08 02 2006

The Mayor (Councillor Burgess) (ex-officio), Chairman of Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook) (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Allen (P), Carter (P), Mrs Cully (P), Davis (P), Foster (P), Gill (P), Philpott (P), Rigg, Mrs Salter and Mrs Wright (P).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Board received the Housing Services Manager’s report (a copy of which is attached in the Minute Book as Appendix ‘HO1’), which considered the Board’s revised 2005/2006 budget and the 2006/2007 budget for the Housing Revenue Account and made recommendations on rent levels for 2006/07.

 

 

Members were advised that the revised council house maintenance budget for 2005/2006 was £2.587M, a reduction of £0.043M on the Original budget. The principal cause of this was a change in the apportionment of recharging from the Housing administration accounts. The council house maintenance budget for 2006/2007 was £2.525M representing a £0.062M reduction on the 2005/2006 revised estimate.  This reduction was due to the apportionment of recharges from the housing admin accounts.

 

It was anticipated that HRA balance level would decrease to £790,000 by the end of the current year. The HRA balance would increase to £820,000 by the end of 2006/2007. £820,000 equated to an average of £251 per property and also represented 5.20% of budgeted expenditure. The balance was also in line with the recommendations laid out in the Audit Commission annual letter of October 2003, which was considered adequate for present needs.

 

The Capital Programme for 2005/2006 to 2010/2011 was shown on page 84 of the draft budget book. The HRA Capital Programme totalling approximately £4.497M in the revised budget for 2005/06 was funded from the Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) £2.100M, supported capital expenditure £0.822M, revenue contributions £0.410M and capital receipts £1.165M. The Capital Programme for 2006/07 was £4.500M as the Council worked to achieve the Decent Homes Standard by December 2010.

 

The expenditure for 2006/07 of £4.500M was to be financed from MRA £2.154M, revenue contributions from within the HRA of £400,000. The level of SCE (supported capital expenditure) was now wholly determined by the Regional Housing Boards and, at the time of writing the report, the level of borrowing approvals was still unknown. The remainder of the programme would be financed from useable capital receipts.

 

The Government had published the Final Housing Revenue Account Subsidy and Item 8 Determinations for 2006-07 and the calculations for 2007-08 would probably be the same. General formula for the subsidy calculation remained the same for 2006/07.

 

There had been a slight increase in the formula for Maintenance allowances and the allowance for Gosport Borough Council had increased from £957 per property in 2005/06 to £1017 per property in 2006/07, an increase of 6%. The management allowance formula had also been increased. The allowance had increased from £482 per property in 2005/06 to £513 per property in 2006/07, an increase of 6%. These increases were significantly lower than the previous two years.

 

The Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) had increased from £639 per property in 2005/06 to £645 in 2006/07, an increase of only 1%. The MRA provided the Council with the resources to maintain the condition of the housing stock over the long term. 

 

In order to maintain the move towards target rents in equal annual steps, a national average increase of 5.4% would be needed. However the ODPM had estimated by using the RPI+0.5%+£2 rule this would limit the increases to an average of 5% by using the tolerances within the system. The guideline rent was a major factor in determining the level of subsidy an authority received. The guideline rent, set by the ODPM, for Gosport Borough Council had increased by 7.5% in 2006/07 and the impact of this when input in subsidy calculation was a net loss of subsidy to Gosport of £165,000 for 2006/07. Aligning of guideline rents to actual rents was a fundamental part of rent restructuring.

 

The introduction of the new proposals meant target rents had increased significantly and actual rents would have to increase by £2.87 on average or 5% in order for Gosport to achieve rent convergence by 2012. It was a Government requirement that the Council achieve rent convergence by 2012, so it would have to implement the necessary level of rent increase each year to achieve that fundamental objective. If the Council failed to implement the required annual rent increases it may face financial penalties, which would impact on its ability to achieve the Decent Homes Standard by 2010.    

 

It was proposed to increase rent levels for garages, carports and parking lots by 5% from April 2006. There were a small number of other committee properties where the rent levels were assessed in line with HRA properties. The proposal was to also increase these by 5%.

 

A net loss of subsidy to Gosport of £165,000 for 2006/07 was disappointing, but the Council had a robust HRA Business Plan and would continue to make the necessary investment in its housing stock to keep on-track to achieve the Decent Homes Standard by 2010. 

 

 

RECOMMENDED:  That, with effect from 3 April 2006:

 

a)

the average weekly Council Dwelling rent increase by 5.0%; and

 

 

b)

garage, car port and parking lot rents increase by 5.0%.

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Searle had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Davis.

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Financial Services Manager (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix “PO1”), which sought Council’s approval to the content of the report, which included the prudential indicators and limits for 2006 – 2007.

 

Members were advised that the report covered the operation of the Council’s prudential indicators, its treasury function and its likely activities for the forthcoming year.   The report incorporated the following key Council reporting requirements:

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion it was reported that the formulation of a plan or strategy for the control of the authority’s borrowing, investments or capital expenditure was a function reserved for the Council.  Hence this Board’s required recommendation to the next Council meeting.

 

RECOMMENDED: That Council approve the Financial Services Manager’s report on (a) the Treasury Management Strategy for 2006/07 – 2008/09, and (b) the limits/prudential Indicators referred to in the report for 2006/07:

 

   ·        capital expenditure projections (para. 2.5)

   ·        capital financing requirement projections (para. 2.6)

   ·        authorised and operational borrowing limits (para. 3.4)

   ·        affordability prudential indicators (paras. 4.2 – 4.8)

   ·        treasury management prudential indicators (page 6/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix “PO2”), which outlined the financial situation of the Council’s General Fund in the current year and, after consideration of the main factors affecting the outlook for 2006/07 including Exchequer support and Reserve levels, recommended a budget level for that year.  The Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer updated his report in the light of the recently received Revenue Support Grant Settlement for the Council.

 

The proposed budget, contained in the draft budget book, consolidated the requirements of the Policy and Organisation Board plus the Community and Environment and Housing (General Fund) Boards as cross referenced.  The proposed budget was expected to result in an increase in the Borough’s share of the Council Tax of 2.4% after taking account of reserve and tax collection fund balances.  This increase equated to an extra 6.5p per week Council Tax for an average Gosport property (Band B).

 

The report advised that the revised 2005/2006 budget totalled £10,934,110, the same as the original.  The draft budget book contained a list of variations that had arisen between the Council’s original spending plans for the current year and the latest estimate of expenditure and income.  The working balance was being maintained at its target level of 7% (£765,000) by 31 March 2005 and the newly established Revenue Financing Reserve (RFR) was already proving its worth in assisting the Council to meet unexpected repair and maintenance bills that would otherwise impact on Working Balance.

 

The report advised that, with regard to the budget proposals for 2006/2007, there were substantial variations to the Council’s budget requirements compared to the revised 2005/2006 figure, arising from inflation of over 3%, the new bus pass scheme, Homelessness, Housing Benefits, Priddy’s Hard Site, Interest transactions and the cost of holding local elections.  A detailed analysis was contained in the draft budget book.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive and Borough Treasurer advised that the 2006/2007 budget totalled £11,739,310 including a contribution to Reserves.  The budget total was £805,200 higher than the current year’s original budget. 

 

The report advised that the Capital Programme for the next six years amounted to over £39 million and would require external funding in excess of £10 million to be raised.  This process had already been commenced in order to take advantage of market conditions. 

 

RECOMMENDED: That Council approve a revised 2005/2006 budget totalling £10,934,110 and a budget for 2006/2007 totalling £11,739,310 (including a net contribution to reserves of £18,920).

 

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, Councillor Searle had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Davis.

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of the Mayor

and Councillor Davis.

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Board meeting held on 9 November 2005 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: During the debate on this item Councillor Hayward declared a personal and prejudicial interest and subsequently withdrew from the meeting and took no further part in the discussion or voting thereon.

 

Prior to the consideration of the Financial Services Manager’s report on Relate Portsmouth and District’s request for financial funding it was reported that notice of a deputation had been received from Mrs Jackie Buckley, Centre Manager, Relate Portsmouth and District for her and Samantha Gurnah (Trustee) to address the Board meeting on this item. 

 

 

Mrs Buckley accordingly thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them and stated that her remit covered Portsmouth, Gosport, Havant, Fareham and East Hampshire.  She wished to appraise the Board of Relate’s operation and how it affected Gosport.  The issues that affected Gosport’s residents were:

 

     ·  Communication

 

She had looked at the Borough Council’s website and particularly the strategy documents and in this context she referred to “Homelessness”.  Relate contributed significantly to this strategy as it dealt with relationship breakdown, teenage conception, poverty and transport.  Relate had two sessions per week at the Harbourside Cancer Centre facility within Gosport Bus Station.

 

For a Relate session there was a charge of £40 but this was reduced according to an individual’s ability to pay.  From April – December 2005 there had been 295 sessions held for Gosport residents.  92 clients attended these sessions; of these clients 38 were couples and 16 were individuals.  Relate had overspent by £1,500 this year therefore Mrs Buckley requested an increase in the allocation to £7,000 to ensure they could continue the present level of service to Gosport residents.

 

Hampshire County Council had turned down a request from them for financial support.  However they had agreed to some funding towards the cost of family counselling in the area outside Portsmouth.  Further discussion had taken place with Social Services and they would fund Gosport residents on a pro-forma basis.  The Navy would also fund Gosport residents if they had a Naval background.

 

Following Mrs Buckley’s presentation members of the Board questioned her on the operation of her service and the finances required to sustain it.  Mrs Buckley duly left the meeting for the members to consider her presentation and the Financial Services Manager’s report. 

 

Members accordingly considered the Financial Services Manager’s report.  The Manager advised that the Council had a three year service level agreement with Relate that was now in its final year.  The agreement provided annual funding to Relate, at a capped level, in return for an agreed level of provision.  Relate had requested a continuation of the existing service level agreement for a further three years with an increase to £7,000 from its present level of £4,800 to continue the service. 

 

The Manager had accordingly appended to his report, Relate’s service level agreement, grant request letter and Statement of Financial Activities 2004/2005.  Members debated the content of the presentation and the Manager’s report and expressed their concern regarding the lack of funding from other agencies.  They felt that if Relate did manage to attract further funding from the County Council and the Navy then perhaps the Council’s contribution could be reduced.

 

RESOLVED:  That -

 

(i) a maximum of £7,000 be paid to Relate for a further year, with a subsequent review of Relate’s funding requirements being reported back to the Board; and

 

(ii) the £7,000 be paid to Relate on a periodical basis throughout the year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consideration was given to a report of the Leisure and Cultural Services Manager on the Falkland Gardens new public convenience facility.

 

The proposed new facility in the Falkland Gardens sought to improve the service provision by providing a new public convenience in a more suitably located position in the Gardens.  The recommendation before Members sought approval to a virement to utilise a sum of £100,000 from the now terminated Bridgemary Healthy Living Centre project to fund a new public convenience facility.

 

RESOLVED:  That approval be given to a virement of £100,000 within the Council’s Capital Programme to provide and install a new public convenience facility at the Falkland Gardens.

 

 

(A) Orlit Homes Redevelopment, disposal of site to RSL Partners.

 

Consideration was given to a cross - reference from the Housing Board (11 January 2006) concerning the above matter.

 

RESOLVED:  That approval be given to the disposal of the Orlit Properties, together with associated garden land, to Portsmouth Housing Association and Hermitage Housing Association for no consideration and on terms to be agreed.

 

(B) Disposal of 79 Avery Lane

 

Consideration was given to a cross - reference from the Housing Board (11 January 2006) concerning the disposal of 79 Avery Lane. 

 

RESOLVED:  That approval be given to the disposal of 79 Avery Lane on the open market.

 

 

 

By reason of special circumstance, the Chairman determined that this item be considered at this meeting notwithstanding the fact that the item had not been available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 B (4) (a) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

 

The special circumstance for consideration of this item at this time was that the Council as one of the interested parties had to submit its views on the proposed merger by 31 January 2006.

 

Councillor Kimber was allowed to address the Board on this matter in accordance with Standing Orders 3.7.2 (c) and 3.7.3.

 

Accordingly consideration was given to a report of the Gosport Voluntary Action and Gosport Development Trust merger proposal December 2005.  The report detailed the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed merger, functions and activities aligned to the two organisations together with the related funding and finance. 

 

RESOLVED:  That Council support the proposed merger between Gosport Voluntary Action and Gosport Development Trust and the current level of funding for both organisations be retained for 2006/07 – 2007/08.

 

 

 

By reason of special circumstance, the Chairman determined that this item be considered at this meeting notwithstanding the fact that the item had not been available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 B (4) (a) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. 

 

The special circumstance for consideration of this item at this time was that the Council had to respond to the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) on the above matter by 31 January 2006. 

 

Councillor Edgar was allowed to address the Board on this matter in accordance with Standing Orders 3.7.2 (c) and 3.7.3.  Prior to Councillor Edgar’s presentation the Board was informed that Mrs Edgar had been taken ill and in the circumstances the Board wished Mrs Edgar a speedy recovery.

 

Accordingly consideration was given to Councillor Edgar’s report on the Acute Paediatric Services Review in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.  The SHA had recently commissioned the Office for Public Management to undertake a review of the Acute Paediatric Services in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.  The review was led by Sir Cyril Chantler, Chair of Great Ormond Street Hospital and Doctor Sarah Harvey, Director of Health and Social Care at the Office for Public Management.

 

The review team had visited the acute paediatric units in Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight to hear presentations and to visit the units.  Focus groups were held with parents and carers to listen to families and children who had used the services.  Further data and information was collated from each unit for analysis.

 

The report was now completed and the Strategic Health Authority wanted organisations within the NHS family and its partners to respond to it by 31 January 2006.  Councillor Edgar had drafted a Gosport Borough Council response under the following headings:

 

 

The report concluded that it was very important that the problems of access from Gosport to the acute care and A & E facilities at Queen Alexandra Hospital were recognised by the provision of extra resources on the peninsula.  There was no doubt that an enhanced paramedic service and easily accessible facilities locally would ensure that children with worrying symptoms or injuries could be assessed and treated as soon as possible.

 

RESOLVED:  That Council support Councillor Edgar’s draft observations under “Gosport Borough Council Response” in his report, for onward transmission to the Strategic Health Authority.

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That under Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

 

 

 

Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Head of Property Services on the above matter. 

 

RESOLVED:  That approval be given to the sale of the land (edged in black on Appendix B of the report of the Head of Property Services) to Hardway Sailing Club for the consideration outlined in the report. 

 

 

 

 

 

An apology for inability to attend the meeting was submitted on behalf of Councillor Davis. 

 

 

 

The Board received a report of the Financial Services Manager, which recommended the Board’s fees and charges for 2006/2007, the revised budget for 2005/2006 and the 2006/2007 budget.

 

The report advised members that the revised budget for 2005/2006 for this Board was £3,775,340, which represented an increase of £610,130 (19%) on the original budget for 2005/2006 of £3,165,210.  The budget for 2006/2007 for this Board was  £4,870,010, which represented an increase of £1,704,800 (54%) on the original budget for 2005/2006 of £3,165,210 and an increase of £1,094,670 (29%) on the revised budget for 2005/2006 of £3,775,340.

 

The major variations for the 2006/2007 budget were listed in the variance analysis under the following headings:

 

 

The Board’s recommended fees and charges were included within the draft Fees and Charges book.   They had been examined in line with the Council’s budget strategy to ensure that they stayed in line with the costs of providing the service so that the bottom line cost to the Council Tax payer did not increase in real terms.

 

The draft capital programme for 2005/2006 to 2010/2011 for the Policy and Organisation Board was included on pages 89 – 90 of the Budget book.  The Council’s generally available capital resources were diminishing and it was now clear that there would be a significant impact on future revenue costs from those schemes that required local funding.  The Board was asked to consider the programme in the light of this. 

 

RESOLVED:  That the Financial Services Manager’s report be accepted and forwarded without debate for consideration under Minute No. 44 above. 

 

The Mayor (Councillor Burgess)(ex-officio); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Hook)(ex-officio); Councillors Mrs Batterbury (P), Carr (P), Dickson (P), Edgar (P), Edwards (P), Hayward (P), Kimber (P), Searle (P), Smith (P) and Wright (P).