Agenda and minutes

There were no questions from members of the public.

-        Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services to report.

Councillor Smith, Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Planning and Transportation, introduced a report and presentation from Paul Woodcock, Director of Planning and Regeneration which provided details on the impact of recent regeneration activity on the borough and its economy.

The presentation and report drew specific attention to:-

·              The Case for Regeneration.

·              First Phase of Transformational Growth.

·              Significant Employment Growth.

·              Preparing for the Upturn and the Next Phase of Transformational Growth.

·              Inward Investment.

·              Key Investments over the Past Year.

·              Enterprise.

·              Templeborough.

·              Waverley.

·              The Advanced Manufacturing Park.

·              Dinnington.

·              Manvers.

·              Town Centre Renaissance.

·              Related Projects.

·              RIDO’s successes.

·              Asset Management and Children and Young People’s Services.

·              Culture and Leisure.

·              Rotherham’s Business Sector.

Rotherham had been the recipient of a wide range of external funding, from both Europe and the UK Government, over the last ten to fifteen years including European Funding, Single Regeneration Budget (SRB), Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) and Working Neighbourhoods Fund (WNF).

The drop in the amount of external funding available meant that future monies needed to be targeted much more closely on activities that could demonstrate a major and sustainable effect on the Rotherham economy.

Cabinet Members welcomed this regeneration activity in the borough and sought new ways in how this could be portrayed to the wider public, particularly in light of transformation of the areas including Manvers, Dinnington and Waverley.  Rotherham was earning the reputation that it was a good place to do business and had an excellent track record in achieving new employers.

Information was requested on the amount of investment that Rotherham had benefited from and this was to be provided for Cabinet Members alongside additional information relating to how the investment had been used and the number of jobs created.

Resolved:-  (1)  That Paul Woodcock be thanked for his informative presentation.

(2)  That the contents of the report and presentation be noted.

(3)  That information be provided for Cabinet Members on the level of investment received in the borough, how this had been used and the number of jobs duly created.

-        Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services to report.

Further to Minute No. 4 of the meeting of the Rotherham Local Development Framework Members’ Steering Group held on 19th March, 2010 Councillor Smith, Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Planning and Transportation introduced a report by the Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services, which set out how the Planning Act, 2008 introduced the concept of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a new means for authorities to seek developer contributions to help fund infrastructure, which would for the most part replace Section 106 Agreements.   Although these would still exist in April, 2010 the Government intended to restrict Planning Obligations to securing affordable housing and to site specific requirements for direct impact mitigation.  There would be a transitional period of four years from the commencement of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations before planning obligations would be restricted in this way.

Councils would not be obliged to introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy, but if they did, it would be a new charge on most types of development.  It would be a fairer and more transparent system which would also allow the cumulative effects of small developments to be better addressed.  It would provide a significantly larger and more predictable flow of funding than existed with Section 106 Obligations. The Community Infrastructure Levy would be levied on virtually all new buildings and be charged in £s per square metre for all those liable to pay.  Infrastructure improvements would not relate directly to the developer site making the contribution, but would occur throughout the borough in accordance with an adopted Infrastructure Plan which identified infrastructure requirements and the funding gap to be funded by Community Infrastructure Levy.

Effectively these regulations meant that if local authorities wanted significant funding for infrastructure they would have to adopt the Community Infrastructure Levy. They would no longer have a choice to continue with an alternative tariff system for infrastructure under Section 106 Agreements.

The report set out further information with regards to the regulations and implementation, the next steps and the current policy position of the Conservative Party towards the Community Infrastructure Levy.

Reference was also made to the changes in the final regulations and the fact that the Community Infrastructure Levy would be levied on net increase of floorspace rather than gross increase, that payments could be made in kind, payment period extensions, the minimum threshold and mandatory exemptions for charities and for social housing, relief in exceptional circumstances for developers, prudential borrowing against income, monitoring costs, annual monitoring and liability notices.

At this stage there were no direct financial implications associated with this report as it related to a consultation document only.  However, if the Community Infrastructure Levy was introduced there would be significant financial and administrative implications for the Council.

There were no risks associated with this report which related to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations only. However, should the Community Infrastructure Levy be implemented then the risks would need to be identified and managed appropriately.

Cabinet Members were mindful that there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

-        Strategic Director of Finance to report.

Councillor Wyatt, Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced a report by the Strategic Director of Finance, which provided an overview of the estimated outturn of the Council’s major external funding programmes and projects compiled in January, 2010 for the financial year 2009/10.

The priorities for each regime, together with the context of each project/programme’s contribution to addressing those priorities, have previously been provided.

The report provided information into the major externally funded schemes namely:-

·              Big Lottery Fund (BLF, or BIG).

·              Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) Play Pathfinder.

·              European Union ERDF and ESF – NEW projects now active.

·              Future Jobs Fund (FJF) – ‘NEW’ first report.

·              Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder (HMRP).

·              Neighbourhood Renewal Fund – Transitional Funding (NRF TF).

·              Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) – NEW first report.

·              Regional Housing Programme (RHP).

·              Yorkshire Forward Single Pot (SRIP).

Details of the financial performance and achievements to date on these funding regimes were set out in detail as part of the report.

A substantial amount of external funds were used by the Council in order to assist in delivery against the Council’s priority areas. In addition, the Council was the accountable body for a number of external funds and, therefore, responsible for the proper use, monitoring and audit of these resources.  As with most public funds, external funds were often subject to the “use it or lose it” regime,  It was, therefore, imperative that the Council maximised these additional resources and ensured the money was used wisely to meet priorities and was not left unused at the end of the particular period or programme.

The main risk associated with this report was that external funds allocated to the Council and its partners were not fully used and, therefore, ultimately lost to the Borough.  It was the purpose of this report to assist in alleviating this issue, through monitoring the major externally funded schemes and bringing to attention potential areas of underspend and under performance.

No projects/programmes were reporting concerns regarding the achievement of both spend and performance targets.

Cabinet Members made reference to the Future Jobs Fund and welcomed the success with the key headline that forty people had been found employment by the end of December, 2009, with a projected rise to two hundred and fifty five by the end of March, 2010.  In addition, the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder programme had met and exceeded Quarter 3 targets and spend was ahead of budget.

Councillor Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Housing and Neighbourhoods, also reported on the excellent and important news that Rotherham was successful in its further bid for funding for the building of Council houses on two sites at Albany Road, Kilnhurst (21 units) and Rother View Road, Canklow (29 units) making a total of 127 units overall to be project managed by Environment and Development Services and Chevin Synergie Solutions.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the contents of the report be noted.

(2) That there continue to be progress and actions to address areas where the expected outcomes for the major  ...  view the full minutes text for item 219.

-        Strategic Director of Finance to report.

Councillor Wyatt, Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced a report by the Strategic Director of Finance, which provided details of progress on the delivery of the Revenue Budget for 2009/10 and covered the first eleven months of the 2009/10 financial year.

The report set out clearly the overall position with the main areas contributing to the position as follows:-

·              Children and Young People Services (+£4.377m).

·              Environment and Development Services (+£0.246m).

·              Neighbourhoods and Adult Services (+£0.610m).

·              Financial Services – balanced budget.

·              Chief Executive (-£70k).

·              Central Services (+£0.215m).

·              Other Issues:-

¨            Maltby Academy Deed of Gift (+£500k).

¨            Application of the Council’s Contingency Fund (-£650k).

¨            Overprovision for the 2009 pay award (-£700k).          

¨            Additional Local Authorities Business Growth Incentives Scheme (LABGI) Grant (-£­180k).

¨            VAT Refunds (-£1.426m)

¨            Yorkshire Forward Income (-£0.500m)

·              Housing Revenue Account (HRA) (-£2.408m).

As part of the budget setting process for 2009/10 it was agreed that the Council would find savings of £250k from its budgets for agency and consultancy services. Members, through the Value for Money Review Panel, have requested that regular updates on spend in this area be included in future budget monitoring reports. The report set out an analysis of Agency spend in 2009/10 to the end of February by Directorate and showed an analysis between spend against the Council’s approved list of suppliers and spend against other suppliers or ‘off-contract suppliers’. These costs were included within the Directorate forecast outturn positions.

Management actions have been put in place to address some of the issues identified to date and work was being undertaken to identify further actions. As these took effect they would be monitored to enable the impact of the actions to be assessed. Careful scrutiny of expenditure and income across all services and close budget monitoring, therefore, remained essential. 

Cabinet Members noted the position and took account of the other issues of pressures and savings that had been identified.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the contents of the report be noted.

(2)  That the progress made to date in reducing the pressures on the Council’s Revenue Budget be welcomed.

-        Strategic Director of Children and Young People to report.

Councillor S. Wright Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services, introduced a report by the Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services, which set out how the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act became operational on 1st April, 2010 and would bring about the most radical change in post-16 learning for almost a decade, which would:-

·              Dissolve the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and place upon local authorities (LA) a new duty to secure sufficient, suitable education and training provision for all resident 16-19 year olds, 16-25 year olds who have learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD) and young people in young offender institutions.

·              Establish the Young People's Learning Agency (YPLA) that would have responsibility for funding16-19 education and training and for overseeing the allocation of post-16 resources to Academies.

·              Create a Skills Funding Agency that would have overall responsibility for the performance and resourcing of Further Education (FE) colleges and, through the new National Apprenticeship Service (NAS), for securing sufficient apprenticeships for all young people who were suitably qualified and who wanted one.

·              Recognise, for the first time, Sixth Form Colleges as a distinct legal category and make them the responsibility of the Local Authority.

There were a number of potential financial issues for Rotherham to manage as a result of the transfer of Learning and Skills Council funding and responsibilities.  Learning and Skills Council allocations for 16-19 learning in Rotherham, under existing arrangements, gave an indication of the amount of funding involved as £32 million

The current assumption was that 16-19 funding would continue at, or around, the above funding levels in 2010/11. However, the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) were currently undertaking a review of future 14-19 funding levels and funding methodology and there were, at this stage, no confirmed figures and no guarantees that all aspects of 16-19 learning would be resourced at the same level in subsequent years.

Learning and Skills Council funding to school sixth forms currently flowed to 11-18 schools via the Local Authority. This arrangement would continue following the transfer of responsibility and these schools would be expected to contain their sixth form costs within their agreed 16-19 funding allocations.

The Skills Funding Agency would be the sponsor body for further education colleges and funding would flow to them via the Local Authority.

Thomas Rotherham College elected in December, 2009 to adopt the new legal category of Sixth Form College. As a result of this Rotherham would become the sponsor body for this institution and would fund it accordingly from the annual 16-19 allocation made to the Local Authority by the Young People's Learning Agency.

The Learning and Skills Council’s national budget for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities had, historically, been overspent. Rotherham had both learners who learnt out of the town in specialist, residential provision and a growing number of young people with learning needs that would have to be met by providers in the town. The Learning and Skills Council had launched a national review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 221.

-        Strategic Director of Children and Young People to report.

Councillor S. Wright Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services, introduced a report by the Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services, which set out details of the GCSE examination results for 2009 and how they compared to previous years, to the national average and to the results of Rotherham’s statistical neighbours.

The report set out in detail information relating to:-

·              Summary Overview.

·              Priority areas for action 2009/10.

·              Strategic focus of School Effectiveness Service.

·              Overall GCSE Results.

·              Overall 5+ A* - C GCSE Results 2003 – 2008.

·              Performance at 5+ A* - C (including English and Mathematics).

·              Performance at 5+ A* - G (including English and Mathematics) Performance – Any passes.

·              Average Point Score (capped – i.e. results of the best 8 subjects taken).

·              Performance Profile of Individual Secondary Schools.

·              Vulnerable Groups.

·              Analysis of Performance by Gender - 5+A*-C Grades.

·              Analysis of Performance by Gender - 5+A*-C grades (including English and Mathematics).

·              Looked After Children.

·              Percentage of Looked After Children (LAC) achieving 5+ GCSEs (or equivalent) at grade A*-G (2005- 2009).

·              Percentage of Looked After Children achieving 1+ GCSEs (or equivalent) at grade A*-G 2005-2009.

·              Performance by Ethnicity (mainstream schools).

·              Performance by Ethnicity 2005 – 2009.

·              Performance by Free School Meals (FSM) Eligibility.

·              Gap between the performance of pupils eligible for FSM and pupils not eligible for FSM.

·              Contextual Value Added (CVA).

·              Overall CVA – Number of schools designated in each category.

·              Rotherham’s results compared with National and Statistical Neighbour (SN) averages.

Resources within the Council, to drive the school improvement agenda, were a combination of core budget, DCSF grant through the Standards Fund and income.

Schools also received additional funding, through Standards Fund, to address the National Strategies agenda regarding raising standards. 

The level of achievement of Rotherham pupils on leaving statutory education would have a major impact on the regeneration of the area.  Schools, working with the Local Authority, were setting challenging targets and striving to drive up the standards of attainment for all pupils.

The coherent implementation of a range of nationally funded projects would be instrumental in achieving this improvement.  Failure to achieve the targets would limit the economic prospects of the young people and could put this additional funding at risk.

Cabinet Members welcomed the positive progress in the results which were the best ever for the seventh consecutive year running and congratulated schools on their hard work and the benefits realised by the targeted support by the School Effectiveness Service.

Cabinet Members noted that Catharine Kinsella, Director of Senior Director Schools and Lifelong Learning, was retiring and conveyed their best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

Resolved:-  (1)  That contents of the report be noted.

(2)  That the improved levels of performance across all indicators at the end of Key Stage 4 be noted.

(3)  That all schools be encouraged to continue to improve their results and strive to achieve outcomes at least in line with the national rate of improvement.

(4)  That support be given to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 222.

-        Chief Executive to report.

Further to Minute No. 67 of the Council held on 9th December, 2009, The Leader introduced a report by the Chief Executive which detailed the proposed changes to the Council’s Standing Orders to reflect the revised governance arrangements for the ‘Strong’ Leader and Cabinet model of governance.

The principal change was that in future the Council would not appoint the Cabinet and allocate the Cabinet Member Portfolios at its Annual Meeting.  The Council would instead elect the Leader at the Annual Meeting this year and at any future Annual Meetings when the Leader’s term of office was due to end.  The Leader once elected would be responsible for appointing the Deputy Leader and other members of the Cabinet, allocating Cabinet Member Portfolios and agreeing the Scheme of Delegation with regard to executive functions.

An amendment was also proposed to Standing Order 23 to clarify the arrangements for the appointment of the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of Committees.

Proposed changes to other constitutional documents to reflect the new governance arrangements would be reported to the Council Meeting.

A review of other provisions within Standing Orders dealing with procedure in the Council Meeting was also taking place and a further report would be submitted on this to the Cabinet in due course.

There were no financial implications arising from this report.

It was noted that the Council would be in breach of the legislation if it failed to bring into effect the change in executive arrangements within the timescale specified.

Recommended:-  That the amended Standing Orders relating to the election of the Leader and the appointment of Committees of the Council be adopted.

-        Chief Executive to report.

Councillor Hussain, Cabinet Member for Community Development and Engagement, introduced a report by the Chief Executive which informed the Cabinet of the outcome of detailed consultation on the draft recommendations, which were approved by Council and Cabinet in July last year.  In many cases the report set out final recommendations for approval by the Council, although in some cases it was recommended that additional consultation be undertaken.

The report set out the process for concluding the review and information relating to:-

·              Background to the review.

·              Legal position and decision making powers.

·              Summary of phases one and two.

·              Response to consultation.

·              Current situation with regards to Brinsworth, Dalton, Laughton Common and Thorpe Hesley.

·              Next steps.

No specific financial implications arose from this report. There would be costs associated with notifying all affected parties of the outcome of the review.

If new parishes were created, consideration would be needed to be given to setting initial precepts.  These were likely to be set by the Council, until such time as any new Parish Councils were elected.

Financial issues may arise between parishes where new parishes were created out of the areas of existing parishes or the boundaries of parishes change.  Provisions as to these would be made in the Order.

There was opposition to some of the draft recommendations, both from existing Parish Councils and from some of the residents in the areas affected.  The Working Group had given careful consideration to all representations made as part of the consultation upon the draft recommendations and in some cases deferred a final recommendation to Cabinet and Council to enable more consultation to be undertaken.

There was always a risk that any newly created parish may not be sustainable or be able to attract local people to serve as Councillors.  To mitigate and manage these risks, support and guidance was available from Yorkshire Local Councils Association, the Council and Parish and Town Councils Joint Working Group.

Cabinet Members noted the amount of work involved in this review, particularly relating to the proposed changes to some areas.

Recommended:-  (1)  That the recommendations of the Member and Officer Working Group be adopted in relation to the areas numbered 1-6 and 8-29 in the report.

(2)       That it be noted that the recommendations be subject to the approval of the Electoral Commission, insofar as they affect Parish Councils which have protected electoral arrangements.

(3)       That further consultation take place regarding the proposals affecting Brinsworth (No. 5) and Thorpe Hesley (No. 18) and that a further report be submitted making final recommendations in these cases.

(4)       That further consultation take place regarding the inclusion of part of East Herringthorpe within the parish of Dalton (No. 7) and a further report be submitted making final recommendations in this case.

(5)       That subject to the above, the final recommendations be published and notice given to all those who have an interest in them.

(6)       That the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Democratic Services) prepare an Order to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 224.

-        Chief Executive to report.

The Leader introduced a report by the Chief Executive which detailed how the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, 2009, obliged the Council to appoint a designated “Scrutiny Officer” and make provisions regarding Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

There were no financial implications arising from this report.

There should be no risk associated with the requirement to designate a “Scrutiny Officer”.  The Council had always recognised the importance of the overview and scrutiny function and made provision accordingly prior to this legislation.

Any risks associated with the power to establish Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committees would be assessed prior to any such proposals being brought forward, in the light of statutory guidance to be issued.

(1)  Recommended:-  That the Head of Scrutiny Services and Member Support be designated as the Council’s “Scrutiny Officer” under Section 21ZA of the Local Government Act, 2000.

(2)  Resolved:-  (a) That a further report be submitted following the issuing of regulations and guidance regarding Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

(b)        That the report be referred to Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee.

-        Chief Executive to report.

The Leader introduced a report by the Chief Executive which detailed a request to obtain authority for Mr. Stephen Bryan Clarke and Ms. Sumera Shabir, Trainee Solicitors in Legal Services, to appear in appropriate cases on behalf of the Council in the Magistrates’ Court and County Court.

Mr. Stephen Bryan Clarke and Ms. Sumera Shabir were appointed Trainee Solicitors in Legal Services in June, 2009 and were Council employees. 

It was noted that Trainee Solicitors, employed by the Council, must be able to appear in court to act as an advocate for the Council as part of their training contract.

Whereas only an admitted solicitor or barrister may normally exercise a right of audience before a Magistrates’ or County Court, a Local Authority was empowered to authorise officers to appear on its behalf to prosecute or defend in the Magistrates’ Court and to appear in certain classes of case before the County Court.

The Training Contract between the Council and the Trainee Solicitors required the Council to ensure that trainees achieved training in certain specified disciplines, including training in advocacy and oral presentation skills, specifically in relation to local government, criminal litigation and planning.

The provision of training and supervision of the advocacy referred to would incur a cost.  Such advocacy, however, was a requirement of the Modular Training Contract.

Depending upon the level of support required, the costs incurred should be less than, or not significantly greater than, that normally provided by in-house advocacy services and would be less than advocacy services commercially sourced.

The provision of training by way of supported direct experience would include supervision from other officers within Legal Services in order to reduce any risk incurred on behalf of the Council. 

Recommended:-  That Mr. Stephen Bryan Clarke and Ms. Sumera Shabir be authorised to prosecute or defend on behalf of the Council, or to represent the Council, in proceedings before a Court or Tribunal, pursuant to Part II of the Courts and Legal Services Act, 1990:-

(a)     Section 27(b) in respect of:-

·              Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1972, in relation to the Magistrates’ Court.

·              Section 60 of the County Courts Act 1984, in relation to local authority housing matters.

(b)     Section 27(d), in relation to matters where the Council was to be represented as a party to proceedings.

(c)     Section 27(e) and the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999, in relation to civil matters heard in chambers or dealt with as a small claim in accordance with rules of court.