Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: James Goddard Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes: No declarations of interest were made by Councillors. The Committee Manager declared that he was the Clerk to Cambridge United
Charities, so would withdraw from the meeting for the Hobson House item
(15/41/SnR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes of the Previous Meeting PDF 242 KB To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 19 January 2015 and 13 February 2015. Additional documents:
Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on 19 January and 13 February 2015 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. The Committee agreed to move the date of the February 2016 meeting from
12 February 2016 to 8 February 2016. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Questions Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
To note a decision taken by the Executive Councillor for
Customer Finance and Resources since the last meeting of the Strategy and
Resources Scrutiny Committee. Attached: RoD
and project appraisal. Appendix B: NOT FOR PUBLICATION: The report
relates to an item during which the public is likely to be excluded from the
meeting by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local
Government Act 1972. Additional documents:
Minutes: The decision was noted. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Strategy and Transformation Portfolio Plan for 2015/16 PDF 67 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report covered the draft Strategy
and Transformation Portfolio Plan 2015-16, which set out the strategic objectives for the
portfolio for the year ahead, described the context in which the portfolio was
being delivered and detailed the activities required to deliver the outcomes
and the vision. Performance measures and risks were also shown for each
strategic objective. Decision
of the Leader Approved the draft Strategy and Transformation Portfolio
Plan 2015-16. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Head of Corporate Strategy; introduced by the Leader. In response to Members’ questions the Leader said the following:
i.
(Ref Objective 1) Leadership and accountability for
shared services had been discussed. A lead local authority and lead manager
therein was favoured over a central board. Responsibility for services remained
with authorities whilst arrangements were being discussed by Council Leaders.
This allowed flexibility to add more authorities to arrangements in future.
Progress reports would be sent to each authority in future.
ii.
Shared services should lead to efficiencies in
future.
iii.
Executive Councillors would take responsibility for
shared service arrangements affecting their portfolios, with support from
various officers and Ray Ward as lead Director.
iv.
Progress reports would come to Strategy &
Resources, plus individual committees (eg Planning)
as required.
v.
(Ref Objective 3) £400,000 had been allocated by
the Police & Crime Commissioner to the Victim Hub, which had just been set
up. Various funds such as the Neighbourhood Fund had been set up as well.
vi.
The Police were taking a positive attitude towards
restorative justice and joint working with the voluntary sector and other
agencies. vii.
Abbey Ward had been chosen from various ones for
the Police to focus on violent crime. The ward did not have significant violent
crime levels, but the Police want to focus on one ward at a time. The Leader
offered to discuss any ward issues with Abbey and Market Ward Councillors. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Spaces Protection Order - Mill Road PDF 125 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Public Question A member of the public asked a question as set out below. Mr
Gawthrop raised the following points:
i.
Glisson Road and Tenison Road Area Residents
Association held a meeting week commencing 16 March 2015 and unanimously
expressed approval for the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
ii.
Residents were angry that the previous iteration of
the PSPO was not accepted in 2006.
iii.
The Mill Road area is still affected by anti-social behavior,
specifically alcohol and drug related. This included intimidating behavior and
discarding used needles.
iv.
Areas specifically affected around Mill Road were
the cemetery and area around Ditchburn Place. Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report asked the Executive Councillor to approve the
proposal to make a Public Spaces Protection Order in respect of Mill Road
Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden of Ditchburn Place, Cambridge. Decision
of the Leader
i.
Agreed to make the public spaces protection order
in the form set out at Appendix A, but reference to “authorised person” should
be changed to “Police Community Support Officer”.
ii.
Authorised officers to publicise the proposed order
as required by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Safer Communities Manager and
Police Inspector Johnson. The Officers tabled details of questions asked in the
PSPO survey; plus an amendment to the report recommendation 2.1 (also Appendix
A1) and Appendix E information: · Recommendation 2.1
(also Appendix A1) – To make the public spaces protection order in the form set
out at Appendix A1, but reference to
“authorised person” should be changed to “Police Community Support Officer”. · Appendix E – Draft
signage be simplified to take into account people whose first language may not
be English, or who have difficulty reading; and that the simplified version be
circulated to members of the committee before signs are erected. The Committee unanimously approved these
amendments. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report: Labour Councillors
i.
The PSPO would be an additional tool for the Police
to use to address anti-social
behavior. It will be used with discretion.
ii.
The
intention was for (only) the police to use the PSPO, hence the clarification to
the recommendation wording.
iii.
The
Police should have the discretion on when to implement PSPO. Wording was
developed to help them implement the power. Residents were in favour of it. The
PSPO would only affect three areas, which would benefit children and the
elderly amongst others.
iv.
The
intention is to change signage to clarify that only drinking in public places linked to
anti-social behavior would
be banned, not drinking in public per se. Further work to clarify signage would
be done in future.
v.
Due
to anti-social behavior, some Mill
Road public areas were only used by intoxicated people, not by residents having
picnics etc. It is hoped that the PSPO would address this.
vi.
The
PSPO was proposed for twelve months, then its impact
would be reviewed, to see if it was appropriate to roll out to other areas. vii.
Took
issue with the proposed Liberal Democrat amendment to recommendations. Liberal Democrat Councillors
i.
Acknowledged there was anti-social behavior in Mill Road.
ii.
Took
issue with using the PSPO to address anti-social behaviour and said this could be done
using existing police powers.
iii.
Said the PSPO conflicted with the Council’s policy
of engagement by imposing criminal sanctions on people with drug issues etc.
Information on PSPO signs appeared to ban people from drinking alcohol in
public areas, which conflicted with the Leader’s statement that only drinking
linked to anti-social
behavior would be banned. This led to concerns regarding the
implementation/execution of PSPO powers and the impact on people’s civil
liberties. In response to Members’ questions the Police Inspector said the
following:
i.
The Police would use discretion when asking the
public to stop drinking if associated with anti-social behavior. Advice would be given before
enforcement action taken.
ii.
People
who picnic are unlikely to be affected by the PSPO as they are unlikely to
behave in an anti-social way.
iii.
The
trigger for PSPO enforcement action would be anti-social behavior linked to drinking in public.
iv.
Anti-social behavior would be targeted in the short term,
the situation could be reviewed in future.
v.
Unclear
PSPO signage issues would be resolved.
vi.
Section
34 was hard to implement at present as a way of addressing anti-social behavior. Liberal Democrat Councillors requested a change
to the recommendations. Councillor Bick formally proposed to amend/add the
following recommendations from the Officer’s report: · 2.1 To make the
public spaces protection order in the form set out at Appendix A, as amended by the changes on the attached
version of Appendix A1 (as tabled by Liberal Democrat Councillors). · (New) 2.3 To model the
proposed Notice on the revised version of Appendix E (as tabled by Liberal Democrat Councillors). The revised recommendations were lost by 5 votes
to 3. The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse the
Officer revised recommendations. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual Update About the Work of our Strategic Partnerships PDF 303 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report provided an update on the key external partnerships the Council was involved with. It was given on an annual basis and is part of a commitment given in the Council’s “Principles of Partnership Working”. This year the partnerships were shown in a single report to allow members to take an overview of their activities. In some cases members may have been aware of current issues arising from a partnership as a result of recent reports about their activities to committees. Decision of the Leader Approved continuing to work with key external partnerships (LEP, City Deal, Cambridge Community Safety Partnership, Health and Wellbeing Board, Children’s Trust and RECAP) to ensure that public agencies and others can together address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge and that the concerns of Cambridge citizens are responded to. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Strategy Officer. In response to Members’ questions the Leader said the following:
i.
The Leader attended Local Enterprise Partnership
(LEP) meetings on behalf of the authority as an observer, but did not vote.
ii.
In his view, the LEP had got better at bidding for
Central Government funding in the last year. The
government revealed in July 2014 that the LEP would be provided with £21.1
million as a part of its Growth Deal. The LEP does help the overall prosperity
of Cambridgeshire.
iii.
The Leader expected that LEPs would be reviewed
by the new Government after the May 2015 General election.
iv.
Councillor
Roberts and supporting officers were responsible for activities regarding the
Local Health Partnership during 2014/15. There were lots of meetings regarding
this area, which required more integration of organisational agendas and more
resources to deliver actions.
v.
The City Deal
had a two stage process: Assembly and Board. This provided an opportunity for
transparency and engagement with wider representatives. Monthly meetings could
be expected from autumn 2015 onwards. The partnership between three councils
was important for the future of the City. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Risk Based Verification Review PDF 69 KB Report to follow Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report advised that following the publication of DWP
circular HB/CTB S11/2011, Local Authorities were able to implement a ‘risk
based’ approach to verifying Housing and Council Tax Benefit claims. This approach has been adopted by Strategy and Resources Committee on 9
July 2012 and implemented from the start of the following financial year 1
April 2013. Decision
of the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Agreed the continued use of Risk Based
Verification as a means to verify claims for Housing Benefit and Council Tax
Reduction for both new claims and changes in circumstances.
ii.
Agreed changes to levels of
verification within the High and Medium Risk Bands detailed at 3.7 and 3.8 of
the Officer’s report.
iii.
Delegated an annual review and
future amendments the risk based verification process to the Head of Revenues
and Benefits. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations This item was not
requested for pre-scrutiny and the committee made no comments in response to the
Benefit Manager. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor approved
the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finance and Resources Portfolio Plan 2015/16 PDF 68 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report covered the draft Finance and Resources Portfolio Plan 2015-16, which set out the strategic objectives for the portfolio for the year ahead, described the context in which the portfolio was being delivered and detailed the activities required to deliver the outcomes and the vision. Performance measures and risks were also shown for each strategic objective. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources Approved the draft Finance and Resources Portfolio Plan
2015-16. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance; introduced by
the Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources. In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following:
i.
Some objectives had performance targets (eg the
living wage), others did not.
ii.
Anti-Poverty Strategy targets could be reflected in
the Portfolio Plan.
iii.
The Cambridgeshire Local Assistance Scheme (CLAS)
was in the hands of the County Council; City Council Officers and the Executive
Councillor for Finance and Resources were liaising with them. The County
Council appeared to have directed funding to the general fund, rather than
poverty specifically. The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
expected to receive only half of the anticipated funding for 2015. It was hoped
the scheme would continue. More funding was being sought; the Council and others might contribute more in future if other parties did too.
iv.
A countywide partnership assistance scheme was
preferred for the CLAS instead of a citywide scheme for economies of scale and
to avoid the Council bearing all the costs.
v.
The City Council had discussed with Cambridge
Central Aid the delivery of CLAS. The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3
abstentions to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anti-Poverty Strategy PDF 402 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The City Council has developed an Anti-Poverty Strategy. The Officer’s report set out the results of public consultation on a draft version of the Strategy between 27 October 2014 and 30 January 2015. It sought approval for a final version of the Strategy, which addressed the main points raised by respondents to the consultation. The City Council received accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation as a Living Wage employer on 3 November 2014, and appointed a Living Wage Coordinator in November 2014 to promote the Living Wage to businesses and organisations in Cambridge. The Officer’s report summarised progress to date and proposed an action plan for future work.
The Fuel and Water Poverty Action Plan had been developed in response to the ‘Anti-Poverty Strategy’, which acknowledged the problem of increasing energy and water costs on lower income residents contributing to poverty in the city. Following research and consultation a series of actions had been identified focussing predominantly on low income households. The aim of the Action Plan was to reduce the number of households in fuel and/or water poverty across the city. This report sought approval for the key areas of focus in the Action Plan. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources i.
Approved the final
Anti-Poverty Strategy (Appendix E of the Officer’s report). ii.
Approved the Living Wage
Action Plan (Appendix C).
iii.
Approved the
key areas of focus for the Fuel and Water Poverty Action Plan (Appendix D). Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Strategy and Partnerships
Manager. The Committee commented in response to the report that the Council
should encourage organisations to pay the living wage in Cambridge and work with
the Living Wage Forum to do this. This included businesses, higher/further
education establishments and charities. In response to Members’ questions the Strategy and Partnerships Manager
said the following:
i.
A pilot scheme was being undertaken in the city to
ensure that those living on low incomes across the city have access to
information and support to benefit from opportunities to reduce their energy
and water costs. This would be reviewed, and if it led to benefits, would be
rolled out to Housing Association tenants.
ii.
There is a countywide energy supplier switching
scheme, which has limited coverage. The City Council periodically ran its own
scheme, but there was no formal connection between the two.
iii.
The Council was trying to learn from other cities’ living
wage schemes. The intention was to engage as many businesses as possible. The
Living Wage Forum and Co-ordinator were engaging with national chains. Some
national chains allowed more local policy decision making than others, which
affected engagement with the living wage scheme. There had been some success
with companies who have headquarters in Cambridge. The Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources said that consumers had a big impact on business.
iv.
Some organisations (including sub-contractors) had
signed up to living wage accreditation. Others said they paid the living wage
but hadn’t got accreditation. Some organisations had not engaged in the
process. Encouraging organisations to pay the living wage and get accreditation
would get momentum for greater buy-in.
v.
The Council was looking to influence organisations
to pay the living wage, rather than dictate to them, as there were legal
implications if the Council refused to work with an organisation who was not
living wage accredited. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Replacement Telecommunications & Local Area Network PDF 136 KB Report to follow Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer report recommended the purchase and implementation of a new
hosted telecommunications systems including contact centre features for three
years initially plus the potential to extend for a further two years. Decision of
Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources Financial Recommendations Recommended this
scheme (which is included as a Capital Project Under Development within the
Budget Setting Report) for approval by Council, subject to resources being
available to fund the capital and revenue costs. · That the total
cost of the project is £400,000 be funded from reserves. · That any revenue
implications be addressed through the Mid-Year Financial Review. · That on approval,
the scheme move from Projects Under Development to the Capital Plan. Procurement Recommendation That the Director
of Business Transformation be given authority to take delegated decisions in
consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Opposition Spokes as
required during the procurement process. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the ICT Client Manager. In response to Members’ questions the ICT Client Manager said the
following:
i.
Networking equipment would be procured using the
existing ICT contract with Northgate Information Solutions.
ii.
The Northgate contract was for three to five years,
to fit into the shared services plan. Partner organisations could fit into the
system if required.
iii.
The current Northgate contract was until 2018, and
could be extended up to another five years.
iv.
The intention was to replace the current council
system split over five sites with one hosted by the ICT supplier (Northgate).
This would allow flexi working at home and in the office. The system could be
downsized if the number of council sites reduces.
v.
It was advisable (for cost reasons) to move to an
entirely new telecommunication system rather than mixing the old one with the
new. The Council had entered into a contract for seven hundred and fifty users,
and would be charged the same rate if these were not all used.
vi.
Funding for the telecommunications work had been
allocated in the Capital Program. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Action on Energy Progress Update PDF 116 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer report advised that since being awarded Green Deal Communities funding in March 2014, the Action on Energy partnership had undertaken extensive engagement activity across Cambridgeshire and as a result have secured strong interest from local residents in insulation grants, including a particularly high response rate in Cambridge City. The decision is to note the progress made on Action on Energy. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources Noted the progress and issues presented in the
report. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Environmental Quality &
Growth Manager. In response to Members’ questions the Environmental Quality & Growth
Manager said the following:
i.
The Action on Energy partnership would continue
even if grant funding ceased in future, it was a delivery vehicle that could
use any funding stream.
ii.
A variety of means had been used to try and engage
the private sector through incentives and marketing schemes. Good offers were
available if the private sector wished to take them up.
iii.
A meeting between Department of Energy
& iv. The size of properties in Cambridge affected the type of energy efficiency measures that could be used in them. Internal wall insulation take up was lower than external, although it was just as effective, because it reduced people’s living space. The thickness of insulation was unlikely to change in future, so people may wish to change how they used it. For example, mid terrace houses could have internal insulation at the front, and external at the rear (where it would not be seen). They would be insulated on the sides by neighbours.
v.
Energy efficiency work could be undertaken on
rendered properties. Planning Officers had advised that like for like rendering
(post energy efficiency work) could be undertaken without seeking planning
permission, it would only be required if materials were changed.
vi.
All properties would get a full survey prior to
work being undertaken by Green Deal accredited installers. Work was guaranteed
for twenty five years. vii.
A show home was available to visit at 155 Coleridge
Road. viii.
The Home Energy Officer undertook to
provide committee members with original and updated figures for Green
Deal Communities activity in relation to the Action on Energy Progress Update
report submitted to Strategy and Resources scrutiny committee of 23 March 2015. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations
Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sale of Section of Barnwell Drive PDF 71 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision Barnwell Drive is adopted public highway providing access to Barnwell Business Park (owned by the Council) and Marshall’s airfield. The Council owns the subsoil beneath the adopted public highway. Prior to Barnwell Drive being adopted, Marshalls had a historic legal right of way along Barnwell Drive and this remains. Marshalls has asked to acquire the freehold of the eastern end section of Barnwell Drive, amounting to 687 sq.m (0.17ac). This is to enable it to have the section of road “stopped up” as public highway and to improve security to their existing entrance and new proposed industrial building to the north of Barnwell Business Park. Terms have been negotiated, subject to approval, to sell the small section of Barnwell Drive. As well as a capital receipt, Marshalls will transfer some of its land to the rear of Barnwell Business Park to improve the boundary line of the Council’s land ownership. The Executive Councillor was asked to approve the section of land sale. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources Approved the sale of the freehold of a section of Barnwell Drive and to acquire land to the rear of Barnwell Business Park on the terms set out in paragraph 3.5 of this report. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Head of Property Services. Councillors sought clarification why the
Council had not marketed the land sale. The Head of Property Services said the
land was needed for access to Marshall’s site. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review of Finance, Property and Human Resources Delegations PDF 122 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report looked at aspects of delegated powers to officers to make decisions about finance, human resources and property matters. It proposed some changes to finance delegations and to powers to buy and sell some property. Decision of
Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources i.
Decided Civic
Affairs and Council should be asked to review virement
limits (as set out in para 3.2 of the Officer’s report). ii.
Approved the
proposed changes to the levels at which officers can write off bad debts (as
amended in minutes below). iii.
Approved the
proposed changes to the levels at which officers can waive or reduce charges
(report para 3.4). Decision of the Leader That the Executive Councillor for Housing will have in future responsibility for decisions on: "the freehold or leasehold disposal and the terms for disposal, of Right to Buy dwellings sold under the Housing Act 1985, properties in shared equity schemes and other land or property held for housing purposes or for the provision of facilities and amenities for local residents or tenants". Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Head of Legal Services. He
tabled an amended version of the table on agenda page 266 showing the proposed
delegation of writing off bad debts. In response to the report Councillors said a quick decision making
process was required, albeit with appropriate checks and balances. Councillors requested a change to the delegations
referenced in the recommendations. Councillor Cantrill formally proposed to
amend the delegations from the Officer’s report (shown in white text) so they
were equal between HRA and other debt types:
The Committee approved this amendment nem con. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations as
amended. The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved his
recommendations at the meeting. The Leader approved his recommendation by email
after the meeting. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Review of the Procurement Strategy 2015-18 PDF 68 KB Report to follow Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Council’s Procurement Strategy expired at the end of March 2015 and needs to be renewed. Attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report was a draft strategy for the period 2015-2018 for approval by the Executive Councillor. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources Approved the draft Procurement Strategy appended to the Officer’s report for publication and implementation. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Procurement Officer. In response to the report Councillors welcomed the proposals and said a
robust procurement strategy was required that set out the Council’s
expectations to partners. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Office Accommodation - Hobson House NOT FOR PUBLICATION: The report relates to an item during which the
public is likely to be excluded from the meeting by virtue of paragraph 3 of
Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Minutes: Matter for
Decision NOT FOR PUBLICATION: The report relates to an item during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources Approved
the recommendations as listed in the Officer’s report. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a report from the Head of Property Services. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |