Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ORDER OF BUSINESS Minutes: The order of items of business was changed with agreement by the Chair and agenda item number 15 – Development of Visitor Centre at Needham Lake – was taken first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: There were no apologies received. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/64 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4 FEBRUARY 2019 PDF 246 KB Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 04 February 2019 were confirmed as a correct record. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: None received. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: There were no questions received from Councillors.
Councillor Otton asked how often the Planning portal was updated. Councillor Horn advised that the portal was regularly updated as applications come in. Councillor Otton then asked why the address for the Member for Thurston and Hessett, was listed under Councillor Esther Jewson, at an address she has not been at for at least 3 years. It was agreed that this would be amended on the Planning Portal and on the website. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MATTERS REFERRED BY THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY OR JOINT AUDIT AND STANDARDS COMMITTEES Minutes: It was agreed that as additional information regarding item 16 – Regulatory Reform Order Policy on Minor Disabled Adaptation Scheme – was to be presented at the meeting, this item would be dealt with when the report was discussed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recommendation and draft minute from the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 14 February 2019, in respect of Item 15 below.
Additional documents: Minutes: Please see minute number 139.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FORTHCOMING DECISIONS LIST Please note the most up to date version can be found via the website:
https://www.babergh.gov.uk/the-council/forthcoming-decisions-list/
Paper copies will be available at the meeting. Minutes: The Forthcoming Decisions List was noted. Councillor Horn confirmed that the Joint Local Plan would be coming to Council on 27 June 2019. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/73 DEVELOPMENT OF VISITOR CENTRE AT NEEDHAM LAKE PDF 374 KB Cabinet Member for Environment Additional documents:
Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That funding of up to £600,000 to deliver a new visitor centre development at Needham Lake be approved. 1.2 To proceed with the associated planning permission and to carry out the subsequent tender processes, including the award of contract, for the development of the new facility. 1.3 That the Strategic Director be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet portfolio holders for Environment and for Communities, to select and award the contract for the development of the new facility. 1.4 That the Strategic Director be delegated authority in consultation with the Cabinet portfolio holders for Environment and for Communities to award the contract to operate the new facility. 1.5 That the Member advisory working group for the development of Needham Lake Visitor Centre that includes relevant Cabinet Members and local Ward Members be continued. Reason for Decision: Improving the quality of life for the local community and increasing visitor spend in the local economy; supporting community capacity building and engagement; maximising a Council asset; encouraging increased physical activity and improved use of open space; and efficient management of the delivery of the facility. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: In order to deliver this key priority for the Council, and following the feasibility work, several delivery options have been reviewed. These have included due consideration of future sustainability in terms of ongoing revenue costs and environmental matters. The options include: a. A café model operated by the Council or by a third party. The option of a model operated by the Council was discounted as the Council has no relevant experience of running a café operation, whereas the private, voluntary and community sectors do. This would also provide an opportunity for a small business or social enterprise to run the facility. The Council would be interested in working with potential operators who were prepared to engage with the Local Authority’s wider economic development and skills objectives, as set out in its Open for Business strategy. b. A lease, with potential for a shared profit arrangement, or a model whereby the operator would design, build, own and operate the facility. In order to maintain a degree of control over the project at this key strategic open space site for the Council, a lease arrangement is preferred. c. Other sites for the new building at the Lake were investigated and rejected principally on flood risk grounds and also because they would not deliver against the key aspiration expressed by the public for a facility which overlooks the main playground area. Cabinet is invited to consider the content of this report and then determine via the recommendations below how to progress. Any Declarations of Interest Declared: None Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes: The Corporate Manager for Democratic Services advised Members that there was a confidential paper within the report however, it was not possible to go into closed session as the statutory 28 days-notice to the public had not been able to be given. The information in this confidential paper was therefore not to be discussed at this meeting.
The report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Environment who outlined the development plans for the Needham Lake Visitor Centre.
Councillor Burn moved the recommendations in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Flatman.
Councillor Stringer commented that the budget for this project was high.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That funding of up to £600,000 to deliver a new visitor centre development at Needham Lake be approved. 1.2 To proceed with the associated planning permission and to carry out the subsequent tender processes, including the award of contract, for the development of the new facility. 1.3 That the Strategic Director be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet portfolio holders for Environment and for Communities, to select and award the contract for the development of the new facility. 1.4 That the Strategic Director be delegated authority in consultation with the Cabinet portfolio holders for Environment and for Communities to award the contract to operate the new facility. 1.5 That the Member advisory working group for the development of Needham Lake Visitor Centre that includes relevant Cabinet Members and local Ward Members be continued. Reason for Decision: Improving the quality of life for the local community and increasing visitor spend in the local economy; supporting community capacity building and engagement; maximising a Council asset; encouraging increased physical activity and improved use of open space; and efficient management of the delivery of the facility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/66 GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL MONITORING 2018/19 - APRIL TO DECEMBER 2018 PDF 269 KB Cabinet Member for Finance Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That subject to any further budget variations that arise during the rest of the financial year, the following net transfers of £1,939k be noted; a) Transfer from reserves of £46k being the net amount for the following specific earmarked reserves, referred to in section 5.8 and Appendix C of this report; · £208k to Joint Local Plan (a new earmarked reserve) · £33k to Waste · £30k to Carry Forwards (Leisure Contract) · £13k to Government Grants (other items – Better Business for All) · £10k to Elections · £237k from Planning for appeal costs · £40k from Government Grants (Policy Strategy, Health and Well-being) · £33k from Homelessness · £30k from Commuted Maintenance b) Of the remaining balance of the General Fund surplus £767k be transferred to the Growth and Efficiency Fund and £1,218k to the Business Rates Equalisation reserve, as referred to in section 2.1 (c) of the report.
Reason for Decision: To ensure that Members are kept informed of the current budgetary position for both General Fund Revenue and Capital.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
1.1 Transfer surplus funds of £1,939k to the Growth and Efficiency (GEF) reserve. 1.2 Transfer surplus funds of £1,939k to the Business Rates Equalisation reserve. 1.3 Transfer surplus funds of £1,218k to the Business Rates Equalisation reserve, surplus funds of £767k to the Growth and Efficiency reserve and net transfers of £46k from specific earmarked reserves as detailed in 3.1(a) below. 1.4 At this stage in the year, make no recommendation for the transfer of surplus funds to reserves.
Any Declaration of Interests declared: None Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Finance introduced the report and provided Members with an overview of the variances. Councillor Whitehead moved the recommendations in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Brewster.
The Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments queried the proposed funding for the adverse variance in relation to Open Spaces as detailed on page 21 of the report. It was confirmed that the figure earmarked was an estimate and could be reviewed if necessary.
Councillor Otton raised questions regarding CIFCO borrowing costs, planning appeal costs, ICT costs, in particular the costs of Skype and photocopiers and grants for empty homes. The Assistant Director for Housing confirmed he would provide details regarding the under spend of grants for empty homes. Councillor Otton then asked if Overview and Scrutiny Committee had looked at this issue. It was confirmed that this would be taken to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Councillor Stringer expressed concern over the overspend in Building Control and declared an interest as he has a contract with Mid Suffolk District Council to carry out building control, and the underspend on electric vehicle charging points.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That subject to any further budget variations that arise during the rest of the financial year, the following net transfers of £1,939k be noted; a) Transfer from reserves of £46k being the net amount for the following specific earmarked reserves, referred to in section 5.8 and Appendix C of this report; · £208k to Joint Local Plan (a new earmarked reserve) · £33k to Waste · £30k to Carry Forwards (Leisure Contract) · £13k to Government Grants (other items – Better Business for All) · £10k to Elections · £237k from Planning for appeal costs · £40k from Government Grants (Policy Strategy, Health and Well-being) · £33k from Homelessness · £30k from Commuted Maintenance b) Of the remaining balance of the General Fund surplus £767k be transferred to the Growth and Efficiency Fund and £1,218k to theBusiness Rates Equalisation reserve, as referred to in section 2.1 (c) of the report.
Reason for Decision: To ensure that Members are kept informed of the current budgetary position for both General Fund Revenue and Capital.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cabinet Member for Housing Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the potential or likely variations in relation to the HRA both Revenue and Capital compared to the Budget be noted. 1.2 That, subject to any further budget variations that arise during the rest of the financial year, the shortfall in funds of £415k, referred to in section 5.6 of the report, be transferred from the Strategic Priorities reserve, as referred to in 2a) of the report.
Reason for Decision: To ensure that Members are kept informed of the current budgetary position for both the HRA Revenue and Capital Budget.
Alternatives Options Considered and Rejected:
1.1Transfer funds of £415k from the Strategic Priorities reserve to support the deficit. 1.2 At this stage in the year, make no recommendation for the transfer of funds from reserves. Any Declarations of Interest declared: None Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes: Report MCa/18/67 was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing who moved the recommendations in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Flatman.
Councillor Otton queried if service charges were reviewed and how often this was done. The Assistant Director for Housing confirmed that these charges were reviewed.
Councillor Otton then asked what action is being taken to overcome the current issues in BMBS. Members were advised that the adverse variance in BMBS was mainly due to the impact of the voids project. There were several projects ongoing to tackle the issues in this area and improvements were being made.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the potential or likely variations in relation to the HRA both Revenue and Capital compared to the Budget be noted. 1.2 That, subject to any further budget variations that arise during the rest of the financial year, the shortfall in funds of £415k, referred to in section 5.6 of the report, be transferred from the Strategic Priorities reserve, as referred to in 2a) of the report.
Reason for Decision: To ensure that Members are kept informed of the current budgetary position for both the HRA Revenue and Capital Budget.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/68 QUARTER 3 PERFORMANCE OUTCOME REPORTING PDF 238 KB Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery Additional documents:
Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
That the performance report and the performance outcome information tabled at Appendices A to G of the report be agreed as reflecting Mid Suffolk District Council’s performance for October – December 2018.
Reason for Decision: To provide assurance that the Council is meeting its performance objectives.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: It is a requirement to report this information to Cabinet, therefore there are no other available options.
Any Declarations of Interest Declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: None Minutes: The report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery who thanked Members for the support and work undertaken in conjunction with the Assistant Directors in reviewing and updating the measures. Councillor Morley moved the recommendations in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Flatman.
The Assistant Director for Housing provided an update regarding staffing issues within BMBS and actions being taken.
Councillor Otton commented that figures detailing the number of people attending meetings at Needham Market are required to make a comparison with the numbers attending at Endeavour House. Councillor Stringer confirmed that he had received this information and suggested that a survey of attendees should be carried out to gain information.
Councillor Morley confirmed that she would forward these figures to all Members and commented that there have been very few Planning Referral Meetings since the move to Endeavour House compared to before, and this had had an effect on the figures.
The increased target figure for measure WS07, Missed Bins was queried by Councillor Burn. The Corporate Manager for Business Improvement confirmed that the target had been increased at the request of Members. It was agreed that the figures would be shown as cumulative for clarity.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
That the performance report and the performance outcome information tabled at Appendices A to G of the report be agreed as reflecting Mid Suffolk District Council’s performance for October – December 2018.
Reason for Decision: To provide assurance that the Council is meeting its performance objectives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/69 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) - CIL EXPENDITURE BUSINESS PLAN MARCH 2019 PDF 294 KB Cabinet Member for Planning Additional documents:
Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the CIL Expenditure Business Plan (March 2019) and accompanying technical assessments of the CIL Bids forming Appendices A and B of the report and which include decisions on valid Bids for Cabinet to make and those for Cabinet to note be approved as follows: - Decisions for Cabinet to take: Local Infrastructure Fund
Decisions for Cabinet to note and endorse: Local Infrastructure Fund
1.2 Cabinet are asked to note and endorse that all other non-determined valid or invalid Bids continue to be worked upon and all will be carried forward to the next CIL Bid round 3 for consideration. 1.3 Cabinet are also asked to note and endorse this CIL Business Plan (which includes all those valid CIL Bids where offers of other sources of funding have been made for projects as part of the CIL process such that the value of that original CIL Bid is reduced). Reason for Decision: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies have been collected since the implementation of CIL on the 11th April 2016. The CIL Expenditure Framework adopted in April 2018 requires the production of a CIL Business Plan for each District which contains decisions for Cabinet to make or note and endorse on CIL Bids for CIL expenditure. These decisions relating to the expenditure of CIL monies form the one of the ways which necessary infrastructure supporting growth is delivered. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: There is a diverse spectrum of approaches to CIL expenditure across the country from Unitary Authorities who have absorbed CIL into their individual Capital Programmes to others who ringfence all funds to be spent locally. A range of different approaches ... view the full decision text for item 134. Minutes: The Cabinet Member introduced the report and provided Members with details of the four bid applications in the report. Councillor Horn moved the recommendations in the report subject to the words ‘and endorse’ being removed from recommendation 3.1. This was seconded by Councillor Flatman.
Councillor Otton commented that she had not been contacted as a County Councillor regarding the bid in Thurston.
Councillor Otton suggested that for future reports the business plans were not required. It was agreed that these would be included as a link.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the CIL Expenditure Business Plan (March 2019) and accompanying technical assessments of the CIL Bids forming Appendices A and B of the report and which include decisions on valid Bids for Cabinet to make and those for Cabinet to note be approved as follows: - Decisions for Cabinet to take: Local Infrastructure Fund
Decisions for Cabinet to note and endorse: Local Infrastructure Fund
1.2 Cabinet are asked to note and endorse that all other non-determined valid or invalid Bids continue to be worked upon and all will be carried forward to the next CIL Bid round 3 for consideration. 1.3 Cabinet are also asked to note and endorse this CIL Business Plan (which includes all those valid CIL Bids where offers of other sources of funding have been made for projects as part of the CIL process such that the value of that original CIL Bid is reduced). Reason for Decision: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies have been collected since the implementation of CIL on the 11th April 2016. The CIL Expenditure Framework adopted in April 2018 requires the production of a ... view the full minutes text for item 134. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/70 STOWUPLAND NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN PDF 239 KB Cabinet Member for Planning Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That Stowupland Parish Council be requested to make the necessary modifications to their Neighbourhood Plan in accordance with the Examiner’s recommendations.
1.2 That, subject to the satisfactory completion of the above (to be agreed by the Corporate Manager for Strategic Planning); the Neighbourhood Plan be advanced to a local referendum covering the parish of Stowupland.
Reason for Decision: To enable the Council to meet its statutory obligations under Section 17A of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) and to allow the Stowupland Neighbourhood Plan to proceed to a local referendum.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
1.1 The local planning authority may propose to make a decision on a recommendation that differs from that set out by the Examiner in their report. If so, it must give its reason why and undertake further consultation before issuing a final decision. As appropriate, this may require the matter to be re-examined. For the reasons set out in section 4 below, this option has been discarded.
1.2 The recommended options as set out below is that the local planning authority agree that this Neighbourhood Plan proceed to a local referendum.
Any Declarations of Interest Declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: None Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report and advised Members that a modified plan was received by officers late the previous week. The plan allocates three sites, two of which benefit from planning permission and the third had a resolution to grant permission subject to the section 106 agreement. Officers had raised concerns that this plan may fall short in meeting strategic housing needs. Councillor Horn asked members to endorse the recommendations in the report. The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Wilshaw.
Councillor Welham expressed his thanks to the Officers working on the plan. Councillor Welham queried the figures quoted by Councillor Horn. The figures were confirmed by the Neighbourhood Planning Officer.
By 9 votes to 0
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That Stowupland Parish Council be requested to make the necessary modifications to their Neighbourhood Plan in accordance with the Examiner’s recommendations.
1.2 That, subject to the satisfactory completion of the above (to be agreed by the Corporate Manager for Strategic Planning); the Neighbourhood Plan be advanced to a local referendum covering the parish of Stowupland.
Reason for Decision: To enable the Council to meet its statutory obligations under Section 17A of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended) and to allow the Stowupland Neighbourhood Plan to proceed to a local referendum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cabinet Member for Planning
Additional documents:
Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the proposed changes to the charged pre-application advice service and associated charges as set out in the attached draft Schedule at Appendix (a) of the report be approved. 1.2 That the Assistant Director Planning & Communities to, at least annually, review the Schedule of charges and as needed be authorised to amend the Schedule in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning to reflect current good business practice in pre-application charging. Reason for Decision: The decision to agree the changes to the pre-application advice service and associated charges will refine and improve the service offered to users and the delegation of authority will enable continued service improvement in an iterative way. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: 1.1 Two clear options, other than that recommended, are available. The first is to cease charging for pre-application advice. This would remove a viable income stream arising from charging and would re-introduce a number of service pressures which led to the adoption of a charged advice scheme. It is likely that service quality would be undermined and adverse reputational impacts could result. This would also require further liaison with Suffolk County Council as to do so now would remove funding for their elements of the advice service. This is not recommended. 1.2 The second option is “do nothing”. The changes proposed are intended to make the charging arrangements more effective and sensitive to our support to local communities through other service areas so that the Councils approach is more obviously “joined up”. If these are not introduced then the Council will not be as obviously “joined up” in its work as it could be nor as clearly and coherently supportive of other interventions in local communities. Other changes are intended to better reflect actual time and resources impacts on related services when delivering cohesive pre-application advice. If these are not introduced then those costs and resources pressure will remain on the District and County Councils. This is not recommended. Any Declarations of Interest Declared: None Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes: Report MCa/18/71 was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning. The Pre-Application Charging Service had now been operating successfully for over a year and had remained under review since the introduction. The recommendations in the report were proposed by Councillor Horn and seconded by Councillor Brewster.
A question was raised by Councillor Stringer regarding the proportion of applications seeking advice before submitting a full application. The Acting Chief Planning Officer confirmed that this information was available, and there were surveys undertaken of the experience applicants had had when using the service.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the proposed changes to the charged pre-application advice service and associated charges as set out in the attached draft Schedule at Appendix (a) of the report be approved. 1.2 That the Assistant Director Planning & Communities to, at least annually, review the Schedule of charges and as needed be authorised to amend the Schedule in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning to reflect current good business practice in pre-application charging. Reason for Decision: The decision to agree the changes to the pre-application advice service and associated charges will refine and improve the service offered to users and the delegation of authority will enable continued service improvement in an iterative way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/72 MEMBER LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND MEMBER ROLE PROFILES PDF 225 KB Member Development Working Group Additional documents:
Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
That the Member Learning and Development Policy and Role Profiles be approved to provide a framework for future Member training and development.
Reason for Decision:To provide a framework for future Member learning and development and to clarify the responsibilities and expectations for prospective Members, newly elected Members and existing Members, members of the public, partner organisations and officers.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:There are no statutory requirements to formally introduce a Member Learning and Development Policy or Member Role Profiles, the Council could choose not to adopt these and carry on with the current informal arrangements. Any Declarations of Interest Declared: None Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes: The report was introduced by the Corporate Manager for Democratic Services who requested that Cabinet approve the recommendations in the report as previously considered by the Member Development Working Group.
The Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments expressed his gratitude to the Member Development Working Group and commented that this was a fantastic policy. The Recommendations were moved by Councillor Gowrley and seconded by Councillor Whitehead.
Councillor Stringer raised the issue of the mental health of Members. It was agreed that a commitment would be made that Members would be entitled to have access to all mental health services which members of staff had.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
That the Member Learning and Development Policy and Role Profiles be approved to provide a framework for future Member training and development.
Reason for Decision:To provide a framework for future Member learning and development and to clarify the responsibilities and expectations for prospective Members, newly elected Members and existing Members, members of the public, partner organisations and officers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/74 REGULATORY REFORM ORDER POLICY ON MINOR DISABLED ADAPTATION SCHEME PDF 162 KB Cabinet Member for Housing Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
That the Regulatory Reform Order Policy on Minor Disabled Adaptation Scheme as described in Option 1 of the report be adopted and reviewed in 12 months.
Reason for Decision: For a Regulatory Reform Order Policy on Minor Disabled Adaptation Scheme to be used legally, members need to have adopted such a scheme.
Alterative Options Considered and Rejected:
1.1 Option 1: Adopt a separate RRO Policy. The existing Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process can be long and complex and often comes at a time of crisis. The criteria for a DFG is very rigid and has remained relatively unchanged for 20 years. The introduction of an RRO enables greater flexibility around the use of DFG funding to ensure local authorities can target resources to tackle local issues which may be preventing people being able to remain at home and live independently. It gives power to an authority to provide ‘’assistance in any form, to any person to repair, adapt or rebuild residential premises’’.There are a number of scenarios where removing the requirement to make a full Disabled Facilities Grant application would enable an application for an adaptation or provision of equipment to progress quickly. An RRO allows the provision of small-scale adaptations to fulfil needs not covered by mandatory DFG’s. Below are the proposed changes to the current DFG process. · Where the cost of the adaptation is £4,999.99 or less the requirement to undertake a means test will be removed. This figure is used, as above this, costs are registered as a local land charge and there is a requirement to repay monies if the property is sold within ten years. Adaptation work below £1000 are dealt with by the County Council. Keeping the figure at £4,999.99 simplifies matters and does not penalise applicants who have incurred a charge historically. By applying a financial ceiling, the risk of public funds being misappropriated is proportional to the benefit of the costs of administering a more complex process. Examples of work that would be covered within this limit include ramps, bathing/washing facilities, additional heating, stairlifts, key safes, wash/dry toilets. The removal of the means test in these circumstances has received approval from Foundations (a body appointed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to oversee Home Improvement Agencies and offer advice on DFG’s). · Where works exceed £5,000 the standard DFG process will be followed which includes a means test.
· Where adaptations are straightforward, it can remove the requirement for an Occupational Therapist referral. This is often the bottleneck in the adaptation process therefore removing this should speed up the end to end journey. Further details can be found in the Key Information, 4.6 - 4.9.
1.2 Option 2 – No change to the existing RRO policy. This option keeps the provision of grants as statutory through the DFG process with the option to help people with physical disabilities. It follows a prescribed process which could be considered as equitable, however some residents will continue to be put ... view the full decision text for item 138. Minutes: The Assistant Director for Housing introduced report MCa/18/73 and advised Members how the proposed scheme would work. The recommendations were moved by Councillor Stringer and seconded by Councillor Otton.
Amanda Todd, Senior Environmental Health Officer, confirmed that the scheme would be available to council tenants but will be funded from a different budget.
The Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments suggested that a proportion of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) budget should be put towards the scheme to ensure that the bigger DFG works were not prejudiced.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
That the Regulatory Reform Order Policy on Minor Disabled Adaptation Scheme as described in Option 1 of the report be adopted and reviewed in 12 months.
Reason for Decision: For a Regulatory Reform Order Policy on Minor Disabled Adaptation Scheme to be used legally, members need to have adopted such a scheme.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MCa/18/65 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE JOINT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD ON 14 FEBRUARY 2019 Minutes: Councillor Welham advised Members that the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee had scrutinised the underspend in relation to report MCa/18/74 the majority of Mid Suffolk Members were concerned over the contract with Orbit and felt that a way out of the contract should be found. Officers have proposed 7 changes to the DFG’s as per the paper provided.
The recommendations from the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee were outlined.
The Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments questioned the legality of proposed changes 3.5. Councillor Welham confirmed that Officers were looking into this issue.
It was agreed that the future arrangements would be reviewed by Joint Overview and Scrutiny in June 2019. The recommendations were moved by Councillor Gowrley and seconded by Councillor Brewster subject to further work on proposed changes 3.2, 3.5 and 3.7.
By a unanimous vote
It was Resolved that Cabinet agreed the recommendations below from the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 14 February 2019 subject to further work on changes 3.2, 3.5 and 3.7.
1.1 That the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee strongly endorsed the proposed ‘Changes to Disabled Facilities Grant 3.0 to 3.7’ in the Information Bulletin to Cabinet.
1.2 That the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive a report back after the Cabinet Meeting in March 2019 on the agreed future arrangements for the Disabled Facilities Grant and that the report included the conclusions and the legal implications of the contract with Orbit, to be considered at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in June 2019.
Reason for Decision:- The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee finds that the proposed suggestions to improve the service to applicants for the Disabled Facilities Grant are appropriate. |