Agenda, decisions and minutes

(a)        This meeting is to be webcast;

(b)        Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking; and

(c)        the Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the internet and will be capable of subsequent repeated viewing, with copies of the recording being made available for those that request it.

By being present at this meeting, it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in your image becoming part of the broadcast.

You should be aware that this may infringe your human and data protection rights, and if you have any concerns then please speak to the Webcasting Officer.

Please could I also remind Members and Officers to activate their microphones before speaking.”

The Leader of Council made a short address to remind all present that the meeting would be broadcast on the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

(Director of Governance) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Member Code of Conduct.

To receive verbal reports from Portfolio Holders on current issues concerning their areas of responsibility, which are not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

There were no verbal reports from Portfolio Holders on current issues concerning their areas of responsibility.

(Director of Governance) To receive any questions submitted by members of the public and any requests to address the Cabinet.

(a)        Public Questions

To answer questions asked by members of the public after notice in accordance with the provisions contained within Part 4 of the Constitution (Council Rules, rule Q3 refers) on any matter in relation to which the Cabinet has powers or duties or which affects the District.

(b)       Requests to Address the Cabinet

Any member of the public or a representative of another organisation may address the Cabinet on any agenda item (except those dealt with in private session as exempt or confidential business) due to be considered at the meeting, in accordance with the provisions contained within Article 7 of the Constitution (The Executive, paragraphs 27 & 28 refers).

There were no questions or requests to address the Cabinet received from the public for the Cabinet to consider.

The Cabinet noted that there was nothing to report by the Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, as the Committee had not met since the last regular meeting of the Cabinet on 1 September 2016.

(Asset Management & Economic Development Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached minutes from the meeting of the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, held on 22 August 2016, and any recommendations therein.

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, held on 22 August 2016, be noted.

The Portfolio Holder for Asset Management & Economic Development presented the minutes of the meeting of the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, held on 22 August 2016.

The Cabinet Committee had made a recommendation to the Cabinet concerning a Car Parking and Affordable Housing Plan at Vere Road in Loughton; however, this had been the subject of a separate report to the Cabinet on 1 September 2016 and had already been agreed. The Cabinet Committee had also considered a progress report on the Epping Forest Shopping Park.

Decision:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the Asset Management & Economic Development Cabinet Committee, held on 22 August 2016, be noted.

Reason for Decision:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options and that there were no further options to consider.

(Finance Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached minutes from the meeting of the Finance & Performance Management Cabinet Committee, held on 15 September 2016, and any recommendations therein.

Annual Outturn Report on the Treasury Management & Prudential Indicators 2015/16

(1)        That the following minor changes to the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy be recommended to the Council for approval:

            (a)        an increase in the group limit for Local Authorities from £20million to            £25million;

            (b)        an increase in the group limit for Money Market Funds from £15million         to £20million; and

            (c)        an increase in the limit for NatWest (the Council’s banker) from        £2.5million to £5million; and

Risk Management – Corporate Risk Register

(2)        That the Existing Control, Effectiveness of Control and Key Date within the Action Plan for Risk 1 – Local Plan - be updated;

(3)        That the Effectiveness of Controls/Actions and Required Further Management Action for Risk 2 – Strategic Sites - be updated;

(4)        That the Existing Control and the Required Further Management Action for Risk 5 – Economic Development - be updated;

(5)        That an additional Required Further Management Action for Risk 6 – Data/Information - be added;

(6)        That the Risk Score for Risk 7 – Business Continuity - be amended;

(7)        That the Risk Score for Risk 10 – Housing Capital - be amended; and

(8)        That the amended Corporate Risk Register be approved.

The Finance Portfolio Holder presented the minutes of the meeting of the Finance & Performance Management Cabinet Committee, held on 15 September 2016.

The Cabinet Committee had made recommendations to the Cabinet concerning the Annual Outturn Report on Treasury Management & Prudential Indicators 2015/16, and updates to the Corporate Risk Register. Other issues considered by the Cabinet Committee included: a monitoring report on the Key Performance Indicators for Quarter 1 of 2016/17; a drafting of a response to the public consultation on future Business Rates Retention; a monitoring report on the capital and revenue budgets during the first quarter of 2016/17; and the Annual Governance Report from the External Auditors.

Decision:

Annual Outturn Report on the Treasury Management & Prudential Indicators 2015/16

(1)        That the following minor changes to the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy be recommended to the Council for approval:

            (a)        an increase in the group limit for Local Authorities from £20million to            £25million;

            (b)        an increase in the group limit for Money Market Funds from £15million         to £20million; and

            (c)        an increase in the limit for NatWest (the Council’s banker) from        £2.5million to £5million; and

Risk Management – Corporate Risk Register

(2)        That the Existing Control, Effectiveness of Control and Key Date within the Action Plan for Risk 1 – Local Plan - be updated;

(3)        That the Effectiveness of Controls/Actions and Required Further Management Action for Risk 2 – Strategic Sites - be updated;

(4)        That the Existing Control and the Required Further Management Action for Risk 5 – Economic Development - be updated;

(5)        That an additional Required Further Management Action for Risk 6 – Data/Information - be added;

(6)        That the Risk Score for Risk 7 – Business Continuity - be amended;

(7)        That the Risk Score for Risk 10 – Housing Capital - be amended; and

(8)        That the amended Corporate Risk Register be approved.

Reasons for Decision:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options and that there were no further options to consider.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, held on 22 September 2016, and any recommendations therein.

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, held on 22 September 2016, be noted.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented the minutes of the meeting of the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, held on 22 September 2016.

The Cabinet Committee had not made any recommendations for the Cabinet to consider, and the only issue considered was the recovery package for the contract for Phase I of the Council Housebuilding Programme.

Decision:

(1)        That the minutes of the meeting of the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, held on 22 September 2016, be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

The Cabinet was satisfied that the Cabinet Committee had fully addressed all the relevant issues.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

The Cabinet was content that the Cabinet Committee had considered all the relevant options and that there were no further options to consider.

(Housing Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-024-2016/17).

(1)        That, for the foreseeable future, off street parking schemes be only constructed at the following sites, which were already committed, and funded from the existing 5-year combined Housing Revenue Account and General Fund Off Street Parking Capital Programme Budget (which currently had a budget provision of £1,855,000 available):

            (a)        The four sites agreed by the Council Housebuilding Cabinet             Committee in February 2015which had all progressed to the point of        planning applications being submitted and if approved, would commit around             £605,000 from the Off Street Parking Capital Programme Budget, namely:

(i)               Paley Gardens, Loughton;

(ii)              Torrington Drive, Loughton;

(iii)       Etheridge Green, Loughton; and

(iv)       Alderwood Close, Abridge;

(b)        The two sites where the Council Housebuilding Cabinet Committee had already agreed to fund the cost of demolishing the existing garages and to create off street parking spaces at an estimated cost of £40,000:

(i)         Springfield, Epping; and

(ii)        Loughton Way, Buckhurst Hill

            (c)        The four sites within Phases 1 and 3 of the Council Housebuilding   Programme, for which the relevant Area Planning Sub-Committees had   attached a condition to the planning consent to undertake a parking study and             to provide off street parking (if there was sufficient local resident support and          planning approval granted) at an estimated cost of £235,000:

(i)         The Roundhills Red Cross Site, Waltham Abbey;

(ii)        Roundhills Site 4, Waltham Abbey;

(iii)       Stewards Green Road, Epping; and

(iv)       Centre Avenue, Epping;

(2)        That, for future off street parking schemes (not including the above schemes in 1(a) and 1(c)), charges be made for the use of the off street parking bays through either one, or a combination, of the following options (as considered appropriate by the Director of Communities, in consultation with the Housing Portfolio Holder):

(a)        the sale of Residents Parking Permits in line with other Controlled Parking Zones in the District;

(b)        the provision of a hinged lockable bollard, rented to local residents at a cost of:

            (i)         £500 in the first year after implementation or re-instatement;             and

            (ii)        £250 per annum thereafter; or

(c)        through a Pay and Display Scheme, in line with other similar schemes on Highway Land around the District;

(3)        That the charges for the use of parking bays at future off-street parking schemes be added to the Annual Schedule of Fees and Charges for Housing Related Services and reviewed annually;

(4)        That the additional cost of monitoring the Controlled Parking Zones and/or Pay and Display bays for future schemes be met from the Off Street Parking Budget, with the income used to help fund any future maintenance costs or the construction of future schemes;

(5)        That any further off street parking schemes to be undertaken in the future be considered by the Cabinet on an annual basis;

(6)        That, prior to any Council Housebuilding planning application being submitted, transport studies be undertaken to assess the parking stress in the locality caused by any loss of garages and, because each planning application had to be determined on  ...  view the full decision text for item 68.

The Housing Portfolio Holder presented a report on the review of rankings for future schemes and capital expenditure during 2016/17 for the construction of off street parking schemes on Housing land.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that 182 off street parking bays had been provided since 2009 at 12 streets across the District with the greatest need for off street parking, at a total cost of approximately £800,000 split between the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and General Fund Capital Programmes. The completed schemes had resulted in very high resident satisfaction, reduced the parking congestion in those streets and were used by residents free of charge.

The Portfolio Holder stated that, against the backdrop of the need to make savings or generate additional income across the Council’s budgets, it was clear there would need to be savings made to the HRA and General Fund Capital Programmes in future years. Therefore, it was proposed that future schemes would only be constructed where residents had clearly indicated they would be prepared to pay for use of the spaces, thereby generating an income to offset the high construction costs. Charges would be made for the use of the parking bays by way of Parking Permits, rented bays with lockable bollards or through a Pay and Display arrangement. The Council already operated a Residents Parking Policy, and where parking spaces were rented by residents then the charge would be £500 for the first year and £250 per annum thereafter, with an annual review. Any costs for monitoring Controlled Parking Zones would be met from the Off Street Parking Budget, and any income received would be used to fund future maintenance costs and/or the construction of future schemes.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Cabinet that it was being proposed that the Council should only undertake the currently committed off street parking schemes for the time being and that any future off street parking schemes would be considered in 2017 during the next annual review of the Programme. It was highlighted that there were ten schemes which had already been agreed which the Council was committed to constructing where charging would not be introduced. These were in Loughton, Abridge, Epping, Buckhurst Hill and Waltham Abbey.

The Portfolio Holder explained that off street parking for seven sites had been agreed by the Cabinet in February 2015; however, the schemes at Watermans Way in North Weald, Sycamore House in Buckhurst Hill, and Tillingham Court in Waltham Abbey had failed to gain the necessary support or surveys had established that there was insufficient Council-owned land available. Appendix 1 of the report listed all the schemes that had been registered, assessed and ranked.

The Portfolio Holder added that, in respect of the proposed scheme at Torrington Drive in Loughton, 72% of residents had been in favour of a scheme and 57% had been in favour of the scheme that had been submitted for planning approval. The contract for the construction of the scheme had been let and work would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

(Environment Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-025-2016/17).

(1)        That, subject to staff resources, capacity and competing priorities, one potentially contaminated land site be investigated every two years;

(2)       That a growth bid of  £100,000 be made from the District Development Fund to cover the two year period from April 2017, to carry out the required investigations; and

(3)        That a further report be submitted to the Cabinet in December 2018, as part of the budget setting process for 2019/20, to agree future budget allocation to investigate potentially contaminated land sites within the District.

The Environment Portfolio Holder presented a report on a programme of inspection and budget allocation for contaminated land within the District.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Council had carried out four major investigations to date, three on former landfill sites and an emergency investigation on a former gas works site. It was now necessary to review and formalise the inspection regime and allocation of budget for these investigations. Given the significant cost associated with such investigations and the number of sites that the Council had to investigate, it was proposed that the Council aimed to investigate one site every two years. Although, it was highlighted that there might be circumstances where this could not be achieved.

The Portfolio Holder reported that there was an existing Continuing Services Budget (CSB) allocation which had been used to cover the contaminated land, pollution and water quality work; however, this had been insufficient to cover the cost of one contaminated land investigation. As each potential contaminated land site could be considered as a separate project, it was felt to be more appropriate to fund these investigations from the District Development Fund (DDF). This would allow greater flexibility between financial years as determined by each site under investigation, and approval was sought to allocate £50,000 per annum for the next two years from April 2017 from the DDF. It was also intended to review the budget allocation with a further report to the Cabinet in September 2019.

In response to questions from the Members present, the Portfolio Holder reiterated that the Council had a statutory responsibility to investigate potentially contaminated land sites, and would endeavour to recover the costs of such investigations wherever possible. The Assistant Director of Neighbourhoods (Technical Services) added that Officers had a list of potentially contaminated sites which had been risk assessed, and some investigation work had been performed for some of the sites. The legal advice had been to not publish the Council’s list of potentially contaminated sites.

The Finance Portfolio Holder, Cllr Mohindra, requested that the second recommendation be amended to request £100,000 in total for two years from the DDF from April 2017, and this was agreed. Cllr Philip also requested that the further report be received by the Cabinet during the budget setting process for 2019/20. It was agreed that this could be done but it was emphasised that the Council would only have investigated one site by December 2018.

Decision:

(1)        That, subject to staff resources, capacity and competing priorities, one potentially contaminated land site be investigated every two years;

(2)       That a growth bid of  £100,000 be made from the District Development Fund to cover the two year period from April 2017, to carry out the required investigations; and

(3)        That a further report be submitted to the Cabinet in December 2018, as part of the budget setting process for 2019/20, to agree future budget allocation to investigate potentially contaminated land sites within the District.

Reasons for Decision:

The Council was obliged to investigate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

(Leader of Council) To consider the attached report (C-026-2016/17).

(1)        That the progress of the projects within the Transformation Programme for August 2016, alongside the planned actions for September 2016, be noted.

The Leader of Council presented a report highlighting the progress with the Transformation Programme during August 2016.

The Leader stated that regular monitoring reports on the progress of the Transformation Programme were being presented to the Cabinet, and this was the report for August 2016. It was anticipated that the format of the report would evolve over time in order to remain an effective tool for highlighting progress, slippage and remedial actions being undertaken. This particular report included progress for all 36 chartered projects of Medium and High Risk potential, as well as progress on key aspects of the Transformation Programme, and also highlighted the level of resources involved in the Programme.

The Leader reported that, overall, progress indicators for ‘cost’, ‘delivery / outcomes / outputs’ and ‘benefits’ remained ‘Green’. The status indicator for ‘time’ was reported as ‘Amber’ to highlight that 12 actions (from a total of 169) were overdue, but Project and Programme Managers had actions in place to deal with any potential negative effects. Progress would be kept under review and it was anticipated that the status of the majority of these items would return to Green in the next report.

The Cabinet was concerned that for a number of the projects, the ‘Remedial Actions’ were exactly the same as the ‘Actions Overdue’; project P20 (Legal Document Scanning) was offered as a good example as the text was different. It was felt that the matrix should indicate why the action was overdue and provide confidence that the proposed remedial action would be undertaken. The Director of Neighbourhoods highlighted that for project P112 (Operating Partner for North Weald Airfield), the Officers concerned were currently working on the competitive dialogue process for the new Leisure Management Contract and would be available for this project in early 2017.

Decision:

(1)        That the progress of the projects within the Transformation Programme for August 2016, alongside the planned actions for September 2016, be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

To inform the Cabinet of progress with the Transformation Programme, including work streams, programmes and projects.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

None, as failure to monitor and review the progress of the Transformation Programme and to consider corrective action where necessary, could have negative implications for the Council’s reputation, and might mean the opportunities for improvement were lost.

(Leader of Council) To consider the attached report (C-028-2016/17).

(1)        That progress on the achievement of the Council’s Key Action Plan for 2016/17 at the end of Quarter 1 be noted.

The Leader of Council presented a report on the progress made during the first quarter of the municipal year with the Corporate Plan Key Action Plan for 2016/17.

The Leader stated that the Corporate Plan was the Council’s key strategic planning document, setting out its priorities over the five-year period from 2015/16 to 2019/20. The priorities or Corporate Aims were supported by Key Objectives, which provided a clear statement of the Council’s overall intentions for these five years. The Key Objectives were delivered by an annual Action Plan, with each year building upon the progress made in previous years. The annual Action Plans contained a range of actions designed to achieve specific outcomes, to ensure the actions remained relevant and appropriate, and to identify opportunities to secure further progress or improvement.

The Leader reported that, at the end of the first quarter of 2016/17, progress was as follows:

·                  32 (64%) of the actions had been achieved or were on target for completion;

·                  7 (14%) of the actions were under control;

·                  2 (4%) of the actions were behind schedule; and

·                  9 (18%) of the actions were pending, as they were dependent upon the prior completion of other actions or external factors outside the control of the Council.

Decision:

(1)        That progress on the achievement of the Council’s Key Action Plan for 2016/17 at the end of Quarter 1 be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

It was important that relevant performance management processes were in place to review progress against the key objectives, to ensure their continued achievability and relevance, and to identify proposals for appropriate corrective action in areas of slippage or under-performance.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

No other options are appropriate in this respect. Failure to monitor and review performance against the key objectives,and to consider corrective action where necessary, could have negative implications for the Council’s reputation, and might mean that opportunities for improvement were lost.

(Technology & Support Services Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-029-2016/17).

(1)        That the projects to be scheduled for the financial year 2017/18 be noted and that a sum of £414,075be included in the Capital Programme for 2017/18 for the following ICT projects:

            (a)        £88,525 for Priority ICT projects;

            (b)        £51,050 for Onsite Mobile/Flexible Working Projects;

            (c)        £100,000 for Desktop Hardware Projects;

            (d)        £97,500 for other ICT projects; and

            (e)        £77,000 for Directorate projects requiring capital expenditure, including a    £22,000 sum for Pay to Stay capability for the Council Rented properties which was contingent upon Government policy.

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Technology & Support Services who had tended his apologies for the meeting, the Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy presented a report on the ICT Capital Requirements for 2017/18.

The Portfolio Holder reminded the Cabinet that, following the revision of the Capital programme, all proposed ICT projects were considered on an annual basis and funding was made available where appropriate. A number of projects had been scheduled for progress in 2017/18 and it had been estimated that a sum of £414,075 should be included in the Capital Programme. These were broken down as follows:

(i)         Priority ICT projects                                                                £88,525;

(ii)        Onsite Mobile/Flexible Working projects                                 £51,050;

(iii)       Desktop Hardware projects                                                     £100,000;

(iv)       Other ICT Miscellaneous projects                                           £97,500; and

(v)        Other Directorate ICT projects                                                £77,000.

The Cabinet noted that the other Directorate ICT projects included an allocation of £22,000 for a Pay-to-Stay capability for the Council’s rented properties, which was contingent upon the Government’s current policy not changing.

The Portfolio Holder emphasised that a failure to maintain and update the Council’s ICT infrastructure could potentially disrupt the day-to-day operations of critical systems, which would then significantly impact the ability of staff to carry out their normal duties.

Decisions:

(1)        That the projects to be scheduled for the financial year 2017/18 be noted and that a sum of £414,075be included in the Capital Programme for 2017/18 for the following ICT projects:

            (a)        £88,525 for Priority ICT projects;

            (b)        £51,050 for Onsite Mobile/Flexible Working projects;

            (c)        £100,000 for Desktop Hardware projects;

            (d)        £97,500 for other ICT projects; and

            (e)        £77,000 for Directorate projects requiring capital expenditure, including a    £22,000 sum for Pay to Stay capability for the Council Rented properties which was contingent upon no change in Government policy.

Reasons for Decision:

The listed ICT Projects were necessary to maintain the current ICT infrastructure, improve business continuity within the Council and allow staff to fully utilise the benefits available from ICT systems.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To refuse funding for the critical projects identified; however, this would impact on the reliability of the ICT infrastructure, could result in the inability to make payments and limit the ability of the Council to support remote workers.

To refuse funding for the other projects identified; however, this would adversely impact on the implementation of the ICT Strategy and the Transformation Programme.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 requires that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.

The Cabinet noted that there was no other urgent business for consideration at the meeting.

Exclusion

To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) or are confidential under Section 100(A)(2):

The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, which came into effect on 1 March 2006, requires the Council to consider whether maintaining the exemption listed above outweighs the potential public interest in disclosing the information. Any member who considers that this test should be applied to any currently exempted matter on this agenda should contact the proper officer at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Background Papers

Article 17 of the Constitution (Access to Information) define background papers as being documents relating to the subject matter of the report which in the Proper Officer's opinion:

(a)        disclose any facts or matters on which the report or an important part of the report is based;  and

(b)        have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report and does not include published works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information and in respect of executive reports, the advice of any political advisor.

The Council will make available for public inspection one copy of each of the documents on the list of background papers for four years after the date of the meeting. Inspection of background papers can be arranged by contacting either the Responsible Officer or the Democratic Services Officer for the particular item.

(1)        That, in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the item of business set out below as it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act indicated and the exemption is considered to outweigh the potential public interest in disclosing the information:

Decision:

(1)        That, in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the item of business set out below as it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act indicated and the exemption is considered to outweigh the potential public interest in disclosing the information:

(Leader of Council) To consider the attached report (C-027-2016/17).

(1)        That a fixed term contract extension of eighteen months be offered to the Head of Transformation and a fixed term contract extension of one year be offered to the Programme Improvement Officer; and

(2)        That amounts of £90,340 for 2017/18 and £59,010 for 2018/19 be earmarked in the District Development Fund to pay for the contract extensions.

The Leader of Council presented a report on the future resourcing and provision of funding for the Transformation Programme.

The Leader reminded the Cabinet that the Council had initiated a Transformation Programme in 2015, led by the Chief Executive and Management Board, championed by the Leader and the Cabinet and supported by a Head of Transformation and the Programme Improvement Officer. These two posts were funded within the 2016/17 budget and were on fixed-term contracts, with the Head of Transformation’s contract running to the end of April 2017 and the Programme Improvement Officer’s contract to the end of August 2017.

The Leader reported that significant progress had been made in transforming the Council over the last eleven months, including the delivery of savings and establishment of improved ways of working, which would help the authority to be ‘a Council fit for the twenty-first century’. It was clear that, for the Council to sustain the momentum and benefits flowing from the Transformation Programme, both posts need to be extended. Therefore, it was proposed that both contracts be extended, by 18 months for the Head of Transformation and by 12 months for the Programme Improvement Officer, with the supporting growth bids from the District Development Fund.

Members of the Cabinet expressed their support for the proposals, and the Transformation Programme, and highlighted that it would cost the Council more if the staff costs were met by the Continuing Services Budget rather than the District Development Fund. The Cabinet agreed that it would be correct to extend the current fixed term contracts at this point, in order to evaluate the results from the Programme over the next 18 months. The Leader added that some substantial projects would have been completed by then, and the Council would be in a better position to make further decisions concerning the future of the Programme.

Decision:

(1)        That a fixed term contract extension of eighteen months be offered to the Head of Transformation and a fixed term contract extension of one year be offered to the Programme Improvement Officer; and

(2)        That amounts of £90,340 for 2017/18 and £59,010 for 2018/19 be earmarked in the District Development Fund to pay for the contract extensions.

Reasons for Decision:

A decision on the future state of the Transformation Programme team was required to ensure effective management and delivery of the programme as, through the Corporate Plan 2015-20, the Council was committed to both the improvement of services to residents as well as robust financial management to keep Council Tax low.

It was necessary to limit the extension for the Programme Improvement Officer to avoid the combined periods of his contracts exceeding four years and inadvertently creating a permanent post.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To procure the specialist and technical skills required for the successful management of change from outside the Council. However, this would be both less efficient then the current arrangement and more costly.

To add the posts to the establishment and include them in the Continuing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.