Meeting documents

Venue: The Paralympic Room - AVDC. View directions

Contact: Bill Ashton; Email: bashton@aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk; 

Items
No. Item

1.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 62 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2018, attached as an appendix.

Minutes:

RESOLVED –

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 July, 2018, be approved as a correct record.

2.

Anti Social Behaviour Policy pdf icon PDF 125 KB

Councillor Winn

Cabinet Member for Communities

 

To consider the attached report

 

Contact Officer: Chris Oliver 01296 585 005

Decision:

(a)          Decision(s)

 

That the Anti Social Behaviour Policy be approved and adopted.

 

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

 

The policy will set out the parameters for staff to deal with Anti Social Behaviour cases in a timely and professional manner.  This will also make the processes and procedures clear for residents and partners.

 

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

 

Not to approve a policy.  However, this was not recommended as it would leave the process for dealing with Anti Social Behaviour cases open to misinterpretation.

 

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

 

Environment and Living.  That Committee had already considered the report submitted to Cabinet and its comments were taken fully into account in approving the policy and any changes suggested by the Committee had been incorporated in the policy document.

 

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

 

None.

Minutes:

Cabinet received a report that had been considered by the Environment and Living Scrutiny Committee on 24 July, 2018, regarding the Council’s Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) policy.

 

ASB covered a wide range of terms which was generally accepted as conduct that caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. AVDC was a statutory member of the Aylesbury Vale Community Safety Partnership which involved working with the police and other agencies to reduce disorder and crime within Aylesbury Vale. AVDC also had a responsibility to tackle environmental ASB, which included noise nuisance, graffiti, litter and abandoned cars. In addition to an overview of ASB, Members heard details of national cases which highlighted failures of Local Authorities and the police in responding to individuals that were targets of ASB.

 

The new policy was looking to introduce a clearer process for staff and residents to follow when dealing with cases of ASB:

 

Hate crime (racial/homophobic/disablist incident) or suspected domestic violence – Report the incident to Thames Valley Police on 101 or 999 in an emergency.

 

Excessive, persistent noise or public health issues (includes noise, artificial light, odour, smoke & animals) – Full instructions on this website: https://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/section/nuisance

 

The Policy contained contact details of social housing organisations so that landlords could be contacted by residents if their tenants were a cause of ASB.

 

Abandoned cars – There was an online form that needed to be filled out by the person reporting. The form, along with guidance and further information, was available at this website: https://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/abandoned-vehicles

 

Graffiti – AVDC could only remove graffiti that was on AVDC land; if it was on private property then AVDC would make the owner aware and request its removal. Reporting graffiti could be done online: https://eforms.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp?fm_fid=34

 

Report a concern about the safety of a child – Contact Social Services on 01296 383999 or out of hours the Social Services Care Line on 0800 137915.

 

Report a concern about the safety of a vulnerable adult – Contact Adult Social Care Services on 0800 137915.  Domestic Violence – This included threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality. Help and advice for various forms of domestic violence, including telephone contact details, could be found on AVDC’s website: https://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/domestic-violence.

 

Members of the Community Safety Partnership had been consulted on the draft policy and had agreed the terms included. As mentioned previously  the updated policy had also been considered by the Environment and Living Scrutiny Committee on 24 July.  The Committee had recommended a few minor changes which had been incorporated into Cabinet report. The changes suggested had been to ensure that it was clear that ASB was subjective and could mean different things to different people and impact people in different ways.  Practitioners would determine an appropriate response to the incident.  This change had been highlighted on page 4 of the policy.

 

RESOLVED –

 

That the Anti  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

3.

Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) Review pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Councillor Bowles

Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Economic Development

 

To consider the attached report.

 

Contact Officer:  Tracey Aldworth (01296) 585003

Decision:

(a)          Decision(s)

 

(1)          That the Economy and Business Development Scrutiny Committee be thanked for their consideration and the feedback provided on the LEP review.

 

(2)          That a response be submitted to Government on behalf of this Council that it is AVDC’s preferred option to remain a member of SEMLEP and to remove itself from the BTVLEP.  This option represented the strongest strategic alignment and rationale regarding functional economic geographies for Aylesbury Vale.

 

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

 

To respond to  the Government review on the best way forward for LEP arrangements in Aylesbury Vale.

 

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

 

Not to respond to the LEP Review.  However, overlapping geographies emerged when LEPs were first formed on a voluntary basis in 2011 and AVDC is currently a member of two LEPs.  It is important that the national review is informed on the local view on what is the best way forward for LEP arrangements in Aylesbury Vale.

 

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

 

Economy and Business Development.  That Committee had already considered the report submitted to Cabinet and the Committee Chairman elaborated upon the Committee’s deliberations.  The Committee had seen value in the work carried out by both LEPs in Aylesbury Vale and the positive relationship the Council had with them.  Members had felt that a balance needed to be struck between being part of an LEP that was large enough to be relevant and exert influence, but not too large for AVDC to lose local influence and identity.  These comments were taken into account during Cabinet’s discussions.  Cabinet was convinced that remaining a member of SEMLEP and removing itself from the BTVLEP was in the Council’s best interests.

 

Comments on the Government’s consultation had to be submitted by the end of September, and having been considered fully by the Scrutiny Committee, this matter is not subject to call-in.

 

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

 

Councillor Bowles declared a personal interest in this item as Vice-Chairman of BTVLEP.

Minutes:

The government publication Strengthened Local Partnerships had been published on 24 July 2018 and set out a range of leadership, governance, accountability and geography reforms for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).  The review asked LEP chairs and other local stakeholders to come forward with considered proposals by the end of September 2018 on geographies which best reflected real functional economic areas, removed overlaps and, where appropriate, proposed wider changes such as mergers.

 

Aylesbury Vale fell within both the South East Midlands LEP (SEMLEP) and Bucks Thames Valley LEP (BTVLEP).  As such, Cabinet received a report, that would also be considered by the Economy and Business Development Scrutiny Committee on 11 September, 2018, to allow Members to consider the possible options regarding future geography of the LEP arrangements in relation to the overlapping situation that currently existed for AVDC. 

 

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, attended the Cabinet meeting and elaborated upon that Committee’s deliberations.  The Committee had recognised the value of the work that had been carried out by both LEPs and the positive relationship the Council had with them.  Members had appreciated that an overlap created a lack of accountability and that being a member of one LEP would resolve this.  It had been felt that a balance needed to be struck between being part of an LEP that was large enough to be relevant and exert influence, yet not too large for AVDC to lose local influence and identity.  The Committee could not support a "super LEP".

 

Members were reminded that LEPs had been set up as locally-derived business-led partnerships between the private and public sector to drive forward economic growth across the country.  Announced in 2010 and established in 2011 by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, LEPs had replaced the former Regional Development Agencies as part of Government’s ambition to shift power away from Central Government.  There were now 38 LEPs in existence (following the merger in 2017 of Northamptonshire LEP with South East Midlands LEP)

 

LEPs were responsible for around £12bn of public funding up to 2021 and were the mechanism for channelling the Local Growth Fund to localities delivering their investment priorities.  One of the great strengths of LEPs was their ability to bring together business and civic leaders across local administrative boundaries and provide strategic direction for a functional economic area.

 

The Government’s review was looking to ensure that LEPs were securely placed to develop the Local Industrial Strategies and to boost their performance, increase their diversity and ensure they were operating in an open and transparent way.  Amongst the various commitments was a call to LEP Chairs and other stakeholders across England to come forward with considered proposals by the end of September 2018:

 

·                    on revised geographies which best reflected "real" functional economic areas.

 

·                    on the most appropriate geographical levels to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making and delivery going forward.

 

·                    to remove overlaps and where appropriate, proposing wider changes such as mergers.

 

Attached as Appendix 1 to the Cabinet report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Our Vale Funding pdf icon PDF 222 KB

Councillor Mrs Ward

Cabinet Member for Civic Amenities

 

To consider the attached report.

 

Contact Officers:  Caroline Wheller (01296) 585185 / Sam Ovens (01296) 585035

Decision:

(a)          Decision(s)

 

(1)          That approval be given for £50,000 of existing New Homes Bonus funding be ring-fenced for use through the ‘Our Vale’ crowdfunding platform to facilitate access to NHB funding and enable, encourage and support community fulfilment projects.

 

(2)          That the Assistant Director for Community Fulfilment be authorised, after consultation with the Cabinet Members for Civic Amenities and Finance and Resources, to administer the fund distribution in accordance with the funding criteria.

 

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

 

To support local people to bring forward crowdfunding projects.  Evidence shows that relying on national funding pots alone, with no local fund, leads to an approximate 52% project success rate.  However, with a local fund in place that success rate can rise to 80%.

 

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

 

Do nothing.  However, this risks limiting the overall impact of the initiative as certain projects which are eligible for current AVDC funding, NHB and Section 106, would be unable to match the timescales required for applications with their Our Vale crowdfunding.

 

Additionally, not having a local funded based in the Vale leaves projects dependent on highly competitive and harder to obtain national funds.

 

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

 

Finance and Services Scrutiny Committee.

 

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

 

None.

Minutes:

The ‘Our Vale’ crowdfunding platform had been launched by AVDC in July 2018 to enable project creators to fundraise for funds of a capital expense nature.  It was hosted by Spacehive who provided a single portal where people with project ideas could build support from their community, ensure their plans were viable, pitch for funding from residents and partners at the same time, and share the impact created.

 

The proposed AVDC fund would be the first local fund for Our Vale, complemented by a number of national funding pots available for projects within Aylesbury Vale. Relying on national funding pots alone, with no local fund, would likely result in a 52% project success rate whereas with a local fund in place, that success rate could rise to 80%.

 

The Cabinet report proposed that a one-off amount of £50,000 of New Homes Bonus funding be ring-fenced for ‘Our Vale’ to enable, encourage and support community fulfilment projects, subject to bids meeting the criteria detailed in Appendix 1.  Prospective project creators could view each funding source’s criteria to assess their eligibility for funding specific to their project prior to application.

 

The creation of this fund would open up another mechanism through which the local community could gain, and benefit from, NHB funding.  The money would act as leverage to attract funding from other sources as well as enable projects to be delivered and owned by the community where the Council did not have the capacity to do so.  It was being proposed that project creators would be able to apply for up to 50% of their project total, up to a maximum of £5,000.  The funding would not be drawn down unless the project achieved its target fundraising amount.

 

The Cabinet report had detailed information on how ‘Our Vale’ worked, as well as information on the benefits to the local community and the governance arrangements.  The fund would only support projects where there was a demonstrable need for significant capital investment to help with the provision of amenities that had tangible benefits for the community.  This was in accordance with Spacehive’s own project criteria and would be clearly displayed on the Our Vale platform prior to application.  Spacehive would assess each project’s eligibility for funding and inform the Assistant Director for Communities for funding approval when eligible projects had met the required criteria.

 

RESOLVED –

 

(1)          That the one-off ring-fencing of £50,000 of New Homes Bonus monies for the Our Vale crowding platform be agreed, as detailed in the Cabinet report.

 

(2)          That the Assistant Director for Community Fulfilment be authorised, after consultation with the Cabinet Members for Civic Amenities and Finance and Resources, to administer fund distribution in line with the eligibility criteria set out in the Cabinet report.

5.

Street and Horticultural contract pdf icon PDF 23 KB

Councillor Sir Beville Stanier

Cabinet Member for Waste and Licensing

 

To consider the attached report.

 

Contact Officer:  Naomi Batson (01296) 585506

Additional documents:

Decision:

(a)          Decision(s)

 

(1)          That the Environment and Living Scrutiny Committee be thanked for their consideration and feedback on the Street Cleansing and Horticultural Services contract.

 

(2)          That full Council be recommended to approve Delivery Option 1.A  as evaluated and identified in the confidential section of the Cabinet report, as the preferred option for the future service delivery of Street Cleansing and Horticultural Services, from 2020.

 

(3)          That, subject to recommendation (2) being approved by full Council, it be noted that a funding proposal relating to the approved option will be developed and then reported to Cabinet and Council as part of the Capital Programme Update 2019/20 to 2022/23.

 

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

 

So that arrangements can be put in place when the existing street cleansing and horticulture contract ends in January 2020.

 

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

 

These are covered in the confidential report.

 

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

 

Environment and Living.  That Committee had already considered the report submitted to Cabinet and its comments were taken fully into account in recommending a preferred option to full Council.  That Committee had expressed a preference for option 1.A.  Cabinet’s recommendations will now be submitted to Council and as such are not subject to call-in.

 

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

 

None.

Minutes:

Work had commenced in January 2018 to determine how the existing street cleansing and horticultural contract and services could be delivered when the current contract expired in January 2020.

 

Cabinet received a report and background information, as well as the appendices in the confidential part of the agenda, that had been considered by the Environment and Living Scrutiny Committee on 24 July, 2018, following the recent appraisal process for future service delivery.

 

The outcome of a Member/Officer workshop in February 2018 had indicated a preference for either an in-house delivery of the service or a re-procurement OJEU compliant tender process when the current contract expired. The workshop considered the following options:

 

a)            Street and Horticultural Services (as is) either in-house or full procurement process of joint services

b)            Waste, Street and Horticultural Services either in-house service or full procurement of joint services

c)            Waste and Street Services either in-house service or full procurement process. Horticultural Services would be delivered separately, either in-house or contracted

 

Consideration had also been given as to whether to include wider waste services in a procurement exercise.  However this had been discounted for numerous reasons which included the aspiration to build on the commercial and transformational successes of the Waste and Recycling Service.

 

A market survey had been carried out by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) to investigate what other Local Authorities did for their street and horticultural services. The survey found that of the Authorities that responded:-

 

·                    88% delivered street cleansing in-house.

·                    73% delivered parks and horticulture services in-house.

·                    63% jointly managed and delivered both street cleansing and horticulture services.

 

The Waste Transformation Board had considered the options in May 2018 against various criteria which included: Agility, Capacity, Control, Cost, External Income Generation, Human Resource Resilience, Innovation and Value for Money.  The Board had felt that having control and flexibility of the service was a high priority and would allow for adaptation to changing circumstances.  Members would also have the ability to determine how the services were discharged.

 

The Board had also felt that in terms of resources, AVDC were already delivering a successful in-house waste collection service which meant the Council had internal knowledge and expertise in direct service provision.  This included the depot, workshops, fleet management, software systems, and health and safety. The Cabinet report contained two high scoring options for the service delivery (Option 1.A and Option 3) with their risks outlined. Both options offered similar annual savings to the Council.  Detailed information on the options and tendering process was included in the confidential part of the agenda.  Members referred to this information in general terms during their discussions and deliberations.

 

Members were informed that if there was a final unitary decision for Buckinghamshire, there was the option for the current contract to be extended for up to two years until January 2022.  Although this was subject to the contractor’s agreement the extension, it would mitigate the risk of non-service delivery during the transition period to a unitary authority.

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.