and had been recommended to the Cabinet for
approval.
Alternatives considered: the alternative to undertaking the Efficiency Programme was
for the Council to continue delivery of “more of the same”. This would not be
sustainable, deliver the increased efficiency challenge or address the increasing
requirement on the Council to deliver value for money. Services could be asked to
reduce their budgets year on year in the traditional manner. Although an exercise
recently carried out had been successful, this would not be sustainable in successive
years without a detrimental impact on front line services. It was not considered viable
therefore to maintain the status quo and, for the Council to be in a position to decide on
how it may want to deliver services in the future, it would be necessary to undertake a
fundamental review as described within the submitted report.

       DECIDED – That (1) the Efficiency Programme, as detailed within the
       submitted report, be approved;
                        (2) the principle of conducting strategic cost cutting                 Yes
       thematic reviews, as detailed in section 5 in Appendix 1 to the submitted
       report, be approved;
                        (3) the decision making process, detailed in Table 1 at
       Paragraph 5.18 to the submitted report, and the proposed governance
       arrangements as provided at Appendix 3 to the submitted report, be
       approved.

(Councillor Davidson in the Chair)

SAVINGS PROPOSALS 2009/10 TO 2010/11
79.     The Head of Finance Services (EP.3/09P) presented service efficiency
proposals to support the Council’s financial position in 2009/10 and the budget for
2010/11. Proposals had been brought forward as part of the Council’s wider Efficiency
Programme and had been developed as part of a Service self-evaluation process. The
Cabinet gave specific consideration to saving proposal V1 within the submitted report.
The report and the proposal had been considered by the Efficiency Programme
Committee at a meeting held on 3rd September 2009 and the Committee had
determined to recommend the proposal for submission to this meeting of the Cabinet
for progression. Details of the recommendation of the Efficiency Programme
Committee was submitted (CAB.110/09P) and considered by the Cabinet.

The recommendations had been presented as the Council’s financial forecast had
identified that at least £10 million net savings would be needed to ensure a balanced
budget for 2010/11. Prudent financial planning required that the Council should seek to
over achieve the minimum level of savings to recognise the financial risks inherent in
the delivery of a significant programme of savings.

Alternatives considered: to not approve a programme of savings would put the Council
at risk of being able to approve a balanced budget, which was a statutory requirement.

       DECIDED – That saving proposal V1, as set out in the submitted report, be             No – item
       agreed for the purposes of consultation and financial approval.                       referred to
                                                                                             Policy
(Councillor Taylor in the Chair)                                                             Overview
                                                                                             Committee
SAVINGS PROPOSALS 2009/10 TO 2010/11                                                         .
80.     The Head of Finance Services (EP.3/09P) presented Service efficiency
proposals to support the Council’s financial position in 2009/10 and the budget for
2010/11. Proposals had been brought forward as part of the Council’s wider Efficiency
Programme and had been developed as part of a service self-evaluation process. The
report and savings proposals had been considered by the Efficiency Programme
Committee at a meeting held on 3rd September 2009 and the Committee had
determined to either recommend certain proposals for submission to this meeting of the
Cabinet for progression; to call for further detail with regard to certain proposals prior to
submission of that further detail to a future meeting of the Efficiency Programme
Committee; or to withdraw a saving proposal. Details of the recommendations of the
Efficiency Programme Committee were submitted (CAB.110/09P) and considered by
the Cabinet.

The recommendations had been presented as the Council’s financial forecast had
identified that at least £10 million net savings would be needed to ensure a balanced
budget for 2010/11. Prudent financial planning required that the Council should seek to
over achieve the minimum level of savings to recognise the financial risks inherent in
the delivery of a significant programme of savings.

Alternatives considered: to not approve a programme of savings would put the Council
at risk of being able to approve a balanced budget, which was a statutory requirement.

Further to the recommendations of the Efficiency Programme Committee, the Cabinet
was asked to note that saving proposal AC5, recommended for progression, was linked
to proposal AI(c) which was recommended for deferral for further detail to be submitted.
It was proposed that proposal AC5 be likewise deferred.

       DECIDED – That (1) proposals SH1; AC1 (b), (c), 3, 5, 6 and 8; CSC 3, 9 and              No – item
       10; LYP 1 and 4; BP 2 and 8; L2; EM2, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 15; PD5 and CC4 be                 referred to
       deferred pending the submission of clarifications/further information to                 Policy
       the Efficiency Programme Committee, with recommendations being                           Overview
       presented to a special meeting of the Cabinet to be held on 1st October                  Committee
       2009;                                                                                    .
                         (2) proposal L4 be deferred pending consultation and
       submission of further information to the Efficiency Programme Committee
       with a recommendation being forwarded to a future meeting of the
       Cabinet;
                         (3) proposal CC7 be withdrawn and not progressed;
                         (4) all remaining savings proposals, as set out in the
       submitted report, be agreed for the purposes of consultation and financial
       approval.

MANCHESTER AIRPORT GROUP – LOAN CONVERSION PROPOSALS
81.     The Head of Finance Services (CAB.111/09P) advised the Cabinet of the
current loan conversion proposals of the Manchester Airport Group (MAG) and
sought delegated authority to enable decisions to be made by the Council within the
timescales imposed upon MAG.

The recommendations were presented as all AGMA authorities were being requested
to grant delegated powers to enable the loan conversion of the Manchester Airport
debt to be finalised within the required timescales and to ensure that Members were
informed of and implemented adherence to the requirements of the Department for
Communities and Local Government.

Alternatives considered: alternatives to the course of action are recommended were
considered within the submitted report.

       DECIDED – That (1) the proposals as set out within the submitted report
       be noted;
                                                                                                  Yes
                         (2) the Council delegates to the Council’s Shareholder
       Representative, Councillor Peter Clegg or in his absence the Council’s
       Deputy Shareholder, Councillor Godson, after consultation with the
       Chief Executive, the Head of Finance Services and the Leader of Council
       (or in his absence, the Deputy Leader of the Council) authority to act on
       behalf of the Council in the Shareholders Committee or in general
       meeting as the case may be to approve or otherwise the basis for
       submission of the final bid referred to in the report and to agree or
       otherwise any resolution connected to the bid or its funding and to vote
       accordingly;
                         (3) the Chief Executive in consultation with the Head of
       Finance Services and the Borough Solicitor be authorised to approve
       the terms restructuring the outstanding loans made under the Facility
       Agreement dated 31st March 1994 and to complete all necessary
       documentation to give effect to this.

PAY AND GRADING REVIEW – EMPLOYMENT PACKAGE OUTCOME OF
TRADE UNION AND WORKFORCE CONSULTATIONS
82.  DECIDED – That this item be withdrawn.

EARLY RETIREMENT AND REDUNDANCY OPTIONS FOR CHANGE TO
SCHEMES FOR EMPLOYEES (OTHER THAN TEACHERS)
83.     The Head of People Management Service (EP5/09P) recommended changes
the Council’s Early Retirement and Redundancy Schemes for Employees (other than
teachers) to ensure that these continued to be affordable and were brought in line
with the practice of other authorities within the region. The proposals had been
considered by the Efficiency Programme Committee meeting on 3rd September 2009
and had been recommended to the Cabinet for approval.

The recommendations were presented as the District Auditor had advised that the
provisions of the Council’s current scheme for early retirement and voluntary
severance (special scheme) were overly generous and out of line with most
authorities in the region. The current Council scheme had been applied by the
Authority to deal with specific early retirement/voluntary redundancy situations. This
had always been on the basis that the scheme would be maintained so long as the
Council was able to do so. As such it was not regarded as a permanent feature of
Council policy. The current provisions were costly and considered to be unaffordable
given the Council’s current financial position.

Alternatives considered: alternative options, together with the potential risks of each,
were considered within the submitted report. The Council had a duty to act prudently
with public funds and alternative options were not recommended.

       DECIDED – That (1) option 2 for changes to the Early Retirement and                 No – item to
       Redundancy Schemes be agreed;                                                       be considered
                         (2) the implementation of the proposals with effect               by the Policy
              st                                                                           Overview
       from 1 January 2010 be agreed;
                                                                                           Committee
                         (3) the selected option be put forward for informal
       consultation with Members and Trade Unions/employees;
                         (4) Officers make arrangements to proceed with other
       issues related to the implementation of changes within the scheme as
       detailed within Section 7 to the submitted report;
                         (5) the District Auditor be approached with regard to
       the proposed changes to the current schemes;
                        (6) the Employment Committee be recommended to
       concur in respect of those matters pertaining to that Committee.

PREFERRED PROVIDER LIST FOR SUPPLY OF DOMICILIARY CARE IN
ROCHDALE
84.    The Interim Head of Transformation and Commissioning, Adult Care Service
(CAB.112/09P) sought consideration of the identification of preferred providers for
the supply of domiciliary care in the Borough.

The recommendations were presented as there were too many providers in
Rochdale Borough to support the current and future domiciliary care market.
Contracts with existing providers had now expired. With the imminent advent of
individual budgets there was a need for a list of accredited providers that were able
to adapt to a changing market that would be driven by individual choice and quality of
provision.

Alternatives considered: the alternative would be to renew the contracts with existing
suppliers. This would present a significant financial risk to the Authority as many of
the existing providers had too little work to remain viable in a shrinking market.
Quality of provision would be compromised as providers became less viable. The
market would not be prepared for the arrival of individual budgets because providers
would not have undertaken any recent accreditation process to demonstrate their
preparedness for the changes or capacity to deliver quality services.

       DECIDED – That (1) the list of preferred providers for the supply of
                                                                                         Yes
       domiciliary care in the Rochdale Borough, as detailed at Paragraph 6.4
       to the submitted report, be approved;
                         (2) the consequent transfer of service users from those
       providers whose contract has expired and who are not on the Preferred
       Provider List be agreed.

REVIEW OF MEALS ON WHEELS SERVICE
85.  DECIDED – That this item be withdrawn.

REVIEW OF INTERMEDIATE CARE BEDS
86.    The Interim Head of Transformation and Commissioning, Adult Care
(CAB.113/09P) sought authority to commence consultation with key stakeholders
regarding proposals to re-provide intermediate care beds within Rochdale
Metropolitan Borough Council.

The recommendation was presented as there were currently 44 intermediate care
beds provided in the Borough which were jointly funded by the Council and the
Primary Care Trust. Average occupancy rates for such beds during 2008/09 was
80%. It was considered that the intermediate care beds did not provide value for
money and would release cashable efficiencies if the Service was re-commissioned.

Alternatives considered: alternatives and risks associated with the provision or re-
provision of the Service were considered within the submitted report.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care proposed amendment to the
recommendation proposed in the submitted report as better representing the agreed
efficiency proposal.

       DECIDED – That (1) the commencement of consultation regarding a
       proposal to re-provide some or all of the intermediate care beds which            Yes
           were currently jointly funded by Rochdale MBC and the Primary Care
           Trust be agreed;
                             (2) the surplus intermediate care beds, as identified
           within the submitted report, be de-commissioned.

ROCHDALE BOROUGHWIDE HOUSING WATER CHARGES REVIEW
87.     The Head of Strategic Housing Service (CAB.114/09P) presented a proposed
process and timetable for reviewing the Council’s contract with the United Utilities for
the collection of water charges by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. A report of the
Policy Overview Committee relating to a water charges review was appended to the
submitted report.

The recommendation was presented as the Council’s contract with the United
Utilities for the collection of water charges by RBH would come to an end in March
2010. A review was required to assess whether the agreement had been a success
and to make necessary preparations either for the existing arrangement to continue
(with any changes that may need to be made) or for the collection of water charges
to return to United Utilities.

Alternatives considered: none.

It was queried why, while a review was required to consider the water charges
collection position with effect from March 2010, a review of how rent payments were
treated, as proposed by the Policy Overview Committee, could not be progressed in
advance.

With regard to the review of current arrangements to be undertaken, it was proposed
that this should be led or undertaken by a Council Officer independent of the
Strategic Housing Service and Rochdale Boroughwide Housing given the issues that
had arisen during the term of the current contract.

           DECIDED – That (1) the process and timetable for a review of the way
           water charges are currently collected by Rochdale Boroughwide
           Housing, as detailed within Paragraph 5 to the submitted report, be             No – item
           approved, subject to the review being led or undertaken by a Council            considered
                                                                                           previously
           Officer independent of the Strategic Housing Service and Rochdale
                                                                                           by Policy
           Boroughwide Housing;                                                            Overview
                            (2) the feasibility of applying the Policy Overview            Committee.
           Committee recommendations to the current contract for the collection
           of water charges be investigated and a report be made to the special
           meeting of the Cabinet to be held on 8th October 2009.




8cab1409

								
To top