7 February 2017
To: Members of the Cabinet
Please attend a meeting of the Cabinet to be held on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 at
10.00 am in the Executive Meeting Room, District Council Offices, 2013 Mill Lane,
Wingerworth, Chesterfield.
Assistant Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council & Monitoring Officer
Notice of Meeting to be held in Private
It is intended that part of this meeting will be held in private under the Local Authorities
(Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations
2012. The matters to be considered in private are listed under the heading Private Session.
The categories of exempt information that are likely to be disclosed during the discussion of
these items, as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, are
listed below each item.
No representations have been received requesting that these items be open to the public.
AGENDA
Public Session
1
Apologies for Absence
2
Declarations of Interest
Members are requested to declare the existence and nature of any disclosable
pecuniary interest and/or other interest, not already on their register of interests, in any
item on the agenda and withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate time.
3
Minutes of Last Meeting
To approve as a correct record and the Leader to sign the attached Minutes of the
meeting of the Cabinet held on 11 January 2017.
4
Minutes of the Member Development Working Group
Cabinet are requested to note the Minutes of the Member Development Working
Group from its meeting on 4 January 2017.
Non Key Decisions
5
Report of Councillor N Barker, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for Human
Resources, Training and Member Development
Investors in People – (Ref: SB)
6
Report of Councillor G Baxter MBE, Leader of the Council
Corporate Plan Targets Performance Update – October to December 2016 (Q3 –
2016/17) – (Ref: KD)
7
Report of Councillor M Gordon, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for
Environment
North East Derbyshire Local Plan: Consultation Draft and Proposals for Public
Consultation – (Ref: HF)
8
Report of Councillor P R Kerry, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for
Economy, Finance and Regeneration
Risk Management Update, Partnership Working & Strategic Risk Register – (Ref: BM)
9
Report of Councillor J Lilley, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for Community
Safety, Equality & Diversity and Health
A Healthy North East Derbyshire – Update Report - (Ref: SL)
10
Report of the Chief Executive Officer
High Speed 2 Phase 2b; Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds – (Ref: DS)
Key Decisions
11
Report of Councillor P R Kerry, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for
Economy, Finance and Regeneration
Medium Term Financial Plan 2017/18 to 2020/21 – (Ref: BM)
12
To consider any other matter which the Leader is of the opinion should be considered
as a matter of urgency, in accordance with the provisions of Statutory Instrument 2012
No 2089, Regulation 11.
13
Exclusion of Public
The Leader to move:That the public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of the following
items of business to avoid the disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in
Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, (as amended by the Local
Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006). [The category of exempt
information is stated after each item].
Private Session
Non Key Decisions
14
Report of Councillor Mrs E A Hill, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for
Housing Strategy and Social Inclusion
Regeneration Update – Rykneld Homes Limited - (Ref: NC)
(Paragraph 3)
15
Reports of Councillor N Barker, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for Human
Resources, Training and Member Development
(a)
Senior Management Team Review – Proposals – (Ref: DS)
Paragraphs 1, 3 & 4
(b)
16
Senior Management Team Review – Request for Early Voluntary Release – (Ref:
DS)
Paragraphs 1, 3 & 4
To consider any other matter which the Leader is of the opinion should be considered
as a matter of urgency, in accordance with the provisions of Statutory Instrument 2012
No 2089, Regulations 5 and 11.
_______________
CAB (0208) 2017/AGENDA/AJD
Agenda Item No 3
CABINET
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 11 JANUARY 2017
INDEX
Page No
Minute No
Heading
1
411
Apologies for Absence
1
412
Declarations of Interests
1
413
Minutes of Last Meeting
2
414
Interim Evaluation of North East Derbyshire Growth
Fund
3
415
Procurement of Kerbside Recycling Service
4
416
Flexible Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement
5
417
Urgent Business (Public Session)
5
418
Exclusion of Public
6
419
Regeneration Update – Rykneld Homes Ltd
6
420
Management of Corporate Debt – Write Off of
Outstanding Amounts
7
421
Urgent Business (Private Session)
CABINET
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 11 JANUARY 2017
Present:
Councillor G Baxter MBE ………..……….. Leader (in the Chair)
Councillor J Austen
“
N Barker
"
M Gordon
Councillor P R Kerry
“
J Lilley
Also Present:
D Swaine
N Clark
S Brunt
P Hackett
S Lee
B Mason
S Sternberg
-
S Cottam
-
411
Chief Executive
Director of Property Services & Development
Assistant Director – Streetscene (for Minute No 415)
Executive Director – Transformation
Strategic Partnership Co-ordinator
Executive Director - Operations
Assistant Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council &
Monitoring Officer
Governance Officer
Apologies for Absence
An apology for absence had been received from Councillor Mrs E A Hill.
412
Declarations of Interests
Members were requested to declare the existence and nature of any disclosable
pecuniary interests and/or other interests, not already on their register of interests,
in any item on the agenda and withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate time.
Councillor N Barker declared a non-significant interest in relation to Item 13 –
Regeneration Update. It was noted that as this interest was non-significant
Councillor Barker could remain in this meeting for this item.
413
Minutes of Last Meeting
RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 14 December
2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Leader.
1
CABINET
11 JANUARY 2017
Non Key Decisions
414
Interim Evaluation of NED Business Growth Fund
Cabinet considered a report of Councillor P R Kerry, Portfolio Holder with
Responsibility for Economy, Finance and Regeneration, which presented the
Interim Evaluation of the North East Derbyshire Business Growth Fund and
recommended an extension of the current programme until 31 March 2019.
In March 2015 Cabinet approved the establishment of the North East Derbyshire
Business Growth Fund (BGF), a £40,000 grant scheme funded by the Invest to
Save Budget piloted over 24 months in areas not eligible for the BNED LEADER
support (Clay Cross, Dronfield and Tupton). This would complement the delivery of
the Growth Strategy for Bolsover and North East Derbyshire, particularly the priority
of supporting enterprise and maintaining and growing the business base.
It was originally envisaged the BGF would be evaluated at the end of the 24 month
pilot period. However, following reflection of the outcomes achieved to date it was
determined at the Cabinet meeting held on 28 September 2016 that the piloted
evaluation should be brought forward to a suitable time to be able to inform 2017/18
budget setting considerations, should there be a will to extend the programme. As
such, the report had been produced for consideration at the January 2017 Cabinet
meeting to inform the budgeting timescales.
The BGF has to date experienced very good value for money in terms of job
creation with approved applicants collectively contracted to deliver 7.4 full time
equivalent (FTE) jobs for the total of £15,858 grant expenditure, a unit cost of
£2,143 per job. This was significantly higher value for money than the £25,000 per
job rate used by the LEPs and showed the value of lower limit business funding
schemes.
Additionally the contracted match funding rate was at 49.82% of overall costs,
significantly higher than the 10% maximum expected in the funding guidelines. This
showed the business commitment to invest in to the operation and grow within the
District should a level of seed-corn funding be available.
There were already some pleasing outcomes with regard to job creation and high
match funding investment from the businesses supported. The BGF clearly filled
the niche of providing lower level funding for business support, particularly in non
LEADER areas, which was not currently provided by LEP funding.
Extending the scheme to the end of March 2019 would align it with the financial
year end and the expected revised closure dates of the BNED LEADER Programme
(which was likely to be affected by Brexit). This ensured that the Council offered
equitable grant support accessible to small business across the District and was
seen as a champion business growth across all North East Derbyshire
communities.
2
CABINET
11 JANUARY 2017
Although demand was reasonably high, it was felt that the same level of funding at
£20,000 per annum/pro rata would be an appropriate budget to deliver the BGF
(this would be £26,500 if extended to March 2019).
RESOLVED – That Cabinet approves the allocation of an additional £26,500 from
the Invest to Save Reserve to extend the North East Derbyshire Business Growth
Fund by 16 months to March 2019.
Reason for Decision
After 13 months of operation the Business Growth Fund had now either contracted
or endorsed applications to 79.6% of the £40,000 budget, based upon the current
rate of applications it was likely that the BGF would have allocated all funds with
significant time still to officially run because of the ongoing interest from local
business an extension would allow the levering of further benefits into the District.
Other Options Considered and Rejected
Closing the Business Growth Fund in line with the original time scale, or sooner if
funds were spent, would still mean that the scheme produced some good output.
However, this reduced the District wide provision of business grants which were
more accessible to smaller businesses in the District. Matching the BGF end date
with the expected for the BNED LEADER approach ensured that the Council offered
equitable grant support and was seen as a champion for business growth across all
communities.
(Strategic Partnership Co-ordinator)
415
Procurement of Kerbside Recycling Service
Cabinet considered a report of Councillor M Gordon, Portfolio Holder with
Responsibility for Environment, which updated Cabinet concerning progress in joint
procurement arrangements for the Council’s kerbside recyclable waste collection
service in anticipation of it reaching the end of its extended contract duration.
Cabinet at its meeting on 26 October 2016 considered a report setting out the
procurement timetable for the joint market testing of North East Derbyshire and
Bolsover kerbside recycling service in anticipation of it reaching the end of its
extended seven year contract period at 31 October 2017.
The Council’s Shared Procurement Partnership had since advised of changes to the
public procurement regulations and pre-qualification process further to which a
revised timetable was set out in the report. The earlier timetable allowed the prequalification questionnaire stage in the procurement process to appoint tenderers to
a select list.
However, arising from recent changes to public procurement regulations the prequalification questionnaire process was now replaced by a selection questionnaire,
which limits the Council’s opportunity to request technical and financial information
by using a self certification process. Therefore to ensure the main tendering
element of the timetable is maintained open tenders would be sought from the
market place.
3
CABINET
11 JANUARY 2017
The tender process has also been revised to provide an “opt in” for Chesterfield
Borough Council in anticipation of the current contract arrangements reaching its
anniversary at 31 October 2018.
RESOLVED – That:(1)
Cabinet notes the revised timetable for undertaking joint procurement
arrangements of NEDDC and BDC kerbside collection recycling services, with
an “opt in” provision for CBC.
(2)
A further report will be submitted to Cabinet at the decision stage in awarding
contracts.
Reason for Decision
To ensure the main tendering element of the timetable was maintained and open
tenders would be sought from the market place.
Other Options Considered and Rejected
The Council’s contract would include disposal and conveying of collected
recyclables to appropriate material pre-processes, in particular as private sector
recycling waste service providers had established processing facilities and end
markets securing sustainable and economic outlets which the Council(s) were not
best placed to secure, hence the service being procured by way of external
providers.
(Assistant Director - Streetscene)
Key Decisions
416
Flexible Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement
Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Mrs E A Hill, Portfolio Holder with
Responsibility for Housing Strategy and Social Inclusion, which sought to gain
approval to use the new Flexible Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement as attached to the
report.
The Localism Act 2011 made provision for local authorities to voluntarily offer
flexible tenancies for a minimum of two years. At this time North East Derbyshire
decided not to offer this as a tenancy option. The review of the Allocations Policy in
2015 considered all the tenancy options to deliver against existing housing and
regeneration priorities. Within this review a pilot to offer flexible tenancies in
particular circumstances was granted by North East Derbyshire to owner occupiers
who had equity/savings/assets of £30,000 or more which they could not access to
secure alternative accommodation. The revised Allocations Policy was implemented
from April 2016, together with a Flexible Tenancy Policy. For Rykneld Homes to
facilitate this kind of tenancy the correct tenancy agreement was required.
4
CABINET
11 JANUARY 2017
The Housing and Planning Act 2016 changed the voluntary nature of flexible fixed
term tenancies to mandatory for local authorities for terms of between two and 10
years. It included the ability for local authorities to grant households with a child
less than nine years of age a longer tenancy, lasting until the child was 19. Only in
some circumstances would the Secretary of State allow local authorities to grant
secure tenancies. This would see a change from secure tenancies becoming the
rule to becoming the exception. However, once a tenancy was coming to an end of
its fixed term Rykneld Homes had the authority to grant another fixed term tenancy.
Only in certain circumstances would another tenancy be refused. The Act also
stated that when a secure tenancy was succeeded to, a fixed term tenancy should
be granted. Implementation of this element of the Act’s requirement was expected
by April 2017. Therefore the criteria set by North East Derbyshire for the pilot use
of a Flexible Tenancy would be superseded come April 2017 by the legislative
requirement to offer this tenancy type using the criteria stated in the Act. The use of
the Fixed Term Tenancy remains voluntary for housing associations.
RESOLVED – That Cabinet approve the Flexible Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement
for North East Derbyshire District Council (NEDDC) Properties.
Reason for Decision
Tenancy agreement was based on the current Tenancy Agreement so there was
consistency with all tenancy expectations. This ensures the management of
tenancies could continue to be a high quality without the requirement to implement
further practices for flexible fixed tenancies only.
Other Options Considered and Rejected
An alternative option to the recommended flexible fixed term tenancy agreement
was to conduct a full revision of the existing Tenancy Agreement (secured) to
include the option for a flexible tenancy to be identified within the same agreement.
This however would leave to an increased risk of error. Consultation would also
take us past the April 2017 deadline.
(Head of Neighbourhoods – Rykneld Homes Ltd)
417
Urgent Business (Public Session)
There was no urgent business to be considered in the public session at this meeting
of Cabinet.
418
Exclusion of Public
RESOLVED - That the public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of
the following items of business to avoid the disclosure to them of exempt
information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 3, Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local
Government Act 1972 (as amended by the Local Government (Access to
Information)(Variation) Order 2006). [The category of exempt information is stated
after each Minute].
5
CABINET
11 JANUARY 2017
Non Key Decisions
419
Regeneration Update – Rykneld Homes Limited
Cabinet considered a report of Councillor Mrs E A Hill, Portfolio Holder with
Responsibility for Housing Strategy and Social Inclusion, which updated Cabinet of
the current Regeneration Schemes that were being progressed by Rykneld Homes
Ltd (RHL) in partnership with the Council.
RESOLVED – That Cabinet:(1)
Approves recommendations 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4
(2)
Delegate the responsibility to approve the financial purchase prices and terms
of the legal contracts associated with all the proposals detailed in this report to
the Executive Director – Transformation in consultation with the appropriate
Portfolio Holder.
(3)
That a further report be brought to Cabinet in February 2017 outlining the
detailed financial implications, property types and demand and further details
on shared ownership. Cabinet would consider whether the proposals should
be referred to Council for approval as part of the 2017/18 budget process.
(4)
Receive a further Regeneration Update in February 2017.
Reason for Decision
The schemes identified in the report were already contributing to resolving the
Council’s liability associated with non traditional housing as well as directly
supporting the Council’s growth agenda.
Other Options Considered and Rejected
The alternative option was not to purchase new affordable homes, however, this
would result in the one for one (RTB) receipts not being used by the Council.
(Director of Property Services & Development – Rykneld Homes Ltd)
Key Decisions
420
Management of Corporate Debt – Write Off of Outstanding Amounts
Cabinet considered a report of Councillor P R Kerry, Portfolio Holder with
Responsibility for Economy, Finance and Regeneration, which sought approval to
the proposed write off of debts in respect of former HRA tenants as detailed in the
report.
RESOLVED – That Cabinet agrees to write off the amounts in respect of former
HRA tenant arrears as detailed in the report.
6
CABINET
11 JANUARY 2017
Reason for Decision
Given that all appropriate recovery actions had all been exhausted in case of these
debts it is important that the Council recognise the position and approves the write
off of debt given there was no realistic prospect of recovery.
Other Options Considered and Rejected
None.
(Executive Director - Operations)
421
Urgent Business (Private Session)
There was no urgent business to be considered in the private session at this
meeting of Cabinet.
______________
CAB MINS (0111) 2017/AJD
7
Agenda Item No 4
MEMBER DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 4 JANUARY 2017
Present:
Councillor N Barker – (Chair)
Councillor J Austen
Councillor G Baxter MBE
Councillor A Cooper
Councillor M Gordon
Councillor J Windle
Martin Derbyshire
Sarah Cottam
19/16
Apologies for Absence
There were no apologies for absence submitted to this meeting.
20/16
Minutes of Last Meeting
RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting of the Member Development
Working Group held on 7 September 2016 be agreed as a true and accurate
record.
21/16
LGiU 2017 Membership Renewal
The Working Group considered a report on whether to renew the subscription of
the LGiU for a full year following the completion of the first full year’s subscription.
The Senior Governance Officer (Acting) advised that the Council subscribed to the
LGiU service in October 2015 for a trial period of six months. The service included
Daily News email updates, Policy briefings, Policy reports, Essential guides and
the bi-monthly Councillor magazine. Other than the Councillor magazine all of
these were also provided by email. There were around 300-350 Policy briefings
issued each year. Access was only available to Councillors and employees of
LGiU members. Recent Policy briefings had covered housing and homelessness,
homelessness in Greater Manchester and Great Glasgow and the National Citizen
Service Bill etc. A weekly Policy summary was sent out by email each week with
links to the week’s Policy briefings and lists briefings to be published over the
following fortnight.
The Group were advised that the membership of the LGiU entitled Councillors and
officers to receive discounts on training events and invitations to Network events.
All recent LGiU training sessions and events had been held in London. The cost
of the LGiU events was approximately £224 reduced to £174 for LGiU members.
Recent events had included Councillor Training; Chairing Skills and Developing
Commercial Awareness.
1
In 2016 many Councils had signed up to the LGiU and now nearly 200 Councils
subscribed with over 25,000 CEOs, Leaders’ and MPs reading the mailings every
day.
The LGiU had advised that the calculation of their membership fees were based
upon the size of the population served by the local authority. For North East
Derbyshire District Council the membership would normally be £2,425 per annum.
The Group were advised that the cost of the subscription would be paid for outside
of the Member Development budget.
It was agreed that in future the review of the LGiU subscription would not have to
come to Member Development Working Group for approval as the subscription
was paid for outside of the Member Development budget.
RESOLVED – That the Working Group was satisfied with the LGiU service and
wished the Council to subscribe to the LGiU for a further year.
22/16
Evaluation Results from External Events
(a)
East Midlands Councils Annual Policy Conference on Planning, Health and
Welfare Reform – 23 September 2016
The Working Group considered the external training evaluation report on the
East Midlands Councils Annual Policy Conference on Planning, Health and
Welfare Reform held on 23 September 2016. The session was attended by
Councillor M Gordon and Councillor S Boyle and both had completed
evaluation forms for the event.
The Working Group noted the feedback on the event had been positive and it
was felt that the event topics were relevant but some of the topics, such as
Welfare Reform, had been skipped through too quickly.
RESOLVED – That the Working Group notes the external training evaluation
report on the East Midlands Councils Annual Policy Conference on Planning,
Health and Welfare Reform held on 23 September 2016.
(b)
LGA Taxi Licensing Seminar – 8 November 2016
The Working Group considered an evaluation report on an external event
with the LGA Taxi Licensing Seminar held on 8 November 2016. The event
was attended by Councillor M Gordon and also Councillor A Anderson from
Bolsover District Council.
The event cost of £345 were waivered as North East Derbyshire District
Council was a member of the LGA. The event covered many areas of Taxi
Licensing, such as:•
•
•
•
•
Developments and Issues in Taxi Licensing;
LGA Improvement Support;
Learning from Rotherham;
Role of Licensing Committee;
CSE Training for Taxi Drivers;
2
•
•
Disability Equality;
Principals involved in determining fitness.
The Group noted the feedback on the event which was considered very
informative and the most useful part of the event was to hear and discuss
Taxi Licensing practice and policy within other local authorities. This event
was recommended to colleagues.
RESOLVED – That the Working Group notes the external training evaluation
report on the LGA Taxi Licensing Regional event in Gateshead held on
8 November 2016.
23/16
Member Development Evaluation Results
(a)
Member Involvement Half Day – 6 September 2016
The Working Group considered the evaluation statistics and comments
submitted by Members in respect of the Member Involvement Half Day held
on 6 September 2016.
The programme consisted of three presentations on Community Leadership,
Government Consultation Paper on Business Rate Retention and Media
Relations Awareness.
11 Members attended the Half Day and 10 Members completed evaluation
forms at the end of the event. Overall the event was well received with all
Members finding every presentation informative and relevant to them as
Members and also engaging, although to varying degrees.
RESOLVED – That the Working Group notes the evaluation report on the
Member Involvement Half Day held on 6 September 2016.
(b)
Member Involvement Half Day – 15 November 2016
The Working Group considered the evaluation statistics and comments
submitted by Members in respect of the Member Involvement Half Day held
on 15 November 2016.
The programme consisted of three presentations which were Environmental
Despoilment, Achieving Customer Service Excellence and Standards and
Code of Conduct.
13 Members attended the Half Day and all completed evaluation forms at the
end of the event. Overall the event was well received with Members finding
every presentation informative and relevant to them as Members.
RESOLVED – That the Working Group notes the evaluation report on the
Member Involvement Half Day held on 15 November 2016.
3
(c)
Making Effective Use of Overview and Scrutiny – A Scrutiny Skills Workshop
– 3 November 2016
The Working Group considered the evaluation statistics and comments
submitted by Members from the Making Effective Use of Overview and
Scrutiny – A Scrutiny Skills Workshop held on 3 November 2016.
The training day was organised in response to a request put forward in the
Members’ Training Needs Survey. The Scrutiny Training Day was organised
jointly for Scrutiny Members at North East Derbyshire District Council and
Bolsover District Council and was held in the Council Chamber at North East
Derbyshire District Council offices. It was an all day event and a buffet lunch
was provided. The overall cost of the event was £996.75 + VAT. Bolsover
District Council were recharged 50% of the event costs.
The programme covered the principles and practices involved in Overview
and Scrutiny as well as providing opportunities for thinking about how to
develop and improve the effectiveness of our own Scrutiny Committees. The
session was facilitated by Tim Young, an associate from the Local
Government Information Unit (LGiU).
14 Members attended the Half Day, 8 from North East Derbyshire and 6 from
Bolsover and all 14 Members completed evaluation forms at the end of the
event.
On the whole, Members felt that they had gained something from the session
and enjoyed the opportunity to discuss Scrutiny with their colleagues. The
agenda covered a wide range of topics and lasted a full day, meaning a
couple of attendees did not attend all the session. For any future sessions a
Half Day event would be considered.
RESOLVED – That the Working Group notes the evaluation report on the
Making Effective Use of Overview and Scrutiny – A Scrutiny Skills Workshop
Day held on 3 November 2016.
24/16
Member Development Budget 2016/17 – Monitoring
The Working Group considered the current level of expenditure on the Member
Development budget for 2016/17. The Member Development budget for 2016/17
was £3,000 but the amount was revised to £5,000 to accommodate training
identified through the Training Needs Survey. The current spend, including
commitments, was £5,216, but this could be offset by recharges to Bolsover
District Council of £1,943, given a net position of £3,273 against a revised budget
of £5,000. There was currently £1,727 available to spend.
Areas of expenditure to date were:•
•
•
•
£702.60 for Chairing Skills Event on 16 May 2016;
£63.75 on buffet for Chairing Skills Event;
£510 for East Midlands Council Programme of Regional Policy Briefing
Events for Councillors;
£95 for EMC Personal Resilience Course attended by Councillor S Boyle;
4
•
•
•
•
£890 on Media Training, Media Friendly on 1 August 2016;
£498 on Scrutiny Training Event on 3 November 2016;
£700 (order raised, subject to change) for the Member Involvement Session
on Influencing and Negotiation Skills in January 2017;
£600 (order raised, subject to change) for the Member Involvement Session
on the Effective Ward Councillor in March 2017.
Members of the Group raised a query over the Member Involvement Session to be
held in March 2017 and felt that the Effective Ward Councillor session could be
brought in-house.
RESOLVED – That the Working Group notes the Member Development budget for
2016/17.
25/16
Member Development Strategy Action Plan – Monitoring
The Working Group considered a report to monitor the progress achieved in
implementing the Member Development Strategy Action Plan in the second
quarter of 2016/17.
The Senior Governance Officer (Acting) outlined the key actions and what
progress had been made to date. A key point raised was:•
Carry out Member Learning and Development Needs Survey for 2017/19
Programme. It was advised that the survey had been distributed in
December 2016 with a return date of 31 January 2017.
The Group were advised that Senior Management would be consulted to identify
areas of training needs to bring to Members attention, and this would be done at
the end of January 2017.
Members of the Group raised concerns over the Member Involvement Half Days
and felt that these sessions could be stream lined down to four sessions per year.
It was requested that a Councillor should be involved in the presentations.
Various options for the sessions were discussed and Councillor J Austen advised
that the LGiU had a website page which included work books which could prove
useful when organising Member Involvement Half Days.
Overall Members of the Group felt that the Member Involvement Half Day
Sessions should be more Member led.
RESOLVED – That the Working Group notes the progress achieved in the second
quarter for the Member Development Strategy Action Plan and agrees to stream
line the Member Involvement Half Day events to four sessions per year and make
these sessions more Member led.
26/16
Any Other Business
The Group were advised that the new iPads were all ready to collect but two
Members had not yet collected theirs. An issue was raised over laptops and Mike
Rush in ICT was looking into procuring new laptops for Members who still had
these.
5
A question was raised on why four Members were still using laptops and not
iPads. It was advised that iPads were not suitable for all Members and ICT would
be asked to look in to a possible wireless mouse and key board for the iPads to
make it easier for Members who struggled to work on the iPad.
ACTION – Martin Derbyshire to look into the issue of the laptops and iPads and
report back to the next meeting.
27/16
Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Member Development Working Group would be held on
Wednesday, 22 February 2017 at 10.00 am.
____________________________
MDWG MINS (0104) 2017/AJD
6
Agenda Item No 5
North East Derbyshire District Council
Cabinet
15 February 2017
Investors in People
Report of Councillor N Barker, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for Human
Resources, Training and Member Development
This report is public
Purpose of the Report
• To ask Cabinet to consider the changes to the Investors in People (IiP) Standard
and to agree to withdraw from the IiP process.
1
Report Details
1.1
Investors in People is an internationally recognised standard for organisations to
measure their performance with regard to business strategy, learning and
development, equality strategies, capabilities of managers, recognition and reward,
ownership and responsibility, investment and improvement. Underpinning all of
these areas is the ability of the organisation to show that top managers, managers
and staff are all aware of and feel involved (where appropriate) in these key
business areas
1.2
North East Derbyshire District Council have committed to achieving the Investors in
People standard for a number of years through corporate objectives and work plans
with a three yearly external assessment process.
1.3
In July 2015, North East Derbyshire District Council was assessed against the
Investors in People Standard and accredited with the Silver level of the Extended
Framework.
1.4
In September 2015 Investors in people launched the Sixth Generation of the
Investors in People Standard
1.5
The new framework is structured around nine indicators which are organised under
three headings: Leading, Supporting and Improving, and also introduces a four
stage performance model (developed; established; advanced; high performing)
which underpins the nine indicators of the IiP framework.
1
2
Conclusions and Reasons for Recommendation
2.1
Since achieving the Silver level of the IiP Extended Framework, Investors in People
have introduced a new Framework with different levels of accreditation: Accredited,
Silver, Gold and Platinum. The Council’s current Silver Level would be considered
similar to the Accredited Level of the new Framework.
2.2
The new Framework has seen the launch of direct industry comparisons against
each of the 27 data points within the new Standard, enabling comparison against
the global standard for people management.
2.3
There are now four stages of assessment:
Stage 1
Discovery – free online self-assessment and ability to generate our own selfassessment report.
Stage 2
Online Assessment – understand employee’s views by asking a larger proportion of
employee’s to complete a set of forty IiP online questions.
Stage 3
Employee interviews and observation – explore the key themes through face to face
meetings and observations to identify strengths and areas for improvement.
Stage 4
Accreditation report – award level and benchmark performance.
2.4
The introduction of the new IiP Standard will involve a significant amount of work for
the Council in terms of understanding the requirements of the new Standard,
Service Areas producing, implementing and evidencing the requirements, HR and
OD in supporting Service Areas with this work and collating the evidence, as well as
time to develop a close working relationship with a new assessor as the previous
assessor is not continuing as an IiP Assessor.
2.5
Prior to producing this report, a trawl of the region in terms of which Councils were
continuing with IiP was carried out. Eleven councils responded – ten had already
withdrawn or made the decision to withdraw from IiP and one was still in the
process of considering what position to take. There seems to be a current trend of
Councils being unable to commit to the increased demands of the new system.
2.6
NEDDC’s current accreditation would continue until the end of the three year period
which is towards the end of 2018.
3
Consultation and Equality Impact
3.1
Trade Union representatives have been consulted on the proposal to discontinue
and have raised no objections.
2
4
Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection
4.1
Due to the significant changes to the IiP Standard, including an increase in cost,
internal strategies and policies will be developed in terms of learning and
development, employee engagement and health and well being as well as
continuing to learn from and share best practice amongst the region. This would
enable the Council to reflect IIP standards without the cost of formal accreditation.
5
Implications
5.1
Finance and Risk Implications
5.1.1 If Cabinet choose to continue with external accreditation against the IiP Standard,
additional training would need to be identified for the internal reviewers to continue
to support the assessment. On the basis of previous internal reviewer refresher
training, this will likely be in the region of £200 per person. (There are currently two
internal reviewers).
5.1.2 If the internal reviewers are no longer involved with the IiP Assessment, additional
costs would be incurred with the external assessment.
5.1.3 Copies of the new Framework would need to be purchased at a cost of £20 per
copy. (We would need at least two copies).
5.1.4 The cost of external accreditation against the Extended Framework in July 2015
was £3,415 including VAT and expenses. This was a reduced rate based on
support from the internal reviewer. Without this support, the costs would have been
in the region of £6,462.00 including VAT plus expenses.
5.1.5 The cost of external accreditation against the new Framework will be approximately
£13,250.00 + VAT for a full assessment, or £8,650.00 for a less detailed report
without reference to any benchmarking to industry standards.
5.1.6 Not continuing with IiP would make a saving of £4,000 has been allocated in the
budget for assessment purposes, although this budget allocation would need to be
increased to meet the cost of assessment against the new standard if Cabinet
choose to continue.
5.2
Legal Implications including Data Protection
5.2.1 None arising from this report.
5.3
Human Resources Implications
5.3.1 If Cabinet choose to continue to be externally assessed against the Investors in
People Sixth Generation Standard, there will be a need for continued support of the
IiP Development Group and training to reflect the new assessment criteria.
6
Recommendations
6.1
That Cabinet note the changes to the Investors in People Sixth Generation
Standard.
3
6.2
That Cabinet agree to discontinue with IiP assessment/accreditation given the
increased costs, resource commitment required and the general trend within the
region and beyond to discontinue.
7
Decision Information
Is the decision a Key Decision?
No
(A Key Decision is an executive
decision which results in income or
expenditure to the Council of
£50,000 or more or which has a
significant impact on two or more
District wards)
Is the decision subject to Call-In? No
(Only Key Decisions are subject to
Call-In)
District Wards Affected
Links to Corporate Plan priorities Transforming our Organisation
or Policy Framework
8
Document Information
Appendix No
Title
Background Papers (These are unpublished works which have been relied
on to a material extent when preparing the report. They must be listed in the
section below. If the report is going to Cabinet (NEDDC) or Executive (BDC)
you must provide copies of the background papers)
Report Author
Contact Number
Stephanie Barker
Assistant Director – HR & Payroll
(01246) 217009
AGIN 5 (CAB 0215) 2017/Investors in People/AJD
4
Agenda Item No 6
North East Derbyshire District Council
Cabinet
15 February 2017
Corporate Plan Targets Performance Update – October to December 2016
(Q3 – 2016/17)
Report of Councillor G Baxter MBE, Leader of the Council
This report is public
Purpose of the Report
• To report the quarter 3 outturns for the Corporate Plan 2015-2019 targets.
1
Report Details
1.1
The attached contains the performance outturn as of 31st December 2016
(information compiled on 23rd January 2017).
1.2
A summary by corporate plan target is provided below:
1.3
Unlocking our Growth Potential
16 targets in total (2 targets achieved previously – G02 and G16)
11 targets are on track.
3 targets have been flagged as ‘alert’ i.e. they may not achieved their intended
outcome this year:
o G12 Through a programme of targeted refurbishment bring 20 empty
properties per year back into use by March 2019. No properties to date.
Empty Properties Officer is now in place and progressing work with Action
Housing (see appendix for full comments).
o G13 Work with partners to deliver an average of 100 affordable homes each
year. No affordable units will be delivered in this financial year. £642,498
has been received in commuted sums for sites that did not prove viable
within the district. Discussions with Rykneld and other registered providers
have begun on how best to use this money (see appendix for full
comments).
o G14 Through the Private Rented Sector Leasing Scheme deliver 5 additional
units of affordable housing each year. No units to date. As noted earlier the
Empty Properties Officer is now in place and working with Action Housing
(delivery partner) to find properties for this scheme. .
1
1.4
Providing our Customers with Excellent Service
15 targets in total
14 targets on track.
1 target has been achieved – C07 Replace the corporate website and refresh
content by April 2017.
1.5
Supporting our Communities to be Healthier, Safer, Cleaner and Greener
12 targets in total
10 targets on track
2 target flagged as an ‘alert’ i.e. it may not achieve its intended outcome this
year:
1.6
o
H02 Increase participation/attendances in leisure, sport, recreational,
health, physical and cultural activity by 5,000 per year. Q3 actual
attendances 509,000 against a target of 547,000. Expected by lead officer
due to closure of Eckington Swimming Pool and partial closure of Dronfield
Sports Centre. This target may not be recovered this financial year but
expected to be pulled back (and improved upon) over the remaining
corporate plan period.
o
H10 Annually undertake 10 local environmental enforcement and
educational initiatives in targeted area to deal with dog fouling, littering or fly
tipping. 4 enforcement/educational initiatives have been delivered to date,
no concerns expressed by the lead officer who expects this target to be
achieved this year.
Transforming our Organisation
12 targets in total (3 targets achieved previously – T02, T03 and T08)
8 targets on track including 2 targets previously extended (T10 and T12).
1 target has been achieved (behind target) – T05 Develop a Procurement
Strategy by March 2016 (original target date).
2
Conclusions and Reasons for Recommendation
2.1
Out of the 55 targets 43 (78%) are on track, 7 (13%) have been achieved (2 this
time and 5 previously) and 5 (9%) have been flagged as ‘alert’.
2.2
This is an information report to keep Members informed of progress against the
corporate plan targets noting achievements and any areas of concern.
3
Consultation and Equality Impact
3.1
Not applicable to this report as consultation was carried out on the original
Corporate Plan. However individual projects may require consultation exercises and
equality impact assessments.
2
4
Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection
4.1
Not applicable to this report as providing an overview of performance against
agreed targets.
5
Implications
5.1
Finance and Risk Implications
5.1.1 No finance or risk implications within this performance report. Finance and risk
implications will be assessed for individual targets.
5.2
Legal Implications including Data Protection
5.2.1 No legal implications within this performance report.
5.3
Human Resources Implications
5.3.1 No human resource implications within this performance report.
6
Recommendations
6.1
That progress against the Corporate Plan 2015-2019 targets be noted.
7
Decision Information
Is the decision a Key Decision?
No
(A Key Decision is an executive
decision which results in income or
expenditure to the Council of
£50,000 or more or which has a
significant impact on two or more
District wards)
Is the decision subject to Call-In? No
(Only Key Decisions are subject to
Call-In)
Not applicable
District Wards Affected
Links to Corporate Plan priorities Links to all Corporate Plan 2015-2019
or Policy Framework
aims and priorities
3
8
Document Information
Appendix No
Title
1.
Corporate Plan Targets Update – Q3 October to December
2016
Background Papers (These are unpublished works which have been relied
on to a material extent when preparing the report. They must be listed in the
section below. If the report is going to Cabinet (NEDDC) or Executive (BDC)
you must provide copies of the background papers)
All details on PERFORM system
Report Author
Contact Number
Kath Drury
Information, Engagement and Performance Manager
on behalf of Assistant Director – Customer Service
and Improvement
01246 217641
AGIN 6(a) (CAB 0215) Corp Plan Targets Perf Update/AJD
4
North East Derbyshire District Council
Corporate Plan Targets Update – Q3 October to December 2016
Aim – Unlocking our Growth Potential
Key Corporate Target
Directorate Status
Progress
Target
Date
Q3 New businesses assisted
G 01 - Through the use of Key
Account Management develop a
relationship with a minimum of 50
local businesses by March 2019.
Growth
On
track
Radiant Health, Adam's Happy Hens, Ashover Cider Company
Sun-31Ltd, Cliff Briggs, Lesley Brearley Home Baking Company IKO,
Mar-19
David Hart and ControlPoint,
Year to date 46 business engaged with
G 03 - Optimise business growth (as
On
measured by gross NNDR) by £1.0m Operations
track
by March 2019.
Q3 Forecast shows a decrease in the net payable NNDR of
£0.769m to £16.334m. This is the result of a number of appeals
being resolved. Conversely the appeals provision has been
reduced as a result of these appeals being settled so the NNDR
Sun-31collectable has increased to £16.853m. The financial year end
Mar-19
figure is needed to establish the business growth position for
2016/17.
(Baseline: £15,837,482 Gross NNDR 2014/15)
G 04 - Through the Bolsover North
East Derbyshire LEADER Approach
collectively support the creation of 65 Growth
sustainable jobs in the combined
programme area by December 2020.
On
track
Q3: There are currently 7 live Outline Applications in the
process, 6 from the NEDDC area. Two projects from the NED
area have been approved totalling £83,581 and expecting to
create 4 jobs, with another bid rejected. As only 10 of the 63
eligible NED enquiries received to date have submitted Outline Thu-31Applications, focus is being given to improve the retention rate Dec-20
(complexity of the application process, lack of match funding
and planning restrictions are the key issues noted by
withdrawn/non-progressed bids). It was confirmed in the
Chancellor’s Autumn Statement (23/11/2016) that Brexit would
5
have no immediate impact on the LEADER programme,
meaning that the promotion of the fund could resume and
successful projects could be contracted. The programme will be
relaunched in early 2017 and targeted marketing to continue
through the LEADER Team and partners, with various
presentations/briefings made within the quarter including to
NFU meetings, EDU Business Networks and internal team
meetings (e.g. Env Health and EDU), the two LEPs and the
Chamber of Commerce. Flyers to circulate with 2017/18 NNDR
letters are currently being developed.
G 05 - Support at least 50 young
people aged 18 to 24 years living in
North East Derbyshire to raise their
employability skills and 20 to be in
employment by June 2017.
Growth
On
track
Q3 - 91 young people engaged and supported to enhance their
employability. 22 supported to secure a minimum of 4 weeks in
Fri-30work.
Jun-17
(Target achieved but to continue monitoring until project
completed).
G 06 - Provide pre-employment
activities to at least 60 unemployed
residents per year.
Growth
On
track
Q3 - 81 residents have been supported with pre-employment
activities Year to date – 154.
Wed31-Jul19
G 07 - Support at least 20
unemployed residents into
employment per year.
Growth
On
track
Q3 - 19 residents have been supported into employment this
quarter. Year to date – 59.
Sun-31Mar-19
G 08 - Produce a Local Development
Scheme that seeks to publish the local
Growth
plan at the earliest deliverable date
and before March 2018
On
track
Q3: On target to publish the Local Plan in Oct 2017. A draft
plan is being prepared and subject to Cabinet approval will be
published for consultation in February 2017.
Sat-31Mar-18
G 09 - Ensure preparation of the Local
Plan is in line with the adopted
timetable and report annually in
Growth
December through the statutory
Authority Monitoring Report (AMR)
On
track
Q3- On target to publish the Local Plan in Oct 2017. Draft Local
Plan prepared and subject to Cabinet approval will be published Sun-31for consultation in February 2017. AMR for 2014/15 & 2015/16 Mar-19
monitoring periods published in December 2016.
G 10 - Process all major planning
applications 10% better than the
On
track
Q3 - The outturn for the third quarter was 100% representing 12 Sun-31of 12 "major" applications being determined in time.
Mar-19
Growth
6
minimum for special measures per
annum.
G 11 - Enable the development of at
least 1,000 new properties within the
district by March 2019.
Target 2016/17: 60%, National Target 50%
Growth
G 12 - Through a programme of
targeted refurbishment bring 20 empty
Growth
properties per year back into use by
March 2019.
G 13 - Work with partners to deliver an
average of 100 affordable homes each Growth
year.
G 14 - Through the Private Rented
Sector Leasing Scheme deliver 5
additional units of affordable housing
each year.
Growth
On
track
Q3 466 completions during 2015/16. Information relating to
2016/17 will become available in the new financial year. Well
Sun-31placed to be on target by 2019. Large schemes such as former Mar-19
Coalite site and The Avenue are moving forwards.
Alert
Q3 The Empty Property Officer is now in place and has the list
of properties that has been sent to Action Housing to see if they
can put an intervention in place to bring back in to circulation.
The Empty Property Officer is also creating a baseline for the
Sun-31empty properties in North East Derbyshire and will then build an
Mar-19
action plan to tackle these. Currently no properties have been
refurbished but the properties sent to Action Housing are being
surveyed to categorise those which can be brought back into
use with the monies available.
Q3 No affordable units will be delivered in this financial year.
The Bellway site will deliver the first phase of affordable units in
June 2017 and the next in September 2017. We have had
commuted sums for sites that did not prove viable within the
district.
Alert
Alert
As a Local Authority we have £642,498.01 commuted sum
funding which we can put towards delivering affordable units
within the district. We have already begun dialogue with
Rykneld and other Registered Providers on how we can best
use this money. We will bring all suggestions of how to best use
this money through POG and Cabinet for final approval.
Sun-31Mar-19
Q3. No properties have been delivered through Private Rented
Sector Leasing Scheme however Empty Properties Officer is in Sun-31place and will be working with Action Housing to find properties Mar-19
and then deliver them through the scheme.
7
G 15 - Achieve an increase of at least
£950,000 in additional New Homes
Growth
Bonus by March 2019.
On
track
Q3 £524,259 is the additional NHB being received in 2016/17.
A projection for 2017/18 to follow when figures are finalised.
Sun-31Mar-19
Aim – Providing our Customers with Excellent Service
Key Corporate Target
Directorate
Status
Progress
Target
Date
Transformation On track
Q3. All evidence has now been completed and submitted (via
the external G4S external assessor) system for the Contact
Centre service assessment. The on-site assessment is due to Sat-31take place on the 11th January 2017.
Mar-18
Update: Report pending following the assessment. Result
embargoed until received.
C 02 - Achieve an overall biennial
external satisfaction rate of 80% or
Transformation On track
above for services provided by the
Contact Centre.
Q3.An Improvement Plan has been produced for those
comments/suggestions received in relation to the external
satisfaction results. Quality Monitoring on the telephones has
Sun-31commenced to and an email template has been produced to
Mar-19
help improve the quality and satisfaction on email
responses. (Headline Result: Combined average satisfaction
score = 83.25%)
C 03 - Achieve a consistent
quarterly satisfaction rate of 80%
Transformation On track
or above for leisure, recreation and
cultural activities and services.
Q3 The combined leisure facility satisfaction average is 95%.
C 01 - Achieve Customer Service
Excellence accreditation for the
Contact Centre service by March
2017 (and/or) corporately by
March 2018.
C 04 - Achieve an overall tenant
annual satisfaction rate of 86% or
above for services provided by
Transformation On track
Rykneld Homes.
C 05 - Reduce the average time to Transformation On track
Sun-31Mar-19
Q3 Rykneld Homes achieved an overall tenant satisfaction of
94% in the Annual Survey run in June 2016. An improvement Sun-31of 1% on 2015/16. No new updates required for this target
Mar-19
until 2017/18.
Q3 19.27 days (Q2 28 days – not reported previously)
8
Thu-31-
relet void Council properties to 30
days by March 2017 (HCA core
definition).
Mar-16
C 06 - Complete to target 98.9% of
all responsive repairs on Council Transformation On track
properties each year.
Q3 Update: Oct: 99.36% Nov: 98.9% Dec: Figures due mid
February 2017.
C 07 - Replace the corporate
website and refresh content by
April 2017
Q3 - The new website was launched on 1 November 2016.
Feedback to date has been very positive. We are now
carefully monitoring the site to see which pages are popular,
Sun-30which are not being used and what functionality is required so
Apr-17
we can continually keep it up to date and provide the
information users require. We are also looking at how we can
improve the site moving forward.
Transformation Achieved
C 08 - Increase (unique) visitor
numbers to the Council website by Transformation On track
7% year on year.
Sun-31Mar-19
Q3 - January 2017 - Statistics from Google Analytics for the
period 1 October to 31 December 2016 show that we have
had 82,646 users visiting the website, of which 47.82% are
new unique users of the website. The total number of visitors
Sun-31to the site from 1 April to 31 December is 315,411 (147,023
Mar-19
new visitors). More detailed analysis of these figures is being
undertaken to make sure they are accurate.
C 09 - Implement the new EU
Regulations on Data Protection
within the timescales stipulated by Transformation On track
the Information Commissioners
Office.
Q3 - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to come
into force on 25th May 2018. Following the UK referendum
outcome to leave Europe the ICO considers that the UK will
still require data protection legislation to mirror the GDPR.
Work continues to improve our internal data protection
processes in line with the new regulations e.g. developing a
database of personal data held by the Council. Refresher
training has taken place in December 2016 /January 2017,
which includes reference to the new regulations.
Sun-31Mar-19
C 10 - Fully deliver the equality
objectives identified in the Single
Equality Scheme by March 2019.
Q3. Work progressing on the Single Equality Scheme action
plan - notable actions this quarter. Equality monitoring
guidance and Joint Equality Policy for Service Delivery
Sun-31Mar-19
Transformation On track
9
publicised via Weekly Bulletin and published on intranet.
Specific information requirements form now available on-line
for customers to self-complete. An equality survey was
included in the latest citizen panel survey. The outcome of the
report was positive. The report was published on the mid
week bulletin and the Ask Derbyshire website. The report will
be presented to the Disabled Peoples Joint Consultative
group in March 2017. An article was published in the latest
copy of the news seeking new group members.
C 11 - Achieve an overall annual
success rate of 80% for
households who considered
themselves homeless for whom
casework resolved the situation.
On track
Q3 - a total of 56 homeless cases were dealt with in Q3 out of Sun-31which 53 were prevented which equates to 95%
Mar-19
On track
Q3: All presentations from supported groups were completed.
Provisional offers for 2017/18 have been sent to grant
recipients following consideration by the Grants
Recommendation Panel, in keeping with the Derbyshire
Sun-31Compact. Final allocations will be determined by Council in
Mar-19
2017.
Note: Information on number of households assisted will be
known in the new financial year.
Growth
On track
Q3: Of the 169 new members within the quarter, 58 were
from within the District, taking the annual District total to date
Sun-31189 new members. CNEDCU won Organisation of the Year
Mar-19
(income over £100,000) at the 2016 Voluntary Sector Awards
held in October.
Operations
On track
Q3: 19.79 days
Growth
C 12 - Invest in voluntary and
community organisations to assist
over 13,000 vulnerable and
Growth
disadvantaged households year on
year.
C 13 - Support the growth in
membership of the Chesterfield
and North East Derbyshire Credit
Union by 230 new North East
Derbyshire residents per year.
C 14 - Process all new Housing
Benefit and Council Tax Support
claims within an average of 21
days.
10
Sun-31Mar-19
C 15 - Process changes to
Housing Benefit and Council Tax
Support within an average of 9
days.
Operations
On track
Q3: 5.95 days
Sun-31Mar-19
Aim – Supporting our Communities to be Healthier, Safer, Cleaner and Greener
Key Corporate Target
Directorate
H 01 - Review partnership arrangements
to enable the development of Healthy
Growth
Communities Action Plan by March 2016,
with delivery milestones by March 2019.
Status
Progress
Target
Date
Q3: Healthy NED Partnership meeting held 10.10.16
considered Q2 Monitoring and Funding Reports. 8
projects have been commissioned and were on track,
with another one withdrawn at provider
request. Worklessness and Carers working groups are
yet to formulate recommendations for actions, with 4
actions yet to start. The Older People's Working Group
has established with NEDDC representation and
includes the county Ageing Well Team, to consider the
priority actions and review existing actions/funding
allocations. Junior Savers Scheme project by Credit
SunUnion has been reviewed with a view to recommending 31commissioning for a further year (2017/18) on new terms Mar-19
and targets.
On
track
NEDDC's Community Development Worker Project is
extended to 31.03.18 and has 18 CHCs active in
Holmewood and Heath (Target:10 pa). CHC Network
Meetings have been programmed with guest speakers
and workshops planned. SWAP performance held in
Health Primary School to promote positive health
messages to children and parents/carers; full evaluation
report will be published next quarter. In first six months
11
of 2016/17, over 3000 individuals have engaged with the
project, with various public health outcomes reported.
Quarterly meetings held with Ward Members. Action
Plan for Shirland Ward has been developed to start in
New year, with initial consultation with Ward members to
support scoping/consultation exercise.
H 02 - Increase participation/attendances
in leisure, sport, recreational, health,
Transformation Alert
physical and cultural activity by 5,000 per
year.
Q3 - Approximately 38,000 attendances down year to
date. However this is to be expected (and in line with
revised projections) due to the closure of Eckington
Swimming Pool and partial closure of Dronfield Sports
Centre. Q3 target 547,000 actual is 509,000.
Sun31Mar-19
H 03 - Deliver a health intervention
programme which provides 600 adults per
On
Transformation
year with a personal exercise plan via the
Track
exercise referral scheme.
Q3: Target 150 - actual 234 referrals (awaiting
confirmation from DCC – project lead)
Combined total referrals Q1, Q2 & Q3 target – 450,
actual – 791.
Sun31Mar-19
H 04 - Tackle childhood obesity through
the delivery of a child focused health
On
intervention programme to all Key Stage 2 Transformation
track
year groups by the end of each academic
year.
Q3 This is the second reporting period for delivery of the
SunFive60 programme, We are currently delivering to a
31further 8 primary school across this term totalling 16 of a
Mar-19
possible 28 primary schools.
H 05 - Support 492 inactive 16+
individuals per year increase their activity
On
levels to more than 30 minutes of
Transformation
track
moderate intensity physical activity per
week.
Q3. Delivery of this project is 1st December to 30th
November, year 2 has now been completed. Year 2
Suntargets have exceeded those set with over 809 engaged 31in activity, 240 registered to the scheme and 21 that
Mar-19
have completed an informal interview for insight.
Q3 The following campaigns have taken place:
H 06 - Assist partners in reducing crime
and antisocial behaviour by delivering 10
targeted crime reduction campaigns with a Operations
minimum of 200 people attending each
year.
Christmas - This was about Alcohol and called "who is Suntaking you home" - this was a Peak FM campaign run
31jointly with Bolsover and Chesterfield CSP and ran over Mar-19
3 weeks - it is thought that over 6000 people would have
been targeted and heard this.
On
track
12
Clay Cross - 100 Purse bells distributed to luncheon
clubs, Xmas Fayres as well as leaflets on making ones
home looked lived in when out over the festive period.
Stonebroom - Door knocking and a crime/ASB survey
undertaken with further follow up work (where needed)
this was targeted and went to 40 homes where crime
and ASB are at its worst.
Morton - Shed breaks - 3 x cracking crime events
targeted at shed breaks in the area. 30 shed alarms, 60
property marking kits and 10 visual kits were given out to
share amongst the community.
(Year to date 8 events held)
H 07 - Achieve a combined recycling and
Operations
composting rate of 49% by March 2019.
Q3 Waste Data Flow (WDF) information is estimated on
like performance at ending December 2015, in particular
as WDF information will not be available until ending
SunMarch 2017. It is estimated 3,866tonnes of
31recyclable\compostable wastes will be diverted, yielding
Mar-19
a combined estimated recycling rate of 42% between
April and December 2016 (Q1 to Q3).
On
track
Operations
On
track
Q3 LEQS's established 6% of streets and relevant land
surveyed fell below grade B cleanliness standards
Sunresulting in 94 % meeting the target standard. The
31combined performance between April and December
Mar-19
(Q1,Q2 & Q3) is 4.37% which falls just outside (95.63 %)
the annual target of 96% (at this point in time).
H 09 - Sustain standards of dog fouling
cleanliness to ensure 98% of streets each Operations
year meet an acceptable level as
On
track
Q3 LEQS's established 0.44% of streets and relevant
land surveyed fell below grade B cleanliness standards
resulting in 99.56% land surveyed meeting the target
H 08 - Sustain standards of litter
cleanliness to achieve 96% of streets
each year meet an acceptable level as
assessed by Local Environment Quality
Surveys (LEQS).
13
Sun31Mar-19
assessed by Local Environment Quality
Surveys (LEQS).
standard. The combined performance between April and
December (Q1,Q2 & Q3) is 0.44% resulting in 99.56%
achieving the annual 98% target.
H 10 - Annually undertake 10 local
environmental enforcement and
Growth
educational initiatives in targeted areas to
deal with dog fouling, littering or fly tipping.
H 11 - Develop an action plan for the
improvement of two town centres by
March 2019.
H 12 - Support the development and
delivery of projects as part of the £1
million 'Grassland Hasmoor…' Big Local
scheme by March 2019.
Growth
Growth
Alert
Q3 - Due to staffing absences, no initiatives were carried
out during the third quarter. Task owner confident of
Sunpulling this back on track by Q4.
31Mar-19
To date 4 enforcement/educational initiatives have been
delivered.
On
track
Q3 - Both the regeneration framework for Dronfield and
Killamarsh have now been completed and adopted by
the Council. This will help the towns to agree their local
action plans and the Council will support them in these
endeavours.
On
track
Q3: The Grassland Hasmoor...Board agreed that
NEDBD Ltd should be the new LTO following Links CVS’
indication that they wished to step down from the role on
31.03.17. Activities commenced to implement this
transfer, which will include the TUPE of Big Local
Workers to NEDDC and an application to formalise this
transfer will be made to the Local Trust by 31.01.17. The Sunpilot Pit Stop Superkitchen attracting over 70 people in 31each of its 3 sessions. The Seniors Working Group held Mar-19
the Christmas Cracker Party on 13.12.16, where 62
seniors enjoyed a Christmas dinner and entertainment,
with residents with limited mobility transported to and
from the Party and 11 housebound residents visited by
the Reaching Out Programme and presented with food
hampers.
14
Sun31Mar-19
Aim – Transforming our Organisation
Key Corporate Target
Directorate
Status
T 01 - IIP: Retain accreditation by July
2015 and with full external assessment
in 2018.
Transformation On track
Progress
Target
Date
Q3 - A report will be taken to Cabinet
Tue-31Jul-18
Mon30-Apr18
Wed30-Nov16
T 04 - Assess the potential revenue
impact and develop an action plan to
address issues arising from the
Operations
implementation of the Minimum Energy
Standards on commercial properties by
April 2018.
On track
Q3 - Well within timescale. Legislation understood,
quotes for relevant survey works obtained and in a
position to place an order for a survey to assess the
impact of the legislation. Budget to be identified for
next financial year.
T 05 - Develop a Procurement Strategy
Growth
by March 2016.
Achieved
(behind
target)
Q3. Procurement Strategy approved in November
2016.
On track
Q3 - LGBCE have announced that the number of
councillors for North East Derbyshire will remain at
Sat-153. The next stage of the review is taking place with
Dec-18
regards to drawing new council ward boundaries with
the consultation closing on 30 January 2017.
T 06 - Fully deliver the electoral changes
to District and Parish wards as a result
of the Local Government Boundary
Growth
Commission for England's electoral
review by 1 December 2018.
T 07 - Collect a minimum of 98% rent on
Transformation On track
Council properties each year.
Q3 - 75.53% (profiled target for Q3 is 75.19%)
T 09 - Through successful delivery of
projects within the Transformation
programme achieve total
savings/income of £600,000 by March
2019.
Q3 A total of £420k in transformation savings have
been identified and built into budgets up to the end of Sun-31the current corporate plan. For 2016/17, £175k has
Mar-19
been achieved.
Transformation On track
T 10 - Develop a series of strategies and
plans to support the ambition of a
Transformation Extended
sustainable leisure service by March
2017.
Q3 - The following are being progressed and on
track:
Subsidy Reduction Plan
Marketing Plan
15
Sun-31Mar-19
Fri-31Mar-17
The following is complete: Sport Development and
Physical Activity Plan, however Sport England and
Derbyshire Sport delivered a new Sport, Physical
Activity and Active Recreation Plan in July 2016. A
target extension to March 2017 was granted to
complete this work as a result and these documents
are on track for completion by this date.
T 11 - Increase on-line self service
transactions dealt with by the Contact
Centre by 20% per year.
Q3. A total of 505 accounts have now been
created. Since the new website was launched there
has been an increase in self accounts being created
by customers as this option is in a more prominent
position on the web page.
During Q3 - 348 service requests have been
Sun-31submitted on the 'Do it on line' portal. A year to date Mar-19
total of 885 service requests have been submitted by
customers via this channel.
Baseline: 2015/16 550 service requests and 229
accounts created during the first year (9 months
only).
Transformation On track
T 12 - Develop an action plan to enable
the delivery of the Derbyshire Thriving
Growth
Families initiative by March 2017 and
thereafter commence implementation.
Q3: Support is being provided at all local meetings
where possible to ensure the progress of the
initiative, with particular focus to the “Credit In
Control” element which is seeking to support financial
inclusion within the community. £1,250 has been
Fri-31accessed for new credit union members whilst the
Mar-17
junior school is being supported to develop a Junior
Savers Scheme following consultation held on
22.11.16. NEDDC has suggested to DCC coordinators that an action plan for the activity should
be developed to identify where plans are focused.
Extended
16
Agenda Item No 7
Please note:
Due to the size of the Appendices, and in an effort to save paper, we
have not printed a hard copy of the Appendices. A hard copy is
available for inspection in the Members Room. Any Member will be sent
a hard copy on request to the report author/Governance Team.
North East Derbyshire District Council
Cabinet
15 February 2017
North East Derbyshire Local Plan: Consultation Draft and Proposals for Public
Consultation
Report of Councillor M Gordon, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for
Environment
This report is public
Purpose of the Report
• To update Cabinet on progress in preparing the Local Plan.
•
To seek approval of the content of the Draft Local Plan and to undertake public
consultation on it and associated documents.
• To seek approval of the arrangements for consultation.
1
Report Details
Background
1.1
At its meeting on 5th August 2015 Cabinet endorsed the Local Plan Steering
Group’s (LPSG) recommendations (Report No MG/03/15-16/HF) to cease work on
a 2 Part Local Plan and commence the preparation of a single Local Plan, including
consideration of options for an alternative strategic distribution of housing and other
development; and bringing forward a comprehensive review of the Green Belt.
1.2
On 26th October 2016 Cabinet approved the Publication of a “Local Plan Position
Statement,” which provided a summary of where the Council had got to in the
production of the Local Plan. In particular it outlined what new evidence base work
had been done, including the Green Belt Review and what work still needed to be
done.
1
1.3
In the meantime Cabinet has continued to delegate to the Local Plan Steering
Group the general task of overseeing and considering the detailed issues arising
out of the preparation of the Local Plan. The LPSG has continued to meet regularly
to progress the Plan. Since LPSG Minutes were last reported to Cabinet in August
2015 the following meetings have taken place: (Minutes from these meetings are
attached at Appendix 1):
a)
23 September, 2015 - Consideration of the new Local Plan timetable and draft
cabinet report on the Local Development Scheme and bringing forward the
Green Belt Review. The Group also looked at an expansion of the Green Belt
Functionality Study to include sites around the urban edge of Chesterfield and
Sheffield.
b)
8 December, 2015 - Consideration of updates in relation to the Local Plan
timetable and Green Belt Review and plans to undertake a call for sites to
update the SHLAA to include Green Belt Sites. Members also received a
presentation on Plans being prepared by Bolsover District Council, Derbyshire
Dales District Council, Sheffield City Council and on the Ashover
Neighbourhood Plan
c)
11 May, 2016 - Members received a presentation on the findings of the
expanded Green Belt Functionality Study and on the methodology for the
Strategic Green Belt Review
d)
18 July, 2016 – Members received an update on the initial findings of the
Green Belt Review and considered a proposal for a revised spatial distribution
of housing.
e)
6 September, 2016 – Members received updates on Local Plan preparation
including the Local Plan Position Statement; on the cross boundary Strategic
Site at Coalite, including the impact of the potential realignment of HS2; and a
presentation on Neighbourhood Plans emerging across the District their timing
and relationship to the Local Plan.
f)
3 October, 2016 - Members received updates on the progress of the Local
Plan and were advised that work had commenced on preparing a Local Plan
Position Statement which would be published in August subject to Cabinet
Approval. Members were advised on the progress and protocol of
Neighbourhood Plans in North East Derbyshire. The progress of the
Holymoorside and Walton draft Neighbourhood Plan which had been
submitted was discussed in detail.
g)
11 October, 2016 – Consideration and discussion of an emerging potential
strategic site and its implication for the Local Plan Strategy and associated
position statement.
h)
13 December, 2016 – Members received updates on the progress of the Local
Plan and were advised on the content of the Authority Monitoring Report. The
members received a presentation on the Local Plan’s strategy and policies
outlining the scale and distribution of planned growth in the District. The
progress of the Ashover Neighbourhood Plan was discussed.
i)
17 January, 2017 – Members received a presentation on the main changes
and chapters prepared for the draft Local Plan. Arrangements for public
consultation were discussed. (Minutes of this meeting not yet available).
2
1.4
The LPSG has overseen the development of the Draft Local Plan to the point where
the plan text has been drafted and draft Policies Maps prepared detailing preferred
land use allocations. Since the role of the LPSG is to act in an advisory capacity,
without the authority to make plan-making decisions, it is now necessary to seek
Cabinet approval of the Draft Local Plan and associated documentation along with
authorisation to undertake public consultation.
1.5
The following sections explain the context for and the key features of the Draft Local
Plan and associated consultation material, along with an outline of the proposed
arrangements for public consultation.
1.6
Draft Local Plan
A copy of the Draft Local Plan text and Policies Maps is attached at Appendix 2. It
should be noted that it may be necessary to make minor changes to the plan text as
the Planning Policy team continues to check and format the document for public
consultation.
Some illustrations in the document require updating prior to
consultation and this is signposted in the document. The Draft Plan is up to date in
terms of the available evidence however parts of the evidence base remain to be
updated. Where relevant this is signposted within the document, with the
explanation that the outcome of the additional work will be taken into account in the
next iteration of the Plan and may affect the targets, policies and/or allocations in
the Plan.
1.7
The Policies Map for this draft version of the Local Plan consists of a series of map
extracts covering the areas where housing and employment allocations are
proposed. The Publication Version of the Plan will be accompanied by a full district
map.
1.8
The Local Plan is not produced in isolation, and has to be in accordance with the
legislation regulating plan-making and in the context of the government’s planning
policies. The plan must also have regard to the relevant plans and strategies of
other public bodies and organisations insofar as they raise strategic planning
matters of cross boundary significance for North East Derbyshire. More locally the
Local Plan takes account corporate strategies and initiatives such as the Corporate
Plan, Growth Strategy, Housing & Economic Development Strategy and
Regeneration Frameworks along with the strategies and objectives set by the two
Local Enterprise Partnerships.
1.9
The Council first began work on replacing its development plan with a Core
Strategy under the old system of Local Development Frameworks. It then moved
forwards to prepare a Local Plan in two parts and consulted upon an Initial Draft
Local Plan (Part 1) in February 2015. In response to changes in legislation and
issues associated with the spatial distribution of growth the Council is now
preparing a single local plan rather than one in 2 parts. Whilst this Draft Plan
retains much of the previous initial draft plan’s strategic context there are some
notable differences such as a revised spatial distribution of development and
hierarchy of settlements which gives a greater focus on development at the main
towns of Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh in the north of the district than
previously. This has been made possible by the proposed release of land from the
Green Belt following a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries.
3
Issues for Consideration
1.10
The draft Plan has been prepared positively taking account of comments received
during previous consultations and in the light of the most up to date evidence
available. It contains a vision and objectives along with strategic policies on the
scale and distribution of development to meet the district’s objectively assessed
needs. The Plan designates important areas to be protected and enhanced and
sets out criteria based policies on a range of planning issues to be used in the
determination of planning applications. Figure 1 below provides an overview of the
Draft Plan’s structure and content. A more detailed explanation of key elements of
the document follows.
Figure 1: Draft Local Plan Structure & Content
CHAPTER
CONTENT
1: Introduction
Provides an overview of the Plan’s context and approach.
2: Spatial Portrait
Provides a short description of the geographic, economic, social
and environmental characteristics of the area (called the Spatial
Portrait) along with the key issues facing the district.
3: Vision & Objectives
Sets out the Plan’s vision for North East Derbyshire describing
the kind of place North East Derbyshire will be by 2033. A
number of objectives are defined to achieve the vision and help
guide the Plan’s strategy
4: Spatial Strategy
Sets out the Plan’s strategy for housing, employment and retail
growth together with overarching policies to guide the
distribution of development in line with a hierarchy of
settlements. It includes 4 strategic site allocations earmarking
land for major mixed use developments and which are
considered critical to achieving the strategy. It also includes
strategic policies for the Green Belt and countryside.
5: Living Communities
Sets out the plan’s housing policies including affordable
housing and Gypsies and Travellers. It includes housing
allocations to deliver the levels of growth set out in the strategy.
6: Working Communities
Sets out economic development policies to protect existing
employment areas and allocate new sites to meet the growth
requirements of the Strategy. Also includes policies for retail,
town centres and tourism development.
7: Sustainable Places
Sets out area based policies, building on the settlement and
retail hierarchy policies and strategic elements of the
Regeneration Frameworks, to ensure sustainable growth in the
District’s four towns namely Clay Cross, Dronfield, Eckington
and Killamarsh.
8: Sustainable Development &
Communities
Sets out specific criteria based policies aimed at achieving
sustainable patterns and forms of development including
policies to protect and enhance the natural and built
environment, to address climate change, and to ensure high
quality design and place-making throughout North East
Derbyshire.
4
9: Infrastructure & Delivery
Sets out policies dealing with the delivery of the physical, social
and green infrastructure required to support the development
and growth set out in the Plan.
This chapter will be more fully developed as the Infrastructure
Delivery Plan (IDP) is produced alongside the next publication
version of the Local Plan.
10: Monitoring &
Implementation
Chapter 10 sets out the arrangements for monitoring the
effectiveness of the Plan’s policies.
This chapter will be more fully developed as part of the next
publication version of the Local Plan
Scale & Distribution of Development
1.11
Over the period 2011 - 2033 the draft Local Plan aims through Policy SS2 to
allocate sufficient land to accommodate a minimum of 6,600 dwellings and 50ha of
employment in order to meet objectively assessed needs. The overall strategy
approach to the location of development remains as in previous iterations of the
plan, i.e. to focus development on the most sustainable settlements & strategic
sites. However, the current Plan is able to demonstrate a spatial distribution of
development that is more in line with this strategy by giving a greater focus on
development at the main towns of Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh. This has
been made possible by the proposed release of land from the Green Belt following
a comprehensive review of Green Belt boundaries. The settlement hierarchy has
also been updated and simplified to identify the relative sustainability of settlements
in the district, creating 4 bands, each with a different policy approach to
development (see Figure 4 below).
1.12
It is envisaged that the four Towns (level 1 settlements) and Strategic Sites together
will accommodate the majority (i.e. over 50%) of the District’s housing growth
requirements during the Plan period and the majority of new employment and retail
land provision. Of the 6,600 dwellings required approximately 1000 have been built
since 2011. Figure 2 below provides an overview of how the remaining housing
requirement will be distributed at a strategic level. Table 4.2 in the Draft Local Plan
sets out the housing requirement for each settlement, based upon each
settlement’s position in the hierarchy, the level, availability and suitability of land for
housing. Chapter 5, Policy LC1 : Housing Allocations lists the sites allocated for
development and these are illustrated on the Policies Map.
5
Figure 2: Housing Distribution (Strategic Level)
1.13
Location
No. Of Dwellings
Towns
Level 1 Settlements
2508
Strategic Sites
1270
Larger Villages
Level 2 Settlements
1962
TOTAL
5740
Strategic Sites
Four Strategic Sites are identified in the Draft Local Plan:
• the Former Biwaters Site, Clay Cross, (mixed use, housing & employment);
• The Avenue, Wingerworth, (mixed use, housing and employment);
• Markham Vale, Duckmanton (employment only); and
• Land South of Markham Vale (employment only).
1.14 Three of these sites have been carried forward from previous iterations of the plan
and one ‘Land South of Markham Vale’ is proposed as a new strategic employment
site (see Figure 3 below). The site consists of agricultural land and is understood to
be immediately available, providing a follow on employment site to the successful
Markham Vale development. The site has the potential to address the outstanding
employment land requirements in the District in an area that has a proven track
record of delivery. However it will be important to ensure that the allocation of this
site does not undermine the delivery of the adjacent Coalite Site, or the delivery of
planned employment within neighbouring administrative areas.
6
Figure 3: Strategic Site – Land South of Markham Vale, Long Duckmanton
Coalite Priority Regeneration Area
1.15
1.16
The Coalite Site is of strategic scale and has planning permission, however there
are concerns over its ability to deliver within the plan period due to the scale of
remediation required and the blight of HS2. For this reason it is not included as a
Strategic Site, nevertheless the Council still strongly supports the site’s remediation
and development and therefore in accordance with regeneration ambitions the Draft
Local Plan, allocates the site as a Priority Regeneration Area.
Green Belt & Safeguarded land
The previous iteration of the Draft Local Plan (Part 1) published for consultation in
2015 sought to distribute development in a way that did not involve a review of the
Green Belt. However evidence revealed a significant mismatch between the
strategy and the proposed spatial distribution of housing, land availability and
demand; such that the level of growth being planned for across the District could
not be accommodated in a sustainable way or where demand and viability were
highest.
7
Figure 4: Settlement Hierarchy
Type of Settlement
a: Principal Towns
Level 1
b: Secondary Towns
Policy Approach
Place
The Towns will provide for a significant proportion of the
District’s housing growth requirements, will accommodate any
required retail growth within their town centres and provide a
focus for new employment growth.
Clay Cross
Dronfield
Eckington
Killamarsh
Justification:
• most sustainable locations for new development in terms of the
range of services and facilities they provide and support
• generate the greatest needs for new housing, jobs, services and
facilities.
• important roles in providing the economic, commercial and social
hearts of the District and growth targeted to support and where
possible enhance these roles.
Level 2:
Settlements with
good level of
sustainability
These settlements will contribute to the District’s growth Calow
requirements through existing permissions and allocations.
Grassmoor
Holmewood
Morton
Justification:
These comprise the larger villages with a good level of sustainability North Wingfield
due to the level of services and facilities they provide, the availability of Pilsley
Renishaw
jobs and public transport.
Shirland
Stonebroom
Tupton
Wingerworth
8
Level 3:
Settlements with
limited
sustainability
No housing allocations are proposed in these settlements over
and above existing commitments. Windfall developments of
appropriate scale may be acceptable in line with criteria based
Policies of the Local Plan or an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.
Apperknowle
Arkwright Town
Ashover
Barlow
Commonside
Barlow Village
Justification:
These settlements have a limited range of services and facilities and Cutthorpe
Heath
lack the sustainability to support significant growth.
Higham
Highmoor
Holmesfield
Holymoorside
Kelstedge
Long
Duckmanton
Lower Pilsley
Level 4:
Very small villages
and hamlets with
very limited
sustainability
In these settlements new development will be restricted to limited Alton
infilling of 1-2 dwellings or more if in line with an adopted Bolehill
Neighbourhood Plan.
Brackenfield
Cock Alley
Justification:
Fallgate
These small villages and hamlets have few or no services and facilities Handley near Stretton
and very limited sustainability.
Littlemoor
Sutton Scarsdale
Woolley Moor
9
Marsh Lane
Mickley
Old
Brampton
Ridgeway
Spinkhill
Stretton
Temple
Normanton
Unstone
Crow Lane
Unstone
Green
Wadshelf
Walton
Wessington
1.17 This evidence led the Council to undertake a review of the Green Belt during 2016.
The Green Belt Review1 provides an objective assessment of the role of individual
land parcels in fulfilling the purposes and objectives of the Green Belt and identifies
those parcels where release of the land for development would cause least harm to
the strategic functions of the Green Belt. These sites have also been taken through
the Council’s usual site assessment process to assess their suitability and
availability for development.
1.18 The Maps at Appendix B in the Draft Plan appended to this report, clearly identify
those parcels of land proposed for removal from the Green Belt. The Policies Maps
identify the proposed purpose of each site, i.e. whether it is proposed to meet the
development needs of the District during this plan period (as an allocated site) or to
meet development needs beyond the plan period (as Safeguarded Land). A small
number of sites are proposed to be released from the Green Belt, but are not
allocated for development. This is because they are no longer considered to
perform a valid Green Belt function, but are not suitable or available for
development.
Figure 5 summarises the scale of development that could be
supported on the land proposed for release from the Green Belt.
1.19 National guidance requires that when defining Green Belt boundaries authorities
should have regard to their permanence in the long term, so that they are capable
of enduring beyond the plan period. The identification of ‘safeguarded land’
between the urban area and the Green Belt can help to meet longer-term
development needs that extend beyond the current plan period, thereby avoiding
the need for a review of the Green Belt with each Local Plan review. Safeguarded
land is considered necessary in North East Derbyshire in order to provide a degree
of permanence to the Green Belt boundaries put in place by the Local Plan and
means that future reviews of the Green Belt may not be needed. Safeguarded land
is not allocated for development and planning permission for its permanent
development should only be permitted following a Local Plan review which
proposes the land for development. One area of land (35.4ha) to the south of
Eckington has been identified for safeguarding.
1
The Green Belt Review forms part of the evidence base for the local plan and will be published for consultation
alongside the Draft Local Plan.
10
Figure 5: Proposed Allocations in the Green Belt
Settlement
Housing
Capacity
Dronfield
860
Eckington
435
Killamarsh
560
Total for Towns
1855
Renishaw
270
Total for Larger Villages
270
Eckington
800
Total Safeguarded Land
800
Towns
Larger Villages
Safeguarded Land
Total Green Belt Release
2925
(excluding land not suitable for development)
1.20
Employment Land
The strategy is based on ‘quality and location’ of employment land rather than
simply ‘quantity’ and therefore aims to identify and protect the most important sites
as ‘Priority Employment Areas’, where development will be restricted to standard
business class uses (B1, B2 & B8). In other ‘Secondary Employment Areas’ a
broader range of employment generating uses may be acceptable provided such
uses do not restrict the wider employment operations of the site. Policies WC2 &
WC3 list the Primary and Secondary Employment locations. Figure 6 identifies the
location and level of available employment land that will contribute to the strategic
growth requirement. The total available employment land exceeds the minimum
target of 50ha, providing for a degree of flexibility and to allow for losses of
employment land elsewhere in the District.
11
Figure 6: Employment Land Availability
Site
Land Within Existing Employment Areas
Coney Green Industrial Estate, Clay Cross
Westthorpe Fields, Killamarsh
Markham Vale (part former Coalite Works), Long
Duckmanton
Ravenshorn Commercial Park, Renishaw
Sub-total
Strategic Site Allocations
The Avenue
Former Biwaters Site, Clay Cross
Markham Vale, Long Duckmanton
Land South of Markham Vale, Long Duckmanton
Sub-total
Employment Allocations
Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate Extension, Dronfield
Sub-total
Total Provision
Hectares1
11.7
0.35
1.25
2.50
15.80
5.00
8.00
5.00
25.00
43.00
6.00
6.00
64.80
1
The areas identified reflect the estimated net developable area for each site. The policies map shows
the gross area allocated.
Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
1.21 In drawing up a Local Plan, the local planning authority must carry out an appraisal
of the sustainability of the Plan’s proposals through a process called Sustainability
Appraisal (SA). The first stage is to prepare a Scoping Report, which was first
published in 2007, and updated in 2012.
1.22 Through this process a set of SA objectives has been established which has been
used to assess and improve the sustainability credentials of the emerging plan
policies and proposals. A report setting out the progress on the SA, including the
assessment of the policies in the new Draft Plan and the reasonable alternatives
considered will be published for consultation alongside the Draft Plan.
Summary Recommendation
1.23 It is recommended that Cabinet approves the content of the Draft Local Plan for
Public Consultation and Delegates responsibility to the Joint Assistant Director of
Planning and Environmental Health in consultation with the Portfolio Holder with
responsibility for Environment for approving any additional non-material changes to
the Local Plan text prior to consultation (including the insertion of maps and
illustrations within the document).
12
Proposed Arrangements for Public Consultation
1.24
The adopted timetable (Local Development Scheme) for the production of the Local
Plan is set out at Figure 7. It proposes that ‘informal’ consultation on the Draft Plan
takes place in February/March 2017 (annotated as Preferred Options on the
timetable)..
Figure 7: Timetable for the Preparation of the Local Plan
1.25
It is proposed that public consultation on the Draft Local Plan and associated
supporting documents will commence on 24th February 2017 and will run for a
period of 6 weeks. Consultation will take place in line with the Council’s Statement
of Community Involvement. Although this is an informal stage in the process it is
proposed that consultation will include exhibitions and drop-in sessions around the
District to ensure local communities have the opportunity to engage with the
process and discuss matters with Council representatives. Figure 8 shows the
proposed arrangements, with venues focussed on those areas most affected by the
Plans proposals, with two sessions at the Council’s main offices on Mill Lane to
cover the rest of the District. Interested persons may visit any of the sessions and
are not restricted to the event most local to them.
Summary Recommendation
1.26 It is recommended that Cabinet approves the timetable and arrangements for public
consultation as set out in the report and delegates responsibility to the Joint
Assistant Director of Planning and Environmental Health in consultation with the
Portfolio Holder with responsibility for Environment for approving details concerning
the final arrangements and associated supporting documents for public
consultation.
13
Figure 8: Proposed Consultation Arrangements
Date
Venue
Staffed Exhibition/
Drop-in Sessions
Fri 10th March
Clay Cross Social Centre, Main Hall
4.00pm – 7.00pm
Mon 13th March
North Wingfield Community
Resource Centre.
4.00pm – 7.00pm
Tue 14th March
Dronfield Civic Centre, Main Hall
4.00pm – 7.00pm
Mon 20th March
Killamarsh Sport Centre, Parish
Function Suite
4.30pm – 7.30pm
Wed 22nd March
North East Derbyshire District
Council Offices, Council Chamber
3.00pm – 7.00pm
Thu 23rd March
Eckington Civic Centre, Main Hall
4.00pm – 7.00pm
Fri 31st March
Shirland Village Hall
4.00pm – 7.00pm
2
Conclusions and Reasons for Recommendation
2.1
This report identifies the progress made in preparing the Draft Local Plan outlining
its key defining features including the spatial strategy and policy objectives; and in
identifying proposed housing and employment sites. The Plan and associated
documentation has been developed to a stage where public consultation can take
place subject to Cabinet approval.
2.2
It order to ensure the Local Plan is developed in line with the adopted timetable it is
recommended that Cabinet approves the Draft Local Plan for public consultation,
approve the consultation arrangements and provides for the necessary delegated
authority to approve final detailed arrangements for consultation along with the
associated documentation.
3
Consultation and Equality Impact
3.1
The contents of this report have been considered by members of the Local Plan
Steering Group, as summarised in paragraph 1.3 and 1.4 of this report.
3.2
There are likely to be equalities issues arising out of the preparation of
Development Plan Documents, in terms of both the content of the document and
the way consultation and participation is arranged. These issues will be addressed
14
when preparing publicity material and arranging public exhibitions in accordance
with the Council’s most up to date procedures.
3.3
An equality impact assessment of the Local Plan’s policies will be undertaken at the
publication stage of the Local Plan and any necessary amendments prior to
consultation on that document.
4
Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection
4.1
A series of alternative options for the strategic direction of the Local Plan, its
detailed policies and proposed allocations have been considered as part of the
preparation of the document. The consideration of reasonable alternatives is an
integral part of Local Plan preparation and will form part of the criteria the Plan is
tested upon when it is examined by an independent inspector.
5
Implications
5.1
Finance and Risk Implications
5.1.1 The preparation of the Local Plan has financial implications. The Planning Policy
Team’s budget as currently set is considered to be sufficient to support the delivery
of the Local Plan.
5.1.2 The timely adoption of the Local Plan will facilitate housing and business growth in
the District, which in turn will enable the Council to benefit from revenue associated
with the New Homes Bonus and Business Rate retention.
5.2
Legal Implications including Data Protection
5.2.1 The Council has a statutory duty to prepare and keep up to date a Local Plan. The
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) and the Town and Country Planning
(Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, set out the statutory procedures for
preparing these planning policy documents. These procedures have been, and will
continue to be, followed.
5.2.2 There are no specific data protection issues arising from this report.
5.3
Human Resources Implications
5.3.1 There is a need to ensure that resources in the planning service continue to be
sufficient to ensure that timely delivery of a sound Local Plan.
6
Recommendations
6.1
It is recommended that Cabinet:
i) Approves the content of the Draft Local Plan and authorises public consultation
on it and associated documents;
ii) Approves the timetable and arrangements for public consultation; and
15
iii) Delegates responsibility to the Joint Assistant Director of Planning and
Environmental Health in consultation with the Portfolio Holder with responsibility
for Environment for approving:
a. any additional non-material changes to the Local Plan text prior to consultation
(including the insertion of maps and illustrations within the document); and
b. details concerning the final arrangements and associated supporting
documents for public consultation.
7
8
Decision Information
Is the decision a Key Decision?
(A Key Decision is an executive
decision which results in income or
expenditure to the Council of
£50,000 or more or which has a
significant impact on two or more
District wards)
No
Is the decision subject to Call-In?
(Only Key Decisions are subject to
Call-In)
No
District Wards Affected
All
Links to Corporate Plan priorities
or Policy Framework
All
Document Information
Appendix No
Title
Appendix 1
Minutes of Meetings of Local Plan Steering Group
Appendix 2
North East Derbyshire Draft Local Plan
Background Papers (These are unpublished works which have been relied
on to a material extent when preparing the report. They must be listed in the
section below. If the report is going to Cabinet (NEDDC) or Executive (BDC)
you must provide copies of the background papers)
Report Author
Contact Number
Helen Fairfax
Planning Policy Manager
217168
AGIN 7 (CAB 0215) 2017/NED Local Plan/AJD
16
Please note:
Due to the size of the Appendices, and in an effort to save paper, we have not printed a
hard copy of the Appendices. A hard copy is available for inspection in the Members’
Room. Any member will be sent a hard copy on request to the report author/Governance
Team.
17
Appendix 1
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
Agenda Item No 2
LOCAL PLAN STEERING GROUP
NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2015
Present:
Councillor M Gordon (in the Chair)
Councillor W Armitage
“
N Barker
“
B Barnes
Councillor A Cooper
“
T Williams
“
J Windle
Also Present
Helen Fairfax – Planning Policy Manager
Rick Long – Principal Planning Officer
James Arnold – Assistant Director – Planning and Environmental Health
Lucy Chapman – Principal Planning Officer
Bryan Harrison – Senior Economic Development Project Officer and Urban Designer
Sarah Cottam – Governance Officer
15/15-16 Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor A Foster and Steve
Brunt, Assistant Director – Streetscene.
16/15-16 Notes of Last Meeting
The Notes of the last meeting held on 21 July 2015 were agreed as a true and
correct record.
16/15-16 Local Plan Progress
Local Development Scheme (Timetable and Draft Cabinet Report)
The Group considered the timetable and draft cabinet report on the Local
Development Scheme. At its meeting on 5 August 2015, Cabinet considered a
report on the Local Plan. It was noted that progress had already been made in
preparing for a new Local Plan and this included consulting on an Initial Draft
plan in February/March 2015. Cabinet also noted that the consultation process
had generated a substantial number of representations, many of these related
to specific potential housing sites but also included some challenges both to the
format of the Local Plan and to the proposed strategy.
18
In addition to the challenges received through the consultation responses, work
undertaken so far on site assessments had revealed significant problems in
identifying sufficient sites in appropriate locations to demonstrate that the
proposed strategy could be delivered successfully. Cabinet considered that
taken together the issues raised significant uncertainty and serious concerns
over the soundness of the plan, sufficient enough to justify a resolution to move
to the preparation of a Single Local Plan and it was agreed that a new timetable
and project plan (LDS) be drawn up in consultation with the Local Plan Steering
Group.
The LDS had now been prepared and the Group noted the key milestones:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Late 2015/early 2016 – continue with site assessment/commence
Greenbelt review;
June/July 2016 – consultation on the revised strategy options;
February 2017 – consultation on the preferred options;
October 2017 – Publication;
February 2018 – Submission;
Mid 2018 – public examination;
Late 2018 – adoption of the Local Plan.
The Group noted that the date for adoption of a single Local Plan involved a
delay compared to the timetable for adopting a Local Plan Part 1, but was
realistic, and that the timescales for preparing and adopting a Single Plan were
the same timescales as those originally proposed for the two part plan. The
process could not be completed in shorter timescales as time had to be factored
in to consult with the public/members. The Council needed to be satisfied that
the draft Plan was sound before it was submitted.
Greenbelt Review
The Group considered an update on the Green Belt review. In August Cabinet
resolved to begin preparation of a single Local Plan which would look at options
for an alternative strategic distribution of housing and other development
including bringing forward a comprehensive review of the Green Belt. In order
to meet the Local Plan timetable set out in the LDS, it was important that
preparation work could commence without delay to enable the evidence base to
be satisfactorily completed. It was considered appropriate to commence a
Green Belt review to enable the Council to be in a position to take the critical
decision at a future stage on whether it was necessary and desirable to release
land from the Green Belt to allow the Local Plan Strategy to be delivered
effectively.
A Green Belt Functionality Study was carried out in 2014 to assess the function
of general areas of Green Belt around settlements in the North and parts of the
West of the District to identify those areas that were least sensitive to change.
37 settlement fringe areas of Green Belt had been identified. An individual
assessment of each zone was undertaken to assess the performance against
the scoring system based on the Green Belt purposes set out in the National
Planning Policy Framework. This would identify how the Council could meet the
19
housing need within the district. The Group were advised that value would be
added by expanding the original Study to include the South of Sheffield, areas
around Chesterfield and settlements around the south of North East Derbyshire.
An additional 18 areas had been were identified.
Once completed, the
expansion of the Study would allow a comprehensive understanding of the
functionality of the North East Derbyshire Green Belt.
AGREED –
(1)
That the report be submitted to Cabinet in October 2015, to update on the
progress in preparing the Local Plan and ask that the revised Local
Development Scheme be adopted and the proposed timetable for the
preparation of the Local Plan should take effect from 1 November 2015.
(2)
To request authorisation for work to commence on a Green Belt review.
17/15-16 Report on Housing Land Availability Monitoring
The Group considered an update on Housing Land Availability Monitoring. The
Council had a statutory duty to prepare an Authority Monitoring Report (AMR)
and report on the selection of key issues, one of which was details of the net
additional and affordable dwellings in the District in the relevant financial year.
The National Planning Policy Framework also required the Council to illustrate
the expected rate of housing delivery through housing a trajectory. This would
show whether the Council had a five year housing land supply.
This task was usually undertaken by the Planning Policy Team’s Planning
Technician during April and May of each year. The Planning Technician Post
had been vacant since July 2014 and due to the ongoing shared service review
and implementation process the post had not yet been replaced. There was not
spare resource in the department to carry out the task and given that the
Council was now six months into the next monitoring period it was suggested
that the survey work for 2014/15 and 2015/16 be combined into one. The work
on this would be carried out in February/March 2016 when the shared Planning
Policy Service should have come into effect and additional shared staff
resource should be available.
The implications of the combined approach would be:•
•
•
•
Every effort will be made to identify in which year completions occurred.
Where it was impossible to distinguish whether a dwelling was compelte
din 2014/15 or 2015/16 for a particular site the completions will be divided
equally between the two years;
The publication of the AMR at 2014/15 would be delayed and would coincide with the publication of the AMR 2015/16;
The five year housing land supply position would only be available for
AMR 2015/16;
Due to the delay in publishing the AMR 2014/15, development
management officers would not have up-to-date information about the five
year land supply position of the district. This could possibly put the
Council in an awkward position at any Planning appeals between now and
20
April to May 2016. However, the real impact on this was negligible given
the Council did not have and was not close to having a five year land
supply.
Although combining the two surveys into one had some
implications, these were not insurmountable. This approach would
provide the best results with the limited resources currently available and
at a time when the Council did not have a five year housing land supply.
AGREED – That the Local Plan Steering Group approved the approach of
combining the 2014/15 and 2015/16 housing land supply availability and
monitoring into a single survey.
18/15-16 Duty to Co-operate
The Group considered an update on Duty to Co-Operate. At present there had
been no movements in terms of the Duty to Co-Operate in North East
Derbyshire.
Bolsover District Council were due to consult on Strategic Options on 30
October.
Chesterfield Borough Council were moving forward with a single Local Plan and
Derbyshire Dales had not yet published any further information following the
withdrawal of its Local Plan in 2014. The Group were advised that discussions
were underway across the D2N2 local planning authorities concerning sharing a
strategic evidence base between councils. The group would be kept up to date
with developments.
North East Derbyshire was currently in consultation with other authorities
regarding Green Belt reviews. Chesterfield Borough did not need to review as
they had sufficient land availability. Sheffield were pursuing an independent
review. All authorities had agreed the same approach, but reviews would be
undertaken at different times.
AGREED – That the update on the Duty to Co-operate be noted by the Group.
19/15-16 Neighbourhood Planning
Ashover Parish Council had requested another meeting with the Council
regarding the Neighbourhood Plan and the District’s Local Plan. It was felt that
Ashover may now wish to move forward with their Neighbourhood Plan, but it
was noted that once the District’s Local Plan was in place the Neighbourhood
Plan would have to conform with the District’s Local Plan.
20/15-16 Date of Next Meeting
It was decided that the next Local Plan Steering Group due to take place on
Tuesday 20 October 2015 be cancelled and re-arranged for a date in early
December 2015.
_________________
LPSGNotes 0923
21
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL PLAN STEERING GROUP
NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 8 DECEMBER 2015
Present:
Councillor M Gordon (in the Chair)
Councillor W Armitage
“
N Barker
Councillor A Foster
“
J Windle
Also Present
Helen Fairfax – Planning Policy Manager
Philip Tschavoll-Selenko – Senior Planner (Temporary)
James Arnold – Assistant Director – Planning and Environmental Health
Sarah Cottam – Governance Officer
19/15-16 Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors A Cooper and
B Barnes.
20/15-16 Notes of Last Meeting
The Notes of the last meeting held on 23 September 2015 were agreed as a
true and correct record.
21/15-16 Local Plan Progress
Local Development Scheme Timetable
The Group considered the Local Development Scheme timetable. The
timetable had recently been published on the Council’s website and it was
advised that in June 2016 the consultation on the revised Strategy options
would take place.
The timetable was adopted by Cabinet on 28 October 2015 and factored in
sufficient time to undertake a Green Belt Review.
Green Belt Review
The Group considered an update from the Planning Policy Manager on the key
work programme tasks which all related to the wider Green Belt Review work
that Cabinet had recently approved being brought forward. This involved three
aspects:1
Undertaking a call for sites which was currently underway from the 26
November 2015 to 14 January 2016.
22
2
Updating the Green Belt Functionality Study which had taken place
October to December 2015 and;
3
Undertaking the main Green Belt Review which was scheduled to take
place January to May 2016.
Call for Sites
This work was currently underway to update the SHLAA and include
Green Belt Sites to bring it in line with the NPPF. The work was necessary
to update the evidence base following Cabinet’s decision to move to a
single Local Plan.
Green Belt Functionality Study
During 2015 a Green Belt Functionality Expansion Study took place to
secure comprehensive coverage of the first stage review (undertaken in
2014) in advance of the Strategic Green Belt Review. The final report had
not been received, but initial findings were presented to the Group.
In the Green Belt Functionality Study, zones were identified and an
individual assessment took place of each zone. Through a simple scoring
system the performance of each zone was assessed against five purposes
and objectives for Green Belt Review, set out in the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF).
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;
To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;
To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of
derelict and other urban land (this objective was considered to
apply equally across the study area and was therefore omitted from
the study).
18 additional areas had been identified around the south of Sheffield,
around Chesterfield and the settlements in the south of North East
Derbyshire (Wingerworth/Grassmoor/Temple Normanton).
The Group were advised that consultants were carrying out a Functionality
Study and once finalised this would be circulated to members of the
Group. This study would provide a baseline for the detailed Green Belt
Review to be carried out from January 2016.
AGREED – That the Group note the update on the Local Plan Progress.
22/15-16 Duty to Co-operate
The Group were advised that the Council had been consulted by neighbouring
authorities on their emerging Local Plans.
23
Bolsover District Council’s Local Plan
Bolsover District Council were currently consulting on the identified strategic
options:•
•
•
•
Vision and objectives;
Housing and employment target options;
Four spatial strategy options;
Four strategic sites – Coalite, Bolsover North, Clowne North and Whitwell
Colliery;
The closure of the consultation was the 11 December 2015. Bolsover were
positive about growth but had viability issues, however they did have a
significant stock of employment land.
Sheffield City Council’s Local Plan – Options for Growth
Sheffield City Council were currently consulting on the ‘City Wide Options for
Growth to 2034’. The consultation looked at the challenges and opportunities in
the city. The housing target was 43,000 (2,150 per year and an employment
land target of 10 hectares per year).
Sheffield City Council has concerns that it may not be able to meet its own
needs within its boundaries and suggested that a strategic review of the
Sheffield/North East Derbyshire Green Belt was required. Sheffield City were
also looking at expanding the tram network within the Sheffield boundary, but
not towards the South. Potential general locations for Park and Ride sites were
located close to the boundary with North East Derbyshire District Council.
Officers would be considering the consultation material in more detail and
preparing a response in consultation with the Chair of the Group.
Derbyshire Dales District Council Local Plan
Derbyshire Dales were principally consulting on the options for housing and
employment targets and also the location for new developments. Derbyshire
Dales withdrew their recent local plan in 2014 as it did not meet the needs
required. There was currently a housing shortfall of 4,400 over the plan period.
Derbyshire Dales also had to meet the housing needs for settlements that were
within the National Park.
Derbyshire Dales may need to look to neighbouring authorities if unable to
accommodate its own housing needs. The Group were advised that North East
Derbyshire could only assist neighbouring authorities if there was the capacity
but this was uncertain until the completion of a Green Belt Review.
23/15-16 Neighbourhood Planning
Ashover Neighbourhood Plan
The Council had recently met with the Ashover Planning Group to discuss the
details of their Neighbourhood Plan. Ashover were keen to submit their plan in
24
December 2015. The Group were advised that the consultant working with
Ashover was also working on similar plans with Holymoorside and Wessington
Parishes. The Planning Policy Manager advised that there would be resource
issues in the District Council to look at the Neighbourhood Plan due to the
Christmas Closedown period and requested submission be delayed until
January 2016.
Fifty houses had already been built or planned for since 2011 in Ashover.
Ashover were currently identifying land for new builds and believed that the
targets could be met. There were currently 9 houses planned for in the village
and these would be classed as ‘starter homes’. The Planning Policy Manager
was unsure if the site assessment methodology was being used by the
consultant.
24/15-16 Date of Next Meeting
The next Local Plan Steering Group would take place on Tuesday 19 January
2016 and the Group agreed that all future Local Plan Steering Group meetings
would take place at 10.00 am instead of 9.30 am.
The Chair of the Group wished to express his thanks and appreciation to Rick
Long, Principal Planning Policy Officer for all the hard work he had done for the
Group. Rick would be leaving North East Derbyshire in January 2016.
_________________
LPSGNotes 1208
25
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL PLAN STEERING GROUP
NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 11 MAY 2016
Present:
Councillor M Gordon (in the Chair)
Councillor W Armitage
“
N Barker
“
A Cooper
Councillor A Foster
“
J Windle
Also Present
Helen Fairfax – Planning Policy Manager
Philip Tschavoll-Selenko – Senior Planner (Temporary)
James Arnold – Assistant Director – Planning and Environmental Health
Lucinda Chapman – Principal Planning Officer
Steve Brunt – Assistant Director - Streetscene
Sarah Cottam – Governance Officer
Michael Watts – Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP)
1/16-17
Appointment of Chair
AGREED – That Councillor M Gordon be appointed Chair of the Local Plan
Steering Group.
2/16-17
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor J Austen and
B Barnes.
3/16-17
Notes of Last Meeting
The Notes of the last meeting held on 8 December 2015 were agreed as a true
and correct record.
4/16-17
Local Plan Progress
Green Belt Review
The Local Plan Steering Group were advised that the Call for Sites was
completed in January 2016 and had yielded 20 new sites in the Green Belt
giving a total of 120 Green Belt SHLAA sites to consider. The functionality
study was now complete and was being used to inform the main part of the
Green Belt Review. The main Green Belt Review was currently under way and
being undertaken by consultants at Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners. It was
advised that work had evolved into a bigger piece of work than was originally
anticipated. It was initially intended to assess only SHLAA sites, but it soon
became clear of the need to expand this to give a more comprehensive
26
coverage of all land parcels around settlements in the Green Belt.
therefore significantly increased the scale of the task.
This
The Group considered a presentation from Michael Watts of Nathaniel Lichfield
and Partners (NLP) on the Green Belt Review. The main objective of the
presentation was to explain the role of the Green Belt Review in the emerging
local plan process and to outline the methodology for the Green Belt Review
and to share emerging findings.
The reasons for carrying out a Green Belt Review were:•
•
•
•
Local Planning Authorities were required by Government to prepare an
evidence base for objectively assessing development needs;
Local Planning Authorities had to consider meeting all development needs
in light of sustainable development;
A Green Belt Review provided evidence on development potential in
Green Belt settlements; and
Was part of a requirement for a sound local plan.
It was noted that all reasonable alternatives would be considered in the Green
Belt Review. Carrying out a Green Belt Review would identify parcels of land
considered to make no, or limited contribution to Green Belt purposes, it would
identify the development potential of those parcels of land and assess the
deliverability.
In essence a review would enable the Council to release land from the Green
Belt if ‘exceptional circumstances’ were demonstrated through the formulation
of the Local Plan.
Methodology
The aim of the Green Belt Review methodology was to:•
•
•
•
To assess whether parcels of land still met Green Belt purposes;
Identified parcels which may possibly be released from the Green Belt;
Identify constraints and opportunities;
Also provide evidence for an enduring Green Belt Boundary.
The Group were advised that the review comprised of two parts. Part A the
Strategic Functionality Study and Part B the Green Belt Review (NLP).
The Functionality Study identified areas where development would have a
significant impact on the function of the Green Belt and formed the basis of
NLP’s Review.
The Green Belt Review (Part B) would be carried out in the three stages.
Stage A – Parcel Definition around 20 settlements;
Principal towns – Dronfield (1)
Secondary towns – Eckington and Killamarsh (2)
27
Large Settlements – Wingerworth, Walton, Grassmoor, Holymoorside,
Renishaw and Temple Normanton (6)
Small Settlements – Cutthorpe, Highmoor, Holmesfield, Ridgeway, Marsh Lane,
Unstone Green, Wadshelf, Barlow-Commonside, Barlow Village, Old Brampton
and Unstone Crow Lane (11)
The Green Belt would then be sub-divided based on character and land use
and clearly defined endurable physical boundaries. The Steering Group noted
that weak boundaries could be vulnerable to urban encroachment whereas
strong boundaries were less likely to be altered on an ad-hoc basis and were
found more likely to withstand the passage of time.
Stage B – Assessment of Parcels – Each parcel would be assessed against the
5 Green Belt purposes –
1
2
3
4
5
To check unrestricted sprawl;
To prevent neighbouring towns from merging;
To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
To assist in urban regeneration.
All the parcels of land would be visited by NLP and where possible the
measurable criteria would be used to ensure consistency.
Assessment Outcomes
•
•
•
The parcel would be considered to meet at least one of the purposes
robustly (Red);
The parcel would be considered only able to partly meet one or more of
the purposes (Amber); or
The parcel would be assessed as meeting one of the purposes robustly
(Green).
The Group noted that Red parcels of land would be discounted at this stage,
with only Amber and Green going forward to Stage C.
The Supplementary Parcel Assessment would take place which compared the
strategic growth options and emerging special distribution. If insufficient land
was identified for release, a further assessment would be undertaken. Where
the functionality study identified land as making a limited contribution – purpose
3 (countryside) would be omitted from the scoring.
Again, Red parcels of land would be discounted with Amber and Green going
forward to Stage C.
Stage C – Assessment of Constraints - Using SHLAA all the Green and Amber
parcels would be assessed against a range of sustainable criteria which would
look at the suitability of the site for development and the deliverability of the site.
The assessment would provide the Council with a range of sites it could
consider for allocation through the local plan process provided exceptional
circumstances were shown.
28
The consultant advised that stages A and B had largely been completed.
Around 460 parcels had been identified and visited, however a limited number
of parcels did not meet the Green Belt purposes, only a small number at the
moment.
The assessment at present only provided limited development opportunities so
it was necessary to undertake the supplementary assessment. Following on
from this the next steps would be to finalise Stage B parcel assessments, share
the results with officers at Chesterfield Borough and Sheffield City Councils in
order to consider cross-boundary issues and to keep consistency through the
duty to co-operate. Assessments of suitable Parcels and Potential Parcels
would be undertaken and the Green Belt reports would be finalised.
The results would be presented at the next Local Plan Steering Group meeting
in July 2016.
Next Steps
Helen Fairfax, Planning Policy Manager advised the Group of the next steps for
the Local Plan Process. Site assessments were taking place and feedback was
being fed into alternative scenarios. The Group were advised of the possible
delay to the consultation planned for June/July this year and it may be
necessary to combine consultation processes in order to keep the adopted
timetable needed to be adhered to.
AGREED – That the Group noted the update on the Local Plan progress.
5/16-17
Duty to Co-operate
The Group were advised that North East Derbyshire had been contacted by
Derbyshire Dales District Council under the Duty to Co-operate. Strategic/cross
boundary matters between the two Councils were considered to be the:•
•
Need to ensure a consistent approach to Local Plan policies that manage
the impact of development on the National Park and its setting; and
Requirement to meet objectively assessed needs for housing.
Derbyshire Dales had to accommodate 6,440 dwellings, but could only find
suitable land for 6,015 dwellings (shortfall of 425). Derbyshire Dales was
therefore asking this Council to formally consider whether it is able to
accommodate some or all of its unmet needs.
Helen Fairfax, Planning Policy Manager advised that North East Derbyshire
could not at this time confirm whether it could accommodate any of Derbyshire
Dales’ shortfall as this would depend upon the outcome of the North East
Derbyshire Green Belt Review and the policy/plan making decisions made in
light of its findings.
It was AGREED – that a response would be sent to Derbyshire Dales District
Council in consultation with Councillor Michael Gordon.
29
6/16-17
Neighbourhood Plans
Ashover Neighbourhood Plan
Ashover had formally submitted its Neighbourhood Plan in March 2016 and this
was subject to the basic conditions checks. At present, consultations were on
hold as the two statutory bodies considered that a strategic environmental
assessment was needed due to the sensitive areas.
Holymoorside & Walton Parish Council and Wingerworth Parish Council were
both working up draft neighbourhood plans, but as yet had not submitted them
to the Council.
Dronfield Town Council were currently considering a neighbourhood plan and
would soon be choosing their preferred consultant, but due to staffing issues,
had not yet begun the process. The Group were advised that dealing with
neighbourhood plans took up half of an officer’s time to deal with and the
District Council funded the consultation processes for every neighbourhood
plan.
7/16-17
Date of Next Meeting
The next Local Plan Steering Group would take place on Monday 18 July 2016
at 10.00 am in Chamber 1, Mill Lane, Wingerworth.
_________________
LPSGNotes 0511
30
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL PLAN STEERING GROUP
NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 18 JULY 2016
Present:
Councillor M Gordon (in the Chair)
Councillor W Armitage
“
J Austen
“
N Barker
Councillor B Barnes
“
A Cooper
“
J Windle
Also Present
Helen Fairfax
Philip Tschavoll-Selenko
James Arnold
Phil Delaney
Sarah Cottam
8/16-17
–
–
–
–
–
Planning Policy Manager
Senior Planner
Assistant Director – Planning and Environmental Health
Principal Planning Officer
Governance Officer
Apologies for Absence
There were no apologies submitted to this meeting as all members of the Local
Plan Steering Group were present.
The Chair welcomed Phil Delaney to the meeting, who was the new member of
staff in the Planning Policy Team.
The Group were advised that at 11.00 am a minute’s silence would be observed
as a mark of respect for those affected by the Nice attacks last week.
9/16-17
Notes of Last Meeting – 11 May 2016
The Notes of the last meeting held on 11 May 2016 were agreed as a true and
correct record.
10/16-17 Local Plan Progress
Green Belt Review
The Group noted that at the last meeting of the Local Plan Steering Group it
was advised that the next steps would be the site assessments, feedback into
alternative growth scenarios, decisions about scale or growth and Green Belt
release, public consultation and the Local Plan timetable.
31
Since that time two key strands of work had been developed:•
•
A revised approach to housing distribution – based on achieving
sustainable development in the most appropriate locations;
A Green Belt review – objective assessment of land parcels against
purposes and objectives of the Green Belt.
The Group recognised that the previous Strategy had sought to avoid
development in the Green Belt but this could not be demonstrated as being
deliverable. In July 2015 Cabinet approved a shift to a single Local Plan and to
undertake a Green Belt review to inform of the revised Strategy options.
The Group were advised that the approach to strategic distribution of housing
would need to be revised and the next step was to take account of what had
been built since 2011 and what had planning permission as this formed part of
the future supply.
Whilst the north currently contributed around 50% of the existing housing it was
only currently providing for less than 15% of the known supply, which was less
than 10% of the requirement. Most of the expected supply (regeneration sites
and current supply) was within the South and East – over 50% of the total
requirement (therefore a clear imbalance across the District and this linked to
an argument for Green Belt review).
The proposed approach to the strategic distribution of housing was to be
completed in a three step approach:Priority 1 – delivering the strategic development sites (Avenue, Biwater,
Coalite);
Priority 2 – focus on the four main towns (pro-rata) (Clay Cross, Dronfield,
Eckington and Killamarsh);
Priority 3 – focus on other most sustainable settlements.
Prioritising the development of housing to the strategic development sites in
order to help bring these sites to the market, not only as they would provide
sustainable areas for new housing but they would significantly improve the
environment of the areas in question and the District as a whole. This also
accords with the NPPF. These sites would have to be adjusted to reflect the
development difficulties which may limit the amount of land that they could bring
forward within the planned period.
Strategic sites
Avenue 1,100 (770)
Biwaters 800 (560)
Coalite 660 (462)
The remaining housing need would then need to be split amongst the most
sustainable areas for development. The settlement hierarchy recognised that
the towns of Dronfield, Clay Cross, Eckington and Killamarsh not only lead the
list but account for around 50% of the housing within the District. Therefore
50% of the remaining requirement should be divided amongst the four towns.
32
This should be pro-rata where possible, or in response to specific constraints
and opportunities.
The remaining 50% of housing requirements should then be shared amongst
the 16 most sustainable villages identified through the Settlement Role and
Function Study undertaken in 2010 and updated in 2013, and the Settlement
Hierarchy Background documents of 2014.
Members were provided with a table which showed how the distribution could
look by following the logic of the proposed approach. Essentially this
maintained the level of housing in the south, east and west but saw an uplift in
the northern towns as they accommodated a pro-rata share of the housing.
This was indicative of course and dependent upon the outcome of the Green
Belt review and decisions that could be made in light of it.
The Group were advised that the figures were also sensitive to change due to
the recent HS2 announcement that put a further question mark for delivery of
the Coalite site which accounted for approximately 500-600 dwellings in the
east area supply as this would need to be found elsewhere. The figures did
show that this approach to work would need to be looking for land to
accommodate between 1,500 and 2,000 homes around the northern
settlements which would need to come from the Green Belt if found appropriate.
The Planning Policy Manager advised the Group that the plans for the HS2
revised route were currently out to public consultation.
The Planning Policy Manager outlined, for information, the role of the Green
Belt review and the methodology behind the review and also showed some site
examples in the District that had been through this methodology.
Following the initial assessments it was demonstrated that all but nine parcels
of land in the District robustly met the Green Belt purposes. The parcels were
largely developed and had a limited development capacity (circa 100). In order
for North East Derbyshire to meet any of the spatial development distribution
options further parcels would have to be identified for development without
harming the strategic function of the Green Belt. The Planning Policy Manager
advised that they were currently checking the outputs and cross referencing, but
initial conclusions could be drawn.
A supplementary assessment showed a further 34 parcels that only partially
met Green Belt purposes. These parcels could be considered by North East
Derbyshire for removal from the Green Belt, subject to their deliverability, and
the demonstration of exceptional circumstances. From this a gross yield could
be approximately 3,500.
The Group were advised that the supplementary assessment would harm the
Green Belt but the process ensured only those least harmful relative to the
others were identified.
The Group were supplied with maps that showed the locations of sites around
the main settlements in the north. All these sites had been considered against
the Council’s normal sites assessment criteria which identified whether the sites
33
were suitable, available and deliverable, thereby reducing the overall number of
available and/or suitable sites
The Planning Policy Manager went on to advise the Group of the potential
capacity in the District. The gross capacity was 3,506 dwellings on 43 parcels
with a net capacity of 2,609 dwellings on 25 parcels.
The potential capacity had been compared to the identified growth options oft:(a)
(b)
(c)
Up to 1,000 dwellings (restricted growth);
Between 1,000 and 2,000 dwellings (medium level growth – meeting the
OAN);
Up to 4,000 dwellings (high level growth).
The deliverable parcels could accommodate growth options (a) and (b) and
option (c) would require land for 1,391 additional dwellings.
Next Steps
Going forward linking the Green Belt review to the Strategic Distribution
Housing would take place and initial work indicating a fair match between the
strategy requirements for 1,500 – 2,000 dwellings and a potential net capacity
of 2,600.
The Planning Policy Team would be working closely with Members and the
Local Plan Steering Group and would be liaising with the neighbouring
authorities regarding their Local Plans.
The Planning Policy Manager advised that over the summer the team would be
working on all the next steps and would bring back an update to the Local Plan
Steering Group in Early September. The Group were also advised that
consideration was needed to the longer term development needs of five to ten
years beyond the Plan period and the safeguarding of land. It was advised that
Planning Policy would be working alongside consultants on this to future proof
the Local Plan.
North East Derbyshire would also be working with Sheffield City Council under
the Duty to Co-operate to discuss their needs and would look at parcels on the
border with Sheffield at Lightwood which could possibly be released to meet
their needs. However it would be for Sheffield to make a case to North East
Derbyshire for the release of this land.
The Group were also advised that the website had been updated with the Local
Plan timetable. This was agreed through Cabinet to combine both consultation
periods and a position statement was due to go out to the public on the website
in the Autumn.
11/16-17 Duty to Co-operate
As previously discussed in the last agenda item North East Derbyshire were
due to meet with Sheffield to discuss their unmet needs. A recent meeting had
also taken place with Chesterfield Borough Council and they had advised that
34
they are carrying out their own Green Belt review. It was advised that nothing
further had been received from Derbyshire Dales District Council through the
Duty to Co-operate.
12/16-17 Neighbourhood Planning
It was advised that Ashover’s Neighbourhood Plan was on hold pending a
sustainability appraisal. After this, this would then go for consultation once
received by North East Derbyshire.
Dronfield had recently appointed a consultant, Andrew Towlerton, and were in
discussions regarding the Neighbourhood Plan, a meeting was scheduled
between Dronfield and Andrew Towlerton at the end of this week.
The Group were advised that Holymoorside’s Neighbourhood Plan was
currently out for consultation.
13/16-17 Date of Next Meeting
It was agreed to schedule an earlier meeting of the Local Plan Steering Group,
which would take place on Tuesday, 6 September 2016 at 10.00 am.
______________
LPSGNotes 0718/AJD
35
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL PLAN STEERING GROUP
NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 6 SEPTEMBER 2016
Present:
Councillor M Gordon (in the Chair)
Councillor J Austen
“
B Barnes
“
N Barker
Councillor A Cooper
“
J Windle
Also Present
Helen Fairfax
Philip Tschavoll-Selenko
James Arnold
Richard Cooper
George Newton
Sarah Cottam
-
Planning Policy Manager
Senior Planner
Assistant Director – Planning and Environmental Health
Planning Policy Officer
Planning Officer
Governance Officer
14/16-17 Apologies for Absence
An apology for absence was received from Councillor W Armitage.
The Chair welcomed George Newton to the meeting, who was the new member
of staff in the Planning Policy Team.
15/16-17 Notes of Last Meeting – 18 July 2016
The Notes of the last meeting held on 18 July 2016 were agreed as a true and
correct record.
16/16-17 Local Plan Progress
The Group considered a presentation from Helen Fairfax, Planning Policy
Manager on the Local Plan Progress to date. The Group were advised the
purpose of the update was to provide information on the Local Plan preparation.
The Group were advised that work had commenced on preparing a Local Pan
Position Statement which would be published in Autumn subject to Cabinet
approval. The Position Statement would include detail of:•
•
•
•
•
Where we have come from;
Where we are now;
What still needs to be done:
How the Plan is evolving;
What the next steps are.
The statement would also clearly explain the reasons for amending the Local
Plan timetable and rationalising the planned consultation stages. It was clarified
36
to the Group that amended consultations were non statutory and Planning
Policy were trying to rationalise the process. It was advised that all comments
from previous public consultation stages had been considered and formed part
of the ongoing process.
The purpose of the position statement was to ensure the process was open and
transparent.
The Group agreed that the draft Position Statement would be brought to the
next Local Plan Steering Group meeting and a decision would be made on
whether to include the Green Belt Study alongside the Statement. Following
this the Position Statement would be reported to Cabinet in October seeking
authority to publish. The document would be reported to Full Council prior to
being published on the Council’s website.
17/16-17 Duty to Co-operate
The Group received an update on the Coalite Site and maps were provided on
screen of the specific area.
Coalite was a priority area for regeneration and the site was cross boundary
with part being in Bolsover. Planning permission had been secured at both
Authorities for the remediation of the site and a meeting had taken place with
the developers regarding the Plan for the site. Subsequently the proposed
route for the HS2 had changed and the plans clearly showed it cutting across
the site affecting the planned housing development.
The Local Plan would need to take into account the impact of HS2 on the
deliverability of the Coalite site and reserve sites may be needed to account for
the loss of development if the HS2 crossed the Coalite site.
A meeting had
taken place with Bolsover District Council officers and the developers regarding
the potential uncertainties for the site. This matter will be kept under review.
Reports regarding this site and the development of the Local Plan had been
taken to Strategic Alliance Joint Committee to comply with the Duty to Cooperate.
The Chair of the Local Plan Steering Group requested that copies of the
presentation be forwarded to the two absence members of the Group.
18/16-17 Neighbourhood Planning
Richard Cooper, Principal Planning Policy Officer advised the Group of the
progress of the Neighbourhood Plans in North East Derbyshire. The Group
considered the background to the Neighbourhood Plans which derived from the
Localism Act 2011. The Neighbourhood Plan sat alongside the Local Plan and
formed part of the development plan. There was a process and protocol to
follow which involved various departments such as Planning Policy and
Governance. In North East Derbyshire there were five plans in the pipeline.
•
Ashover - submitted March 2016 was awaiting Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA);
37
•
•
•
•
Holymoorside & Walton – submitted in August 2016 and was awaiting an
environmental check;
Wingerworth – draft plan only – May 2016;
Wessington – drafting plan;
Dronfield – applied for area.
Common features within a Neighbourhood Plan were:•
•
Giving guidance on development in and out of a settlement;
The protection of character of the area and also stating the mix, and size
of affordable housing.
The Group were advised that a Neighbourhood Plan could also indicate the
amount of housing that could be allocated in the area, but this could not be less
than stated in the District’s Local Plan.
The Group were advised that the Parish Councils would pay for the preparation
of the Plan and meet any additional costs from the consultant, but any costs
associated with the examination and referendum would have to be met by the
District Council.
The Group requested details of how much Neighbourhood Plans would cost the
District in total, the Principal Planning Policy Officer would find out this
information for Members.
The Local Plan Steering Group also considered the Neighbourhood Plan
timings in comparison to the Council’s Local Plan, and it was reiterated that
when the Local Plan came into force, this would supercede all Neighbourhood
Plans. The Principal Planning Policy Officer advised the Group of the next
steps which would be to publicise and obtain an examiner for the Holymoorside
and Walton Neighbourhood Plan.
The Council were still awaiting the Strategic Environmental Assessment for
Ashover, after which this would hopefully be publicised and also the Council
would be considering the draft Plan for Wingerworth Parish.
The Local Plan Steering Group noted the update on Neighbourhood Planning.
19/16-17 Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Local Plan Steering Group was due to take place on
Tuesday 18 October 2016 at 10.00 am. However an earlier meeting of the
Group would take place on Monday 3 October at 9.30 am in Chamber 1, Mill
Lane, Wingerworth to enable the Group to consider the contents of the Draft
Local Plan Position Statement.
______________
LPSGNotes 0906
38
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL PLAN STEERING GROUP
NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 3 OCTOBER 2016
Present:
Councillor M Gordon (in the Chair)
Councillor W Armitage
“
J Austen
“
N Barker
Councillor A Cooper
“
J Windle
Also Present
Helen Fairfax
James Arnold
Phil Delaney
Richard Cooper
Sarah Cottam
-
Planning Policy Manager
Assistant Director – Planning and Environmental Health
Principle Planning Officer
Planning Policy Officer
Governance Officer
20/16-17 Apologies for Absence
An apology for absence was received from Councillor B Barnes.
21/16-17 Notes of Last Meeting – 6 September 2016
The Notes of the last meeting held on 6 September 2016 were agreed as a true
and correct record.
22/16-17 Local Plan Progress
Position Statement
The Group considered the draft Position Statement, which was attached for
Members’ information. The Planning Policy Manager gave a brief update on the
progress of the Green Belt Review. At present the document was still in draft
form. The undertaking of the sustainability appraisals of Green Belt sites and
reasonable alternatives was needed, from this new sites may come forward.
A proposal was put forward by officers to publish the Green Belt Review
alongside the draft Local Plan in February 2017, but officers would preferably
not wish to publish this until complete.
The Group was advised that the purpose of releasing Local Plan Position
Statement would be for information only, rather than consultation. It was
explained that the public could comment on the statement and these would be
fed into the consultation process in February.
39
The Statement would be detailed and give explanations of the change to the
format and direction of the Plan. This would be easy to read and include
diagrams.
A leaflet was proposed by officers and this would highlight the key messages
from the Position Statement. The leaflet would clarify the position of the Local
Plan and would be available on the website.
Members felt that the leaflet was not necessary and officers should wait until the
consultation process had begun in February. The Council wanted to be open
and transparent about the Local Plan process and one member suggested that
Councillors could feedback information where necessary to their wards after full
Council on 31 October 2016.
The Planning Policy Manager outlined the next steps for the Position Statement.
The document would be amended and finalised. It was agreed that another
meeting of the Local Plan Steering Group on the 18 October to view the
statement was not necessary and could be dealt with by e-mails through the
Chair.
The Position Statement was due to go to Cabinet on 26 October 2016 and then
would go on to full Council on 31 October 2016. The Group were advised that
this would be published on the website, the week commencing 7 November
2016.
The public consultation period on the draft Local Plan would begin on 24
February and would run until the 7 April 2017 (six week period). It was agreed
that a further meeting of the Local Plan Steering Group was required in
December 2016, it was agreed that this would take place on the 13 December
2016 at 10.00 am.
23/16-17 Duty to Co-operate
There was no update available at this meeting.
24/16-17 Neighbourhood Planning
Holymoorside & Walton Submission Draft Neighbourhood Plan
Richard Cooper (Planning Policy Officer) updated the Group on the progress of
the Holymoorside and Walton Draft Neighbourhood Plan.
The Group were advised of the Neighbourhood Planning process, the Plan
proposals, planning aspects and the other plans in progress.
Holymoorside and Walton Parish Council submitted their plan in August 2016
but were still awaiting and environmental check, but it seemed unlikely to
require a sustainable environmental assessment (SEA).
The Plan period ran up until 2031, unlike the Local Plan which would run until
2033. It was advised that the Plan fit within the NPPF and the District’s Local
Plan.
40
The Holymoorside and Walton Neighbourhood Plan ‘encouraged development
proposals, which clearly demonstrate how sustainable development has been
considered and addressed and that meets the needs of the community.’
The Group were advised that the Neighbourhood Plan did not alter settlement
boundaries. Following advice from a District Officer, the Parish would work
together with the District on the Local Plan Settlement Boundaries and the
Green Belt.
The only issue arising from the Plan was that it could not protect named stores
and golfcourses as these were not permissible to protect in this way.
The other Neighbourhood Plans in progress were:•
•
•
•
Ashover – submitted March 2016 and was awaiting sustainable
environmental assessment (SEA);
Wingerworth – draft Plan only – May 2016;
Wessington – drafting Plan – early stages;
Dronfield – area (Parish designated).
Members of the Group requested that officers keep a check on how much it
costs the District to process the Neighbourhood Plans. It was noted that the
Neighbourhood Planning had a huge impact on staff resources.
The Group agreed that as the meeting on 18 October 2016 was not taking
place, the draft Ashover Plan would be circulated to the group by e-mail for
comment.
25/16-17 Date of Next Meeting
The next scheduled meeting of the Local Plan Steering Group due to take place
on Tuesday 18 October 2016 had now been cancelled and the next meeting of
the Local Plan Steering Group would now take place on Tuesday 13 December
2016 at 10.00 am.
______________
LPSGNotes 1003
41
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL PLAN STEERING GROUP
NOTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 11 OCTOBER 2016
Present:
Councillor M Gordon (in the Chair)
Councillor W Armitage
“
J Austen
“
B Barnes
Councillor N Barker
“
J Windle
Also Present
Helen Fairfax
James Arnold
Phil Delaney
Sarah Cottam
-
Planning Policy Manager
Assistant Director – Planning and Environmental Health
Principal Planning Officer
Governance Officer
26/16-17 Apologies for Absence
An apology for absence was received from Councillor A Cooper.
27/16-17 Local Plan Update
The purpose of the special meeting of the Local Plan Update was to discuss an
emerging potential strategic site and its implications for the Local Plan Strategy
and Position Statement.
The Group were advised that the site in question was in the south of the district
and was submitted to SHLAA in 2013 and given a reference number of
SH/2001 with a capacity of 241 dwellings.
In February 2015 the site was identified in the initial draft Local Plan as having
long term development potential post 2022.
Discussions had taken place with the landowner about bringing the site forward
and looking at adjacent land for opportunities to improve the neighbourhood.
The landowner became frustrated by the shift to a Single Local Plan and
extended timetable and began discussions on a planning application.
In October 2016 Keepmoat submitted a potential masterplan for the site and the
desire to again work alongside the District’s Local Plan.
The scale of the proposal was significant and raised issues for the Local Plan
and could affect the contents of the position statement.
Members of the Group considered the illustrative extracts from the masterplan
and agreed that it was difficult to prove that the site was suitable to bring
forward at this stage in the process. The Stonebroom Masterplan would
generate in the region of 500 dwellings, see the regeneration of the Tarran
42
Bungalows stock, a new primary school, extracare scheme, community facilities
and improved accessibility in green space.
Since last year the Policy position had moved. The Green Belt Review had the
potential to open up land in the North to achieve a more balanced distribution of
housing more in line with the strategy. There had also been significant planning
permissions in the past two years which added up to the target for the plan and
there was less need to look at new allocations in the Southern settlements.
The Group were advised that a site of this scale was akin to the a strategic site
allocation which would be difficult to demonstrate deliverability. It was late in
the process and significant evidence was still required for the site. The site
could pose a clear risk to the soundness of the plan.
Members of the Group noted that the scheme would involve a significant
(strategic scale increase in the size of Stonebroom) and was not in line with the
strategy approach of the plan which sought to concentrate development on the
most sustainable settlements focussing on the main towns and mixed use
strategic sites.
Whilst the potential benefits of the scheme were noted, these were not fully
evidenced and did not outweigh the risks to the sound and timely preparation of
the Local Plan.
A consultation process had not yet taken place on the site, but therefore no
viable evidence was available and therefore the site could not be included in the
position statement and Local Plan.
AGREED – That all Members present at the meeting agreed the officers’
recommendation that the Local Plan Steering Group do not seek to incorporate
the site into the Local Plan as an allocation and the position statement remains
unchanged.
28/16-17 Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Local Plan Steering Group was due to take place on
Tuesday 13 December 2016 at 10.00 am.
______________
LPSGNotes 1011
43
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
LOCAL PLAN STEERING GROUP
NOTES OF MEETING HELD ON 13 DECEMBER 2016
Present:
Councillor M Gordon (in the Chair)
Councillor W Armitage
“
J Austen
“
N Barker
Councillor A Cooper
“
A Foster
“
J Windle
Also Present
Helen Fairfax
James Arnold
Phil Delaney
Philip Tschavoll-Selenko
Lucy Chapman
Sarah Cottam
-
Planning Policy Manager
Assistant Director – Planning and Environmental Health
Principal Planning Officer
Senior Planner
Principal Planning Officer
Governance Officer
29/16-17 Apologies for Absence
No apologies for absence were received at the meeting.
30/16-17 Notes of Last Meeting – 11 October 2016
The Notes of the last meeting held on 11 October 2016 were agreed as a true
and correct record.
31/16-17 Local Plan Progress
(a)
Authority Monitoring Report (AMR 11/12)
The purpose of the report was to inform members of the contents of the
latest North East Derbyshire Authority Monitoring Report including the five
year housing land supply position.
The report sought to inform the Local Plan Steering Group of the contents
of the AMR 11 for the period of 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015, and AMR
12 for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 for their publication on the
Council’s website.
The key findings of the AMR 11/12 were summarised as:•
The net completion of new dwellings for the period 2014/15 was 262
houses, which was slightly lower than the emerging local plan target
of 300 dwellings per annum. For the period 2015/16, 431 houses
were completed this was substantially above the emerging local plan
target;
44
•
•
During the 2014/15 period 77% of all new housing was built upon
previously developed (brownfield land) and in the 2015/16 period
47%. The first figure showed an increase on the AMR 10 when it
was 57%. A core planning principle of the NPPF was to encourage
the effective use of land by re-using land that had been previously
developed (brownfield), provided that it was not of high
environmental value;
Within the period of 2014/15 129 (net) affordable dwellings were
completed. During 2015/16 this figure increased further to 165 net
completed affordable units;
With regard to the five year housing land supply, the final five year housing
land supply calculation concluded that the Council had a 3.8 year supply
taking into account the backlog and the 20% buffer.
The Local Plan Steering Group were advised that the authority’s
monitoring report for 2015 and 2016 was there for information and to
inform of the content and a report would be going to the next Cabinet on
14 December 2016.
The Group were also advised that the report did not include employment
land supply position, but that this would be inserted once the date is
available early in 2017.
Members commented that the figures in the AMR Reports were positive.
AGREED – That the Local Plan Steering Group note the content of the
11th and 12th North East Derbyshire Authority Monitoring Report AMR 11
for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015, and AMR 12 for the period 1
April 2015 to 31 March 2016 and for its publication on the Council’s
website following Cabinet approval.
(b)
Local Plan Strategy, Policies & Sites
The Local Plan Steering Group considered a presentation on the Local
Plan Strategy Policy and Sites. It outlined that the key principles of the
Plan’s strategy were:•
•
•
To focus growth on the most sustainable settlements and strategic
sites;
To ensure the scale and distribution of planned growth in line with the
proposed settlement hierarchy;
To rely on only those commitments ie. Planning permissions that
aligned with the strategy.
Over the period 2011 to 2033 the Local Plan would allocate sufficient
housing and employment land to accommodate –
(1)
(2)
A minimum of 6,600 dwellings and;
50ha (net) of new employment land.
In terms of employment the draft plan’s approach will be:45
•
•
•
To protect the most important employment sites – that were attractive
to the market eg Holmewood and the Markham Vale Site including
sites of local significance;
To allow for continued losses and de-allocate unsuitable sites eg
Hepthorne Lane – which was part of the flood plain;
Find new sites in accessible locations.
In terms of distribution of growth for housing it was reported that as at 31
March 2016 – 1030 dwellings had been built since 2011 leaving land for
5570 dwellings to be found:•
The draft Plan seeks to provide growth in the following priority order
- Main towns (up to 50%)
- Strategic sites
- Larger villages.
The Group considered allocations maps for the principal and secondary
towns which were Clay Cross, Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh and
also for settlements with a good range of facilities which were Calow,
Grassmoor, Holmewood, Morton, North Wingfield, Pilsley, Renishaw,
Shirland, Stonebroom, Tupton and Wingerworth. The maps outlined the
suggested housing allocations for inclusion in the draft Plan.
The Planning Policy Manager gave the group a summary of the total
number of dwellings for the proposed allocations in the Green Belt.
Towns
Dronfield 860
Eckington 435
Killamarsh 560
Total - 1,855.
Larger Villages
Renishaw 270
Total - 270.
Safeguarded Land
Eckington 800
Total - 800.
The total Green Belt release (excluding green scoring parts not suitable for
development) 2,925 potential capacity.
The Group were advised that the proposed housing allocations (together
with associated amendments to the Green belt boundaries) would be
46
subject to public consultation alongside the Draft Local Plan scheduled for
February 2017.
Local Plan Next Steps
The Local Plan Steering Group would consider the draft Local Plan and
arrangements for the consultation on 17 January 2017 where at this
meeting any queries would be firmed up before the consultation process
began. The Member Information Events would be taking place between
the 18th and 26th January 2017 which would provide all members with the
opportunity to see the draft Plan proposals in advance of its publication in
February.
Cabinet on 8 February 2017 would be asked to approve the draft plan for
public consultation thereafter followed by the public consultation on the
draft plan over a 6 week period. The Group were advised that the Council
‘news magazine’ would be going out February time which would include all
the details of the consultation meetings which would take place around the
District. Councillor A Cooper raised concerns that in the past Pilsley had
not been receiving the ‘news magazine’ and was worried that the
information would not be received.
The Planning Policy Manager advised that Scott Chambers in
Communications was looking into the issue of the non receipt of the ‘news
magazine’ in Pilsley and other areas.
AGREED – That the Group notes the update on the Local Plan Strategy Policy
and Sites.
Councillor J Windle left the meeting at this point.
32/16-17 Duty to Co-operate
The Group were advised that the Council had been consulted upon the
Bolsover District Consultation Draft Local Plan (October 2016). No objections
were to be raised, but a number of representations made relating to strategic
cross boundary issues which would be agreed through the Chair of the Local
Plan Steering Group.
33/16-17 Neighbourhood Planning
The Group were advised that the Ashover Neighbourhood Plan’s Sustainability
Appraisal was to be re-visited by the Parish council and would be submitted
again after Christmas. North East Derbyshire District Council were still required
to respond. The Council would soon have to arrange for an Inspector to look at
the Neighbourhood Plan. It was advised that grants were available for a
referendum if necessary. The Group were also advised that Wessington Parish
had a plan in the pipeline which was due to be submitted to the Council in due
course. It was advised that a full update would be given at the next Local Plan
Steering Group meeting.
47
34/16-17 Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Local Plan Steering Group was due to take place on
Tuesday 17 January 2017 at 10.00 am.
______________
LPSGNotes 1213
48
Agenda Item 8
North East Derbyshire District Council
Cabinet
15 February 2017
Risk Management Update, Partnership Working and Strategic Risk Register
This report is public
Report of Councillor P R Kerry, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for Economy,
Finance and Regeneration
Purpose of the Report
•
To update Members concerning the current position regarding Risk Management
and Partnership Arrangements and to seek approval for the revised Strategic Risk
Register as at 31 December 2016, as part of the suite of Finance, Performance
and Risk reports.
1
Report Details
Background
1.1.
The Council’s Strategic Risk Register has been developed in the light of a
consideration of the strategic and operational risks which have been identified by
Elected Members and Officers as part of the Council’s risk, service management
and quarterly performance arrangements.
1.2.
In its approach to Risk Management the Council is seeking to secure a number of
objectives and to operate in line with recognised best practice. In order to
appreciate the importance of Risk Management it is useful to reiterate these
objectives:
•
To improve the way in which the Council manages its key risks so as to
reduce the likelihood of them happening, and to mitigate the impact in those
cases where they do materialise. This is a key element in protecting service
delivery arrangements, the financial position and the reputation of the Council.
•
To strengthen the overall managerial approach of the Council. From a
Governance perspective the effective operation of Risk Management is a key
element of the managerial framework operating within an authority.
•
Effective Risk Management is a key component in ensuring that organisations
are able to achieve their objectives, and that key projects proceed in line with
plan.
1
•
The identification of the risks attached to existing service delivery, or to a
project or new initiative allows a fully informed decision to be made, and helps
ensure that all appropriate measures to mitigate (or reduce) the risk are in
place from the outset.
•
Finally, an appreciation of the risk environment within which the Council
operates assists in determining an appropriate level of financial reserves,
whilst ensuring the organisation has a good awareness of its overall risk
exposure.
The Strategic Risk Register
1.3.
The revised Strategic Risk Register as at 31 December 2016 is set out in Appendix
1 for consideration by Cabinet. The intention is that this review of the Register will
secure the following objectives:
•
Identify any newly emerging risks which need to be added to the Register and
removing any risks that have been resolved to maintain a focus on current
risks.
•
To revisit risk score assessments and ensure that appropriate mitigation
remains in place.
1.4.
A key theme which emerges from the Strategic Risk Register is one of an ongoing
requirement to maintain our current performance in respect of service delivery,
performance and governance. This objective needs to be secured against a
background of both declining and less certainty concerning financial resources.
Allied to the financial position local authorities are faced with significant national
political/legislative change impacting upon the financial framework within which
Council’s operate. Housing, Planning, finance, the welfare system and devolution
are all areas where significant changes over the next two years are anticipated.
These developments are anticipated to require some significant changes in the
manner in which our services to local residents are delivered with the level of
change required clearly having the potential to disrupt service provision.
1.5.
During the recent round of Quarterly Performance meetings three key issues raised
at previous meetings concerning the impact of Brexit, the pace of legislative change
and the ability to recruit and retain appropriately qualified staff were all viewed as
remaining of concern. In addition in the light of the level of savings that needed to
be identified over the period current MTFP concerns were reiterated concerning the
challenges in respect of securing these savings, against a background in which
some services were experiencing increased pressures as a result of other agencies
withdrawing services. Both the uncertainties arising from Brexit, together with the
impact of legislative change are incorporated within the same Strategic Risk (Risk
1) as outlined in Appendix 1. The issue of the loss of key staff and the difficulties
being experienced in finding suitable replacements continues to be a widespread
concern expressed by managers. This issue already featured within the Strategic
Risk Register and is detailed as Item 3 within Appendix 1, while the issue of
financial pressures is covered by Item 2 within Appendix 1.
2
1.6.
In order to develop the understanding/culture of risk throughout the organisations a
series of training sessions for senior managers which covered the issue of Risk
Management have been held in both the summer of 2014 with further training in the
Autumn of 2015. Likewise, as part of the Members Development Programme on 26
January 2016 there was a presentation to Members concerning Risk Management.
Consideration is currently being given to what further training would be appropriate
for Officers which will be provided within the first six months of the current calendar
year.
Partnership Arrangements
1.7.
Under the Council’s Risk Management (including Partnership Working) Strategy a
range of strategic partnerships are reported on and monitored as part of the
Council’s quarterly report in respect of Risk. These will be complementary to the
existing reports prepared by the Partnerships Team in respect of the partnerships
they co-ordinate. The Partnership Team provides to Cabinet update and progress
monitoring reports as appropriate. While the Partnerships Team co-ordinate the
Council’s work with a range of external organisations it should be noted that many
of these have been assessed as being of relatively limited risk, with officers
adopting a proportionate and ‘light touch’ approach in developing appropriate
working relationships which fully recognises and respects the independence of
partner organisations.
1.8.
While there will invariably be an overlap between the two reports this report will set
out what might be termed as the Council’s key partnerships. These are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The relationship with the North Midlands authorities (Derbyshire and
Nottinghamshire) and Sheffield City Region in progressing the economic
development and devolution agenda. Over recent months the Council has
increasingly been working in partnership with Derbyshire County Council in
order to progress its key regeneration opportunities on sites such as Mill Lane
and Coalite. Many of these partnerships depend to a significant extent on
European Funding which may be increasingly uncertain as Brexit proceeds.
Rykneld Homes the Council’s Arms Length Management Housing provider.
The Strategic Alliance with Bolsover District Council which is central to the
transformation agenda of delivering services at lower costs whilst enhancing
service resilience.
Shared Services arrangements with Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales, and the
Chesterfield Royal Hospital which help secure cost effective arrangements in a
number of specialist service areas.
Arrangements with Derbyshire County Council amongst others to secure
aligned services across the public sector in areas such as health and
economic development.
The Community Safety Team and associated statutory partners including the
Police.
Although the partnerships outlined above are very different in terms of scope and
working arrangements they all have in place formal governance arrangements
between the partners, supported by appropriate internal governance arrangements
which cover performance, finance and risk. Appropriate approvals have been
agreed through the Council’s formal committee arrangements, with partnership
3
issues and developments being considered as required by this Council’s
constitution.
1.9.
While the Council has in place appropriate arrangements for the management of its
relationship with partner organisations it needs to be recognised that these
arrangements are specific to particular partnerships. The arrangements in place are
intended to be risk based and proportionate to the risks / exposure of the Council. In
all cases the Council seeks to ensure that the benefits from partnership working in
terms of securing the Council’s corporate objectives exceed the associated risk.
2
Conclusions and Reasons for Recommendation
2.1.
The Strategic Risk Register is intended to highlight the major areas where the
Council needs to manage its risks effectively. One of the key purposes of this report
is to set out the risks that have been identified (see Appendix 1) and to encourage
both Members and Officers to actively consider whether the Strategic Risk Register
and supporting Service Risk Registers actively cover all of the issues facing the
Council. The section of Partnerships serves to highlight the extent of these working
arrangements, together with the approach that has been adopted for their effective
management.
2.2.
Reasons for Recommendation
To enable Cabinet to consider the risks identified within the Strategic Risk
Register/Partnership Arrangements in order to assist in maintaining effective
governance arrangements, service and financial performance.
3
Consultation and Equality Impact
3.1.
Consultation
There are no issues arising from this report which necessitate a formal consultation
process.
3.2.
Equalities
There are no equalities issues arising directly out of this report.
4
Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection
4.1.
Under relevant good practice and to facilitate the development of robust managerial
arrangements the Council is required to prepare a Strategic Risk Register as part of
its risk management framework. This report is intended for Members and Officers to
consider both the Strategic Risk Register, together with the Council’s wider
framework for managing risk and partnerships. Given the importance of these
arrangements for the overall governance of the Council it is necessary to subject
them to regular review. This report is intended to undertake that review and as such
it is necessary that this report is considered by Members. The alternative of not
providing this or a similar report is accordingly rejected.
4
5
Implications
5.1
Finance and Risk Implications
Financial
5.1.1 There are no additional financial implications arising out of this report at this stage.
While where appropriate additional mitigation measures have been identified and
implemented during the course of preparing the Strategic and Operational Risk
Registers, the cost of implementing this mitigation will be met from within previously
agreed budgets.
Risk
5.1.2 Risk Management Issues are covered throughout the body of the main report.
5.2
Legal Implications including Data Protection
5.2.1 There are no legal or data protection issues arising directly out of this report.
5.3
Human Resources Implications
5.3.1 There are no human resource issues arising directly out of this report.
6
Recommendations
6.1.
That Cabinet notes the report and approves the Strategic Risk Register as at 30
December 2016 as set out in Appendix 1.
7
Decision Information
Is the decision a Key Decision?
No
(A Key Decision is an executive
decision which results in income or
expenditure to the Council of
£50,000 or more or which has a
significant impact on two or more
District wards)
Is the decision subject to Call-In? No
(Only Key Decisions are subject to
Call-In)
District Wards Affected
None directly.
Links to Corporate Plan priorities Robust Governance (including Risk
or Policy Framework
Management) arrangements underpin
the effective operation of the Council
and its ability to secure all of the
Corporate Plan priorities.
5
8
Document Information
Appendix No
Title
1
Strategic Risk Register as at 30 December 2016
Background Papers (These are unpublished works which have been relied on
to a material extent when preparing the report. They must be listed in the
section below. If the report is going to Cabinet (NEDDC) or Executive (BDC)
you must provide copies of the background papers)
Report Author
Contact Number
Bryan Mason
Executive Director – Operations
(01246) 217154
AGIN 8 (CAB 0215) Risk Management/AJD
6
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER SUMMARY AS AT: 30th December 2016
Risk
1
•
•
•
•
•
Unable to deliver a package of
services that both addresses
changing national priorities whilst
meeting changing local needs and
aspirations.
Increases costs or reduces
resources available to the Council
directly, or to its key partners.
Reduced influence over delivery of
local services.
Unable to effectively support local
communities.
Increased demands on Council
services at a time when Council
resource base is reducing.
Risk Score
(Likelihood
Impact)
4,4, 16
Risk Score
Risk Owner /
x (Likelihood
x Lead Officer
Impact)Taking
into
Account
Current Controls
3,4 12
SAMT / Political
Leadership
Appendix 1
Government
Legislation / impact
of referendum vote
to leave the EU /
adverse
external
economic
climate
has an accelerating
impact on Council
funding, or upon the
local economy, to
which Council is
unable to adopt an
appropriate change
of
Strategic
direction.
The
decision to leave the
EU
creates
significant
uncertainties whilst
there is a significant
programme
of
legislative
change
which
impacts
directly upon local
government.
Consequences
7
•
•
•
•
2
Failure to deliver a
balanced budget in
line with the MTFP,
at a time when the
Council’s reserves
are at an acceptable
rather than a robust
level, and localism
has
created
significant
uncertainties
re
future funding levels.
•
•
•
3
Mitigation.
The Council is outward looking and actively works to secure details of proposed change and the approaches that might be
adopted to mitigate against associated risks, including working to identify new income streams.
The Council has effective political and managerial arrangements in place to manage change.
Appropriate levels of financial reserves / investment funding are maintained to fund strategic shifts in service delivery.
Effective engagement with staff to ensure they embrace necessary change.
•
•
•
Impact upon ability to deliver
current level of services.
Unable to resource acceptable
levels of service.
Significant adverse reputational
Impact.
3,4 12
2,4 8
SAMT
/
Chief
Financial Officer /
Political Leadership
Mitigation
The Council has effective financial management in place to ensure budget arrangements are robust.
The Council has appropriate managerial arrangements and culture in place to manage any necessary change.
The Council has ‘adequate’ financial reserves in place to cushion against any loss of income for a period of at least one
financial year.
Increasing difficulty
in recruiting to key
posts or to replace
key staff who leave.
Staff
morale
is
adversely affected
arising from the
pace of change,
tightening financial
circumstances
or
•
•
•
•
Deterioration in services to the
public.
Increasing inefficiencies in service
provision.
Weakening of Internal Control
arrangements.
Increased pressure on other
members of staff.
3,4 12
8
2,4 8
SAMT
/
Director HR
Asst
external
circumstances.
•
•
•
•
•
4
Mitigation
The Council has effective communication and working with staff as validated by securing ‘silver’ accreditation at IIP.
There is sufficient funding to bring in agency staff where required to maintain service performance.
At this stage the problematic areas are those where there are national ‘shortages’. In the majority of areas it has proved
possible to recruit appropriate replacement staff.
Appropriate training budgets are in place to ensure that staff receive necessary training to maintain service quality /
continuity.
The Council is looking to introduce appropriate apprenticeship / training schemes in order to develop suitable staff.
Delivery
of
the
Council’s Agenda is
dependent
upon
effective delivery of
both a number of
major initiatives /
projects
and
implementing
a
range
of
new
government reforms
whilst
achieving
financial targets and
maintaining service
quality, which may
overstretch
our
reduced
organisational
capacity.
•
•
•
•
•
New initiatives are not delivered in
a cost-effective manner.
Failure to maintain / improve
services in line with local
aspirations.
Failure to generate the savings
required to balance the budget.
Financial efficiencies weaken
Governance / Internal Control
arrangements.
Service deterioration / failure
arising from capacity issues.
3,4 12
2,4 8
SAMT
/
Executive
Chief
Mitigation
• The Council has effective prioritisation and project management arrangements in place to ensure resources are directed at key
objectives.
• The Council has made efforts to ensure effective use of employees by utilising shared services to protect service resilience, by
maintaining appropriate training arrangements and by investing in transformational service delivery projects.
9
• The Council has a robust performance management framework that should serve to highlight emerging issues.
5
Emergency Planning
and
Business
Continuity
arrangements fail to
meet
required
standards
when
tested
by
flu
pandemic,
natural
disaster (flood), etc.
•
•
•
Inability of Council to provide
services as a consequence of a
severe catastrophic external event
(e.g. flooding, major terrorist
incident, flu pandemic, fire).
Failure of IT infrastructure, leading
to inability to effectively operate
services and to safeguard income
streams.
Business Continuity Plans prove
ineffective in practice.
3,4 12
2,4 8
SAMT / Director of
Transformation
Mitigation
• The Council works in partnership with a range of partners on its Emergency Planning arrangements to ensure that we operate
in line with best practice. There is an annual ‘desktop’ scenario to test officers understanding of the arrangements and validate
that they are fit for purpose in a realistic ‘trial’ scenario.
• All services have Business Continuity plans in place which identify key risks and mitigation. Corporate IT systems have been
tested against Industry standards for Business Continuity.
• The Council works in partnership with a range of other agencies that should be able to provide support in the event of the
Council’s own procedures failing to be effective.
6
Need to effectively
engage with local
communities and a
range
of
local
partners (inc Shared
/ Joint services) to
deliver cost effective
joined up services.
•
•
•
•
Failure to provide effective
community leadership.
Loss of trust in the Council
Inability to deliver good quality cost
effective services targeted at local
needs.
Poor outcomes for local residents,
due to failure to engage other
agencies.
3,4 12
2,4 8
Chief Executive /
Political Leadership
Team
Mitigation
• The Council has in place a range of mechanisms designed to secure feedback from local residents including the Performance
Framework, a range of consultation events and the role of Elected Members as local champions.
10
• The Council has an active Partnerships Team and senior Members / Officers actively engage with other organisations serving
the area.
• The Council’s management structures are aligned to our key partnership arrangements.
7
A major operational
or failure of data
protection
risk
materialises
resulting
in
a
significant
impact
upon the Council’s
ability to secure its
corporate objectives.
Given the efficiency
measures that have
been introduced to
date
this
is
considered to be an
increasing issue for
the Council.
•
•
•
•
Deterioration in services to the
public, potentially a major initial
impact upon a local resident or a
group of local residents.
Significant staff and financial
resources required to resolve
position, impacting on other
services.
A major service has its operating
capacity significantly impact and is
required to introduce major reform
in its approach to service delivery.
Severe reputational damage
3,4 12
2,4 8
SAMT / Assistant
Directors
Mitigation
• The Council has appropriate managerial arrangements in place supported by staff recruitment and training to ensure these
risks are effectively managed.
• Performance is formally managed on a quarterly basis to ensure that any emerging issues re service performance are
effectively identified and resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
8
Governance
Arrangements
including
Performance,
Finance and Risk
Management need
to be maintained in
order to continue to
operate effectively in
a rapidly changing
•
•
•
Adverse Impact upon Service
Quality.
Failure to deliver high quality
services which address national
and local priorities.
Significant adverse reputational
impact.
3,4 12
11
2,4 8
Chief
Financial
Officer / Monitoring
Officer
environment.
Mitigation
• The Council has appropriate managerial arrangements in place supported by staff recruitment and training to ensure these
risks are effectively managed.
• The Council has active Standards and Audit Committees which provide independent review of the Governance arrangements
in the Council.
• The Annual Governance Report sets out an evidence based structured assessment of the operation of the Council’s
governance arrangements.
9
Staff
morale
/
Sickness
Levels
adversely affected
as a result of the
pace of change,
tightening financial
circumstances
or
external
circumstances.
•
•
•
•
Deterioration in services to the
public and loss of productivity.
Loss of key staff / increased
sickness levels.
Increased pressure on other
members of staff.
Loss of ‘goodwill.’
3,4 12
3,3 9
SAMT
/
Director HR
Asst
• The Council operates in line with the independent IIP standards and HR ‘good practice’ to help ensure current staff are well
managed and motivated.
• The staff has a range of communication mechanisms in place to ensure staff engagement with the Council’s agenda.
• The Council has reduced its emphasis of securing savings through vacancy management and seeks to bring in ‘agency staff’
etc as required.
• While the Council cannot control external circumstances it has continued to work with staff to mitigate the impact of these on
individual employees.
12
Agenda Item No 9
North East Derbyshire District Council
Cabinet
15 February 2017
A Healthy North East Derbyshire – Update Report
Report of Councillor J Lilley, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for Community
Safety, Equality & Diversity and Health
This report is public
Purpose of the Report
• To update Cabinet on the latest developments regarding the Healthy North East
Derbyshire Approach.
1
Report Details
1.1
At Minute No. 239, Cabinet of 2 September 2015 approved the Council’s Health and
Wellbeing Strategy for North East Derbyshire 2015–2019, requesting quarterly
reports on progress against the Strategy through the work of Healthy North East
Derbyshire Partnership and recruitment of the Community Development Worker
(Healthy North East Derbyshire).
1.2
This paper provides an update of activities in the last quarter.
2.
Key Issues
2.1
Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2015-2019 and Action Plan 2015-17
2.1.1 The Strategy is delivered through the Healthy North East Derbyshire Public Health
Locality Action Plan, working with a range of key partners funded from existing
resources and Public Health funding of £197,976 for 2015-17. The Council’s
Partnership Team plays a key role by managing the funding. The Action Plan 201517 was approved by the Healthy North East Derbyshire Partnership in 10 February
2016 and is due a refresh from April 2017.
2.1.2 Building on the priorities in the Council’s Strategy and the Diamond and Silver
Communities targeted approach, the overarching priority of the Locality Public
Health Action Plan remains “Older People, Iong-term conditions and independence
in the home.”
2.1.3 Other priorities within the Plan are addressed by the following actions, which
increasingly engage with a greater number of Council services in accordance with
our own Strategy to “transform our health offer” and link with Service Plans
monitored through the Council’s PERFORM System:
Building Social Capital
• Engaging with the Thriving Communities Initiative in Danesmoor, particularly to
the “Credit in Control” element; activities to commence transfer of Grassland
Hasmoor...Big Local staff to NEDDC to support the programme; assisting with
the North Wingfield 2020 Vision consultation for its action plan. (Partnerships
Team, Leisure, Economic Development)
• Employment of the Community Development Worker (Healthy NED) in
Holmewood and Heath and Shirland has been extended until March 2018. 18
Community Health Champions are active in Holmewood, a constituted group
formed and successful funding bids including a new fruit and vegetable co-op
are amongst its achievements, reaching over 3000 beneficiaries in the last half
year. (Partnerships Team)
• Member of the Approval Panel for Small Grants administered by NDVA, which
has funded 14 local voluntary sector groups which support partnership priorities.
(Partnerships Team)
Reducing the impact of external determinants on health and wellbeing
• Supporting Deventio Homes to develop and deliver the Healthy Futures
Homeless People Hospital Discharge Project. The 3 individuals supported so far
have reduced their use of acute care by 83%. (Housing Strategy)
• Supporting people into work and training through the Ambition and Working
Communities Project and leading a working group to develop a health care
sector based work academy. (Economic Development)
Promoting positive mental well-being and reducing social isolation
• Working with Healthy Workplace Team to develop the employee health and
wellbeing survey and action plan and supporting the delivery of the Corporate
Games across Bolsover, Chesterfield and North East Derbyshire. (Human
Resources, Leisure, Partnerships Team)
Increasing Physical Activity
• Delivery of Village Games in Diamond Communities (Leisure)
• Management of Physical Inactivity Funded Projects, particularly Generation
Games (Leisure)
Support the Integrated Care Agenda
• Supported a Task and Finish Group to pilot a Push on Falls Early Intervention
Project within NED, which is now being developed into a county wide approach
(Partnerships Team)
• Supporting an Older People Working Group which is reviewing key actions to
develop a more focussed action to promote Healthy Ageing, in accordance with
the Partnership’s overarching priority. (Partnerships Team, Leisure,
Environmental Services, Rykneld Homes)
2.1.4 The Partnerships Team collates all monitoring information to show how actions
contribute to the Public Health Outcomes Framework. Reported to the Derbyshire
Health and Wellbeing Board, the latest report was in April 2016.
2.2
Funding
2.2.1 DCC Cabinet hope to determine the district Locality Plan allocations before March
2017. Initial expectation is that there will be at least a 10% cut to the £94,113
annual NED allocation for 2017/18. Any future allocations from 2018/19 onwards
are likely to be affected by the forthcoming DCC restructure and review of its Public
Health department.
2.2.2 The Healthy North East Derbyshire Partnership has now
developed its own logo to be used in all documentation,
including evaluation reports of funders to acknowledge the
resources awarded to projects. The logo was produced by
the NEDDC Print and Design Department.
2.3
Healthy Cities Status
2.3.1 As Network Associate members, regular information bulletins are received by the
Portfolio Member and link officers. A countywide Healthy Communities conference
is proposed by DCC in Spring 2017 to enable districts to share the best practice
achieved against their overarching priorities.
2.3.2 Work has started through a newly formed Older People’s Group to develop a
“Healthy Ageing” partnership approach, a model favoured by the DCC Ageing Well
Team that could inform a countywide commissioning approach. Current activities
relating to older people are being mapped and a growing range of local partners are
influencing the development of the project.
2.4
Bolsover, Chesterfield and NED Strategic Health and Wellbeing Group
2.4.1 At the meeting held on 8 December 2016 between the four Local Authorities, two
Clinical Commissioning Groups (Hardwick and North Derbyshire CCGs) and other
healthcare providers, focus was given to discussing the One Public Estate
Opportunity and Joined Up Care, the Derbyshire Sustainability and Transformation
Plan (STP) which focused on providing care closer to home.
2.4.2 At this time it has not proved possible to agree to the implications of the STP across
the county area, in part because of concerns from the acute trusts that the actions
proposed in the community would not reduce demand, leaving them exposed to
significant financial risk. The concern is that this will leave little opportunity to
transfer funding from the acute sector to primary and community care.
3
Conclusions and Reasons for Recommendation
3.1
Having a NEDDC Health and Wellbeing which follows the Values and Aims of the
Corporate Plan, whilst linking to the priorities and plans of the Derbyshire Health
and Wellbeing Strategy, will ensure that the Council is best placed to both lead on
local health improvement activity. The Council also contributes to the wider
partnership agenda through representation and administration of funding of the
Healthy North East Derbyshire Partnership.
3.2
The Partnership approach has continued to evolve with key issues being tackled
collaboratively, with transparency, accountability and effectiveness. Partners have
benefited from Derbyshire Public Health Network training opportunities to
strengthen the wider public health workforce approach.
4
Consultation and Equality Impact
4.1
The Health and Wellbeing Strategy for North East Derbyshire 2015-2019 was
informed through analysis of recognised statistical data and through consultation
with NEDDC departments on 25 June 2015 and with other public and voluntary and
community service providers on 21 July 2015. Targeted questions were also asked
within the June 2015 Citizen’s Panel.
4.2
The Healthy NED Partnership continues to engage and involve representative
groups through its working group process and Engagement Forum, close links with
the voluntary sector through NDVA and representation of Healthwatch Derbyshire to
ensure service user perspective is maintained.
4.3
An Impact Assessment was completed for the Strategy and Action Plan.
5
Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection
5.1
Alternative options were covered in the paper discussed 15 May 2015.
6
Implications
6.1
Finance and Risk Implications
6.1.1 The Partnership Team oversees the management of the Healthy Communities
(Locality) Action Plan funding on behalf of the Healthy NED Partnership. They will
ensure that all commissioned projects adhere to the expectations established in the
DCC Inter Agency Agreement. Funding for the Community Development Worker
post and management of that worker (through funding one day per week of the
Partnership Development Officer) has been provided by DCC through the Public
Health Locality Action Plan.
6.2
Legal Implications including Data Protection
6.2.1 There are no legal implications from the Strategy, which will supplement the
Corporate Plan. Implications relating to the Locality Plan monies have previously
been covered in paper discussed 15 May 2015.
6.3
Human Resources Implications
6.3.1 It is expected that contributions towards the delivery of the Strategy by NEDDC staff
will primarily be made through existing workplans which meet respective Service
Plan objectives. Should additional staff focus be required, this will usually be
identified by the departments/officers in question and relate to opportunity to
maximise external funding or partnership working opportunities which will increase
the service experience of the recipient.
6.3.2 DCC has recently agreed to extend the 21 month contract to employ the NEDDC
Community Development Worker until 31 March 2018.
7
Recommendations
7.1
That Cabinet notes the following progress since approval of the Health and
Wellbeing Strategy for North East Derbyshire 2015-2019:
•
•
•
•
8
the actions of the Partnership Locality Health Action Plan;
funding update;
Healthy cities update;
Progress of the Strategic Health and Wellbeing Group.
Decision Information
Is the decision a Key Decision?
No
(A Key Decision is an executive
decision which results in income or
expenditure to the Council of £50,000
or more or which has a significant
impact on two or more District wards)
Is the decision subject to Call-In?
No
(Only Key Decisions are subject to
Call-In)
District Wards Affected
All
Links to Corporate Plan priorities All
or Policy Framework
9
Document Information
Appendix No
Title
Background Papers (These are unpublished works which have been relied
on to a material extent when preparing the report. They must be listed in the
section below. If the report is going to Cabinet (NEDDC) or Executive (BDC)
you must provide copies of the background papers)
Report Author
Contact Number
Partnership Development Officer
Strategic Partnership Co-ordinator
Ext 7618 (NEDDC)
Ext 7512 (NEDDC)
AGIN 9 (CAB 0215) 2017/A Healthy NED Update/AJD
Agenda Item No 10
North East Derbyshire District Council
Cabinet
15 February 2017
High Speed 2 Phase 2b; Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds
Report of Dan Swaine, Chief Executive Officer
This report is public
Purpose of the Report
• The report provides details of the High Speed Two Phase 2b route refinement
consultation and the property consultation. It also and sets out proposals for a
response to the consultation.
1
Report Details
1.1
In November 2016 the Government published its preferred route for Phase 2b of
HS2. Alongside this announcement consultation was launched in the form of Route
Refinement Consultation and Property Consultation. Whilst the proposed route
refinement varies the previous route of HS2 through the district there remains a
significant impact on property, businesses and local communities.
1.2
Since the announcement of the proposed changes to the route there has been
ongoing dialogue with HS2 with the Leader of the Council writing directly to Sir
David Higgins to express concern about the impact. Additionally the Chief
Executive has met with the HS2 Consultation Team and Sir David Higgins to talk
through the impact of the route, how best the Council can influence Government’s
proposals and what opportunities are available to mitigate the significant impact on
communities and businesses.
1.3
Details of the Route Refinement Consultation and Property Consultation documents
are available at the following link. The consultation ends on 9th March and for each
element of the consultation a response form has been provided. Copies of the
response form are also available from the link.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/hs2-crewe-to-manchester-westmidlands-to-leeds-route-refinement-consultation-2016
1.4
Following the announcement of the proposed route refinement work has been
undertaken to determine the level and nature of the impact on the district from a
property, land and business rate perspective. This information was used as part of
the ongoing dialogue with HS2 and Sir David Higgins in order to demonstrate the
significant impact on the district and the need to mitigate this. The initial
assessments of the impact has also informed the ongoing dialogue with the County
Council and other Local Authorities from the area that are affected by the proposals.
It is intended that this dialogue will continue in order that it can form part of the
Council’s formal response to the consultation.
1.5
The consultation documents as previously referred to is available to the public and
businesses in order that they can respond. Details of the consultation have been
published on the District Council’s website since the Government announced the
proposed new route.
1.6
In addition to the dialogue with HS2 the Council’s Leader has also made
representations regarding the potential Staveley Depot for HS2. This dialogue has
focused on the need to ensure that the opportunities for the district are maximised
through the provision of a college for local people to enable access to employment
opportunities arising from HS2. This dialogue is ongoing and the Leader of the
Council and the Chief Executive continue to attend the HS2 Staveley Depot Board
which is a group comprising of appropriate agencies focussing on the dialogue with
HS2 on the proposals for the Staveley Depot.
1.7
In summary the route refinement consultation document sets out details of the
changes to the route as a result of the feedback from the 2013 consultation and
ongoing engagement with local communities and stakeholders. The document sets
out the consultation on seven substantial changes which introduce new or different
impacts on people, the environment or property. Of these seven route refinements
outlined the one most relevant to this area is the Derbyshire to West Yorkshire
(M18/Eastern Route). These proposals move the alignment of the route from
Derbyshire to West Yorkshire over seventy kilometres to reflect a change in the
proposals for serving Sheffield. In summary the consultation document states that
the new proposed route follows the M1 and then the M18.
1.8
Additionally, the consultation document also sets out how the proposed route can
serve Sheffield City Centre and Chesterfield with a spur line. This would link into
the existing rail network south of Chesterfield by joining the existing line near Clay
Cross. It is proposed that this spur line will cross the M1 from east to west just after
Junction 28 of the M1 and will then travel through Blackwell and Newton meeting
the existing line near Stonebroom where it will then travel on into Chesterfield. A
copy of the map setting out the spur route and the main route and the proposals for
the line to the Staveley Depot can be viewed at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-staveley-infrastructuremaintenance-depot
1.9
As previously indicated the route refinement consultation document provides a
response form with nine set questions. The property consultation document also
sets out a response form which provides set questions regarding the plans to
provide assistance to affected communities and businesses. Details of the
assistance schemes are summarised in the property consultation document which
sets out the property compensation and discretionary assistance schemes in line
with a properties proximity to the line of route.
2
Conclusions and Reasons for Recommendation
2.1
As the consultation closes on the 9th March 2017 this report sets out proposals for
the Cabinet to respond. Cabinet is asked to consider the information contained
within the report and also any representations made during the consultation period
to the Council. Cabinet are also asked to note that the consultation process
enables the public and businesses to submit responses directly to HS2 in order that
all views are considered.
3
Consultation and Equality Impact
3.1
As Cabinet is asked to consider the process for determining a response to the
consultation there are no direct equality implications arising from this report.
4
Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection
4.1
The District Council could chose not to respond to the consultation however this
would limit its ability to influence the proposals and ensure that Government were
aware of the impact and opportunities HS2 presented for our local communities and
businesses.
5
Implications
5.1
Finance and Risk Implications
5.1.1 Financial implications for the District Council have been discussed directly with HS2
and Sir David Higgins. The proposed route refinement will impact on the Council if
it affects income through the loss of business rates and council tax within the
District. As the route refinement is at this stage a proposal it is difficult to gauge the
true financial impact. This difficultly is compounded by the fact that it is not yet clear
what choices residents or businesses may make as a consequence of the impact
and how this will equate to the actual loss of income.
5.1.2 The ongoing dialogue with HS2 is being used to determine a more accurate
assessment of financial impact. Additionally the Chief Executive has highlighted the
need for Government to consider how the impact on local businesses and
communities could be mitigated through the provision of additional resources
particularly in relation to economic growth. This dialogue will continue so that
opportunities arising as a consequence of the proposed route are maximised to
offset the negative impact should the proposed new route remain unchanged. It is
important that this dialogue forms part of the ongoing delivery of the Council’s
growth agenda in order that the best case is made to Government to demonstrate
the need to maximise the economic benefits of the proposals.
5.1.3 In addition to the direct financial consequences to the Council representations have
been made to HS2 about the effect of the proposals on the ability to manage
development. Uncertainty on the route and its impact does not assist with strategic
spatial planning for the area. Consequently this impacts on developer and
community confidence and has a negative effect on the Council’s ability to shape
and influence future development.
5.2
Legal Implications including Data Protection
5.2.1 None arising directly from this report.
5.3
Human Resources Implications
5.3.1 None arising directly from this report.
6
Recommendations
6.1
That Cabinet requests that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader
finalise the Councils response to the HS2 consultation in order that it may be
submitted by 9 March 2017.
7
Decision Information
No
Is the decision a Key Decision?
(A Key Decision is an executive decision which
results in income or expenditure to the Council of
£50,000 or more or which has a significant
impact on two or more District wards)
Is the decision subject to Call-In?
(Only Key Decisions are subject to Call-In)
No
District Wards Affected
Links to Corporate Plan priorities or Policy
Framework
8
Document Information
Appendix No
Title
Background Papers (These are unpublished works which have been relied
on to a material extent when preparing the report. They must be listed in the
section below. If the report is going to Cabinet (NEDDC) or Executive (BDC)
you must provide copies of the background papers)
Report Author
Contact Number
Dan Swaine, Chief Executive Officer
01246 217001
AGIN 10 (CAB 0215) HS2 Update/AJD
Agenda Item No 11
North East Derbyshire District Council
Cabinet
15 February 2017
Medium Term Financial Plan 2017/18 to 2020/21
Report of Councillor P R Kerry, Portfolio Holder with Responsibility for Economy,
Finance and Regeneration
This report is public
Purpose of the Report
• To secure the approval of Council to the proposed budget in respect of 2017/18 as part
of a consideration of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan covering the years
2017/18 to 2020/21.
• To provide Elected Members with an overview of the Council’s financial position to
inform the decision making process.
1
Report Details
Introduction
1.1
This report presents the following budgets and financial plans for Cabinet to consider:
•
•
•
General Fund Revenue account which is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.
Housing Revenue Account (HRA) account which is attached as Appendix 2 to this
report.
Capital Programme which is attached as Appendix 3 to this report.
Once Cabinet has considered the position as set out within this report and the
associated appendices then any recommendations made by Cabinet will be referred to
the Council meeting of 20 February 2017 in order to secure agreement to the Council’s
budget in respect of the 2017/18 financial year. It should be noted that the report has
previously been considered by the Audit and Corporate Governance Scrutiny
Committee at its meeting on 2 February 2017.
1.2
While the above three accounts are detailed and will be considered on an individual
basis it is important that Cabinet gives appropriate consideration to the Council’s
overall financial position together with the range of services provided to local
residents. Alongside this MTFP the Council meeting of 20 February 2017 will also be
requested to approve the Council’s proposed Treasury Management Strategy which
1
links the MTFP into our Borrowing and Investment activity. This link helps to ensure
that the Council’s financial plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable.
1.3
While this report is predominantly concerned with financial issues it needs to be
recognised that the Council’s financial plans are part of a wider service planning
framework incorporating both service plans together with the range of related Council
strategies and policies. This framework helps ensure that the available resources are
targeted at securing agreed Council priorities.
1.4
Within the reports which follow in respect of each of the Council’s main accounts there
are a number of common features. In particular financial projections are provided with
regard to the following:
•
2016/17 Estimated Outturn Position
This is the current year budget revised to reflect changes which have taken place or
which are anticipated during the remainder of this financial year. It therefore
provides a more accurate indication of the outturn position than the original budget.
•
2017/18 Original Budget
This is the proposed budget for the next financial year commencing 1 April 2017
which Council will need to consider for approval at its meeting on 20 February
2017.
•
2018/19 to 2020/21 Financial Plan
In accordance with good practice the Council agrees its annual budgets within the
context of a Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) which sets out financial
projections in respect of the following three financial years. This approach provides
the Council with a longer planning horizon over which to develop service plans and
to ensure that its underlying level of expenditure remains in line with its underlying
level of resources. Effective multi-year planning is particularly important given
Central Government expenditure plans incorporate significant year on year
expenditure reductions for local government.
Robustness of the Estimates
1.5
Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2003 the Council's Section 151
Officer is required to comment on the robustness of the estimates made and also on
the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves. The Council’s S151 Officer (the
Executive Director Operations) is satisfied that the methodology adopted to calculate
the estimates is robust, and provides Members with reliable information on which to
base their decisions. Likewise, the S151 Officer is satisfied that the proposed level of
reserves, are adequate to cover the issues and potential risks which face the Council.
The adequacy of the current level of reserves is considered in Appendix 1 in relation to
the General Fund, in Appendix 2 in relation to the HRA, and in Appendix 3 in relation to
the Capital Programme.
1.6
In concluding that the methodology adopted is robust the Chief Financial Officer is
satisfied that the policies upon which the estimates are based are reasonable, and that
2
these policies have been applied consistently across the Council’s activities. The
approach that has been adopted has taken account of the following:
•
The Council's actual expenditure and income both in the previous financial year
(2015/16) and to date in the current financial year as at the end of September
2016. The views of cost centre managers concerning the level of expenditure
which will be incurred during the remainder of the 2016/17 financial year have also
been taken into account. Where necessary these figures have been validated by
considering the incidence of income and expenditure up to the end of December
2016. This process has enabled a robust Estimated Outturn to be prepared in
respect of the current financial year (2016/17), which has formed the basis for the
2017/18 Budget and the financial forecasts in respect of 2018/19 to 2020/21.
•
The estimates included within this report these have been developed with and
agreed by cost centre managers who have the primary responsibility for managing
them during the course of the financial year. This process helps ensure that agreed
service developments, potential cost increases and changes in the level of demand
for services, etc. have been taken into account. While the Chief Financial Officer is
satisfied that the budgets are robust it does need to be recognised that with the
agreement of cost centre managers non-employee related expenditure heads have
been minimised and will need to be carefully managed if the Council is to operate
within its approved budgets. This approach reflects the fact that a policy decision
has been taken to minimise all non employee budgets. This increases the risk of
an overspend developing during the year as there is reduced capacity to manage
unforeseen items of expenditure. This increased level of financial risk is taken into
account in the Financial Risk Registers in respect of each of the three main
accounts of the Council.
•
The Financial Services section have co-ordinated the preparation of the budget,
and have ensured that all estimates are reasonable and have been developed in a
consistent fashion. While the budgets that have been agreed are challenging and
will need to be reviewed in the light of changing circumstances and priorities over
the four year period of the Medium Term Financial Plan the Chief Financial Officer
is satisfied that they constitute a firm foundation on which to base the Council’s
financial management.
2
Conclusions and Reasons for Recommendations
2.1
This report presents a budget for consideration by Cabinet and Council. It seeks
approval to budgets in respect of the General Fund, the Housing Revenue Account and
the Capital Programme which are fully funded within the year and therefore meet the
Council’s legal obligation to agree a balanced budget.
3
3
Consultation and Equality Impact
Consultation
•
•
•
•
Given that this budget report is based on the assumption that in overall terms
existing levels of service will continue to be delivered by the current staffing
establishment it is not necessary to undertake extensive consultation is
undertaken. A specific meeting to consult on the impact of the proposed budget
on the local business and commercial sector was held in January 2017.
The Council is required to consult with stakeholders on the proposed budget. This
consultation which is part of the Council’s service planning framework has taken
place throughout the financial year. These mechanisms include meetings with
local groups together with a performance management framework which actively
considers customer comments and complaints helping ensure the Council
remains responsive to local residents. This engagement helps inform the
Council’s understanding of the expectations of our local communities. In addition
the budget process has sought to ensure that the knowledge of Members in their
role as Community Champions informs the service development process.
It should be noted that the budget does not propose any significant change in the
level of services provided to local residents, to staffing structures or ways of
working. Where significant change is planned this is subject to an appropriate
consultation process – as set out in the Organisational Review Policy concerning the specific proposal under consideration. The outcome of these
consultation processes are reported back to Cabinet or Council for consideration
as part of the decision making process.
In terms of internal consultation on the budget a draft version of this report was
considered by the Audit and Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee on the
2nd February 2017. The main themes of the report have also been discussed at
the monthly meetings between trade union representatives and management.
Equality Impact
•
Equalities issues are covered in the Service Plans which are linked to the
resources allocated by the budgets recommended for approval within the Medium
Term Financial Plan.
4
Alternative Options and Reasons for Rejection
4.1
Alternative options are considered throughout the report.
5
Implications
5.1
Finance and Risk Implications
5.1.1 These are covered throughout the report and associated Appendicies but may be
summarised as follows:
4
General Fund
•
Estimated Outturn 2016/17
The Council set its original budget for 2016/17 on the basis that it was necessary to
secure £0.395m of savings. On the basis of current estimates the Council will both
achieve these savings and secure a surplus of £0.392m. This represents a net
improvement of £0.787m which has been achieved by a combination of reduced
expenditure across all services, increased income from planning fees, an increase in
Council Tax and growth in business rates. These savings will be transferred to the
Invest to Save Reserve where they will be available to support agreed priorities in
future financial years. An outturn in line with these projections will be a significant
achievement, securing both underlying reductions in the level of expenditure,
together with improved balances. This strong financial performance puts the Council
in a better position to achieve the financial savings which will be required over the
next four financial years.
•
Original Budget 2017/18
The budget in respect of 2017/18 currently shows a shortfall of £0.513m. While the
Council’s first priority will need to be to balance next year’s budget given the scale of
the challenge that faces the Council in future years it is important to ensure these
savings are secured by underlying reductions in expenditure or increases in income.
In particular the Council needs to maintain the momentum on the growth and
transformation agenda to put itself in a better position to secure the projected
financial savings of £1.863m which are anticipated to be required by 2020/21. In
practical terms the financial forecasts within the MTFP require the Council to save in
the region of £0.5m per annum for the next four financial years. Given the Council’s
performance over previous years this should be a challenging but achievable target.
While the savings targets are significant the Council’s position has been assisted by
the work that has continued in order to secure efficiencies and to take advantage of
the opportunities offered by the growth agenda in previous years. A continuation of
that approach is essential to secure the necessary level of financial savings whilst
minimising the impact on services to local residents. As part of the strategy for
addressing the Council’s financial position over the period of the current parliament it
is recommended that the Council agrees to an increase in Council Tax of £4.98 at
Band D (2.8%), which will provide a contribution of £150k towards balancing next
year’s budget.
•
Budgets 2018/19 to 2020/21
The Provisional Local Government Financial Settlement was announced in
December 2016 which provided some clarity with respect to Revenue Support Grant
and New Homes Bonus. It covers the years to 2019/20 with the fully localised
NNNDR funding regime planned to apply from April 2020. Given that the fully
localised NNDR system will review both the resources and the needs element of the
funding to all local Council’s the review could have a significant impact on a number
of individual Council’s. Whilst the Government will almost inevitably put in some
transitional arrangements for those Councils worst affected it does need to be
recognised that there are currently no financial exemplifications of the Government’s
proposals and therefore the only reasonable assumption at this point in time would
5
appear to be that North East Derbyshire – like all Council’s – will see a continued
reduction in the level of resources available to it. Despite these uncertainties the
MTFP provides a realistic working assumption as to the level of savings that will be
required.
•
It also needs to be recognised that under the localism agenda the Council’s budget
is more dependent upon Non Domestic Rates and other income which fluctuate
depending upon wider economic circumstances.
•
Given the Government’s spending plans it is clear that further reductions will be
required in future financial years. While clearly these ongoing expenditure reductions
will have an impact on services if the Council’s current approach is continued this
will enable changes to budgets and service plans to be appropriately considered,
planned and managed. This gradual ongoing planned approach remains the most
appropriate method for securing the efficiencies necessary to minimise the impact
upon local residents.
Housing Revenue Account (HRA)
The key issue for the HRA over the period of this Medium Term Financial Plan is the
Government’s announcement made as part of the Budget Statement in July 2015
that rent levels would be reduced by 1% p.a. for a period of four years starting in
April 2016. Given that the localised HRA together with the transfer of £127m of debt
to North East Derbyshire District Council were based on rent increases in line with
inflation the loss of rent income has a major impact. The loss of rental income is
estimated as one of £0.6m for 2016/17, rising to one of £2.5m in 2019/2020 on the
basis of current low inflation rates. Over the four year period the Council sees a
cumulative loss of rental income of £6m, and given that rental levels in April 2020
will be £2.5m below planned levels this loss of rental income will cost in the order of
£75m over the period of the 30 Year Business Plan. While the Council is required to
follow Government Policy and adopt a 1% rent reduction in respect of next financial
year (2017/18), the MTFP assumes that from April 2020 the Government will return
to a policy of allowing rents to increase at a rate reflecting inflation in the wider
economy. Government introduced these changes to secure savings on the welfare
budgets and given that nationally 60% of Council Tenants receive housing benefit
those savings generate £2.4bn of the Government £12bn target for welfare savings.
While the reduced rent levels may well be welcomed by tenants and may be viewed
as preferable to alternatives for saving against the welfare budget, they undermine
the ability of the Council’s Housing Revenue Account to invest in Council Housing
while delivering services which meet the expectations of our tenants. In order to
continue to provide expected levels of services and to fund the capital work
necessary to maintain our stock at the Decent Homes standard Officers will need to
operate within a range of more challenging budgets and secure significant efficiency
savings. In addition it will be necessary to manage the HRA Capital Programme
carefully to operate within the context of a rental stream which has the capacity to
support up to £10m of capital upgrades per annum. While the current stock condition
survey indicates that the Council can continue to maintain its stock at a good
standard on the basis of this level of contribution it will be necessary to phase the
6
timing of work in line with the level of resources available. In addition there will be a
reduction in our capacity to build new homes for local people. Given that a large
proportion of the Council stock is non traditional properties this reduction in the
capacity to build new homes has a more significant impact upon North East
Derbyshire than many other Council’s, and will reduce the financial capacity to
undertake large scale regeneration projects.
Officers will continue to monitor the position in respect of the HRA by maintaining an
up to date 30 year Business Plan. While officers are of the view that the changes to
rent setting arrangements can be managed without undermining its long term
sustainability, other factors such as increasing numbers of Right to Buy, the potential
forced sale of vacant high value properties, together with the risk that the rent
reductions will go on beyond 2020 threatens the financial viability of the HRA. In
December 2016 the Government confirmed that it would not require any financial
contribution from local HRA’s towards the costs of introducing Right to Buy for the
tenants of Registered Social Landlords (Housing Associations) during next financial
year (2017/18). The Government is, however, actively considering its options and
this reform may be introduced by April 2018.
•
Estimated Outturn 2016/17
The Estimated Outturn figures shown within this report are in line with those
previous reported to Cabinet on 23rd November 2016. With respect to the variation
from the Original budget there has been an increase in rental income of £0.192m
largely arising from a reduction in the level of void properties. This is partially offset
by a reduction in charges for services of £0.060m, together with reduced
contributions to expenditure of £0.030m as a result of contractual service payments
agreed with Derbyshire County Council for Supporting People services. There
continues to be a significant level of uncertainty concerning the level of support
which will be provided by DCC in respect of these services. With regard to
expenditure Rykneld homes are continuing to operate within the Management Fee
of £9.902m. On the retained budgets managed by the Council reduced expenditure
of £0.205m is anticipated of which £0.075m relates to a reduced provision for
doubtful debts. On the basis of these changes the HRA is anticipated to deliver a
surplus of £0.486m which is £0.412m above the original budget. It is proposed that
this surplus is transferred to the Development Reserve where it will be used to fund
additional capital investment.
•
Original Budget 2017/18
The key issue for next year is that a further average rent reduction of 1% is required
to comply with Government rent regulations for social housing. That has the impact
of reducing the average rent for a council house from £84.76 per week (on a 48
week basis) to one of £83.83 per week. While the Council is aware that even these
reduced rent levels are a significant burden on many of our tenants rental income is
the only source of funding to deliver a housing service which meets tenants
expectations. It should also be recognised that rental levels for Council housing are
and will continue to be significantly below those in the private rented sector. While
income will be reduced and the Council will need to find savings to meet cost
increases Officers are of the view that the Council should be in a position to realise
7
efficiency savings which will offset these adverse trends, enabling service standards
to tenants to be maintained.
•
Forecast Position 2018/19 to 2020/21
The key assumption that once the current Government rent policy ends in March
2020 it will revert to the previous approach which allows for rent increases in line
with inflation. Other than in respect of this income assumption the forecast position
for the latter three years of the proposed MTFP effectively projects or rolls forward
the figures in respect of 2017/18. These figures indicate that despite the recent
changes to the HRA it remains financially sustainable.
Capital Programme
•
•
•
Finally, with respect to the capital programme the majority of expenditure will
continue to be in respect of the HRA Programme which is funded by capital
resources ring fenced to the Council’s HRA. The Government funded Decent Homes
Programme ended in 2014/15 and the requirement is now largely to undertake
expenditure which maintains homes at that Decent Homes standard. The funding for
the ongoing programme of housing refurbishment work is planned to continue at a
level of £9m p.a, over the period the current MTFP. The major scheme currently in
the Programme is the new build scheme at North Wingfield which will provide 27
new Council houses at a cost of just under £5m
A new programme of a Stock Purchase is also recommended for inclusion within the
Programme in respect for 2017/18 and future financial years. This scheme is
proposed because it will enable the utilisation of ‘one for one’ capital receipts which
the Council is allowed to retain by central government on the basis that they are
used to acquire additional housing stock to replace that which has been bought
under Right to Buy. These receipts can cover up to 30% of the costs of acquisition of
additional properties, with the remainder being covered by the Development Fund,
or where necessary Prudential Borrowing. Officers are currently exploring options in
respect of implementing the Stock Purchase scheme and a further report will be
taken to Cabinet setting out detailed proposals.
With regard to the General Fund the main expenditure will continue to be on vehicle
replacement funded by prudential borrowing. The proposed programme seeks to
secure investment of £2.764m (over 4 years) to replace a range of predominantly
Street Scene vehicles. These vehicles which are required in order to provide
statutory services will be funded from Prudential Borrowing. Secondly, there will be
the ongoing requirements for work in respect of private sector housing grants
predominantly on Disabled Facilities Grant Work. Finally, there will be expenditure in
respect of ICT schemes together with an allowance for asset refurbishment across
the range of Council assets.
Risk Issues
• A Financial Risk Register has been developed in respect of each of the main
accounts and is provided at Appendix 1 Table 4, Appendix 2 Table 2, and
Appendix 3 Table 2.
8
5.2
5.3
Legal Implications including Data Protection
•
The Council is legally obliged to approve a budget prior to the commencement of the
new financial year in April 2017. This report together with the associated budget
timetable has been prepared in order to comply with our legal obligations. The
recommended budget in respect of the Council’s three main accounts complies with
the Council’s legal obligation to agree a balanced budget.
•
There are no Data Protection issues arising directly from this report.
Human Resources Implications
•
These are covered in the main report and supporting Appendices where
appropriate.
6
Recommendations
6.1.
The recommendations will be considered within the context of each of the three
Appendices (General Fund, HRA, Capital Programme) which are attached to this
report.
The following overall recommendations to Council are made:
a)
That the view of the Chief Financial Officer that the estimates included in the
Medium Term Financial Plan 2016/17 to 2020/21 are robust and that the level of
financial reserves are adequate, be accepted.
b)
That officers report back to Cabinet and to the Audit and Corporate Governance
Scrutiny Committee on a quarterly basis regarding the overall position in respect
of the Council’s budgets. These reports to include updates on progress in
achieving the agreed range of savings and efficiencies necessary to secure a
balanced budget for the 2017/18 financial year, together with progress on actions
to ensure the longer term financial sustainability of the Council.
In addition to the above there a number of recommendations which are made in
respect of each of the main accounts (General Fund, HRA and Capital Programme).
These will be considered as part of the Appendicies to this report which cover those
accounts in more detail. On the basis that Cabinet agree to the recommendations
made on each of these accounts then Cabinet will recommend them to Council for
approval.
9
7
Decision Information
Is the decision a Key Decision?
Yes
(A Key Decision is an executive
decision which results in income or
expenditure to the Council of
£50,000 or more or which has a
significant impact on two or more
District wards)
Is the decision subject to Call-In?
(Only Key Decisions are subject to
Call-In)
District Wards Affected
All
Links to Corporate Plan priorities RELEVANT CORPORATE AIMS
STRATEGIC ORGANISATIONAL
or Policy Framework
DEVELOPMENT – to continually
improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of all Council Services by
maximising the potential use of Council
resources.
TARGETS
The operation of policy led budgeting
will help to inform future spending plans
and ensure that resources are
efficiently utilised in the promotion of
Council priorities.
VALUE FOR MONEY
The budget process enables existing
expenditure patterns to be challenged
and where necessary redirected to
ensure that resources are used
effectively and directed towards the
delivery of the Corporate Aims.
10
8
Document Information
Appendix No
Title
1
1 Table 1
1 Table 2
1 Table 3
General Fund Revenue Account 2016/17 to 2020/21
General Fund Revenue Account 2016/17 to 2020/21
General Fund Detail
General Fund Risk Register
2
2 Table 1
2 Table 2
Housing Revenue Account
Housing Revenue Account 2016/17 to 2020/21
HRA Risk Register
3
Capital Programme
3 Table 1
Capital Programme 2016/17 to 2020/21
3 Table 2
Capital Programme Risk Register
Background Papers (These are unpublished works which have been relied
on to a material extent when preparing the report. They must be listed in the
section below. If the report is going to Cabinet (NEDDC) or Executive (BDC)
you must provide copies of the background papers)
Accountancy Budget Working Papers
Report Author
Contact Number
Executive Director – Operations
Assistant Director Finance, Revenues and Benefits
Chief Accountant
(01246) 217154
(01246) 217658
(01246) 217078
AGIN 10 (CAB 0215) MTFP/AJD
11
APPENDIX 1
General Fund Revenue Account
Introduction
1.
This appendix considers the Medium Term Financial Plan in respect of the
Council’s General Fund Revenue Account. As such it covers all of the
Council’s revenue expenditure other than those elements which relate to
the provision of Council Housing which are accounted for within the
Housing Revenue Account (HRA).
2.
The recommended budgets for both 2016/17 (Estimated Outturn) and
2017/18 (Original Budget) are shown in Table 1 to this report. Table 1 also
details the projected position – on the basis of current patterns of income
and expenditure – for the years 2018/19 to 2020/21, with Table 2 providing
details at cost centre level.
2016/17 Estimated Outturn
3.
In February 2016 Members agreed a budget in respect of the current
financial year 2016/17. Given that the Council needed to achieve significant
savings it has been necessary to actively manage budgets throughout the
year and to remove savings from the budget once they have been agreed.
As the budget has been under a process of ongoing revision the Revised
Budget (the latest version considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 25th
November 2016) has evolved from the Original Budget approved in
February 2016. As part of the budget process it is recommended that
Members formally approve the Estimated Outturn position as set out within
Table 1. The main reason for the variation between the Original Budget and
the current position is that the savings made to balance the budget are now
reflected in service expenditure, while increased funding from reserves and
S106 funding etc has been recognised in the budget. These amendments
arise from changes in the approved budget at cost centre level which have
been subject to appropriate Member approval.
4.
The key feature that has driven the Council’s financial position during
2016/17 continues to be the ongoing reduction in the level of Central
Government financial support. The majority of the measures that have
secured savings in previous and the current financial year will continue to
provide ongoing savings for the Council into 2017/18 and beyond. As such
they have made an important contribution to the financial sustainability of
the Council. If these savings had not been secured then the financial
challenge which would have faced the Council in 2017/18 and future years
would have been significantly greater.
12
5.
While budgets have been adjusted to minimal levels in order to maximise
the level of financial savings secured, officers have continued to operate a
policy of restricting expenditure wherever possible. While this management
action may be offset by upward cost pressures, officers are of the view that
the Council will achieve an outturn position with a significant under spend
against the original budget for 2016/17. The forecast Estimated Outturn
position in Table 1 incorporates an assumed surplus of £0.392m which will
be transferred to the Invest to Save Reserve. The continued availability of
the Invest to Save Reserve has made a significant contribution to the
Council’s financial position by covering a range of costs on restructuring
and service investment which otherwise would have fallen on the General
Fund. Given the financial pressures which will continue to impact upon the
Council in future financial years it is crucial that the Council continues to
maintain a reasonable level of Invest to Save reserves in order to be able to
fund the measures that are necessary to reduce the Council’s underlying
level of expenditure and to fund ‘one off’ priorities. As part of the
requirement to ensure that the Council has an adequate level of Invest to
Save funding to support the Transformation Programme it is recommended
that capital receipts be utilised in order to fund expenditure within the
Approved Capital Programme which was originally agreed on the principle
that it would be funded from Invest to Save reserves.
Officers have
continued to budget prudently and on balance of probabilities would expect
the outturn position to see a further increase in the level of contribution that
can be made to the Invest to Save Reserve. There are a limited number of
areas such as the contribution from the Derbyshire Wide NNDR Pool, from
benefits grants and from planning income where the position may be better
than is currently forecast. It is not considered appropriate to assume
increased income from these areas in the Estimated Outturn Budget and
Members should note that whilst less likely there is a risk that income could
fall below that already assumed therefore removing any potential benefits
and eroding the forecast level of contribution to the Invest to Save Reserve.
Original Budget 2017/18
6.
One of the key purposes of this report is for the Council to agree its detailed
income and spending proposals in respect of the next financial year
commencing 1 April 2017. The budget which is recommended for
consideration by Members is detailed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this
Appendix. The main themes which have been taken into account in
developing the Council’s financial plans are set out below.
13
Level of Government Grant
7.
The current financial year 2016/17 is the first year of the Four Year
settlement announced in December 2015 which followed on from the
General Election of May 2015. The key issues affecting North East
Derbyshire District Council are as follows.
Revenue Support Grant (RSG)
8.
With respect to Revenue Support Grant the settlement has confirmed that it
will be phased out. The announcement detailed the amounts to be paid to
North East Derbyshire District Council as follows, £1.295m in 2016/17,
£0.706m in 2017/18 and £0.341m in 2018/19. The Settlement confirmed
that for North East Derbyshire there will be no payment of RSG beyond
2018/19.
New Homes Bonus
9.
The outcome of the consultation into the future of New Homes Bonus was
announced in December 2016. As previously indicated the period of
payment has been reduced to five years in respect of 2017/18 and to four
years from 2018/19. In addition a scaling factor has been introduced into
allocations from 2017/18 to ensure that the overall NHB payments do not
exceed the allocations that have been set nationally in public expenditure
plans. For 2017/18 that scaling factor is 0.4 and it reduces the payments
from the provisional figure of £0.385m to £0.219m. This introduction of a
scaling factor will have a continued negative impact upon the availability of
NHB. As a result of these changes, the Council will lose an estimated
£0.5m by 2020/21.
10. Alongside the changes outlined above, the Government is also seeking to
reward those authorities who are perceived as performing well in promoting
housing growth by having appropriate Planning arrangements in place.
These changes will not be introduced in respect of 2017/18 when the
consultation paper indicated that those Council’s without a Local Plan might
see NHB payments stopped. The position is still being reviewed by
Government with further reduction a clear possibility.
National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR)
11. The Government also announced in November 2015 a review of NNDR with
the intention that by the end of this Parliament all NNDR will be retained
locally. Currently North East Derbyshire District Council collects £16m of
NNDR, of which £3m is retained by this Council. Any reform will, however,
be aimed at securing ‘fiscal neutrality’ ie it will not benefit either central or
local government financially. Therefore to the extent to which a Council
14
makes a ‘surplus’ from the switch to a fully localised NNDR it will be
required to accept additional financial responsibilities. This proposal
amounts to a significant reform of local government finance which may have
a disproportionate impact upon individual authorities even if in overall terms
it is fiscally neutral. The Government in its recent announcements remains
committed to delivering 100% local retention of rates which it has linked to a
review of both the needs and the resources formulas used to allocate
NNDR funding to individual Council’s. The Government is clearly aware that
it will need to have a formula for resource equalisation to offset major shifts
in funding between authorities arising out from the revision to the needs and
resources calculation. On the basis of current information the Government
is looking to move to the new arrangements with effect from April 2020
which is the final year of the Planning period set out within the proposed
MTFP. The scale of the proposed reforms will introduce a further element of
uncertainty to our forward financial planning.
12. While further reform is anticipated the Government has already moved
some way towards what it has termed a ‘localisation’ of NNDR. Currently
local authorities retain 50% of the growth in NNDR levels against a baseline
figure. Whilst all local authorities are provided with an incentive in that they
retain a proportion of any growth in Business Rates there are safety net
arrangements to protect those local authorities which suffer a reduction in
their local Non Domestic Rating Base. Under these arrangements there is a
direct financial incentive for local authorities to promote economic growth in
their area, although local authorities would take the view that historically
they have always been active in promoting such growth in order to protect
and promote local employment. For North East Derbyshire there are
currently very few developments identified which will enhance the Non
Domestic Rate Base over the next two to three years. It is likely that any
limited growth will be offset by decline in other sectors of the local economy,
or by the impact of revaluation. Accordingly the financial projections are for
a static level of NNDR funding across the projected period of the current
MTFP to 2020/21. The position may well be complicated by the fact that a
full revaluation of all properties is currently being implemented. Although the
Government is seeking to ensure their revaluation has a neutral impact at
the level of individual authorities, the new valuations will be subject to
appeal which may introduce further uncertainty into the system. In short
whilst our estimates are prudent in assuming no growth of NNDR income, it
does need to be recognised that this income stream is a volatile one which
lacks the stability and certainty of the more traditional Council Tax income.
13. Cabinet will be aware that with effect from 2015/16 a ‘pool’ of all authorities
across Derbyshire was established for Non Domestic Rate Income.
Membership of a Derbyshire Wide pool was agreed by Council at a meeting
in October 2014 in recognition of the fact that authorities which are
members of a pool generally benefit from retaining a higher level of locally
15
generated NNDR income. Within the budget we have assumed that this
Council will continue to benefit from membership of the Derbyshire Wide
Pool, with an assumed level of income of £150k for 2016/17 and 2017/18.
Given the uncertainty concerning the availability of such income beyond
next year no assumptions have been made that such income will be
received beyond 2017/18.
Four Year Settlement
14. As part of the Autumn Statement of 2015 the Government committed itself
to providing Council’s with an option of accepting a four year financial
Settlement in order to remove some of the uncertainties over longer term
financial planning. By submitting an Efficiency Plan to Central Government
this Council has been able to take advantage of the greater certainty offered
by the Four Year Settlement. The Settlement, however, only covered
Revenue Support Grant, transitional funding, Rural Services Delivery Grant
and a limited number of other specific grants. Other income streams such
as NNDR and New Homes Bonus will continue to fluctuate arising from a
variety of circumstances, leaving Council’s with a significant level of
uncertainty in their Medium Term financial planning. This Council agreed an
Efficiency Plan covering the period to March 2020 at the meeting of Cabinet
on 28 September 2016. That Efficiency Plan will need to be updated once
the budgets and financial plans included within this report are agreed and it
may be appropriate to give consideration to utilising the framework of our
locally agreed Efficiency Plan in order to co-ordinate our strategy to secure
financial sustainability over the period of the current MTFP.
Council Tax
15. Over the period of the previous parliament the Coalition government made
clear its opposition to any increase in Council Tax providing grant support to
Councils which did not increase Council Tax. That policy was linked with the
objective of keeping inflation low. In the Autumn Statement of 2015 there
was a distinct change of emphasis in that in addition to the existing flexibility
which allows authorities to raise Council Tax by up to 2%, those authorities
which provide Adult Social Care were allowed to increase Council Tax by
an additional 2% ie up to 4% overall. These additional revenue raising
powers to fund Adult Social Care indicates that the Government is now of
the view that modest increases in Council Tax may be necessary to protect
basic service levels, within the context of the policy objective of reducing the
national deficit. With respect to next year the draft principles concerning
Council Tax increases were set out as part of the December settlement.
While those authorities providing social care are still entitled to increase
Council Tax by up to 4% before a Referendum is required, for District
Council’s the principles are that Council Tax can be increased by the
greater of 2%, or those Council’s with a low Council Tax – including NEDDC
16
- can increase the Council Tax by up to £5 on the band D Council Tax for
2016/17. With respect to North East Derbyshire District Council that allows
a Council Tax increase of up to £5 on a Band D property (2.8%).
Expenditure, income levels and efficiencies
16.
In developing the financial projections covering the period 2017/18 to
2020/21 which are included within Appendix 1 to this report, officers have
made a number of assumptions. The main assumptions which have been
made are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pay increases of 1% in respect of all financial years across the period of
the Plan.
An increase of 1% to employer superannuation contributions in 2017/18.
With regard to the Apprentice levy if the Council were to take no action
then this would cost in the region of £45k p.a. While the Council has a
long standing commitment to the training of both existing employees and
of apprentices the introduction of the National Apprentice scheme has
the potential to increase costs to the Council. Other than for the cost of
the levy no additional provision has been made within the budgets for
such costs and to the extent that investment in the Apprenticeship
scheme is made during the course to the year this will need to be met
from the Invest to Save reserve.
While no allowance has been made in respect of general inflation
specific budget heads such as energy costs and business rates have
been amended to reflect anticipated price changes. Given the recent fall
in the exchange rate of sterling this position will need to be monitored
carefully. To the extent to which the Council is not able to contain
inflationary pressures then the additional costs will need to be met from
the vacancy management arrangements.
Fees and Charges – service specific increases as agreed by Members.
New Homes Bonus to be payable for 4 years with a scaling reduction
factor of 0.4 from 2017/18, with no further losses arising from the
Government initiatives to introduce incentives around Planning matters.
With respect to Planning Fees an amount of £0.400m has been included
within the budget. Where income levels – and the associated workload –
increase above that level then part of the additional income may be
required to fund additional staffing resources (such as Agency staff) in
order to maintain performance levels. It is important that performance is
maintained both in order to protect the Council’s reputation as a “good
place to do business” and to ensure that poor performance does not
lead to a further reduction or withdrawal of New Homes Bonus funding.
It is therefore recommended that delegated powers are granted to the
Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council to agree
any necessary increase in planning expenditure to meet peaks in
17
demand, on the basis that these can be met from an anticipated
increase in planning fees above the budgeted level of £0.400m.
17. The Government’s approach is that local government should seek to secure
local sources of funding rather than continuing to be heavily dependent
upon central government funding. In part the Government see this objective
as being realised by local authorities maximising their local development
potential by way of Non Domestic Rates (growing the level of business
activity) or by way of New Homes Bonus (increasing housing numbers). In
addition authorities have been encouraged to look at raising other local
sources of income. Over the past three years the Council has taken a
number of steps to improve the level of income that it receives from a range
of services and in particular Leisure where the level of subsidy has been
reduced across all three leisure centres as a result of initiatives which has
successfully raised the level of income secured. Cabinet in June 2016
agreed a further investment of £1.752m in Leisure facilities in order to
generate income growth. Property occupation levels at all of the commercial
estate has improved to the point where they are largely fully occupied other
than for an allowance in respect of turnover of tenancies. While Officers will
seek to continue to secure further incremental improvements the majority of
gains that are readily achievable have already been secured and are
incorporated within the budget proposed in this report.
18. While efforts to identify and secure additional income will continue it may
now be a case of consolidating income to date, with the key opportunity for
the Council to balance its budget arising from managing expenditure levels
and securing efficiencies.
19. For the next financial year the Council has a savings target of £0.513m in
order to secure a balanced budget. While this is a target that should be
achievable it is important to recognise that as the Government continues to
withdraw RSG and New Homes Bonus the Council’s financial position
becomes increasingly challenging with savings targets of £1.050m in
2018/19, £1.456 in 2019/20 and £1.863m in 2020/21. By maintaining an
approach based on growth and transformation across the period the
Council will reduce the impact on services of the ongoing reduction in
central funding. Effectively the Council needs to identify and secure savings
in the order of £0.5m a year for the next four years. If these savings can be
achieved every year then it will minimise the detrimental impact of funding
cuts on local residents as the Council will be able to adopt a gradual and
considered approach to securing cost reductions. The areas where officers
intend to seek to secure savings are outlined below:
•
Vacancy Management £50,000
All vacancies – including maternity leave, requests for additional annual
leave, etc - will continue to be subject to review by the Strategic Alliance
18
Management Team to secure financial savings. Where required reports will
be brought forward for Members to consider the disestablishment of posts
which it is not considered appropriate to fill. It is crucial that the Council
does not allow posts to be filled in 2017/18 which are unlikely to be a high
priority in future financial years. While the target of £0.050m is in line with
savings achieved in the current and previous financial years it does need to
be recognised that the reductions in staffing numbers over recent years
make these savings increasingly hard to achieve given the requirement to
maintain service delivery. Given the pressure on services it is considered
likely that these savings will need to be secured from ‘vacancy lag’ with any
actual reduction in employee numbers being secured through the
transformation agenda.
•
Transformation, Secondments and Joint Working £150,000
The Council has a well established Transformation Agenda and it is
recommended that Cabinet approve a savings target of £150,000 in respect
of 2017/18. Further secondments and joint working arrangements with
Bolsover District Council through the Strategic Alliance will continue to be
targeted to secure savings. In order to fund the Transformation Agenda
over the period of the current MTFP Officers will seek to maximise the level
of Invest to Save reserves.
•
Property Rationalisation Savings - £100,000
While the Council has made significant financial savings during previous
financial years from more efficient use of property assets the main savings
from this area of work have been secured. Given this position – which was
identified at the time of last year’s budget - the Asset Management Group
was requested to identify options for disposing of assets that could help
support the Council’s financial position. While the Mill Lane site will provide
an opportunity within the next 5 financial years in the more immediate future
the key option is likely to be the Ankerbold Road site where officers are
progressing plans to enable residential development on the land. The main
option which the resultant capital receipt should facilitate would be the
repayment of debt which would generate revenue savings by reducing the
debt financing costs. While financial benefits are unlikely to accrue before
the 2018/19 financial year officers consider that a financial saving in the
order of £0.1m should be achievable over a period of time.
•
Dowry on land at the Avenue
Council agreed at a meeting held in March 2013 that it would accept
responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of public open space on
the Avenue site from the HCA once development commenced. The sum
involved was in the order of £5m and it was originally envisaged that the
sum would be paid over to the Council at the end of the 2013/14 financial
year. Due to public expenditure restrictions this did not occur although our
current understanding is that the HCA will be in a position to conclude this
19
deal during 2017/18. This would enable debt to be repaid with the result that
the Council should be able to cover maintenance costs and in the early
years of this arrangement secure a financial contribution to the General
Fund in the order of £0.15m p.a.
•
National Non Domestic Rate Growth – Nil
Work in respect of the future levels of income to be secured from NNDR
has suggested that any limited growth will be more than offset by
revaluations or by businesses ceasing to operate. Whilst the Council is
working to promote industrial sites at Callywhite Lane and the Avenue these
projects are considered unlikely to deliver any business growth prior to the
end of the current planning period.
20. The table below summarises the savings options that are proposed in order
to address the 2017/18 position together with their impact on 2018/19 and
2020/21:
Summary of Potential Savings Options
2017/18
£000’s
2018/19
£000’s
2019/20
£000’s
2020/21
£000’s
513
1,050
1,456
1,863
0
(50)
(150)
0
(50)
(300)
0
(50)
(450)
0
(50)
(600)
0
0
0
0
0
0
(50)
(100)
0
(150)
(150)
(150)
(150)
(300)
(450)
(600)
(350)
(800)
(1,150)
(1,500)
Unidentified Savings Target
163
250
306
363
Call on General Fund Balances
163
250
306
363
Efficiency Target / Budget Shortfall
Savings Proposals
NNDR Growth Target
Vacancy Management
Transformation, Secondments &Joint
Working
Property Rationalisation Savings
Repayment of Debt from asset sale
(Ankerbold Road)
HCA Dowry in respect of the Avenue
Site
Council Tax Increase (up to £5 on a
Band D property)
Total Savings Proposals
21. Even on the basis that identified savings opportunities there remain
unidentified savings which amounts to £0.363m at the end of the planning
period. Against this background Officers are of the view that Council needs
20
to consider very carefully the option of increasing the level of Council Tax
over the period of the current Medium Term Financial Plan. On the basis of
the details given above the impact of reducing levels of government support
is that by 2020/21 it is likely that the Council will be facing decisions
concerning significant reductions in service standards or ceasing to provide
non – statutory services. Given the importance of securing the above
savings to the financial stability of the Council, progress will be reported on
a regular basis to Cabinet. It should also be noted that it is proposed that
the Council should approve that actual budgets are amended to take
account of identified savings as soon as those savings are formally
approved. This will help to ensure that cost centre managers are fully aware
of the budgets that they are working to, and that those savings which are
identified are fully achieved during the initial year.
Options for Council Tax Levels
22. Members will recall that between 2011/12 and 2015/16 (with the exception of
2013/14) the Council decided not to increase Council tax enabling the
authority to take advantage of successive Government schemes which
provided grant to partially compensate for the income lost as a result of a
decision to freeze council tax. Given the Council’s financial position arising
from the ongoing reduction in the level of central government funding,
together with the withdrawal of central Government grant for operating a
Council Tax freeze Council in 2016/17 took the decision to increase Council
Tax by 1.95%.
23. Any decision concerning Council Tax Levels needs to be taken against the
background of the Council’s financial position over the period of the Medium
Term Financial Plan which can be summarised as follows:
2017/18
£000’s
2018/19
£000’s
2019/20
£000’s
2020/21
£000’s
513
1,050
1,456
1,863
Efficiency Target / Budget Shortfall
25
In summary officers are currently forecasting that over the period April 2017
to March 2021 expenditure reductions (or increased income) of £1.863m
will be necessary. It should be noted that it is highly likely that a ceiling of
either a maximum increase of £5 a year on the Band D Council Tax, or 2%
will be placed on Council Tax increases over the period of this parliament.
Therefore if the Council is of the view that it may have difficulties in securing
a balanced budget over this period then it needs to give careful
consideration to increasing levels of Council Tax for 2017/18. In respect of
the Council’s financial position the Table of Proposed Savings given at
section 20 (above) sets out the currently identified areas that could be
targeted for securing savings. The indicative forecast indicates that on the
21
basis of existing information there is a cumulative shortfall over the period of
the current MTFP in the order of £1.9m which is only partially addressed by
the savings opportunities identified. Given that Council Tax increases of up
to £5 at Band D would secure additional income of £0.600m, over the
period they provide a significant financial benefit.
26
On the basis that the Council decided to put into effect a Council Tax
increase at the limit of up to £5 on a Band D Property then this would reflect
an overall increase of 2.8%, which would generate increased income of just
over £0.150m, or £0.600m over the period of the current MTFP. While this
is a significant sum to raise from local taxpayers it needs to be recognised
that the reduction in New Homes Bonus – which is being undertaken to
increase funding for Adult Social Care – will cost this Council at least £0.5m
per annum. In addition – over the same period – the Council will lose a sum
of £1.3m in Revenue Support Grant between 2016/17 and 2019/20. Against
this background on ongoing reductions in the level of central government
funding an increase in Council Tax is a clear option as part of the strategy
of protecting the level of services to local residents and allowing the Council
to continue to deliver its statutory services.
27
While there are clear financial advantages for opting to increase the level of
Council Tax in 2017/18 in order to strengthen the Council’s underlying
financial position and to reduce the reliance on reductions to expenditure
and services as a means of balancing the budget, this needs to be
balanced against the detrimental impact which the current economic
situation and increasing costs are having on local residents. The impact of a
decision to increase Council Tax levels by an amount of up to £5 at Band D
(2.8%), at the various Council Tax Bands is as follows:
22
Band
A (£’s) B (£’s) C (£’s) D (£’s) E (£’s) F (£’s) G (£’s) H (£’s)
2016/17
118.51 138.27 158.01 177.77 215.27 256.78 296.28 355.54
Charge
Up to £5
increase
at Band
D (2.8%)
3.87
4.42
4.98
6.03
7.19
8.30
9.96
– p.a.
3.32
2017/18
Charge
With
2.8%
Increase
121.83 142.14 162.43 182.75 221.30 263.97 304.58 365.50
Cost per
week
without
increase
2.28
2.66
3.04
3.42
4.14
4.94
5.70
6.84
Cost per
week
with
increase
2.34
2.73
3.12
3.51
4.26
5.08
5.86
7.03
Members need to consider the option of an increase in Council Tax both in
respect of the benefits that would flow from protecting the level and quality
of services to local residents, against the detrimental impact of an additional
financial burden on local residents.
Financial Reserves
28.
The Council’s main uncommitted Financial Reserves which relate to its
General Fund are the General Fund Balance of £2m together with the
uncommitted element of the Invest to Save Reserve of £1m. On the basis of
the measures outlined in this report the Invest to Save Reserve will be
£1.4m at the end of the current financial year. Given the growing level of
uncertainty surrounding local authority income and the fact that the Council
itself has reduced all budgets to a minimal level thus reducing its financial
resilience it is important that the Council continues to review what it would
consider to be an acceptable level of General Fund balances. On the basis
that the Council can continued to achieve the in year savings targets and
can maintain an Invest to Save reserve in excess of £0.5m an amount of
£2m in the General Fund Balance would appear to be a reasonable level of
balances over the current MTFP period. This position is supported by the
General Fund Risk Register as set out in Appendix 1 Table 4 detailing the
financial risks currently faced by the Council which indicates notional
23
financial risks of £1.745m broadly in line with the current level of General
Fund Balance. Cabinet is well aware of the importance of managing
expenditure reductions in a planned fashion in order to protect the quality of
services to local residents, and ensuring an appropriate level of balances
which provides financial resilience.
29.
The Invest to Save Reserve is a key element in the Council’s financial
strategy in that it can be used to finance the following categories of
expenditure:
• Service improvements
• Transformation work
• Restructuring
• Any unanticipated Asset Refurbishment Costs
• To address issues of maintaining or improving service levels
Over the past five years the Invest to Save reserve has been critical in
securing financial savings, in transforming services and in progressing ‘one
off’ member priorities. At the end of the current financial year we will have
an estimated balance of £1.4m. The reduced level of Invest to Save
reserves arises from the fact that we are utilising the Invest to Save reserve
to fund much of the costs of the £1.752m programme of Leisure Centre
refurbishment. In order to protect the level of Invest to Save balances it is
proposed that this capital work is funded to the maximum extent possible
from capital receipts at the year end. This may require that an element of
the Invest to Save reserve is earmarked to fund capital expenditure in future
years.
Risk Register
30. A financial Risk Assessment is set out in Table 3, which outlines the risks,
the mitigation which is in place, the potential impact and the probability of
the event occurring in order to arrive at a notional calculation concerning the
potential financial impact of the risks which the Council is currently facing.
This indicates that the identified risks which the Council is currently facing
amount to £1.745m. This is broadly in line with the current General Fund
balances of £2m. The other main General Fund Balance the Invest to Save
reserve is likely to be significantly reduced during 2017/18 as a result of the
requirement to fund Invest to Save projects. It is therefore important to
ensure that any underspends in the current financial year are maximised in
order to enable the Invest to Save balance in particular to be replenished,
which will allow effective financial management of the Council over a period
of ongoing reductions in the level of Government resources.
31. The assessment concerning the level of risk is essentially used for two
purposes. Firstly, an understanding of the risks which the Council faces is
24
crucial in agreeing an appropriate level of financial reserves. Secondly, the
identification of the risks is the first stage in the process of more effectively
managing, or of mitigating those risks. By identifying the risks it is possible
to avoid them, to insure against them, to transfer the risk, or most likely,
actions can be taken to reduce or to mitigate the risk. The Council’s
Financial Risk Register is closely linked to both the Strategic and
Operational Risk Registers. The Council has in place a comprehensive
approach to Risk Management which is reported on a quarterly basis and
this process will continue to be utilised in order to manage the key financial
risks.
32.
Recommendations
a)
A Council Tax increase of £4.98 in respect of a Band D property
(2.8%) as part of a range of measures necessary to offset the
continued reduction in the level of central government funding.
b)
The Medium Term Financial Plan in respect of the General Fund as
set out in Appendix 1 Table 1 of this report be approved as the
Estimated Outturn Budget in respect of 2016/17, as the Original
Budget in respect of 2017/18, and the financial projection in respect of
the years 2018/19 to 2020/21.
c)
Officers continue to progress the implementation of measures
designed to secure the forecast surplus in respect of 2016/17 and the
agreed savings targets in respect of 2017/18 with progress to be
reported back to Cabinet and Audit and Corporate Governance
Scrutiny Committee on a quarterly basis.
d) That any under spend in respect 2016/17 is transferred to the Invest to
Save Reserve, with capital receipts being used at the year end to
minimise the use of Invest to Save funding for capital expenditure on
the Leisure Facilities refurbishment scheme.
e) On the basis that income from Planning Fees is anticipated to exceed
the budgeted level of £0.400m the Chief Executive in consultation with
the Leader of the Council is granted delegated powers to authorise
additional expenditure in order to effectively manage any resultant
increase in workload.
f) That the above recommendations be referred by Cabinet to the Council
meeting of 20th February 2017 for approval.
25
Appendix 1 : Table 3
NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL: GENERAL
FUND RISK REGISTER
Risk and Mitigation in Place
1.
•
•
•
2.
•
•
•
•
3.
•
•
Gross
Probability Potential
Value of
Impact
Risk £000’s
£000’s
Reduction in Government Grant/NNDR/
1,500
40%
600
New Homes Bonus or loss of other
income above the budgeted level
incorporated within the MTFP
Income Budgets have been established on a
prudent basis.
The position on income levels will be
monitored as part of the Council’s routine
budget procedures.
The Government has outlined details of the
financial settlement over the next 3 years.
Overspend on challenging revenue
budgets.
The financial information system and budget
monitoring arrangements are robust. The
Council has a good record of managing
spending against budgets.
Regular monitoring reports will be taken to
Cabinet, Council and Audit and Corporate
Governance Scrutiny Committee.
Elected Members have a good awareness of
the Council’s financial position.
The development of budgets is based upon
the active engagement of cost centre
managers.
1,000
30%
300
Inability to achieve assumed level of
efficiencies.
Regular reports will be taken to Cabinet,
Council
and
Audit
and
Corporate
Governance Scrutiny Committee.
The Council has a good record of achieving
savings over previous financial years
600
25%
150
26
Risk and Mitigation in Place
4
•
•
Overspend on Capital Programme or
underachievement of capital receipts
leads to a charge against the Revenue
Position
The revenue framework outlined above will
also govern the position in respect of the
Capital Programme.
The Council has agreed a general principle of
not entering into capital commitments unless
the resource required to finance those
commitments has been secured.
Gross
Probability Potential
Value of
Impact £’s
Risk £’s
1,000
25%
250
5. A major Business Continuity Issue arises.
•
The Council has in place Business Continuity
Plans and Insurance Arrangements which
are intended to address these risks.
•
Previously in exceptional circumstances
Central Government has provided financial
support to authorities in these circumstances.
6. Increased cost of Welfare Reform inc
Council Tax Benefit as a result of increasing
costs not being fully covered by additional
government grant, or from the proposed
reforms of the service.
•
Budgets have been established on a prudent
basis, however, part of the risk of cost
increase is now upon local authorities.
2,000
10%
200
500
25%
125
7. An increase in employee costs associated
with a national pay award, requirement to
retain key staff or with changes in local terms
and conditions.
•
While the Council has made budget provision
for all known changes there remain risks
around the fact that key personnel could
leave
for
better remunerated
posts
elsewhere, or that a challenge is made in
respect of existing terms and conditions.
300
40%
120
Notional Potential Financial Impact of
Identified Risks
1,745
27
Appendix 2
Housing Revenue Account
Introduction
1.
This Appendix considers the elements of the Medium Term Financial Plan
relating to the Council’s Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budgets. As such
it covers the Council’s revenue expenditure relating to the provision of
Council Housing. The financial and service planning framework has a direct
impact upon the quality of the housing service provided by the Council to
our tenants.
2.
The recommended budgets for both 2016/17 (Estimated Outturn) and
2017/18 (Original Budget) are detailed in Table 1 of this Appendix. The
Table also details the projected position, on the basis of current patterns of
income and expenditure, for the period 2018/19 to 2020/21.
2016/17 Estimated Outturn Budget
3.
In February 2016 Members agreed a budget in respect of the current
financial year 2016/17. The revisions to that original budget agreed during
the course of the year were reported to and approved by Cabinet on 23rd
November 2016.
4.
The key points variances identified in arriving at the Estimated Outturn
position are outlined below:
• Rental income is £0.192m higher than the original budget which is mainly
due to the level of void properties being lower than anticipated.
• This is partially offset by reduced income from charging for services of
£0.060m, along with a reduction in the Contributions to Expenditure of
£0.030m which arises from reduced contractual service payments agreed
with Derbyshire County Council arising from changes in Supporting
People funding agreements. There is a likelihood that further reductions in
Supporting People contribution will be an issue in the future years of the
current MTFP, however, these will need to be addressed by Council as
we are notified of such reductions by Derbyshire County Council.
• The majority of HRA expenditure is paid as Management Fee paid to
Rykneld Homes which for 2016/17 amounted to £9.902m. Rykneld Homes
budget monitoring has not identified any issues for the company which
cannot be managed within the existing agreed fee. With regard the
retained element of the HRA which continues to be managed by the
Council Officers are currently anticipating a minor reduction in expenditure
of £0.205m, of which £0.075m is a reduction in the provision for doubtful
debts.
28
• The net cost of HRA services has been reduced by £0.311 during the
course of the year. This robust financial performance together with a
recommendation that the level of general HRA balances should be held at
£3.0m allows an increase in the contribution to the development reserve of
£0.457m, which will provide funding to purchase additional properties for
the HRA.
5.
The overall outcome of the recommended amendments to the Budget as
outlined in section 4 above is that the HRA general balance increases by
£0.029m resulting in a projected balance at the year end of £3m.
6.
With respect to the period up to March 2017 the implementation of the April
2012 localisation of the HRA has resulted in minimal impact upon tenants.
This was always the intended outcome. Underpinning the reforms of 2012
was a core principle that each local authority became a standalone landlord
managing what amounted to a commercial HRA, with a considerable level
of local autonomy. A key factor in the successful transition was that the
initial settlement was a reasonable one which protected existing levels of
income and effectively insulated the HRA from the austerity which applied
to other areas of the public sector. Underlying the HRA localisation was a
Government calculation concerning the financial viability of each individual
Council’s HRA which was used as the basis for allocating debt. In the case
of North East Derbyshire District Council the debt transfer amounted to
£127m which costs almost £10m p.a in debt repayment or 30% of the rental
income.
7.
Under HRA Localisation Local Authorities became responsible for
managing HRA income to repay debt, to ensure adequate financial
provision to maintain and refurbish the stock, whilst meeting the service
expectations of our tenants. Subsequent to the initial debt settlement which
was based upon affordability as calculated by the government’s financial
model, legislation has introduced a range of significant changes to the
assumptions upon which the debt calculation was based. These include
changed regulations improving Right to Buy incentives, together with
changes to the policy for setting council house rents. Both of these – which
are outlined in more detail below – have served to reduce the rental stream
against a background of essentially fixed costs such as debt repayment,
services to tenants and investment in homes. The combined impact of
these changes has been to undermine what was a reasonable settlement,
with the extension of the public sector austerity agenda into the Housing
Revenue Account.
8.
In terms of quantifying the impact of these changes amendments to the
Right to Buy legislation, together with the improving economic position has
resulted in the number of Right to Buy’s rising from the 12 per annum
assumed within the HRA Debt Allocation model, to a position where
29
approximately 50 sales will be completed during the current financial year.
For the HRA this represents a significant loss of income and the additional
homes sold in the current year alone will reduce the Council’s rental stream
by £0.2m every year, or £6m over the period of the Business Plan.
Legislation is also being proposed to require Councils to dispose of their
10% of most valuable properties. While the government has announced that
this initiative will only apply from April 2018 the position will need to be
monitored carefully given the potential impact upon revenue streams and
costs which will fall upon the HRA.
Level of Council House Rents
9.
In addition to providing further incentives for tenants to exercise the Right to
Buy, the Government has also reduced the HRA income stream by
adjusting national rent policy so that rent increases are lower than allowed
for in the HRA localisation model. National Rent policy was first amended
as part of the 2013 Spending Round when the Government removed rent
convergence from the formula, and switched the calculation of inflation from
RPI to CPI. Taken together and given that North East Derbyshire was not at
‘target rent’ these changes resulted in a loss of income to the HRA on
average of £1.5m p.a. Government justified the ending of the rent
convergence policy on the basis that the majority of Council’s had already
reached target rents, however this was not the case at North East
Derbyshire which started at a lower level of rent than most other authorities.
10. While the revised rent policy was intended to last for the 10 years from April
2015, the incoming Government changed that policy in the budget of July
2015. From 2016/17 the Government has required local authorities in
common with all other providers of social housing to reduce rental levels by
1% per annum. This policy has been set to cover the four years from April
2016 to April 2019 and nationally will contribute £2.4bn towards the
Government target of securing £12bn of savings from the welfare system.
For North East Derbyshire, on the basis of a continuation of the current low
level of inflation, their reduced rental income by £0.6m for 2016/17 when
compared to original forecasts, with the loss of rental income rising to an
estimated £2.5m p.a. by 2019/20. Over the period of the 30 year HRA
Business Plan the loss of rental income is likely to amount to £75m.The
actual rental loss is, however, dependent upon the level of inflation and the
higher the level of inflation over this four year period the greater the loss of
rental income will be.
11. Given that the HRA needs to be financially self sufficient the reduction in
income will need to be accompanied by corresponding expenditure
reductions. On the basis of current information that is likely to be
achievedby a reduced capacity to operate a new build programme which
given the extent of non traditional properties within the Council’s stock will
30
clearly make it more difficult to deliver an effective strategy for implementing
regeneration programmes. Likewise, over the period of the HRA Business
Plan it will now be necessary to delay certain elements within the HRA
capital programme in order to ensure that it remains affordable within the
context of a reduced revenue stream. Over the period of the current MTFP,
the main expenditure budgets (Repairs and Maintenance and Supervision
and Management) will need to be marginally reduced. Officers are currently
of the view that the position can be managed with only a limited impact on
tenants, however, that depends upon the adoption of more efficient ways of
working and changed working practices. If inflation rates were to increase
during the current four year settlement then that would increase pressure on
service delivery accordingly. In particular it needs to be recognised that if
more realistic rent increases in line with inflation are not agreed from April
2020 then given the debt burden and other fixed costs on the HRA the
sustainability of the HRA will become increasingly difficult to maintain.
Housing Revenue Account Budget 2017/18
12. The proposed HRA budget in respect of 2017/18 is set out in Table 1 to this
report. The forecast net position for the HRA in the 2017/18 year is that a
balanced budget will be set which maintains HRA general reserves at a
figure of £3m. The budget does, however, allow a contribution of £0.667m
to be made to the Development Reserve which will allow additional
properties to be acquired in order to assist the longer term sustainability of
the HRA.
13. As part of the setting of the HRA budget the Council now also needs to give
active consideration to the level of HRA capital expenditure which it is able
to fund. In recent years this Council has benefitted significantly from an
investment of £60m from national government to enable the Council’s
housing stock to be brought up to Decent Homes standard. Under the
localised HRA the Council is able to determine the level of capital
expenditure, but this is restricted by the affordability to the revenue position
of making capital contributions and by the Government’s HRA debt ceiling
which controls the overall level of borrowing. The budget for 2017/18
proposes a contribution from the HRA to the Capital Programme of £9.5m.
This contribution is funded from the financial provision set aside for
depreciation and for a contribution to the major repairs reserve. Details
concerning the capital expenditure plans of the HRA are outlined within the
capital programme section of this report.
14. The measures outlined within this report enable the funding of HRA
expenditure budgets for 2017/18 which are essentially a roll forward budget.
Under the current proposals it is planned that tenants will see a continuation
of existing levels of service over the period of the current Medium Term
Financial Plan. Following on from the agreement to the budgets set out
31
within this report there will be a report to the Cabinet meeting on March 8th
2017 which will agree a management fee for Rykneld Homes in respect of
next financial year (2017/18).
Financial Plans 2018/19 to 2020/21
15. In line with good practice the MTFP sets out the Council’s projected
financial position over a 4 year period. The forecasts in respect of the latter
three years are effectively based upon a roll forward of the budgets in
respect of next financial year. Given that the income to fund the service
which has been set by Central Government is declining, a key issue for the
HRA is the ability to offset cost inflation by securing additional efficiencies in
service delivery. Although there will also be some reduction in costs arising
from reducing stock numbers associated with RTB, these reducing costs do
not offset the loss of rental income which arises when houses are sold.
16. As outlined above in the context of a reducing level of income all budgets
are at standstill. With respect to debt repayments these will be maintained
at £4.3m which will repay the Government loan over the 30 year period of
the original Business Plan. The repayment of debt is crucial, both to
reducing borrowing costs and to build up the funding necessary to finance
an accelerated programme of renovation work which will be necessary in
the later years of the 30 Year Business Plan. If debt is not carefully
managed at this stage then the funding will not be available to replace
bathrooms, kitchens, roofs, doors and windows as these major investments
are required.
17. As outlined above the funding for the HRA capital works for council housing
is now provided directly from the rental income generated by the HRA. On
the basis of the current MTFP the Council will be able to provide funding of
£10.164m in 2016/17, with £9.5m in 2017/18 and £9.0m for the remainder
of the MTFP period. On the basis of the 30 year HRA Business Plan
officers are of the view that a level of funding of between £9 and £10m can
be afforded. The Stock Condition Survey undertaken by Rykneld Homes
indicates that this level of investment should be able to maintain the
housing stock at a Decent Homes standard over the period of the Business
Plan. This level of investment will not, however, be able to fund for any
significant amount of new build. Given the level of non traditional properties
and the need to adapt the stock to changing tenant needs and preferences
it will be necessary to implement a number of regeneration schemes over
the coming years. These type of schemes are now likely to be increasingly
reliant upon external grant, land values and section 106 receipts in order to
be financially viable.
18. Within the budgets in respect of these latter three years the key
assumptions that are made are as follows :
32
•
The Council applies the Government’s regulations that rents in the social
housing sector are reduced by 1% a year for a period of 4 years from
April 2016, with a resumption of inflation linked rent increases applying
from April 2020.
•
Fees and charges service specific increases as agreed by Members.
•
Interest rates remain low and stable with Bank Rate – which determines
short term borrowing and investment costs – in the region of 0.25%.
•
That salary costs rise by 1% per annum across the period of the current
MTFP.
•
That the management fee payable to Rykneld Homes remains at the
same level as in 2016/17 subject to ongoing negotiations.
•
Allowance has been made for cost changes in respect of specific items
where considered appropriate.
Fees, Charges and Rents for Homeless Units
19. While the main source of income for the HRA arises from property rents the
HRA is also dependent for its financial sustainability upon a range of other
charges including Supporting People services, garages and heating. The
proposal with respect to HRA charges for 2017/18 is that no increase be
applied in respect of Non Dwellings rents including garages and hard
standing.
20. In addition to managing the Council’s housing stock Rykneld Homes also
provide support in delivering the Council’s Homelessness service. Currently
there are four furnished HRA properties reserved for this purpose, two with
three bedrooms and two with one bedroom. It is proposed to apply
government rent policy and to apply a further 1% reduction to these
properties from 1st April 2017.
Level of HRA Balances
21. Given the greater level of uncertainty associated with a localised HRA
Council has previously accepted that a robust level of balances is
necessary to provide an appropriate level of financial resilience to the
account. On the basis of the HRA Risk Register, the position at other
authorities and a general reasonableness test it is considered appropriate to
maintain a level of HRA general balances in the region of £3m over the
period of the current MTFP. At this level of HRA balances there is
effectively a reserve of £375 per property. One factor in not seeking to
33
further enhance the level of balances is that this could only be funded by a
reduced contribution to the Development Reserve, which is used to acquire
additional properties. These properties generate an additional income
stream which will help secure the longer term sustainability of the HRA.
22. In the light of the HRA Risk Register which is provided as Table 2 to this
Appendix (which indicates a notional level of risk of £2.3m), a level of
working balances in the region of £3m would appear to be adequate and
provide a sound base for the medium term financial management of the
HRA.
HRA Risk Register
23. A financial Risk Assessment is set out in Table 3, which outlines the risks,
the mitigation which is in place, the potential impact and the probability of
the event occurring in order to arrive at a notional calculation concerning the
potential financial impact of the risks which the Council is currently facing.
This indicates that the identified risks which the Council’s HRA is currently
managing amount to £2.3m. This report recommends that during the course
of this MTFP that the HRA continues to operate a policy of maintaining a
housing general balance of £3m which is broadly in line with the level of
identified risk.
24. The assessment concerning the level of risk is essentially used for two
purposes. In the first place an understanding of the risks which the Council
faces is crucial in agreeing an appropriate level of financial reserves which
are required. Secondly, the identification of the risks is the first stage in the
process of more effectively managing, or of mitigating those risks. By
identifying the risks it is possible to avoid them, to insure against them, to
transfer the risk, or most likely actions can be taken to reduce or to mitigate
the risk. The Council’s Financial Risk Register is closely linked to both the
Strategic and Operational Risk Registers. The Council has in place a
comprehensive approach to Risk Management which is reported on a
regular basis to Council, and this process will continue to be utilised in order
to manage key financial risks.
25. Given that the reformed or localised HRA is now established there has been
a change in the nature of the strategic risks facing the HRA. While it was
originally envisaged that the HRA should benefit from greater financial
certainty as a result of the ending of annual central government financial
settlements, in reality over the 5 years since the introduction of the localised
HRA there has been considerable instability arising from Central
Government introducing reforms to rent setting policy, further incentivising
Right to Buy applications and other changes in tenure which have
generated significant levels of financial instability in the system. Careful
planning has served to mitigate the impact upon our tenants. Given the
34
background of localism there is a clear requirement to promote stability in
financial matters and service delivery by planning within the context of a
robust 30 year Business Plan. The HRA Business Plan and Treasury
Management Strategy are both crucial elements in mitigating the risk of
financial instability or non sustainability for our local HRA housing stock.
Both our tenants and the Council have a greater degree of influence under
the new system but this increased level of local influence operates within
the context of a framework where rent levels will continue to be set
nationally, where the housing stock is required, at a minimum, to meet the
Decent Homes standard, and where a continued good level of service is
required to meet tenant expectations.
26. While much has been made of the difficulties experienced by local authority
housing operations under the previous system where financial resources
were determined on an annual basis, it needs to be recognised that the
previous system also had important flexibilities built into it. In particular the
annual settlement acknowledged issues such as reductions in the level of
stock arising from demolition, transfer and right to buy, while it also took
account of changes in the costs of operating a housing service. These risks
were effectively those of central government and the national housing pool.
With the introduction of HRA reform these risks now need to be managed
locally, and they emphasise the importance of robust local planning and
financial control in the effective management of our Housing stock.
Recommendations
27.
a)
That Council sets its rent levels in line with Government regulations
reducing rent levels by an amount of 1% to apply from 1 April 2017.
b)
That the rent in respect of Homeless Units be reduced by 1% in line
with government regulations, while charges for garages and related
services remain at 2016/17 levels.
c)
That the level of general HRA balances be maintained at a figure of
£3m across the period covered by the proposed Medium Term
Financial Plan.
d)
The Medium Term Financial Plan in respect of the Housing Revenue
Account as set out in Appendix 2 Table 1 be approved as the
Estimated Outturn Budget in respect of 2016/17, as the Original
Budget in respect of 2017/18, and the financial projection in respect of
2018/19 to 2020/21.
e) That the above recommendations be referred by Cabinet to the
Council meeting of 20th February 2017 for approval.
35
APPENDIX 2 Table 2
HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT: RISK REGISTER
Risk and Mitigation in Place
1. Capital Expenditure
• Any significant overspend on the capital
programme may require an additional
contribution from the HRA to finance.
• Regular contract management and capital
budget monitoring meetings will manage
the HRA capital programme.
2. With effect from April 2012 the
Government introduced a new financial
regime to manage the HRA. This reform
effectively transferred a number of risks
from the national HRA pool to individual
local authorities. These include reduction
in property numbers from RTB, demolition,
failure to increase rents in line with
Government policy, etc.
• While the new system brings with it
uncertainty and associated risks the
flexibility incorporated within the system
means that risks are more likely to
materialise in respect of the longer term
sustainability of the HRA. The indicative
figures provided cover the initial year
impact only.
• While the Council will monitor the impact of
trends in respect of the HRA through its
budgets and the Business Plan it needs to
be recognised that many of the risks arise
from situations beyond the Council’s direct
control such as the loss of stock through
Right to Buy, or through elements of the
housing stock not being economically
sustainable.
3.There are unanticipated pressures on
demand led budgets such as repairs and
maintenance, or costs or income fall (eg
Supporting People funding) outside of the
budgeted position.
• All budgets are based on previous
36
Gross
Probability Potential
Value of
Impact £’s
Risk £’s
£10,000,000
10%
£1,000,000
£2,000,000
25%
£500,000
£1,000,000
30%
£300,000
experience of expenditure / income and
should be sufficiently robust to cope with
the expected range of fluctuation.
4. A significant Business Continuity issue
arises.
• The Council have developing Business
Continuity Plans which should reduce
these risks.
• Appropriate insurance arrangements are in
place.
• In exceptional circumstances Central
Government has provided an element of
financial support.
£2,000,000
5. Rental collections fall as a result of the
£500,000
wider economic position and major
changes being introduced to the welfare
system, including Universal Credit.
• Assumed income levels have been
calculated on the basis of previous
experience and are based on prudent
assumptions with appropriate bad debt
provisions in place.
• The Council will work with tenants to
maximise benefits eligibility and to ensure
rent payments are kept up to date.
• The Council has appropriate procedures for
the recovery of arrears and has established
appropriate financial provisions should
write offs be required.
6. The level of void property is above the
£500,000
budgeted allowance.
• Void levels have fluctuated quite
significantly as major works and plans
are undertaken. A void allowance is
built into the main rental budgets to
minimise this variance.
Calculated Potential Financial Impact of
Identified Risks
37
10%
£200,000
30%
£150,000
30%
£150,000
£2,300,000
APPENDIX 3
Capital Programme
Introduction
1.
This Appendix considers the Medium Term Financial Plan as it relates to the Council’s
capital programme.
2.
The proposed Capital Programme for both 2016/17 (Estimated Outturn) and
Programme for 2017/18 to 2020/21 are detailed in Table 1 to this Appendix.
3.
It should be noted that there will be a separate report to Council concerning the
Council’s Treasury Management Strategy. That report includes consideration of
borrowing and investment plans which provide the capital financing to fund the
proposed capital budgets. Given its links with the budget process the Treasury
Management Strategy will be considered at the budget setting Council on 13th February
2017.
4.
A particular issue for the HRA is that its capital investment strategy will need to be
shaped by the requirement to undertake replacement of items such as central heating
boilers, bathrooms and kitchens as they are due for replacement at the end of their
effective life. This results in investment needs being concentrated into certain periods
rather than being spread evenly over the 30 year life of the Business Plan. Accordingly
at certain points in time the HRA needs to have adequate financial balances to fund the
investment required to maintain decent homes. A clear consequence of poor financial
planning will be deterioration in the quality of the homes currently enjoyed by our
tenants.
5.
An overview of the scale of the current approved and proposed capital programme is
provided in the table below:
General Fund
Schemes
HRA Schemes
Total
2016/17
Est
Outturn
£,000
3,355
13,064
16,419
2017/18
Original
£,000
2018/19
Original
£,000
2019/20
Original
£,000
2020/21
Original
£,000
765
1,129
1,083
2,158
14,792
15,557
9,275
10,404
9,000
10,083
9,000
11,158
38
Capital Programme – Estimated Outturn 2016/17
6.
The Estimated Outturn in respect of the current financial year, which is detailed in
Appendix 3 Table 1, is an increase of £0.102m over the Current Programme approved
in November. This relates to a rolling forward of an ICT scheme that has taken place in
2016/17 rather than in future years.
With respect to the 2016/17 Capital Programme the key schemes are the start of work
on site in respect of the North Wingfield scheme. The Capital Works programme for
the Council’s housing stock should help ensure that the Council continues to provide
high quality homes for our tenants. On the General Fund programme the main scheme
has been the refurbishment work undertaken at the Leisure Centres which was
approved on an Invest to Save basis, with the costs of refurbishment being met in
future years from additional income which will secure a significant reduction in the
costs of operating these facilities.
General Fund Programme 2017/18 and future years
7.
Within the General Fund table are the capital expenditure plans for 2017/18 and future
years. The following are the key schemes.
•
•
•
•
An Asset Refurbishment sum of £150,000 p.a. to allow the Council to address
issues which arise during the course of the year. The expenditure concerned
has generally been previously identified within the Council’s Asset Management
Plan.
Replacement of Vehicles: On a periodic basis the Council is required to replace
its vehicles which are funded by prudential borrowing which is the most cost
effective means for funding these purchases. The expenditure and borrowing
outlined within the Capital Programme in respect of the vehicle fleet was
approved by Council as part of last years MTFP and Treasury Management
Strategy and the process of acquiring the vehicles concerned is largely
complete.
ICT infrastructure – The overall cost of this work over the period of the current
MTFP (April 2016 onwards) is one of £0.432m which will be funded from
capital receipts thus removing these costs from having to be charged against
revenue budgets.
Disabled Facilities Grants – £0.393m. Over the last few years the capital budget
sum proposed for DFG’s has been in line with the anticipated grant to be
received. It is proposed that the continuation of this arrangement should be
assumed within the capital programme for the future years of the MTFP. In
respect of the current financial year it has, however, proved necessary to
increase the Programme to one of £0.600m with part of the additional costs
being funded by capital receipts. Given that the service is a statutory one it is
effectively ‘demand led’ with the Council being required to meet any gap
between expenditure and the level of grant available. Within the Programme for
39
next year we have assumed a grant level of £0.393m, however, the level of
grant which will be available remains subject to confirmation.
8.
The sections above have outlined the main elements of the Programme and the
proposed financing. For those scheme where no specific funding has been identified the
work will need to be funded by Capital Receipts. As at April 2017 it is anticipated that
there will be sufficient unutilised capital receipts remaining which will cover the funding
of General Fund schemes over the period of the current MTFP. In order to ensure the
continued funding of the capital programme it is recommended that the Asset
Management Group continue to develop options in terms of asset sales to fund the
capital programme for future years. It should be noted that asset sales of underutilised
assets generally also secure both revenue savings for the Council whilst facilitationg
investment from the purchaser of the asset concerned. This makes an important
contribution to delivering the Council’s growth agenda.
HRA Capital Expenditure
9.
The larger element of the Council’s Capital Programme is that which relates to work on
council dwellings. The Council’s capital programme for 2017/18 onwards in respect of
its Major Works Programme amounts to £9m. This is significantly reduced from
previous financial years which reflects the fact that expenditure levels are now
determined by the arrangements put into place by the HRA self financing arrangements.
These require local authorities to fund the capital necessary to maintain their houses in
line with the decent homes standard either from the revenue generated by the HRA, or
by borrowing up to the level of the housing debt cap which has been set by the
Government (£178.984m in the case of NEDDC). One of the purposes of developing a
30 year Business Plan is to assure local authoritiesthat they are in a position to maintain
their property, and that the necessary level of capital expenditure on the properties can
be afforded. On the basis of the 30 year Business Plan together with information
detailed in the current Stock Condition survey officers are of the view that the stock can
be maintained at the Decent Homes standard.
10. The Council will continue to explore options for attracting external funding to promote
specific schemes within the HRA. Given the number of non traditional houses held by
the Council replacement of some of these properties is likely to be necessary over the
coming years. The Capital Programme 2017/18 – 2020/21 does include a new build
scheme at North Wingfield which will provide new homes for social rent, affordable rent
and shared ownership. The estimated scheme costs of £4.902m have been included in
the Capital Programme, funded by HCA grant (£0.729m), a contribution from the
Development Reserve (£1.000m) and prudential borrowing (£3.173m).
11. As part of the process of developing this scheme at North Wingfield careful
consideration has been given to the issue of its affordability within the context of the
HRA Business Plan. Given the availability of both HCA grant and funding from the HRA
development reserve some 35% of the costs will be funded without the requirement to
incur the ongoing revenue costs arising from prudential borrowing.
40
12. Linked to the above project and a key part of attracting HCA grant is that part of the
scheme which will be undertaken through Rykneld Homes as a Registered Provider
(RP). This element of the project will see affordable rent and shared ownership
properties being built and managed by the RP. The total estimated costs of this part of
the project is £2.692m funded by HCA grant (£0.544m), shared ownership sales
(£0.614m) and General Fund prudential borrowing which will also need to cover shared
ownership income pending the securing of the shared ownership receipts. The Treasury
Management Strategy reflects the borrowing requirements of the scheme with the cost
of borrowing (debt charges) being met by Rykneld Homes through the rental income
received on the RP properties.
13.
As outlined within the covering report a stock purchase scheme is recommended for
inclusion with the Programme in respect of 2017/18 and future years. This scheme is
proposed because it will be able to utilise ‘one for one’ capital receipts which the Council
is allowed to retain by central government on the basis that they are used to acquire
additional housing stock to replace that which has been bought under Right to Buy. These
receipts can cover up to 30% of the costs of acquisition of additional properties. Officers
are currently exploring options in respect of implementing the Stock Purchase scheme
and a further report will be taken to Cabinet setting out detailed proposals. The funding
for these acquisitions would be by way of one for one capital receipts (30%), together with
a contribution from the Development Reserve which is funded from annual contributions
from the HRA. Where there are insufficient resources within the Development Reserve
then it will be necessary to utilise Prudential Borrowing to match fund this programme.
Within the Capital Programme set out in this MTFP is a provision for up to £1.5m of
Prudential Borrowing to be undertaken. All proposed purchases will be subject to a
financial appraisal being undertaken which demonstrates that the purchase provides
value for money, and that the Council complies with the requirements of the Prudential
Code in respect of prudence, affordability and sustainability. It should be noted that if the
Council fails to utilise these One for One receipts to fund acquiring additional properties
then they will need to be returned to the Government.
14. The change to the HRA rent setting policy as outlined in Appendix 2 to this report will
have a significant impact on the ability of the Council to afford new build schemes in the
future. This will be further exacerbated to the extent to which HCA funding is targeted at
shared ownership rather than at social rented housing. Against this background the
Council will continue to asses any proposals for new build within the context of
affordability against the HRA Business Plan. Given the reduced capacity of the HRA to
generate revenue and the potential withdrawal of HCA grants it is envisaged that there
will be a reduced capacity to fund similar schemes in the future.
41
Capital Programme Risk Assessment – 2017/18
15.
16.
A full Risk Assessment is set out in Table 2, which outlines the risks, the mitigation
which is in place, the potential impact and the probability in order to arrive at a notional
calculation concerning the potential financial impact of the risks which the Council is
facing with regard to the proposed 2017/18 capital programme. This indicates that the
identified risks which the Council is facing in respect of its 2017/18 Capital Programme
amount to £1m. Should any of these risks arise then all possible financing options will
be explored, however, if all these risks materialise then it may be necessary ultimately
to charge these costs against General Fund or HRA balances.
As is the case in respect of both the General Fund and the HRA the assessment
concerning the level of risk is essentially used for two purposes. In the first place an
understanding of the risks which the Council faces is crucial in agreeing an
appropriate level of financial reserves which are required. Secondly, the identification
of the risks is the first stage in the process of more effectively managing, or of
mitigating those risks. By identifying the risks it is possible to avoid them, to insure
against them, to transfer the risk, or most likely actions can be taken to reduce or to
mitigate the risk. The Council has in place a comprehensive approach to Risk
Management which is reported on a quarterly basis to Cabinet, and this process will
be utilised in order to manage the key financial risks.
Recommendations:
17.
a) The Medium Term Financial Plan in respect of the Capital Programme as set out in
Appendix 3 Table 1 be approved as the Estimated Outturn in respect of 2016/17,
and as the Original Programme in respect of 2017/18 to 2020/21.
b) That Council approve the financial provision for the proposed Stock Purchase
scheme at a total cost of £3.2m (funded by £0.96m of One for One receipts, the
Development Reserve and prudential borrowing of up to £1.5m where necessary),
on the basis that a further report setting out the details of the proposals be agreed
by Cabinet.
c) The Asset Management Group be requested to continue with its work of identifying
suitable assets for disposal or redevelopment in order to fund the Council’s Capital
Programme, reduce revenue costs and support the wider regeneration of the
District.
d) That the above recommendations be referred by Cabinet to the Council meeting of
20th February 2017 for approval.
42
CAPITAL PROGRAMME RISK REGISTER – 2017/18
Risk and Mitigation in Place
APPENDIX 3, TABLE 2
Gross
Probability
Value of
Risk £’s
5%
£16,000,000
1. Cost Overruns on Approved Projects
• Financial monitoring including formal
reports to Members is undertaken on
a regular basis which should enable
mitigating action to be taken.
• The expenditure is programmed
across a range of smaller schemes
so if significant funding issues arise it
should be possible to delay individual
projects.
• The Council have robust
management arrangements in place.
• The Financial Risk Registers in
respect of both General Fund and
HRA include the risk of an unfunded
overspend arising on the Capital
Programme.
£500,000
2. Reduction in the forecast level of
capital resources.
• The assumptions that have been
made in respect of 2016/17 are
realistic and prudent.
• Should any issues be identified which
casts doubt upon the level of
resources included in the Programme
then Officers will take any necessary
actions to reduce the level of
expenditure commitments.
3. An unanticipated capital requirement £500,000
arises which requires funding as a
matter of urgency.
• Existing approved projects may need
to be reprofiled into future years
• Additional capital resources may
need to be identified
• A charge against revenue balances
43
Potential
Impact
£’s
£800,000
20% £100,000
20%
£100,000
may need to be considered.
Calculated Potential Financial Impact of
Identified Risks
£1,000,000
44
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 2017/18 - 2020/21
Estimated
Outturn
2016/17
£
Growth
Transformation
Operations
Bad Debt Provisions
Recharges to Capital and HRA
Savings Target
APPENDIX 1, Table 1
Original
Budget
2017/18
£
Original
Budget
2018/19
£
Original
Budget
2019/20
£
Original
Budget
2020/21
£
3,172,463
3,853,752
5,714,007
40,000
(527,500)
0
3,382,582
2,225,195
6,046,880
40,000
(527,500)
(513,089)
3,275,043
2,211,212
6,095,917
40,000
(527,500)
(1,050,042)
3,234,682
2,263,098
6,218,092
40,000
(527,500)
(1,455,837)
3,271,394
2,327,052
6,236,667
40,000
(527,500)
(1,863,033)
Net Cost of Services
12,252,722
10,654,068
10,044,630
9,772,535
9,484,580
Investment Properties
Interest Charges
Debt Repayment Minimum Revenue Provision
Parish Precepts
Parish Council Tax Support Grant
Transfer to General Fund Balances
Transfer To Earmarked Reserves
Transfer From Earmarked Reserves
(264,225)
56,390
256,000
2,893,566
281,525
0
567,785
(1,918,986)
(375,290)
17,069
256,000
2,893,566
211,144
0
23,000
(856,281)
(373,600)
(39,886)
256,000
2,893,566
140,763
0
23,000
(70,440)
(371,860)
(37,726)
256,000
2,893,566
70,382
0
23,000
(3,000)
(370,060)
(30,448)
256,000
2,893,566
0
0
23,000
(3,000)
Total Spending Requirement
14,124,777
12,823,276
12,874,033
12,602,897
12,253,638
Business Rate Retention
Business Rate Pooling
Collection Fund (Surplus)/Deficit - Business Rates
Revenue Support Grant
Use of New Homes Bonus
Collection Fund (Surplus)/Deficit - Council Tax
NEDDC Council Tax Requirement
Parish Council Council Tax Requirement
(3,150,000)
(150,000)
0
(1,294,946)
(1,214,317)
(106,991)
(5,314,957)
(2,893,566)
(3,150,000)
(150,000)
639,406
(706,487)
(1,090,832)
(106,204)
(5,365,593)
(2,893,566)
(3,150,000)
0
0
(340,803)
(1,024,071)
(100,000)
(5,365,593)
(2,893,566)
(3,150,000)
0
0
0
(1,093,738)
(100,000)
(5,365,593)
(2,893,566)
(3,150,000)
0
0
0
(744,479)
(100,000)
(5,365,593)
(2,893,566)
Council Tax Requirement
(14,124,777)
(12,823,276) (12,874,033)
(12,602,897) (12,253,638)
Appendix 1, Table 2
GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT : 2017/18 - 2020/21
Estimated
Outturn
2016/17
£
Original
Budget
2017/18
£
Original
Budget
2018/19
£
Original
Budget
2019/20
£
Original
Budget
2020/21
£
Growth Directorate
Chief Executive
1142 Chief Executive's Office
1143 Growth Director
1331 Strategic Partnerships
1332 Strategic Partnership Projects
1333 Healthy North East Derbyshire
1334 NE Business Growth Fund
4352 LEADER
4443 Elderly Peoples Clubs
5785 Contributions
114,353
0
91,316
3,000
(9,742)
8,060
0
4,000
133,959
112,615
10,000
93,967
3,000
16,081
0
0
4,000
133,779
115,649
2,500
95,447
3,000
0
0
0
4,000
133,779
116,679
0
96,420
3,000
0
0
0
4,000
133,779
117,872
0
97,401
3,000
0
0
0
4,000
133,779
Assistant Director Economic Growth
3165 Housing Options Team
3740 Strategic Housing
3741 Housing Ambition
3742 Empty Properties
3747 Homeless Units
3748 Homelessness Grant
3751 Care Call System
4211 Tourism Promotion
4238 Working Communities
4239 Ambition
4351 Alliance
4512 Growth Agenda
4517 Economic Development
4518 Callywhite Lane
4526 Sheffield City Region
5750 AD Economic Growth
169,763
70,982
50,374
2,299
2,600
36,050
(20,000)
19,170
79,896
0
3,350
24,011
155,699
30,000
4,000
36,335
166,476
79,602
49,932
0
2,600
36,050
(20,000)
19,170
78,816
0
3,350
8,000
160,168
0
4,000
37,332
169,100
81,487
1,000
0
2,600
36,050
(20,000)
19,170
77,480
0
3,350
8,000
161,461
0
4,000
37,692
170,662
83,448
1,000
0
2,600
36,050
(20,000)
19,170
78,225
0
3,350
8,000
162,769
0
4,000
38,065
172,238
84,236
1,000
0
2,600
36,050
(20,000)
19,170
78,977
0
3,350
8,000
164,088
0
4,000
38,443
97,004
125,831
101,781
(64,220)
84,165
29,434
31,703
177,846
53,112
1,000
5,000
0
(572,400)
31,783
305,787
19,710
34,748
556,368
101,350
84,943
138,442
104,582
(61,074)
86,938
30,219
30,803
168,540
53,593
1,000
5,000
0
(372,400)
0
406,852
19,710
35,099
496,760
101,350
86,739
140,789
105,810
(60,006)
87,725
30,653
31,545
169,915
54,118
1,000
5,000
0
(372,400)
0
341,489
19,710
35,454
508,918
101,350
87,656
134,609
106,603
(59,377)
88,521
31,090
32,299
171,326
54,649
1,000
5,000
0
(372,400)
0
277,184
19,710
35,775
518,934
101,350
88,417
143,954
106,275
(58,809)
89,238
30,776
32,576
172,599
55,126
1,000
5,000
0
(372,400)
0
279,730
19,710
36,173
525,382
101,350
452,290
8,220
0
0
0
0
0
28,986
7,100
2,245
197,384
38,942
149,228
47,195
111,396
452,921
13,170
0
0
0
0
0
30,009
7,100
3,430
208,935
39,283
132,233
48,582
117,624
453,135
13,170
0
0
0
0
0
30,318
7,100
3,430
197,450
39,637
137,887
49,070
120,272
453,351
13,170
0
0
0
0
0
30,630
7,100
3,430
198,242
39,959
142,226
49,563
121,865
453,568
13,170
0
0
0
0
0
30,945
7,100
3,430
199,044
40,357
144,637
50,060
124,782
3,172,463
3,382,582
3,275,043
3,234,682
3,271,394
Assistant Director Planning & Environmental Health
3400 Environment Protection
3401 Food, Health & Safety
3402 Environmental Enforcement
3404 Licensing
3405 Housing & Pollution
3407 Pest Control
3408 Affordable Warmth
3409 EH Technical Support & Management
3410 Private Sector Housing
3419 Destitute Funerals
3420 Fly Tipping
3726 Works in Default
4111 Planning Applications & Advice
4113 Planning Appeals
4116 Planning Policy
4311 Environmental Conservation
4511 AD Planning and Environmental Health
4513 Planning Section
4515 Building Control
Assistant Director Governance & Monitoring Officer
1121 Members Services
1123 Chair’s Expenses
1131 District Elections
1133 Parish Elections
1135
1137
1139
European Elections
Parliamentary Elections
County Council Elections
5219
5249
5273
5313
5321
5353
5392
5711
Corporate Support Unit
Twinning Expenses
Brass Band Concert
Register Of Electors
Monitoring
Legal Section
Scrutiny
Democratic Services
Total for Growth Directorate
Appendix 1, Table 2
GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT : 2017/18 - 2020/21
Estimated
Outturn
2016/17
Original
Budget
2017/18
Original
Budget
2018/19
Original
Budget
2019/20
Original
Budget
2020/21
Operations Directorate
Executive Director
5700 Director of Operations
5720 Supporting PA's
51,372
79,159
52,967
80,562
53,485
81,374
54,018
82,195
54,558
83,024
Assistant Director Community Safety
1218 Community Safety
1220 AD Community Safety
37,734
3,457
39,566
3,589
40,093
3,719
40,623
3,751
41,160
3,791
1,690
(62,000)
14,072
67,500
75,500
(185,600)
34,008
106,600
41,800
314,650
2,300
5,030
0
965,000
434,809
48,551
(22,741)
203,590
26,490
415
1,690
(62,000)
14,328
67,500
81,500
(185,600)
35,916
104,520
38,300
298,355
2,300
4,635
45,000
971,015
468,386
49,343
(21,385)
199,329
24,870
0
1,690
(62,000)
14,476
67,500
81,500
(185,600)
37,262
107,660
38,300
301,545
2,300
4,240
45,000
956,530
476,228
49,822
(20,557)
203,749
14,870
0
1,690
(62,000)
14,627
67,500
81,500
(185,600)
37,635
107,660
38,300
304,761
2,300
3,830
45,000
940,689
483,931
50,305
(19,724)
208,405
14,870
0
1,690
(62,000)
14,778
67,500
81,500
(185,600)
38,013
107,660
38,300
308,009
2,300
3,420
45,000
940,689
486,921
50,792
(18,889)
212,505
14,870
0
17,297
62,821
33,460
5,870
800
6,600
(1,840)
(41,450)
(67,510)
247,182
33,666
253,498
83,640
8,570
24,685
77,396
33,990
6,000
800
100
(1,190)
(44,750)
(55,131)
287,048
34,944
278,649
112,570
(11,748)
21,730
74,248
34,520
6,000
800
100
(510)
(44,230)
(51,275)
294,110
36,244
295,026
112,570
(10,310)
22,277
77,611
35,060
6,000
800
100
210
(43,690)
(47,266)
300,754
36,565
301,565
112,570
(10,864)
22,829
79,102
35,610
6,000
800
100
950
(43,120)
(43,084)
303,682
36,963
307,344
112,570
(9,069)
256,572
308,940
(359,170)
92,001
2,810
(46,670)
(7,350)
(45,335)
(14,950)
(46,300)
607,710
0
702,655
1,669,600
(160,111)
(132,385)
295,362
320,940
(359,170)
95,403
2,870
(46,560)
(7,340)
(45,335)
(14,930)
(45,800)
617,980
0
749,726
1,717,213
(159,003)
(132,525)
300,958
309,740
(359,170)
97,306
2,930
(46,450)
(7,330)
(45,335)
(14,910)
(45,800)
623,221
0
743,827
1,745,685
(158,344)
(132,620)
305,731
309,740
(359,170)
99,691
2,990
(46,340)
(7,320)
(45,335)
(14,890)
(45,800)
638,780
0
795,910
1,766,620
(157,678)
(132,795)
309,074
309,740
(359,170)
102,147
3,050
(46,230)
(7,310)
(45,335)
(14,870)
(45,800)
584,559
0
822,871
1,773,729
(157,005)
(133,450)
5,714,007
6,046,880
6,095,917
6,218,092
6,236,668
Assistant Director Finance, Revenues & Benefits
3176 Pool Car Suspense
3512 CBC Crematorium
5113 Unison Duties
5611 External Audit
5615 Bank Charges
5621 Contributions - HRA
5705 AD Finance, Revenues & Benefits
5713 Internal Audit Service
5714 Procurement
5721 Financial Support Services
5723 Housing Act Advances
5724 Insurances
5725 Apprenticeship Levy
5727 Cost Of Ex-Employees
5741 Housing Benefit Service
5747 Debtors
5751 NNDR Collection
5759 Council Tax Administration
5781 Village Hall Grants
5782 Playing Field Grant
Assistant Director Propery & Estates
3135 Drainage
3172 Engineers
3241 Car Parks
3247 Street Names/Lights
3249 Footpath Orders
3265 Dams & Fishing Ponds
3281 Clay Cross Depot
4412 Midway Business Centre
4425 Coney Green Business Centre
4523 Estates Administration
5204 AD Property & Estates
5205 Mill Lane Redevelopment
5209 Facilities Management
5210 Pioneer House
Assistant Director Street Scene
3174 Outside Services Client
3227 Material Recycling
3244 Parks DCC Agency
3282 Eckington Depot
3285 Dronfield Bulk Depot
3511 Hasland Cemetery
3513 Temple Normanton Cemetery
3514 Clay Cross Cemetery
3516 Killamarsh Cemetery
3918 Dog Fouling Bins
3921 Street Cleaning Service
3943 Transport
3944 Grounds Maintenance
3945 Domestic Waste Collection
3946 Commercial Waste Collection
3951 Playing Fields General
Total for Operations Directorate
Appendix 1, Table 2
GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT : 2017/18 - 2020/21
Estimated
Outturn
2016/17
Original
Budget
2017/18
Original
Budget
2018/19
Original
Budget
2019/20
Original
Budget
2020/21
Investment Properties
4411 Stonebroom Industrial Estate
4413 Clay Cross Industrial Estate
4415 Norwood Industrial Estate
4417 Eckington Business Park
4418 Rotherside Court
4419 Ridgeway Craft Centre
4423 Pavillion Workshops Holmewood
4432 Misc Properties
4435 Ankerbold Road
(39,980)
(67,480)
(172,540)
(22,150)
(23,365)
3,210
(58,200)
41,200
75,080
(43,220)
(71,910)
(191,590)
(22,150)
(27,080)
0
(62,600)
43,260
0
(43,080)
(71,840)
(191,350)
(22,150)
(26,780)
0
(62,500)
44,100
0
(42,940)
(71,770)
(191,090)
(22,150)
(26,470)
0
(62,400)
44,960
0
(42,790)
(71,690)
(190,830)
(22,150)
(26,150)
0
(62,300)
45,850
0
Total for Investment Properties
(264,225)
(375,290)
(373,600)
(371,860)
(370,060)
Executive Director
4500 Director of Transformation
5215 Telephony
5701 Joint ICT Service
5734 NEDDC ICT Services
5737 Corporate Printing
51,604
23,350
0
523,699
23,190
53,202
24,430
0
494,319
23,190
53,720
24,430
0
499,486
23,190
54,253
24,430
0
506,958
23,190
54,792
27,000
0
512,605
23,190
Assistant Director Customer Services, Strategy & Performance
1250 AD Customer Services, Performance & Strategy
1255 Performance & Improvement
1256 Corporate Consultation
1315 Design & Print
1321 Communications & Marketing
1323 NEDDC Newspaper
1329 Corporate Web Site
5221 NEDDC Call Centre
5223 Franking Machine
5825 Concessionary Fares
34,763
91,563
17,296
81,744
54,401
25,860
9,830
359,107
3,440
(9,790)
35,124
97,419
16,398
83,151
55,559
26,610
900
364,965
3,460
(9,870)
35,479
100,100
16,512
84,379
56,915
26,610
900
369,078
3,460
(9,870)
35,800
102,088
16,629
85,117
57,544
26,610
900
372,893
3,460
(9,870)
36,198
103,132
16,746
85,861
58,130
26,610
900
378,870
3,460
(9,870)
16,400
106,417
35,033
0
0
0
0
0
0
28,657
6,100
15,500
2,800
1,175,618
413,009
290,205
(2,200)
16,400
85,323
35,384
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,153
6,100
15,500
2,800
81,245
1,826
305,532
(1,000)
16,400
86,639
35,739
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,439
5,400
15,500
2,800
61,550
(19,498)
310,718
(1,000)
16,400
87,949
36,060
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,728
0
15,500
2,800
71,886
(862)
316,846
(1,000)
16,400
88,290
36,458
0
0
0
0
0
0
30,020
0
15,500
2,800
82,252
14,600
332,974
(1,000)
46,190
10,010
34,210
262,825
61,232
61,689
12,430
10,010
35,809
213,126
61,115
45,587
12,430
10,010
36,164
214,838
63,262
46,434
12,430
10,010
36,485
216,769
65,274
46,822
12,430
10,010
36,883
218,410
66,187
47,214
3,853,752
2,225,197
2,211,214
2,263,099
2,327,052
Transformation Directorate
Assistant Director Leisure
1283 Emergency Planning
4561 Leisure Centre Management
4600 AD Leisure
4720 Sportivate
4721 Mighty Creative Project
4725 Village Games
4726 Walking for health
4727 Five 60
4728 PCT Retained Funds
4731 Prom Rec & Leisure
4732 Schools Promotion
4736 Derby Sports Forum
4742 Arts Development
8441 Eckington Swimming Pool
8451 Dronfield Sports Centre
8461 Sharley Park Lesiure Centre
8465 SPLC Outdoor
Assistant Director HR & Payroll
1231 Corporate Training
1259 Corporate Groups
1310 AD Human Resources and Payroll
1311 Human Resources
1312 Payroll
3121 Health & Safety Advisor
Total for Transformation Directorate
Housing Revenue Account 2016/17 - 2020/21
Estimated
Outturn
2016/17
INCOME
Dwelling Rents
Non-Dwelling Rents
Charges for Services and Facilities
Contributions Towards Expenditure
INCOME TOTAL
EXPENDITURE
Repairs & Maintenance
Supervision & Management
Rents, Rates & Taxes
Depreciation
Impairment
Provision for Doubtful Debts
Debt Management Expenses
EXPENDITURE TOTAL
NET COST OF SERVICES
Corporate & Democratic Core
NET COST OF HRA SERVICES
HRA Debt, and Reserve charges
Interest Payable
Interest Receivable
Contribution to Major Repairs Reserve
Contribution to Development Reserve
HRA Insurance Reserve
Debt Repayment
(Surplus)/Deficit on HRA Services
Opening HRA Balance
Transfers (to)/from Balances
Transfers (to)/from Balances
Closing HRA Balance
APPENDIX 2 Table 1
Original
Budget
2019/20
Original
Budget
2020/21
(31,096,696)
(369,910)
(456,220)
(320,000)
(31,224,758)
(369,910)
(456,220)
(320,000)
(30,699,677)
(369,910)
(456,220)
(320,000)
(33,239,375) (32,790,432) (32,242,826)
(32,370,888)
(31,845,807)
(32,093,260)
(369,895)
(456,220)
(320,000)
Original
Budget
2017/18
Original
Budget
2018/19
(31,644,302)
(369,910)
(456,220)
(320,000)
5,218,759
7,040,537
130,000
7,050,000
0
175,000
11,500
5,218,699
7,125,716
130,000
7,050,000
0
250,000
11,500
5,218,699
7,105,201
130,000
7,050,000
0
250,000
11,500
5,218,699
7,086,042
130,000
7,050,000
0
250,000
11,500
5,218,699
7,068,303
130,000
7,050,000
0
250,000
11,500
19,625,796
19,785,915
19,765,400
19,746,241
19,728,502
(13,613,579) (13,004,517) (12,477,426)
(12,624,647)
(12,117,305)
185,450
185,450
185,450
(13,428,129) (12,819,067) (12,291,976)
(12,439,197)
(11,931,855)
185,450
185,450
5,370,400
(27,200)
2,189,000
1,516,584
50,000
4,300,000
5,379,008
(27,054)
2,450,000
667,113
50,000
4,300,000
5,396,348
(28,633)
1,950,000
624,261
50,000
4,300,000
5,312,356
(32,258)
1,950,000
859,099
50,000
4,300,000
5,292,680
(34,325)
1,950,000
373,500
50,000
4,300,000
(29,345)
0
0
0
0
(2,970,655)
(29,345)
(3,000,000)
0
(3,000,000)
0
(3,000,000)
0
(3,000,000)
0
(3,000,000)
(3,000,000)
(3,000,000)
(3,000,000)
(3,000,000)
CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2016/17 to 2020/21
Capital Expenditure
Appendix 3, Table 1
Estimated
Outturn
2016/17
£
Original
Budget
2017/18
£
Original
Budget
2018/19
£
Original
Budget
2019/20
£
Original
Budget
2020/21
£
Housing Revenue Account
Capital Works - Council Housing
External Wall Insulation
Central Heating Project - DECC Funded
North Wingfield New Build Scheme
Stock Purchase Programme
10,164,000
25,000
340,000
2,535,000
0
9,500,000
0
0
2,092,000
3,200,000
9,000,000
0
0
275,000
0
9,000,000
0
0
0
0
9,000,000
0
0
0
0
HRA - Capital Expenditure
13,064,000
14,792,000
9,275,000
9,000,000
9,000,000
General Fund
Private Sector Housing Grants (DFG's)
Demolition Costs (Holmewood)
ICT Schemes
Clay Cross Football Pitch
Dronfield Play Lottery Fund
Asset Refurbishment - General
Asset Refurbishment - Southgate Shops
Asset Refurbishment - Midway BC
Asset Refurbishment - Car Park Resurfacing
Asset Refurbishment - Pioneer House
DSC Pool Refurbishment
Refurbishment of Mill Lane
Eckington/Dronfield Leisure Centre Refurbishment
Replacement of Vehicles
Contaminated Land
Sharley Park Leisure Centre Refurbishment
600,023
56,000
233,000
11,520
1,500
29,000
24,500
22,000
12,500
62,000
7,721
40,000
1,752,000
360,000
42,001
101,000
393,000
0
42,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180,000
0
0
393,000
0
51,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
535,000
0
0
393,000
0
16,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
524,000
0
0
393,000
0
90,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,525,000
0
0
General Fund Capital Expenditure
3,354,765
765,000
1,129,000
1,083,000
2,158,000
16,418,765
15,557,000
10,404,000
10,083,000
11,158,000
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
Total Capital Expenditure
Capital Financing
Housing Revenue Account
Major Repairs Reserve
Prudential Borrowing - HRA
External Grant - HCA
External Grant - DECC
Development Reserve
1-4-1 Receipts
HRA Capital Financing
2016/17
2020/21
(10,164,000) (9,500,000) (9,000,000) (9,000,000)
(1,184,000) (3,214,000)
(275,000)
0
(351,000)
(378,000)
0
0
(340,000)
0
0
0
(1,025,000)
(740,000)
0
0
0
(960,000)
0
0
(13,064,000) (14,792,000) (9,275,000) (9,000,000)
(9,000,000)
0
0
0
0
0
(9,000,000)
General Fund
Disabled Facilities Grant
External Grant - Lottery Funded Schemes
External Grant - Contaminated Land
Prudential Borrowing - Vehicles
RCCO - SPLC
RCCO - Leisure Centres
RCCO - Vehicles
RCCO - DSC
Useable Capital Receipts
(580,023)
(13,020)
(42,001)
(360,000)
(22,600)
(1,277,000)
(61,208)
(7,721)
(991,192)
(373,000)
0
0
(180,000)
(22,600)
0
(61,208)
0
(128,192)
(373,000)
0
0
(524,000)
0
0
(35,739)
0
(150,261)
(373,000)
0
0
(1,525,000)
0
0
0
0
(260,000)
General Fund Capital Financing
(3,354,765)
(765,000) (1,129,000) (1,083,000)
(2,158,000)
HRA Development Reserve
Opening Balance
Amount due in year
Amount used in year
Closing Balance
(94,895)
(1,516,584)
1,025,000
(586,479)
(586,479)
(513,592) (1,137,853)
(667,113)
(624,261)
(859,099)
740,000
0
0
(513,592) (1,137,853) (1,996,952)
(1,996,952)
(373,500)
0
(2,370,452)
Major Repairs Reserve
Opening Balance
Amount due in year
Amount used in year
Closing Balance
(1,038,595)
(113,595)
(113,595)
(113,595)
(9,239,000) (9,500,000) (9,000,000) (9,000,000)
10,164,000
9,500,000
9,000,000
9,000,000
(113,595)
(113,595)
(113,595)
(113,595)
(113,595)
(9,000,000)
9,000,000
(113,595)
Capital Receipts Reserve
Opening Balance
Income expected in year
Amount used in year
Closing Balance
(1,358,189)
(450,000)
991,192
(816,997)
Total Capital Financing
Check
(816,997)
(450,000)
1,088,192
(178,805)
(373,000)
0
0
(535,000)
(11,300)
0
(61,221)
0
(148,479)
(178,805)
(450,000)
148,479
(480,326)
(480,326)
(450,000)
150,261
(780,065)
(780,065)
(450,000)
260,000
(970,065)
(16,418,765) (15,557,000) (10,404,000) (10,083,000) (11,158,000)
0
0
0
0
0