Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on  29 June  2015 (circulated separately to Cabinet members).

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2015 were agreed by the committee and signed by the Chair.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Elliot & Harden.

To receive any declarations of interest

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered -

(i)            must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent

and, if the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest, or a personal interest which is also prejudicial

(ii)            may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter (and must withdraw to the public seating area) unless they have been granted a dispensation.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Members’ Register of Interests, or is not the subject of a pending notification, must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal and prejudicial interests are defined in Part 2 of the Code of Conduct for Members

[If a member is in any doubt as to whether they have an interest which should be declared they should seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer before the start of the meeting]

There were none.

An opportunity for members of the public to make statements and ask questions in accordance with the rules as to Public Participation.

There was none.

There were none.

James Doe requested that the Dacorum Borough Council Conservation Strategy be added to the Forward Plan for September.

The Forward Plan was then noted.

Councillor Marshall clarified that the virement was for the current financial year and noted that it was a sizeable sum to be asking for at such an early stage of the financial year. She advised that she appreciated that it was for responsive repairs and voids, which cannot be measured, but enquired as to why so early in the financial year.

James Deane advised that the data is kept on all virements and will be factored into next years budget.

Elliot Brookes advised that it was not about volume of work but more to do with the pricing mechanism within the contract, more to do with the application of profit and overheads and running costs. In short the structure of the finances rather than the volume of work.

Councillor Marshall enquired as to whether this would be reflected in the budget for next year.

Elliot Brookes confirmed it would.

The Committee agreed the virements.

Councillor Guest requested to address the Committee regarding this matter.

The Chair agreed.

Councillor Guest made the following address:

Leader, Cabinet, this document raises questions.

It states on P3-4 of the report that advice from key stakeholders such as the Local Education Authority and the Highway Authority should be sought where appropriate. Feedback on the Borough Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan has also been significant in developing a clear understanding of infrastructure needs. Will the road infrastructure in and accessing LA3 and the Site Allocations be able to cope with the traffic generated? Is there a commitment from the County Council that a new primary school at LA3 will happen?

The level and broad location of new development including the principle of releasing the six Local Allocations from the Green Belt has already been established through the Core Strategy. That is why I spoke and voted against the Core Strategy. It would mean the release of LA3, and I am opposed in principle to releasing this high quality Green Belt for building.  One of the most important aspects of the Site Allocations is the inclusion of policies to deliver the six Local Allocations, including 900 homes at LA3. I have been opposed to building on this land since 1996 and couldn’t support policies to deliver the development of it.

The Local Allocations will be managed as countryside until they are required for development. Can an assurance be given that they will remain countryside until all the brownfield sites have been exhausted?

The Green Belt has always been a constraint to be taken into account when deciding how far a council can go towards meeting its objectively assessed housing need. However the NPPF does allow for new Green Belt boundaries to be drawn when a council reviews its strategic plan. If the Green Belt is a constraint when meeting objectively assessed need, why propose the release of it? Could falling short of meeting housing need because of Green Belt constraints have been successfully defended to the Inspector at Examination? If it could, can the need to develop the Local Allocations be revisited in the Early Partial Review process?

Since the publication of the Pre-Submission Site Allocations Document there has been a re-run of the Hemel Hempstead Transport model. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan of June 2015 has an update to the 2014 report to ensure that infrastructure issues raised though the Pre-Submission consultation are discussed and addressed by service providers.

Updates of transport modelling and the addressing of infrastructure issues raised by consultation are welcome. However who commissioned these studies and who conducted them?

It is welcome that liaison with infrastructure providers has continued through the preparation of an update to the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan, including meetings with the old PCT, West Herts. Hospitals Trust, Highways England, Thames Water and Children, Schools and Families at Herts. County Council.  Now that PCTs have gone, are the meetings continuing but with Herts. Valleys CCG and NHS England?

Infrastructure providers have confirmed that there are  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA/18/15

Councillor Marshall introduced the report advising that the Mobile Homes Act requires that before you can charge fees, you must have a published fees policy. The policy is specifically for mobile homes and puts the fee charging on a firmer footing. She went on to advise that the Housing & Community OSC had considered the report on the 8th July, where it was thoroughly debated, resulting in some minor amendments. There was a recommendation that in Paragraph 3.2.1 of the actual policy it should be made clear that the list is not exhaustive and that at Appendix A of the policy, where there are points identifying risks, the last few lines need adjustments as the word ‘other’ that is in bold is actually a heading. The penalties are there to identify the risk rating system, which informs the level of charge.

Councillor Mrs Griffiths enquired as to whether the policy covered single mobile homes, where perhaps people may be staying whilst refurbishing or building their home or if it was just for sites.

Nicholas Egerton advised that where planning permission has been granted and it is intended to be there for more than 28 days.

The committee agreed the recommendation.  

James Deane introduced the report advising it was for the period 2015/16 – 2019/20. He advised that it had been updated to reflect the summer budget of 2015, and that it had also been updated to include the audited out-turn position for 2014/15.Once those figures had been factored in to the model there is a savings target emerging for the next four year of £3 million. He advised that it is substantially front loaded, with £1.4million next year and £1.2million in 2017/18 and that these are driven by continued reductions in government grants. He advised that at this stage they were forecast figures and in terms of the government grants, there were two big risks coming up; one of which was the spending review which is currently underway and that government departments are being asked to model two different scenarios, looking at reductions of one at 25% and one at 40% and that this is in line with the assumptions that we have within the model, however we will not know for sure what the reductions will be until November and that in turn we will not find out the actual impact this will have on Dacorum until the Local Government Finance Settlement in December.

With regards to the HRA an updated business plan will be presented to Cabinet in October. There are likely to be some significant changes as a result of the summer budget, in particular the 1% reduction year on year for the next four years, however that is being modelled through at present. He further added that they are working with the Chartered Institute of Housing to look at Local Government responses and once that is in place it will be brought to Cabinet in October.

Councillor Mrs Griffiths enquired that other than tenants on Housing Benefit, how do we know what the income is from our tenants, and how can you work out if it is 1% across the board or if it is just 1% to a certain level.

James Deane advised that at the present time we do not currently know our tenants income, however there has been some mention of legislation being passed to enable us to get that information. In terms of the effect it will have on the Dacorum business plan, he suspects that those tenants with an income in excess of £30,000 will get the increase but the amount that Dacorum will get will be reduced by 1% on what we are currently getting this year.

Councillor Marshall noted that the report indicates that we have to look for economies and enquired as to what the position was regarding income maximisation, where we are able to increase our income or explore areas where the Council is able to provide services.

James Deane advised that to deal with the funding deficit, either reduce spending or increase your income, but that a blend of both would be so much the better. He went on to advise that the next steps are  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA/20/15

Councillor Sutton advised that he had attended the 2^nd of the Two Waters Planning Framework workshops and had been extremely impressed by the process that is going on. He advised that the area was open to regeneration and from the meetings he has attended is confident that any regeneration works would be done sympathetically and would go hand in glove with the open spaces that exist within Boxmoor and the Two Waters area. He went on to advise that the report covers a fairly large area but that it is worth looking at that as a whole. He advised that the purpose of the report was to agree the planning framework.

James Doe added that Two Waters is an up and coming area for regeneration and that it was important to have something fit for purpose to deal with those proposals and suggested that the framework now be sent out for consultation and to then report back once the views of the public have been secured.

Councillor Williams referred to Recommendation 2 and the final framework being brought back to Cabinet and Council and enquired as to whether there was a timescale for that.

James Doe advised that he anticipates it would come back to Cabinet in the autumn.

The committee agreed the recommendations.

Councillor Sutton congratulated Sue Lea on the Tourism Strategy launch event stating that it was a well put together and well received event. He advised it is about taking on board partners who want to be a part of the Tourism Strategy. He went on to advise that this is an important strategy as the way that the town will generate in the coming years there will be a need for more hotels and restaurants and that Sue Lea had laid the foundation for that.

Councillor Williams stated that he had been at the launch and was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who had attended but enquired as to how successful sign up had been.

Sue Lea advised that 19 companies had signed up so far with more coming in.

The committee agreed to recommend the report to Council.

To consider passing a resolution in the following terms:

That, under s.100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A Part 1 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 the public be excluded during the items in Part 2 of the Agenda for this meeting, because it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that, if members of the public were present during those items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information relating to the financial and business affairs of the Council and third party companies/organisations.

Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3.

Agreed.