Meeting documents

PRESENT:  Councillor Cartwright (Leader);  Councillors Ashenden, James, Mrs Morgan-Owen, Mrs Paternoster, Mrs Polhill, Rowlands, Sir Beville Stanier and Stewart.  Councillors Cadd, Cole, Mrs Davies, Foster, Mrs Glover, Kennell, Metherell, Miss Reynolds, Richards, Searle, Stuart and Mrs Worgan attended also.

APOLOGY:  Councillor Liverseidge

RESOLVED -

That the Minutes of 6th November, 2001 be approved as a correct record.

The Cabinet considered the report of the Director of Housing, Health and Leisure setting out a cost benefit analysis of potential measures to protect open space owned by the Council from unlawful access by travellers.  The sites referred to in the report were:-

Richmond Road, Aylesbury

Riverside Walk, Aylesbury

Narbeth Drive, Aylesbury

Bedgrove Park, Aylesbury

The report contained costed options for each of the above locations and detailed the expenditure previously spent on clearance in respect of each site.  Since April, 2001, the total costs for site clearance and repairs had exceeded £15,000.  Members appreciated however that in addition to examining the cost benefits of particular preventative measures, it was also necessary to take account of the level of public concern generated by illegal encampments.  Such concerns included the fear of crime, fear of intimidation and fears about the dumping of hazardous waste.  The Police had also witnessed an increase in the incidence of criminal damage.

Members were advised that the largest number of complaints had been received from residents of Richmond Road.  The majority of the works suggested in the report in respect of each site could be undertaken at this time of the year.  The principal exception was however earth works involving grass seeding.  Any such works would have to be undertaken in the Spring.

As a short term measure posts could be positioned around the perimeter of any of the sites, but it was suggested that such works should be undertaken immediately at Richmond Road.  Additional works involving mounding and ditches could then be undertaken at this site in the Spring at a cost of £19,000.  Measures to be taken at the other sites could be assessed in the light of the success or otherwise of the works proposed at Richmond Road.  Having received the comments of one of the local Members and having reiterated the views previously expressed regarding the need for a review of the legislation in relation to travellers, it was accordingly

RESOLVED -

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Planning, Property and Construction Services:-

The report had resulted from a review of best practice on Conservation Areas since the Council had last considered the issue.

The suggested work programme included the production of a leaflet offering householders/property owners a guide to Conservation Area matters.  This would be completed in time for use with the Marsworth and Middle Claydon consultations.  These areas had previously been identified by the Council as being top priority.  Draft appraisal documents would be submitted to Cabinet in February, 2002, prior to public consultation, with a view to adoption as soon as possible thereafter.  A Practice Note would be produced in tandem with the work on Marsworth and Middle Claydon for submission to the Cabinet in April/May, 2002.

The exact work programme for designation of new, and the review of old Conservation Areas would depend on the provisions of the Practice Note.  After Marsworth and Middle Claydon were completed, there would remain 6 villages previously identified by the Council for assessment with a view to Conservation Area designation.  The target would be to achieve two new designations per year, and as many reviews as was practicable, but this would depend upon the size and complexity of the area, and the age and quality of the original document.  Having commented on the need to consult Parish Councils on proposals for designation, it was

RESOLVED -

Consideration was given to the report prepared by the Director of Housing, Health and Leisure and the Director of Corporate Resources regarding the Housing Revenue Account for 2002-2003.  The report summarised the factors that needed to be taken into account in determining the level of rents and other charges for accommodation during 2002/2003.  The Tenants' Panel had been consulted on the proposals.

Under the new political management arrangements the report had been prepared earlier than in previous years, and as a consequence, assumptions had had to be made in relation to various issues, and in particular the housing subsidy rent guideline.

The report outlined the forecast for 2001/2002, and the factors taken into account in making projections for 2002/2003.  The figures presented had been based upon a Government guideline rent increase of 3.5%.  Based upon the best available information, the projections showed the HRA remaining in negative subsidy.  As a consequence, the Authority would receive no money from the Government towards the £10.5M paid in housing benefit each year.

Costs in repairs and maintenance had increased much faster than those in other areas.  Under normal circumstances this would mean that less work could be carried out for the same amount of money next  year.  However, it was envisaged that the same amount of work would be achieved within the proposed budget, partially because there were less houses due to right to buy sales and partially because it was intended to seek efficiencies to ensure that this would happen.

The summary position showed an estimated deficit of £615,000.  Taking account of estimated working balances as at April, 2002 of £541,000, this would leave a deficit of £74,000.  In the past it had been agreed that a minimum working balance of £50 per property should be maintained in the HRA to provide for all eventualities.  On this basis, having regard to the present number of properties, the working balance figure would need to be no less than £390,000.  In order to achieve this figure, either income had to be increased by £464,000 (the difference between the potential budget deficit of £74,000 and the minimum balance figure of £390,000), or expenditure had to be reduced by the same amount.  A number of possible options were submitted for consideration.

As previously mentioned, a number of factors key to setting the budget were not yet known, including the housing subsidy figure.  Therefore, the figures presented could be subject to change.  In view of the uncertainty, Members felt that the most appropriate option was that which involved a rent increase of 5.7%.  This would retain repairs and maintenance spending at the current level, and more importantly, would give a slightly higher level of balances than the £50 per house minimum.  This would provide flexibility at a time when the final Government determinations could result in adverse variances that might be as high as £50,000.  The proposal could be summarised as follows:-

RESOLVED -

That subject to any views the Scrutiny Committee - Housing may have, the following be recommended for approval by the Council:-

The Cabinet received the report of the Chief Executive detailing the options for relocating meetings of full Council and the Development Control Committee from Walton Street to alternative venues.  This would enable the cessation of all operational uses of 84 Walton Street.

The report summarised investigation of a number of possible venues.  As far as the Development Control Committee was concerned, this could be accommodated either in the Aston Hall at the Civic Centre or the Ireland Room at County Hall.  With regard to full Council, it was proposed that this be relocated to the Maxwell Hall at the Civic Centre.  The period covered by the report was January, 2002 to May, 2002.  Further discussions would need to be pursued in relation to the Council year 2002/2003.  The other venues explored were either unavailable during the period in question or were unsuitable in terms of accessibility and overall size.  In order to use the Maxwell Hall for all Council meetings up to the end of the current calendar year, it would be necessary to change the date of the meeting scheduled for 6th March, 2002 to 11th March, 2002 (a Monday evening).

Sound equipment would need to be provided for meetings held in both the Aston Hall and the Maxwell Hall.  Rather than hire equipment for individual meetings, it was proposed to investigate the purchase of portable facilities which could be stored at the Civic Centre and used for other hirings when not required by the Council.  This equipment could also be used for the Committee Room at Exchange Street.

The annual cost of relocating the meetings and the set up costs for the sound system broadly equated to the saving in closing the remainder of the Walton Street Offices.  There was no budget to cover the one off cost of purchasing the sound system.  However, this could be considered for funding from the Strategy Fund, as the system would nearly pay for itself in one year, compared to hire costs.

RESOLVED -

Members received a report from the Head of Financial Services on negotiations held with the bus operators regarding bus pass cost reimbursement for the financial year 2002/2003.  The report, copies of which had been circulated to all Members of the Council, incorporated a briefing note summarising the options discussed with the bus companies.

RESOLVED -

That the current method of reimbursing bus operators be continued into 2002/2003.

RESOLVED -

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 involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the Paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act:-

Council Office Premises.  (Paragraphs 7 and 9).

The Cabinet considered a request to lease the Council's office site (commonly referred to as Site A) for use as an “Innovation Centre”.  This would comprise office and workshop use.  After discussion, it was

RESOLVED -

That the Director of Planning, Property and Construction Services be asked to bring forward options to the next or subsequent meeting for the most suitable method of marketing the Council's freehold interest in the site as speedily and effectively as possible.