Document Sample
EXECUTIVE Powered By Docstoc

                  Minutes of the meeting held on 20th April 2005


                Councillor Stephen Carr (Chairman)
                Councillors Graham Arthur, Colin Bloom, Chris Gaster,
                John Holbrook, Chris Phillips, Colin Smith, Tim Stevens
                and George Taylor

                                  Also Present:

                Councillors Mrs Hubbard, Neil Reddin, Reed and




          Councillor Bloom declared a prejudicial interest in the report on “The
Studio” and left the meeting during consideration of that Item.


          RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 th March 2005 be
confirmed as a correct record.



177       THE STUDIO
          Report DRS5037

          The Chief Property Officer reported that the former Studio, Media and
Arts Centre in Beckenham closed in early February 2004. It was a prominent
Grade II Listed Edwardian building on three levels of approximately 998 sq mtrs
and adjoined 28A Beckenham Road, which was let to Bromley College.

          Following withdrawal of an offer from Prospects to run a Community
Arts and Media Centre in the building, the Executive on 13 th December 2004

20th April 2005

resolved to “market a leasehold interest in the property on the basis that the
Council would consider offers for other purposes, but it would welcome bids from
parties interested in maintaining a community/arts facility within parts of the
premises”. Interest in the property was encouraging, 57 copies of the property
details were sent out to interested parties, 16 organisations/individuals viewed the
property and 7 registrations of interest were received. Two of these subsequently
withdrew. The property had been marketed as a refurbishment opportunity and it
was stated that the Council was particularly interested in proposals involving arts,
education and community uses.

             Five organisations had submitted a formal expression of interest in the

                 Association   for   Cultural   Advancement   through   Visual   Art

                 ACME Studios.

                 Artists Studio Company (ASC).

                 Herbert Justice Academy of Theatre Arts.

                 Malcolm Mills (Property Records).

          The Chief Property Officer reported that the offer from ACME Studios
had recently been withdrawn.

           To allow Members to receive more information each applicant was to
be asked to submit further details within three weeks. A Selection Panel was to be
set up to consider the information received from the applicants, to interview them
and make recommendations to the Executive on 20 th June 2005.

           It was recommended that the Selection Panel consist of a nominated
Portfolio Holder, together with one Member from each of the following Wards:
Clock House; Kelsey and Eden Park; Copers Cope; and Penge and Cator.
Members also asked that the appropriate PDS Committee Chairman be involved.

           The Studio Community Group had associated itself with the proposal
from Malcolm Mills. Nevertheless they remained the most appropriate community
group to consult on the proposals and it was recommended that they be invited to
attend the presentations and provide their views to the Assessment Panel.

                                                                     20th April 2005

            RESOLVED that:-

            (1)   the interest received in using “The Studio” for arts and media use
be noted;

           (2) the four applicants be invited to submit a rental offer together with
a Business Plan and more detailed information on how they intend to use the
building and engaged with the local community;

           (3) a small Working Party of Members consisting of the Community
Safety and Leisure Portfolio Holder and PDS Chairman and one representative
from Clock House, Kelsey and Eden Park, Copers Cope and Penge and Cator
Wards be established to receive presentations and assess the proposals with a
report being made to the Executive on 20th June 2005; and

          (4) The Studio Community Group be invited to submit their views on
the proposals of the four applicants.

            Report LDS05078

            The Chief Executive advised the Executive that the Council‟s
Performance Plan fulfilled a statutory responsibility to have a Corporate Plan and
to report summary information publicly. Supported by Portfolio Plans and other
more detailed plans, these documents collectively represented the Council‟s
„policy framework‟.

          Member consideration of the contents of the Performance Plan had
been undertaken in stages. The Performance Plan summary was first considered
and agreed by Council on 21st February. Following on from this, the Council‟s
performance indicators and targets were considered by the Strategy and
Resources PDS Committee on 22 nd February and by the Executive on 7 th March.
These had now been finalised and were included in the full Performance Plan to
be considered by Council on 25th April.

           Attached as an appendix to this report is a draft of the Performance
Plan documents for 2005/08. Both the Strategy and Resources PDS Committee
and the Executive have considered the contents of this Plan and the attached
version includes comments made by these bodies.

20th April 2005

           RESOLVED that Council be RECOMMENDED

           (1)    to adopt the „Building a Better Bromley‟ Performance Plan.
           (2)    to authorise the Chief Executive to make minor drafting edits prior
                  to its publication.

           Report LDS05080

           The Committee considered proposals from the Chief Executive and
Director of Resources for taking forward the Efficiency Improvement agenda over
the coming year, given its local and national prominence.

           The performance management and use of assets theme within
Achieving Excellence (AE) would form the basis of enhanced work around value
for money. The outcomes of AE were being analysed but certain themes and
requirements were already apparent. These issues would be developed in
subsequent reports to the Executive and Portfolio Holders. Some of the themes
that had potential for efficiency improvements were back office services,
transactions, productive time and procurement.

           An Annual Efficiency Statement (AES) was required to be submitted by
all Councils, with the first submission in respect of 2005/06 required by 15 th April.
It was also necessary to submit by June a backward-looking AES in respect of
2004/05 actuals. There were also requirements later in the year to submit
progress reports and year end outturn against the AES. A draft AES had been
considered by the Strategy and Resources PDS Committee and submitted to the
Government subject to any changes made by the Executive.

           RESOLVED that:-

           (1) the overall approach to efficiency improvements set out in the joint
report be endorsed;

          (2) the draft Annual Efficiency Statement attached to the draft report
be agreed; and

          (3) it be noted that further reports on efficiency improvement would
be submitted to future meetings of the Executive.

                                                                      20th April 2005

           Report CE05011 and LDS05076

           The initial phase of the Achieving Excellence Programme (self-
diagnosis) was nearing completion and consideration of how to implement the full
“challenge” process was required.

            Self-diagnosis had already assisted some services identify areas for
improvement, and Action Plans were now being prepared to ensure that
improvements were taken forward. In many instances however services would
need the support of a “challenge” process to help them identify areas where, for
example, best practice could be incorporated into their activity or the potential for
reallocation of resources might exist for a more effective contribution to Council
priorities. The challenge process would also be designed to enable services to
improve their preparation for external inspection.

           It was proposed that a challenge team be set up comprising four or five
seconded members of staff, likely to be at relatively senior level. Some training in
assessment techniques would be required prior to undertaking the challenge
process. For this process to be implemented it would be necessary to make
provision for the challenge Team‟s posts to be backfilled during the period of
secondment. It was recognised that seconded officers could not be released
without unacceptable implications for the service for which they were responsible.

           It was proposed that each PDS Committee receive a further report
advising them of the completed self-diagnosis relevant to their area of
responsibility. Members would then be invited to select one or two services
whose self-diagnosis they would like to examine in detail, thereby providing a
“challenge” from the Member prospective.

           RESOLVED that:-

           (1)   progress with the Achieving Excellence Programme be noted;

           (2) the Policy Development and Scrutiny Committees receive a report
on the self-diagnosis process and be invited to contribute towards the challenge
           (3) an allocation of £80,000 from the LPSA Reward Funding to
resource an effective challenge process be agreed; and

20th April 2005

           (4) thanks be recorded for the work of the Chief Environmental Health
Officer and other staff who have progressed AE work to date.

           Report CE05014

           The Chief Executive reminded the Executive that Bromley‟s proposals
for LPSA2 were at an advanced stage. It was also anticipated that negotiations
for Local Area Agreements (LAA) would start in 2006/07 and that at some stage
the two processes would merge.

           The Government had recently announced that the merging of the
LPSA2 and LAA negotiation processes would take place earlier than anticipated.
It also announced its intention of having a further 40 LAA pilot authorities and that
only those 40 authorities would be negotiating their LPSA2 in 2005/06. All other
authorities would not negotiate their LPSA2 until 2006/07. For Bromley this was a
year later than expected and there was a danger that the postponement of
negotiations would mean that much of the preparatory work, not only with Council
Departments but also with key partners, would be wasted.

           In order to minimise the risk of wasting so much valuable work, it was
proposed that the Council advise the Government Office for London that it was
interested in being one of the 40 LAA pilot authorities. Work on LPSA2 proposals
would continue regardless of the outcome of the LAA bid as the prime purpose
was to deliver improvement in Bromley. Any proposals could be considered for
funding from the LPSA1 reward grant.

           RESOLVED that the Government Office for London be advised of this
Authority‟s interest in being considered as one of the 40 pilot LAA authorities.

           Report CE05009 and LDS05077

           The meeting considered a Chief Executive report that provided
information on the projected outturn from Bromley‟s LPSA1 and on possible
approaches to the use of the reward grant. Bromley was on track to earn £5m of
the potential £6.5m reward grant on offer.

          Two options were presented for using LPSA1 reward monies. Option 1
focused on an arrangement whereby approximately one-third of the overall grant

                                                                     20th April 2005

was reinvested back into successful services or Portfolios having regard to the
stretch achieved.        The remaining two-thirds would go into a corporate
improvement pot. Option 2 would provide for a single pot but still ensure that
those successful services who had already demonstrated a track record of
substantial improvements had a preferential opportunity to put forward proposals
in line with the spirit of the principles previously agreed by Members. For either
option it was stressed that proposals would be strictly subject to “business case”
appraisal arrangements and it would be necessary to demonstrate measurable
improvements in support of Building a Better Bromley.

            RESOLVED that:-

            (1)   the projected success of LPSA1 be noted;

          (2) the “single pot” (option 2) detailed in paragraph 3.5 of the Chief
Executive‟s report be approved;

           (3) the draft business case evaluation criteria, detailed in paragraph
3.6 of the Chief Executive‟s report be approved; and

          (4) the holding of an event for staff in recognition of Bromley‟s LPSA1
success be approved and that the Chief Executive be authorised to make
appropriate arrangements for such an event.

183         FINANCIAL MONITORING 2004/05
            Report DR05046

            The Director of Resources submitted the eighth Budget Monitoring
report for 2004/05. The projections in his report took into account the actual costs
incurred to the end of February 2005 and estimated costs for the remainder of the
year. The report identified a projected net underspend of £672,000 as well as
some early warnings. Within this projection were significant areas of spending
pressure where positive measures have been taken to contain spending.

            The latest projections for 2004/05 analysed over Portfolios were as

20th April 2005

                                       2004/05   2004/05     Forecast
                           2004/05                                                   Previously
                                        Latest   Projected    Over/         %
                           Original                                                  Reported
                                      Approved      net       Under-     Variation
                           Budget                                                    Variation
                                       Budget      spend     spend (-)
Portfolio/Other Budgets     £’000       £’000      £’000      £’000                    £’000
Children and Young         182,530     184,691    185,057       366         0.2          602
Social Care, Health and     63,011     63,747      64,287       540         0.9         587
Environment                 36,586     37,042     36,272       -770        -2.1         -775
Leisure and Culture         20,428     21,526     21,517         -9                       17
Strategy and Resources      18,742     19,969     19,989         20                      -23
Local Economy                  186        186        186          0                        0
Community Safety               235        435        435          0                        0
Total Portfolio Budgets    321,718    327,596    327,743        147         0.1          4.8

Asset Management
Revenue Account            -26,901     -31,035    -31,035         0                        0
Interest on General Fund
Balances                    -3,290      -3,290     -4,490    -1,200        36.5       -1,100
2004/5 Central
Contingency Provision:
- General                      898        167        150        -17        -1.9          -17
- Freedom Passes                 0       -398          0        398                      398
Levies                       2,680      2,680      2,680          0                        0
                           295,105    295,720    295,048       -672        -0.2         -311
Carry forwards (financed
from underspendings in
2003/4)                          0       -615           0       615                     615
Bromley‟s requirement
before use of balances     295,105    295,105    295,048        -57                     304

           The meeting noted that there was an overall projected overspend
across Social Services and Housing Departments of £1,281,000 (previously
£1,312,000). £741,000 (previously £725,000) related to Children and Young
People Portfolio services and £540,000 (previously £587,000) related to Social
Care Health and Housing. The Director of Social Services and Housing was
asked to regularly report in detail on the adults budget.

         There was a total projected underspend of £446,000 (previously an
underspend of £154,000) in the Education and Libraries budget, but there

                                                                     20th April 2005

continued to be pressure on the PRS budget. There was a projected underspend
of £237,000 on SEN services due mainly to fewer starters than anticipated.
Continued high levels of permanent exclusions resulted in an overspend in the
PRS budget and Behaviour Support Services by £120,000.

           Members were advised that a funding problem had arisen in respect of
the Ramsden Regeneration Scheme approved by the Executive in June 2004.
The London Housing Board invited bids to discretionary funding schemes, one of
which was the Local Authority Regeneration Schemes Fund. A bid for Ramsden
was successful and in April 2004 notification was received that a capital grant of
£2.67m had been awarded to Bromley. On 22 nd December 2004 a letter was
received from the GOL that informed the Council of its overall Housing Capital
Allocations for 2005/06. This stated that Government support for the second part
of the Ramsden Scheme (£1,360,000) would be through Supported Capital
Expenditure (Revenue) (SCE(R)). This meant that the Government now intended
to provide revenue support towards potential borrowing costs to finance the
expenditure and not capital grant. The lack of transparency in the RSG system
and Bromley‟s position on the grant “floor” made it difficult to calculate the long-
term additional RSG, but in 2005/06 the additional grant was only £26,000
compared to the sum of over £1.3m that was expected as a direct capital grant.

           This change and its implications had been taken up with GOL and
ODPM at various levels since December. A formal response had now been
received from the ODPM which confirmed that the funding would remain as
SCE(R). Officers would continue to challenge this decision and the Executive
noted that a further report would be submitted as soon as the position was

          RESOLVED that:-

          (1)   the latest financial position be noted;

          (2) Portfolio Holders be requested to continue to review the detailed
position and ensure that action is being taken to contain spending within the
approved budgets for 2005/06 particularly where the 2004/05 projections had an
impact on future years‟ budgets;

         (3) the 2004/05 final outturn report be presented to the Executive in
June 2005 which would also consider ongoing implications for 2005/06;

           (4) the position on funding of the Ramsden Scheme be noted and a
further report be submitted on the way forward;

20th April 2005

           (5) the Chairman of the Executive write to the ODPM protesting at the
decision to unilaterally change the terms of the Ramsden Regeneration Scheme
and indicate all party support to the letter; and

          (6) the Director of Social Services and Housing report to the
Executive with an explanation of the operation of the Adults‟ Budget and with
proposals for regularly reporting in more details on the operation of this budget.

           Report DE05068

          The Director of Education and Libraries reported with a draft Strategy
for improving the behaviour of young people in Bromley and proposals for a
conference later in the year.

           The meeting noted that the behaviour of the majority of young people in
Bromley was exemplary and their achievements in music, sport, the arts and
voluntary activities and at school and college were amongst the very best in the
country. However the poor behaviour of some young people had become a major
concern for Borough residents, communities, businesses, schools, colleges and
others providing services to young people.

            A draft Behaviour Improvement Strategy had been drawn up by a Task
Group and sought to balance enforcement concerns with those of a preventative
nature. The Strategy identified three potential points of intervention in the lifespan
of a problem: prevention, rehabilitation and maintenance. The Task Group had
sought to relate activities to the four main locations where the behaviour of young
people can present problems; at school, en route to and from school, at home or
at leisure.

           A range of six new multi-agency activities had initially been identified as
the key drivers of the Strategy. These were in addition to activities already in
place and those currently being developed within Bromley schools as part of the
national Strategy. Proposals in the draft Behaviour Improvement Strategy related

                 parents and the home;
                 nutrition and health education;
                 conflict resolution;
                 policing in schools;
                 diversionary activities; and
                 public transport.

                                                                 20th April 2005

          RESOLVED that:-

         (1) progress to date in developing a range of programmes designed
to promote positive behaviour and counter anti-social and poor behaviour in
young people in Bromley be noted;

         (2) it be noted that the Children and Young People PDS Committee
would consider a report on this Strategy at its meeting in June;

         (3) the draft Strategy for improving the behaviour of young people in
Bromley be endorsed as a model a for consulting with partner agencies;

          (4) a seminar be staged to launch and refine the Strategy for
improving the behaviour of young people as a basis for a co-ordinated multi-
agency way forward in Bromley; and

           (5) this Strategy be referred to the relevant PDS Committees for

          Report LDS05072

           In a joint report the Chief Executive and Director of Legal and
Democratic Services sought authority to vary paragraph 2.3.1 of the Agreement
for a Lease of Crystal Palace National Sports Centre to the London Development
Agency so that the period for the submission of a Development Brief for the
property was extended from 25th May 2005 to 30 th September 2005. The purpose
of and justification for this extension which had been sought by the LDA was to
enable the LDA to determine the proper mix of facilities that ought to be
developed at Crystal Palace and described in the brief which could not be
finalised until after a decision had been taken by the International Olympic
Committee on whether London should be awarded the 2012 Games, the outcome
of which would not be known until July 2005.

          RESOLVED that the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be
authorised to vary the Agreement for a Lease of Crystal Palace National Sports
Centre to extend the period allowed to the London Development Agency under
paragraph 2.3.1 of the Agreement for the submission of a Development Brief until
30th September 2005.

20th April 2005

           Report CE05010

            The Commission for London Governance, comprised of cross party
representatives from the Association of London Government and the London
Assembly, was set up to report on how well the existing governance
arrangements in London were working. The Commission had stated that it
intended to particularly look at how well the existing providers deliver effective,
efficient, quality public services and how accountable they were to their various
stakeholders. The review would not look at the boundaries of London or the

          A Consultation Paper "Is London Working?" had been issued by the
Commission for London Governance. The Commission had identified a number
of areas where views were particularly sought:

          Giving local communities more of a say in their affairs
          Addressing geographical differences of service provision
          The case for special funding arrangements for London
          The democratisation of Central Government funding streams
          Extending joint working between London Boroughs
          The responsibilities of London Boroughs and Elected Councillors
          The effectiveness of partnerships
          The responsibilities of the GLA

           RESOLVED that

          (1) the Chief Executive be authorised to respond, in consultation with
the Leader of the Council, to the consultation paper taking account of the following

           -      Any governance arrangements must promote clearer
                  accountability and transparency of decision making, thereby
                  enhancing local democracy.
           -      Decisions affecting individual Boroughs and Local Communities
                  are best taken by Borough Councillors who are better informed
                  and more in touch with local views and priorities.
           -      Duplication of decision making and bureaucracy should be
                  avoided between tiers of Government and other quangos.
           -      The added value of the Government Office for London has not to
                  date been demonstrated.

                                                                    20th April 2005

          -     Government funding arrangements should be simplified, having
                less regard to "special" factors and recognise that all Boroughs
                need to provide for a basic level of service and therefore reduce
                the current inequalities in funding levels between the Boroughs.
          -     The accountability for expenditure and tax proposals between the
                tiers should be clearer and more transparent e.g. Freedom
          -     There should be no extension of the existing powers of the Mayor
                for London and the justification for the existing ones should be

          (2)   The response be circulated to all Members of the Executive.

          Report ELS05092

           The Chief Planner reported that the first part of Bromley, Hayes and
Keston Commons Conservation Area was designed on 25 th July 2000, with
substantial extensions added on 25th November 2000. The Development Control
Committee endorsed further extensions and draft Supplementary Planning
Guidance on 8 th February 2005 with a recommendation that the public be
consulted prior to formal adoption. The consultation period ran from 14 th February
to the 14th March and the draft SPG has been amended in the light of comments
received and the proposed boundary changes given further scrutiny.

          RESOLVED that, in the light of the public consultation responses
leading to subsequent amendments and of endorsements by the Development
Control Committee, the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance for Bromley,
Hayes and Keston Commons Conservation Area be adopted as supplementary
planning guidance to the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1994) under the
second deposit Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

          Report ELS05094

           The Chief Planner reported that Beckenham Kelsey Square
Conservation Area was a small enclave of mostly nineteenth century properties at
the junction of High Street, Kelsey Square and Burnhill Road. Designated in 1997
the boundary, for a number of reasons needed to be revised.

20th April 2005

           The proposed boundary changes as shown on Map BCA 6A were
endorsed by the Development Control Committee on 8 th February 2005 with a
recommendation that the public be consulted prior to formal adoption. The public
consultation period ran from 28th February to 28th March and the proposed
boundary changes were given further scrutiny.

          RESOLVED that the realignment of the boundary of Kelsey Square
Conservation Area be approved.

           Report ELS05093

            The meeting noted that the local list of buildings of architectural or
historic interest was established in 1973 and had last been altered in July 2001.
Since that time officers had received various requests for local listing and the GL
Hearn report of March 2004 had also made local listing recommendations. The
Development Control Committee endorsed a preliminary list of proposed additions
to the local list on 26th October 2005. That Committee resolved that the list be
subject to public consultation and that period started on the 13 th December 2004
with each consultee given 28 days in which to respond.

           In the light of comments received, the properties included in the
preliminary list of proposed additions were given further scrutiny and the buildings
have been considered against the criteria given in the Supplementary Planning
Guidance for "Locally Listed Buildings in Bromley" which was adopted by the
Executive on the 7th March 2005. A reduced list of buildings proposed for listing
had been prepared and was before the Executive.

           RESOLVED that it be agreed in principle to approve the loc al listing of
properties detailed in the report of the Chief Planner subject to deferral of
consideration of Christ Church, Highlands Road and 1-31 West Oak Estate, The
Avenue, as part of the local list.

           Report LDS05074

             The Director of Legal and Democratic Services reported that the Local
Government Act 2000 placed a responsibility on the Council to allow access to
information. Also Regulations stated that the Council must identify whether any
decisions to be taken by an Executive decision making body were „key‟. Recent
changes to the Council‟s decision-making structure meant that the financial
criteria for key decisions to be made by the new bodies had to be established.

                                                                      20th April 2005

            An Executive decision must be treated as key if it (a) would have a
significant impact on a ward(s), and (b) exceeded a financial threshold. The
purpose of identifying key decisions was to allow the public long-term advance
notification of any key matter to be dealt with by the Council. All of the Council‟s
key decisions were collected and published monthly in a Forward Plan. Providing
information on key decisions gave members of the public information on the
activities of the Council and an opportunity to submit their point of view, before a
decision was taken.

            One of the key decision criteria was a financial threshold and the
Council could decide for itself the level at which decisions became significant and
therefore warranted categorisation as a key decision. Presently decisions of
Portfolio Holders were key if they exceeded the following financial limits; Strategy
and Resources £100,000; Leisure and Culture £500,000; and Community Safety
£50,000. In 2002 Council agreed that, in the business carried out by these
Portfolio Holders, decisions with a financial value of more than these figures were
likely to be significant and therefore warranted inclusion in the Forward Plan.

            The limit of £100,000 was applied to decisions of the Strategy and
Resources Portfolio Holder primarily because of the property matters put before
that Portfolio Holder. It was proposed that the new Resources Portfolio Holder
also operate with a £100,000 key decision threshold, as this Portfolio Holder will,
in future, have property responsibilities. Apart from agreeing developments to the
Council‟s Information and Communications Technologies, none of the other
functions of this Portfolio Holder were likely to involve considerable expenditure.

           The present Leisure and Culture Portfolio Holder had a £500,000 limit
for key decisions. Recent changes to the delivery of Leisure Services had seen
the establishment of Bromley Mytime and the reduction in the number of
operational decisions made by this Portfolio Holder. To reflect this change it was
proposed that the Community Safety and Leisure Portfolio Holder have a
£100,000 limit for key decisions. This limit also acknowledged the level at which
decisions relating to community safety become significant.

           The financial level at which decisions of the new Strategy and
Communications Portfolio Holder become significant was likely to be lower than
the previous £100,000 limit applied to the Strategy and Resources Portfolio
Holder. Therefore, it was proposed that the limit of £50,000 be applied.

            RESOLVED that Council be RECOMMENDED to approve financial
limits for key decisions made by new Portfolio Holders at the following levels:

Resources Portfolio Holder                                                 £100,000
Community Safety and Leisure Portfolio Holder                              £100,000
Strategy and Communications Portfolio Holder                                £50,000

20th April 2005

191        COUNCIL TAX IN LONDON 2005/06
           Reports DR05041 and LDS 05079
           The Director of Resources reported with detailed background
information and statistics on levels of Council Tax, formula spending shares,
formula grants and expenditure for Bromley and the rest of London.
           The meeting noted that Bromley's ranking for Council Tax (Band D)
was sixth lowest in London and the lowest of the 20 outer London Authorities.

          RESOLVED that the information contained in the report of the Director
of Resources be noted.

           Report LDS05081

             The Director of Legal and Democratic Services reported that the
Environment Portfolio Holder had requested that the current Environment
Executive Support Assistant be removed as he was no longer considered suitable
to fill this role and the situation could affect the efficient administration of the

         RESOLVED that the term of office of Councillor Rod Reed as
Environment Executive Support Assistant be terminated with immediate effect.


           RESOLVED that the Press and public be excluded during
consideration of the items of business listed below as 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 Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them
of exempt information.
                             The following summary
                                refers to a matter
                          involving exempt information
           Report DR05045

           The Director of Resources informed the Executive of the latest position
in respect of an extension to the Glades Shopping Centre. The meeting noted the
information in the report of the Director of Resources.


The meeting ended at 10.24 pm