Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 June, 2016, copy attached as an appendix.

RESOLVED –

That the Minutes of 15 June, 2016, be approved as a correct record.

Councillor Sir Beville Stanier

Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer:  Isabel Edgar Briancon  (01296) 585862

a)         Decision(s)

(1)          That the Joint waste Committee for Buckinghamshire be dissolved when all of the constituent authorities have given their formal agreement to do so, and that the 12 months’ notice required by the Committee’s Constitution be waived.

(2)          That the Joint Waste Partnership be retained as an informal entity to carry out activities to support the delivery of the Joint Waste Strategy 2014 – 2020.

(3)          That a Memorandum of Understanding, as outlined in the Cabinet report be drawn up to regulate the activities of the Joint Waste Partnership, with authority being delegated to the Interim Sector Lead, Customer Fulfilment, after consultation with the Council’s legal advisors to agree the precise terms.

(4)          That the remaining funds in the approved budget of the Joint Waste Committee, once committed expenditure had been met, be used to fund a continued fly tipping campaign across Buckinghamshire.

(5)          That the grant awarded by the Department for Communities and Local Government for the "Fighting Food Waste" project be used to support the activities described in the bid for funding.

(6)          That consideration be given by the partner councils to making provision for the ongoing work of the Partnership once the remaining budget had been utilised, expected to be for the financial year 2018/19 and thereafter.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

            Now that the Joint Waste Strategy 2014 – 2020 has been established and all of the Buckinghamshire District Councils have rolled out their new collection services, the Joint Waste Committee for Buckinghamshire  has decided, subject to the formal agreement of the constituent authorities, that the Strategy can be delivered in a more efficient way by dissolving the formal Joint Committee and adopting a more streamlined and less formal structure.

(c)       Alternative Option(s) Considered

            To continue as at present, but as referred to above the Joint Waste Committee feels that this is the best approach to take..

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

            Environment and Living.

(e)       Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

The Bucks Joint Waste Committee (JWC) had been established in 2004 to deliver the aims and objectives of the County-wide Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy.  At its last meeting the JWC considered how its work could best be progressed, within the context of the background to its establishment and its achievements since its formation.

New collection services and procurement contracts; a forecast underspend of just over £125,000 at the end of 2015/16 and the Waste Partnership Officer vacancy had provided the opportunity to review the current partnership arrangements.

The Committee had considered a number of options and it was decided that the JWC should be streamlined to improve efficiency and to replace the formal decision making structure that was no longer required.  A distinction had been drawn between the formal JWC decision structure and the Buckinghamshire Waste Partnership that referred to activities carried out jointly by the Districts and the County Council and the joint branding.  Members of the Committee had recognised the benefits of working together and were keen to continue the sharing of knowledge between authorities within the Partnership.  They had also been particularly keen continue the successful fly tipping campaign, DCLG funded activities and litter reduction.  It had been agreed that activities to reduce littering were best carried out by the Districts due to the close links with the waste collection and street cleansing arrangements delivered by the District Councils.  It had been noted that joint officer groups would be needed to enable specific projects to continue to be delivered jointly by the Partnership.

Section 17 of the JWC Constitution enabled the JWC to be dissolved provided that a minimum of 12 months notice was given, to expire on 31 March in any year.  This notice period could be waived provided that there was agreement from each participating Council’s Cabinet.

The JWC had made the following recommendations for consideration by the Cabinets of each constituent authority:-

·         That the Joint Waste Committee for Buckinghamshire be dissolved without a minimum 12 months notice period, subject to agreement from the Cabinet of each participating Council.

·         That the Joint Waste Partnership be retained as an informal entity to carry out specific joint activities on behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council and the District Councils, including the fly tipping campaign and activities relating to the funding received from the DCLG.

·         That activities to reduce littering be carried out by the District Councils.

The County and District waste officers were developing a Memorandum of Understanding to provide adequate governance arrangements that would regulate the work of the informal Partnership and which would replace the formal constitution of the JWC.  The Memorandum of Understanding would address the rationale and scope of the informal waste partnership, goals and objectives, governance and delivery of initiatives, including spend of the DCLG funding.

Activities based around the Joint Waste Strategy would be ongoing, with the initial meeting of the informal Waste Partnership expected to be scheduled for September, 2016.  An annual report would be submitted to Members to keep  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Councillor Macpherson

Cabinet Member for Leisure, Communities and Civic Amenities

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer: Jan Roffe (01296) 585186

a)         Decision(s)

That approval be given to the revisions to the Council’s voluntary and community sector grants programme as outlined in the Cabinet report.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

            To introduce a set of clearly defined priorities for funding from April, 2017, onwards that are open and transparent and align with the Council’s current vision and strategic needs and the identified needs within the community.

(c)       Alternative Option(s) Considered

            To continue as at present or to consider not to provide grant support.  However Cabinet felt that the proposed approach was the most appropriate and would ensure that grants are targeted to those organisations delivering services which aligned to the Council’s priorities and community needs.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

            Finance and Services.  A similar report was considered by that Committee on 11 July, 2016.

(e)       Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

            None.

The Council had a long history of supporting the Voluntary Community Sector (VCS) and maintained positive working relationships with organisations providing services to the Vale’s communities.  The Council currently funded 16 organisations who held service level agreements with the Council.  These organisations had been funded by the Council for many years, and the grants programme was not currently open to new groups to apply.

The grants programme had last been reviewed in 2009 and in the light of the ongoing pressure on the Council’s budget, the changing pressures on the voluntary sector and the recent introduction of the Vale Lottery, it was considered timely to re-evaluate the programme to ensure that it remained fit for purpose, and that funding was allocated in line with the Council’s priorities and strategic needs, and against a backdrop of rising costs and reducing funding in the current economic climate.

There was a growing demand for advice services, such as those provided by Citizens’ Advice Bureaux, and for services which provided support for an aging population, services which supported people with disabilities, and services which supported the physical and mental wellbeing of young people.  There was also a need for a mix of funding including short term project funds and longer term support costs.

The Council’s Informal Grants Panel had considered the background to the current grants framework, the current arrangements and the issues facing the Council and the voluntary and community sector.  It had identified the need for a flexible grants programme and had made a number of recommendations to update the current grants programme.

As mentioned earlier, the Council’s current grant funding programme had last been reviewed in 2009.  The Informal Grants Panel which considered grant applications and made recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Communities and Civic Amenities had examined the current issues and had looked at a possible new approach to discretionary grant funding.  The primary principle had been to ensure an open and transparent process, and that funding was allocated in line with the Council’s priorities and strategic needs and the most critical needs of the voluntary sector.

The Council had signed the original Buckinghamshire Compact in 2004 as a commitment to co-operative working with the VCS.  This was an agreement developed jointly between local public sector and voluntary and community sector organisations about how they would work together, and which set out codes of practice, including principles around funding processes.

The current programme provided grants through funding known as Service Level Agreements (SLAs) which were designed to support the core costs of the organisations it funded (e.g. management, administration, office costs and rent).  The Council’s support also provided important leverage enabling the organisations to attract additional funding for project work or service provision.  However in the light of the changes in demand and the proposed new priorities, the Informal Panel had felt that funding should be more flexible and support project costs as well as core costs.

The SLAs were long standing arrangements and, although there was an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Councillor Neil Blake

Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Major Projects

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer:  David Thomas (01296) 585158

a)         Decision(s)

That the Resilience Strategy and action plan referred to in the Cabinet report be endorsed.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

            To comply with legislation in relation to business continuity and the management of and recovery from major incidents.

(c)       Alternative Option(s) Considered

            None as such.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

            Finance and Services.  A similar report was considered by that Committee on 11 July, 2016.

(e)       Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

            None.

AVDC had legal duties under the Civil Contingencies Act, 2004 to:-

·                    Promote business continuity (BC) in the local community of Aylesbury Vale.

·                    Maintain plans and readiness in the event of a major incident being declared and including in its own BC arrangements adequately trained and competent staff.  (The Cabinet report included examples of events requiring a business continuity response).

BC arrangements were used to bridge the gap between the initial service levels and the restoration when a temporary situation was resolved or the disaster recovery plan was implemented.  "Resilience meant an integrated approach to emergency planning and business continuity and was one of the organisation’s most significant risks.  The Council had separate IT disaster recovery plans managed through IT together with plans to make the Council more resilient against cyber attack.

AVDC was working to the standards set by the international standard for business continuity (ISO 22301), specifying the requirements for a management system to protect against, reduce the likelihood of, and ensure the business recovers from disruptive incidents.  There were still no plans to acquire external accreditation.

The document attached as an Appendix to the Cabinet report and posted with the agenda on the Council’s website, was the first Council-wide resilience strategy.  With recent criticisms of AVDC’s response to flooding and the need to demonstrate appropriate preparedness following Thames Valley Local Resilience Forum (TVLRF) commissioned reviews, this strategy provided for better resource planning.  AVDC was a member of the TVLRF and was a piece of a complex jigsaw that could collectively fail in an emergency if any one or more organisation(s) was not adequately prepared or resourced.

It was reported that AVDC officers had participated in TVLRF training and exercising around "marauding terrorists", "prevention of violent extremism" and "cyber crime".  The TVLRF identified the risk profile in line with Central Government and facilitated a number of workshops enabling closer working with partners in other category one responders.

The Council was engaging with the community to promote community resilience and examples of such engagement included Buckingham, Ashendon and Waddesdon.  Progress had also been made in implementing the actions identified in previous reports to Members:-

·                    The scope for BC was set at 4 weeks, allowing for full service restoration to be planned.

·                    Service continuity arrangements had been updated on an annual basis until 2014/15.  Compliance was self reported in the annual statement of assurance and needed review following the "lift and shift" process.

·                    Expenditure had been made available to facilitate training and exercising, and the incorporation of business continuity into the Council’s emergency plan.

The strategy reflected the fact that although resilience was co-ordinated through one officer, much of the work should be carried out elsewhere within the Council.  There was an ongoing need to periodically train and exercise staff within the context of the emergency plan.  This had been enabled through the use of officers within other category one responders.  The Council supported large events such as the British Grand Prix at Silverstone and was part of their major  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Councillor Mordue

Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Compliance

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer:  Andy Barton (01296) 585430

a)         Decision(s)

(1)  That Council be recommended to adopt the proposed revised Financial Regulations, attached to the Cabinet report (subject to the 2 minor amendments at Appendix A (paragraph 5.01) that the Audit Committee was responsible for approving the statutory annual statement of accounts and to the revised numbering at Section 23 of Appendix D).

(2)  That Council be recommended to give authority to the Director with responsibility for finance, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Compliance, to make minor changes from time to time, to reflect changes in operational arrangements.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

            The Council’s Constitution requires that the Financial Regulations should be reviewed at reasonably regular intervals.

(c)       Alternative Option(s) Considered

            None as such.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

            Finance and Services.  A similar report was considered by that Committee on 11 July, 2016.  This matter is not subject to call-in as the above recommendations will now be considered by full Council.

(e)       Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

            None.

The Council’s Constitution requires Financial Regulations to be reviewed every 5 years.  The review of the current Regulations has been delayed by the introduction of a new financial management system and it was essential that the revised Regulations reflected operational requirements of the new system.  The Financial Regulations and Financial Procedures had now been examined with the assistance of external professionals to ensure that they enshrine best practice.  Copies of each of the revised documents were appended to the Cabinet report and were available for inspection on the Council’s website as part of the agenda for this meeting.

The revised Regulations reflected also current organisational practices and reinforced the shift to managers being responsible for their own budgets, whilst simultaneously clarifying the role of the Strategic Finance Team.  In summary, most of the changes reflected updated custom and practice and external guidance, or reflected the new approaches following the introduction of the new corporate finance system.  Members’ attention was drawn in particular to the following:-

Virement Limits: These were the authorisation limits that certain categories of manager or meeting could authorise in terms of moving funds between cost centres within the Council’s accounts.  The table set out below showed the differences between the current and proposed levels in the Revised Regulations.  The increase in the levels had ben benchmarked against other councils and now leant towards the more commercially focused end of the spectrum, allowing greater flexibility in being able to move funds around cost centres to reflect changing circumstances throughout the year.

Performance Management: Within the Regulations and the Procedures there was a renewed emphasis and reference to the performance management at all stages of the financial system (budget manager up to the corporate level).  This reflected the growing importance of these issues on the Council as it moved further into addressing the challenges within the Medium Term Financial Plan.

Appendix A – paragraph 5.01 – that this paragraph would be updated to state that the Audit Committee (rather than full Council) was responsible for approving the statutory annual statement of accounts.

Appendix E – paragraph 23 – that the sub-paragraph numbering would be updated, which would have no impact on the reported external arrangements.

The Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee had considered the Cabinet report on the previous evening and Cabinet heard from the Chairman of that Committee that it’s Members were supportive of the proposed revisions to the Council’s Financial Regulations.

The Scrutiny Committee had also asked that when AVDC owned companies started reporting on their financial performance against an annual business plan agreed with the Council, that this financial performance information be included with the Quarterly Performance Digest information reported to the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee.

After careful consideration of the Cabinet report, it was

RESOLVED –

(1)          That Council be recommended to adopt the revised Financial Regulations (subject to the 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Councillor Janet Blake

Cabinet Member for Business Transformation

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer:  Evelyn Kaluza (01296) 585549

a)         Decision(s)

(1)  That approval be given to the permanent appointment of the Managing Director for Aylesbury Vale Broadband, with a salary of £60k..

(2)  That delegated authority be given to the AVB Shareholder representative to determine the terms and conditions of the appointment.

(3)  That any further changes to the salary and terms and conditions be the responsibility of the AVB Board.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

            To ensure the continued commercial success of AVB.

(c)       Alternative Option(s) Considered

            To continue with the consultancy fee arrangement.  However the Board feels that the salary option provides for greater certainty over the long term needs to grow and manage the business.  Cabinet concurred with this view.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

            Finance and Services.  A similar report was considered by that Committee on 11 July, 2016. 

(e)       Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

            None.

In April, 2015, the Council had approved the business case for the formation of Aylesbury Vale Broadband (AVB) to roll out super fast broadband to villages within the Vale.  The first stage had been a pilot in North Marston and Granborough which had resulted in further funding of £500,000 to continue the expansion to other villages. 

The company was structured on the basis that AVDC was the majority shareholder (95%) and (5%) "Ironic Thought" who had been the lead in managing the project.  The Shareholder Agreement stated that no dividends were to be paid to any of the shareholders.  The only time the shares could be realised was upon sale of the company.  There were 4 directors – three from AVDC and one from "Ironic Thought".

It was reported that for the past twelve months "Ironic Thought had been responsible for the founding, network roll out and day to day running of AVB on a consultancy basis.  The role of "Ironic Thought" within AVB had initially been seen as part time as part of the pilot and on this basis a consultancy fee per month had been agreed, which since April had increased to reflect the additional work.

AVB was now expanding its ultra fast fibre network o other villages in the Vale.  It had been announced recently that Swanbourne and Oving were the first villages included in AVB’s expansion.  Given the increased demands on staff time as a result of this expansion, the strategic importance of "Ironic Thought’s" role to AVB and the risk the company currently faced (due to the transitory nature of consultancy), it was considered to be in AVB’s best interest for the consultancy arrangement to be turned into a paid employment role of the managing director.  This move would provide the company with much needed stability as it continued its current growth trajectory.

As the company grew, there would also be the need to employ further staff and therefore having a Managing director as an employee who would provide the leadership and management of those staff as it grew would be essential.  The Shareholders Agreement stated that the remuneration terms of directors were to be a reserved matter unless approved under the business plan.  It was felt that an annual salary of £60k would be appropriate and that any annual pay rise should be a decision for the AVB Board.  AVB had funding in place to ensure any financial obligations, as a consequence of employing a managing director, could be met whilst still allowing the company to implement its expansion plans.  A fully revised business plan and set of accounts would be reported to Cabinet in September, 2016 (and to the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee in October, 2016).

The Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee had considered the Cabinet report on the previous evening and Cabinet heard from the Chairman of that Committee that it’s Members were supportive of the permanent appointment and the proposed remuneration terms for the Managing Director of Aylesbury Vale Broadband.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Councillor Janet Blake

Cabinet Member for Business Transformation

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

Contact Officer:  Evelyn Kaluza (01296) 585549

a)         Decision(s)

(1)  That at the end of the first trading year for Novae (31 July, 2016), the company be made dormant for one year and all future consultancy work offered to businesses using AVDC staff be routed through Vale Commerce Ltd under the "Incgen" brand.

(2)  That a further review of the requirement to keep the Novae consulting Ltd company registered at Companies House be undertaken before the end of the second accounting year..

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

            To meet the requirements of the Shareholder Agreement under the Reserved Matters.

(c)       Alternative Option(s) Considered

            To keep running Novae as a separate company.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

            Finance and Services.  A similar report was considered by that Committee on 11 July, 2016. 

(e)       Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

            None.

In April, 2015, the Council had agreed to the establishment of a trading company (subsequently registered as Novae Consulting Ltd) to deliver consultancy services to businesses on a commercial basis (in accordance with the business case submitted and approved).

The company had been registered on 31 July, 2015 and the initial business case had been based on selling consultancy services relating to energy and sustainability.  In particular, the focus was on providing audits to meet the new ESOS legislation (energy savings opportunities assessments), which applied to companies employing over 250 staff.  The legislation required a mandatory audit of energy and transport to have been carried out by an ESOS assessor and submitted to the Environment Agency by 5 December, 2015.  However experience had shown that not all companies had taken on this requirement by the deadline.

AVDC had experts in this field and the basis of the company was to charge commercial rates for the work to businesses and then recharge the AVDC staff time back to AVDC, thereby providing an income stream for the Council.  An initial loan of £10k had been approved but had not been used due to the low take-up of ESOS assessments, and it was anticipated that costs would be met from revenue received.

In December, 2015, the Council set up another trading company – Vale Commerce Ltd – which had a brand called "Incgen", whose purpose was to provide services to businesses.  The remit of Vale Commerce was much broader than Novae and would be in a position to source services, which included consultancy, from both within AVDC and also externally through the "Incgen brand.  The attraction of this to businesses had already been acknowledged as a result of the successful launch of "Incgen" on 15 June, 2015, where over 50 local businesses attended and provided feedback on what services they would be interested in from "Incgen".

An internal review had been undertaken to consider whether it was beneficial to keep Novae Consulting Ltd operating on the same basis or whether there were advantages in transferring the consultancy work to "Incgen".  The review had concluded that the work should be transferred to "Incgen".  This route would provide a much higher opportunity to address the needs of businesses and generate a higher return for the company (Vale Commerce).

There would be further operational overhead savings including:-

·         Officer and director time at Board meetings.

·         Annual insurance costs (£2,700)

·         Annual fees for accountancy services (£1,560)

As Novae Consulting had not been trading for a full year and had not yet become an established brand, the transition to "Incgen" would not create any issues.  Existing clients and prospective clients Novae were talking to would be advised of the changes and at the same time be invited to become members of the "Incgen Entrepreneur Club".  The review had also recommended keeping Novae Consulting Ltd as a dormant company for one year before reviewing whether to close down the company completely.  This would provide the Council with an opportunity, if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.