Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

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.

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).

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 19 January 2015 and 13 February 2015.

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.

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Appendix B: NOT FOR PUBLICATION: The report relates to an item during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the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.

The decision was noted.

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 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.

 

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.

 

Report to follow

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.

 

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.

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.

Report to follow

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.

 

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 &
Climate Change, the City Council and partners in April 2015 would look at how to better engage the private sector.

   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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

 

HRA Debt	Business Rates, Council Tax and Housing Benefit.	Other Debts	Decision-maker
Up to £2,500	Up to £2,500	Up to £2,500	Head of Revenues and Benefits
Up to £10,000	Over £2,500 to £25,000	Up to £25,000	Head of Finance
Over £10,000 and up to £25,000	Over £10,000 and up to £25,000	Over £10,000 and up to £25,000	Head of Finance in consultation with  Executive Councillor for Housing
Over £25,000	Over £25,000	Over £25,000	Scrutiny Committee (Housing) and Executive Councillor
Over £25,000	Over £25,000	Over £25,000	Scrutiny Committee and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources)

 

 

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.

Report to follow

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.

 

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.