MEETING OF THE POLICY AND ORGANISATION BOARD
WAS HELD ON 18 MARCH 2002
The Mayor (P), Councillors Mrs Angus, Mrs Binfield (P), Mrs Cully (P), Edgar (Chairman) (P), Hayward (P), Hook (P), Langdon (P), Russell (P) and Taylor (P)
In accordance with Standing Orders the Chief Executive reported that Councillor Taylor had been nominated to attend this meeting in the place of Councillor Bartlett.
17. APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Angus and Bartlett.
18. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 23 January, 6 February and 25 February 2002 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record subject to "(ex-officio)" being deleted after the Mayor in the record of attendance for the Board Minutes of 25 February.
PART I
19. TREASURY MANAGEMENT POLICY 2002/2003
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Treasurer (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "A") in connection with the review of the Treasury Management Policy.
The Borough Treasurer reported that the over-riding objective of the 2002/2003 Treasury Management Strategy was to continue to minimise the risk exposure for the Council whilst seeking to reduce the interest burden of financing the net borrowing requirement by working towards debt free status at 31 March 2006. To this end no long-term loans would be taken beyond this date. In order to achieve the optimum strategy it was intended to adopt the Treasury Management Practices (TMP's) outlined in the appendix to the report.
The Board was informed that it was proposed that the following would apply for 2002/2003:-
a) a limit of £2M be placed on the amount to be invested by the Council with any individual borrower other than the Council's main bank (National Westminster plc)
b) that dealings be arranged through the following brokers:
Garban Harlow Ueda Limited, Tradition UK Limited and at the discretion of the Borough Treasurer.
c) recent changes in legislation have widened the money markets available to Local Authorities with effect from 1 April 2002. They will then be able to access money market funds, which are secure funds operated by large banks and other institutions, and will assist Local Authorities to achieve competitive rates in a wider market.
d) It is intended to maintain the situation whereby no more than £3M of the total long term borrowing be due for payment in any one year.
e) the authority to respond to different interest rates throughout the financial year be delegated to the Borough Treasurer. In his absence the Council's response to short term fluctuations was to be jointly agreed between any two of the Financial Services Manager, the Head of Accountancy and Senior Accountant.
The Borough Treasurer reported that appropriate borrowing limits for the year 2002/2003 were as follows:
a) overall borrowing limit £15M
b) short term borrowing limit £10M (included within £15M above)
RECOMMENDED: That the Treasury Management Strategy, the Policy Statement and the Treasury Management Practices be accepted and referred to Council for formal approval.
PART II
20. WRITE OFFS
The Board considered a report of the Borough Treasurer, which reported that in accordance with Financial Regulations debts over £5,000 for write off must be submitted to the Board for approval.
He accordingly reported the following debt:
|
Name & Address |
Date |
Charge
£ |
Reason
|
|
Basys Technology
Mumby Raod
Gosport |
01/04/01
to
11/06/01 |
5,964.34 |
Liquidation. No funds available for unsecured creditors.
|
RESOLVED: That the above NNDR write off totalling £5,964.34 be approved.
It was noted that the Best Value Performance Plan had been referred back from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and would therefore require consideration by the Board.
21. BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE PLAN
Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "B"), which sought Member approval of the proposed format and printing method of the Best Value Performance Plan and the establishment of the Member role in the context of this performance document.
It was reported that in accordance with Best Value Legislation and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) guidance, Gosport Borough Council had to publish and distribute a Best Value Performance Plan annually.
The recent White Paper, Strong Local Leadership – Quality Public Services, and Statutory Instrument 2002/305 had resulted in the following changes to the Best Value Performance Plan:
a) The deadline for publication of the Best Value Performance Plan had been changed from 31 March to 30 June,
b) The deadline for the auditor's report on the Best Value Performance Plan had been changed from 30 June to 31 December,
c) The content of the Best Value Performance Plan had been varied by removing the requirement to:
I. Summarise any assessment of the levels at which, and the way in
which, an authority exercised its functions, and
II. Set out the 5 year period of reviews,
d) The requirement for authorities to review all their functions in a five year cycle had been revoked, and
e) The plan's principal audience was now to be staff, elected Members, groups and organisations with an interest in the authority and central government, and not the public, as previously indicated.
In order to accommodate anticipated changes to the Best Value Performance Plan from the White Paper and from the three-month review of Best Value, it was proposed that the format and printing method from previous years be altered in order to allow maximum flexibility. It was proposed that the Best Value Performance Plan would come in a pack, which would consist of the following 'stand alone' sections:
Best Value Core Approach
Performance
Corporate Plan Part I
Corporate Plan Part II
Community Planning Update
Consultation
Useful Documents
Glossary of terms
For ease of reference and economy stakeholders could be sent the relevant sections of the Plan. In addition to this, the above sections would be fully collated to ensure that complete versions of the Best Value Performance Plan were available upon request. A sample section was shown in Appendix A to the Director's report.
It was also proposed that the printing method should be altered. In past years, when the Best Value Performance Plan's key audience was the public, a two toned version was produced by the Council's Graphics Department. In view of the revised audience, and the need to maintain flexibility, it was proposed that the Best Value Performance Plan would be produced in Microsoft Word, in black and white.
In past years, Members of the Best Value Sub-Committee had approved this document for publication. In the light of the new political arrangements, it was necessary for Members to consider their role in respect of this performance document. Board approval presented difficulties particularly with respect to performance indicator data, due to the June deadline for publication of this information.
One proposal would be to send a copy of the Best Value Performance Plan to Members of the Policy and Organisation Board for information and comment. Subject to general agreement the plan would then be published. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee could, as now, consider the Best Value Performance Plan at any time. This was particularly relevant with regard to performance indicators.
RESOLVED: That-
(i) the Best Value Performance Plan format and printing method as outlined in the Director of Development and Environment's report be approved; and
(ii) copies of the Best Value Performance Plan be forwarded to Members of the Policy and Organisation Board for information and comment. Subject to general agreement the Plan should then be published.
22. PROPOSED RELOCATION OF FORTON ROAD SURGERY TO LAND AT CAMDEN TOWN ALLOTMENTS
The Board considered a report of the Director of Development and Environment (a copy of which is affixed in the Minute Book as Appendix "C") on the need to relocate the Forton Road GP Surgery at 148 Forton Road to a proposed larger site at the extreme eastern end of the Camden Town Allotment Site.
It was reported that the GP Practice had appointed specialist Consultants to identify a possible site and officers of the Borough Council had been approached to see if they could assist. The need for a larger site had arisen, as there was limited existing space and no scope to expand. This severely constrained the operations of the practice and inhibited the provision of additional services for patients and this was becoming an extremely critical situation. Temporary accommodation had to be rented at the present time to overcome the shortage of space.
After due consideration it was accepted that suitable sites were extremely limited. An area of land at the eastern extremity of the Camden Town Allotments was identified as having potential, and although not ideal, was deemed worthy of more investigation. Camden Town Allotments comprised 122 allotment plots, with a total area of 3.32 hectares. The area of the proposed relocated Doctor's surgery was 0.33 hectares and would involve the loss of 11 allotment plots, 3 of which are let and cultivated.
The Board was advised that the proposal would be for a 2-storey building of conventional brick construction, together with car parking for 50 vehicles and landscaping. A pharmacy would also be provided and given the likelihood of future expansion there would be land to allow for this. This would allow the Practice to expand from a 6 Doctor Practice to a 7 Doctor one, with additional facilities for health visitors, district nurse etc to meet current health provision standards.
The Leisure and Health Services Manager had undertaken consultations with Allotment Holders at Camden Town. There was no significant objection to the proposal subject to part of the capital receipt being used to improve facilities on the allotment site – this had always been an objective of the Council. Those to be displaced by the proposals were prepared to accept alternative plots.
In conclusion the Director advised that if the Board was minded to approve in principle the relocation of the Knapman Practice from the existing surgery to the west of Whites Place, then it would be necessary to progress three separate elements as follows:
a) To conclude negotiations with the Government Office for the South East (on behalf of the Secretary of State) for consent under the necessary provisions of the Allotment Act 1925 for use of the land for another purpose,
b) To conclude negotiations with the Consultant, Messrs Brackley Investments on behalf of the Practice for the disposal of the land by the Council, and
c) To agree to a scheme for the enhancement of facilities for the Camden Town Allotment Site based on the suggestions received from Allotment Holders responding to the consultation exercise.
RESOLVED: That-
(i) the principle of relocating the Forton Road Doctors' Surgery to an area of land at the eastern end of Camden Town Allotments as identified on the Plan appended to the Director of Development and Environment's report be approved;
(ii) authority be given for negotiations to be concluded on the transfer of the land required for the proposed Surgery, including the requirements under the provisions of the 1925 Allotment Act;
(iii) a further report be presented in due course to the Community & Environment Board outlining the proposed improvements to the Camden Town Allotments arising from the disposal of the land required for the Surgery; and
(iv) in the deposit version of the Review Local Plan, to be published later this year, the allocation of the area proposed for the Surgery be amended to "primary health care provision."
23. SUB-BOARD FOR MARKETING PRIDDY'S HARD HERITAGE SITE
Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Development and Environment, which proposed the establishment of a Sub-Board tasked with overseeing the marketing and management of the Priddy's Hard Heritage Area, with delegated powers to make decisions in relation to this Project.
He advised Members that the completion of the regeneration of the Priddy's Hard Heritage Area was a key priority for the Borough Council. To date some £6m had been invested in this site, primarily from external funding sources, which included the Millennium Commission, the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), the KONVER European Union Programme, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the County Council.
This investment had resulted in the creation of 'Explosion' – the Museum of Naval Firepower, the renewal of the site's essential infrastructure and the refurbishment of key buildings and structures. These developments could be seen as the first phase in the regeneration of this historic site. The opportunity was now available to the Borough Council to build on this earlier investment and embark upon the second and final phase of a regeneration strategy for the Heritage Area.
The Borough Council was faced with an urgent need to progress the re-use/redevelopment of the Heritage Area to offset the costs the Council was currently incurring in managing and maintaining the site and underwriting the funding deficit in respect of 'Explosion.' A draft strategy for Phase 2, the regeneration of the Heritage Area, was being prepared which could be progressed by the Council as part of the marketing of the site.
At the present time funding of £90,000 remained available from SEEDA from the original Infrastructure Renewal Project. This had been reserved to finance any further studies that were required and to market the Priddy's Hard Heritage Site. It was proposed to comprehensively market the site in the Spring to a wide cross section of the development industry. This would enable the Council to select its preferred development partner(s).
In conclusion the Director advised that in the circumstances there would be a need for a body to be established by the Borough Council which could meet whenever required and have the delegated powers to deal with issues such as approving marketing literature and arrangements, and short listing possible developers within a timescale. This would ensure that when development opportunities arose on this site, they would be taken. The Sub-Board would work closely with English Heritage. It was felt that a Sub-Board could most appropriately carry out this task with responsibility solely for this project.
The proposed Priddy's Hard Heritage Area Sub-Board would also be responsible for approving and monitoring the overall implementation of the Strategy, with powers also to review strategy objectives and proposals where such action proved to be necessary and deal with any management issues on the site that occurred. It was envisaged that the Sub-Board would refer any final decision regarding any leasehold or freehold disposals to the Policy and Organisation Board.
RESOLVED: That-
(i) a Priddy's Hard Heritage Area Sub-Board be established with 5 Members (ie. 2:2:1) under the Proportionality Regulations; and
(ii) subject to any matters which the Sub-Board may wish to refer for decision to the Policy and Organisation Board it be authorised to:-
(a) represent the Council in the implementation of Phase 2 of the
Regeneration Strategy of the Priddy's Hard Heritage Area and in
the day-to-day management of the site;
(b) market the Heritage Area working closely with English Heritage, and produce a short-list of prospective developers;
(c) make a recommendation to the Policy and Organisation Board with respect to any proposed leasehold and/or freehold disposals; and
(d) without prejudice to any general power conferred above to make any decision relating to any land or contract matter and the submission of any planning application or funding bid in relation to this project.
|
|
