Decisions

SERVICE AREA:

Operations & Neighbourhoods

SUBJECT MATTER:

FAIRLEA, DENTON SLOPE STABILTY AND GREENSIDE LANE, DROYLSDEN SLOPE STABILITY

DECISION:

That a recommendation be made to Council to amend the Capital programme and agree expenditure of £0.65million to undertake the works as set out within the report in relation to

1.    Fairlea, Denton

2.    Greenside Lane, Droylsden

DECISION TAKER(S):

Councillor Fairfoull

DESIGNATION OF DECISION TAKER(S):

Deputy Executive Leader

DATE OF DECISION:

14 December 2018

REASON FOR DECISION:

As the landowner The Council has liability for any slippage where it is the highway authority and the embankment forms part of the road.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS REJECTED (if any):

No alternatives have been considered as the Council would be at risk in the event of partial/full collapse of the slope/slopes knowing there to be a risk to the public who may be passing by, and residents within the properties or garden areas.

CONSULTEES:

Consultation and co-operation with United Utilities (UU) regarding the phasing of their works and the council’s works needs to be planned to ensure abortive works or unnecessary costs for both parties are not incurred.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Section 151 Officer)

There is no earmarked funding for this proposed investment in the Council’s Capital Programme. Members should be aware that if approved, there may be an impact on the capital project prioritisation exercise.  Given the nature and circumstances of these works, with them been unforeseen and one off it may be appropriate to fund the works from the general fund reserve, which the Council holds for risk mitigation and management purposes.

The future ongoing inspection and maintenance of the 2 structures is minimal and can be funded by the existing Operations and Greenspace Revenue budget. Unexpected events such as vandalism could cause a revenue pressure.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Borough Solicitor)

Land owners are only liable for slippage where it has been created and it not a natural part of the land. Additionally. the Council has liability for any slippage where it is the highway authority and the embankment forms part of the road. Moreover, once a landowner or public authority intervened they are liable for evermore.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

There were no declarations of interest.

DISPENSATION GRANTED BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED:

Not applicable.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report author,:

Telephone:0161 342 3978

e-mail: lee.holland@tameside.gov.uk

SERVICE AREA:

Growth Directorate

SUBJECT MATTER:

ASHTON OLD BATHS PHASE 3 - ANNEXE AND NEW DATA CENTRE (FULL BUSINESS CASE)

DECISION:

That Executive Cabinet:

a)    Recommend to Council to amend the Capital programme to increase the budget by £1,157k to £2,757k subject to the conclusion of procurement.  Any revisions to the budget requirement will be subject to a further report to Executive Cabinet.

b)    Subject to approval of the additional budget, approve the proposals for the Ashton Old Baths Phase 3 project, and give officers approval to proceed with the project and procurement as outlined within the report.

c)    Approve  a waiver of Procurement Standing Orders for the award of the contract for the Supply and Installation of a new Electricity Sub-Station to Electricity North West (ENWL), the Licenced Distribution Network Operator (LDNO) for the North West of England, for the sum of £85,699.88

d)    Approve a waiver of Procurement Standing Orders for the award of the main contract through a two-stage design and construct procurement process.

e)    Note that progress on the delivery of this project will be reported to the Strategic Planning and Capital Monitoring Panel on a quarterly basis.

DECISION TAKER(S):

Executive Cabinet

DESIGNATION OF DECISION TAKER(S):

DATE OF DECISION:

12 December 2018

REASON FOR DECISION:

Delays to the Data Centre would cause financial and operational implications for the Council.  The approval of the project enables further income generation and remove the revenue costs of having data hosted at Rochdale BC.  By bringing the building back into use as a modern centre there will be the creation of a space for the creation of further jobs within the Borough.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS REJECTED (if any):

To continue with the arrangements with Rochdale Council hosting the Council’s data centre provides significant financial and operational impacts for the Council with continuing with this arrangement.

CONSULTEES:

Consultation with Historic England and the Council’s Planning Service has taken place to establish how the remaining heritage aspects of the building are to be restored and/or maintained.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Section 151 Officer)

The Capital programme includes an earmarked amount of £1.600m for the redevelopment of Ashton Old Baths Annexe. On 13 December 2017, Executive Cabinet approved £0.840m towards the new Data Centre as part of the Tameside Digital Infrastructure capital scheme. The proposals in this report would require an additional funding of £1.157m.  This total of £2.757m will need to be funded entirely by the Council, from reserves or capital receipts.  Further details on the project cost, including previously approved funding for the Data Centre is set out in section 8.2. 

The majority of capital programme has been placed on pause due to concerns about the achievement of capital receipts from asset sales, and cost overruns on a number of projects.  Executive Cabinet agreed that only schemes that have already started and those of a business critical nature could proceed.  This scheme was considered business critical due to the requirement to relocate the data centre and ensure that a disaster recovery capability was established. 

However, the scheme outlined is greater than the original budget and if it commences will require other identified schemes to be delayed or removed from the capital programme, or additional assets identified for sale.

Delays to the Data Centre would cause financial and operational implications for the Council.  Paragraph 2.23 of the report provides further detail, including the additional costs that would be incurred as a result of extending the current hosting arrangements with Rochdale by another 12 months.  Overall annual costs of £150k per annum will be avoided by developing the data centre in Ashton Old Baths.  This will be a saving that can be used to contribute to the balancing of the Council’s budget.

Paragraph 8.7 of the report provides a summary of the operating arrangements in place for Ashton Old Baths.  The management of the building is undertaken by Oxford Innovation, with the Council being entitled to any profit after the management fee.  The forecast total revenue income stream from this profit share over the first five years is £0.036m.  Completion of the Annexe increases this forecast to £0.154m over five years, or around £0.038m per annum, which again can be offered as a saving to help with the balancing of the Council’s budget.

Section 4 provides a summary of forecast economic benefits, based on the Oxford Economics Greater Manchester Forecasting model (2017), including an additional £0.05m of income from Business rates, although these figures have not been verified by finance.

The total revenue impact of the scheme through reduced costs (para 2.23), additional rental income (para 8.9) and additional business rates income (para 4.1) is around £0.234m per annum, which represents a payback period of 16 years on the gross proposed spend of £3.847m..

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Borough Solicitor)

The Council will need to ensure that it has robust systems in place to ensure that the project is delivered within the budget.

It is advisable for the Council to continue to review the position with the current data centre and plan for a contingency in the event of having to vacate Oldham and the new data centre at Ashton Old Baths not yet being ready

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

There were no declarations of interest.

DISPENSATION GRANTED BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED:

Not applicable.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report author,: Nawaz Khan, Economic Growth Lead

 Telephone: 0161 342 2723

e-mail: nawaz.khan@tameside.gov.uk

SUBJECT MATTER:

OFFICER DIRECTORSHIPS

DECISION:

DETERMINED that David Olliver and James Thelwell be seconded to LPPI in respect of their work on GLIL and the necessary Secondment Agreement be executed by the relevant parties to facilitate the same.

DECISION TAKER(S):

Sandra Stewart

DESIGNATION OF DECISION TAKER (S):

Director of Pensions

DATE OF DECISION:

10 December 2018

REASON FOR DECISION:

GLIL Infrastructure LLP (“GLIL”) is a vehicle established to facilitate direct investment by the Fund and four other LGPS funds into direct infrastructure. GLIL does not have any employees and instead its activities are performed by employees of the various LGPS members.

In April 2018 GLIL became subject to FCA regulation, with investment decisions being made by its own investment committee within the appointed FCA regulated entity, LPPI. In order to satisfy certain regulatory requirements, LGPS officers of GLIL member funds involved in decision making were obliged to become CF30 designated individuals, which could only be achieved by non-LPPI employees also being seconded to LPPI whilst performing those roles.

At the time the secondments were implemented, it was not necessary for all members of the GMPF team to be seconded.

Two things have changed materially since then: (i) the roles and status within GLIL of other GMPF team members have evolved such that they will inevitably soon lead or co-lead transactions and will certainly be involved in marketing GLIL; and (ii) LPPI’s risk and compliance team have agreed that secondment (and protection by their regulatory umbrella) can be separated from CF30 status (necessary only for those making investment decisions).

It is therefore appropriate and timely to reconsider and as a result all team members acting on GLIL will be formally seconded.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS REJECTED (if any):

Team members could continue to support GLIL without being seconded, but would therefore be prohibited from being involved in certain activities, such as taking the lead on drafting investment papers and marketing the fund. Such restrictions would result in inefficiencies and lack of resource within GLIL.  

CONSULTEES:

The named officers and interested parties of GLIL.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Breach of FCA regulation may result in financial penalties for TMBC.

Seconded employees will not receive remuneration from LPPI and their employment contract with TMBC remains unchanged.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

TMBC / GMPF is not a regulated entity and therefore cannot risk being deemed to be performing regulated activities. Similarly, employees of TMBC should not be exposed to the risk of being deemed to be performing a regulated activity outside of a regulated entity.

RISK MANAGEMENT:

GLIL has obtained legal advice in respect of the original secondment agreements and in respect of whether or not staff should be seconded.  The LPPI compliance and legal team have produced the appended secondment agreement.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

None

DISPENSATION GRANTED BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED:

N/A

ACCESS TO INFORMATION:

Not for Publication: This report contains exempt information relating to paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).  On balance, under paragraph 10 of Part 2 of Schedule 12A, it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information to the public because disclosure would, or would likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of the Fund and/or its agents which, in turn, could impact upon the interests of the local taxpayer and/or the beneficiaries of the Fund.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

Appendix 1- Pro-forma Secondment Agreement

Further background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting: Daniel Hobson, Senior Investments Manager:

Telephone: 0161 301 7167

E-mail: daniel.hobson@tameside.gov.uk

SERVICE AREA:

Finance Directorate

SUBJECT MATTER:

STRATEGIC COMMISSION AND NHS TAMESIDE AND GLOSSOP INTEGRATED CARE FOUNDATION TRUST - CONSOLIDATED 2018/19 REVENUE MONITORING STATEMENT

DECISION:

1. That the allocation of additional capital funding with an increase in the Capital Programme for the Hyde Leisure Pool Extension (£0.280m), be approved.
2. That the remedial slope stability works required at Fairlea Denton and Greenside Lane Droylsden (£0.650m), be approved.

DECISION TAKER(S):

Executive Cabinet

DATE OF DECISION:

12 December 2018

REASON FOR DECISION:

To enable the completion of the Hyde Leisure Pool extension following the withdrawal of the main contractor from the scheme; and,

As the landowner at Fairlea, Denton and Greenside, Droylsden the Council has liability for any slippage where it is the highway authority and the embankment forms part of the road

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS REJECTED (if any):

In relation to the Hyde Leisure Pool extension no alternatives were considered as to not approve the Capital Expenditure would put the project at risk.

In relation to Fairlea, Denton and Greenside, Droylsden no alternatives were been considered as the Council would be at risk in the event of partial/full collapse of the slope/slopes knowing there to be a risk to the public who may be passing by, and residents within the properties or garden areas.

CONSULTEES:

None applicable.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Section 151 Officer)

The report provides the 2018/19 consolidated financial position statement at 31 October 2018 for the Strategic Commission and ICFT partner organisations. For the year to 31 March 2019 the report forecasts that service expenditure will exceed the approved budget in a number of areas, due to a combination of cost pressures and non-delivery of savings. These pressures are being partially offset by additional income in corporate and contingency which may not be available in future years.  There is a clear urgency to implement associated strategies to ensure the projected funding gap in the current financial year is addressed and closed on a recurrent basis across the whole economy. The Medium Term Financial Plan for the period 2019/20 to 2023/24 identifies significant savings requirements for future years. If budget pressures inservice areas in 2018/19 are sustained, this will inevitably lead to an increase in the level of savings required in future years to balance the budget.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Borough Solicitor)

There is a statutory duty to ensure the Council sets a balanced budget and that it is monitored to ensure statutory commitments are met. There are a number of areas that require a clear strategy to ensure in the face of demand they achieve this.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

There were no declarations of interest.

DISPENSATION GRANTED BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED:

Not applicable.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report author,:

Tom Wilkinson, Assistant Director of Finance, Tameside

Metropolitan Borough Council

Telephone:0161 342 5609

e-mail: tom.wilkinson@tameside.gov.uk

SERVICE AREA:

Operations and Neighbourhoods Directorate

SUBJECT MATTER:

MEDICAL REFEREE FEE

DECISION:

That the Medical Referee fees are increased from £18 to £19 per form backdated from 1April 2018.

DECISION TAKER(S):

Executive Cabinet

DATE OF DECISION:

14 December 2018

REASON FOR DECISION:

To ensure the Councils meets its legal obligations with regard to providing a cremation service.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS REJECTED (if any):

To not increase the fees risks the Council not meeting it’s legal obligations with regard to the cremation services.

CONSULTEES:

None applicable

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Section 151 Officer)

The proposed increase in medical examiners fees is greater than 2.5% however as all costs are recovered, it is still a competitive rate within Greater Manchester and there are no financial implications, it is considered an appropriate increase.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Borough Solicitor)

Medical referees at crematoria are paid by local authorities to scrutinise cremation certificates. If not satisfied, medical referees are required to contact the doctors completing certificates 4 and 5 and, if necessary, order an autopsy examination. They also have a duty, where appropriate, to refer a case to the coroner.

Medical referee fees for Forms 12 and 13 are no longer negotiated on a national level by the BMA. Each individual local authority will set fees for the completion of these forms.

The system for scrutiny over all deaths (both cremation and burial) is currently being reviewed by the Department of Health with the proposal to implement a Medical Examiner led system. Medical Examiners (appointed by local authorities) will replace the current roles of the medical referee and the two doctors completing the cremation forms.

Increasing the fee paid to the Medical Referee has no financial implication with regards to Bereavement Service revenue costs as any fees charged are recovered by income received. This fee forms part of the overall cremation fee and is paid by the family as part of the disbursement funeral costs. However, as the Council is a public body it has a duty of care to ensure that any fees are reasonable and proportionate to the function being paid for by the public.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

There were no declarations of interest.

DISPENSATION GRANTED BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED:

Not applicable.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report author,:

Telephone: 0161 342 4461

e-mail: e-mail: michael.gurney@tameside.gov.uk

SERVICE AREA:

Finance Directorate

SUBJECT MATTER:

CONSULTATION OUTCOME AND SETTING LOCAL COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT SCHEME 2019-20

DECISION:

A recommendation is made to Council to approve the Council Tax Support scheme for 2019/20, which remains the same scheme as that set effective from April 2017, subject to annual benefit uprating as detailed in the scheme, and the following:

1. Award a two week run on for claimants moving from benefit to work
2. Apply an earnings disregard to self–employed working age claimants

DECISION TAKER(S):

Executive Cabinet

DATE OF DECISION:

12 December 2018

REASON FOR DECISION:

The Council Tax Support (CTS) scheme assists the most financially vulnerable in the Borough by providing means tested financial support towards Council Tax costs.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS REJECTED (if any):

A number of options had been considered and assessed, including considerations of impacts on vulnerable groups and financial implications for the authority.

CONSULTEES:

Public consultation was undertaken between 30 August 2018 and 22 November 2018. The submitted report set out the results of the consultation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Section 151 Officer)

The Council Tax Support Scheme is a cost to the Council in the sense that it reduces the amount of Council tax that can be collected. In 2017/18 the value of the Council Tax revenue foregone under the current scheme rules was £14,439k, and is forecast to be around £14,258k in 2018/19 (Forecast as at 27 November 2018). The proposed changes set out in this report are estimated to increase the cost of the scheme by up to £50k.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Borough Solicitor)

Under Appendix 4paragraph 5 (2) of the Local Government Finance Act 2012, the Council must now agree any changes to its discretionary scheme by 11 March each year, which must be in accordance with the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (Prescribed Regulations)(England) Regulations 2012 as amended, as must its appeal process. An equality impact assessment in accordance with the public sector equality duty is continually undertaken every quarter.

Having set a discretionary scheme, the Council must also be mindful of recent case law (including R (Logan) v the London Borough of Havering – 6.11.15) when applying the scheme. In particular, it may not be considered reasonable to refuse hardship funding on the basis that the hardship fund is exhausted. Any claim for hardship must be considered on its merits only and careful consideration should be given to the impact of any restrictions on those of working age,

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

There were no declarations of interest.

DISPENSATION GRANTED BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED:

Not applicable.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report author,:

Telephone: 0161 342 4056

e-mail: ilys.cookson@tameside.gov.uk

SERVICE AREA:

Commissioning

SUBJECT MATTER:

COMMUNITY HEALTH ESTATE AND INTEGRATION

DECISION:

1.    Note the prioritisation of estates and neighbourhood integrated hubs within Greater Manchester and that external resource has been made available centrally to develop opportunities.

2.    Note that Tameside and Glossop Strategic Commission have been successful in securing some of this resource via funding bids ranging from £25k to £80k and totalling £250k.

3.    Approve the spend of these funds to gain more detailed understanding of potential neighbourhood opportunities leading to development of Outline Business Cases.

DECISION TAKER(S):

Strategic Commissioning Board

DESIGNATION OF DECISION TAKER(S):

Not applicable.

DATE OF DECISION:

12 December 2018

REASON FOR DECISION:

There is a clear need to deliver solutions for the community health estate which addresses building condition, rising costs and service need.  These solutions need to encourage a collaborative public asset approach and a multi-agency delivery approach to ensure that resident / patient needs and care are joined up.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS REJECTED (if any):

To not undertake further consideration of potential options would not provide the required solutions.  In each neighbourhood, there are a variety of estate options and differing pressures to be considered and these shall be considered within each Outline Business Case.

CONSULTEES:

This strategy is sighted economy wide and all executive and stakeholder groups are in support of its development.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Section 151 Officer)

Full consideration shall be given to the financial implications of each outline business case when produced.  The financial implications will vary in nature but all will need to demonstrate a return on investment and value for money in order to proceed through our governance route.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Borough Solicitor)

This report seeks only to approve expenditure of Funding provided to the CCG for the purpose of developing business cases.  Such expenditure must comply with Financial Standing order and procurement obligations.

It should be noted that all Outline Business Cases will need to be agreed in advance by the Strategic Commissioning Board – any approvals and authorisations will be dependent on the source of the budget for the proposals if reliant on council funding and this ultimately may be dependent on full Council approval.  Meanwhile no liabilities should be committed to and / or incurred before such authority provided.

There are some significant legal and financial issues that will need to be considered by any potential delivery model, this is because the Council is able to buy and hold land whereas health can only lease land through a health company – therefore any integrated approaches whilst on the face of them provide a common sense approach, there is currently no legal framework in place that would protect the council in the event that any lease was reneged upon.  Accordingly these are issues that need to be developed further and understood before any individual business case can be agreed.  It is something we will need to get our external auditors to sign off.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

None.

DISPENSATION GRANTED BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED:

Not applicable.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report author Mathew Chetwynd, Estate Business Manager, by:

Telephone: 0161 342 5500

e-mail: mathew.chetwynd@nhs.net

SERVICE AREA:

Operations and Neighbourhoods Directorate

SUBJECT MATTER:

PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY 2018-21

DECISION:

That the updated Preventing Homelessness Strategy for 2018-2021 be approved.

DECISION TAKER(S):

Executive Cabinet

DATE OF DECISION:

12 December 2018

REASON FOR DECISION:

The new Tameside MBC draft Preventing Homelessness Strategy aims to bring about a borough wide cultural change in the Council’s approach to tackling and preventing homelessness in Tameside.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS REJECTED (if any):

No alternatives were considered The Homelessness Act 2002 requires all housing authorities to adopt a homelessness strategy based on a review of all forms of homelessness in their district.  The report detailed responses to the extensive consultation undertaken in drafting the Policy.

CONSULTEES:

The submitted report set out the extensive consultation undertaken with the public and strategic stakeholders..

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Section 151 Officer)

There are no direct financial implications as a result of this report. Implementing the Strategy may incur costs which will be met from the existing Service budget.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

(Authorised by Borough Solicitor)

The Homelessness Act 2002 introduced a requirement for local authorities to undertake a review of homelessness, including consultation, and to use the results of the review to inform a homelessness strategy. Local authorities must publish their homelessness strategy periodically, but not longer than once every 5 years. Within a complex legal framework, the Council delivers services to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. This framework sets out duties it must perform and powers it can exercise with discretion. The Housing Act 1996, Part 7 has been amended over the years, but remains the primary legislation prescribing how local authorities should deliver services, and what duties they must owe to homeless persons. The Housing Act 1996, Part 7 has most recently been amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and provides fundamental amendments to the existing homelessness legislation. It introduces new requirements to “prevent” and “relieve” homelessness and in that context, sets out a range of new duties.

The Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) 2017 came into effect on 3 April 2018 and was intended to transform the way Local Housing Authority (LHA) services are provided to homeless people. The Act is arguably the biggest change in homelessness legislation since 19771. It not only imposes a duty to prevent and relieve homelessness, but it provides opportunities for culture and systems change. The HRA effectively bolts two new duties to the original statutory rehousing duty: the duty to prevent homelessness, and the duty to relieve homelessness. New provisions introduced by the HRA include:

• Duty to prevent and relieve homelessness

• Requirement to carry out an assessment and personalised

housing plan

• Public bodies now have a duty to refer people whom they

know are threatened with homelessness

• Applicants have the right to ask for a review of any points of

the new legislation

It is anticipated that the Preventing Homelessness Strategy will have a positive impact upon the protected groups. However, this needs to be monitored to ensure that any particular group is not disadvantaged in a particular way given the general vulnerability of this sector of the community.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

There were no declarations of interest.

DISPENSATION GRANTED BY STANDARDS COMMITTEE ATTACHED:

Not applicable.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:

The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting the report author,:

Telephone:0161 342 3337

e-mail: emma.varnam@tameside.gov.uk