CABINET
Minutes of the Meeting held on Tuesday, 1st July 2014 at Retford Town Hall
Present:Councillor S A Greaves (Chair),
Councillors A Chambers, J Evans, J A Leigh, S May, J Whiteand G J Wynne.
Assistants:CouncillorsM Gregory andJ Potts.
Advisory Members:Councillors H M Brand and D Challinor.
Liaison Members:Councillors B Barker, H Burton, K H Isard and A Simpson.
Officers:D Armiger, S Brown, J Davies, J Hamilton, M Hill,L Hull, M Ladyman, E Prime, N Taylor and S Wormald.
Also present:CouncillorJ M Sanger.
(The meeting opened at 6.30pm.)
(The Chairman welcomed all to the meeting, read out the Fire Evacuation Procedure, and also enquired as to whether any member of the public wished to film/record the meeting or any part thereof; although there were eight members of the public present, this was not taken up.)
7.QUESTION TIME - PUBLIC
Council Procedure Rules were suspended for fifteen minutes to allow questions from the public; eight members of the public were present and two questions were asked:
We are suffering another summer of stench from Pears, why haven’t operations been suspended pending the satisfactory installation of the thermal oxidiser? What guarantee do we have that the Council will intervene if it fails to work?
The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods replied that she had spent a considerable amount of time in the area during the run-up to the elections and agreed that action should have been started many years ago. She had taken on the role of Cabinet Member three years ago as part of the new administration, when she became aware of this problem and also another one in a different area. Pears are required, through its permit, to make a number of amendments to its operation, but the Council has to follow the legal procedure. It is taking expert and legal advice, otherwise if we just closed them down, Pears will appeal and undoubtedly win, and therefore costs and compensation will be awarded to Pears through the legal system. We are taking action following the legal system, doing it right, otherwise we will fail. Failing to follow the law and failing to take expert advice would set the whole process back, meaning that we will fail all of the residents, which is not acceptable. Some improvements have been made and she appreciated that the residents do not feel that these are sufficient. An outstanding action is the thermal oxidiser. If the Council had suspended its operations while it was fitted would not have been legal. The equipment they use is complex and should be completed this week, although it will take another 4-6 weeks to commission. An Environmental Health Officer will visit regularly to ensure that the actions have been complied with and that they are operating within the permit. If this is not so, enforcement action will be taken, but if we don’t follow legal advice then nothing will be achieved. There are two parts to current planning applications, one being the installation of the thermal oxidiser. The other part is for more tanks and acoustic barriers to be installed. The tanks will be smaller, and the same volume of material as now will be stored. These actions should reduce the smell. Acoustic barriers are also being erected to reduce noise. We will take legal advice and action if any part of the permit is not complied with.
You say “we expect Pears to comply with the permit” but it doesn’t currently and the Council renews its permit on a regular basis. The Council cannot enforce the conditions, why not?
The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods replied that the Council investigates any operation which does not comply with any part of its permit; however, they must be given the opportunity to comply, and Pears is offering to do so. If we don’t give them that opportunity, then the Council will have failed legally. Whilst we have been in Administration we have been working to make a difference for residents. We have done some work, but this is not enough. We understand that residents only wish Pears to be closed down, but we cannot simply do this without following due process, otherwise Pears will appeal and they will win.
At this point, there was some heckling from the audience, to which the Leader of the Council explained that this is a legal business operating legally, and that the Council is doing as much as it can. The basic premise of closing down the operation and revoking the permit would be challenged successfully by the operator. If they don’t install the required equipment, we will go back and take enforcement action. It would be worse if we did the wrong thing and then costs would be awarded to them.
Further heckling came from the audience and the Leader of the Council stated that he does see the emails and that he does understand the depth of feeling. Whilst he has been the Leader, the Council is taking steps to enforce Pears to install the required equipment. It’s not that the Council doesn’t care but it is working within the regulatory framework.
This argument is repeated yearly. We were told that the problem would be solved by the installation of bio filters but this hasn’t been so. Then we were told it would be solved by the installation of covers but again this hasn’t been so. Now we are told the problem will be solved by the installation of the thermal oxidiser but it won’t as this only works on what material is put through. Most of the smell comes from other parts of the plant. We want the Council to take a stand and support residents.
The Leader of the Council replied that the Council does support the residents and is taking steps. He apologised if the answers did not satisfy the residents.
(The eight members of the public left the meeting at this point.)
8.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor M Richardson.
9.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS
(a)Members
There were no Declarations of Interest by Members.
(b)Officers
J Hamilton, Senior Democratic Services Officer, declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item No. 16(a) – Organisational Review Phase II: Corporate Services, as her post is listed in the report but it is not directly affected; she remained in the meeting.
10.MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON1ST APRIL 2014
In respect of the public toilets on Bridge Street, Worksop, the Leader of the Council announced that the newly refurbished toilets should be opening soon, possibly by the end of this week.
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 1st April 2014 be approved.
(The Leader welcomed the two new Heads of Service, S Brown and E Prime, to the meeting.)
11.MINUTES FOR ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESOLVED that the Minutes for Action and Implementation be received.
12.OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST
RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes List be received.
13.FORWARD PLAN
In respect of Key Decision No. 443 – Regeneration and Growth Strategy, the Director of Neighbourhoods and Regeneration asked that the word “final” be removed. The Cabinet Member for Regeneration also asked that an additional Key Decision be added for the September Cabinet – Visitor Economy Strategy. With regard to Key Decision No. 441 – Former Vesuvius Works: Use of Section 106 Funding, a Liaison Member asked how many times the working party had met, to which the Leader of the Council advised that it had met twice.
RESOLVED that the Forward Plan be received, subject to the word “final” being removed from Key Decision No. 443 and an additional Key Decision – Visitor Economy Strategy being added for the September Cabinet.
SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC
Key Decisions
14.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER – POLICY AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT – COUNCILLOR S A GREAVES
(a)Progressing the Council’s Rural Agenda (Key Decision No. 372)
Members’ approval was sought for the Rural Action Plan and the priorities for rural communities as identified within the Plan, which was appended to the report. The Plan had been updated as a result of the consultation exercise and to align its objectives with the priorities of the new Corporate Plan. A copy of the implementation programme with specific actions had been deposited in the Members’ Room, although it was noted that some initiatives are already in place.
Liaison Members raised issues on tourist provision and broadband in rural areas, to which the relevant Cabinet Members and Head of Regeneration gave updates.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
Cabinet can accept, amend or reject the proposals contained within this report Given the priority placed upon this work by the Corporate Plan, Cabinet is recommended to agree the proposals.
RESOLVED that the Rural Action Plan be approved and implemented.
(b)Partnership Governance – Partnership Register (Key Decision No. 439)
Members’ approval was sought for the updated Partnership Register which had been appended to the report for Cabinet, Assistants, Advisory and Liaison Members, and deposited in the Members’ Room. The Register has been updated to reflect the key partnership arrangements that the Council is currently involved in, and the Partnership Toolkit will be re-issued to managers who are responsible for each partnership.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
It is essential to understand the Council’s partnership arrangements and to have processes in place to manage the risks associated with working in partnership. A deadline to update the governance assessment of each partnership has been set which will attribute each partnership with a current risk status. This is expected to be completed no later than the end of October 2014.
RESOLVED that:
- The Council’s Partnership Register be received and an action plan be put in place to address any weaknesses in governance/risk management arrangements in connection with these partnerships.
- Any future annual updates to the Partnership Register be managed by the internal Corporate Governance Working Group chaired by the Director of Corporate Resources along with the ongoing monitoring of the risks associated with working in partnership.
- The Partnership Register be reported to the Audit and Risk Scrutiny Committee on an annual basis.
15.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER – CORPORATE AND CUSTOMER SERVICES – COUNCILLOR S MAY
(a)Discretionary Business Rates Retail Relief Scheme (Key Decision No. 446)
Members’ approval was sought for a new two-year Discretionary Business Rates Relief Scheme for the retail sector, guidelines for which were appended to the report. The relief is worth up to £1,000 a year to all qualifying occupied retail premises, mainly shops, restaurants, cafes and pubs. It is up to individual billing authorities to adopt a local scheme and use its own discretion. The local authority will be fully reimbursed through a Section 31 grant made under the Local Government Act 2003.
The Head of Finance and Property reported that officers had identified 500 premises which may qualify. These have been contacted and, to date, approximately 300 have submitted applications.
The Advisory Member for Rural Issues commented that the prescribed list of premises does not particularly help businesses in rural areas. The Head of Finance and Property reported that the qualifying criteria are set by central Government.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
The Council has a statutory obligation to consider retail rate relief applications. To not have a guidance document may leave the Council’s procedures open to appeal.
RESOLVEDthat the new Discretionary Business Rates Retail Relief Scheme for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years be approved, together with the guidelines appended to the report.
(b)Business Rates Discretionary Rate Relief Scheme (Key Decision No. 454)
Members were advised of amendments made to the Business Rates Discretionary Rate Relief Scheme, guidelines for which were appended to the report. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 gives billing authorities the discretion to grant rate relief on all or part of any non-domestic rates payable.
The guidance has been updated to move the responsibility for claiming discretionary rate relief from the Authority to the ratepayer. Applications for discretionary rate relief are now required to be renewed in January each year; if not, the award will automatically end on 31st March.
75% of discretionary rate relief costs are incurred in respect of partly occupies buildings, and the guidance sets out a framework for assessing these application, including site visits by officers.
The Head of Finance and Property reported that applications can now be made on line, in compliance with the ICT Strategy.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
The Council has as statutory obligation to consider discretionary rate relief applications. To not have a guidance document may leave the Council’s procedures open to appeal.
The existing rate relief guidance dates back several years and does not have sufficient review and renewal processes. To leave that guidance in operation may result in the Council expending more money than needs be on rate relief.
The existing scheme for rural rate relief does not leave any discretion in granting a ‘top-up’ to the entitlement for mandatory rural rate relief. This does not fit in with proposed guidance for all other forms of discretionary relief and there is a need for consistency in the Council’s approach to all discretionary awards.
RESOLVED that:
- The new Discretionary Rate Relief Guidance document be approved.
- The new Guidance document supersedes the recommendation and decision made by the Executive Committee in October 2001 regarding the Council’s Rural Rate Relief Scheme.
16.REPORT(S) OF THE CABINET MEMBER – HOUSING – COUNCILLOR A CHAMBERS
(a)ECO in the Private Sector (Key Decision No. 368)
Members’ approval was sought for the Council to act in an advisory capacity only in the Private Sector for Energy Company Obligation (ECO)and Green Deal.
The Government’s Green Deal initiative was launched in January 2013 and sought to reduce carbon emissions by at least 80% in every home by 2050 by encouraging investment in energy-saving measures in the home and non-domestic buildings. Consultation has since taken place and this has resulted in a negative impact on the funding available for public sector housing schemes, therefore the Council’s role in any partnerships with ECO providers has been significantly reduced.
The Head of Regeneration explained that the initiative focuses on private housing but the original scheme gave the Council an opportunity to work with public housing in mind.
Both the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council were disappointed that an initiative which would have helped poorer residents and those in “hard to heat” properties has now been reduced to such an extent that it is meaningless.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
Option One - Endorsement can be by way of the Council’s website, which would briefly set out each organisation’s plans together with their contact details.
The benefits of this option is that, with the Council’s support, residents are more likely to engage in the ECO initiatives as residents trust schemes backed by the Council, as seen with the previous Warm Streets campaign.
Option Two – To do nothing.
As a Housing Authority, the Council has a duty under the Housing Act 2004 to keep the condition of all housing within the District under review and to take action in accordance with legislation. An example of this is addressing a category 1 hazard due to excess cold. Involvement, even by way of signposting with the ECO initiative, will help the Council to keep its existing database up-to-date.
RESOLVED thatapproval be given to the endorsement of legitimate organisations delivering the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) initiative by signposting residents to approved organisations and providing information on the delivery of ECO through the Council’s website.
(b)Strategic Housing Market Assessment (Key Decision No. 449)
Members’ approval was sought for the Strategic Housing Market Assessment – Bassetlaw Report (SHMA) completed by G L Hearn consultants in May 2014. Its commissioning had been approved by Cabinet in 2012 in response to the National Planning Policy Framework to assess the Authority’s full housing requirements, identify the scale and mix of housing, and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to require in the future.
The SHMA report was summarised in Paragraph 3.3 of the report, and the report and/or the executive summary will be published on the website.
The Cabinet Member for Regeneration added that the SHMA is significant in the future planning and development of the District. Bassetlaw’s housing need is projected at 400-435 houses per year and, in turn, housing is needed to support economic growth.
Options, Risks and Reasons for Recommendations
Cabinet may agree to approve or not approve the SHMA. If Cabinet chooses to not approve the SHMA it would make it highly problematic to us as an evidence base to inform policy and Section 106 negotiations, and would undermine partnership working with neighbouring local authorities.