Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

January 2006 - Executive Committee Agenda


									                 BOROUGH OF BARROW-IN-FURNESS

                          EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

                                Meeting, Wednesday, 4th January, 2006
                                         at 2.00 p.m.

     NOTE: Group Meetings at 1.15 p.m.



1.   To note any items which the Chairman considers to be of an urgent nature.

2.   To receive notice from Members who may wish to move any delegated
     matter non-delegated and which will be decided by a majority of Members
     present and voting at the meeting.

3.   Admission of Public and Press

     To consider whether the public and press should be excluded from the
     meeting during consideration of any of the items on the agenda.

4.   Disclosure of Interests.

      A Member with a personal interest in a matter to be considered at this
      meeting must either before the matter is discussed or when the interest
      becomes apparent disclose

      1.    The existence of that interest to the meeting.

      2.    The nature of the interest.

      3.    Decide whether they have a prejudicial interest.

      A note on declaring interests at meetings, which incorporates certain other
      aspects of the Code of Conduct and a pro-forma for completion where
      interests are disclosed accompanies the agenda and reports for this meeting.

5.   To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 th November, 2005 (copy

6.   Apologies for Absence/Attendance of Substitute Members.

7.   Minutes of the Early Retirement Panel, 7th December, 2005 (copy    attached).
           FOR DECISION

(D) 8.     Recommendations of the Housing Management Forum, 1 st December,

(R) 9.     Furness and West Cumbria Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Initiative.

(R) 10.    Safer and Stronger Communities Fund – Neighbourhood Element.

(R) 11.   Streetcare Services.

(D) 12.    Appointment on Outside Bodies, Panels, Working Parties etc.

(R) 13.   Information Sharing Protocol.

(D) 14.    Interim Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Solution.

(R) 15.   Statement of Community Involvement and Document Charging Schedule.

(D) 16.   Cumbria Vision Strategic Plan 2006-2016.

(D) 17.   Criminal Records Disclosure Policy.

(D) 18.   Adoption of New Performance Management Framework and Subsequent
          Adjustments to Corporate Priorities.

(D) 19.    Management of Corporate Strategic Risks – Progress Report 2005.

(R) 20.   Holiday Purchase Scheme.

(R) 21.   Local Plan Alteration – Housing.

(D) 22.   Strategic Approach to Schools Organisation: Furness Local Partnership

(D) 23.   Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership.

(D) 24.   Land at Marsh Street, Barrow-in-Furness.

(D) 25.   Barrow Station Gateway.

(R) 26.   Development of Industrial Units.


(R) 27.   Heart of Barrow Building the Future Programme.


(R) 28.    Design Services Dept – Proposed Staffing Changes.


(R) 29.    Restructuring of Strategy and Regeneration Team.


(R) 30.    Local Search Section.


(R) 31.    Barrow Port Land Acquisition.


(R) 32.    Leisure Centre – Dock Museum Responsibility Changes – TO FOLLOW


    NOTE      (D) - Delegated
              (R) - For Referral to Council

    Membership of Committee


    T. L. Waiting (Chairman)
    Pidduck (Vice-Chairman)
    M. A. Roberts
    J. Waiting
                                                                          Part One

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                         (R)
Date of Meeting:          4th January, 2006
Reporting Officer: Chief Environmental Health Officer                        9

Title:      Furness and West Cumbria Housing Market Renewal (HMR)
Summary and Conclusions:

This report updates Members on the progress made in developing the prospectus for
the Furness and West Cumbria Housing Market Renewal Initiative and recommends
changes to the agreed staffing structure to implement the programme of activities.


To recommend the Council:-

(i)      To note the report;

(ii)     To agree that the Housing Renewal Manager post be amended in accordance
         with revised job description and person specification and the post be regraded
         to Scale PO (9-12) (£31,557-£33,984);

(iii)    To agree to the appointment of a Housing Renewal Officer (SO1/2) (£22,512-
         £26,157) and Administrative Assistant (2/3) (£13,458-£15,372) subject to
         available HMR capital resources; and

(iv)     To amend the Capital Programme accordingly.


Members will be aware that Minute Nos. 30 and 37 Executive Committee 13 th July
2005 updated this Committee on the work of the Council, in partnership with
Copeland Borough Council, Allerdale District Council and West Lakes Renaissance
in securing funding to address private sector housing issues typified by low value
property, high vacancy and turnover rates and abandonment.

Hindpool, Central and Barrow Island wards have been identified as priority areas for
intervention and authority to appoint a Housing Renewal Manager has been

I can now report that the HMR prospectus detailing an agreed strategy for the
Furness and West Cumbria Housing Market Renewal Initiative has been submitted to
Government Office North West (GONW). At the time of drafting this report formal
acceptance of the HMR prospectus has not been secured although informal feedback
from GONW indicates broad agreement subject to minor amendments to individual
district council plans. A financial schedule for the Barrow element of the programme
is attached at Appendix 1.

Acceptance of the HMR prospectus by GNOW will release funds of some £10.5m to
be used within the target wards in Barrow during the next two years and a working
group of Officers led by Chief Executive are currently developing action plans.

As a preliminary to the implementation of intervention plans in the Central Ward,
following the Stock Option Appraisal, authority was granted to appoint a Housing
Renewal Manager (Scale PO6-9).

Following a local and national recruitment campaign only one application meeting the
essential criteria for the post has been received and following a recent interview it
has been decided not to make an appointment in this case as the applicant is not
considered to have the relevant experience to satisfy the requirements of the post.

Management Team have reconsidered options for delivery of the HMR programme of
work and are mindful, given the substantial amount of capital funding to be directed
at the HMR programme, that recruitment of a Lead Officer for the programme, to
direct strategy and implementation on behalf of the Council, is the appropriate way
forward with the intention that a Housing Renewal Officer and Administrative
Assistant are recruited to provide operational support for delivery of the programme
at a time when the capital allocation for the programme is secured.

The job description and person specification had been amended for the Housing
Renewal Manager to reflect a greater leadership role than was originally envisaged.
It is anticipated that an improved grading for the post from PO(6-9) to PO(9-12) will
result in a better response to recruitment.

Background Papers

                                                                            Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                        Agenda
Date of Meeting:           4th January 2006                                 Item
Reporting Officer:         Chief Executive

Title:      Safer and Stronger Communities Fund – Neighbourhood

Summary and Conclusions:

This report makes recommendations for the implementation of Neighbourhood
Management in the Borough using resources available under the Safer and Stronger
Communities Fund from 2006-2010.


To recommend the Council:-

1.       To confirm Central and Hindpool areas as the area of intervention for
         Neighbourhood Element funding;

2.       To create a Neighbourhood Management Team as detailed in the report;

3.       To appoint a Neighbourhood Manager immediately and in advance of
         receipt of Neighbourhood Element funding, with any supplementary costs to
         be met from the Council‟s current manpower budget;

4.       To appoint a Neighbourhood Management Team as outlined as of 1 st
         April, 2006;

5.       To fund a team of four x PCSO‟s to supplement existing Neighbourhood
         Policing in the area as detailed;

6.       To establish a Neighbourhood Management Board to assist in the
         development and operation of the service;

7.       To recommend to the Furness Partnership that they use NRF resources to
         establish a Community Chest for each of the remaining priority wards including
         the Roosegate Estate to promote neighbourhood based initiatives; and

8.       To submit the report to Furness Partnership for consideration and

As I advised Members at your meeting on 22nd September 2005, the Council has
been allocated new funding under the Neighbourhood Renewal Initiative known as
the Neighbourhood Element (NE) in reflection of the fact that three wards in the
Borough, namely Central, Hindpool and Ormsgill contain pockets of deprivation which
are in the highest 3% in the country.

Funding has been confirmed (Appendix 2) and is based on the following profile:-

      2006/07              £413,000
      2007/08              £516,000
      2008/09              £410,000
      2009/10              £270,000

The aim of the Neighbourhood Element is to improve the quality of life for people
living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and to ensure their service providers are
more responsive to neighbourhood needs and improve their deliverability.

86 authorities are receiving this funding, with most authorities receiving the same
level of resources as Barrow. Eligible authorities, as diverse as Coventry, Hackney,
Sunderland and Newcastle will receive similar funding and, in recognition of this
diversity the Council and its partners have wide discretion as how best to use these
resources to secure the desired outcome.

General guidance is available (Appendix 3) which emphasises the importance of
Neighbourhood Management in the deployment of NE funding and the need to target
resources to a population limit of around 10,000.

The Council is also expected to secure the endorsement of our local Local Strategic
Partnership (LSP) and Cumbria County Council to any proposals.

Target Area for Intervention

We have already consulted the LSP with regards to defining the boundary for this
intervention and there appears to be general consensus that the current Hindpool
and Central wards should be the target area. This would provide a target population
of 11,000, which is slightly larger than recommended but is easily defined. Barrow
Area Committee of Cumbria County Council has endorsed this approach.

Selecting this target area will allow us to co-ordinate Neighbourhood Management
with Housing Market Renewal and Urban Regeneration Fund investment, which is
already focussed on these wards and to encompass all of the qualifying pockets of
deprivation in Barrow, except for a single area in Ormsgill, which is not coterminous
with Hindpool and Central and would be difficult to incorporate.

In establishing this new approach the government is sending a clear signal that it
expects intervention against deprivation to be more focussed at a neighbourhood
level. The opportunity exists for the LSP to use Neighbourhood Renewal funding to
establish smaller scale but complimentary initiatives in Ormsgill and the other priority
wards including the Roosegate Estate by developing more substantial and robust
community chest arrangements for these wards to focus on priorities from a
neighbourhood perspective and I recommend the Council promotes such an
approach to the LSP.

However it is essential the NE resources are not dispersed too widely and Members
are, therefore, invited to agree that the target area for Neighbourhood Element
resources will be Central and Hindpool wards.

Community Policing

In parallel to this Neighbourhood Management initiative, the Central area of Barrow
has been identified as a pilot for Neighbourhood Policing in Cumbria as part of a
National Initiative in Community Policing. (Appendix 4).

The Council is encouraged to consider how Neighbourhood Management and
Neighbourhood Policing can be integrated to achieve optimum impact and this is
reflected in the recommendations.

Community Engagement

It is also expected that Neighbourhood Management will involve a high level of
community engagement. We are well positioned in the target area because of the
valuable work of the Furness Community Network (FCN) and the active development
of representative groups who can be engaged in this initiative.

This initiative will require the establishment of a Neighbourhood Management
Board made up of appropriate community representatives and relevant organisations
to provide guidance and advice to the Neighbourhood Manager on the deployment of
resources and community priorities for intervention. In addition to environmental
standards and fear of crime issues, the initiative is expected to impact positively on
educational achievement and health in the target area.

The national guidance recommends the appointment of a full time community
development worker for the target area together with a system of resident outreach
workers but in view of the various interventions already operating in this community I
recommend that any decisions on the deployment of additional resources for
community engagement are left to the Neighbourhood Manager in consultation with
the new Neighbourhood Management Board.


A real difficulty for the Council is ensuring financial sustainability for this initiative.
The funding arrangements set out by the government clearly reflect a bias towards
unitary and metropolitan authorities, which have the resources available to top up
and maintain a variable and ultimately declining cash flow.

In designing our proposals, I have been mindful of the need to maximise impact,
whilst protecting the Council against a reducing funding stream. To achieve this, I
am proposing a core strategy based on annual expenditure of circa £300,000. This
leaves over £100,000 of uncommitted funding in years 1, 2 and 3, which can be used
to fund additional short term initiatives to respond to community based priorities and
to support any further community engagement work that might be considered

Neighbourhood Management

It is clear that a fundamental requirement is the establishment of a Neighbourhood
Manager and team to provide a focussed and dedicated resource for the Central and
Hindpool wards.

In some areas, Neighbourhood Management is provided through an agency such as
a Housing Association, but in the target area the tenure is so diverse and the Council
is so directly involved in complimentary initiatives, I believe it is best to operate on a
direct employment basis.

Having established a new Community Services Department, it would be most
appropriate to locate the Central/Hindpool Neighbourhood Management Team within
this department in the Regeneration Directorate.

Table 1 Proposed Management structure

                                Director of Regeneration

                             Community Services Manager

Neighbourhood Mgt.-------    Neighbourhood Manager -------- Community Policing
     Board                                                             Team

                             Neighbourhood Wardens

                                 Admin /Clerical Support

                             Community Priority Initiatives
Neighbourhood Manager

The national model indicates salary levels for Neighbourhood managers, which
reflect metropolitan benchmarks, which are inappropriate for the Barrow labour
market. I, therefore, recommend that the Council appoints a Neighbourhood
Manager at Scale PO9-12 (£31,557 to £33,964) which I consider would be the
appropriate rate in Barrow with a job description based on the national guidance.

To ensure that that new post holder is able to devote a maximum time in effective
problem solving and service development and service standard negotiation with third
parties, he or she will require a high level of administrative and clerical support and I
propose to appoint an Administrative Assistant on Scale 3 and a Clerical Assistant on
Scale 1/2.

The Neighbourhood Manager will require a team, which can help reduce crime and
anti social behaviour, improve environmental standards and develop community
support, cohesion and trust.

Community Safety

Bearing in mind the encouragement being given to co-ordinate Neighbourhood
Management and Neighbourhood Policing, I believe it would therefore be of great
value to use a proportion of NE resources to supplement neighbourhood policing in
this target area.

Our BCU Commander has indicated her strong support for such an approach.
Existing policing resources in this area are dedicated but limited. The introduction of
an additional 4 x PCSO‟s exclusively to these wards would significantly enhance
community support resources and allow the local police to provide a more
personalised service to support Neighbourhood Management. PCSO‟s would be
authorised by the Council to enforce a range of environmental offences, in addition to
their powers under the Police Reform Act 2002. Management of PCSO‟s would
remain with the police force but with strong integration with the Neighbourhood
Management Team through co-location. The cost of a supplementary team of 4 x
PCSO‟s, including on cost equipment would be £82,162. (Appendix 5).

I have assumed a total budget of £100,000 to allow for enhanced equipment and
some opportunity for overtime if required.

Neighbourhood Wardens

In addition to a PCSO team, we need to establish a team of wardens, who can
engage in physical activity to improve environmental conditions, provide an additional
visible guardian presence to promote community safety and enhanced enforcement
of environmental regulations, contribute to community engagement by providing an
additional link between local residents and the Council.

It is of course essential that this team adds value to existing services and initiatives
and further work will be required to ensure effective integration. It is also essential
that these wardens are seen as focussed on residential areas as opposed to the
retail core.

At this stage, I have simply allowed £100,000 for the establishment of this team,
following further detailed consideration of the options.


The development of this service provides an ideal opportunity to bring a vacant
property in the target area back into productive use as a central base. A variety of
properties are available and the Director of Regeneration is currently negotiating on a
number of options.

In the interim, space is available in a number of Council owned properties to allow the
project to proceed without delay and opportunities also exist to create contact points
throughout the target area.

Capital costs for creation of a new Neighbourhood Management headquarters can
readily be accommodated from a number of regeneration programmes available in
this catchment area.

Table 2

Central/Hindpool Neighbourhood Management – Core Costs 2006/07

Neighbourhood Manager                      32,000
Admin Assistant                            14,000
Clerical Assistant                         10,000

PCSO Team                                 100,000

Neighbourhood Warden Team                 100,000

Accommodation / On costs/                  44,000 (15%)
Overtime/ Equipment/Transport

Core Costs                                300,000

Community Priority Initiatives            113,000

Total year 1                              413,000
First Steps

These proposals should be considered as a framework for Neighbourhood
Management. The first and most important step is to proceed immediately with the
appointment of a Neighbourhood Manager to take forward these proposals.

The second is to establish a Neighbourhood Management Board to provide input into
the development and operation of this service.

The Council has been given access to significant additional resources through the
Neighbourhood Element of NRF to improve the quality of life for people living in our
most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and to ensure their service providers are more
responsive to neighbourhood needs and improve their deliverability.

To establish a strong and effective initiative to deliver these objectives I recommend
that the Council agrees the recommendation.

Background Papers

                                                                               Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                           Agenda
Date of Meeting:            4th January 2006                                   Item
Reporting Officer:          Chief Executive

Title:       Streetcare Services
Summary and Conclusions:

This report details proposals for the establishment of a new Streetcare Team in the
Community Services Department.


To recommend the Council:-

1.       To agree that a new “Streetcare Team” is established in the Community
         Services Department;

2.       To agree that two new posts of Streetcare Manager and Streetcare Clerical
         Assistant are created as detailed in the report;

3.       To agree that the post of Horticultural Officer is transferred to this new team at
         an equivalent grade but with a new job title of Assistant Streetcare Manager
         and appropriate job description;

4.       To agree that the vacant post of Streetcare Co-ordinator is re-titled Streetcare
         Officer on similar terms and conditions;

5.       To agree that the full year additional costs of establishing this team are
         included in the 2006/07 Revenue Budget at £57,120; and

6.       To agree that in view of savings available in the current manpower budget, this
         team is established immediately subject to Council approval.



The purpose of this report is to make recommendations to enhance and improve the
management of streetcare services to reflect the high priority given to this issue by
local residents in response to the Government‟s safer, cleaner, greener agenda and
the enhanced statutory duties of the Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Act
2005 (CNEA).
Current Situation

Although the Council is no longer responsible for the key issues of highway
maintenance and street lighting, we retain significant responsibilities for “streetcare”
issues, for example, street cleaning, provision of litter bins, weed control, bus shelters
(without advertising) street furniture, highway verge and amenity landscaping, stray
dog and dog fouling control and footpath lighting.

Responsibility for various aspects of this work is currently dispersed to a variety of
Council departments and, in some instances, as with street furniture, dedicated
staffing resources were lost during the period when the Council was subject to

The Council recognised the need to re-invest in this area of operation and, in the
current year‟s budget, resources are included to appoint a new post of Streetcare Co-
ordinator, to develop an improvement plan.

However, since the budget was set, this issue has assumed even greater importance
with the announcement of the Government‟s “safer, cleaner, greener” policies and
the identification of Barrow‟s Hindpool and Central Wards as national priorities for
enhanced Neighbourhood Management with the allocation of substantial additional
capital and revenue resources to improve the public realm in these wards.

Aware of these impending changes, I have delayed the appointment of the Streetcare
Co-ordinator to allow us to consider a more robust response to this developing

Increasing Our Commitment to Streetcare

Whilst the additional resources for Neighbourhood Management will allow us to
impact significantly on streetcare issues in Central/Hindpool, it is important that we
deliver improvements and better co-ordination of services throughout the Borough.

To this end, I am recommending that the Council establishes a new Streetcare
Team within the Community Services Department in addition and complimentary
to the development of Neighbourhood Management Services.

Table 1 Proposed Organisational Structure

                             Community Services

Car                  Neighbourhood        Streetcare            Cultural
Parking              Management                                 Services
Streetcare Team

Duties and Responsibilities

The proposed team will be responsible for the direction and supervision of all Council
contracts for maintenance of the highway, highway verges and associated amenity
sites and maintenance of Council assets within the highway and amenity sites such
as street furniture, litter bins, bus shelters, public art, trees and soft landscaping.

Currently different Council Officers supervise grounds maintenance (grass cutting
etc) and litter picking and street cleaning. Under this proposal, a single team of
Officers will monitor all contractor performance within the public realm. Further they
will be able to alert the County Council to defects in the highways and in street
lighting on behalf of local residents.

The team will not concentrate on rigid contract supervision which is often a waste of
valuable resources but will be expected to adopt a problem solving approach to deal
with blackspots and eliminate inconsistency in performance working with the County
and our contractors and will apply contract penalties to ensure high standards of

The team will be expected to develop an improvement plan for the public realm
based on public consultation and customer feedback, which will raise community
aspirations and improve public satisfaction. The team and in particular the Streetcare
Manager will liaise closely with and support the Neighbourhood Manager for Central
and Hindpool.


It is important that if we are to have a real impact in this area, we create a team,
which is adequately resourced, and this will require growth in our manpower budget
together with some redistribution of existing resources and responsibilities within the
Council‟s establishment.

In my view, a Streetcare Team will require the following staffing: -

Table 2 Proposed Establishment

                                                        2006/07        2006/07
   Post                             Grade (£)           additional     cost inc.
                                                        Cost (£)       on-costs (£)

Streetcare Manager            PO 3-6 (27,491-29,860)    27,491         35,120

Asst. Streetcare Mgr.*        SO 1/2 (23,176-26,929)    nil *          nil *

Streetcare Officer **         Scale 5 (18,456-20,236)   nil **         nil **

Clerical Assistant            Scale 1/2 (11,193-14,522) 11,193         14,000

              Total full year additional salary cost    38,684         49,120
             Salary on costs                          10,436
             Transport and equipment                   8,000         8,000
                                                      ________      ________

                    Total                             57,120        57,120

These costs can be offset by the following measures: -

*     Transfer of responsibilities and establishment from Parks and Gardens.

      The Parks and Gardens team comprises of three Officers and by transferring
      responsibility for the amenity sites and highway verge maintenance to the
      Streetcare Team and grounds maintenance in Cemeteries to the
      Cemeteries and Crematorium staff, we can afford to delete the post of
      Horticultural Officer and transfer this Officer to the Streetcare Team in the
      capacity of Assistant Streetcare Manager at an equivalent grade.

**    Streetcare Officer – This post simply replaces the vacant post of Streetcare
      Co-ordinator created in the 2005/06 budget

      {The transfer of responsibility for supervision of the Street Cleaning
      contract will not involve the transfer of any staff resources but will free
      up resources in the Environmental Health Department’s Waste
      Management Section to focus on recycling and enforcement activity
      under the CNEA. This team will also retain responsibility for monitoring
      street cleaning standards for National Performance Indicators.}

My proposals, therefore, require two new posts to be created at a full year cost of
£53,842 in 2006/07 and I request that these be considered as a budget commitment
for 2006/07. I expect these costs to be offset by savings in the provision for Freedom
of Information Enquiries, which have not materialised in the volume anticipated by the
government and the LGA and which after initial set up costs in the current financial
year we are able to absorb using existing resources.

As a result of savings in this year‟s manpower budget generated by delaying the
appointment of the Streetscene Co-ordinator post I am able to recommend that these
appointments and changes to establishment take place immediately to allow the new
team to begin operation at the beginning of the new financial year.

Background Papers

                                                                           Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                       Agenda
Date of Meeting:         4th January 2006                                  Item
Reporting Officer:       Chief Executive

Title:    Appointment on Outside Bodies, Panels, Working Parties

Summary and Conclusions:

The Council on 23rd May, 2005 gave delegated authority to Committees to make
appointments to Outside Bodies, Forums (except Housing Management Forum),
Panels etc. in accordance with the number and allocation of seats to political groups
agreed at the Annual meeting.

The report deals with changes to appointments on Outside Bodies and Panels.


To agree to the following changes:-

Member Training Working Group: Councillor D Roberts to replace Bill Pears

Askam and Ireleth Parish Council Liaison Meeting: Councillor Williams to replace Bill

Dalton and Newton Town Council Liaison Meeting: Councillor Williams to replace Bill


The Conservative Group has given notice of its wish to make the following changes
to appointments on Outside Bodies as follows:-

Member Training Working Group: Councillor D Roberts to replace Bill Pears.

Askam and Ireleth Parish Council Liaison Meeting: Councillor Williams to replace Bill

Dalton with Newton Town Council Liaison Meeting: Councillor Williams to replace Bill

Background Papers

                                                                            Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                        Agenda
Date of Meeting:           4th January 2006                                 Item
Reporting Officer:         Policy Officer

Title:        Information Sharing Protocol
Summary and Conclusions:

The Council‟s powers to share information for a variety of purposes are outlined. A
draft protocol for the facilitation of sharing of information is proposed.


To recommend the Council:-

1.       To approve the Information Sharing Protocol; and

2.       To authorise the Chief Executive to identify designated and nominated officers
         for the implementation of the protocol.


Partnership working forms a key element of delivering the Council‟s objectives as
expressed in the Community Plan. For partnership working to be effective, we need
to have appropriate measures in place to allow us to share relevant information. This
includes statistical, non-personal information, but there are occasions when we need
to share personal information, for example where necessary for crime reduction or
child protection purposes. There is therefore a need to develop a robust system for
the exchange of personal information.

Statutory powers exist to allow the sharing of personal information, but to put these
into practice within an agreed framework, it is good practice to have a protocol to
ensure a consistent approach to information sharing.

Because of the particular relevance to crime reduction, the Crime and Disorder
Reduction Partnership (CDRP) has recently delivered training to interested partners,
to develop an effective information sharing network. A protocol was drafted to
facilitate this work. The draft protocol is attached at Appendix 6.

The aim is to provide single document to which all information sharing can be
The CDRP approved this document in principle at its meeting on 1st December 2005.
It committed to requesting all partners to formally adopt the protocol. This Committee
is therefore requested to approve the protocol as Council policy.

If the protocol is to be used in a meaningful way, a network of people who can
usefully share information will need to be identified.

Background Papers

                                                                            Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                        Agenda
Date of Meeting:           4th January 2006                                 Item
Reporting Officer         Director of Finance

Title:   Interim Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Solution

Summary and Conclusions:

The report deals with the interim situation between Liberata moving out of Craven
House and our transfer of the CRM function to them.


Members are recommended to agree to Liberata‟s Local Customer Care Team and
the Council‟s Customer Care Team sharing the new facilities created in the Town
Hall, pending the transfer of CRM services to Liberata.


At its meeting on 2nd March 2005 this Committee agreed, in principle, to the transfer
of the Customer Relations Management (CRM) function and associated staff to
Liberata, and the opening of necessary consultations with the Union and employees

Due to delays in the extension of Liberata‟s contract, caused by problems with their
lease of new property, discussions on the CRM transfer were suspended.

Discussions have now been resumed, and are making positive progress. However,
they will not be anywhere near complete by the date when Liberata are due to move
out of Craven House into Lake House.

It is not in our customer‟s interests to have them travelling to Lake House to carry out
transactions in relation to Revenues and Benefits.

I am, therefore, looking to Members agreement to a proposal that, in the meantime,
(pre CRM extension to the Liberata contract) the Council‟s CRM Section and
Liberata‟s Barrow Customer Care Team share the new facilities in the Town Hall.

Background Papers

                                                                            Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                        Agenda
Date of Meeting:           4th January 2006                                 Item
Reporting Officer:         Assistant Director (Regeneration)

Title:    Statement of Community Involvement and Document
          Charging Schedule

Summary and Conclusions:

The purpose of this report is to present to Members the pre-submission draft SCI and
a draft schedule of charges for the new LDF Documents.


That the pre-submission draft SCI be agreed and that subject to Council approval,
the document be made available for public participation in accordance with the
regulations. In addition, that the charging schedule for Local Development
Framework documents be agreed.


The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is the first document which has been
produced as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF). A brief summary of
the new LDF system and the role of the SCI can be seen on pages 3-5 of the
attached draft (Appendix 7).

The SCI sets out the Councils policies and procedures for involving the public in the
planning process, both in the preparation of planning policy documents and in the
consideration of planning applications.

An initial consultation letter was sent to the specific bodies we are obliged to consult
prior to the draft being prepared, giving a five week consultation period for comments
which ended on 7th December 2005. Three responses were received these are
summarised in Appendix 8, along with the appropriate changes which were made to
the working draft following this initial consultation.

A working draft of the document was considered at Local Plan Working Group on 6 th
December 2005 and there were no adverse comments. Some further minor changes
have been made to this working draft, including those introduced as a result of the
consultation responses received.

Once approved by this Committee and Council a further period of consultation will
take place with a wider number of bodies, in accordance with the regulations.
The SCI also has three Appendices which comprise:
    List of Consultees divided into Specific, General and Other categories
    List of Locations where LDF documents can be viewed
    List of Contacts

These appendices can be updated              regularly   following   requests   from
organisations/bodies for their inclusion.

In addition a charging schedule has been drawn up for all documents (see Appendix
9), should individuals or organisations wish to purchase hard copies. As the Local
Development Framework is comprised of a large number of documents, the attached
schedule shows a modest fee for each document as organisations and individuals
may wish to purchase single documents or a full set.

Background Papers

Correspondence held by the Assistant Director of Regeneration
                                                                           Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                       Agenda
Date of Meeting:           4th January 2006                                Item
Reporting Officer:         Assistant Director (Regeneration)

Title:      Cumbria Vision Strategic Plan 2006–2016
Summary and Conclusion:

Cumbria Vision have published their draft strategy covering the period 2006 to 2016.
A summary of the strategy is presented and a series of comments for Members


To agree that the comments on the Draft Strategy in the report are forwarded to
Cumbria Vision as the Council‟s response to the Draft Strategy.


I have received a copy of the above draft document for comment. Responses need
to be submitted to Cumbria Vision by 14th January 2006. A copy of the document is
attached at Appendix 10.


The draft strategy is based on County wide economic analysis and concludes that
although Cumbria is sharing in increased economic prosperity, it is falling behind
faster regional and national economic growth in other parts of the UK. It further
concludes, based on the Cumbria Economic Assessment 2004, that:

        Although indigenous economic growth through new enterprises is higher than
         in England, this tends to be in occupations where wages are low and there is
         limited opportunity to significantly expand the economy of the County through
         this means;

        That economic growth through population expansion is unlikely;

        That the development of maritime, energy, agricultural, tourism and food and
         drink clusters offers scope for potential growth;

        Cumbria has a poorly qualified workforce;
          The outflow of academically able young people is unlikely to be reversed
           because of the low levels of graduate jobs; and

          Economic growth through inward investment is unlikely which may strengthen
           the case for targeting indigenous SME‟s in growth sectors.

The strategy identifies seven key sectors where “…transformational activity is both
necessary and possible” and three geographical areas requiring special emphasis

Key Sectors

           Education and skills;
           Knowledge industries including manufacturing and enterprise support;
           Nuclear opportunities;
           Infrastructure;
           Land based industries;
           Tourism image and the environment; and
           Cultural and creative industries.

Geographic Priorities

          Furness and West Cumbria;
          Carlisle;
          Rural Cumbria.

Suggested response

I have several minor queries on the background economic material which I will
forward direct to Cumbria Vision. The comments below relate directly to the strategy
and are therefore of greater significance.

Comments on the strategy

   1. Page 5, Executive Summary – the strategy identifies three geographical
      priorities: Furness and West Cumbria, Carlisle and Rural Cumbria. Without
      further clarification of the Rural Cumbria designation in effect the whole
      County has been prioritised. The strategy will only be effective if it is
      effectively targeted – a point made elsewhere in the document.

   2. Page 17, Purpose and Priorities - the final sentence of the first paragraph
      should be amended to give priority to those areas where there is both a need
      and an opportunity for economic development activity.

   3. Page 18, Long Term Objectives – The third objective as drafted does not
      support the Draft RES which targets worklessness support specifically on
      Barrow. The objective should be redrafted to reflect this (see point 9 below).

   4. Page 19, National Policy Framework – It is not clear what comprises a
      National Policy Framework in this context, however this section should include
      Barrow Taskforce which is continuing to align public sector resources to tackle
    regeneration issues in the area. I‟m not convinced that Carlisle Renaissance
    should be included as no similar cross departmental coordinated programme
    has been agreed. I would have thought it insufficient that the Deputy Prime
    Minister “maintains an ongoing interest”. HMR should also be included for
    Barrow and West Cumbria

5. Page 20, Regional Policy Framework – the second paragraph should set out
   all the transformational activities relevant to Cumbria in the draft RES (or
   include them as an Appendix) rather than selectively quote from section on the
   rural parts of the Region.

6. Page 23, final dot point – delete”brown field”.

7. Page23, the strategy emphasise the role of manufacturing in Cumbria on page
   8, pointing out that manufacturing is one and a half times more significant in
   Cumbria than nationally. However the is no clear strategy for sustaining
   existing manufacturing industry and broadening the manufacturing base of the
   County. This would be the most effective way of addressing GVA concerns.

8. Page 25, Key issues – what evidence is there that a lack of quality housing is
   resulting in a lack of inward investment? The final point on Page 14 recognises
   that inward investment is unlikely for reasons other than lack of quality
   housing. A similar point is relevant to the third point of the proposed approach.
   This is also largely the responsibility of local authorities. The final point of the
   proposed approach seems unlikely to be achieved given the current low
   wages and housing market dynamics in the County. It could better be
   achieved by affordable housing policies which are also largely the
   responsibility of the local authorities.

9. Page 27, Tourism Image and the Environment – the proposed approach
   should include the creation of a Cruise Liner Terminal in Barrow serving the

10. Page 28, Creative industries – this sector is by definition fragmented covering
    a wide range of economic activities from architecture, crafts and printing and
    publishing. The strategy should focus on the activities with greatest high value
    growth potential which are principally in the IT sector. From experience
    elsewhere this would tend to direct resources to the urban parts of the County.

11. Page 31, Key Geographical Priority 1 – Reduction of worklessness in Barrow
    is a regional priority and reduction of deprivation in Barrow is a national
    priority. Both should be included as key issues. It is not clear why such issues
    are considered a Key Issue in Carlisle but not Barrow. The key issue on future
    ship building should recognise the need to secure future orders not capacity
    and maintenance of a capability to construct submarines and surface vessels.
    The proposed approach should set out what the strategy will do about all
    these issues. It should also list the key regeneration projects for Barrow and
    West Cumbria in the proposed approach.
  12. Page 33, Rural Cumbria – the final key issue implies the urban areas of the
      County (Barrow, West Cumbria, and Carlisle) are prosperous, yet the rest of
      the strategy indicates they need to be regenerated. If anything the perceived
      urban/ rural divide is seen as a prosperous rural area and declining urban

  13. Page 35, Working in Partnership – All County LSPs should also receive a copy
      of the annual business plan and performance report.

  14. Page 36, West Lakes Renaissance – Second paragraph should make clear
      that the existing establishment will be retained and delivery staff will be fully
      engaged within the specific geographical area designated for URC status.

  15. Page 44, Urban Regeneration Company – Not acceptable that WLR are seen
      as a subsidiary company. This would give the CV Board authority to close the
      company without further consultation.

  16. Page 46, Operational Organisation – It is not clear from the strategy how the
      sectors other than those listed will be dealt with. The approach to Key Sector
      1, for example, contains a long list of activities but no programme manager is
      to be appointed. The strategy contains little justification why the programme
      managers have been chosen for the selected areas.

  17. Generally, the strategy seems to rely heavily on the identification and
      implementation of “transformational projects”

  18. The strategy is unclear about the role of Cumbria Vision. Does the company
      see itself as a coordinator of programmes and a means of attracting new
      resources to the County, in other words in a strategic role or in addition to the
      above does it see itself as having a delivery role?

I welcome Members‟ views on the above. I recommend they are forwarded to
NWRDA as the Council‟s response to the Draft Strategy.

Background Papers

Cumbria Vision Strategy 2006 to 2016
                                                                          Part One

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                        (R)
Date of Meeting:           4th January, 2006                             Agenda
Reporting Officer:         Assistant Director (Personnel                    17
                           and Performance)

Title:    Criminal Records Disclosure Policy

Summary and Conclusions:

From April 2002, the police check procedure was replaced by a process of Criminal
Records Disclosure carried out by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB).

The CRB, a new executive agency of the Home Office, has been set up to facilitate
safer recruitment to protect children and vulnerable adults. Its primary purpose is to
help employers and voluntary organisations to make safer recruitment decisions.


To recommend the Council to agree the implementation of the Criminal Records
Disclosure process to ensure that individuals are treated ethically and fairly and that
the Council has access to information to decide on the suitability of those seeking to
work in positions of trust.


The CRB provides wider access to criminal record information through its Disclosure
Service. This service enables organisations in the public, private and voluntary
sectors to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be
unsuitable for certain work, especially that involve children or vulnerable adults.

The Authority has registered with the CRB and is currently able to ask successful job
applicants (or any person supplying a service on behalf of the Authority) to apply for
one of two types of disclosure if the position requires that such a check is necessary.

We need to stop dangerous people from working with children, young people or
vulnerable adults. However we must also treat each Disclosure on its merits mindful
of the fact that a job may be the best help that any ex-offender can get to avoid
returning to crime. The Council complies with the CRB‟s code of practice on the
recruitment of ex-offenders.
This policy which is attached at Appendix 11 will apply to those seeking employment
with the Council, those contracted to deliver services on behalf of the Council, and

Background Papers

                                                                          Part One

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                         (D)
Date of Meeting:           4th January, 2006                              Agenda
Reporting Officer:         Assistant Director (Personnel                     18
                           and Performance)

Title:    Adoption of New Performance Management Framework
          and Subsequent Adjustments to Corporate Priorities
Summary and Conclusions:

A performance management framework has been developed as a key improvement
priority. It has been used to refine the Council‟s Corporate priorities and highlight
links to the Community Plan.


To agree to adopt the new performance management framework and that the
adjustments to the Corporate priorities of the Council be agreed.


Performance management was identified as a weakness by the CPA process and the
development of an effective performance management framework has been one of
our key improvement priorities since the CPA report was received.

The LSP have already formulated the Community Plan which this Committee agreed
to adopt at its meeting on 25th January, 2005.

We need to make sure that the strategic objectives of the Council are aligned with the
overall aims and objectives of the Community Plan.

We have now developed a performance management framework which will help us
to ensure that this alignment is effectively established and at the same time provide
us with an efficient monitoring system to track progress against agreed key priorities.

There are a number of key elements to the framework we have adopted. The first is
to define the corporate vision for the Council.

The vision set out in the Community Plan states;

“In 2024 Barrow Borough will be a prosperous, pleasant, healthy and safe
environment for our children and for us”
Working from this long term vision we have drafted the following statement to
summarise the vision of the Council:

To enhance the economic and social future of the Borough to meet the needs
and aspirations of the community.

The second element of the framework seeks to align our Corporate priorities with the
Community Plan priorities.

Senior Managers have subsequently reviewed the Corporate priorities and suggest
the following:

– Provide effective community leadership

– Investing in our economic future

– Creating an enhanced quality of life for local residents

– Developing safe, confident and socially inclusive communities

– Delivering high quality, accessible services.

The third element of the framework is to formulate a three year improvement plan for
the Council.

We have approached this by identifying improvements from four different
perspectives – financial, learning and growth, organisational improvement and

A first draft of the improvements identified is attached at Appendix 12.

This needs further work, not the least of which involves formal consultation with our
stakeholders to make sure they agree with our conclusions about their perspectives.
We shall be conducting these consultations early this year so that an agreed list can
be in place by 1st April.

The fourth and final element of the framework is to identify up to eight key
developments each year. These will be selected having due regard to the
contribution they make to the broad objectives of the Community Plan or to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council.

The key feature which underpins the effectiveness of the framework is that all of our
development activity links directly to the overall aims and objectives of the
Community Plan. These critical links will be clearly demonstrated and will form a
significant part of the monitoring activity which will take place by both the LSP and
Appendix 13 shows how the Barrow model links together the long-term visioning
through the medium term aspirations to the short term annual developments.

Appendix 14 is a pictorial image which we will use to cascade the information
throughout the Council.

Background Papers

                                                                          Part One

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                          (D)
Date of Meeting:           4th January, 2006                               Agenda
Reporting Officer:         Assistant Director (Personnel                     19
                           and Performance)

Title:    Management of Corporate Strategic Risks – Progress
          Report 2005

Summary and Conclusions:

Corporate strategic risks identified by Senior Managers and Elected Members using
Zurich Municipal‟s methodology are subject to regular monitoring and review and this
report updates this Committee on progress made during 2005.


To note the progress made on managing the Corporate Strategic risks.

During November 2004 two strategic risk management exercises were conducted
within the Council. One was with Members and the other with Senior Managers.
These were managed by Zurich Municipal Management Services. The top eight risks
identified were allocated to key Officers who were tasked with managing the risks,
assessing the adequacy of existing actions and identifying the need for further action
in order to reduce the risk.

This report details the progress made during 2005 with respect to each of the eight
top risks identified.

The Economy Doesn‟t Continue to Grow and Diversify

High likelihood/critical impact. Current rates of new business and job creation by
agencies is high but does not offset levels of unemployment created over the past
decade. An evaluation of business support and development programmes took place
in July 2005. We will assist in the creation of office incubator units in July 2005 and
start research for basis of a marketing campaign.

The Dependency Culture Continues

Very high likelihood/critical impact. According to official figures in January 2005 only
1,298 were out of work and claiming benefit, 3.1% of the working age population.
These figures ignore people diverted into incapacity benefits – 6,400 adults of
working age – equivalent to one in six of the male population. We will continue to
support partners to provide services to assist incapacity benefit and job seekers
allowance claimants back into work by providing finance through Heart of Barrow and
the Local Strategic Partnership. However, we have to recognise that resource
constraints will prevent a major short term impact on this problem.

Private Dwellings Continue to Deteriorate

Very high likelihood/critical impact. During 2005-06 the Council will carry out a
Borough wide housing stock condition survey, an options survey for housing in the
Central Ward, support the work of the Local Strategic Partnership to ensure housing
initiatives are co-ordinated with other economic development opportunities, develop a
Borough wide housing strategy, assist in the development of a County wide strategy
and establishment of a Furness and West Coast Renewal Group.

Insufficient Funding to Allow Effective Marketing

Significant likelihood/critical impact. The Furness Task Force has recognised this as
a priority and has given its full support to the implementation of a Marketing strategy
to change the image of Barrow. Furness Enterprise are to champion a project to
establish the baseline position as far as Barrow‟s image is concerned within the
region, and funding has been allocated in the Urban Renewal Programme.
Additional funding will be channelled through the Task Force to implement the

High Profile Project doesn‟t proceed

NWDA‟s proposals to abolish the Urban Regeneration Company have now been
reversed which will ensure a continuous focused approach to regeneration in Barrow
is maintained. The programmes for the development of a Cruise Ship Terminal and
the provision of a canal entrance to service the new Marina have been established
and all third party approvals are being progressed.

Lost Revenue to the Council from Declining and Ageing Population

Very high likelihood/marginal impact. Identify and implement opportunities to invest
in commercial and industrial property development utilising the opportunity reserve
and capital funding plus let all commercial and industrial property owned by the
Council at the passing market rent.

Professional Staff Resource are Insufficient to Deliver Services

High likelihood/critical impact. We will explore more opportunities for joint service
provision with South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) and Lancaster City Council,
continue to review vacancies to maximise opportunities to change structure or
improve career development, have succession planning for senior roles, continue in
house professional training schemes (possibly in collaboration with SLDC and
Lancaster City Council) and continue to examine retention incentives such as flexible
pay and employment practices.

Background Papers
                                                                           Part One

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                         (R)
Date of Meeting:           4th January, 2006                              Agenda
Reporting Officer:         Assistant Director (Personnel                    20
                           and Performance)

Title:    Holiday Purchase Scheme
Summary and Conclusions:

Following growing interest from staff, the Healthwise Group have considered the
benefits of introducing a policy for staff to purchase additional annual leave.

Benefits to the Council include reduced stress, reduced absence levels and cost
savings whilst benefits to staff include increased leisure time and an increased ability
to meet caring commitments.


To recommend the Council to approve the policy for a Holiday Purchase Scheme for
a one-year pilot and details of take up to be reported to the Corporate Services
Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Holiday Purchase Scheme has been drafted following growing interest from staff
for a more flexible approach to benefits offered to employees. A copy of the scheme
is attached at Appendix 15. The purpose of the scheme is to allow employees to
"buy" additional annual leave entitlement on a year by year basis.

The scheme will allow employees to purchase additional holiday entitlement of up to
two working weeks, with the cost of additional leave being deducted on a monthly
basis over the course of the year from their salary.

Employees will be required to complete an application for approval by their manager.

The adoption of this policy will give the Council cost savings, reduce absence levels
and improve levels of morale and motivation whilst enabling Council employees to
better meet their personal commitments.

Operational details of the scheme will be agreed following union consultation.

Background Papers

                                                                         Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                     Agenda
Date of Meeting:        4th January 2006                                 Item
Reporting Officer: Assistant Director (Regeneration)

Title:    Local Plan Alteration – Housing
Summary and Conclusions:

The purpose of this report is to present to Members the Inspector‟s Report of the
Public Inquiry held into the Housing Chapter Alteration of the Local Plan Review and
a schedule of Officer responses to the modifications that the Inspector recommends
to be made, together with any further modifications proposed.


To recommend the Council:-

(1) To agree the modifications to the Housing Alteration as set out in the revised
document; and

(2) To note that the proposed modifications will be placed on deposit in accordance
with the regulations.


The Borough of Barrow-in-Furness Local Plan Review (1996-2006) was adopted on
24th August 2001. At the time the plan was being written, the Government were in
the process of revising the national planning guidance in relation to housing,
„Planning Policy Guidance Note 3‟. To keep the Local Plan up to date, the Council
resolved to alter its Housing Chapter.

Following the publication of an Issues Paper in September 2003, a first draft of the
Alteration was placed on deposit in May 2004. Following consideration the
representations received, a revised draft was published as a second deposit in
October 2004. Further representations in response to the second deposit were made
and the Council subsequently agreed to some additional changes to the document
(Further non-advertised changes - FNAC). These changes were not placed on
formal deposit but were considered at the Local Plan Inquiry in April 2005, through
the Inspector.

The Inspector‟s report of the Inquiry into the Housing Chapter was received in July
2005 and is attached at Appendix 16.
The Inspector‟s report and recommendations have been considered by Officers and
the Local Plan Working Group on 6th December 2005. The LPWG raised no
objection to the Officer recommendations subject to further discussion with
Development Control Officers regarding the implications of the Inspector‟s proposed
modifications to Policy B9. Following further discussions, the Inspectors proposed
modifications to Policy B9 are still recommended to be accepted.

Most of the Inspector‟s recommendations are proposed to be accepted and these
include many of the FNACs previously agreed by the Council. Some recommended
modifications are proposed to be wholly or partly rejected and some further
modifications are proposed. These, together with the relevant justifications, are set
out in Appendix 17 and these have been incorporated into a revised version of the
Housing Chapter Alteration attached at Appendix 18.          Further non-material
grammatical, formatting and factual updating changes have also been made to the

The Chapter‟s paragraphs will be renumbered and the document finally formatted
and adjusted following the conclusion of the final deposit.

As a result of the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the
Local Plan Review and the Housing Chapter Alteration once adopted, will be „saved‟
for the period set out below, or until they are revoked or replaced by the documents
of the new Local Development Framework (or unless the saved period is extended by
the Secretary of State).

Background Papers

Local Plan Review – September 2007
Housing Alteration – 3 years from adoption.
                                                                         Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                     Agenda
Date of Meeting:         4th January 2006                                Item
Reporting Officer:       Assistant Director (Regeneration)

Title:    Strategic Approach to Schools Organisation: Furness
          Local Partnership Group
Summary and Conclusion:

Cumbria County Council have initiated a review of schools across the County. The
Borough Council has been invited to join the local partnership for the Furness area.


The Committee is asked to nominate two Councillors to represent the Council on the
local partnership.


As Members will be aware, Cumbria County Council have recently decided to
undertake a review of school organisation within Cumbria. Two bodies have been
established to lead the review, a Countywide School Organisation Forum and local
partnerships across the County; the Borough is included in the Furness Local
Partnership, which includes the Ulverston and Millom areas. The purpose of the local
partnerships is to provide local information to the Countywide Forum. The Council
has been invited to join the local partnership, which comprises a wide range of
organisations including County Councillors, school heads, Connexions, the LSC MP‟s
and other local bodies. Two places have been reserved for Borough Councillors with
an Officer also in attendance.

Background Papers

Letter from Cumbria County Council.
                                                                          Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                      Agenda
Date of Meeting:          4th January 2006                                Item
Reporting Officer:        Chief Environmental Health Officer

Title:       Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership
Summary and Conclusions:
This Report provides Members with an update of issues from the Cumbria Strategic
Waste Partnership (CSWP).

1. To agree to allocate the Council‟s 2006/07 Waste Performance and Efficiency
   Grant to the CSWP for disposal as they see fit;
2. To agree to the expansion of the Council‟s Green Waste Recycling as detailed in
   this report and the 2006/07 Revenue Budget is amended accordingly;
3. To note the information on potential changes to the method of Recycling Credit
   distribution; and
4. To note the information on discussions with SLDC and Lancaster City Council on
   joint procurement of Bring-site contracts.


1. Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership (CSWP) Update:

The work of the Cumbria Strategic Waste Partnership (CSWP) continues. Cumbria
County Council are progressing towards naming its strategic waste partner for the
next 25 years.

On 30th September the County Council received Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) bids
from two companies. Since that time Officers have been evaluating the bids,
clarifying areas of uncertainty and meeting the bid company representatives.

Scoring Sessions took place week commencing 21st November, with a final bidder
meeting held on 1st December. It is anticipated that a report will be submitted to the
County Council Cabinet on 10th January and then to full County Council on 19 th
January, recommending a preferred partner.

2. Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant (WPEG):

The Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant (WPEG) is a three year grant
programme, which is allocated to Local Authorities, from the Department of the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). WPEG was established to support
innovation and efficiency in delivery of waste reduction and increased recycling
initiative and promotion of diversion from landfill. Local authorities received £45m in
2005/06, and have been awarded £105m for 2006/07 and £110m for 2007/08. In the
first round of WPEG, this Council received £22,150.68, split £12,459.76 Capital and
£9,690.92 Revenue.

Members should note that the this Council‟s allocation of the WPEG in 2006/07 is
likely to be in the region of £50,000 and that the CSWP have already agreed to the
provision of at least £160,000 for the expansion of the Garden Waste Collection
Service (as detailed below), with further bids for funding of other projects being
considered in February 2006.

DEFRA's guidance makes it abundantly clear that they are keen to see the WPEG
pooled throughout Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) areas, wherever possible.
CSWP are seeking agreement from all six Waste Collection Authorities (WCA) and
the County Council for the 2006/07 WPEG to be pooled and utilised to support
projects that will contribute to the challenging, county-wide Landfill Allowance Trading
Scheme (LATS) targets. It is proposed that from next financial year WPEG will be
paid direct to the Cumbria County Council and will be made available to WCAs for
relevant projects by agreement through the CSWP.

I understand that the other five district councils and the County Council have agreed
to pool their WPEG, and I recommend that Members agree a similar arrangement so
that the Borough Council‟s WPEG funding for 2006/07 can be allocated to the
CSWP, for use as agreed by the partnership.

3. Green Waste Collection Service Expansion:

THE CSWP have agreed to allocate funds to enable the Council to expand its Brown
Bin Collection Service through the provision of a further 6,000 brown 240 litre
wheeled bins. This will allow the Council to offer a comprehensive green waste
collection service to all suitable properties within the Borough. CSWP have agreed to
fund the extra bins through the WPEG allocation for 2006/07 (as outlined below), and
have identified in the region of £165,000 for the project.

There will be a need to amend the Waste Collection and Recycling Contract to reflect
the need for extra resources, which will cost approximately £35,000. This increased
Revenue Budget expenditure will be matched by increased recycling credits
generated by the green waste from the newly serviced properties making the
expansion of the service neutral in Revenue Budget terms.

I therefore recommend that Members agree to the expansion of the service and
delegate responsibility to me to amend the current Refuse Collection Contract

4. Consultation on Changes to the Recycling Credits Scheme:

Recycling credits are payments made to recyclers by Waste Disposal Authorities
(WDAs), representing the savings in disposal and collection costs that result from
recycling household waste. DEFRA have recently issued a consultation document,
seeking views on the method by which recycling credits should in future be calculated
and on new guidance on the recycling credit scheme. CSWP Officers prepared the
attached response (Appendix 19) on the consultation paper (Appendix 20).

Recycling Credits were introduced in 1990 as an incentive to third parties and Waste
Collection Authorities (WCAs) to improve recycling services. They reflect the actual
costs of disposal within each WCA. However, this method leads to large disparity to
payments across the County, ranging from £33.44 per tonne to £65.98 per tonne
(Barrow Borough Council‟s payments are currently £52.42).

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA) introduces an
opportunity to change the current recycling credit scheme. The following will be
possible from 3 April 2006:
    WDAs and WCAs will have the option to agree alternative arrangements;
    The Secretary of State will have powers to set the calculation of recycling
    Payments can be made for re-use, as well as recycling.

The CSWP have not yet established an agreed view on how to change the existing
Recycling Credit scheme and I would advise caution in agreeing to changes to the
detriment of the current position. Recycling Credits are a crucial element in the
make-up of the income which enables the Council to provide a wide range of
recycling services to the community.
Any reduction in income, so derived, will have Revenue Budget implications for the
Borough Council to consider. I would, therefore recommend that the Borough
Council notes the information in the attached Appendices at this time and reserves its
right to challenge an proposed changes to the existing recycling credit scheme,
through the CSWP should these proposals appear to have a detrimental effect on our
ability to deliver recycling services in the Borough.
5. Joint Procurement of Bring-site Contracts with South Lakeland District
   Council and Lancaster City Council:
As Members will be aware, the Council have been working in partnership with South
Lakeland District and Lancaster City Councils on Recycling and Waste Minimisation
awareness projects and recently launched a joint radio advertising campaign on The
Bay radio station.
Waste Management Officers from all three councils have also been meeting to
discuss the feasibility of jointly procuring contracts for the emptying of, and treatment
of recyclate, from the bring-sites in Barrow, South Lakeland and Lancaster City. It is
hoped that by jointly procuring contracts, the three councils will gain significant
advantages through an improved economy of scale.
Discussions are in their early stages and it is proposed that the feasibility of joint
procurement and the benefits derived to each local authority should be identified as a
preliminary to establishing formal procedures. I recommend that Members agree to
the discussions to date and that this information be noted and await further reports.
Background Papers

                                                                          Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                      Agenda
Date of Meeting:        4th January 2006                                  Item
Reporting Officer: Director of Regeneration

Title:    Land at Marsh Street, Barrow-in-Furness
Summary and Conclusions:

The Report outlines a request from Central Community Partnership (CCP) to lease
land to the rear of Marsh Street, Barrow-in-Furness.


(1) To approve the letting of land at the rear of Marsh Street to the Central
Community Partnership (CCP), subject to a successful bid to West Lakes
Renaissance; and

(2) To note that the Council will submit the bid to West Lakes Renaissance and
commission the „works‟ thereafter.


This Council own 0.4 acres of „unused‟ land to the rear of Marsh Street, Barrow-in-
Furness, as shown hatched on the attached plan at Appendix 21.

The land has remained derelict for many years and local residents have, on a
number of occasions, expressed an interest in utilising the land to develop some form
of „community development‟.

Through the Central Community Partnership (CCP) a local „team‟, the Marsh Street
Arches Project Team has recently formed. The team consists of two graduates from
BAE Systems, a member of the Central Community Partnership (CCP), a Community
Regeneration Company (CRC) Officer and a number of local residents. The team
are based at the Central Point office in Dalton Road.

The team have approached the Council with a plan to utilise the derelict land by
creating a „community garden‟, and have requested a lease of the site for a term of
25 years at a peppercorn rent.

Funding may be secured through West Lakes Renaissance. The team have
submitted a brief Development/Business Plan to the Council including estimated
costs for the project.
The Project Team have requested that the Council submit, on their behalf, an
application for funds from West Lakes Renaissance. The team have also requested
that, if funding is forthcoming, Barrow Borough Council would „project manage‟ the
actual development to secure its full implementation.

The development, on completion, would be formally (via a leasehold interest) vested
in the Central Community Partnership.

Background Papers

                                                                             Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                         Agenda
Date of Meeting:           4th January 2006                                  Item
Reporting Officer: Director of Regeneration

Title:      Barrow Station Gateway
Summary and Conclusions:

The Report sets out proposals for the redevelopment of the former Pye Motors site
and associated land, and makes recommendations regarding the compulsory
acquisition of the adjoining property.


To authorise the Director of Regeneration to appoint legal advisers to commence the
compulsory purchase of the former Haughin‟s Garage.


The Council acquired the former Pye Motors site in 2004 to facilitate the regeneration
of the area around Barrow Station. The Urban Design Framework has identified this
area as a key gateway into the Town Centre and has recommended that the
regeneration of the area should be dealt with as a priority project.

There are a number of related projects planned for the area which includes:-

a)       The County Council‟s proposals to undertake a major highway scheme to
         improve the junction at Abbey Road/Rawlinson Street/Holker Street;

b)       The Council‟s redevelopment of the former Astra Cinema site;

c)       The proposals by United Utilities to install a major flood attenuation scheme on
         the Council‟s car park adjacent to Station Approach. Accent Housing
         Association‟s proposals to build an extra care housing unit on the former Pye
         Motors site; and

d)       North West Trains proposals to improve Barrow Station and the possibility to
         relocate the present station access road away from the traffic light junction.

To ensure that all these projects can be implemented in a complementary manner,
Capita have produced an integrated plan of all the projects.

The plan shows that all the schemes can be accommodated, including the creation of
a pedestrian link from the station to the town centre as recommended by the Urban
Design Framework, subject to the acquisition of the former Haughin‟s Garage, which
is located adjacent to the Pye Motors site. A plan of the premises is attached at
Appendix 22, which as can be seen on Capita‟s plan which will be displayed at the
meeting, is crucial to the implementation of the Accent Housing Association‟s

A number of approaches have been made to the owners of the property, which have
all proved unsuccessful. I believe that we have now exhausted negotiations, and the
only alternative route to acquire the property is by compulsory means. The property
is fundamental to ensure the implementation of the Housing Scheme, and also to
ensure the proper planning of the area in order to develop the recommendations of
the Urban Design Framework.

Background Papers

                                                                             Part One
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                         Agenda
Date of Meeting:            4th January 2006                                 Item
Reporting Officer:          Director of Regeneration

Title:      Development of Industrial Units
Summary and Conclusions:

The report sets out proposals for the Council to undertake a development of new
industrial units at Furness Business Park.


To facilitate both these development opportunities, I recommend that:-

(1)      I commission Craig and Green to develop the design and specification of
         approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of new industrial units and to seek competitive
         tenders for the building contract.

(2)      I seek funding sources to support the development of the new industrial units.

(3)      On securing finance I be given authority to appoint a design and build
         contractor and novate Craig and Green to the successful tenderer.

(4)      I be given authority to sell land at the former West Site, adjacent to Waterside
         House to Priority Sites to facilitate the development of new industrial
         workspace at an open market valuation.


The Council has recently developed 40,000 sq. ft. of new industrial workspace in nine
individual units.

Six of the units have been let to local businesses, one additional unit is currently at
legals and the remaining two units are under offer.

The development of the Andrew‟s Court Development has proved very successful
allowing six local companies to expand and create new jobs.

The Council has received a number of further enquiries for units of between 2,000
and 15,000 sq. ft.
To ensure the growth and development of small local businesses it is essential that
new business premises are made available. As the local economic situation still
does not make business space development attractive to the commercial sector it is
essential that the local authority continues to invest and develop new small business
space in the borough.

To maintain the momentum, I would propose to commission Craig and Green to
prepare plans and specifications for the design of a further 20,000 sq. ft. of industrial
workshops to be built on the recently reclaimed former ironworks site in Forge Close,
as indicated on the attached plan.

In parallel to the design programme, I will seek alternative forms of both European
and local funding to support the development of the new units.

I have also had discussions with a local engineering company who require an
additional 50,000 sq. ft. of industrial workspace to accommodate the expansion and
development of their business. Negotiations have been undertaken with Priority
Sites, a specialist developer, jointly owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland and
English Partnerships with regard to their involvement in building the new factory on
Council owned land adjacent to Waterside House at the junction of Bridge Road and
Bridge Approach. Attached at Appendix 23 is a site plan.
                                                                            Part One

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE                                                           (R)
Date of Meeting:           4th January, 2006
Reporting Officer:         Director of Finance

Title:    West Lakes Renaissance (WLR) Funding for the Creative

Summary and Conclusions:

The delay in the assessment process for WLR funding for the creative industries is
causing cash flow problems for two organisations.


I recommend that the council agree to advance £28,000 to Ashton Group and £8,000
to Art Gene to ease the organisations‟ cash flow problems, prior to their receipt of
Urban Regeneration Funding, on terms and conditions agreed with myself.


At the Executive Committee meeting held on 3rd August, 2005 it was agreed that
WLR funds for the creative industries could be distributed through the Local Arts
Development Agency (LADA) budget, (Minute No. 57 refers). It was also agreed
that a bid should be made for a grant of £75,038 for the detailed list of projects. This
had been included as an addendum to the report to the meeting on 3 rd August, 2005.

When the bid was made it was anticipated that it would be assessed and agreed at
the WLR Board meeting held on 14th September, 2005.                  Unfortunately the
assessment process which should take a maximum of 4 weeks was delayed and
meant that the bid did not go to a WLR Board meeting until 7 th December.           The
Board agreed that because the delay was not the fault of Barrow Borough Council or
the creative industries that the projects could have a start date of 1 st September and
all invoices dated after the offer letter would be honoured.

The creative industries are all small organisations and the delay in processing the bid
is causing cash flow problems for Ashton Group and Art Gene. I am requesting that
the council agree to pay both of the companies the grants agreed by the WLR Board
as soon as possible. For the Ashton Group the amount would be £28,000 of a
£32,000 grant and for Art Gene it would be £8,000 of a £9,000 grant. The council will
then claim the funding from WLR.

To top