Rother District Council

CABINET

10 May 2004

Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held at Town Hall, Bexhill on Sea on Monday 10 May 2004 at 2.30pm.

Present:- Councillors: G. Gubby (Leader), W.H. Clements, Mrs J.M. Hughes, B. Kentfield, Mrs D.C. Williams and M.J. Wilson.

Also present:- Councillors Mrs. E.E. Armstrong, G.H. Bantick, R.K. Bird, S.H. Earl (in part), R.E. Parren, R.H. Patten (in part), Mrs. S.M. Prochak, C.F. Starnes and J.S. Wood.

Advisory Officers present: Chief Executive, Director of Resources, Director of Services, Head of Policy and Performance, Head of Amenities, Technical Services Officer, Head of Human Resources, Head of Environmental Health (in part) and Senior Democratic Services Officer.

Publication Date: 12 May 2004

Deadline for call-in procedure for decisions made under PART II: 19 May 2004.

CB213. MINUTES

The Leader was authorised to sign the minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2004 as a correct record of the proceedings.

CB214. APOLOGIES

An apology for absence had been received from Councillor I.G.F. Jenkins.

CB215. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED: That the press and public be excluded whilst matters containing exempt information as prescribed by Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and relating to Minutes CB223 and CB224 were under consideration. The reports and papers submitted in connection with these items and which contained information exempt from publication by virtue of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act shall remain confidential until a further resolution of the Council.

PART 1 – RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL - not subject to call-in procedure under Rule 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules.

CB216. DRAFT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN 2004

Cabinet was advised that the draft Performance Plan 2004 followed the guidance set down by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in its content. It was further noted that the intended audience had now shifted away from being a public focused document to that of being a performance management tool for Officers and Members and relevant key stakeholders. The draft had been thoroughly scrutinised by the Performance Sub-Committees of both the Resources and Services Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the recommendations and amendments put forward by the Sub-Committees had been incorporated into the draft now being considered.

The draft was considered in detail and Members of the Cabinet were invited to comment on the sections within the Plan which related to their specific portfolios. A discussion ensued on the Ambition and Key Milestone elements of each leading page, how they could be more focussed, include more key milestones which represented stages along the way to achieving the ambitions and how best the Council’s ambitions could be articulated. It was agreed that Cabinet Portfolio Holders work with the Head of Policy and Performance to strengthen and clarify the Ambition and Milestones under their own section. It was acknowledged that this process would be on going, that the content of the Plan was not an exact science, but presented a challenge and a learning process for both Officers and Members. By working together the Council would produce a document which Officers and Members could use as a performance management tool. As there was further work to be completed prior to publication it was agreed that it be recommended to Council that the final design and content of the Performance Plan be approved by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

It was also noted that as the Executive Priorities would remain unchanged for the year 2004/05 the draft plan would be amended so that Improving the Planning Service would come back under the Key Aim of Improving Service Performance in a cost Effective Way and not under the Protecting and Enhancing the Built and Natural Environment which had been proposed.

RECOMMENDED: That the draft Annual Performance Plan 2004 be approved as submitted, but that the final content and design of the Performance Plan be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

CB217. GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS

In September last year the Council had received a presentation from David Jonas of the Sussex GM Forum in the pros and cons of Genetically Modified crops. The former Regeneration and Environment Committee and Cabinet had considered a motion previously, which had not been supported due to lack of clarity. The motion before Cabinet had recently been adopted by Wealden District Council and a number of amendments were made.

RECOMMENDED: That the motion set out at Appendix 1, as amended, be approved and adopted.

(Councillor Mrs. D.C. Williams declared a personal interest in this matter, by virtue of her being a member of the soil association, and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during consideration thereof).

(Councillor M.J. Wilson declared a personal interest in this matter, by virtue of his being a licensee of the soil association, and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during consideration thereof).

PART II - EXECUTIVE DECISIONS – subject to call-in procedure under Rule 16 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules.

CB218. POST 16 EDUCATION

The Cabinet received and considered Minute S20 from the Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 29 April 2004, which had been held to formulate the Council’s response to the Post 16 Education consultation. The consultation was being undertaken jointly by the Sussex Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and East Sussex County Council on proposals to transform post 16 education and training opportunities in Hastings and Rother. It was noted that the meeting had been well attended and enabled the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the proposals in detail and come to a well informed decision. The Cabinet were fully supportive of the proposals and recognised the great advantages that it would bring for improved educational opportunities for the whole of the district. As the consultation had been conducted by way of a structured questionnaire the Cabinet gave consideration to each question, and although a formal response to each question was not formulated the following points were noted:

·  The proposals could be further improved by the use of other sites in Rother as resource facilities for education such as the De La Warr Pavilion, Costume Museum etc, through linkages with the University Site in Hastings;

·  The proposals would enable the creation of centres of excellence which would attract the best calibre staff in the area to raise standards rather then threaten existing staff, which had been raised as a concern;

·  There were concerns over the Battle site at Claverham in so far as it being seen as an extension to Claverham. The Council had been working with the LSC to identify alternative sites to the one proposed at Claverham but none had come to fruition to date;

·  Easy access and public transport for whichever site eventually chosen would be crucial and it was noted that the County Council had been undertaking a separate transport review.

The Cabinet were not able to support the last sentence of the recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had stated “the need to ensure the even distribution of an appropriate range of subjects across the four sites”. It was noted that although there may be core subjects at each site, the proposals were designed to create centres of excellence and specialisms across the four individual sites.

RESOLVED: That the Sussex Learning and Skills Council be advised that this Council supports the proposals but recommends that further consideration be given to the concerns raised in relation to the need for a comprehensive transport plan and management funding.

CB219. EXECUTIVE PRIORITIES

In accordance with the Constitution the Cabinet was required to review its Executive Priorities on an annual basis and either support or modify them by taking into account amongst other things, public opinion, through the Community Plan, government legislation and the forthcoming CPA Improvement Plan. In order to provide a degree of stability with the Executive Priorities to assist with the planning and allocation of resources, it was proposed that the current Priorities remain unchanged. This would also assist with the preparation of service plans, which were designed to deliver services in line with the Executive Priorities. It was noted that Improving the Planning Service would remain an Executive Priority, even though there had been an improvement over the last year in order to keep the service focussed and in the public eye.

Reviewing the Executive Priorities enabled the Council to maintain its focus and development of the strategic direction of the authority, providing strong community leadership and securing service improvements in the priority areas, through the monitoring of those priorities through the Performance Plan. The need for the authority to move more towards a performance focussed organisation to secure service improvements and the delivery of the executive priorities was emphasised.

RESOLVED: That the existing Executive Priorities be maintained for the forthcoming year.

CB220. CONSULTATION BY THE STRATEGIC RAIL AUTHORITY – INTEGRATED KENT FRANCHISE: TRAIN SERVICE SPECIFICATION

Members were advised that as part of the process of identifying a new train operating company for the Kent area services, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) had undertaken an issues consultation last year. Councillor Jenkins as Cabinet Spokesperson for Transport had responded to the consultation which had subsequently been undertaken by the SRA on the Train Service Specification. Cabinet noted and concurred with the response which had been submitted by Councillor Jenkins.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

CB221. EAST SUSSEX ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP

The East Sussex Economic Partnership (ESEP) is a combination of private, public and voluntary sectors with the aim of promoting the revitalisation of the East Sussex economy as a core element of the wider regeneration of the county. The Partnership was established in 1998 to be the principal voice for the county in raising key economic issues at a regional and national level. All Members of the Partnership were being asked to contribute towards the operational costs, including the Inward Investment service being provided through a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the Partnership and 1066 Enterprise. It was noted that this element would not therefore form part of the SLA that the Council had with 1066 Enterprise for business support services. The Cabinet were asked to approve a contribution of £10,000 per annum for the current financial year and for 2003/04. It was reported that the Partnership would become the delivery vehicle for the Area Investment Framework and its status and profile would therefore be raised significantly in the future. It would be important strategically for the Council to be actively involved as a partner in this process so as to be a position to benefit from the future allocation of resources to assist with future regeneration. The Cabinet were in support of the proposal and agreed that this represented exceedingly good value for money.

RESOLVED: That £10,000 be contributed to provide core funding support to the East Sussex Economic Partnership for the current financial year and £10,000 be contributed for the year 2003/04, to be met from the Economic Development Fund.

(Councillor G. Gubby declared a personal interest in this matter, by virtue of his being the Council appointed representative on the East Sussex Economic Partnership Board. He considered his personal interest was not prejudicial as a member of the public knowing all the facts would think that his personal interest was not so significant that his decision on the matter would be affected by it and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during consideration thereof).

CB222. REVIEW OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP)

It was reported that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had responsibility for the strategic management of the coastline which they achieved by means of a Shoreline Management Plan (S.M.P.). The purpose of the Plan was to recommend policy options for managing the coastline. DEFRA had selected three coastal locations to trial new methods of reviewing the Shoreline Management Plan and the Beachy Head to South Foreland (Dover) pertaining to Rother had been selected as one area for the pilot review. The review would consist of the following three elements:

a) A Steering Group of technical officers from the local authorities in the coastal cell together with the Environment Agency, English Nature and a representative from DEFRA;

b) An Elected Members Forum from the same local authorities and East Sussex and Kent County Council. (Cllr. Patten is Rother District Council’s nominated representative); and

c)  A Key Stakeholders Group involving such bodies as Railtrack, Ministry of Defence (Lydd Rangers), English Heritage and Nature and the technical officers from the local authorities together with members of the Fairlight Coastal Preservation Trust due to the problems at Fairlight.

In order to keep the review manageable DEFRA had appointed Shepway District Council to co-ordinate the work for the Beachy Head to South Foreland area who in turn have appointed Halcrow to undertake the work, funded by DEFRA. The Shoreline Management Plan must include provision for the Short (0-20 years), Medium (20-50 years) and Long Term (50-100 years).