Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 December, 2015, attached as an appendix.

RESOLVED –

That the Minutes of 15 December, 2015, be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED –

That the Minutes of 15 December, 2015, be approved as a correct record.

Councillor Mrs Macpherson

Cabinet Member for Leisure, Communities and Civic Amenities

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer:  Will Rysdale (01296) 585561

(a)       Decision(s)

That approval be given to the removal of the requirement for the Council to appoint 3 Members to the VAHT Board and to instead nominate 3 representatives, thus enabling the VAHT Board to make appointments in accordance with the advice of the National Housing Federation's Code of Guidance.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

To enable VAHT to comply with the guidance referred to in (a) above.

(c)        Alternative Option(s) Considered

Not to accede to VAHT’s request.  However this would affect the Trust’s ability to comply with the relevant Code of Guidance for Registered Providers.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Environment and Living.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest/Dispensation(s)

As one of the Council’s nominees, the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Communities and Civic Amenities, Councillor Mrs Macpherson, declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting whilst this matter was discussed.

Cabinet was advised that AVDC’s representation on the Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust (VAHT) Board had been discussed several times over the past few years.  On 17 January, 2012, Cabinet had considered a request to give consent under the Housing Stock Transfer Agreement to a reduction in the Council’s membership of the Board from five Members to three, and a reduction in the tenants’ representation from five to four.  The request was to enable VAHT to comply with the National Housing Federation’s Code of Governance, which recommended that housing associations should have a maximum of twelve Board members.  Cabinet had decided that:-

·         The request from VAHT to reduce the size of its Board from 15 to 12 should be supported.

·         The relevant Director, after consultation with the (then) Cabinet Member for Community matters, should be authorised to enter into discussions with VAHT to identify how the reduction in Board membership might be achieved.

·         A further report be brought back to Cabinet when the discussions referred to in (2) above had been concluded.

Having been advised subsequently of the outcome of the discussions, Cabinet had agreed to the proposed reductions in the VAHT Board membership.

It was reported that the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Community Matters and Civic Amenities and the relevant Director had continued to meet with VAHT’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer regarding this issue, hence this report.

When changes to the Board membership had been discussed previously, Members had been concerned about the effects on the Council of reductions in Board membership and this was explained as follows:-

Company membership rights were related to the general strategic direction of the Trust.  AVDC had a "golden share" as defined in Article 17(3) of the Articles of Association.  "Golden share" was a term used by VAHT’s solicitors to refer to weighted voting which might apply when a general meeting of the Trust was called.  The "golden share" was only invoked when a member attending the said general meeting requested a poll.  A poll could be called by the Chairman, two members acting together or a Council Member.  When a poll was called, the vote awarded to each member (Council, Independent and Tenant Member) was 33%, therefore giving each member the same power.

The "golden share" held by AVDC only applied at member meetings, not to Board meetings and the changes proposed in the report submitted would not alter this arrangement.  Once the "golden share" was invoked, the Council Member, or any other member acting alone could block a special resolution.  A special resolution was required to change the Articles.

It was not proposed to change the "golden share", but if such a change was ever proposed, not only would this require AVDC’s agreement, but additional protection was provided in the Stock Transfer Agreement at Schedule 7, Part 2.  The company had agreed that the actual percentage ratios of membership of the Board of Management would not be amended without the Council’s consent, thus giving additional control over and above the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Councillor Mrs Macpherson

Cabinet Member for Leisure, Communities and Civic Amenities

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer: Tamsin Ireland (01296) 585004

(a)       Decision(s)

(1)  That the contents of AVDC’s Equality Report for 2014 – 2015 be approved and published.

(2)  That the Equality Objectives for 2016 – 2020 be approved for publication.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

This is a statutory requirement.

(c)        Alternative Option(s) Considered

None.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Finance and Services.  That Committee considered the report on 17 December, 2015, and Cabinet took account of the Scrutiny Committee’s comments in reaching the above decisions.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest/Dispensation(s)

None.

Cabinet considered a report, also submitted to the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee on 17 December, 2015, and summarised in the Minutes of that meeting, giving an assessment of the Council’s performance against the Public Sector Equality Duty, and the requirements of Regulation 2 of the Equalities Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations, 2011.

The Scrutiny Committee had commented that while the report included information on equality performance and objectives relating to Council staff and residents/customers, there was no mention of the duty or objectives that the Council had relating to equality duties towards Councillors.

Cabinet was however advised that the four equality objectives that had been updated for 2016 – 2020 applied to all people that the Council dealt with.  Therefore it was not necessary to update it to specifically mention Councillors.  The Council’s Equality Strategy was due to be updated in 2016 and Members were advised that if they had any concerns, or wished to include information in the Strategy that was specific to Councillors, then the Scrutiny Committee would be consulted at that stage.

RESOLVED –

(1)  That the contents of AVDC’s Equality Report for 2014-2015 be noted and that approval be given to its publication in order to meet the Council’s statutory duty.

(2)  That the Equality Objectives for 2016-2020 be approved and published.

Councillor Mordue

Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Compliance

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer:  Andrew Small (01296) 585507

(a)       Decision(s)

(1)  That the comments of the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee be noted and the Committee thanked for its input to the budget planning process.

(2)  That in relation to Council Tax, Council be recommended to increase this by the maximum 1.99% allowable for lower tier councils.

(3)  That Council be recommended to approve the budget for 2016/2017 and the Medium Term Financial Plan as set out in summary form in Appendix A of the Cabinet report.

(4)  That Council be recommended to approve Aylesbury Special Expenditure totalling £846,600 supported by a precept of £45 which represented a Council tax freeze for Special Expenses (as detailed in the Appendix to the Cabinet report).

(5)  That the proposed fees and charges (taken into the final calculations) be approved as submitted.

(6)  That Council be recommended to ring fence the sum of £600,000 in General Working Balances and to give delegated authority to the Director with responsibility for finance, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Compliance to approve a budgetary framework and allocations from within this sum.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

The Council is required to set a budget for 2016/2017 and to plan its financial commitments for future years.

(c)        Alternative Option(s) Considered

Arrival at the budget proposals outlined in the Cabinet report involved consideration of a range of key factors as outlined in the current and previous reports.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Finance and Services.  That Committee considered the report on 17 December, 2015.  Overall, the Scrutiny Committee supported the proposals outlined in the Cabinet report.  The Scrutiny Committee Chairman attended the meeting and was invited to elaborate upon the committee’s discussions

Cabinet’s recommendations will now be considered by full Council and as such are not subject to call-in.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest/Dispensation(s)

None.

Cabinet had considered its initial budget proposals on 15 December, 2015, after which they had been passed for consideration by the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee on 17 December, 2015.  The purpose of the report now before Members was to enable them to review the initial proposals in the light of the Scrutiny Committee’s views and the Government’s provisional grant allocations following the spending review statement made on 25 November, 2015.

The previous report had had highlighted that the overriding issue was the uncertainty surrounding the Government’s proposed reforms to the local government finance system and the implications arising therefrom.

The expected late publication of the proposed Grant numbers had severely reduced the Council’s ability to plan for any significant changes beyond that assumed within the initial projections.  This had resulted in the Council relying on the use of, or a contribution to balances as the only realistic way of reacting to the numbers in the short window between their announcement and the date for publishing these final proposals.  The initial proposals had recognised this, together with the uncertainties surrounding retained business rates and the potential changes to the funding received from the New Homes Bonus.

In the few weeks since the initial proposals had been considered, work had continued on refining the budget assumptions contained within the earlier report.  In practice however, little had materially changed at a service level and so the significant elements of the final budget proposals were around the impact of the proposed Government Grant numbers and changes to other elements of centrally funded support.  The revised and final recommended budget was submitted as Appendix1 to the Cabinet report.  A summary of the changes, savings and pressures which had been used to arrive at the summary position were submitted as Appendices A2, C and D, respectively.

Spending Review and Proposed Government Grant Allocations

The Chancellor had announced his spending review on 25 November, 2015.  This had set out the Government’s funding intentions for the life of the current Parliament.  On the whole, the news for local government was less bad than had been feared, but the messages had been confused and the detail had largely been missing, so the true extent of the impact could only be determined once the Government had published its consultation on Grant numbers later in December.  Despite this, it had been reasonable to assume that local government would still experience some of the greatest cuts of any of the Government’s main spending departments.

From the perspective of a lower tier council, there had also been the announcement that the Government intended to redistribute within the tiers of local government in order to direct resources towards adult social care.  This had the capacity to significantly compound the impact of cuts and was potentially of greater concern than the expected reduction in core funding.

The spending review had also contained announcements around other changes in the areas of housing, employment and planning which were likely to have implications for the Council and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.