Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Cummins.

Members are requested at a meeting where a disclosable pecuniary interest or personal interest arises, which is not already included in their Register of Members' Interests, todeclare any interests that relate to an item on the agenda.

Where a Member discloses a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, he/she must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole consideration of any item of business in which he/she has an interest, except where he/she is permitted to remain as a result of a grant of a dispensation.

Where a Member discloses a personal interest he/she must seek advice from the Monitoring Officer or staff member representing the Monitoring Officer to determine whether the Member should withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole consideration of any item of business in which he/she has an interest or whether the Member can remain in the meeting or remain in the meeting and vote on the relevant decision.

Councillor Veidman declared an Interest in Agenda Items 12, 13, 15 and 16, Minute No’s: 70, 71, 73 and 74 refers, Revenue and Capital Budget 2019/20 – Public Sector Reform Maximisation Disposal and Crosby Lakeside Redevelopment Project, by virtue of his position as Chair of the Planning Committee and he left the room during consideration of the items.

Minutes of the meeting held on 3 October 2019

Decision Made:

That the minutes of the Meeting held on 3 October 2019 be approved as a correct record.

Joint Report of the Head of Health and Wellbeing and the Head of Highways and Public Protection.

Reasons for the Decisions:

The Outline Business Case process is a systematic approach.  It establishes the case for change, evaluates affordability, and aims to identify a commercially viable option or options that offers best value for money and is practically deliverable. The 5 Case Business Case model is the framework being used in other local authority areas where a CAZ is being considered. This model also enables effective risk management and strengthens rigour, transparency and objectivity in decision-making. Investment in this approach is commensurate with the magnitude of costs, benefits and risks that attend future decisions about a CAZ in Sefton.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

This section summarises considerations in relation to, 

·     Alternative options for reducing traffic-related air pollution 

·     Alternative options for further exploring a CAZ in Sefton compared to the funded, 5 Case OBC model being proposed  

Sefton Council has good coverage of air quality monitors and has implemented air quality improvement action plans in four air quality management areas where air pollution readings are above government targets. A summary of these are provided here.   

https://mysefton.co.uk/2019/06/18/sefton-council-clears-the-air-on-pollution-initiatives/

The rationale for conducting the CAZ Feasibility Study was provided by: evidence of the risk to health from road traffic pollution, ongoing above-target concentrations in discrete ‘hotspots’, and the absence of any other high impact interventions left to consider. 

The Sefton Clean Air Zone Feasibility Study used a detailed mathematical model, to predict where the government’s target for annual average nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) concentration would not be achieved in the future, assuming no further air quality improvement interventions are implemented. This ‘do nothing’ scenario identifies 70 relevant locations in 2020. The prediction for 2025 is zero, however several remain just under the target.  

The study  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Report of the Interim Director for Adult Social Care

Reasons for the Decisions:

To establish new commissioning and contractual arrangements for the provision of supported living and community support services, which will encompass a new model of service delivery, improved market sustainability, updated processes for the commissioning of new services and to support people to live the lives they want to lead

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

The following options were considered and rejected;

1.    Maintaining the status quo – this was not considered a viable option as there is a need to establish updated contracts with Providers which also reflect the implementation of a new service specification which is more outcome focussed.

2.    Conducting a procurement exercise solely utilising the Liverpool City Region framework – Members will recall Cabinet has previously approved Sefton joining an LCR framework that provides a route to market for a larger number of Providers who provide support across the LCR for people with complex support needs. This route to market is still being put in place and it is anticipated that Sefton will be able to take advantage of the framework where this would offer some benefit and enhancement of local arrangements where these were not able to meet needs. The LCR framework is seeking to establish a larger range of provision which could be used by all the LCR Authorities. The option to develop a local PDPS would enable Sefton to utilise and develop its local market and where needed have access to the broader range of provision through the LCR framework. This would ensure that Sefton makes best use of the local market to secure effective and sustainable placements for local people.  

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

Reasons for the Decision:

The preparation of the Formby and Little Altcar Neighbourhood Plan has followed the statutory procedures set out in The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).  The plan has successfully undergone examination, has satisfied the basic conditions and is in conformity with the Sefton Local Plan.  Where a Referendum results in a majority ‘yes’ vote, the Local Planning Authority is required to ‘make’ the Neighbourhood Plan within 8 weeks of the referendum decision in accordance with Regulations.  This will enable the Council to use the Formby and Little Altcar Neighbourhood Plan to determine planning applications in those parishes.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

As set out in the various Neighbourhood Planning Regulations, the referendum and subsequent ‘making’ of Neighbourhood Plans following a successful referendum is part of the legal process for a community (Neighbourhood Forum or Town or Parish Council) to make a Neighbourhood Plan for its area. As such Sefton Council does not have any option other than to make the plan.

Report of the Chief Legal and Democratic Officer

Reasons for the Decisions:

The Cabinet has delegated powers set out in Chapter 5, Paragraph 40 of the Constitution to appoint the Council’s representatives to serve on Outside Bodies.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None

Report of the Head of Corporate Resources

Reasons for the Decision:

The annual report provides assurance to the Cabinet, which has strategic responsibility for employee health and safety, that there is continued progress to implement and enhance an effective health and safety system across the Council.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None.

Report of the Head of Corporate Resources

Reasons for the Decisions:

To ensure that the Cabinet is informed of the forecast outturn position for the 2019/2020 Revenue Budget as at the end of September 2019, including delivery of agreed savings, and to provide an updated forecast of the outturn position with regard to the collection of Council Tax and Business Rates. 

To keep members informed of the progress of the Capital Programme against the profiled budget for 2019/20 and agreed allocations for future years.

To progress any changes that are required in order to maintain a relevant and accurate budget profile necessary for effective monitoring of the Capital Programme.

To approve any updates to funding resources so that they can be applied to capital schemes in the delivery of the Council’s overall capital strategy.

In March 2017 Council approved a three-year budget plan to March 2020. The final year of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Report of the Head of Corporate Resources

Reasons for the Recommendation(s):

In March 2017 Council approved a three-year budget plan to March 2020. The final year of this plan was revised in February 2019 as part of the process of setting the 2019/20 budget.  As part of this report, an indicative budget gap of £45m for 2020/21 to 2022/23 was reported.  The MTFP for this period has subsequently been updated to reflect the latest information available.  In approving the recommendations laid out in this report, the Council will continue to ensure resources are well managed and reflect the key priorities of the residents of Sefton.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None

To comply with Regulation 5(2) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, notice has been published regarding the intention to consider the following matter(s) in private for the reasons set out below.

No representations have been received on this matter and this agenda satisfies the requirements of Regulation 5(4).

The Cabinet is recommended to pass the following resolution:

That, under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.  The Public Interest Test has been applied and favours exclusion of the information from the Press and Public.

Decision Made:

That, under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item on the ground that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. The Public Interest Test has been applied and favours exclusion of the information from the Press and Public.

Joint Report of the Head of Corporate Resources and Head of Economic Growth and Housing.

The Cabinet considered the joint report of the Head of Corporate Resources and Head of Economic Growth and Housing in relation to the Asset Maximisation Project that sits within the Framework for Change, Public Sector Reform Programme.

Decision Made:

That the exempt information be considered as part of the public report in relation to this matter, reference Minute No: 73 refers.

Reason for the Decision:

The exempt information is required to be considered with the information in the public report in order that an informed decision may be made.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None.

Report of the Head of Commercial Development

The Cabinet considered the report of the Head of Commercial Development in relation to the Crosby Lakeside Adventure Centre Redevelopment Project.

Decision Made:

That the exempt information be considered as part of the public report in relation to this matter, reference Minute No: 74 refers.

Reason for the Decision:

The exempt information is required to be considered with the information in the public report in order that an informed decision may be made.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None.

To invite the press and public back into the meeting to consider the following reports:-

Decision Made:

That the press and public be re-admitted to the meeting.

Joint Report of the Head of Corporate Resources and Head of Economic Growth and Housing.

Reasons for the Decisions:

(i)             The disposal will enable a comprehensive scheme to be brought forward.  This will avoid the sterilisation of the Council’s land (Plot C – 3.29 acres) if Orchard Farm was redeveloped in isolation with highways access provided from Holgate Road;

(ii)            Disposal will ensure that an off-site highways solution is funded and delivered at Park View, which provides an appropriate access into the Council’s land at Plot A.  This site will be brought forward in future years and does not form part of the proposed land disposal in this report;

(iii)          The proposal will pass all costs associated with progressing ground investigations and technical surveys onto the developer – the Council will not have to fund these works.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

(i)             Option 1 – “Do nothing”: the developer has successfully appealed their planning refusal and indicated that they will exercise their option and develop out their consented scheme, utilising Holgate for construction and residential access.   

Risk: by redeveloping Orchard Farm in isolation, Holgate Road would be the main highways access into the site, but there would be insufficient capacity on this road to support the redevelopment of Plot C – this would likely remain as farmland. The impact would be the Council taking the remaining Plots A and B to market (see Option 2).  The Council would incur costs associated with technical surveys, planning and marketing fees and lose the value of Plot C (see Appendix 2). 

(ii)            Option 2 – “Council bring forward Plots A and B in isolation”: the Council would appoint consultants to progress desktop surveys (ecology, highways and ground conditions) and prepare a planning brief.  The Council’s remaining land would then be marketed to prospective partners – the deal to be conditional upon planning consent.

Risk: The Council would incur costs and staff resource to progress the upfront technical works and due diligence to take the site to market, including the appointment of Agents to market  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Report of the Head of Commercial Development

Reasons for the Decisions:

To enable the project to progress from the Development Stage (Stage 1) onto Transition to Delivery Stage (Stage 2) then to on-going Operations (Stage 3).

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Five options for delivery of the objectives of this project were considered, which are detailed in the table below.

The assessment of these options identified the Preferred Option to be Option 5: a JVCo to deliver operational transformation within a fully refurbished hospitality facility.

The summary of the outcome of the assessment is shown in the table below: