A MEETING of the COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF GOSPORT was held in the Council Chamber at the TOWN HALL, GOSPORT on WEDNESDAY, the NINTH day of JULY 2003 at 6.00 PM.
Also in attendance: Honorary Aldermen Mrs Bailey and Foster.
_____________
ONE MINUTE'S SILENCE
In order to express their sympathy regarding the recent death of Councillor Michael Friend, Members of the Council stood in silent tribute for one minute.
_____________
APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors Francis and Hook and Honorary Aldermen Flory, O'Neill and Rushton.
_______________
MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the Annual, Adjourned Annual and Extraordinary Council Meetings held on 14 and 15 May and 25 June 2003 respectively be confirmed and signed.
_______________
PRESENTATION OF BOROUGH COUNCIL PLAQUE
TO DR ANTHONY KNAPMAN
Councillor Allen formally introduced Dr Anthony Knapman to the Mayor and Members of the Council. The Mayor accordingly presented Dr Knapman with a Borough Council Plaque to recognise his long service as a General Practitioner in the Borough.
Dr Knapman replied briefly, thanking the Council for the Plaque.
_______________
MAYOR'S COMMUNICATION
250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROYAL HOSPITAL HASLAR
The Mayor informed the Council that the Leader of the Council had received a letter of thanks from Surgeon Captain Jarvis, Commanding Officer, Royal Hospital Haslar for the Council's generous donation to the Hospital's 250th Anniversary Celebrations.
_______________
QUESTIONS PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 3.4
(A) Question No 1 standing in the name of Councillor Edgar on the subject of the setting up of illegal camps by the travelling community in Gosport was answered by the Chairman of the Community and Environment Board.
(B) Question No 2 standing in the name of Councillor Mrs Salter on the subject of the proposed Asylum Centre at Lee-on-the-Solent was answered by the Leader of the Council.
(C) Question No 3 standing in the name of Councillor Mrs Wright on the subject of the Members' Allowance increase was answered by the Leader of the Council.
(D) Question No 4 standing in the name of Councillor Allen on the subject of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats visit to a "Cannabis Cafe" in Worthing was answered by the Leader of the Council.
(E) Question No 5 standing in the name of Councillor Burgess on the subject of forthcoming planning applications to open "Cannabis Cafes" within Gosport Borough was answered by the Leader of the Council.
A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD
WAS HELD ON 9 JUNE 2003
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio) (P); Councillors Mrs Angus, Bone (P), Mrs Cully, Edgar (P), Edwards (P), Mrs Elshaw, Hook (P), Kimber (P), Train (P) and Wright (P).
It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, notice had been received that The Mayor (Councillor Mrs I Binfield), Councillor Mrs Wright and M Russell would replace Councillors Mrs Angus, Mrs Cully and Mrs Elshaw respectively for this meeting.
PART I
9. NOMINATION OF REPRESENTATION ON OUTSIDE BODY–LRT DEVELOPMENT PANEL
RECOMMENDED: That The Mayor (Councillor Mrs Binfield), Councillors Edgar and M Russell be appointed as the Council's representatives to serve on the LRT Development Panel for the Municipal Year 2003-2004.
RESOLVED: That the recommendation contained in Minute No.9 be approved and adopted.
A MEETING OF THE POLICY AND ORGANISATION BOARD
WAS HELD ON 25 JUNE 2003
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Burgess (P), Cully (Chairman) (P), Bone (P),
Chegywn (P), Hook (P), Langdon (P), M Russell (P), Searle (P), Wright (P)
and Mrs Wright (P).
In accordance with Standing Orders the Borough Solicitor reported that Councillor Bone had been nominated to attend this meeting in place of Councillor Friend.
5. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That, the Minutes of the meetings of the Board held on 12 March and 15 May 2003 be approved and signed by the Chairman as true and correct records.
PART II
6. REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Board considered a report of the Borough Solicitor on the review of the Constitution.
It was reported that since the Council had adopted its new Constitution in April 2002 a number of agreed amendments had been made to it. In addition the Borough Solicitor had reviewed the operation of the Constitution in 2003.
The first phase of the review had looked at the composition of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and it was suggested that the Council should have two Overview and Scrutiny Committees – Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
The Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee would deal with the policy framework and financial (including audit) matters. It would also monitor and scrutinise the Constitution and have overall responsibility for the workings of Overview and Scrutiny and the relationship of Overview and Scrutiny to the Boards.
The Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee would deal with those matters not dealt with by the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee, including Best Value, Tender Evaluations and Service Provision.
It was advised that the Overview and Scrutiny Committees needed to meet on a more regular basis, say every 4-6 weeks. These meetings could be scheduled into the current programme of meetings. It was stated that if a decision was made not to scrutinise an item then there would be no guarantee that it would be referred back to the same Board meeting, it may well have to go to the next Board meeting.
policy framework and the scope of the Policy and Organisation Board's responsibilities on policy matters. These amendments were set out in Appendix 2 (No's 1,2,6 & 7). Proposed amendments had also been made to the delegated powers of the Personnel Sub-Board so that it could carry out personnel issues, these were detailed in Appendix 2 (No's 9 & 10). When incorporating any amendments agreed by Council the Borough Solicitor proposed to correct any minor typographical errors and update references to such matters as job titles, changes in responsibility of officers and any references to legislation.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the Council's Constitution be amended in accordance with Sections 3,4,5 & 6 and Appendix 2 of the Borough Solicitor's report and be subject to any comments received from the consultation exercise with the Policy and Organisation Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Conduct and Standards Committee;
(ii) the comments received so far on the operation of the Constitution, as
outlined in Appendix 3 of the Borough Solicitor's report, be received; and
(iii) the Policy and Organisation Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the
Conduct and Standards Committee be consulted on the proposed
amendments to the Constitution as outlined in Appendix 2 of the
Borough Solicitor's report.
7. BUDGET STRATEGY 2004/05
Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Treasurer concerning the timetable and mechanisms to be adopted for the preparation of the Council's budget for 2004/05.
It was reported that the Council had to prepare a budget for General Fund services in order to ascertain the amount required to be raised from Council Tax payers. Budget preparation would commence in July and would incorporate requirements which resulted from other Council strategies e.g. Housing and Capital strategies, Community Strategy, Corporate Plan and Best Value action plans, most of which would be considered by Boards during the Autumn. It was anticipated that any agreed public consultation should be conducted early in the autumn in order to feed into the process of building up the budget.
As eventual spending levels were largely limited by the level of Government grant support which would not be known until December, it would not be appropriate to debate budget bids/requirements until January. Boards would then consider their budgets including new bids, the results of consultation and the government grant settlement with an idea of what was affordable. Council would consider the Policy and Organisation Board's proposal for the 2004/05 budget at its meeting scheduled for 4 February 2004.
Budget preparation would initially be in accordance with previous policy i.e. "zero-based" where appropriate, with only inescapable inflation provided for; fees and charges increased where possible; and, new bids minimised (zero growth). The consultation process may produce proposals for service changes and these would be costed and considered by Boards in January. Maintenance proposals would be prioritised according to new asset management planning requirements.
The Board was advised that the following parameters were considered prudent and would be used in the build up of the initial budgets:
(a) General Inflation 2.5%
(b) Pay Awards 3.5%.
Whilst further improvements to Exchequer support were likely, pressures on Council Tax levels and reserves would continue, partly as a result of increased demand for statutory services such as Housing Benefits and Homelessness. The final accounts process for 2002/03 was nearing completion and a further deterioration in General Fund balances had resulted. This could probably be offset by 2004/05 through the policy to restore balances and reserves adopted as part of the 2003/04 budget, as long as finances did not continue to deteriorate in the current year. There was likely to be a statutory requirement to produce a balanced budget for 2004/05, with more formal consideration of levels of working balances.
RESOLVED: That the budget framework for 2004/05 as outlined in the Borough Treasurer's report be approved.
8. APPROVAL OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
The Board considered a report of the Borough Treasurer on the Statement of Accounts. It was reported that the draft copy of the Statement of Accounts (subject to audit) for 2002/03 had been circulated to each member of the Board prior to the meeting. The Accounts would be open for public inspection from 31 July to 27 August 2003.
The Revised Budget on the general fund for 2002/03 was £421,730. The actual shortfall on general fund was £593,350, an increase of £171,620. The largest single increase in expenditure against the revised budget was in respect of Council Tax Rebates and Housing Benefits (£207,010).
The Housing Revenue account was forecast to have a revenue deficit of £91,000 for 2002/03 which would reduce the account balance to £500,000 at 31 March 2003. The actual position for the year was a surplus of £123,868 which had increased the account balance to £714,360. The variation against the revised budget of £214,680 was due to two main factors. The under spend and subsequent financing of the Capital Programme for 2002/03 had meant that £198,000 of the budgeted HRA funding contribution had not been required and the general reduction in the net costs of operating the HRA of £16,680.
The Capital Programme for 2002/03 showed an under spend of approximately £1.006m against the revised programme budget of £5,484,000, almost entirely due to slippage which would be identified in Budget Monitors later in the year.
The Council's long term borrowing during 2002/03 has remained constant at £5.0m. The level of net temporary debt (reflecting the Council's short term cash flow management) had improved from a net debt position at 31 March 2002 of £0.7m to a net investment position of £3.7m at 31 March 2003. Other factors favourably affecting cash flow management included an improvement in arrears performance and the Capital Programme savings – both of which increased interest earnings on balances in 2002/03 and the current year.
The surplus on the collection fund, which reflected income from Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates together with the spending requirements of Gosport Borough and Hampshire County Councils and the Hampshire Police Authority, had increased during the year to 31 March 2003 and further consideration would be given to this during the budget process for 2004/05.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the Statement of Accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 2003 be approved; and
(ii) the variances detailed in Appendix "A" of the Borough Treasurer's report
be noted.
(NOTE: Councillor Chegwyn declared personal and prejudicial interests in the item below and withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the discussion thereon)
9. WRITE OFFS
The Borough Treasurer accordingly reported the following debts:
NNDR Write Off
|
Name & Address |
Date |
Charge
£ |
Reason |
|
Mr M Quanton – Davies,
Rowner Sports & Social Club,
Herrford Court,
Davenport Close,
Gosport |
12.02.01 –
08.01.03 |
13,953.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sundry Debtor Write Off
|
Name & Address |
Date |
Charge
£ |
Reason |
|
English Heritage,
Eastgate Court,
195-205 High Street, Guildford, GU1 3EH |
24.10.01 |
17,859.22 |
Legislation prevented recovery of costs of structural works carried out in August 2001. |
RESOLVED: That the write offs totalling £31,813.05 be approved.
(NOTE: Councillor Wright declared a personal interest in the item below)
10. DELEGATED POWERS – LOCAL TAX ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION
The Borough Treasurer submitted a report in the above matter.
RESOLVED: That pursuant to Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1972, Mrs Pat Brown be authorised to represent the Borough Council in the Magistrates' Court in all matters relating to the administration of, and proceedings for the enforcement of, Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rate.
11. 'CLEANER GOPORT' BEST VALUE REVIEW
Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Development & Environment concerning the 'Cleaner Gosport' Best Value Review.
It was reported that the 'Cleaner Gosport' Best Value Review was thematic and had involved the examination of a variety of Council services which contributed to the
cleanliness of the Borough. 'Cleaner Gosport' was selected as a Best Value Review because feedback from residents indicated that cleanliness was important and impacted upon quality of life. It was also important in respect of tourism and the local economy and had community safety implications. Many of the Council's services that contributed towards 'Cleaner Gosport' were currently contracted out. The conclusions from this review would be integrated into the new contract specifications which would be based on a partnering approach.
During the 'Cleaner Gosport' Best Value Review the criteria for challenge, compare, consult and compete had been followed. Council Management Team had already examined this review and the resulting action and improvement plans, to ensure that a corporate and consistent approach had been taken. The role of the Board was to ensure that this review had been carried out in a robust and vigorous manner. A summary of the process and action plans was contained in Appendix "A" of the Director's report.
RESOLVED: That the 'Cleaner Gosport' Best Value Review be approved.
12. CRIME & DISORDER
The Board considered a report of the Director of Development & Environment on a proposed Community Safety Conference in July 2003.
It was reported that the Association of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities would be organising this year's Community Safety Conference. The Director had been advised that this year's Conference would take place on 8 July 2003 at
St Mary's Stadium, Southampton at a cost of £45 per delegate. This year's Conference would have a key note address, and would consider the following issues:
<, div class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; tab-stops: 1.0cm">
Tackling anti-social behaviour
Engaging with Communities
Race and Diversity
Drug Action across Hampshire
Tackling Domestic Violence
As in previous years, the Director proposed that three Members and two officers attend the above Conference on behalf of the Council. The cost of attending this Conference could be met from relevant Community Safety budgets. In addition as it appeared that this Conference was an annual event organised by the Association of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities it was proposed that this Conference be added to the list of Approved Conferences.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) approval be given for three Members viz. The Mayor, Councillor Langdon and a Liberal Democrat Councillor to attend the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities Community Safety Conference on Tuesday, 8 July 2003; and
(ii) the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Authorities Community Safety Conference be added to the list of Approved Conferences.
13. ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING POLICY
The Board considered a report of the Regulatory Services Manager on the Council's entertainment licensing policy.
It was reported that the Licensing Bill was currently before Parliament and was expected to become law by 2004. One of the key requirements would will be a duty to consult upon, and publish a statement of licensing policy. It was recommended that the interim licensing policy, attached as Appendix 1 to the Manager's report, be adopted as a statement of present position, which may in any case change in six months time.
The opportunity had been taken to develop a policy covering all aspects of entertainment licensing, public entertainment, door security registration and sex establishments in order to provide a comprehensive document.
Hampshire Police had been consulted on the draft policy and their comments had been taken in to account. The local licensing trade had also been consulted and were broadly in agreement with the proposals. More detailed consultation would take place with the trade and other stakeholders as liquor licensing was integrated into the document.
RESOLVED: That the Council's licensing policy as outlined in Appendix 1 to the Regulatory Services Manager's report and as recommended by the Regulatory Board on 20 May 2003 be approved.
14. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
RESOLVED: That under Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Act.
15. GOSPORT SURE START – CAPITAL BUILDING PROGRAMME
Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Director of Development & Environment, which recommended a number of actions to progress the above scheme.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the contents of the Director of Development & Environment's report be approved;
(ii) the Director of Development & Environment be instructed to proceed with the engagement of Consultants and Contractors within the time frame set out in his report; and
(iii) the Borough Solicitor be instructed to conclude the necessary legal documentation on the terms as outlined within Section 3 of the Director of Development & Environment's report or such other terms as agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the Policy & Organisation Board.
16. CCTV
Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Director of Development & Environment, which recommended acceptance of a tender for the maintenance of a Fareham & Gosport CCTV system on behalf of Fareham & Gosport Borough Councils.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the Borough Solicitor be authorised to enter into a five year maintenance
agreement with the selected tenderer outlined in the report on behalf of
Fareham & Gosport Borough Councils, subject to Fareham Borough Council
agreeing to accept the tender; and
(ii) a copy of the Director of Development and Environment's exempt report be
forwarded to Fareham Borough Council.
17. COMMON LAND AT COURTS 12 – 16, ROWNER AND LAND AT THE REAR OF 28/30/32, VIAN CLOSE, BRIDGEMARY
Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Housing Services Manager on the above matter.
The Housing Services Manager's report sought the approval of the Policy and Organisation Board for the transfer of part of the Courts' common land at Rowner (areas 12-16) and the transfer of land at Vian Close, Bridgemary to Portsmouth Housing Association (PHA). The Housing Board had approved the terms of this proposal on 28 November 2001. The transfer of the common land at Courts 12-16 was dependant upon the simultaneous transfer of land at Vian Close as an overall financial package, which subject to the approval of the Board it was anticipated would be completed by the end of June 2003.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the principle terms established by the Housing Board in November 2001 on the transfer of the specified pieces of land detailed in the report be ratified;
(ii) the transfer of the common parts of land at Courts 12 – 16 to Portsmouth Housing Association and the sale of the land at the rear of 28/30/32 Vian Close, for the sum detailed in the report to Portsmouth Housing Association be approved;
(iii) the recycling of 50% of the capital receipt received by the Council for the sale of land at Vian Close to Portsmouth Housing Association to enable the re-development of the site to provide (subject to planning consent) 5 bungalows for persons over the age of 55 be approved; and
(iv) the Borough Solicitor be authorised to enter into such legal documentation as was necessary to effect the proposals contained in the report and on terms and conditions recommended by the Council's Consultant Valuers.
18. TRANSFER OF LAND FROM PERSIMMON HOMES TO GOSPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL
Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Leisure and Amenities Manager, which recommended the transfer of land from the ownership of Persimmon Homes to Gosport Borough Council.
It was reported that following the completion of the first phase of housing development in Cherque Farm, Lee on the Solent, protracted negotiations between Persimmon Homes and the Borough Council had resulted in a commuted sum being agreed by both parties that was sufficient to maintain the areas of land "in perpetuity". In addition to this commuted sum a figure had been agreed that was sufficient to bring the areas concerned up to an acceptable standard.
RESOLVED: That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to enter in to such legal documentation as was necessary to effect the transfer of land from the ownership of Persimmon Homes to Gosport Borough Council.
19. GOSPORT BOROUGH FOOTBALL CLUB – PROPOSED 25 YEAR LEASE ON THE CLUBHOUSE AND GROUND
Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Leisure and Amenities Manager, which recommended the Council to enter in to an agreement for a 25 year lease on the Clubhouse and ground with the Gosport Borough Football Club.
RESOLVED: That approval be given to the Council entering into an agreement for lease and the contracted out lease with the Trustees of Gosport Borough Football Club on terms and conditions recommended by the Council's Head of Property Services.
RESOLVED: That Minute Nos. 5-19 (inclusive) of the meeting of the Policy and Organisation Board held on 25 June 2003 be received.
A MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT BOARD
WAS HELD ON 9 JUNE 2003
The Mayor (ex-officio) (P); Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio) (P); Councillors Mrs Angus, Bone (P), Mrs Cully, Edgar (P), Edwards (P), Mrs Elshaw, Hook (P), Kimber (P), Train (P) and Wright (P).
It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Orders, notice had been received that The Mayor (Councillor Mrs I Binfield), Councillor Mrs Wright and M Russell would replace Councillors Mrs Angus, Mrs Cully and Mrs Elshaw respectively for this meeting.
6. APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received on behalf of Councillors Mrs Angus, Mrs Cully and Mrs Elshaw.
7. CHAIRMAN'S OPENING REMARKS
(i) The Chairman welcomed Councillor Bone's return to the Board following
several weeks of ill-health.
in Aldershot where a number of local schools had participated. Although not winning any individual accolades, Gosport schools did win the overall competition for the 'Fair Play' award and were presented with a trophy to mark their success. Congratulations were extended to all those involved with the event.
8. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meetings of the Board held on 3 March and 15 May 2003 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record.
PART II
(NOTE: Councillor Cully declared a personal interest in the item below)
10. AMENITY LIGHTING IN GOSPORT
The Regulatory Services Manager submitted a report seeking the Board's approval of amenity lighting schemes in Gosport to be match funded and recommended for promotion in the Hampshire County Council community safety lighting programme.
The Regulatory Services Manager outlined the design and maintenance issues together with the duties and powers of the County Council and Borough Council in
respect of lighting provision. Members were reminded of the criteria and weighting factors that had been previously approved, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, to assist in the prioritisation of potential amenity lighting schemes within the Borough.
Details of various requests for lighting, that the Council had received or that had been identified by officers and Members, were also appended to the report and subdivided into public and private areas. The criteria and weighting assessment had been applied to each to determine a priority, together with its estimated cost. It was recommended that lighting of private areas should only be considered a priority in exceptional circumstances where a wider public benefit was afforded because of the concerns of setting an unsustainable precedent and the implications of ongoing maintenance costs.
The County Council had a street lighting Community Safety Initiative that sought to improve street lighting in partnership with District Councils. Subject to the provision of match funding by the District Council, the County Council would fund half of the cost of a lighting scheme, or schemes, up to a maximum of £5,000 per annum.
The Borough Council had allocated £2,000 match funding in the 2003/2004 budget and the Regulatory Services Manager had identified schemes that might be promoted with that funding. Given the limitation of the £4,000 budget, not all schemes would be deliverable.
As the Amenity Lighting Schemes for Pettycot Crescent and the Dolphin Crescent Garage Area were the only public areas that could be implemented within the budget available, it was suggested that those schemes should be recommended for promotion in the County Council Community Safety Lighting programme.
However, Members expressed the view that schemes should be implemented in the priority order identified in Appendix 2 to the report and that a means of funding the works should be sought, such as carrying over funds from the current financial year to the next financial year or, if possible, implementing the works over two financial years.
RESOLVED: That
County Council in the priority order indicated as set out in Appendix 2 of the Regulatory Services Manager's report.
11. TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER PROGRAMME 2003/2004
The Director of Development and Environment submitted a report seeking the Board's approval to a programme of Traffic Regulation Orders to be implemented in 2003-2004 with Hampshire County Council funding.
The Traffic Section identified the need for Traffic Regulation Orders mostly through correspondence with the public and Members and also where identified by the Police and officers. A need might also arise through new development or highway works although in those cases additional external funding was often available.
At present the Traffic Section had a list of fifty-six potential traffic regulation schemes requiring funding from the County Council budget, which had all been the subject of preliminary assessment and had been approved in principle by the Police who were responsible for enforcement.
Having regard to the budget and estimated costs, ten schemes were proposed for the 2003-2004 programme, as listed in Appendix A to the report, two of which were carried over from the 2002/2003 programme.
A substitute list of a further ten schemes was identified in Appendix B to the report. It was proposed that those schemes could be progressed should additional funding become available or if any of the priority schemes failed to proceed beyond detailed investigation or consultation. The remaining thirty-six schemes were shown in Appendix C to the report.
The Director of Development and Environment further reported on revisions to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, whereby bus stop clearways prohibiting parking no longer required a Traffic Regulation Order and the associated formal statutory consultation. It was proposed that in future those schemes would be assessed and implemented by officers in consultation with Ward Councillors and would be the subject of informal public consultation where appropriate.
The Regulations now had no requirement for the provisions of signs in support of double yellow lines to indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time.
RESOLVED: That
progresses should further funding become available or other schemes fail to proceed; and
removes the need for traffic regulation orders for bus clearways and that future schemes should be assessed by officers in consultation with Ward Councillors
12. PROJECT INTEGRA ANNUAL BUSINESS PLAN 2003/2004
The Project Integra Partnership was acknowledged by the DETR as an example of best practice in waste management. To ensure that the partnership and its resources were properly prioritised, planned and managed, an Annual Business Plan was formulated each year and approved by the Integra Management Board and each of the fourteen individual district, unitary and county councils. Gosport Borough Council had full membership representation of that Board.
The Business Plan for 2003/2004 had been agreed by the Project Integra Management Board at its meeting on 3 April 2003. As it was a requirement of the Project Integra Constitution for the Annual Business Plan to be adopted by the relevant Council Board of each local authority within the partnership, Members were requested to approve the Annual Business Plan for 2003/2004 as submitted.
RESOLVED: That the Project Integra Annual Business Plan for 2003-2004 be approved.
13. MULTI GAMES AREA – PRIDDY'S HARD
The Board considered a report submitted by Councillor Langdon, together with a resident's letter, highlighting the problems that had arisen from the use of the new games area at Priddy's Hard.
The new play areas within the Priddy's Hard estate had been negotiated and agreed by Barratt Homes and the Council, as part of planning procedures and, as a result, the responsibility for the facility lay with Barratts until such time as it was adopted by the Council. The games area was very close to residential properties and local councillors had received several individual complaints and a residents' petition seeking a remedy to the problems of vandalism, anti-social behaviour and sources of unacceptable activities taking place in the vicinity.
The Leisure and Amenities Manager highlighted other facilities planned in close proximity to Priddy's Hard as part of the overall development and it was envisaged that those facilities should result in reduced usage of the multi games areas in the future.
However in view of the ongoing problems and concerns, following discussions between Barratt Homes and Council officers, it had been decided to close the games area on 2 May 2003, in order to provide time to consider the best course of action for the site and the provision of recreational facilities in the area.
Councillor Langdon proposed various suggestions to remedy the situation and sought the Board's support for further action to be taken to deal with the problems encountered. It was suggested that officers explore, with Barratt Homes, options that would meet the concerns of the local residents whilst at the same time meeting the recreational needs of the local community.
Members acknowledged that the Council had a moral obligation to seek a solution to the problems and the Board were anxious that discussions with the developer should be instigated immediately. The planning condition for an 'open space' facility would still apply but it was felt that consideration should be given to enhancing the area, possibly by sensitive landscaping, or to relocating the open space elsewhere in the development, for the enjoyment of the residents and local community.
Councillor Langdon was thanked for his report and for bringing to the Board's attention the concerns of the community.
RESOLVED: That
therein supported; and
(b) based on the recommendations in the report, Council Officers, together with the Chairman of the Board and Ward Councillors, enter into negotiations with Barratt Homes with some urgency to seek a solution to the problems in respect of the multi games facility at Priddy's Hard.
(NOTE: Councillor Redrup declared a personal interest in the item below)
14. ALVER VALLEY MASTER PLAN
The Leisure and Amenities Manager presented for the Board's approval the Alver Valley Master Plan, following its consideration by, and recommendation of, the Alver Valley Steering Group.
The proposals contained in the Plan were the result of extensive preparatory work that had been undertaken both by Groundwork Solent and Council officers and had been subject to varied consultation processes with a range of community organisations and other agencies.
As the land had been subject to landfill in the past, the Leisure and Amenities Manager reported that further environmental investigation might be necessary in certain areas and, to that end, a meeting had been arranged with the Environment Agency to seek their advice and explore ways to address any problems. Advice would also be sought in respect of concerns relating to major flooding problems by Apple Dumpling Bridge. Members were also informed that a northern access to the site had yet to be resolved.
The Leisure and Amenities Manager reported that, whilst officers were recommending progression of the Plan, at the same time, they wished to ensure that there were no additional liabilities for the Council. Approval of the Plan would enable the Council to begin the implementation of various elements of the Park, subject to appropriate funding being available.
Future management options and results of environmental studies would be considered by the Steering Group and subsequently submitted to the Board for approval.
The Board extended thanks to all who had been involved in the production of the Plan which Members considered to be an excellent and exciting scheme.
RESOLVED: That the Alver Valley Master Plan be confirmed as satisfactorily meeting the requirements of the Council for the provision of the Alver Valley Park and that approval be given for its implementation.
15. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
RESOLVED: That under Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the under-mentioned items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 A of the Act.
16. TRANSFER OF LAND FROM PERSIMMON HOMES TO GOSPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL
Consideration was given to an exempt report by the Leisure and Amenities Manager seeking approval for the transfer of land from the ownership of Persimmon Homes to the Borough Council.
RESOLVED: That
(a) approval be given in principle to the transfer of land from Persimmon Homes to Gosport Borough Council and that authorisation be sought from the Policy and Organisation Board to this recommendation
(b) the commuted sum be approved; and
(c) the additional sum to cover remedial works be approved.
A MEETING OF THE HOUSING BOARD
WAS HELD ON 11 JUNE 2003
The Mayor (ex-officio), Chairman of the Policy and Organisation Board (Councillor Cully) (ex-officio) (P), Councillors Allen (P), Bone (P), Carter (P), Mrs Cully (P), Farr (P), Friend (P), Hayward (P), P Russell (P), Smith(P) and Mrs Wright
Chairman) (P)
6. MINUTES
RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meetings of the Board held on 5 March and 15 May 2003 be approved and signed by the Chairman as true and correct records.
PART II
7. A REVIEW OF GOSPORT'S HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY
(Note: Councillor P Russell declared a non-pecuniary and non-prejudicial interest in this item, remained in the room and took part in the debate and voting thereon).
Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager.
The Board was advised that the Council had just published a Homelessness Strategy in 2000/2001. Since that time the Government had produced guidance, recommendations and a good practice guide. In addition, the new Priority Need Order had come into effect (31st July 2002) resulting in an expansion of the homeless customers that Councils had a duty to assist and the Council's development of the Supporting People Agenda had resulted in the provision of a range of further services for homeless households.
Production of a revised homelessness strategy had been deferred in 2002/2003 whilst the newly published guidance and good practice guide was being considered. Having considered these and more recent documents, such as the Audit Commission's report (Homelessness – Responding to the new agenda) and Government letters inviting Councils to adopt new targets, it had been considered that revisions should be made to the existing Gosport Homelessness Strategy. The Homelessness Act 2002 and attending regulations required that a strategy be published by the end of July 2003.
Appendix 1 of the Housing Services Manager's report set out the draft Gosport
Homelessness Strategy 2003 to 2007. The Board was asked to consider the draft document and make any comments as part of the wider consultation required within the strategy. In addition, the Board was asked to approve the strategy in principle, and to delegate authority to the Housing Services Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of Housing Board and Group Spokespersons, to publish the strategy following the outcome of consultation.
The main amendments to the strategy were summarised as:
- presentation emphasis:
- incorporation of new schemes or updates (such as Supporting People matters);
- an update on recent trends, and analysis;
- production of firm targets to be devised following consultation.
The Board was advised that the Government wanted to see detail in the strategy about the following:
- a clear picture of current services across the district and identification of where services needed to be introduced and how this would be done;
- an emphasis upon how the Council, in partnership with other agencies, prevented homelessness.
- how the Council would deliver a continuous programme of service improvements guided by local consultation.
The aim of the new strategy was to achieve the "fit for purpose" assessment criteria required by the Government and to fulfil the requirements of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime.
The Chairman, on behalf of the Board, extended her thanks to all officers involved in the production of the draft Homelessness Strategy.
RESOLVED: That -
(i) the contents of the Housing Services Manager's report be noted; and
(ii) the Housing Services Manager be given delegated authority, in consultation with the Chairman of the Housing Board and Group Spokespersons, to develop and approve changes to the draft Homelessness Strategy following further consultation with the wider community.
8. A REVIEW OF GOSPORT'S HOUSING ALLOCATIONS POLICY
Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager.
The Board was advised that the Housing Act 1996 required Councils to adopt a means of assessment of customers housing need. The complexity of the rules had been a reflection of the Government's desire to see those customers in most housing need being given the increasingly scarce resource of social housing (Council and Housing Association properties). More recently there had been discussion at a national and local level of the need to adopt more choice for customers.
There had been some simplification of the statutory framework under the Homelessness Act 2002 in certain areas of housing need assessment and there was no longer a statutory requirement to operate a housing register. However, given that the regulations had introduced some new categories that needed to be assessed, it was recommended that a register be maintained for administrative purposes and to continue the close partnership working arrangements that had developed in recent years.
The law also now required that all customers be assessed in the same manner. This was the single most important provision affecting the Council's Allocations Policy because it required an assessment of Council and partner Housing Associations tenants in the same way as other customers. Hitherto, these assessments had been dealt with differently under the Transfer and Waiting List policies.
The other main statutory change was the issue of which customer categories were eligible to be allocated accommodation. The law now specified which categories of customer were, or could be considered to be, eligible. This removed the discretion previously held by Councils to set their own eligibility rules.
The Housing Services Manager's report therefore considered the following key changes:
· Balancing the demands of existing tenants, other customers and local communities by the introduction of a planned allocations system;
· Eligible customer categories;
· Additional customer choice;
· Incorporation of the shared ownership list;
· Transitional protection; and
· An extension of the 'Right of Review'
The biggest issue faced by the Council was how to balance the needs of existing tenants with the needs of customers not yet in social housing. The recommendation was that a planned allocation system be implemented as this would allow greater precision of outcome when compared with a purely 'points' based solution. A planned system would also move Council policy a step further in promoting the long-term sustainability of communities.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) approval be given in principle
(a) that the points system aim to maintain the status quo between current waiting list categories (Paragraph 4.5 of the Housing Services Manager's report);
(b) to the adoption of an allocations plan to achieve a "sensible balance" between meeting the needs of tenant and applicant applications;
(c) that "the target for every allocations area should be the same; and that the target as measured by size of property (number of bedrooms) will vary" (Paragraph 5.5 of the Housing Services Manager's report);
(d) that a mechanism be devised whereby no preference be given applicants who have been guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make them unsuitable to be a tenant ( Paragraph 6.3 of the Housing Services Manager's report);
(e) to the statement on customer choice ( Paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of the Housing Services Manager's report);
(f) to the proposals for prioritising shared ownership applications (Paragraph 8.1 of the Housing Services Manager's report); and
(g) to the transitional arrangements for protecting those affected by the changes (Paragraph 9.2 of the Housing Services Manager's report)
(ii) the Board note the proposed Allocations Policy is subject to consultation with customers affected by the changes;
(iii) the Board note that the proposed Allocations Policy is subject to consultation with Housing Associations that are partners to the Gosport Joint Housing Register; and
(iv) the Housing Services Manager be given delegated authority, in consultation with the Chairman of the Housing Board and Group Spokespersons, to develop the changes to the Council's Allocations Policy outlined in the report but that any significant issues that depart from these principles be referred to the next available meeting of the Housing Board for consideration.
9. A REVIEW OF THE GOSPORT HOMELESS CUSTOMER SUPPORT TEAM
Consideration was given to a report of the Housing Services Manager.
The Board was advised that Council had fully embraced the Supporting People agenda and this had resulted in substantial additional funding being made available to the Council. This funding was mainly revenue based and claimable year-on-year. The Council needed to consider how to distribute that money and develop services further to meet contract requirements and housing service objectives. The report considered the issues that needed to be addressed in making the best use of these resources.
The Council had contracted with Hampshire County Council to provide support to homeless customers under two contracts. On the 31st March 2003 there had been 120 homeless households in accommodation and receiving support under the first contract. On the same day there were 22 households in private sector accommodation and supported under the second contract. These numbers had exceeded original expectations.
There was substantial detail and complexity in respect of how much the Council had been advised it could expect to receive by way of grant money. However, the reconciliation process underway would be the means by which the final grant level would be decided. This reconciliation process was particularly difficult for the Council's homeless support schemes, due to the very high turnover of households as they were moved into and through the temporary accommodation stages of accommodation. However, it was highly probable that in excess of £100,000 grant would be payable to the Council for the Homeless Customers Support Team.
The County Council had indicated that this Council would be contracted to employ four full time officers (or equivalent) to service the contractual obligations. This was due to the successful implementation of the second contract (expansion into the private sector). For this reason it was recommended that one further officer be employed in the Supporting People team subject to confirmation that available funds would pay for the full employment costs.
There were a number of issues that the Supporting People contracts either generated or gave an opportunity for this Council to resolve. These were summarised as:
· The need to provide management support to the homeless customers support team and servicing of the cross-district consultative framework;
- The resolution of the split between housing management and support work for Barclay House hostel and the Council's permanent properties let on a temporary basis;
- The delegation of management responsibilities for Barclay House.
In addition to these issues, it was emphasised that, although the Supporting People grant funding source was currently substantial, to ensure that this important funding stream continued, the Council had to demonstrate that its 'unit cost' for the provision of support was competitive. Given this situation, the Housing Services Manager would ensure that, when support schemes were reviewed, particular attention would be paid to unit costs and any effect these may have on support schemes competitiveness.
The Board was advised that the Council was now in a position to benefit from the work that it had put into developing the Supporting People Agenda over the last two years. This had presented the Housing Services Unit with an opportunity to develop a range of local support services for customers through grant monies administered by Hampshire County Council. Final confirmation of the exact level of grant to be made available was currently being awaited but it was clear that the grant would be substantial. There was therefore a need to further develop this important agenda and to do this, Members were asked to delegate authority for the development of the matters contained in the report to the Housing Services Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of Housing Board and Group Spokespersons.
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the contents of the Housing Services Manager's report be noted; and
(ii) the Housing Services Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Housing Board and Group Spokespersons, be given delegated authority to progress and implement the matters contained in the report.
10. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
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 involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION AT
GARLAND COURT
Consideration was given to an exempt report of the Housing Services Manager in connection with telecommunications equipment at Garland Court.
The previous recommendation relating to this item was discussed and it was agreed that, should Orange Personal Communications wish to pursue negotiations as a result of the recommendation in the Housing Services Manager's report, the Housing Committee's resolution of 8 November 2000 would be adhered to
RESOLVED: That –
(i) the recommendations contained in the report be approved;
(ii) should Orange Personal Communications wish to pursue negotiations as a result of resolution (i) above, the Housing Committee's resolution of 8 November 2000 be adhered to.
RESOLVED: That Minute Nos. 6-11 (inclusive) of the meeting of the Housing Board held on 11 June 2003 be received.
_______________
STANDING ORDER 4.15.1
The Mayor reported that notice had been received requesting that Standing Order 4.15.1 be moved to enable the Borough Solicitor to present her reports on the Review of the Constitution and Borough-Wide Phone Mast Policy.
RESOLVED: That Standing Order 4.15.1 be moved to enable the Borough Solicitor to present her reports on the Review of the Constitution and Borough-Wide Phone Mast Policy.
_______________
REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Borough Solicitor referred to her report (a copy of which is affixed hereto as Appendix 'C1') on the Review o the Constitution.
It was reported that the Policy and Organisation Board on 25 June 2003 had considered the report enclosed at Annex A to the Borough Solicitor's report. The Board had agreed the recommendations set out in the report. The Policy and Organisation Overview and Scrutiny Committee had met on 2 July 2003 to consider the report at Annex A and its recommendations were outlined in Section 2 of the report. The Conduct and Standards Committee had met on 3 July 2003 and approved the recommendations in the report at Annex A.
The proposed amendments to the Constitution were set out in Appendix 2 and Supplementary Appendix 2 of the report at Annex A. Since the report was considered by the Policy and Organisation Board, Item Numbers 4 and 5 of Appendix 2 had needed to be deleted, as after further consideration there was no need to amend Chapter 12 or Part Two – Schedule 5 of the existing Constitution.
If the Council agreed the new arrangements for the two Overview and Scrutiny Committees then it was proposed that they should each be comprised of 10 Members on the same basis of proportionality as the present Overview and Scrutiny Committees.
An amendment to recommendation (iv) in the Borough Solicitor's report was put to the meeting and duly approved by Council.
MOTION: That the following recommendations in the Borough Solicitor's report and the amended recommendation (iv) be approved and adopted.
(i) That the comments received so far on the operation of the Constitution as set out in Appendix 3 be noted;
(ii) That the amendments set out in Appendix 2 and Supplementary Appendix 2, subject to paragraphs 3.1 and 4.1 of this report, be approved;
(iii) That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to make such further amendments as are necessary to correct for example typographical and grammatical errors, update references to Job titles, changes and responsibilities of officers and references to legislation or to give effect to the proposed amendments set out in Appendix 2 and Supplementary Appendix 2;
(iv) That Members accept the Policy and Organisation Overview and Scrutiny Committee's recommendations (pages 2 and 3 of the Borough Solicitor's report). In so doing the Council accepts Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 and authorises the Borough Solicitor in consultation with the Group Leaders to finalise details of an amendment to Standing Order 5.6.2 to achieve 2.2.3 taking into account the exceptions laid out therein; and
(v) That Members be appointed to each of the Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee as provided for in paragraph 4.1 of the report.
The Motion was accordingly put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.
_______________
BOROUGH-WIDE PHONE MAST POLICY
The Borough Solicitor referred to her report (a copy of which is affixed hereto as Appendix 'C2') on the Borough-Wide Phone Mast Policy. She also referred Members to a letter dated 7 July 2003 which had been received from the Council Relations Officer, Orange Personal Communications Services Limited on the above topic. As requested by Orange , a copy of this letter had been put before each Member of the Council.
The Council was directed in accordance with the protocol on the principles of Scrutiny, as specified in the Constitution, to resolve the matter of the formulation of a Borough-Wide Phone Mast Policy, identifying reasons for its decision. In this context the Council considered the recommendations of the Community and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 February 2003 and the resolution of the Community and Environment Board on 3 March 2003.
As a result of their research, together with submissions from Councillors Allen and Redrup, the Community and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 February had recommended that the Board be requested to consider approval of a Borough-Wide Phone Mast Policy on Council owned land as follows:
(a) that there be no mast installations on Council land close to a school;
(b) that there be no mast installations on Council land in the midst of residential property; and
(c) that other locations be decided on their merits.
At its meeting on 3 March, the Board noted the details of the outcome of the scrutiny. However, following debate, the Board concluded and resolved that all requests for telecommunications masts and equipments to be located on Council owned property should be determined on their individual merits, as it would be difficult to implement a policy satisfactorily that restricted masts being installed close to schools or in the midst of residential areas.
At the Council meeting on 2 April 2003, the Chairman of the Community and Environment Board referred to the differing views of the Board and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the provision within the Constitution for resolution by full Council in the event of 'conflict' between an Overview and Scrutiny Committee and a Board. Accordingly, it was agreed that a report would be submitted to Council for its decision at the earliest opportunity. Copies of the relevant reports and minutes were attached at Appendices 'A' and 'B' of the Borough Solicitor's report and a copy of the scrutiny background papers had been placed in the Members Room.
Councillor Redrup accordingly moved the following Motion, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs Angus.
MOTION:
(i) That no additional mast to be installed on Council owned land within 500 metres of:
(a) a school; and
(b) residential property
(ii) That no additional masts to be installed on Council owned residential properties.
In accordance with Standing Order 4.12.4, it was requisitioned that the voting on the Motion be recorded.
A recorded vote was thereupon taken on the Motion and the names of the Members voting for and against the Motion were read to the Council as follows –
FOR MOTION: The Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors Mrs Angus, Mrs Batterbury, Bone, Burgess, Carr, Carter, Chegwyn, Clinton, Mrs Cully, Cully, Edgar, Mrs Elshaw, Farr, Gill, Mrs Gravell, Hayward, Redrup, M Russell, P Russell, Mrs Salter, Searle, Smith, Taylor, Train, Wright and Mrs Wright (28).
AGAINST MOTION: Councillors Allen, Kimber and Langdon (3).
The Motion was accordingly put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.
_______________
_______________
