Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 June, 2017, copy attached as an appendix.

RESOLVED –

That the Minutes of 28 June, 2017, be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED –

That the Minutes of 28 June, 2017, be approved as a correct record.

Councillor Mrs Paternoster

Cabinet Member for Growth Strategy

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Clare Manders (01296) 585620

(a)          Decision(s)

(1)  That, subject to the final documents making reference to the fact that the District comprises two Parliamentary Constituencies and therefore has two Local Members of Parliament, and reference to surrounding parish Councils as well as the Town Council, approval be given to the governance arrangements for the Aylesbury Garden Town project as set out in the Cabinet report and accompanying Appendix and that the Leader of the Council be appointed as AVDC’s representative on the Board.

(2)  That the Director with responsibility for Community Fulfilment, after consultation with the Leader of the Council be authorised to finalise the governance arrangements/documents taking into account the above and any other matters considered necessary and/or appropriate having regard to the aspirations of the project.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

To ensure that the Authority has the appropriate level of governance in place to actively manage and contribute to the project.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

None as such.  No other governance arrangements were considered suitable within the context of the specific focus required.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Environment and Living.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

In October 2016, AVDC had co-ordinated the preparation and submission of a bid to the Government’s Garden Towns and Villages Programme.  In January this year, Aylesbury had been announced as one of the successful town bids.  The first step had been to bring together the key partners responsible for the development of the Vale and to form a local Aylesbury Garden Town Partnership.  This group comprised AVDC, BCC, the two Local Enterprise Partnerships and Buckinghamshire Advantage.  This would probably expand as the project matured to include engagement with Town/Parish Councils, local residents and developers.

A project team had been established to carry the initiative forward and included a Garden Town Project Manager.  Other support staff would be recruited in due course.  Advice was being received from expert consultants with strong experience in running similar projects.  The consultants had reviewed the overall project plan, the governance arrangements and the stakeholder strategy.

A clear project plan, identifying key work streams had been put together and the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) included clear guiding principles and commitments to enable the project to progress.  Work was soon to begin on a series of supplementary planning documents to support the Local Plan and the delivery of Aylesbury Garden Town, focussing on issues such as infrastructure and high quality design principles.  Work would also start on a vision for the future and planning beyond the period covered by the VALP.

Cabinet was advised that one of the early tasks was to put in place a formal delivery board that would provide leadership and oversight of the general strategy of the project.  Draft governance arrangements had been formulated and copies of these documents were submitted.  They set out the governance structure, membership and key functions of the delivery board, programme delivery team and the relationship with key forums (yet to be established).

Active engagement and communication would be a key component of the work and it was proposed that there would be regular briefing notes for Councillors and stakeholder groups.

By way of reminder, Members were advised that the Council had secured £810k of funding from Central Government to support the initiative and this would be used to support the development of the Garden Town Group approach, master planning, the development of supporting evidence and dedicated staff.  This initial funding would also be used to help further refine the total infrastructure requirements and bidding opportunities to help achieve the garden Town ambitions.  AVDC was the accountable body for these funds.

RESOLVED –

(1)  That, subject to the final documents making reference to the fact that the District comprised two Parliamentary Constituencies and therefore had two MPs and reference to surrounding Parish Councils as well as the Town Council, approval be given to the governance arrangements for the Aylesbury Garden Town Project, as outlined in the papers accompanying the Cabinet report and that the Leader of the Council be appointed as the AVDC representative on the Board.

(2)  That the Director with responsibility for Community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

Councillor Mrs Macpherson

Cabinet Member for Communities

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Neil Green (01296) 585160

(a)          Decision(s)

(1)          That the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (‘the Act’) and the introduction of civil penalty charges for certain offences under the Housing Act 2004 be endorsed.

(2)          That the power to apply for a banning order against certain persons convicted of a banning order offence to prohibit them from letting property for a specified period of time be endorsed.

(3)          That the power to apply for a Rent Repayment Order for certain offences to seek recovery of rent paid by Universal Credit be agreed.

(4)          That delegated authority be given to the Group Manager, Regulatory Services to delegate officers to enforce the provisions of the Act.

(5)          That the Principal Enforcement Officer, (Private Sector Housing) be authorised to prepare and agree a penalty fee structure in respect of the penalty charges in line with the Act and Statutory Guidance for relevant offences specified under Act after consultation with the Group Manager, Regulatory Services and the relevant Cabinet Member.

(6)          That a fee structure be adopted to set penalty charges for certain specified offences under the Housing and Planning Act in accordance with statutory guidance.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

To reflect the fact that a number of the provisions of the Act will come into force on 1 October, 2017.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

None.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Environment and Living.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

The Housing and Planning Act was expected to come into force in several stages during 2017.  The provisions relating to civil penalty notices and rent repayment orders had commenced on 1 April, 2017.  The provisions for Banning Orders were scheduled to come into force on 1 October.

The Act provided local authorities an alternative enforcement option for non compliance with certain Housing Act 2004 offences rather than taking a prosecution in court.  Although the burden of evidence would be the same for a civil penalty as it was for a prosecution, prosecutions could be both time consuming and expensive.  The provisions did not replace the option for prosecution, and it was expected that a prosecution would still be taken in the most serious of cases or for repeat offenders.

The use of Banning Orders was designed to prevent rogue landlords and/or property agents from letting property for a fixed period of time, from holding an HMO licence or from making a prohibited disposal of property.  A Banning Order could be made by a first tier tribunal if a person was convicted of a Banning Order offence which would be specified in Regulations.  Breach of a Banning Order was an offence and a person being found guilty on summary conviction might face a fine and/or imprisonment for a period of up 51 weeks.  However, an authority could as an alternative to prosecution impose a civil penalty fee of up to £30,000 if it decided beyond all reasonable doubt that the person had breached a Banning Order.  The authority would have a statutory duty to enter data on a national database of rogue landlords.  Civil penalties were designed to act as a punishment to the offender, deter others and to remove financial benefit the offender might have obtained as a result of committing the offence.

The Council had a statutory duty as a local housing authority to enforce relevant housing legislation.  Officers had to have delegated powers under the Act in order to carry out their functions.  The Council had to have regard to any statutory guidance issued in relation determining the level of any civil penalty.  The Act allowed the authority to use income from civil penalty charges to further the local housing authority’s statutory functions in relation to their enforcement activities covering the private rented sector.

The Cabinet report summarised the provisions of the Act in relation to civil penalties, Banning Orders, the database of rogue landlords and Rent Repayment Orders.  It was reported that consultation was taking place with the other Buckinghamshire authorities to ensure that AVDC’s procedures for enforcement and for determining the amount of any civil penalties was consistent.  It was proposed that officers would design and implement a procedure that enabled the use of civil penalties as an alternative to prosecution, which would be finalised in conjunction with the relevant Cabinet Member(s).

RESOLVED –

(1)          That the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (‘the Act’) and the introduction of civil penalty charges for certain  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Councillor Sir Beville Stanier

Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Joanne Crosby (01296) 585194

(a)          Decision(s)

            That Council be recommended to:

(1)   Approve the updated Health and Safety Policy and Strategy for it’s implementation.

(2)   Authorise the Director with responsibility for finance, after consultation as necessary with the Corporate Health and Safety Board and/or Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste to make any changes to reflect, as appropriate the comments expressed by the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee, and in particular to reflect:-

o   Changes in legislation and Statutory Requirements.

o   Changes in British Standards.

o   The introduction of ‘new machinery or technology’.

o   Changes in nominated responsible persons.

o   Changes in the responsibilities of nominated persons.

o   Changes in management policy and/or procedures.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

It is essential for the Council to have a comprehensive approach to health and safety and that this is properly embedded within the organisation.  The existing Policy/Strategy have not been reviewed for a while and the latest refresh takes account of changes in legislation and the transformational changes that have taken place within the organisation.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

Not to undertake a refresh of the existing Policy/Strategy but this would not be acceptable and an abrogation of the Council’s responsibilities.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

This is a policy framework issue and will be the subject of a report to full Council.  As such the above recommendations are not subject to call-in.

The Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee had however also considered this matter and the Chairman of that Committee attended the Cabinet meeting to elaborate upon his Committee’s deliberations.  The Committee had made a number of comments and the Chairman reported these to Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste gave an assurance, that where relevant and appropriate the Committee’s views would be reflected in the finalised documents prior to publication

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

Cabinet received a report concerning the work undertaken to update the Council’s Corporate Health and Safety Policy and the formulation of an implementation strategy.  This was a Policy Framework issue and as such a similar report had been considered by the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee.  Cabinet’s recommendations would be submitted to full Council.

The Policy would apply to all staff employed by the Council, either directly or indirectly and to any person or organisation that used Council services or premises for any purpose.  The existing policy had not been the subject of a comprehensive refresh since 2014.  The Policy would also apply to temporary staff, young workers, staff working from home and contractors working on Council business.  The principles of the Policy would apply to all Council work activities, regardless of who had or who was supplying or providing them.

The aims of the Policy were to:-

·         Outline the requirements of Health and Safety Regulations.

·         Outline Health and Safety Guidance and Approved Codes of Practice that applied to the Council.

·         Inform managers, supervisors and staff as to their roles and responsibilities in relation to health and safety.

·         Demonstrate the Council’s commitment to reducing accidents and incidents causing ill-health, as well as other environmental hazards and risks in the workplace.

·         Set out clearly and unambiguously the organisation’s arrangements for health and safety in accordance with the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Guidance – HSG65, Managing for Health and Safety.

·         Set out the organisation’s training requirements for health and safety.

The Policy identified the roles and responsibilities of Directors, Assistant Directors, Managers, Supervisors and Staff and reflected legislative changes that had occurred since it was last reviewed.  The Policy would result in the following outcomes:-

·         To ensure that there was a standardised approach to the Council’s health and safety management system.

·         To prevent foreseeable accidents or incidents so far as was reasonably practicable by undertaking suitable and sufficient risk assessments.

·         To demonstrate how the Council complied with its statutory obligations against legislation, Regulations, Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) and best practice.

·         The prevention of the reoccurrence of adverse events so far as was reasonably practicable.

The Council had a Corporate Health and Safety Board and in accordance with HSG65 – Managing for Health and Safety, the Board would review the  Policy and performance against it annually.

The Health and Safety Strategy (Implementation Plan) set out the Council’s approach to managing a positive health and safety culture.  It would put in place a defined and co-ordinated process for health and safety performance.  The Strategy had last been reviewed in 2015.  A corporate health and safety action plan would be prepared to support the Strategy.  This would be monitored by the Corporate Health and Safety Manager and the Corporate Health and Safety Board.  The targets would be reviewed and updated annually by the latter.  The aims and objectives of the Strategy were to:-

·         Ensure that there was a standardised approach to the Council’s health and safety management system.

·         Regularly measure and monitor the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Councillor Mordue

Cabinet Member for Resources, Governance and Compliance

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Debbie White (01296) 585021

(a)          Decision(s)

(1)  That the process of Risk Based Verification (RBV) for verifying housing benefit and council tax reduction claims, as outlined in the Cabinet report, be approved and adopted.

(2)   That RBV be implemented in accordance with the policy described in the Cabinet report.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

To facilitate the introduction of a more efficient policy for dealing with the evidence requirements associated with the assessment of housing benefit and council tax reduction claims.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

None.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Finance and Services.  That Committee had received a similar report at its meeting on 5 September, 2017.  The Chairman of that Committee attended Cabinet and reported that the Committee was fully supportive of the proposal.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction Schemes were the cornerstones of the Welfare State.  Nationally, nearly £25 billion was paid out in total per annum.  As at November, 2011, the total number of housing benefit claimants was 4.94 million, with 5.87 million people claiming Council tax reduction.

In the early 1990s the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had introduced a "verification framework policy" for administering housing and council tax benefit claims.  This was a voluntary policy that strongly recommended that local councils should obtain a substantial amount of documentary evidence, and carry out numerous pre-payment checks and visits before making any payment.

The verification framework had proved to be costly and had caused significant delays in processing.  It had to be applied to all claims and there was little scope for local discretion.  Although it had been abandoned in 2006 by the DWP, most authorities, including AVDC had continued to use at least some of the guidelines set out in the framework.

In 2011, the DWP had allowed a number of councils to pilot a different type of scheme to try to reduce fraud and error.  This had been on risk based verification (RBV) principles.  This concentrated on the risk profile of each claimant.  Resources could then be targeted at the higher risk groups where most of the fraud and error would be.  It was an approach used by many public services as well as businesses, the police and immigration authorities.  The pilots had been a success and the DWP had confirmed that all councils could now adopt this approach.  It was intended that RBV would apply to new housing benefit claims, council tax reduction and changes in circumstances.  However once implemented, it could be used for reviews and overpayments.

The benefits Service had conducted a fundamental service review over the last year.  The implementation of RBV was a recommendation from that process.  This was to reduce the burden on customers to provide excessive evidence, and reduce the cost of administering claims by reducing the correspondence with customers in chasing evidence, and the scanning of that evidence.  It was intended that RBV should be implemented for new claims by the Council from October, 2017.  It was believed that this step would provide an improved service for customers and contribute to a significant reduction in costs.

AVDC had to adhere to housing benefit legislation.  The Regulations within the legislation did not specify what information and evidence they should obtain from a benefit customer.  However, it did require an authority to have information which allowed an accurate assessment of a claimant’s entitlement, both when a claim was first made and when the claim was reviewed.  The legislation was supplemented by detailed guidance from Government which had to be applied.  Failure to do so would lead to an adverse inspection report, possible audit sanctions and loss of subsidy.  Given those requirements, quality assurance and detection of fraud were key aspects of the assessment process.  This had led over a period of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Councillor Mordue

Cabinet Member for Resources, Governance and Compliance

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Andrew Small (01296) 585507

(a)          Decision(s)

(1)  That the performance against the Treasury Management Action Plan for 2016/17 be noted.

(2)   That the performance against the Treasury Management Action Plan for 2017/18 be noted also.

(3)  That the Council’s thanks be extended to the in-house team for the efficient manner in which they had manged the Council’s capital funds.

(b)       Reason(s) for Decision(s)

The Council’s Treasury Management Strategy requires that an annual report be brought to Council after each year end and that a mid-year report for the current year is also brought to Council.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

None.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

A similar report had been submitted to the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee on 5 September, 2017 and that Committee had no substantive comments.  The report would now be submitted to full Council and as such, this matter is not subject to call-in.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

The Authority’s Treasury Management Policy required that an annual report be brought to Council each year end and also a mid-year report for the current year.  Cabinet received reports on both.

The objectives of the Treasury Management Team had been set out in the Action Plan agreed by Council in May, 2016.  The main activities continued to be:-

·         Foremost to maintain the security of the Council’s deposits by only depositing with trusted financial institutions and limiting the size and length of deposit with each organisation.

·         To directly manage a range of deposits in order to provide sufficient flexibility to meet day to day operational needs and with the aim of equalling the Local Authority Average 7 Day Rate for the rate of interest earned.

·         To only undertake new long term borrowing where the business case justified it.

It was reported that actual performance had been in line with the plan.  The Council had placed deposits in a decreasing market by spreading its deposits thinly across many trusted institutions in accordance with its policy.  The Authority had not taken any new long term borrowing and the in-house team had achieved interest rates above the 7 day LIBOR rate.

The report contained charts showing the monthly balances deposited by the in-house team and the monthly interest rates achieved during the year compared with the 7 day LIBOR rate.

When managing the Council’s deposits the primary consideration had been to protect capital rather than to maximise return.  This reflected the fact that the deposited sums were public money and therefore, any loss of capital should be avoided at all costs.  The Treasury Management Team continued to invest money in line with its list of approved (safe) institutions, varying the amounts and length of deposit according to the institution and cash flow requirements at the time.

Although a safe list of institutions was maintained, major unexpected events or sudden loss of confidence in the banking sector could not always be predicted.  Historically, the majority of the Council’s lending had been with building societies, but over the last year the Council had invested with some of the major banks in order to spread the risk of its portfolio.  The lending list was monitored throughout the year to take account of any changes within the sector i.e. building society mergers/conversions to banks.  During 2016/17 there had been no mergers that had affected the Council’s lending list.

Within the constraints of the lending list the objective of the in-house team remained to at least equal the Local Authority 7 Day Rate of Interest (LIBOR), whilst ensuring that money was always available to meet the Council’s day to day operational needs.

With interest rates still at their lowest level, the actual amount of deposit income generated had exceeded expectations by £84,763.  This had been due to the high level of money available for deposit from unspent reserves and balances held to meet capital programme needs.  The amount of interest received had been £344,763.  With the prevailing low rates  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Councillor Mordue

Cabinet Member for Resources, Governance and Compliance

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Andrew Small (01296) 585507

(a)          Decision(s)

That, subject to the level of proposed awards being increased from 30% to 35%, the revised discretionary business rates scheme attached as an Appendix to the Cabinet report, amended as might be necessary to reflect local variations as specified in the Cabinet report, be approved as the mechanism for distributing the Revaluation support awarded by Government.

 (b)      Reason(s) for Decision(s)

The scheme provides a framework within which discretionary relief funding can be distributed in the most appropriate manner.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

None as such.  The major preceptors have been involved in the design of the scheme.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Finance and Services.  That Committee received a similar report at its meeting held on 5 September.  The Chairman reported that the Scrutiny Committee was fully supportive of the proposal, including the increase in the percentage rate of awards.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

In the Spring of this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced three types of business rates relief to help businesses most affected by the revaluation that had taken effect on 1 April, 2017.  These were:-

·         Supporting small businesses – ensuring that no business losing small business rate relief or rural rate relief as a result of the revaluation, faced excessive increases in bills.

·         Local discretionary  fund – a £300 million pot to be distributed to the hardest hit businesses under locally designated criteria.

·         Relief for pubs – a £1,000 rebate for all pubs with a rateable value of under £100,000.

Under the second point, the Government had announced the establishment of a £300 million discretionary fund over four years from 2017/18 to support those businesses that faced the steepest increases in their business rates bills as a result of the 2017 revaluation.  The Cabinet report dealt mainly with this particular element.

Revaluations were a normal part of the business rates system and usually took place over five years.  The revaluation process was not designated to generate more tax revenue but was intended to take account of regional and sector variations in the value of rated property.  The revaluation had taken effect on 1 April, 2017 and had been the first for seven years, having been delayed by the introduction of Business Rates Retention into the Local Government Finance system.  As a consequence, many businesses had seen significant changes in the amount business rates they were required to pay.  To mitigate the most severe impacts the Government had committed to a transitional funding mechanism.

The relief scheme for pubs and small businesses had already been applied, but delays in Central Government caused by the General Election and the need to get software suppliers to effect the changes, had meant that it had not been possible, until now, to bring forward the design of the discretionary scheme element.  The Government’s intention was that every billing authority in England would be provided with a share of the £300, million made available nationally to support their local businesses.  Billing authorities would be expected to use their share of this funding to develop their own discretionary rate relief schemes in order to deliver targeted support to the most hard pressed ratepayers.

The £300 million would cover four years from 2017/18 and AVDC’s allocation was as follows:-

·         £431,000 in 2017/18

·         £209,000 in 2018/19

·         £86,000 in 2019/20

·         £209,000 in 2020/21

Officers of AVDC had been working with their counterparts in the other Districts in Bucks and the County Council to agree the basis of a common scheme within Buckinghamshire. The draft scheme was appended to the Cabinet report and would be adjusted as necessary to take account of the variations specific to Aylesbury Vale.  The scheme had been largely framed within the existing discretionary relief scheme, but had been amended to reflect the higher values available to the Council as awarded by the Government through the Spring Budget announcement.  The focus of the scheme was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Councillor Bowles

Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Regeneration

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Teresa Lane (01296) 585006

(a)          Decision(s)

            That Council be recommended to:-

(1)  Approve the proposed Commercial Property Strategy described in the Cabinet report, including a capital fund of £100m to be met from borrowing from the Public Works Loans Board, and a revenue budget of £100k from the New Homes Bonus (NHB) Fund, both to be reimbursed, together with the objectives, investment criteria and governance arrangements as set out in Appendix 2 of the Cabinet report (contained in the confidential section of the Cabinet agenda).

(2)  Approve the necessary changes required to the current approved  and operational borrowing limits as set out in the Treasury Management Strategy, in order to accommodate the increased prudential borrowing requirement as set out in the Cabinet report.

(3)  Authorise the Chief Executive in conjunction with the Director with responsibility for finance, and after consultation with a Panel comprising the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Compliance and Resources and one Member to be nominated by the opposition groups represented on the Council, to approve expenditure within the overall limit of the Strategy, subject to them being satisfied with the business case and risk assessment.

(4)  Require the officers to bring annual reports to Cabinet, the Finance and Resources Scrutiny Committee and Council on the progress of the Strategy and also to provide whatever information might appropriately be included in the Quarterly Financial Digest.

 (b)      Reason(s) for Decision(s)

The Strategy has been developed to support the Council’s commercial agenda to generate new income streams to help offset the significant cuts in Government funding and to finance the continued delivery of and investment in services to the local community.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

Not to introduce such a strategy.  However this would not accord with the Council’s aim to operate in a commercial manner (subject to the checks and balances referred to in the Cabinet report) and continue to deliver high quality services to the community.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

This matter is the subject of a report to full Council and as such is not subject to call-in.  The issue was however considered by the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee on 5 September when a presentation on the aims and objectives was given.  All Members of the Council were invited to hear the presentation.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee attended Cabinet and elaborated upon his Committee’s deliberations.  The Committee had undertaken a robust examination of the proposal and the Chairman gave a summary of the questions asked by Committee Members.  Overall however, the Committee was fully supportive of the proposal and commended its adoption.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

Cabinet received a report proposing the introduction of a commercial property investment strategy to support the Council’s commercial agenda and generate new income streams to offset significant cuts in Central Government funding and finance the continued delivery of and investment in local services.

The overall aim of the strategy was to acquire and build a commercial property portfolio that generated income for the Council using a strong, stable financial model with an acceptable level of risk.  Commercial income generated from property acquisitions would be used to help fund the delivery and enhancement of services to the local community and support the delivery of the District’s growth.  The primary objectives of the strategy were to:-

·         Create a diverse portfolio with a range of risk, returns and property uses.

·         Provide security of income by the strength of covenant and length of lease.

·         Have a focus on high growth prospects of the District with some development risk.

·         Meet the commercial aim and if possible utilize and lever the knowledge, existing assets base and expertise of the Council to invest in ways which support the strategic growth of the Vale.

The above objectives had enabled a number of parameters and guidelines to be developed to ensure that proposed acquisitions met one or more of the aims.  These parameters and guidelines were submitted, as referred to in the confidential part of the Cabinet agenda.

The proposal was for a property acquisition capital fund of £100 million sourced from a loan from the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB).  An additional revenue sum of £100k was also required to support the fees needed as part of the acquisition process, e.g. agents, legal and stamp duty.  These fees would be deducted from the purchase price and recovered from the income over time.

Depending on the number of assets acquired, the in-house asset management capacity needed to manage  the asset after acquisition would be reviewed.  Each acquired asset would require an asset management plan and any additional capacity needed to deliver this would be factored into the business case for acquisition and recovered from the income over a period.

Strong governance was needed coupled with agile decision making to ensure that suitable opportunities which came onto the market could be effectively bid for.  It was therefore proposed to establish a Commercial Property Investment Panel to consider the business cases, with delegated authority being given to the Chief Executive in conjunction with the Director with responsibility for finance and after consultation with the Panel to approve acquisitions/disposals.

The strategy and performance against the objectives would be reviewed annually by the Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee, Cabinet and Council, with a high level summary report being included in the Quarterly Financial Digest.

Town centre developments or other developments which had a stronger orientation towards regeneration/place would not be included within the strategy, which would be purely commercially driven.  The Council already owned a number of commercial assets and the intention would be that these assets and their performance would be measured  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Councillor Bowles

Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Regeneration

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Teresa Lane (01296) 585006

(a)          Decision(s)

That the report on the performance of Aylesbury Vale Estates against the targets and commitments set out in the business plan for 2016/17 (contained in the confidential part of the Cabinet agenda) be noted.

 (b)      Reason(s) for Decision(s)

Cabinet and the Economy and Business Development Scrutiny Committee had requested a progress report at their September meetings.  A similar report had been submitted to the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 4 September.  Representatives from the AVE Board attended both the Committee meeting and Cabinet and responded to questions.  The Scrutiny Committee had made no substantive comments.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

None.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Economy and Business Development.  As mentioned above, that Committee received a report at its meeting on 4 September.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

Councillor Mrs Ward declared a personal interest as one of the Council’s representatives on the Board and did not vote on this item.

Each year Aylesbury Vale Estates (AVE) prepared a business plan which was considered by the Economy and Business Development Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet.  The business plan included a review of performance during the previous financial year.  In order to reflect AVE’s business plan and any financial benefits that might impact on AVDC’s budget, e.g. dividend payment, the business plan was now reviewed during the Autumn Committee cycle.  A report similar to that now before Cabinet had been considered by the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 4 September.

Representatives form the AVE Board had attended the Scrutiny Committee meeting and were present at this meting to respond to Members’ questions.  The detail of the report on performance had been summarised in the Minutes of the Scrutiny Committee.

A review document was submitted as referred to in the confidential part of the Cabinet agenda.

RESOLVED –

That the report be noted.

NOTE:  Councillor Mrs Ward declared a personal interest in the above item as one of the Council’s representatives on the AVE Board and did not vote.

The following matter is for consideration by Members "In Committee".  It will therefore be necessary to

RESOLVE –

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the Paragraph indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:-

Item No. 13 – Commercial Property Investment Strategy

Item No. 14 – Aylesbury Vale Estates – Review of performance against 2016/17 Business Plan

The public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information because the reports contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of organisations (including the Authority holding that information) and disclosure of commercially sensitive information would prejudice negotiations for contracts and land disposals or transactions.

RESOLVED –

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the Paragraph(s) indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:-

Commercial Property Investment Strategy (Paragraph 3)

Aylesbury vale Estates – Review of performance against 2016/17 Business Plan (Paragraph 3)

The public interest in maintaining the exemptions outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information because the reports contained information relating to the financial or business affairs of organisations (including the Authority holding that information) and disclosure of commercially sensitive information would prejudice negotiations for contracts and land disposals or transactions.

Councillor Bowles

Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Regeneration

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Teresa Lane (01296) 585006

In connection with the decisions reached earlier during the meeting, Cabinet received copies of the proposed strategy.

Councillor Bowles

Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Regeneration

To consider the attached confidential report.

Contact Officer:  Teresa Lane (01296) 585006

With reference to the consideration given to this matter earlier during the meeting, Cabinet received an update on AVE’s performance against its business plan for 2016/17.