SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
South Lakeland House, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk
You are requested to attend a meeting of
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
on Friday, 26 October 2018, at 10.30 a.m.
in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal
Committee Membership
Councillors
Robin Ashcroft Pat Bell
Brian Cooper Anne Hall
Hazel Hodgson Vicky Hughes (Chairman)
Anne Hutton Janette Jenkinson
Ian Mitchell Doug Rathbone (Vice-Chairman)
Vivienne Rees Mark Wilson
Note – Where relevant, agendas for Members are labelled “Private Document Pack” and contain exempt information within the papers. Any relevant pages are marked as restricted within Agendas labelled “Public Document Pack”. Wednesday, 17 October 2018 Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer) For all enquiries, please contact:-
Committee Administrator: Committee Services
Telephone: 01539 733333
e-mail: [email protected]
Public Document Pack
AGENDA
Page Nos.
PART I
1 APOLOGIES
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
2 MINUTES 5 - 10
To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 August 2018.
3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.) Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests. If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
4 DECLARATION OF THE PARTY WHIP
In accordance with Rule 17 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, any Member who is subject to a party whip on any item must declare the existence and nature of the whip.
5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS
To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public.
6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so by no later than 0:01am (one minute past midnight) two working days before the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Committee Services Team on 01539 733333.
(1) Questions and Representations
To receive any questions or representations which have been received from members of the public.
(2) Deputations and Petitions
To receive any deputations or petitions which have been received from members of the public.
7 WORK PROGRAMME AND FORWARD PLAN 11 - 26
To consider the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2018/19, and the contents of the latest Forward Plan.
8 CORPORATE FINANCIAL MONITORING QUARTER 2 27 - 52
To consider the projected year end position based on performance to the end of Quarter 2 2018/19.
9 COUNCIL PLAN PERFORMANCE MONITORING QUARTER 2 2018/19 53 - 92
To monitor progress against the measures of success as detailed within the Council Plan 2014-2019.
10 PORTFOLIO HOLDER REPORT - PROMOTING SOUTH LAKELAND 93 - 96
To consider the annual report from the Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder on the progress made within the portfolio area and their plans for the future.
11 PORTFOLIO HOLDER REPORT - ENVIRONMENT 97 - 100
To consider the annual report from the Environment Portfolio Holder on the progress made within the portfolio area and their plans for the future.
12 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2018- 2023 101 - 124
To consider the draft Property and Land Management Strategy 2018- 2023, including the creation of a Strategic Asset Management Plan Board, and make any recommendations to Cabinet.
13 EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION STRATEGY 125 - 138
To consider the draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-22 for commenting upon and make any recommendations to Cabinet.
14 REVIEW OF THE LOCAL DELIVERY OF THE PROPERTY LEVEL FLOOD RESILIENCE GRANT SCHEME
139 - 182
To reflect on the flood grant project and provide recommendations on any future roll outs.
15 SCRUTINY RECOMMENDATIONS PROGRESS REPORT 183 - 188
To consider the progress made by Cabinet in implementing the recommendations of the Committee.
16 CUMBRIA HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE UPDATE
To receive an update on the work of the Cumbria Health Scrutiny Committee from the Council’s representative or substitute.
PART II
Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number)
There are no items in this Part of the Agenda.
This page is intentionally left blank
11 17.08.2018 Overview and Scrutiny Committee
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held in the Bindloss Room, Kendal Town Hall, on Friday, 17 August 2018, at 2.00 p.m.
Present
Councillors
Vicky Hughes (Chairman) Doug Rathbone (Vice-Chairman)
Anne Hall
Hazel Hodgson
Anne Hutton Janette Jenkinson
Vivienne Rees Mark Wilson
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Robin Ashcroft, Pat Bell and Brian Cooper.
Officers
Una Bell Assistant Committee Services Officer
John Davies Performance and Risk Officer
Jemma Fells Project Support Officer
Jason Habbershon Committee Services/Scrutiny Officer
Sean Hall Principal Environmental Protection Officer
Peter Holland Senior Communications Officer
Joe Marriott Environmental Protection Officer
Debbie Storr Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)
David Sykes Director People and Places
Also in attendance were Councillors Jonathan Brook (Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder), Dyan Jones (Environment Portfolio Holder) and Graham Vincent (Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder).
O&S/14 MINUTES Members felt that, despite assurances offered at the Committee’s last meeting by the Interim Regional Director of Northern Rail, concerns remained regarding the rail service on both the Furness and Lakes Lines. At the Committee’s meeting of 13 July 2018, Northern Rail’s Interim Regional Director had stated that the full timetable would not be put in place until reliability of service and accurate station information could be guaranteed. However, following reinstatement of the timetable cancellations had continued, with ten being experienced on the Lakes Line in just one day, with inadequate information being provided to customers. Members did not feel that this was acceptable, and expressed a view that Northern Rail had not held to their franchise agreement or to the commitments made to this Committee in July. No further information had been received regarding the marketing funds, nor on the discussions which the Interim Regional Director had stated he would arrange with Virgin Trains to discuss the co-ordination of offers. The Committee felt that the Council should be included within the circulation of the findings and recommendations of the independent assessment being conducted by the Office of Rail and Road, and would seek reassurance regarding the organisation’s planned mitigation of the risks to the effective operation of rail services within the South
Page 5
Item No.2
12 17.08.2018 Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Lakeland area. It was highlighted that the compensation scheme for season ticket holders was due to come to an end in mid-September, and Members felt that this required extension and greater advertisement to ensure all customers had the opportunity to make use of the offer. Members agreed that a letter should be written, on behalf of the Committee, to the Interim Regional Director of Northern Rail setting out the concerns above. The Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder offered to include updates from the Cumbria Better Connected group as part of his portfolio holder reports to both full Council and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee later in the year. RESOLVED – That (1) the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 July 2018; and (2) a letter be written to the Interim Regional Director of Northern Rail on behalf of the Committee, highlighting its continuing concerns and inviting him to attend and provide an update at the meeting of the Committee in January 2019.
O&S/15 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RESOLVED – That it be noted that no declarations of interest were raised.
O&S/16 DECLARATION OF THE PARTY WHIP RESOLVED – That it be noted that no declarations of the party whip were raised.
O&S/17 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS RESOLVED – That it be noted that there are no excluded items on the agenda.
O&S/18 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RESOLVED – That it be noted that no questions, representations, deputations or petitions have been received in respect of this meeting.
O&S/19 WORK PROGRAMME AND FORWARD PLAN The Committee Services/Scrutiny Officer introduced the latest version of the Forward Plan and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s 2018/19 Work Programme. He explained that, following the despatch of the agenda for this meeting, a new version of the Forward Plan had been published on 10 August 2018, and set out the changes which had arisen. In relation to the Update on Tackling Poverty Together item scheduled for January 2019, a suggestion was made that the Building Financial Resilience Group could give consideration to the work of the Red Box Project, a nationwide project to provide free sanitary wear within schools. The Project Support Officer explained that this had also been raised during a recent Strategic Child Poverty Group meeting and that there were plans to roll out a project across Cumbria.
Page 6
13 17.08.2018 Overview and Scrutiny Committee
A suggestion was made to ask Cumbria County Council to deliver a briefing session for all district councillors on the County’s Rural Transport Policy. It was felt that rural transport needs were ever-changing and more information was needed about the policies, services and opportunities available at present and the plans for the future. The Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder added that there were many areas of the District without established transport routes which could go unrecognised and requested that efforts be made to ensure that information was made available as widely as possible. RESOLVED – That (1) the latest Forward Plan published on 24 July 2018 be received and the verbal update regarding that published on 10 August 2018 be noted; (2) the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s current work programme be noted; and (3) a briefing be organised for all Members on the Cumbria County Council Rural Transport Policy.
O&S/20 COST RECOVERY AND HARDSHIP POLICY The draft Cost Recovery and Hardship Policy was presented by the Environmental Protection Officer. The Policy, which was required by statutory guidance to be adopted in support of the Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy, would provide a framework for the Council to apply when recovering costs of remediation of contaminated land and prevent hardship on decisions made. The Environmental Protection Officer provided additional wording to the Legal Implications section of the covering report which would be included within the version presented to Cabinet at its meeting on 10 September. In response to a query, the Principal Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that the Council held a list of sites which could potentially contain contaminants due to prior usage. However, it was emphasised that the primary means of remediation for contaminated land was through the planning process, during which the Public Protection Team would be consulted to ensure suitability for the type of development proposed. It was queried whether paragraph 11.1 of the draft Policy would cover contaminants introduced through the unauthorised burning of waste materials such as carpet rolls or debris. The Principal Environmental Protection Officer explained that due to the variety of circumstances that could apply a written response would be provided following the meeting. Members thanked officers for their work in producing the draft Policy. RESOLVED – That the Cost Recovery and Hardship Policy, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted and recommended to Cabinet for adoption.
O&S/21 COUNCIL PLAN PERFORMANCE MONITORING QUARTER 1 2018/19 The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder introduced the Council Plan Performance Monitoring report for quarter one of 2018/19 on behalf of the Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder. The report highlighted areas of significantly good or poor performance relating to the measures of success set out in the current Council Plan. The report also included the latest Strategic Risk Register and benchmarking information using the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Nearest Neighbours Model.
Page 7
14 17.08.2018 Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Concern was raised regarding the large variation in the number of long-term empty homes between 2011 and 2017. The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder explained that the number of long-term empty properties fluctuated due to a variety of reasons and the Performance and Risk Officer highlighted that the report contained only maximum and minimum figures which made the changes appear more extreme than they actually were. It was queried whether the Council encouraged housing associations to build new affordable homes. The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder explained that the Council had a very good relationship with South Lakes Housing and that there were various ongoing conversations with them regarding the delivery of affordable homes. The Council had a long history of grant funding to provide additional affordable housing, and regular meetings took place with a group of preferred local providers. The Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder added that he had recently been involved in meetings between officers within the Council’s Strategic Housing and Economic Development teams which would result in a sharing of information regarding both economic goals and housing ambitions for areas of South Lakeland, allowing both services to better promote further development. The effectiveness of using the Quality of Life Survey 2017 as a measure of health within South Lakeland was questioned and it was suggested that its findings did not reflect statistics used by Public Health England. In response to a suggestion that Public Health England statistics be incorporated within future iterations of the report, the Director People and Places suggested that a good starting point for the upcoming Strategic Review of Health and Wellbeing Task and Finish Group would be to compare the figures held by the Council and by Public Health England and to make recommendations regarding which are more meaningful and appropriate. The Committee felt that there would be value in organising further briefing sessions for councillors and parish and town councils to provide information on how communities could utilise the Community Housing Fund in their area, particularly considering the number of new councillors following the local elections in May 2018. The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder agreed that this would be beneficial and undertook to make the necessary arrangements. The importance of Strategic Risk 9 “Essential strategic partnerships required to deliver the Council Plan do not operate effectively” was raised, particularly in relation to the Council’s strategic partnerships with local health service organisations. It was suggested that, in addition to the briefing sessions being held for councillors, it was important that events be organised to inform members of the public about the changes to health services in the area. The Committee Services/Scrutiny Officer undertook to investigate the most appropriate way to progress this. With reference to the benchmarking data contained within Appendix 2 to the report, it was highlighted that previous versions of the report had contained more detailed information which had been useful in comparing differences between groups of residents, for example the variation between male and female workers’ median weekly pay. It was requested that this be considered for inclusion within future reports. RESOLVED – That the following be noted:- (1) the Summary of Performance, as detailed within the report; and (2) the detailed risks information contained within Appendix 1 to the report.
Page 8
15 17.08.2018 Overview and Scrutiny Committee
O&S/22 PORTFOLIO HOLDER REPORT - HOUSING, PEOPLE AND INNOVATION The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder presented his annual report on progress made and plans for the future within the portfolio area. He reported the key focuses relating to Strategic Housing and set out the changes within the Development Management and Building Control Services arising from Customer Connect. The effect of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2018 on the Council’s Housing Options Service was highlighted, and the Portfolio Holder reported on the progress being made on the Customer Connect Programme. Members discussed the decision to move Development Management to a ‘paperlight’ method of working, and particularly on the impact that this had had on local parish and town councils. Concern was raised by some Members that a move to make planning application documents available online only would disenfranchise some residents. The Director People and Places suggested that there could be merit in communities linking up with professional planning specialists from outside of the Council to help residents and businesses understand planning applications affecting their area. Similar schemes had been used previously in relation to Local Plans, and the Director People and Places undertook to speak to officers following the meeting. Following a request from the Committee, the Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder undertook to provide a short briefing paper regarding the upcoming review of Town View Fields Hostel. It was suggested that all Members should encourage residents to register for the Cumbria Choice-Based Lettings scheme. The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder undertook to speak to officers about how best to progress this. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
O&S/23 CUMBRIA HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE UPDATE The Committee Services/Scrutiny Officer introduced a written report that had been produced by the Council’s representative to the Cumbria Health Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Vivienne Rees. Councillor Rees had reported that progress was beginning to be made in bringing focus to the health and service needs of rural areas. RESOLVED – That the update be noted. The meeting ended at 4.05 p.m.
Page 9
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 10
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Friday, 26 October 2018
Work Programme and Forward Plan
Portfolio: Cllr Vicky Hughes - Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Report from: Simon McVey - Assistant Director Performance and Innovation
Report Author: Jemma Fells – Project Support Officer
Wards: Not applicable
Forward Plan: Not applicable
1.0 Expected Outcome
1.1 An effective and timely work programme will allow the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to maximise the value it can add to the work of the Council and the services provided for residents.
2.0 Recommendation
2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:-
(1) receives the latest Forward Plan; and
(2) notes and/or amends the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s current work programme.
3.0 Background and Proposals
3.1 The Forward Plan as published on 2 October 2018 is attached as Appendix 1. Of the items on the Forward Plan the following are currently scheduled to be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee prior to a decision being made:
South Lakeland District Council Equality Scheme
Council Plan 2019-2024
Budget 2019/20 to 2023/24
Procurement Schedule 2018/19 and 2019/20
Treasury Management Framework 2019/20 to 2023/24
3.2 Attached as Appendix 2 is the updated Work Programme for 2018/19. Following the previous meeting, the amendments shown below have been made:-
Further update for Northern Rail is now being reported to January’s meeting
Date for the Customer Connect review has been updated to January 2019
Page 11
Item No.7
The Economic Growth Strategy Review has been updated to early 2019 due to a delay in completion of the local industrial strategy
Due to the police being unable to attend, the CSP update that was planned for the October meeting, will now be deferred to the April meeting for an annual review
Following the Policy Away day with Cabinet and senior management it was decided that the draft council plan will move from the October 26 meeting to be presented at the O&S scheduled for 11 January 2019.
3.3 The Strategic Review of the Health and Wellbeing Priority will be scoped on 7 November 2018 following the consideration of the draft revised Council Plan by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 26 October. This will allow Members to take direction from the new Council Plan and will ensure that the findings from the review can feed into the following annual review.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 The Work Programme is set by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following consultation with a number of parties including officers, councillors and external organisations. The Forward Plan is considered by the Council’s Senior Management Team and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council prior to publication.
5.0 Alternative Options
5.1 There are no alternative options presented.
6.0 Links to Council Priorities
6.1 The topics on the Overview and Scrutiny work programme link closely to the various priorities and aims as set out within the Council Plan 2014-2019 (2017 Update).
7.0 Implications
Financial, Resources and Procurement
7.1 There are no financial, resource or procurement implications arising from this report.
Human Resources
7.2 There is a need to ensure that there are sufficient resources to enable the work programme to be supported.
Legal
7.3 There is a legal requirement for local authorities to operate an overview and scrutiny committee. The committee needs to be effective in its role. By preparing a planned work programme, the Committee can ensure that it has adequate time to properly consider those key areas where it can add greatest value. In turn, this will enable the Council to demonstrate that it has effective scrutiny arrangements in place.
Health, Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4 Have you completed a Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment? No
7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons:
Page 12
There are no implications arising from this report. Consideration will be given to any potential implications during reviews.
7.6 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts:
Equality and Diversity
7.7 Have you completed an Equality Impact Analysis? No
7.8 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons:
There are no implications arising from this report. Consideration will be given to any potential implications during reviews.
7.9 Summary of equality and diversity impacts:
Risk
Risk Consequence Controls required
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee does not monitor its work programme
Opportunities to add value through additional work are missed.
The Work Programme is not fit for purpose.
Regular review of both the Work Programme and the upcoming work of the Cabinet through review of the Forward Plan.
Contact Officers
Jemma Fells, Project Support Officer, 01539793278, [email protected]
Appendices Attached to this Report
Appendix No. Name of Appendix
1 Latest Forward Plan (published 2 October 2018)
2 Current O&S Work Programme
Background Documents Available
None.
Tracking Information
Signed off by Date sent
Legal Services 27 September 2018
Section 151 Officer 27 September 2018
Monitoring Officer 27 September 2018
SMT N/A
Circulated to Date sent
Assistant Director 27 September 2018
Human Resources Manager N/A
Communications Team N/A
Leader N/A
Committee Chairperson 11 October 2018
Portfolio Holder N/A
Ward Councillor(s) N/A
Committee 26 October 2018
Executive (Cabinet) N/A
Council N/A
Page 13
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 14
1
SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL NOTICE OF FORTHCOMING KEY DECISIONS, PRIVATE EXECUTIVE MEETINGS AND
BUDGET AND POLICY FRAMEWORK DECISIONS AS PUBLISHED ON 2 OCTOBER 2018
The Council is required to give 28 days’ notice when Key Decisions are to be made, and when an executive meeting is to be held in private. The Notice has been drafted to comply with that requirement. It is available for inspection on the Council’s website as well as at South Lakeland House, Kendal and sets out the following:- (1) the matters which the Executive (also known as the Cabinet) believes fall within the
definition of a Key Decision (see definition below) to be taken by the Executive or a Senior Officer of the Council;
(2) details of any private meeting (see definition below) of the Executive; and
(3) proposals for the recommendation to Council of any plan, strategy or budget that
forms part of the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework, and its timetable and arrangements for consultation. The policies which make up the Budget and Policy Framework can be found in Article 4, Part 2 of the Council’s Constitution, viewable on the Council’s website www.southlakeland.gov.uk
(Budget and Policy Framework Decisions are not Key Decisions (i.e. they are not Executive decisions but are decided by the Full Council; although the Executive may make recommendations to Council about them). In the spirit of openness and transparency the Council has decided to publicise the decision making process for such matters in the same manner as for Key Decisions.)
Documentation Reports, as well as any background information, will be available for public inspection five working days before the date of the meeting at which the decision is going to made. However, some of the reports may contain confidential information and, in that case, will not be available to the public. When the Executive is going to consider a confidential report, at least 28 days’ notice will be given of the intention to hold the meeting in private. A Notice to this effect will be published on the Council’s website. Background Information If you wish to inspect background information, which will inform the decision-making process, contact the Lead Officer identified in the Notice as dealing with that matter. When the agenda for the meeting is published on the Council’s website, normally at least 5 working days before the meeting, these documents will also be made available via the website. However, you will not be allowed to access any papers which contain exempt or confidential information. Representations (views you wish to make) If you wish to make a representation, either about one of the Key Decisions listed (where the meeting is to be held in private), or that an Executive meeting should be open to the public, you must write to the Lead Officer identified as dealing with that decision with your reasons why the meeting should not be held in private. This must be received at least five clear working days before the date of the meeting.
Appendix 1
Page 15
2
Decision Notice A Decision Notice for each Key Decision, or other Executive decision, will be produced as soon as practicable after the decision has been taken. These Decision Notices will be available for inspection at South Lakeland House, Kendal and on the Council’s website. Urgent Decisions The Law and the Council’s Constitution provide for urgent decisions to be made provided certain criteria are met and relevant Notices published accordingly. None of the decisions detailed in this Notice are deemed to be Urgent Decisions - unless expressly stated. Key Decision This definition was adopted by Council on Thursday, 17 December 2015 and is as follows :- “An executive decision which, in relation to an executive function, has a significant effect on communities in two or more Wards of the Council and/or is likely to result in the Authority incurring expenditure or making savings above £100,000.” Private Meetings In regard to this Notice, private meetings are meetings of the Executive, or part of a meeting, during which the public are excluded as a result of confidential or exempt information being discussed. A reason will be given why it is felt that there is a need for the public to be excluded. If you wish to make a representation regarding the intention to hold the meeting in private, you must follow the procedure shown above under “Representations”. The District Council’s Executive Members are:- Cllr Giles Archibald – Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder Cllr Jonathan Brook – Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder Cllr Chris Hogg – Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder Cllr Graham Vincent – Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder Cllr Dyan Jones – Environment Portfolio Holder Cllr Andrew Jarvis – Finance Portfolio Holder Cllr Philip Dixon –Health and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder The District Council’s Chief Officers are:- Lawrence Conway – Chief Executive Debbie Storr – Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer) David Sykes – Director People and Places Shelagh McGregor – Assistant Director (Resources) and Chief Finance Officer The District Council’s Assistant Directors are:- Ian Hassall –Assistant Director Strategic Development Simon McVey – Assistant Director Performance and Innovation Simon Rowley – Assistant Director of Neighbourhood Services
Page 16
3
Key Decision - Housing Loans Scheme
To consider the details and pilot scheme.
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Cabinet (31 Oct 2018)
Date notice first published: 29 May 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 26 June 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: None.
Lead Officer: Dan Hudson, Development Strategy and Housing Manager [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Strategic Development
Portfolio Holder: Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder (Cllr Jonathan Brook)
Key Decision - Cumbria Care Leaver Council Tax Exemption
To create a local discount for Council Tax to exempt care leavers from Council Tax with effect from the 1st April 2018 in conjunction with other Cumbrian Authorities and Preceptors
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Cabinet (31 Oct 2018)
Date notice first published: 19 June 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 17 July 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Copy of Proposed policy
Lead Officer: Michael Fisher, Revenues and Benefits Services Manager [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Resources (Section 151 Officer)
Portfolio Holder: Finance Portfolio Holder (Cllr Andrew Jarvis)
Page 17
4
Key Decision - Longlands Park, Bowness on Winderemere *NEW*
Windermere Town Council have expressed interest in taking over the ownership and management of the park. The decision will consider in principle a transfer of the park to the Town Council
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Cabinet (31 Oct 2018)
Date notice first published: 2 October 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 30 October 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: None
Lead Officer: David Sykes, Director People and Places [email protected]
Portfolio Holder: Deputy Leader of the Council (Cllr Jonathan Brook), Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder (Cllr Graham Vincent)
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - The Gambling Act 2005 - Revised Statement of Gambling Policy
Revision of Gambling Policy under Section 349 of the Gambling Act 2005 and to ensure it is in line with the Gambling Commission guidance to local authorities 5th Edition (September 2016)
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (10 Oct 2018)
Also considered by/to be considered by: Licensing Regulatory Committee (21 Aug 2018)
Date notice first published: 29 May 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 26 June 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Report to the Licensing Regulatory Committee, report to Full Council and revised Statement of Gambling Policy
Lead Officer: Hardeep Burnley, Principal Food, Licensing and Safety Officer [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services
Portfolio Holder: Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder (Cllr Chris Hogg)
Page 18
5
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Statement of Community Involvement
Updating of Statement of Community Involvement to take account of legislative and regulatory changes and Council's procedural changes relating to Customer Connect.
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (10 Oct 2018)
Also considered by/to be considered by: Cabinet (18 Jul 2018)
Date notice first published: 19 June 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 17 July 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Draft Revised Statement of Community Involvement
Lead Officer: Alastair McNeill, Development Plans Manager [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Strategic Development
Portfolio Holder: Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder (Cllr Jonathan Brook)
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Local Development Scheme
The Local Development Scheme (LDS) comprises the programme and milestones for the preparation and adoption of Local Plan policy and guidance documents. It is proposed to request Council to consider amending and updating the LDS in regard to the dates for the adoption of the Development Management Policies and Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plan Documents, and also the programme for the Local Plan review
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (10 Oct 2018)
Date notice first published: 10 August 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 7 September 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Draft Revised Local Development Scheme
Lead Officer: Alastair McNeill, Development Plans Manager [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Strategic Development
Portfolio Holder: Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder (Cllr Jonathan Brook)
Page 19
6
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Development Management Policies and Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plans Documents
To request Council to adopt, as part of the Development Plan for South Lakeland, the Development Management Policies and Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plans Documents, on receipt of the Inspector's reports on the conclusion of the independent examination of both documents (expected in October or November 2018).
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (18 Dec 2018)
Date notice first published: 10 August 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 7 September 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Final versions of the Development Management Policies and Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plans Documents (DPDs) . The Inspector's reports following the independent examination of both DPDs.
Lead Officer: Alastair McNeill, Development Plans Manager [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Strategic Development
Portfolio Holder: Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder (Cllr Jonathan Brook)
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - South Lakeland District Council Equality Scheme
A review of the current SLDC Equality Scheme 16-19 and proposals for a new Equality Scheme to commence in 2019. This will set out the SLDC Equality and Diversity objectives in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (18 Dec 2018)
Also considered by/to be considered by: Overview and Scrutiny (26 Oct 2018) Cabinet (28 Nov 2018)
Date notice first published: 10 August 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 7 September 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: South Lakeland District Council Equality Scheme 2016-19 Decided at meeting: 31/03/2016 - Council http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/g3760/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2031-Mar-2016%2018.30%20Council.pdf?T=1
Lead Officer: James McEvoy, Partnerships and Community Project Officer
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Performance and Innovation
Portfolio Holder: Leader of the Council (Cllr Giles Archibald)
Page 20
7
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Budget 2019/20 to 2023/24 (including capital programme and fees and charges) *NEW*
To set the 2019/20 - 2023/24 capital and revenue budgets, the level of Council tax increase to apply from 1 April 2019. To also consider the level of reserves, fees and charges.
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (26 Feb 2019)
Also considered by/to be considered by: Lake Administration Committee (5 Oct 2018) Cabinet (31 Oct 2018) Licensing Committee (6 Nov 2018) Cabinet (28 Nov 2018) Cabinet (12 Dec 2018) (if needed) Council (19 Dec 2018) Planning Committee (3 Jan 2019) Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11 Jan 2019) Licensing Committee (15 Jan 2019) Cabinet (23 Jan 2019) (if needed) Lake Administration Committee (25 Jan 2019) Cabinet (6 Feb 2019)
Date notice first published: 2 October 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 30 October 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 - 2023/24
Lead Officer: Helen Smith, Financial Services Manager [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Resources (Section 151 Officer)
Portfolio Holder: Finance Portfolio Holder (Cllr Andrew Jarvis)
Page 21
8
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Council Plan 2019-2024 *NEW*
The Council Plan 2014-19 is complete. The 2019-2024 sets out the Council's ambition and priorities over the five year period to 2024 and details key projects that will contribute to achieving those priorities.
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (26 Feb 2019)
Also considered by/to be considered by: Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11 Jan 2019) Cabinet (23 Jan 2019)
Date notice first published: 2 October 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 30 October 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: C/61 2014-2019 Council Plan (2018 Update) - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=4276&Ver=4 C/78 2014-2019 Council Plan (2017 Update) - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=4058&Ver=4 C/79 2014-2019 Council Plan (2016 Update) - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=3771&Ver=4 C/82 2014-2019 Council Plan (2015 Update) - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=3566&Ver=4 C/78 - Council Plan 2014-2019 - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=3460&Ver=4
Lead Officer: Paul Mountford, Principal Performance and Intelligence Officer [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Performance and Innovation
Portfolio Holder: Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder (Cllr Giles Archibald)
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Procurement Schedule 2018/19 and 2019/20 *NEW*
To set out the Council's plans for procurement exercises during 2019/20 and to update the plans for 2018/19 including the decision route for each procurement.
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (26 Feb 2019)
Also considered by/to be considered by: Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11 Jan 2019) Cabinet (6 Feb 2019)
Date notice first published: 2 October 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 30 October 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Budget report 2019/20 to 2023/24 to be reported to same Committees
Lead Officer: Helen Smith, Financial Services Manager [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Resources (Section 151 Officer)
Portfolio Holder: Finance Portfolio Holder (Cllr Andrew Jarvis)
Page 22
9
Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Treasury Management Framework 2019/20 to 2023/24 *NEW*
To set the 2019/20 Prudential Indicators, Treasury Management Strategy, Treasury Management Policy and MRP statement which controls the Council's capital financing, borrowing and investment activities.
Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (26 Feb 2019)
Also considered by/to be considered by: Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11 Jan 2019) Cabinet (6 Feb 2019)
Date notice first published: 2 October 2018
(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 30 October 2018)
Open/Exempt: Open
Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 - 2023/24 Budget report 2019/20 to 2023/24 to be reported to same Committees
Lead Officer: Helen Smith, Financial Services Manager [email protected]
Assistant Director: Assistant Director Resources (Section 151 Officer)
Portfolio Holder: Finance Portfolio Holder (Cllr Andrew Jarvis)
FIELD_ISSUE_SUMMARY
FIELD_CONSULTEESD
Page 23
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 24
Appendix 2
Page 1 of 1
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2018/19
(Changes made since the last meeting are highlighted in red)
Committee Meetings
Date Expected agenda items
2018
Fri, 13 Jul 10.30am 9.30am Scrutiny Training
Update from Northern Rail; Draft Treasury Management Annual Report; Draft Medium Term Financial Plan; Revenue and Capital Out-turn; Procurement Annual Report; Appointment of representative to the North West Regional Scrutiny Members’ Network;
Fri, 17 Aug 2pm 10am Scrutiny and Risk Training
Council Plan Performance Monitoring Q1; Portfolio Holder Report – Housing, Innovation and People (Deputy Leader); Contaminated Land Cost Recovery and Hardship Policy;
Fri, 26 Oct 10.30am
Council Plan Performance Monitoring Q2; Portfolio Holder Report – Promoting South Lakeland (Leader) and Environment; Financial Monitoring Q2; Flood Grant Report; Equality Scheme; Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy (previously referred to as Corporate Asset Strategy); Scrutiny Progress Report;
2019
Fri, 11 Jan 2pm
Draft Council Plan; Draft Budget and Procurement Schedule; Draft Treasury Management Framework; Homelessness Strategy 2019 – 2024 (tbc); Update on Tackling Poverty Together; Further Update from Northern Rail;
Fri, 1 Feb 2pm
Financial Monitoring Q3; Council Plan Performance Monitoring Q3; Portfolio Holder Report – Economy and Assets and Finance; Green Team Update;
Fri, 26 Apr 2pm
Council Plan Performance Monitoring Q4; Portfolio Holder Reports – Culture and Leisure and Health and Wellbeing; Draft Scrutiny Annual Report; Work Programme 2019/20 Setting; Effectiveness Review and Scrutiny Progress Report; Community Safety Partnership Year-End Update;
Scrutiny Reviews
Date Format Information
7 Nov 2018 Task and Finish Strategic Review of the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Priority
Early 2019 Task and Finish Economic Growth Strategy
January 2019 Task and Finish/Workshop Development of locality working through Customer Connect
Page 25
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 26
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 26 October 2018
Cabinet 31 October 2018
Council 18 December 2018
Corporate Financial Monitoring Quarter 2, 2018/19
Portfolio: Finance Portfolio Holder
Report from: Assistant Director Resources (Section 151 Officer)
Report Author: Lee Hurst – Chief Accountant
Wards: All
Forward Plan: Not applicable
1.0 Expected Outcome
1.1 It is expected that Members note the projected year end position based on performance to the end of Quarter 2 2018/19, that Council approve the changes to the capital programme as set out in the report, and Cabinet approve the use of reserves identified in the report.
2.0 Recommendation
2.1 It is recommended that Overview and Scrutiny Committee:-
(1) Note the contents of the report
2.2 It is recommended that Cabinet: (1) Note the contents of the report; (2) Request that Council approve the virements and budget changes to
increase the capital programme as outlined in paragraph 3.6.1 and reflected in the revised capital programme at appendix 2; and
(3) Approve the use of £82k of the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve, £20k of the General Reserve, and £12k of the Statutory Duties Reserve as set out in paragraphs 3.5.2 to 3.5.4.
2.3 It is recommended that Council:
(1) Note the contents of the report; and (2) Approve the virements and budget changes to increase the capital
programme as outlined in paragraph 3.6.1 and reflected in the revised capital programme at appendix 2.
3.0 Background and Proposals
3.0.1 Revenue – Appendix 1 sets out the revenue variances to date. The approved net
revenue budget for 2018/19 set by Council in February 2018 was £12.931m which included a Customer Connect savings target of £361k and a vacancy factor savings target of £560k. Additionally, carry forward requests of £486k were approved by
Page 27
Item No.8
Council on the 22nd May 2018. Expenditure budgets have been increased in accordance with those approved carry forwards along with the matching funding from reserves. Overall, at the end of Quarter 2, budget monitoring has identified a forecast year-end overspend of £251k. Trends identified in these budget monitoring results will be fed into the 2019/20 budget setting process.
3.0.2 Capital – Appendix 2 sets out the position on the capital programme. The capital budget for 2018/19 approved by Council in February 2018 was £4.655m. Carry forward requests of £3.249m were approved by Council on the 22 May 2018, and additional capital expenditure of £1.686m was approved by Council on the 24th July for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Flood Alleviation Scheme (£1.557m) and Customer Connect Business Case (£129k) which, along with some other minor housekeeping virements brings the 2018/19 capital programme budget to £9.795m. Expenditure against this programme to the end of Quarter 2 was £2.366m. A revised capital programme will be submitted as part of the 2019/20 budget setting process.
3.0.3 Treasury – Appendix 3 provides an update on Treasury management for the quarter. All activity has been within the approved limits. Investments have performed better than the relevant benchmarks. No repayment of existing borrowing or new borrowing is anticipated up to the end of the financial year.
3.1 Revenue Variances by Assistant Director
3.1.1 Appendix 1 provides the detail of the revenue variances for each Assistant Director’s service area. The projected out-turn is for a net overspend of £251k. Further detail is provided below in Table 1 and paragraphs a) to e) below.
Table 1: Summary by Assistant Director Service Area
AD area Expenditure Budget Full
Year £000
Income Budget
Full Year £000
Expenditure Variance to Date
£000
Income Variance to Date
£000
Overall Variance to Date
£000
Out-turn projection
£000
Year-end
Carry Forward
£000
Resources (a) 23,725 -20,164 12 -43 -31 -78 0
Performance and Innovation (b)
2,027 -67 -111 42 69 -25 -89
Strategic Development (c) 8,537 -4,433 -130 174 44 227 -39
Neighbourhood Services (d)
14,962 -8,469 -15 -188 -203 80 0
Corporate (e) 191 -15,948 0 10 10 47 0
Total GF 49,442 -49,081 -244 -5 -249 251 -128
Net General Fund Before Corporate Savings Target
361
Corporate Savings Target (para. 3.3.1)
(361)
Net GF 0
a Resources – The current projection is for a £78k underspend at year-end. This relates
to a number of smaller variances, as set out in Appendix 1. The main reasons are:
£10k underspend in Legal Services relating to vacant posts.
Additional Council Tax Support administration grant of £12k.
£20k underspend due to unclaimed Members allowances. This is due to specific Members not claiming and so no recurring saving has been identified.
Page 28
It is projected that bank charges may be £12k underspent as the pattern of fees is lower than budgeted, but activity has been low in the early part of the year so close monitoring will continue.
A one-off £41k budget saving due to a salary budgeting correction.
An £27k overspend on salaries in Finance due to backfilling of a business critical post with agency staff which was required to meet the statutory accounts closure deadline.
b Performance and Innovation - The current projection is a £25k underspend. The full
list of variances is detailed in Appendix 1. The main reasons are:
Part back-filled vacant posts in Customer Services resulting in a net underspend of £12k.
An overspend of £13k in Policy and Performance relating to payments for additional responsibilities and exceptional effort under the interim management arrangements.
A net salary underspend of £12k in Corporate Communications due to vacant posts.
A £14k underspend in Electoral Registration. This is the result of an underspend of £28k on equipment, partially offset by a £14k shortfall in grant.
Four vacant posts in ICT, two now recruited to, leading to an underspend of £59k. This is currently subject to a carry forward request to fund fixed-term posts in 2019/20.
A potential carry forward request of £30k relating to a contribution to Brewery Arts Centre development project due to delays in scheme implementation.
c Strategic Development - There is currently a £227k forecast overspend with variances detailed in Appendix 1. The main reasons for the projected out-turn are:
Projected £12k surplus on Health and Safety income due to providing services externally.
Underspend of £12k due to £32k saving on vacant office cleaning posts offset by a £20k shortfall in rental income. Alternatives are currently being worked up with a consideration of the longer-term impact of the Customer Connect ‘Places’ (office accommodation) programme being taken into account.
A forecast £37k salary underspend in Development Implementation due to vacant posts. No recruitment is planned as this forms a key part of the Customer Connect changes.
Development Control salary overspend of £24k and income shortfall of £307k relating to planning applications. This is a mid-year projection based on comparison with earlier years. During budget setting for 2018/19 the planning fee charges and income budgets were increased by 20% (£118k) under a government initiative to direct the additional income into reinvestment in the planning process to deliver improvements in service delivery. Accordingly, a matching expenditure budget of £118k was created for 2018/19 to fund this investment. The current position of managing the planning service to maintain minimum service levels means that the planned reinvestment will not take place this financial year. Therefore it is proposed to reduce both the income budget and expenditure budget in the service by £118k through a housekeeping virement. As the actual planning fee prices will not be reduce, it is proposed that 20% of the actual planning fee income achieved in the year will be set aside to reinvest in the service in future years. Detailed proposals for the service will be developed as part of the budget setting process and through a report to Members.
A forecast underspend of £25k of the self-build and custom-build register element of the Housing and Enabling service.
Homelessness overall is projected to be £22k over budget. This is made up of a £37k income shortfall due to changes in the way Supporting People grant is
Page 29
allocated by the County Council for which future budgets will be amended, £10k additional homelessness grants from MHCLG, and net vacancy savings of £5k.
Land Charges is projected to overspend by £20k on the Positional Accuracy Improvement initiative. This overspend is to be funded from the existing Land Charges Trading Account surplus.
Local Plans is forecast to underspend on salaries by 27k due to vacant posts.
£13k underspend on the Museum management fee. The method of provision of this service is currently under review and future budgets will be amended accordingly. This underspend may be required to fund any potential costs relating to the implementation of the new arrangements.
A projected underspend of £39k in relation to the Community Housing Fund scheme due to delays in implementation. This underspend will be transferred back to the Community Housing Fund Reserve at the year end and therefore does not constitute an out-turn saving.
d Neighbourhood Services - There is currently a £80k underspend projected. This is
made up of a number of variances across the service as detailed in Appendix 1. The main reasons for the projected underspend are:
Car parking income is projected to overachieve its budget by £167k. Contextually, this is only a 3.8% overachievement of budget and is considered to be mainly due to the exceptionally good weather in the early part of the summer and particularly relates to the lakes car parks, while others, such as Kendal car parks, achieved income in line with expectations. It should be noted that a spell of bad weather could have a comparable negative impact on car park income and there have been some signs of this in September with winter still to come. Three car parks are due to be resurfaced over the coming months and the full impact of these closures has not been accounted for in the projection, although these are expected to cause only a minor impact. Furthermore, an underspend of £26k on Westmorland Shopping Centre Car Park relating to the structural survey costs, which came in under budget, have been requested to be used to cover costs relating to further work on car parking surveys to inform the car parking strategy.
A £26k income shortfall relating to Lake Windermere moorings due to a small number of jetty births not being let due to both the exceptionally dry weather and external market pressures. A capital scheme to dredge the births to improve access has been submitted.
A £35k underspend relating to Parks due to a 0.6 FTE Green Spaces Officer vacancy. A £49k overspend on Street Cleansing. The corporate vacancy saving will not be met leading to a salaries overspend of £20k. Furthermore, fuel costs are projected to be overspent by £18k due to the larger fleet, and tipping and disposal costs are forecast to be overspent by £11k due to increased waste volume requiring disposal. Both these issues will be built into budget setting for 2019/20.
The Transport service is forecasting a £49k overspend on vehicle repairs due to the additional number of vehicles in the fleet. Further work will be undertaken for the 2019/20 budget setting process.
Kerbside Recycling is projected to overspend by £174k. This is due to a number of variances within the service. A £28k shortfall on recycling credits is expected due to the impact of the hot summer on green waste, but tipping and disposal costs should be lower. Sale of recycling materials is expected to underachieve its income budget target by £66k due to low demand and low price for the materials. This could improve towards the end of the year should prices and demand increase as current market improvements are suggesting.
A £16k demand led underspend on emptying bring site recycling banks. Thismay result in a corresponding reduction in bring site credits.
Page 30
e Corporate items – Corporate items, which include the Council’s funding through taxation and grants, investment interest income and expenditure, and movements to and from reserves are currently forecast to be in £47k overspent.
Investment interest income forecasts are for a surplus of £15k. Short-term treasury investments are outperforming benchmarks and budgets do not include the recent interest rate rise.
Retained Business Rates income is expected to be £62k lower than budgeted. This is explained in paragraph 3.8.3.
3.2 Analysis of employee budgets
3.2.1 The position on employee costs at Quarter 2 is summarised in Table 2 below. The
total variance against the Quarter 2 profiled budget is an underspend of £70k, 1.0% of the year to date budget. This is over and above the 4% vacancy saving built in to all direct employee cost budgets.
Table 2: Employee costs
Full year
budget
Profiled
budget
Actual to
date
Variance
to date Variance
£000 £000 £000 £000 %
14,576 7,325 7,255 -70 1.0%
3.2.2 To date, the profiled vacancy factor of £280k has been achieved as net vacancy
savings after the vacancy factor stand at £444k, but also included in table 2. above is expenditure on contract and agency staff. The total overspend to date on this element of employee costs was £262k (£333k expenditure against a profiled budget of £71k). This expenditure on contract and agency staff equates to 4.5% of the total spend on employee costs up to Quarter 2. The majority of this relates to the Waste and Recycling service (£122k) which will be met from salary savings from within the service, Development Control (£56k) for which proposals are currently being developed, and the hostel (£36k) where compensating savings on security will be used to cover some of the costs. There is also an £86k overspend to date on allowances such as overtime, exceptional effort and merit payments. There were also some other minor overspends resulting in the net £70k underspend to date.
3.3 Savings, deficit and 2019/20 budget setting cycle
3.3.1 As part of the 2018/19 budget process, £361k of savings were built into the base budget to be delivered through vacancy management in the lead in to the Customer Connect programme. Table 2 above currently shows a £70k underspend to date on employee related budgets over and above the built in vacancy factor. Corporate Financial Monitoring forecasts suggest that this underspend should increase to a c£118k by the financial year end, but £59k of this forecast underspend is the subject of a carry forward request which, if approved, would leave a projected underspend of c£59k by the end of the financial year. But this underspend must also be viewed in the context of on overall net projected overspend across the Council of £251k.
3.3.2 Further Customer Connect savings of £740k for 2019/20 and £1.550m from 2020/21 onwards have been identified as part of the updated Customer Connect business case and the updated Medium Term Financial Plan both approved by Council during July. Detailed profiling of the exact timings of when these further future savings will be delivered is currently being undertaken by the programme manager and
Page 31
information on performance against these targets and the interaction with other budget variances reported earlier in this report will be reviewed in future budget monitoring reports and through Customer Connect programme monitoring.
3.3.3 As set out in the MTFP update to Council 24 July 2018, £0.554m of further budget
reductions are required to set a balanced budget for 2019/20, rising to £2.036m by 2023/24. This figure includes £500k of unallocated growth and is after the savings from Customer Connect identified above have been applied. This deficit figure is being updated as part of the budget process as further considerations must now me taken into account, such as the loss of the Second Homes income from the county council.
3.3.4 The budget setting process for 2019/20 onwards is well underway, beginning over a
month earlier than in previous years due to the obvious financial challenges faced. Budget Change Bids were considered by Corporate Management Team and Cabinet on the 14 September 2018 and options to deliver a balanced 2019/20 budget will be presented to Cabinet on 28 November 2018. These options will include the impact of future budget pressures and any potential recurring savings that are identified from 2018/19 budget monitoring.
3.3.5 An efficiency programme is also being developed to assess other areas that could
deliver savings or additional income. This will ensure that robust proposals are in place to meet any savings targets over and above the £1.550m to be delivered from the Customer Connect programme.
3.4 Changes to Revenue budgets under delegation 3.4.1 A balanced 2018/19 budget was approved in February 2018. Since then, the major
change relates to £486k of carry forward requests approved by Council 22 May 2018. A number of other increases to 2018/19 budgets have been made, funded by contributions from reserves. These are as follows:
45k of the Economic Development Reserve has been temporarily allocated to cover the costs of submitting the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme application. It is proposed that this temporary funding be replaced by use of the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve as the scheme is intended to protect businesses in the affected area. Therefore, approval is sought from Cabinet in paragraph 3.5.2 to allocate £45k of the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve to fund the ERDF Scheme application process which will allow the Economic Development Reserve to be subsequently reimbursed.
£53k has been transferred back to the Economic Development Reserve after its temporary use to fund the progression of the Grange Lido work to RIBA Stage 2 & 3. A growth bid for the Grange Lido scheme was approved and so the scheme secured its own revenue funding source.
A number of transfers, totalling £264k, have been made from the Customer Connect Reserve to fund various aspects of the Customer Connect programme.
3.5 Revenue budget change request – use of reserves not delegated to officers.
3.5.1 A £70k use of the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve in 2018/19 was approved by
Council on the 24th July. Of this, £40k is to be used to fund the Lancashire and South Cumbria Economic Region initiative, where each of the partners have pledged to allocated £40k to the project to resource a programme of activity. A further £30k has
Page 32
been utilised to fund the bid writing elements of the application process for the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme for which the Council will act as accountable body.
3.5.2 An additional £45k is now required to fund the costs of the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme application process, for elements such as environmental, heritage and ecology studies. In addition, a sum of £25k is requested for use to fund the Kendal Markets review and of £12k to fund the project development phase of the Burton-in-Kendal Heritage Scheme. Therefore approval is sought for an £82k transfer from the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve.
3.5.3 At the Council meeting on the 24th July 2018 it was requested that a £20k Community Projects Fund be created from the 2017/18 underspend on community grants. To facilitate this, approval is sought to transfer £20k from the General Reserve to the Community Grants budget heading.
3.5.4 A £12k transfer from the Statutory Duties Reserve is requested to fund the costs associated with dealing with the planning appeal for the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm planning application.
3.6 Capital programme
3.6.1 As outlined earlier, further to the £4.655m capital programme approved in February 2018 as part of the 2018/19 budget, Council approved 2017/18 carry forwards of £3.249m at its meeting on the 22nd May 2018. With the addition of these carry forwards and the £1.686m approved by Council on the 24th July 2018 for the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme and the Customer Connect Business Case, the capital programme approved by Council in July stood at £9.760m. Also required are a number of minor amendments which would bring the total of the current programme in Appendix 2 to £9.795m and for which we seek Council’s approval. The main reasons for these minor changes are:
£34k virement from the revenue planned maintenance budget to complete the Kendal Town Hall stonework (£30k) and Waterhead public jetty (£4k).
£12k virement from car parking (revenue) to increase the funding to the Millerground play capital project.
£5k increase in expenditure budget for Abbott Hall playground (£2k) and Kendal Public Realm (£3.1k) to reflect income carry forwards approved by Council to facilitate the additional expenditure.
£63k reduction in the Nobles Rest Park Improvement budget as two invoices totalling this amount were charged back to 2017/18 and dealt with in the financing of the 2017/18 capital programme.
Expenditure budgets increased to reflect additional income secured to fund schemes totalling £47k. These related to Kendal Parks playground where £29k of additional income was secured through developer and councillor contributions, £17k for Nobles Rest park improvements secured through external and town council contributions, and £1k for Abbot Hall playground through an external contribution.
3.6.2 Spend against the £9.795m programme to the end of Quarter 2 was £2.366m with a
further £1.252m committed expenditure through purchase orders. Of the £7.429m unspent budget, £1.501m is heavily reliant on third party partner organisations for delivery.
Page 33
Table 3: Summary of capital programme and expenditure
Full Year Budget
Expenditure Budget
Remaining Requires
re-profiling
£000 £000 £000 £000
Performance and Innovation 785 99 686 0
Strategic Development 5,174 893 4,281 1,857
Neighbourhood Services 3,836 1,374 2,462 0
Total 9,795 2,366 7,429 1,857
3.6.3 Appendix 2 contains further comments and updates on all capital schemes.
3.6.4 In prior years there has been significant re-profiling of the capital programme. New capital bids were considered by Cabinet on the 14 September 2018 and a revised programme will be presented to Cabinet on 28 November 2018. Potential re-profiling of £1.557m has been identified as the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme, for which we are acting as the accountable body, is still at the application stage. This application is due to be submitted by the end of November and even if work does begin in 2018/19, it is now our understanding that the Environment Agency will only draw down the funds periodically. Furthermore, potential re-profiling of £300k in relation to the Cross-a-Moor junction improvement scheme is also highlighted. This is a scheme lead by Highways England and the expenditure is likely to now fall into 2019/20. As the ERDF application process develops and the picture becomes clearer in relation to the Cross-a-Moor junction project, should it be required a request to approve this re-profiling will be sought as part of the updated capital programme submitted during the budget setting process.
3.7 Treasury Management
3.7.1 There are no issues to report in terms of compliance with the approved Treasury
Management Strategy. Appendix 3 contains an overview of the Council’s position against the agreed indicators and limits.
3.7.2 To date the Council’s investments have performed well against market expectations. Furthermore, the Bank of England base rate increased by a quarter per cent to 0.75% on the 2nd August but investment interest income and expenditure budgets have not been increased for this.
3.7.3 All investment activity has been within the approved limits. Operational investment
return continues to outperform the benchmarks, but core (Long Term) investments
are 0.05% below the benchmark rate of 0.71%. This is as a result of investments
from before the last rate rise still working their way through our portfolio. Borrowing is
not expected to change and no repayment is planned at the current time, due to
market conditions.
3.8 Collection Fund
3.8.1 Table 4 below sets out the Quarter 2 performance on local tax collection. The Council Tax Collection figure at 30 September 2018 is 58.23%, a decrease of only
Page 34
0.08% compared to the same period last year and in line with same period for 2016/17. Normal recovery procedures are now back in place after the implementation of the new system and it is expected that the collection rate will remain close to target.
3.8.2 The Non Domestic Rates (NDR) collection rate figure is 55.73% which is 0.20% lower
than last year. Normal collection procedures were put back in place in mid-August, a
little later than for Council Tax and only half wat through Quarter 2. It is expected that
collection rates will continue to move closer to target as recovery procedures
continue to take effect.
Table 4: Local Taxation Collection rate
Percentage Collected Quarter 2
2013/14 %
2014/15 %
2015/16 %
2016/17 %
2017/18 %
2018/19 %
Council Tax 58.76 58.60 58.64 58.20 58.31 58.23
Business Rates
60.09 57.97 57.73 56.07 55.93 55.73
3.8.3 Monitoring of the business rate retention scheme has identified a reduction in business rates collectable for 2018/19 of £461k (1.1%), largely due to an increase in small business rate relief. This is offset by a reduction in the provision for appeals of £306k mainly due to a number of large appeals being withdrawn. Overall, after adjustments for levy and income from the pool, it is expected that the net income retained by the Council will be £62k lower than estimated.
3.9 Sundry Debts
3.9.1 The aim of this section is to describe the current debt position and to provide
assurance over collection performance. Table 5 below summarises the current collection rate on sundry debts:
Table 5: Summary of collection
An analysis of outstanding sundry debts reveals that over 99% of debts have been recovered in years up to 2016/17, and 98% of debts in 2017/18. In the current year to date, 61% of debt has been recovered, but 62% of the current year debt is still
2013/14 and
earlier 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
2018/19 to date
£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000
Debt outstanding 74 8 16 43 55 1,228
Total value of invoices/credit notes raised
19,206 4,808 4,606 5,028 5,086 3,168
Collection Rate (%) 99.6% 99.8% 99.6% 99.1% 98.9% 61.2%
Page 35
within its credit terms so not overdue. The table below splits down in more detail the age profile of the current outstanding debts.
Page 36
Table 6: Age profile of 2018/19 invoices
2018/19 Invoices £000
6 months overdue 0
5 months overdue 40
4 months overdue 8
3 months overdue 31
2 months overdue 25
1 month overdue 365
Not yet due 759
Total end of Quarter 1 1,228
3.9.2 Significant success has been achieved in resolving encroachment disputes in recent months. At the end of June 2017 the total debt (across all financial years) relating to encroachments was £224k, this was reduced to £114k at the end of September 2017 and is now £72k for all years where the sums are overdue. Of the remaining outstanding debt for 2018/19, £322k relates to a single invoice which is in the process of being cancelled and reissued for a revised amount, and which will then be paid promptly. £40k of the remaining outstanding debt relates to invoices which have instalment payment plans arranged.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 Senior management, budget holders and the Finance Portfolio Holder have been consulted.
5.0 Alternative Options
5.1 There are no alternative options.
6.0 Links to Council Priorities
6.1 Regular budget monitoring forms part of the corporate governance arrangements that support all Council priorities.
7.0 Implications
Financial, Resources and Procurement
7.1 Financial and resource information are contained within the report.
Human Resources
7.2 There are no direct Human Resources implications of the report.
Legal
7.3 There are no direct legal implications of the report.
Health, Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4 Have you completed a Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment? No
7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: This report is an historic review of financial performance to the end of Q2. The overall impact assessment of the choices and decisions required to set the annual budget is undertaken at budget setting time.
Page 37
7.6 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts: There are no additional Health, Social, Economic or Environmental impacts as a result of the report.
Equality and Diversity
7.7 Have you completed an Equality Impact Analysis? No
7.8 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: This report is an historic review of financial performance to the end of Q2. The overall impact assessment of the choices and decisions required to set the annual budget is undertaken at budget setting time.
7.9 Summary of equality and diversity impacts: There are no additional Equality impacts as a result of the report.
Risk
Risk Consequence Controls required
Not effectively managing budgets could lead to overspending.
Possible legal challenge, audit qualification and ultra vires expenditure.
Scrutiny of budgets through review of monitoring reports.
Recurring pressures or savings are not identified
Medium Term Financial Planning may not reflect the future impact of current issues.
Regular monitoring of budgets in year to inform the MTFP and annual budget setting process.
Contact Officers
Lee Hurst, Chief Accountant, [email protected], 01539 793599
Helen Smith, Financial Services Manager, [email protected], 01539 793147
Appendices Attached to this Report
Appendix No. Name of Appendix
Appendix 1 Detailed Revenue Budget Monitoring
Appendix 2 Detailed Capital Budget Monitoring
Appendix 3 Treasury Management Review
Background Documents Available
Name of Background document Where it is available
2018/19 Budget Book including MTFP projections
https://tinyurl.com/ybarr92t
Budget Setting Report https://tinyurl.com/y7h7ehne
Medium Term Financial Plan 2019/20-2023/24
https://tinyurl.com/ya988w5b
Tracking Information
Signed off by Date sent
Legal Services N/A
Section 151 Officer 09/08/2018
Monitoring Officer N/A
Page 38
Signed off by Date sent
SMT 11/08/2018
Circulated to Date sent
Assistant Director 09/08/2018
Human Resources Manager N/A
Communications Team N/A
Leader N/A
Committee Chairman N/A
Portfolio Holder N/A
Ward Councillor(s) N/A
Committee N/A
Executive (Cabinet) 31/10/2018
Council 18/12/2018
Page 39
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 40
Appendix 1
Service Portfolio
Expenditure
Budget Full
Year
£
Income Budget
Full Year
£
Expenditure
Variance
to Date
£
Income
Variance
to Date
£
Overall
Variance
to Date
£
Out-turn
projection
>£10k
Carry
Forward
Requests
>£10k
Commentary
ECL LegalHousing People
and Innovation55,014 -30,250 -22,086 2,964 -19,122 -10,000 0
£22k underspend from salaries but it is anticipated that some of
this will be needed to acquire services elsewhere so forecast 10k.
EFS Financial Services Finance 18,277 -4,000 30,065 1,923 31,988 27,000 0 Vacancy savings target will not be met.
GBN Council Tax Benefits Finance 341,310 -65,826 2,125 -14,515 -12,390 -12,390 0Localised Council Tax Support Admin Grant greater than
anticipated.
GMM MembersHealth and
Wellbeing465,504 0 -28,153 0 -28,153 -20,000 0 Unclaimed Members' allowances.
GTH Other Items Finance 5,000 0 -38,500 -150 -38,650 -41,000 0 One off budget savings.
GTV Bank Charges Finance 94,051 0 -7,056 0 -7,056 -12,000 0Pattern of fees to date lower than budgeted, we will continue to
monitor closely during the year.
Other Resources 22,746,151 -20,064,167 75,293 -33,273 42,020 -10,000 Individual variances <£10k
Total Resources 23,725,307 -20,164,243 11,687 -43,051 -31,363 -78,390 0
Performance and Innovation
ECU Customer ServicesHousing People
and Innovation227,302 0 -8,060 0 -8,060 -12,000 0
Underspend on vacant post, part back-filled by contractor and
overtime £12k.
ERI Information ServicesHousing People
and Innovation29,212 0 -41,828 0 -41,828 0 -59,400
Underspend on four vacant posts £99k; recruitment to two posts
expected by September, part offset by corresponding shortfall on
Eden shared service recharge £40k, net carry forward request to
fund two fixed term ICT Officers posts; Customer Connect saving
on NDL software £12k, offset by increased MS license costs
£12k.
EXS Policy and PerformanceHealth and
Wellbeing-120,817 -9,400 16,112 -6,800 9,312 13,000 0
Underspend on vacant posts £6k, offset by Customer Connect
related additional responsibilities and exceptional effort costs
£19k.
GCCCorporate
Communications
Promoting South
Lakeland166,763 -3,393 -5,279 1,697 -3,582 -12,000 0
Underspend on vacant post, part back-filled by contractor and
overtime £12k.
GCG Community Grants Finance 837,869 0 -27,605 0 -27,605 0 -30,000
Potential underspend on Brewery Arts contribution to
development project £30k, subject to update on project
implementation, may require carry forward to complete.
GER Electoral RegistrationHousing People
and Innovation254,509 -31,657 3,933 -526 3,407 -14,000 0
Potential underspend on 2017/18 carry forward equipment £28k,
part offset by grants shortfall £14k.
Other Performance and Innovation 631,688 -22,371 -48,487 47,781 -706 0 Individual variances <£10k
Total Performance and Innovation 2,026,526 -66,821 -111,213 42,153 -69,061 -25,000 -89,400
Strategic Development
EHS Health and SafetyHealth and
Wellbeing608 -600 -2,513 -13,025 -15,538 -12,000 0
Potential £12k surplus income due to services being provided and
recharged to Eden Council.
EPX OfficesEconomy and
Assets50,269 -21,842 -22,123 8,459 -13,664 -12,000 0
Underspend on South Lakeland House cleaners' vacant posts
£32k, part offset by South Lakeland House rental income shortfall
£20k due to rented space discontinued.
EURAD Community Inv and
Dev
Economy and
Assets608 0 -18,425 -90 -18,515 -37,000 0
Net underspend on Development Implementation vacant posts
£13k; net underspend on Development Management vacant post
£24k,
GCH Community Housing Fund Finance 41,770 0 -17,410 0 -17,410 0 -39,000
Net underspend on vacant post £39k due to delay in scheme
implementation (any underspend to be transferred back to
reserve at year-end).
GDC Development ControlHousing People
and Innovation1,299,333 -743,256 -19,470 156,749 137,279 331,000 0
Vacancy saving £24k may not be achieved due to back-filling with
agency; potential demand led income shortfall relating to planning
applications of £307k based on comparison to previous year.
The purpose of this appendix is to set out the revenue budget variance projections based on data up to 30/09/2018 Period-6
Resources
Page 41
Service Portfolio
Expenditure
Budget Full
Year
£
Income Budget
Full Year
£
Expenditure
Variance
to Date
£
Income
Variance
to Date
£
Overall
Variance
to Date
£
Out-turn
projection
>£10k
Carry
Forward
Requests
>£10k
Commentary
GEN Housing Enabling RoleHousing People
and Innovation998,883 0 -16,062 0 -16,062 -25,000 0
Potential underspend £25k self build and custom build housing
register.
GHL Town View Fields HostelHousing People
and Innovation385,885 -268,273 -4,552 36,636 32,084 37,000 0
Supporting People income shortfall £37k due to Cumbria County
Council changing to block grant basis. Budget Pressure to be
revised as part of 2019/20 budget setting.
GHM HomelessnessHousing People
and Innovation478,016 -101,503 -8,836 -15,347 -24,184 -15,000 0
Grants received £10k higher than budgeted, net underspend
vacant posts £32k, partially offset by agency costs £27k.
GLP Local PlansHousing People
and Innovation564,563 -112 -6,032 -244 -6,276 -27,000 0 Net underspend vacant posts £27k.
GMU MuseumCulture and
Leisure296,148 0 -12,902 0 -12,902 -13,000 0
Underspend on management fee £13k due to budget set too high,
may be required to fund in-year costs of implementing new
arrangements with Kendal College. budget to be revised in future
years.
Other Strategic Development 4,420,627 -3,296,930 -1,673 1,125 -548 0 Individual variances <£10k
Total Strategic Development 8,536,710 -4,432,516 -130,000 174,263 44,263 227,000 -39,000
GCK Car ParksEconomy and
Assets2,717,089 -4,369,983 -17,143 -243,265 -260,408 -167,000 0
Potential underspend of £26k on £50k growth budget for
Westmorland Shopping Centre Car Park structural survey.
Request to use this underspend to fund car parking surveys.
Potential demand led surplus on car parking income £166k,
(impact of three re-surfacing's expected to be minimal).
GLW Lake WindermereCulture and
Leisure804,985 -1,425,493 3,683 11,750 15,433 26,000 0
Potential shortfall jetty berths £26k due to low water levels during
summer.
GPK Parks Environment 1,337,392 -74,532 -23,917 94 -23,823 -35,000 0Potential £35k net underspend on vacant 0.6FTE Green Spaces
Officer, and apprentice post.
GTG Street Cleansing Client Environment 1,372,109 -6,575 42,472 3,110 45,581 49,000 0
Net overspend on salaries circa £20k, due to corporate vacancy
budget will not be met; potential overspend on fuel £18k due to
more vehicles on fleet and higher mileage; demand led
overspend on tipping and disposal £11k.
GTS Transport Environment 75,792 -74,940 28,377 -7,142 21,235 49,000 0
Potential overspend on repairs £49k, due to more vehicles on
fleet, further investigation to be carried out for 2019/20 budget
setting.
GWK Kerbside Recycling Client Environment 5,040,998 -1,538,454 -9,976 51,887 41,912 174,000 0
Net overspend on salaries circa £80k, due to corporate vacancy
budget will not be met; potential demand led shortfall £28k on
recycling credits due to hot summer impact on green waste (this
may result in a corresponding reduction in tipping and disposal
costs); potential demand led shortfall £66k on sales of materials
based on comparison to previous year.
GWR Waste Recycling Environment 262,139 -144,830 -17,128 -11,547 -28,676 -16,000 0
Potential demand led underspend £16k on emptying bring site
recycling banks (this may results in a corresponding reduction in
bring site credits).
Other Neighbourhood services 3,351,750 -834,187 -21,385 7,036 -14,350 0 Individual variances <£10k
Total Neighbourhood Services 14,962,254 -8,468,994 -15,017 -188,079 -203,096 80,000 0
Corporate items
VGR26 Interest Recievable 0 -175,500 0 0 0 -15,000 0
Interest to date is slightly higher than budgeted we will continue to
monitor closely during the year. Budgets do not assume an
interest rate rise.
VGR44 Interest Recievable 0 -3,440,500 0 0 0 62,000 0
A reduction in business rates collectable for 2018/19 of £461k
(1.1%), largely due to an increase in small business rate relief.
This is offset by a reduction in the provision for appeals of £306k
mainly due to a number of large appeals being withdrawn.
Overall, after adjustments for levy and income from the pool, it is
expected that the net income retained by the Council will be £62k
lower than estimated.
Other Corporate items 190,915 -12,332,138 0 10,328 10,328 0 Individual variances <£10k
Neighbourhood Services
Page 42
Service Portfolio
Expenditure
Budget Full
Year
£
Income Budget
Full Year
£
Expenditure
Variance
to Date
£
Income
Variance
to Date
£
Overall
Variance
to Date
£
Out-turn
projection
>£10k
Carry
Forward
Requests
>£10k
Commentary
Total Corporate items 190,915 -15,948,138 0 10,327 10,328 47,000 0 Individual variances <£10k
Total GF 49,441,712 -49,080,712 -244,543 -4,387 -248,930 250,610 -128,400 0
Net GF 361,000
Page 43
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 44
Appendix 2
AD/code Scheme Portfolio
Full Year
Budget
£
Expenditure
£
Variance
to Date
£
re-profiling
£Commentary
KIP01
Locally Important Projects
(previoulsy presented within
revenue)
Culture and
Leisure295,367 40,500 -254,867 Budget allocated to schemes except for circa £41k
KIT27 Mobile WorkingHousing, People
and Innovation120,000 0 -120,000
Specification and integration with new digital platform to be
assessed before project can begin.
KIT30 Digital Innovation ProjectHousing, People
and Innovation 290,000 25,625 -264,375 Current budget committed.
KIT90 IT Replacement FundHousing, People
and Innovation 80,000 32,933 -47,067
785,367 99,058 -686,309 0
KDE04Former Knitwear Factory
Ulverston
Economy and
Assets89,154 95,955 6,801
Scheme complete, final account outstanding. Overspend to be
covered.
KDE06ERDF Funded Flood Defence
Works
Economy and
Assets1,556,700 0 -1,556,700 1,556,700
Bid for ERDF funding to be submitted to MHCLG on 23
November 2018. Planning permission (early March 2019) and EA
Internal Business Case (11 March 2019) must be in place prior to
decision on ERDF funding, anticipated in early April. Grant and
partnership agreements must be signed by end of April
2019. Therefore no expenditure anticipated in 2018/19.
KCD01 Castle DairyEconomy and
Assets19,932 0 -19,932
Work complete and now in defects liability period. Retention to
pay. Contractor has gone into administration so payment and
timing uncertain.
KEP52 Disabled Toilet Improvements 50,000 0 -50,000Work yet to be agreed. Public consultation to take place before
work starts.
KIL01Community Infrastructure
Levy
Economy and
Assets0 16,112 16,112
KLH02Ulverston Asset Transfer
programme
Economy and
Assets79,767 0 -79,767 Funds to be transferred to UCE when bid completed.
KLH03 Kendal Town Hall stoneworkEconomy and
Assets32,866 25,724 -7,142 Completed and now in defects liability period.
KMR01 Grange FootbridgesEconomy and
Assets0 -5,262 -5,262
Network Rail - credit note against invoice for installation of
refurbished footbridge no.19 Clare House Lane
KMR32Wordsworth Trust
Contribution42,000 0 -42,000
Aiming to schedule the payment in one sum to Wordsworth Trust
by 30 September.
KMR34 Kendal Castle 42,000 0 -42,000 Work to paths to be arranged this year.
KMR21 Kendal Museum alterationsEconomy and
Assets85,000 0 -85,000 Cabinet report to include approval of payment to Kendal College.
SLDC 2018/19 Capital Programme Monitoring Period 6
Performance and Innovation
Total Performance and Innovation
Strategic Development
Page 45
Appendix 2
AD/code Scheme Portfolio
Full Year
Budget
£
Expenditure
£
Variance
to Date
£
re-profiling
£Commentary
SLDC 2018/19 Capital Programme Monitoring Period 6
KPE18Towpath Trail Kendal-
LancasterEnvironment 140,000 20,000 -120,000
Remaining £120k payment to CCC to be made soon once grant
agreement has been finalised.
KRE53 Kendal Public Realm Environment 22,600 6,865 -15,735Work complete and now in defects liability period. Retention to
pay. Underspend earmarked for other public realm project.
KRE55 New Road Common Environment 231,023 219,243 -11,780Completed and now in defects liability period. Payments to be
made shortly to expend all budget.
KRE66Grange Promenade structural
worksEnvironment 100,000 0 -100,000
Work has started with consultants re drainage repairs by United
Utilities. Meeting held with Natural England and Environment
Agency on site, but awaiting a decision on the Lido before moving
to further approval by Natural England.
KAH10Affordable Homes TC Prop
Empty
Housing, People
and Innovation359,000 2,000 -357,000
£99,000 housing association grant to be paid Q3 (legal delay).
Further 3 empty homes grants totalling £60,000 to be paid in Q3
and Q4. Remaining balance of £198,000 may need to be
transferred to the DFG budget (KGD21). To review end Q3.
KAH11
Other Housing Schemes
(Cross-a-Moor junction
improvements)
Housing, People
and Innovation300,000 0 -300,000 300,000
Highways England leading scheme to build a roundabout to
enable delivery of 1000 homes. Discussions on-going re specifics
of funding agreement to include SLDC's £300k and £1.7m
developer contributions. SLDC contribution now likely to be paid
next financial year.
KAH12 Town View Fields worksHousing, People
and Innovation0 -927 -927 Complete
KAH13Commuted Sums Affordable
Housing
Housing, People
and Innovation146,000 0 -146,000
Grant applications totalling £110,000 expected shortly and to be
paid by Q4. Underspend of £36,000 expected.
KGD21 Mand Disabled Fac GrantsHousing, People
and Innovation743,400 487,381 -256,019
Demand for DFGs continues to be high so full budget expected to
be spent by year-end. Likely overspend to be reviewed end Q3
(see KAH10 above).
KRT10 Right To Buy ReplacementHousing, People
and Innovation495,000 0 -495,000
Awaiting signing of legal agreement with SLH before £495k grant
can be provided. To be paid Q3 due to legal delay.
KCH01 Community Housing FundHousing, People
and Innovation490,000 16,022 -473,978
£16k spent in Q1 and a further £90k to be spent in Q3.
Remainder is allocated for full spend by year-end but will depend
on progress made by individual community land trusts.
Application for £350,000 received and awaiting to be processed.
KXB27Energy Saving Building
Enhancement
Economy and
Assets149,200 10,000 -139,200
Draft report from consultant on review of 7 main buildings
received. Works to follow in this financial year.
5,173,642 893,113 -4,280,529 1,856,700
0
KEG35Flood Impact Works Rothay
ParkEnvironment 207,200 30,941 -176,259
Out to tender. Work to complete in September. Underspend on
scheme expected.
Total Strategic Development
Neighbourhood Services
Page 46
Appendix 2
AD/code Scheme Portfolio
Full Year
Budget
£
Expenditure
£
Variance
to Date
£
re-profiling
£Commentary
SLDC 2018/19 Capital Programme Monitoring Period 6
KRE61 Waterhead Public Jetty Environment 31,431 3,996 -27,435Design work done, work to take place Sept-Oct when
Environment Agency approval granted.
KLC01Leisure Centres inc KLC
changing room refurbishment
Culture and
Leisure159,567 153,090 -6,477 Completed and now in defects liability period. Retention to pay.
KLL17 Ferry Nab redevelopment Lake Admin 42,644 0 -42,644Work complete. Defects/ snagging to finalise. Underspend
expected.
KLL18Cockshott Point entrance
improvementsLake Admin 1,750 0 -1,750
KMR33Braithwaite Fold Caravan
ParkLake Admin 214,300 5,205 -209,095
Work to start January. Planning submitted and tender documents
being prepared. Additional income from improvements not
expected until 2019/20.
KMR31 Festival InfrastructureCulture and
Leisure64,800 0 -64,800
Uncertainty regarding plans to progress this project. £24k scheme
for lamp post banners in Kendal being developed.
KNM51 Play Areas Environment 0 0 0Budget re-allocated to be used for work at Maryfell (£10k),
Rayrigg Meadow (£27.7k), Broadgate Meadow (£5k).
KNM54 Rinkfield Playground Environment 3,447 0 -3,447 Project complete.
KNM55 Hallgarth Phase 2 Environment 80,000 0 -80,000 Awaiting confirmation of grant funding.
KNM56 Millerground Play Project Environment 160,539 5,215 -155,324Path works (£80k) to start on site in October. Remainder for
playground out to tender in Sept, completion expected April 2019.
KNM57Play Space Audit
ImplementationEnvironment 0 0 0
Plans in place, awaiting councillor approval. £60k budget has
been re-allocated to Lightburn Park (£10k), Maryfell (£10k),
Greenbank (£10k), Rayrigg Meadow (£10k), Broadgate Meadow
(£10k), Abbot Hall (£10k).
KNM58 Kendal Parks playground Environment 78,410 0 -78,410
Work at Howe Bank (£45k) to complete Sept. Work at Hayclose
Road (£80k) to commence in Sept, to finish in Nov, subject to
assurance of funding.
KNM59Lightburn Park MUGA &
playgroundEnvironment 115,852 79,500 -36,352
MUGA compete. Work on playground awaiting successful grant
applications.
KNM60 Abbot Hall Playground Environment 58,000 0 -58,000 Awaiting further funding.
KNM61 Yew Tree Playground Grange Environment 5,000 0 -5,000 Awaiting final grant.
KNM62Greenbank & Castlefield Play
AreaEnvironment 30,000 0 -30,000
KNM63 Queens Park play area Environment 10,000 0 -10,000
KNM64Broadgate Meadow
GrasmereEnvironment 35,000 0 -35,000
KNM65 Maryfell Sedbergh Play Area Environment 20,000 0 -20,000
KNM66 Rayrigg Meadow Play Area Environment 37,753 0 -37,753
Page 47
Appendix 2
AD/code Scheme Portfolio
Full Year
Budget
£
Expenditure
£
Variance
to Date
£
re-profiling
£Commentary
SLDC 2018/19 Capital Programme Monitoring Period 6
KPY42 Car Park machines updateEconomy and
assets140,000 410 -139,590
Potential saving on this scheme as orders placed (£106k + £3k)
will complete project.
KPY44Town and Car Park/public
information Signs
Economy and
assets16,200 2,649 -13,551 Will be fully utilised this year.
KPY45SLH Car Park - structural
repair and re-surfacing works
Economy and
assets377,541 0 -377,541
Work to take place either Sept/Oct or Feb/Mar to avoid Xmas
period.
KPY46 Car Park ResurfacingEconomy and
assets339,730 23,185 -316,545
Buxton Place to be resurfaced in October, other planned car
parks (Red Bank, Park Road) out to tender.
KPY48 Parkside Rd Car ParkEconomy and
assets160,400 234 -160,166
With planning. Parking study appraisal of need for car park to
take place, following low take-up of discounted parking at Kendal
Ski Club.
KRE65 The Glebe Planting Environment 50,000 37,463 -12,538 Work complete, final account to be paid.
KLR31Nobles Rest park
improvementsEnvironment 178,100 178,359 259
Expected £20k overspend on this scheme, due to weather
conditions over winter delaying scheme and subsequent extra
costs. Virement from other underspent schemes to be arranged.
KFL01 Footway Lighting Environment 49,400 0 -49,400Spend dependant on Electricity North West and Cumbria CC
programming works.
KSC91Refurb Replace Recycled
BinsEnvironment 60,000 47,228 -12,772
Expected spend in 2018/19 £100k. Demand is high from
customers to replace damaged bins and provide additional bins to
properties. Furthermore new build developments of approximately
800 homes in year each require servicing.
KSC91 Vehicle Purchase Environment 1,109,002 806,276 -302,726
Actual cost of two new Romaquip vehicles less than anticipated,
saving of £33k.Boat engine for lake wardens now quoted at £30k,
budgeted £50k, saving of £20k. Recycling vehicle (£158k), tractor
(£25k) and boat engine still to be purchased in year. Savings and
uncommitted budget (£37k) leave projected underspend of £90k.
3,836,066 1,373,751 -2,462,315 0
9,795,075 2,365,922 -7,429,153 1,856,700
Total Neighbourhood Services
GRAND TOTAL
Page 48
Appendix 3
2018/19 Quarter 2 Treasury Management Update
This appendix reviews treasury performance for the period 01/04/2018 – 30/09/2018 against
the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy, which was approved by Council on
27th February 2018
The Councils Treasury Management operation ensures cash flows are adequately planned,
with surplus monies being invested in low risk counterparties, providing adequate liquidity
initially before considering optimising investment return.
The second main function of the treasury management service is the funding of the Council’s capital plans. These capital plans provide a guide to the borrowing need of the Council, this is the element of the capital programme that is not financed from external grants, capital receipts or other contributions. Which when added to the Council’s Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) shows the underlying borrowing need of the Council. This underlying borrowing need is managed by the treasury team through short and long term borrowing arrangements and the use of longer term cash flow surpluses.
Borrowing
No new borrowing has been undertaken in the year to date, therefore the Council has maintained external borrowing at £12.8 million. As a result, gross and net borrowing are below the capital financing requirement (CFR). This is a key indicator as it shows that the Council is not borrowing to fund revenue activities or borrowing to lend-on. Table 1: Borrowing Limits
£m
Actual borrowing 12.800
Authorised limit 24.600
Operational boundary 18.600
Capital Financing Requirement (CFR)
18.558
Table 1 also shows that the Council hasn’t breached its operational boundary and authorised limit (which must not be breached) on external debt. The current premium on the Councils borrowing is circa 69% (i.e. £690k per £1m repaid), which would take nearly 18 years to repay. This is not low enough to consider making an early repayment, however we will keep this under review. It is anticipated that the Council will not need to undertake any additional borrowing in 2018/19, with the increase in the CFR being met through the use of cash balances, increasing our internal borrowing position. Our internal borrowing position is estimated to be £5.758 million or 31% of the CFR at year end. This position will be carefully monitored against changes to reserves to ensure that the position is sustainable.
Page 49
Appendix 3
Investments Graph 1 below shows the movement on the Councils investment portfolio between 01/04/18 and 30/09/18.
The Council held £28.95m of investments as at 30 September 2018. Table 2 shows the outstanding investments by type. Table 2 Investment Summary
Counterparty Value (£m)
Call Operational
Blackrock 1.950
CCLA 0.000
Fixed Operational
Bank of Scotland 3.000
Coventry Building Society 1.000
Leeds Building Society 1.000
NatWest (Ring Fenced Bank) 1.000
Nottingham Building Society 1.000
Principality Building Society 1.000
Sumitomo Mitsui Bank 1.000
Toronto Dominion Bank 2.000
West Bromwich Building Society 1.000
UK Treasury Bills 2.995
Fixed Core
Goldman Sachs 2.000
Lancashire County Council 3.000
Nationwide Building Society 1.000
Newcastle Building Society 2.000
NatWest (Ring Fenced Bank) 1.000
Sumitomo Mitsui Bank 2.000
Surrey Heath Borough Council 1,000
28.945
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
Op
enin
g B
alan
ce
07
/04
/20
18
14
/04
/20
18
21
/04
/20
18
28
/04
/20
18
05
/05
/20
18
12
/05
/20
18
19
/05
/20
18
26
/05
/20
18
02
/06
/20
18
09
/06
/20
18
16
/06
/20
18
23
/06
/20
18
30
/06
/20
18
07
/07
/20
18
14
/07
/20
18
21
/07
/20
18
28
/07
/20
18
04
/08
/20
18
11
/08
/20
18
18
/08
/20
18
25
/08
/20
18
01
/09
/20
18
08
/09
/20
18
15
/09
/20
18
22
/09
/20
18
29
/09
/20
18
Call Operational Fixed Operational Core Investments
Page 50
Appendix 3
Graph 2 below shows the maturity profile of the Councils investment portfolio split between operational and core investment types
Table 3 below summarised the performance to date, benchmarked against the London Interbank Bid Rate (LIBID) that best matches the duration of the investments. For example, Call investments can be called back the same day and so the overnight LIBID rate is the bench mark.
Table 3 Performance
Average Return
Benchmark Rate
Variance
Call Operational 0.56% 0.42% 0.14%
Fixed Operational 0.63% 0.60% 0.03%
Fixed Core (Long Term) 0.66% 0.71% -0.05%
Operational investments are outperforming their respective benchmarks. However Core
(Long Term) investments are 0.05% below the benchmark rate of 0.71%. This is as a result
of investments from before the last rate rise still working their way through our portfolio. £8
million pounds of this is maturing in October and will be invested in the current higher
interest rate environment and it is therefore expected that core investment returns will pick
up in the next quarter.
Looking Forward
The first half of 2018/19 has shown modest growth in the UK economy, but robust enough
growth for the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to vote on 2nd August to
unanimously (9-0) increase the base rate from 0.50% to 0.75%.
Concerns have been raised about a build-up of inflationary pressures, particularly with the
pound falling in value again against both the US dollar and the Euro. The Consumer Price
Index (CPI) measure of inflation rose unexpectedly from 2.4% in June to 2.7% in August due
to increases in volatile components, but is expected to fall back to the 2% inflation target
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Call 1 Month 1-3 Months 3-6 Months 6 Months +
Operationl Core
Page 51
Appendix 3
over the next two years given a scenario of minimal increases in Bank Rate. The MPC has
indicated Bank Rate would need to be in the region of 1.5% by March 2021 for inflation to
stay on track. Financial markets are currently pricing in the next increase in Bank Rate for
the second half of 2019.
Conclusion
The Council Investments continue to perform well against benchmarks, with all activity within
approved limits and Borrowing has been maintained at £12.8 million within the debt
indicators.
Page 52
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Friday, 26 October 2018
Council Plan Performance Monitoring Quarter 2 2018/19
Portfolio: Councillor Giles Archibald - Leader of the Council
Report from: Simon McVey - Assistant Director Performance and Innovation
Report Author: John Davies - Performance and Risk Officer
Wards: (All Wards);
Forward Plan: Not applicable
1.0 Expected Outcome
1.1 Monitoring the success of the Council Plan through scorecards informs improvements and ensures Council services address the needs of residents in an open and transparent way. Influenced by the three key values as set out in the current Council Plan, this report sets out the Council Plan Priorities and Measures of Success.
2.0 Recommendation
2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee note:-
(1) the Summary of Performance as detailed in the report; and
(2) the detailed risks information contained within Appendix 1; and
(3) considers whether it wishes to make any recommendations to Cabinet
3.0 Background and Proposals
3.1 The Council is committed to delivering high quality, cost effective services that meet the needs of residents and improve quality of life. To help achieve our goals, we measure performance frequently. The performance management process helps us to demonstrate how well we are doing.
3.2 Benchmarking information is provided for quarter one each year and allows the Council to compare its own performance with that of fifteen other statistically similar Councils – using the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Nearest Neighbours Model. Information is sourced from the Local Government Association.
3.3 Summary of Performance
Each Council Plan Priority has ‘Measures of success’ – allowing progress to be monitored. Detailed information for each of the measures is listed below.
3.4 Economy - Measures of success
Page 53
Item No.9
Measure: By 2025, we will achieve investment enabling the creation of 1,000 new
jobs in the area.
Estimates show that the Council is on target to achieve 1000 new jobs in the
area by 2025. Since 01/01/14 an estimated 489 new jobs have been created
in South Lakeland. It is estimated that 36 new jobs were created in Quarter
Two 2018/19 (Source: Estimate by Partnerships and Organisational
Development.)
Measure: Between 2015 and 2025, we will have enabled, with the private sector, the
rise of higher paid jobs and a year-on-year increase in the current median household
income of £31,189 for people who live in South Lakeland.
For 2017 the median income varied across the districts, from the lowest in
Barrow-in-Furness (£24,381) to the highest in South Lakeland (£32,506). The
median household income in Cumbria was £27,633 and Great Britain was
£30,921. (Source: Cumbria Intelligence Observatory.)
Measure: Between 2015 and 2025, in partnership with the district’s towns and
villages, the council will ensure they maintain their distinctive character and thrive
commercially by supporting and improving the business start-up rate of 90 per 10,000
working population year-on-year.
From Mar 2017 to Mar 2018 South Lakeland had the highest number of
business start-ups per 10,000 working age residents at 80.8. This compares
to 61.6 for Cumbria and 104.2 for England. (Source: Cumbria Intelligence
Observatory.)
The total number of business units in South Lakeland has increased from
6850 in 2013 to 7385 in 2017 and surpasses a previous high of 7060 units in
2010. (Source: National Office for Statistics)
3.5 Housing - Measures of success
The Council’s Housing Strategy 2016-2025 describes the housing issues within South Lakeland. Measure: By 2025, we will have enabled, with the private sector, the development of
1,000 new affordable homes to rent.
During Quarter Four a total of 7 new affordable homes for rent have been
completed giving a cumulative total of 407 since 01/01/14. Updated figures for
Quarter Two will be available for O&S on 26th October 2018. The Council is
on target to deliver the 1,000 new affordable homes for rent by 2025. (Source:
Strategic Housing and Building Control.)
Measure: By 2025, we will have enabled, with the private sector and housing associations, an average of 60 completed permanent dwellings each quarter.
In 2017 there were 60 permanent dwellings completed in Quarter One, 50 in
Quarter Two, 60 in Quarter Three, 40 in Quarter Four and 80 in Quarter One
2018. Since 2015 the Council has enabled the completion of 820 permanent
Page 54
dwellings – an average of greater than 63 over 13 quarters. (Source: DCLG
Live tables on house building: table 253a)
Measure: By 2025, the number of long-term empty homes, currently 827 (2016), will
have reduced by 20%.
The number of long term empty homes fluctuates, however there has been an
overall reduction from 1079 (2011) to 973 (2017.) The total number of long
term empty homes fluctuate as homes are brought back into use - and as
properties become empty. Homes become empty for a number of reasons -
all of which are relevant to South Lakeland: for example people needing care,
properties becoming inhabitable due to widespread flooding and properties
being inherited. Second homes also increase results until they are identified.
(Source: DCLG tables on housing: table 615)
Measure: Between 2015 and 2019, the council through targeted interventions will,
year on year, bring a minimum of 70 empty homes back into use.
Since 2015 the Council has brought 214 empty homes back into use. Data for
Quarter Two 2018/19 will be available for Quarter Three 2018/19 reporting.
(Source: Housing Strategy Team)
Measure: During 2018/19 the number of homeless households living in temporary
accommodation will be no more than 20 at any one time.
The maximum of households in temporary accommodation at any one time
was 18 in Quarter Three 2017/18, 17 in Quarter Four 2017/18, 20 in Quarter
One 2018/19 and 21 in Quarter Two 2018/19. Records show that this target
has been met for at least the last 5 years - however the latest result is outside
target. The main reasons for homelessness are the reduced benefits for
people of age under 35 years; high rents and loss of private sector tenancy;
lack of affordable housing; family relationship breakdowns with young adults
leaving home - sometimes leaving home due to abuse. The implementation of
the Homelessness Reduction Act in April this year has also influenced results
and this is reflected both regionally and nationally. (Source: Housing Options
Team)
3.6 Environment - Measures of success
Measure: By 2019, the amount of household waste sent for reuse, recycling and
composting will increase from 43% to 50%. During the same period the range of
recyclables will be widened.
For 2017/18 provisionally 44.4% of waste has been recycled which is an
increase on 42.4% for 2016/17. Green waste influences this result
significantly. This is because green waste is produced in large quantities and
contributes to significant tonnages compared to lighter plastic and cardboard.
During the summer drought 2017/18 green waste was greatly reduced and
therefore the 44.4% provisional figure may now be optimistic. If the Council
was able to collect food waste this would make the target of 50% much more
Page 55
achievable. However food processing plants are currently to distant from
South Lakeland to make this viable. Plastic and cardboard kerbside collection
covers 100% of households. (Source: Street Scene)
Measure: By 2019, the amount of residual household waste not sent for reuse,
recycling and composting will have reduced from the current baseline of 511kg per
household
South Lakeland’s residual household waste is sent for reuse rather than to
landfill. The residual waste is processed to provide refuse derived fuel for
large industrial processes. In line with other councils residual waste includes
grey bin waste, waste from litter bins, street sweepings and other sources.
The tonnage of street sweepings varies significantly each year and therefore
impacts on residual waste totals. The level of residual waste is measured in
kilos of waste per household per year: 2013/14 480kg, 2014/15 470kg,
2015/16 495kg, 2016/17 511kg and a provisional 468kg for 2017/18. Grey bin
waste on its own has fluctuated from 444kg in 2007/8 to 479kg in 2009/10 to
a reduced 399kg in 2017/18. (Source: Street Scene)
Measure: Between 2015 and 2019 the council will, year on year, have reduced its
operational carbon footprint by 100 tonnes of carbon, from a baseline of 2,869
tonnes.
For 2017/18 the total for carbon emitted was 2992 tonnes – a reduction of 170
tonnes from 3162 tonnes at 31/03/15. As well as reducing emissions the
Council prevents 5500 tonnes of emissions by reusing, recycling and
composting nearly all of the waste collected across the District. (Source:
Partnerships and Organisational Development)
3.7 Culture and wellbeing - Measures of success
Measure: By 2019, through collaborative and preventative action the level of self-
reported general health of South Lakeland’s residents will demonstrate an
improvement above the baseline of 70% as reported in the Quality of Life Survey.
The Quality of Life Survey 2017 shows that 72% of residents reported good or
very good health. (Source: Partnerships and Organisational Development)
Measure: By 2025, the health inequality gap for residents in South Lakeland’s 18
most deprived communities will be narrowed resulting in the improved healthy life
expectancy above the national average of 81 years.
Life expectancy from birth has improved consistently for many years to 81.5 years in 2016 and is better than NW or England. (Data source: Public Health England)
Health related quality of life for older people has fluctuated from a score of 0.772 in 2012/13 to a slightly improved score of 0.778 in 2016/17. Annual results for the previous six years are better than the North West and England.
Results for 2015 show that in South Lakeland there are 4 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA’s) in the 30% most health deprived LSOAs in England. Within Cumbria only Eden is better with only 1 area in the 30% most deprived.
Page 56
LSOAs are a set of geographies designed specifically for statistical purposes. LSOAs have an average population of 1,600 people. (Source: Cumbria Observatory)
Measure: By 2019, the overall level of reported crime will not exceed the 2014/15
level of 3,425.
During Quarter One 2017/18 there were 981 crimes, Q2 964, Q3 1000 and
Q4 1090 – a total of 4035 crimes for 2017/18. Q1 2018/19 saw 1359 crimes
reported, Quarter 2 2018/19 saw 1248 crimes reported - this increase is
explained by Police training on the recording of crimes. (Source: Cumbria
Constabulary. 2017/18 figures revised October 2018.)
3.8 Strategic Risk Register – Appendix 1
All strategic risks in their current stage of development are visible within appendix 1. There are 4 strategic risks above the Council’s tolerance for risk and these are being managed effectively. The Strategic Risks have been reviewed in line with risk management arrangements.
Risks summary this quarter
Total number of risks: 15 risks
New risks: 1 risk – Risk No 19 ‘Business Continuity: Flu Pandemic – Loss of people, skills and supply chain disruption’
Archived Risks: 0 risks
Risks above tolerance: 4 risks
(risks above tolerance are reviewed every quarter)
Risks below tolerance: 11 risks
73% of risks are below tolerance.
(risks below tolerance are reviewed annually at Quarter 4)
4.0 Consultation
4.1 This report details measures of success against each of the priorities within the Council Plan. These have been consulted on extensively prior to the Plan being adopted by Full Council.
5.0 Alternative Options
5.1 No alternative options – the purpose of the report is to receive a performance update. The Council must note successes, monitor progress and take action where appropriate.
Page 57
6.0 Links to Council Priorities
6.1 Reporting measures of success contained within the Council Plan 2014-2019.
6.2 The report is directly linked to the following Council Plan commitment to ensure that the Council is equipped to provide the best, most cost effective services.
6.3 Details regarding performance monitoring are published in line with the Council’s current Performance Management Framework.
7.0 Implications
Financial, Resources and Procurement
7.1 There are no financial implications associated with this report. However, strategic risks can relate to financial issues and are considered as part of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan, budget preparation and monitoring process.
Human Resources
7.2 There are no human resources implications associated with this report.
Legal
7.3 There are no legal implications associated with this report.
Health, Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4 Have you completed a Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment? No
7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: Reporting performance has a positive impact on health, social, economic and environmental needs.
7.6 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts: No negative impacts.
Equality and Diversity
7.7 Have you completed an Equality Impact Analysis? No
7.8 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: Reporting performance has a positive impact on equality and diversity needs.
7.9 Summary of equality and diversity impacts: No negative impacts.
Risk
Risk Consequence Controls required
For indicators and performance measures not to be monitored, corrective action is not identified early.
Ambitions as set out in the Council Plan are not achieved.
Recommendations for corrective action are implemented.
Good performance is not acknowledged.
Poor morale and performance culture.
Successes are recognised and celebrated.
Contact Officers
Report Author – John Davies, Performance and Risk Officer, 01539 733333, [email protected]
Page 58
Appendices Attached to this Report
(delete if no appendices attached)
Appendix No. Name of Appendix
1 Strategic Risk Register
Background Documents Available
Name of Background document Where it is available
Detailed Performance information – South Lakeland
South Lakeland Website
Council Plan – South Lakeland South Lakeland Website
Performance Management Framework – South Lakeland
South Lakeland Website
Risk Management Arrangements – South Lakeland
South Lakeland Website
Description of Nearest Neighbours Model - CIPFA
CIPFA Website
Benchmarking data - Local Government Association
Local Government Association Website
Economy data - Office for National Statistics Official Labour Market Statistics
Office for National Statistics Website
Health data - Public Health England Public Health Outcomes Framework
Public Health England Website
Tracking Information
Signed off by Date sent
Legal Services 14/09/2018
Section 151 Officer 14/09/2018
Monitoring Officer 14/09/2018
SMT 11/10/2018
Circulated to Date sent
Assistant Director 14/09/2018
Human Resources Manager 14/09/2018
Communications Team 14/09/2018
Leader 11/10/2018
Committee Chairman
Portfolio Holder 11/10/2018
Ward Councillor(s) N/A
Committee 27/10/2018
Executive (Cabinet) 31/10/2018
Council N/A
Page 59
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 60
Appendix 1
1 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Strategic Risks Register - Quarter 2, 2018/19
Introduction Risk Management is an essential element of corporate governance arrangements. The process of risk management allows the Council to identify, prioritise and mitigate risks which may have a negative effect on services. This is an important and underpinning process which ensures good value for money and also continuity of services. Risks are recognised as essential management information and so contribute towards decision making. This document lists all those risks which are considered as strategic in nature – in other words those risks that could have a wide impact or require senior management control. This Strategic Risks Register is reviewed and updated every quarter by Senior Management Team. Risks above the line of tolerance are a priority and so are reviewed every quarter – whilst those below tolerance are reviewed once a year. Strategic risks are by their very nature problematic and so can remain on the register for significant periods of time. Page 2 and 3 of this report explain the risk matrix and layouts used for the risks. Page 4 provides a Risk ‘Heat Map’ which provides an ‘at a glance’ view of the priority risks – those currently in the blue zone and so above the line of risk appetite/tolerance.
Page 61
Appendix 1
2 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
How to understand the Risk Matrix: This register contains the full and complete list of the Council’s Strategic Risks. Each risk is plotted on a risk matrix to show degree of likelihood and impact. The greater the likelihood and impact the higher the priority for management. Those risks which lay above the line of ‘risk appetite’ can be seen in the blue zone of the matrix. These risks are a priority for management and are reviewed every quarter. Risks below the risk appetite, in the green zone, are a lower priority and so are reviewed on an annual basis.
The next page shows how the information for each risk is presented.
Lik
eli
ho
od
High
Medium
x
Low
x
Very Low
Negligible Marginal Serious Critical
Impact
Risks positioned in the blue zone of the risk matrix are above ‘risk appetite’ (high priority) and require quarterly mitigation and management. Mitigation updates are listed for these risks.
Risks positioned in the green zone of the risk matrix are below ‘risk appetite’ (lower priority) and require an annual review in Quarter Four.
Page 62
Appendix 1
3 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
How to understand the layout of each risk in this report
Risk No. & Name The risk name is a concise and clear title for the risk Description A description of the circumstances which help to generate risk
Current Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the current position of the risk.
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: The date when this risk will be considered and reviewed
Target Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the future position of the risk following the completion of mitigations.
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: The date that the risk must reach the target position – through the completion of mitigations.
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
A mitigation is an action which is designed to reduce or eliminate the risk. The mitigation can improve the likelihood or impact of the risk.
A short update on progress made with the mitigation
The person responsible for progressing the mitigation
Mitigations should be implemented by their due dates for the risk to be improved effectively.
History of Risk Improvement
For each risk a history of risk review and improvement is shown: RISK POSITION IMPROVED ↓ = a risk review indicates that there is now less risk RISK POSITION INCREASED ↑ = a risk review indicates that there is now more risk RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ = a risk review indicates that there is the same level of risk RISK IDENTIFIED ● = a newly identified risk is entered onto this register
Risk Owner The person with sufficient authority to control this risk Portfolio the Portfolio that this risk is relevant to
Page 63
Appendix 1
4 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk ‘Heat Map’ - showing the current position of all risks in this report
This matrix provides an ‘at a glance’ view of the priority risks which are positioned in the blue zone and so are above the line of risk appetite/tolerance. Click on a risk to navigate to the right page.
Lik
elih
oo
d
High
Medium
Risk 5 Risk 6 Risk 9 Risk 14 Risk 15
Low
Risk 2 Risk 13 Risk 18
Risk 4 Risk 7 Risk 8 Risk 12 Risk 19
Very Low
Risk 16 Risk 17
Negligible Marginal Serious Critical
Impact
About 73% of risks are now positioned in the green zone - below the line of ‘risk appetite’
Page 64
Appendix 1
5 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Strategic Risks Register
Risk 1 was archived during quarter 1 2016/17
Risk 2
Contracts do not deliver the standards of performance required within the contract fee agreed. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Annual – end of March
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Mitigations are not applicable as this risk is below tolerance.
n/a n/a n/a
History of Risk Improvement
This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change as the Council has three new major contracts. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Review indicates that the current risk remains the same in terms of likelihood and impact.
Risk Owner Assistant Directors Portfolio Finance Portfolio
Page 65
Appendix 1
6 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 3 was archived during quarter 1 2018/19
Risk 4
Affordable housing targets are not met. Description There is a risk that the Council may not achieve the Council Plan target: ‘By 2025 we will have enabled with the private sector the development of 1,000 new affordable homes for rent’. The Council will need to enable delivery of new affordable and open market housing particularly through private sector led development across the district. Performance is influenced by New Homes Bonus and Local Government Financing. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Annual – end of March
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Mitigations are not applicable as risk is below tolerance
n/a n/a n/a
History of Risk Improvement
This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - This risk will be retained on the register to allow regular monitoring.
Risk Owner Assistant Director Strategic Development Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio
Page 66
Appendix 1
7 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 5
Impact of the Welfare Reform on communities
Description Welfare reform is a major element of recent government spending cuts - resulting in significant changes to taxes and benefits. Universal Credit may have an impact on the level of benefits. Welfare reform therefore impacts on low-income tenants and social landlords. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Annual – end of March
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Mitigations are not applicable as this risk is below tolerance.
n/a n/a n/a
History of Risk Improvement
This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - The risk will be retained on the risk register whilst there is a potential for impacts.
Risk Owner Assistant Director & Chief Finance Officer Portfolio Culture, Wellbeing and Leisure Portfolio
Page 67
Appendix 1
8 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 6
Medium Term Financial Planning – delivery of a balanced budget Description Current and future years proposed budget reductions (expenditure and income) are not achieved. Future year’s budget reductions (expenditure or income) are not identified. Significant existing income sources are not protected or effectively managed. Income from Central Government is reduced above the current assumptions. NDR income assumptions are not achieved. Other key factors are the Spending Review 2019-2022, Business Rates Retention, the Second Homes agreement with Cumbria County Council and the Fair Funding Review. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Quarterly
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date Annual – end of March
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
MTFP assumptions are reviewed, updated and reported on a quarterly basis
Mitigation is in place and on track Assistant Director of Resources (Section 151)
Each quarter
Options to resolve any issues are provided to the Cabinet each quarter
Mitigation is in place and on track Assistant Director of Resources (Section 151). Assistant Directors Directors
Each quarter
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - The annual statutory requirement has been met however longer term goals will require continuous monitoring. Q1 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change however uncertainty over future funding may influence future risk position. 02/08/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - At the request of Audit Committee SMT reviewed the current position of this risk – deciding that the
Page 68
Appendix 1
9 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
existing position is appropriate. Q2 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to risk position.
Risk Owner Assistant Director & Chief Finance Officer Portfolio Finance Portfolio
Page 69
Appendix 1
10 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 7
Information Management is not effective Description The Council is required to have effective information governance procedures. It will be necessary to manage corporate information by implementing processes, roles and controls - including GDPR and the Data Protection and Information Security Policies. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Annual
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/12/18
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Continue to reinforce key standards and policies via regular communication. Ensure Managers are appropriately trained and requirements are clearly set out in Job Descriptions and reinforced via appraisals. Ensure Internal Audit findings are acted on in a timely manner.
This mitigation added on 11/11/15. Update 07/06/17: Training schedule in early draft. Key standards to be agreed by Customer Connect Programme Board in autumn 2017 Update 14/12/17: Training schedule designed and on target to be delivered, in line with board approval, for end of 2018. 60% of staff to receive e-learning by end of July 2018, remaining 40% by end of December 2018.
Principal Performance and Intelligence Officer
31/12/18
Clear and ongoing communications to staff to reinforce policies and protocols. Regular review and monitoring of arrangements
This mitigation added on 11/11/15. Update 07/06/17: Training schedule
Principal Performance and Intelligence Officer
31/12/18
Page 70
Appendix 1
11 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
across services by Operational Managers supported by Information Security/ Governance Teams in Policy & Partnerships and ICT.
in early draft. Key standards to be agreed by Customer Connect Programme Board in autumn 2017. Update 14/12/17: Training schedule designed and on target to be delivered, in line with board approval, for end of 2018. 60% of staff to receive e-learning by end of July 2018, remaining 40% by end of December 2018.
The Information Governance (IG) Framework was approved by Cabinet on 16 September 2015 and provides the structure to govern how the Council captures, creates, accesses, secures, manages and shares its information both internally and externally. In line with Customer Connect Programme, the Council had to its approach to information governance.
This mitigation added on 07/06/17 In order to implement the Information Governance Framework it is proposed that a learning package deliverable is created. It is proposed that the learning package deliverable will be 100% e-learning. Scope will be provided to design and develop workbooks for those members of staff without access to ICT equipment.
Principal Performance and Intelligence Officer
31/12/18
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Mitigation due dates updated in line with Information Governance Board Highlights Report 14/12/17. This risk is remains within risk tolerance. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - review indicates no change at this time, relevant mitigations are in place.
Risk Owner Assistant Director Performance and Innovation Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio
Page 71
Appendix 1
12 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 8
The infrastructure required to deliver the Council Plan priorities is not provided. Description Infrastructure is required to support businesses and housing development objectives. The Council will need to implement the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to provide funding stream for infrastructure delivery. There will need to be protocols for CIL Governance and an up to date Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Due to the impacts of Storm Desmond there may be implications associated with future flood resilience measures and infrastructure repairs. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Quarterly
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Annual update of Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Review largely complete to be reported to Cabinet. Update 21/12/16: approach to meeting education needs in Kendal being worked up by Cumbria County Council. Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be reported to Cabinet in March 2017. Update 04/04/17: extra time required for education aspect due date extended to 31/05/17 Completed. Updated Infrastructure
Development Strategy and Housing Manager
01/12/16 Amended to 31/05/17 Completed 13/09/17
Page 72
Appendix 1
13 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Delivery Plan reported to Cabinet on September 13th. Significant progress on infrastructure delivery including: • Kendal highways and transport improvements (£3.4m) • Ulverston junction improvements (£4.5m) including access to Lightburn Road employment site through Blue Light Hub. • The development of a funding package to deliver a new roundabout at Swarthmoor to enable housing development at Swarthmoor and Croftlands.
Development of protocols for CIL Governance. To be reported to Cabinet Update 21/12/16: CIL Governance Protocols will be reported with Infrastructure Delivery Plan to Cabinet in March 2017. Update 04/04/17: extra time required for education aspect due date extended to 31/05/17 Completed. CIL Governance arrangements approved by Cabinet on September 13th.
Development Strategy and Housing Manager
01/12/16 Amended to 31/05/17 Completed 13/09/17
CIL Review proposed as part of Development Management Policies process.
To be undertaken when draft Development Management policies are consulted upon in Autumn 2016. Update 21/12/16: Viability study scheduled for mid 2017 – will update
Development Strategy and Housing Manager
01/03/18 Completed
Page 73
Appendix 1
14 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
viability position in relation to affordable housing, CIL and impact of Development Management policies. Update 04/04/17: Viability study Commisioned. Update 13/03/18: Viability study completed.
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. There has been positive progress and further collaboration with partners on infrastructure needs is required. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Updated evidence, in support of the new development management policies, on viability has concluded that development can support current levels of CIL. The results of examination will inform the future position of this risk.
Risk Owner Assistant Director Strategic Development Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio
Page 74
Appendix 1
15 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 9
Essential strategic partnerships required to deliver the Council Plan do not operate effectively. Description Where necessary robust agreements will be needed. Also opportunities and resource implications should be identified. Partnerships will need to work supportively to achieve Council Plan objectives. The introduction of NHS STP’s and the movement of South Cumbria CCG’s into Lancashire/Morecambe Bay in April 2017 requires new strategic partnerships to be formed with these groups to ensure SLDC and its communities gain maximum benefit from any changes. This risk applies to all our strategic partnerships, such as the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), CCC, LDNPA and Morecambe Bay Economic Partnership as examples. The risk is not specific to any one initiative or approach from partner organisations, rather the strategic direction and policies that they take and make, and their correlation to SLDC achieving its aims and objectives through its Council Plan. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Annual
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Monitor resource, cost and reputational impact with established strategic partnerships
No cost implications to the council in maintaining partnerships
CEX 31/03/19 annual review
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - There is a meeting planned for political leaders and officers within the 1st qtr of 2017/18 to raise and discuss this issue across partners and Morecambe Bay authorities. A governance review of the Cumbria LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) is also underway. Positive collaborative relationships are being seen with Cumbria County Council locally, with Joint Districts in Cumbria, and now as a partner in the Northern Powerhouse Partnership at an Officer level. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk.
Page 75
Appendix 1
16 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. Risk description updated to include additional examples of strategic partnerships. Q1 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. There have been recent developments that may affect our essential partnerships in helping delivery of the Council Plan 2014-19. This includes 1. Local Government reorganisation and 2. Morecambe Bay Economic Partnership - further political and managerial influence is required to ensure that one or more of the partners keeps upto date with actions. Q2 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. Officer representation on the Morecambe Bay CCG has now been offered and accepted. Meeting held with Northern Powerhouse Minister 27/09/18 - Morecambe Bay Prospectus discussed and future meetings agreed with Government departments.
Risk Owner Chief Executive Portfolio Leader and Finance Portfolio
Page 76
Appendix 1
17 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 10 and Risk 11 were archived during quarter 1 2016/17
Risk 12
Health and Safety management of contracts – records for on site checks
Description of risk Health and safety management arrangements require a review for officer led contracts. Officers that are managing contractors are required to make safety checks and keep records. Safety checks should be proportional to risk. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Next Review Date Annually in quarter 4
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date Target met
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Contracts Management Health and Safety training is provided
Completed Principle Health, Safety and Wellbeing Officer
09/04/15 Completed
Officer leads carry out onsite H&S monitoring which is proportionate to the risk
ongoing All staff managing contracts Ongoing requirement
Officer led contracts are subject to spot checks for onsite monitoring records.
Q4 2015/16: Initial assessment indicates that evidence exists for H&S checks Q3 2016/17: A second assessment identifies training needs
All managers with contracts.
Completed.
Promote training on active monitoring Building/property and all external contractors to be involved in the training. Further training ‘Control of
All Managers with contracts 13/04/17, further training sessions to be completed by end of Qtr 1 2017/18. Completed 24/10/17.
Page 77
Appendix 1
18 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Contractors’ completed on 24/10/17.
Further spot checks to be made for records of onsite contractor safety
Mitigation added following SMT review on 06/07/17. Completed
Performance and Risk Officer 01/10/17 Completed
A further review will be completed by Assistant Directors in October 2017
Mitigation added 12/10/17. Update 05/04/18: Completed
Assistant Directors 01/11/2017 Completed
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ – impact reduced to reflect completion of training however likelihood increased to maintain the risk position as above tolerance ensuring regular quarterly reviews - and the focus on spot checks for evidence of on site safety monitoring. Risk name updated for the focus on records of onsite checks – likelihood medium and impact serious. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Additional mitigation added. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Review is near completion and indicating positive results - will inform quarter four update. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION IMPROVED ↓ = Review indicates that this risk has now reduced in terms of likelihood to target position. Risk is reduced due to health and safety performance, training provided and availability of resources. This risk is now below tolerance and will be reviewed annually during quarter four.
Risk Owner Chief Executive Portfolio Finance Portfolio
Page 78
Appendix 1
19 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 13
Impact of new projects and initiatives on existing Council Plan priorities
Description of risk There is a risk that new projects and initiatives take the resources required by other projects and initiatives currently in the programme. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Next Review Date Quarterly
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Ensure that potential new projects and initiatives are subject to a pre-assessment which measures their priority
Completed and ongoing requirement. Update 10/11/16: Reinforce the assessment and prioritisation of new projects – review in six months. Update 18/01/18: the assessment and prioritaisation of projects is an ongoing requirement.
Director of People and Places Ongoing requirement
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change however to be reviewed at quarter three subject to prioritisation of resources. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION IMPROVED ↓ - Review indicates that likelihood is low with existing controls. Controls will continue to be applied including prioritisation against Strategic Projects Log.
Risk Owner Director of People and Places Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio
Page 79
Appendix 1
20 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 14
Unintended impacts of efficiencies and service changes Description of risk New efficiencies and changes brought about by one service or another organisation can have unintended negative impacts on the efficiency and running of another service – especially if proposals are not consulted on until to late in the process. These impacts can increase the cost of running other services. Focus required on the expiry of the Second Homes agreement between Cumbria County Council and South Lakeland District Council. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly
Next Review Date Annual – end of March
Target Position of Risk
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
This risk is managed via the Service Planning and Budgeting processes.
Completed Operational Managers Senior Management Team
Mitigations in place within existing Service Planning and Budgeting processes.
Promote early discussions on potential change with external parties
New mitigation on 10/11/16 06/07/17: Mitigations underway and ongoing
Director of People and Places
In place and ongoing requirement
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Mitigations are in progress. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change – this risk is linked to ‘Risk 15: Customer Connect’. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Review indicates no change due to period of organisational change and ongoing partnership discussions. Q1 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Review indicates no change for the reasons listed previously at Q4 2017/18. Target date reviewed and set to 31/03/2019.
Page 80
Appendix 1
21 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Q2 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Review indicates no change to position of risk.
Risk Owner Director of People and Places Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio
Page 81
Appendix 1
22 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 15
Customer Connect Programme Description The programme fails to deliver what’s set out in the programme definition and customer contact strategy. Customer Connect is a challenging programme that requires significant change to ways of working for staff across the Council. The Programme Board manages the Customer Connect Risk Log on a regular basis. Mitigations are in place for the risks and the main challenges to the programme are: Scope and Ambition, Staff resources and capacity, Skills and Workforce Planning, Buy in from Customers and Training and development for staff and Councillors. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the current position of the risk.
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: Each quarter
Target Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the desired position of the risk following the completion of mitigations.
Like
liho
od
X
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
The programme is being managed via the Programme Board with resources identified to deliver year 1 and 2 of the programme.
Financial resources are set aside for the programme, but there is a requirement to identify all the staff needed over the next two years to support the projects Update 07/06/17: In May 2017 membership of the Programme Boards was revised and updated to reflect the additional roles required to deliver the various projects within the programme.
Partnerships & Organisational Development Manager
01/07/2017 Completed
Page 82
Appendix 1
23 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Update 05/06/18: An external partner is providing assurance to the programme using experience gained from similar transformation programmes. Update: 05/07/18: Revised business case to be considered by Cabinet on 18/07/18 and Council on 24/07/18. This sets out a number of risks which will be managed as part of the programme. Update: 26/09/18: Business Case approved and implementation underway. Significant progress in all workstream areas. Staff appointed to programme roles. Programme Board meets weekly. Audit Committee reciving regular reports. Management Structure due to Cabinet on 10/10/18.
There is a risk log for the programme
SMT have ownership of all the risks and identified mitigations - completed.
Projects & Innovation Officer 15/04/2018 Completed
All risks on the Customer Connect risk log were updated during April 2018. The risks are reviewed at each Board meeting and are managed accordingly.
All risks above the line are being managed and have mitigations in place to reduce the likelihood. The Senior Responsible Owner has taken direct responsibility for managing the partnership
Partnerships & Organisational Development Manager
Reviewed weekly by the Programme Board
Page 83
Appendix 1
24 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
arrangements with Eden.
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Mitigations updated. Q2 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Mitigations updated on 26/09/18.
Risk Owner Assistant Director Performance and Innovation - Senior
Responsible Owner. Portfolio Housing & Innovation and Council Organisation and
People
Page 84
Appendix 1
25 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 16
Waste Collection – Reversing Manoeuvres Description Management of waste collection vehicle manoeuvres on recycling and waste collection rounds. There are many practical and advanced technological safety precautions in place including the following: Waste collection rounds have risk assessments and safe systems of work in place. All drivers and crews have been trained. All rounds are monitored to ensure that safe systems are adhered to. Vehicles have advanced technologies fitted e.g. reversing CCTV and sophisticated radar to assist the driver and crews manoeuvre safely Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the current position of the risk.
Like
liho
od
x Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: Each quarter when above the line of risk tolerance
Target Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the desired position of the risk following the completion of mitigations.
Like
liho
od
X
Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: 31/03/17
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Maintain and keep up to date the Safe System of Work, inspections and the utilisation of risk reducing technologies.
In progress and reviewed by the Street Scene Health and Safety Working Group on a quarterly basis
Street Scene Manager Ongoing requirement
Commission specialist support to assist in the completion of a further review of vehicle movements including reversing on private drives, private roadways and narrow access highways
Update 17/11/16: Support commissioned and interim report received. Considering key actions for the service within operational health and safety plans. Completed.
Street Scene Manager 31/12/16 Completed.
Page 85
Appendix 1
26 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Implement the priority findings of the above review
Specific Action plan has been developed to implement the findings of the review. High Priority Areas have been identified and the implementation of necessary changes commenced and planned for completion by amended due date of 31/12/17. Completed.
Street Scene Manager 31/12/17 Completed.
Implement the lower priority findings of the above review
Planned for completion by 31/12/17. Update 15/01/18: lower priority findings will now be completed by 31/03/18. Update 13/03/18: Now complete. There will be an ongoing review of all manoeuvres as part of business as usual arrangements.
Street Scene Manager 13/03/18 Completed
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change – work is in progress. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - All Ulverston rounds have been assessed and mitigating measures introduced. Results have been provided to the Health and Safety Committee 15th January 2018. Some lower priority areas remain pending with completion expected before end March 2018. Risk position remains the same until all reversing manoeuvres are assessed and mitigating measures have been implemented as required. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION IMPROVED - ↓ - Review indicates that risk has been reduced to the target position due to completed mitigations. Decision made not to archive risk in order to maintain awareness.
Risk Owner Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services Portfolio Environment Portfolio
Page 86
Appendix 1
27 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 17
Cyber Security incident Description There have been many high profile examples of cyber security breaches across the World and in the UK recently. The Council has effective security in place to protect data and deliver services - however threats are becoming ever more sophisticated and organisations need to be one step ahead. Cyber-attacks can cross international boundaries and may be initiated by organised criminal groups, lone individuals or be state sponsored. Cyber criminals are broadening their efforts towards UK citizens, organisations and institutions. Terrorists are conducting low-level attacks and aspire to carry out more significant acts. Examples of threats are Botnets, Distributed denial-of-service, Hacking, Malware, Pharming, Phishing, Ransomware and Spam. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the current position of the risk.
Like
liho
od
x Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: Quarter Four each year
Target Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the desired position of the risk following the completion of mitigations.
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Cyber security actions within the ICT Risk Register
Cyber security actions are on track
Shared IT Service Manager In line with cyber security due dates
Review of Insurance Mitigation added 12/10/17 Update 15/01/18: Predicted complete by 31/01/18 for insurance renewal deadline.
Financial Services Manager Deputy Section 151 Officer
31/12/17 Completed
History of Risk Improvement
For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. RISK IDENTIFIED ● = Audit Committee of 26/07/17 suggested that the Information management risks should be split to create this separate risk for Cyber Security. Agreed on 08/08/17 by the Monitoring Officer. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates likelihood very low and impact critical. Additional insurance mitigation
Page 87
Appendix 1
28 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
added. ICT maintains up to date software patches. Staff have guidance on how to keep IT Networks Secure and what to do if a virus or malware is suspected. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - The risk remains very low. ICT continue to maintain security related Microsoft updates, virus software updates and follow industry best practice. Business Continuity arrangements are strengthened.
Risk Owner Assistant Director Performance and Innovation Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio
Page 88
Appendix 1
29 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 18
Potential reduction in income from the disposal of recyclable materials as a consequence of market changes affected by China’s waste policy Description China has made a decision to receive only very low contaminated recycled waste. As a consequence there will be very large quantities of waste across the UK and other international countries that will not be eligible for sending to China. Without an alternative outlet for large quantities of contaminated recyclable waste the value of this waste will fall significantly. South Lakeland District Council’s waste collection approach is to separate recyclables in a way that mitigates against contamination and maintains a high quality product so may be less affected by new policy from China. The advantageous position that South Lakeland has is confirmed in a recent APSE report. However the income provided from waste recycling is significant and would have a large impact on services should it be reduced drastically. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Current Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the current position of the risk.
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: Quarter Four each year
Target Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the desired position of the risk following the completion of mitigations.
Like
liho
od
X
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: 31/03/19
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
The Council already has legally compliant, waste recycling processes in place that minimise contamination.
Complete and in place Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services
Complete and in place
The Council continues to maintain a high Ongoing Community and Leisure Manager with Ongoing
Page 89
Appendix 1
30 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
profile message to residents to avoid contamination of recyclable materials placed out for collection.
assistance from Communications Team
History of Risk Improvement
13/03/18: RISK IDENTIFIED ● = This risk identified by Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services and Community and Leisure Manager. Risk prepared for escalation from operational level to Senior Management Team and approved for inclusion on the Strategic Risks Register.
Risk Owner Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services Portfolio Environment Portfolio
Page 90
Appendix 1
31 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Risk 19
Business Continuity: Flu Pandemic - Loss of people, skills and supply chain disruption Description Flu Pandemic is listed with the top three risks and rated ‘Very High’ in the Cumbria Community Risk Register. This is because the new virus would be an unknown quantity - therefore people will have no immunity and effective antivirals may not be available for six months. In addition to this all services will be affected by staff absences at a time when demand will increase on services. Planning assumptions for the reasonable worst case scenario:
Clinical attack rates of up to 50% of the population in total, spread over one or more waves each of around 12 – 15 weeks. Peak clinical attack rate Locally, 10% - 12% of population per week
Small teams within larger organisations should plan for 30-35% absenteeism in addition to usual absenteeism levels on any given day.
Staff will be absent from work if:
They are ill with flu.
They need to care for dependants who are ill with flu
They need to care for children due to school closures
They have non-flu medical problems
Their employers have advised them to stay away from work
This may be unevenly distributed throughout organisations
They will require time for dealing with personal bereavements with an increase in compassionate leave and stress
They fear becoming ill
Current Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the current position of the risk.
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: Quarter Four each year
Target Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the desired position of the risk following the completion of mitigations.
Like
liho
od
x
Impact
Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: 31/03/20
Page 91
Appendix 1
32 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19
Impact: Absenteeism levels in small teams within Large Organisations at 30-35%. Flu Pandemic would place an unprecedented demand on local authorities, Police, Coroner and undertakers. It is likely that schools would be closed causing further absences from work. It is highly likely that mutual aid would be difficult. All the above issues and many more were highlighted during the multi-agency Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise on 03/07/2018. Business Continuity was highlighted as key for meeting statutory obligations. A number of effective Business Continuity mitigations are in place - however there is an opportunity following the Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise to enhance Business Continuity Plans with mitigations learned during the exercise. Back to ‘Heat Map’
Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date
Capture and implement the recommendations and mitigations identified within the Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise report.
Awaiting Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise report.
Performance and Risk Officer Capture by 01/12/18 Implement by 31/03/20
Benchmark with Cabinet Office ‘Flu pandemic Checklist for businesses’ and include actions within Business Continuity Plans where necessary.
Benchmarking with checklist is underway
Performance and Risk Officer Necessary actions included in Business Continuity Plans by 01/12/18
History of Risk Improvement
13/03/18: RISK IDENTIFIED ● = This risk identified following Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise 3rd July 2018. Escalation agreed to the Strategic Risk Register. Risk reviewed on 16/08/18 as below risk appetite with Likelihood Low and Impact Serious. 27/09/18: Mitigations improved and updated.
Risk Owner Senior Management Team Portfolio Leader of the Council
Page 92
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
26 October 2018
Executive Report
Portfolio: Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio
Report from: Cllr Giles Archibald
Portfolio Responsibilities Working with partners and stakeholders in the public, private and voluntary sector, at national, regional and sub-regional level. To act as an ambassador and advocate for the Communities of South Lakeland. To represent the Council on local and other strategic partnerships including nominated representative on the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership as appropriate. The development and implementation of the Council Plan. The Council Plan objectives in relation to quality of service and high performance culture. Policies, Plans and Strategies
Council Plan (incorporating the Five Year Strategy)
Performance Management
Equality Scheme
Emergency Plan
Communications Strategy Key Areas:
Community strategy/ area planning/ development of recovery group
Emergency Planning
Performance Management
Local and Cumbria Wide Strategic Partnerships
Relationships with Government Departments and other relevant authorities at a sub-regional, regional and national level
Media and Communications
Page 93
Item No.10
Council Plan The current Council Plan is in place until 2019. A review of the Council Plan has recently taken place with Cabinet, Management Team and lead Operational Managers to discuss the Council Plans future strategic focus. The future Council Plan will run from 2019 to 2024, with updates and ammendments provided each year where appropriate. It is intended that the updated Council Plan will reflect key strategic developments and be made more user friendly for residents, stakeholders and potential investors. The draft plan will be presented at Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cabinet and presented for adoption by Council in February 2019. Community Strategy/ Area Planning and Development of the Recovery Group The Council is continuing to work closely with the Enivronment Agency (EA) as they develop and implement plans to adapt the local infrastructure to protect the communities against the increased frequency and intensity of storms resulting from climate change. The EA recently undertook a community drop in session for members and residents to attend to view the potential flood defence options to be installed across the town to protect residents and businesses from future flooding events. Following feedback from the EA the event was successful and positive feedback received. Emergency Planning South Lakeland District Council is supporting Community Resilience Groups by ensuring that they receive situational awareness information at the earliest opportunity. The Council is continuing to work with the Resilience Unit and other agencies to formalise how the multi-agency response will communicate with Community Resilience Groups. Responding agencies are currently working together to formalise the Multi-Agency Intelligence Cell (MAIC) – this will collate intelligence during an incident and will inform multi-agency responses and enhance prioritisation. Responding agencies have also worked together to provide a facility where Community Resilience Groups can upload their emergency plans and update their contact details. It is hoped that there will also be the opportunity for agency-community communication and community to community networking via this facility. Council Staff have been provided with training opportunities for key emergency roles. There will be Member’s Emergency Role training on 28 November 2018. Performance Management Throughout 2018/18 Performance Management is continuing to focus on the Council Plan measures of success to monitoring progress towards the priorities for South Lakeland. These measures continue to be reported on a quarterly basis to Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet. Local and Cumbria Wide Strategic Partnerships The Council continues to engage with the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and Cumbria County Council through a technical officers group to shape and influence policy and specific
Page 94
strategic documents. The LEP’s annual report will be avaliable to view in the near future, I will ensure a copy is circulated to all members. The Council is continuing to work jointly with Lancaster City and Barrow Borough Councils to develop the South Cumbria and Lancaster Economic Region strategy to enhance economic activity which will benefit all three districts. The Leaders have contacted all the Local MP’s to highlight the vision, outcomes and priorities that the initiative will deliver for the benefit of our residents and businesses. The authorities are currently working together to create a prospectus which can used to promote the economic region to potential investors. The prospectus will address:
Connectivity
Learning and Development
World Class Skills and Innovation
Future Development Opportunites
Business Support
Growth and Prosperity through Housing
Quality of Life Following a recent meeting, the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth Minister Jake Berry MP, stated he wishes to discuss the plans for the Lancaster and South Cumbria Economic Region in greater detail. He also praised the three authorities for taking the initative to work collaboratively. Relationships with Government Departments and other relevant authorities at a sub-regional, regional and national level The Council has continued to raise any concerns to government offices and other relevant authorities surrounding issues that cause the district difficulties. For example as Leader, I have attended meetings in London Ulverston and Carlisle to discuss with Government, Northern Rail and Network Rail the poor quality of the rail service in the County. Following a motion at Council on 24 July 2018 the Chief Executive wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport regarding the recent failings of Local Rail Services, to gain support to prevent future distrubtion. Media and Communications The Council’s communications team continue to keep residents and other stakeholders fully informed about what the council does in a way which supports Council Plan priorities. These messages are dlievered through a variety of channels including newspapers, TV, radio, websites, social media, and other digital platforms. This ensures the Communications operation is merged with Customer Services to provide a consistent joined-up approach to how we interact with the public. Recently there has been increased level of communication around the Customer Connect Project to ensure that staff, members and residents are aware of the upcoming re-strcuture. The Council is providing a number of opportunites to communicate the changes within Customer Connect through 1:1’s, workshops, staff newsletters, various training opportunities, customer connect email address and drop in sessions with the programme board.
Page 95
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 96
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
26 October 2018
Executive Report
Portfolio: Enivronment Portfolio
Report from: Cllr Dyan Jones
Portfolio Responsibilities To take the lead on Waste Management/ Recycling and relevant Council Plan measures under the environment objectives. Providing and maintaining parks infrastructure. To develop and implement a Playground Strategy. Policies, Plans and Strategies
Waste Management Strategy
Air Quality Strategy and action plan
Active Travel Strategy and action plan Key Areas:
Waste Management and Recycling
Streetscene
Community microenergy schemes
Carbon/ Greenhouse gas Reduction
Green agenda – Low carbon reduction
Public realm (Parks and open spaces, including cemeteries)
Page 97
Item No.11
Waste Management and Street Scene
The Council has have been working with Croppers, Cumbria Waste Recycling and the Westmorland County Agricultural Society to look at how coffee cups could be recycled at large events. A working group successfully delivered a trial facility at Country Fest in June 2017 and the Westmorland County Show in September 2018. The working group will continue to look at other future large-scale events where recycling facilities can be provided and continue to engage with the public about waste minimisation and recycling as a whole. The Council has installed 3 litter bins for the segregated collection of plastic and cans, alongside general litter bins, as a trial at 3 locations in Kendal. This will be for a trial period to determine how well-used the bins are, the levels of contamination in the recycling bins; and the operational infrastructure required to provide the service. Since 2015 the percentage of households with plastic and cardboard recycling has risen from 38% to 100% in 2017. In 2017 68% of residents who took part in the Quality of Life survey stated that they are satisfied with waste recycling services. The Waste Management Service is continuing to review the recycling collections and ways to introduce further recycling and effective waste management opportunities. For example the Council is currently trialling sensors in 104 litter bins that measure the fill level of the bin and collate usage data. The software builds a dataset of these usage levels to predict when a bin will be filled and require emptying. The trial has already delivered some success in reducing the number of empties required for bins in the trial area from 80 per day to around 20-25 per day. The nature of any trial is also to highlight any problems that might arise; and this technology has not previously been used in rural areas. As issues arise we are working with the manufacturer to determine the impact on our services and how solutions can be found. In-Cab Technology The Waste Management Service is continuing to work on the procurement of in-cab technology for waste and recycling collection vehicles that will help deliver improvements to customer service and offer opportunities for service efficiencies as part of the Customer Connect Project. Carbon/ Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Green Agenda Throughout 2018/19 the Council is continuing to support the Cumbria Cycling Strategy and remain involved in the Cumbria Cycling Partnership. The Council supported Cumbria County Council in the delivery of the Tour of Britain 2018 which came through the district in September. The Green Team has now been reintroduced to provide leadership in reducing effects of climate change and implement the single use plastic goal. The aim of the green team is to have the responsibility of informing, influencing and implementing actions to reduce the impacts of climate change and reduce carbon/ greenhouse gas reduction. Informative sessions for the community were held throughout the summer 2018 where suggestions were gathered from the communities. From this the Green team are currently establishing an action plan identifying the short term and long term actions the Council can undertake to help mitigate the effects of climate change. The Council was involved in producing a report “Air Quality and Public Health – Reducing Deaths and Ill Health Caused by Poor Air Quality in Lancashire and Cumbria”.
Page 98
The purpose of the report was to: improve awareness and engagement for action on air quality and understanding of everyone’s role in tackling air pollution, building on existing plans and strategies; start a conversation about the ways in which we can work together and hold each other to account for action to improve air quality; and outline potential areas for further action to reduce population exposure to air pollution. This will support the Council’s priority as identified in the Council Plan to influence and encourage others to reduce their carbon footprint as well as reducing our own levels. The Council has reduced the number of Air Quality Management Areas to one across the whole district. The Council has also steadily reduced carbon emissions to 3,488 tonnes in 2017 compared to 4,877 tonnes in 2010. The Green Team will identify actions that can be taken forward to continue the reduction of emissions such as installation of energy saving equipment on Council Assets. South Lakeland District Council are continuing to actively support the Lancaster Canal Regeneration Partnership (LCRP) ambitions to create a fully accessible, multi-user leisure route connecting Kendal and Lancaster along the route of the historic Lancaster Canal. SLDC agreed to grant fund phase one of the project via £140k LIPs grant for path improvements from the outskirts of Kendal to Natland, which is being delivered throughout 2018/19. This funding has also been used to form the basis of further investment funding via applications to Sports England, Heritage Lottery Funding, Rural Development Programme, Fells and Dales Leader, with decisions expected on each of these funding applications throughout 2018. Public Realm The Council is continuing to work with Continental Landscapes Ltd to deliver quality grounds maintenance and support to community groups. Throughout this year the Council is working towards completing various works to upgrade parks and open spaces across the district. These improvements will encourage communities to enjoy outside spaces and encourage active travel throughout the area. Most recently a toddler playground at Howe Bank re-opened following a £45,000 makeover. The works included resurfacing and the installation of new play equiptment. Following a public consultation on four parks within the Kendal area it was clear that residents felt it was important that toddlers have a play space of their own. The Council is also investing in playareas to support adults as well as children by installing Gym equipment. Recently equiptment was installed at Broadgate Meadow, Grasmere through the Locally Important Project funding (LIPs), a fundraising campaign lead by the local community with the support of the Council is currently underway to raise money for a new playground. Another achievement from the Parks and Open Spaces teams is the re-opening of Nobles Rest park following Phase 1 of the improvement works. This phase included the installation of new drainage and pathways as part of a community led enhancement project.
Trees on land owned by SLDC are managed carefully for their amenity value and using a hazard assessment process on a regular cyclical basis; with risk reduction works being carried out in a risk priority basis, where required. The council also carry out tree works to comply with the Highways Act and in the interests of good woodland management.
Page 99
SLDC endeavour to replace any trees that have to be felled with more than were removed, where possible, desirable and depending on the location.
For example in recent years we have worked with Continental Landscapes Ltd to utilise their carbon off set programme and planted whips (small trees) at Kendal Castle and other sites. Approximately 2400 tree whips and 40 standard form trees have been planted since 2015. During the same period 450 trees have been removed. We have not committed to a two for one policy of tree planting in the exact location a tree has been removed or that a standard tree will be planted, due to consideration of space and amenity of the area.
Planting is encouraged and supported on development sites that are coming on stream and where ever possible on our own land holdings, although these are not extensive and limit the opportunity for planting.
The management of our parks and open spaces needs to be balanced with a desire for woodland creation / extensive tree planting, and the team are always considering options to enhance and complement our own parks and open spaces with trees where appropriate.
Page 100
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Friday, 26 October 2018
Property and Land Management Strategy 2019- 2024
Portfolio: Cllr Graham Vincent - Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder
Report from: David Sykes - Director People and Places
Report Author: Sion Thomas – Corporate Asset Manager
Wards: N/A
Forward Plan: N/A
1.0 Expected Outcome
1.1 The expected outcome is that the Property and Land Management Strategy 2018-23 delivers improved management of the Council’s property and land portfolio, maximising its contribution to the delivery of the Council’s priorities whilst aligning resource requirements with the Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Strategy.
1.2 As part of the Strategy’s development, Overview and Scrutiny consider the proposed Strategy, making any recommendation for amendment and its endorsement to Cabinet for approval.
2.0 Recommendation
2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
(1) Considers the draft Property and Land Management Strategy 2018- 2023, including the creation of a Strategic Asset Management Plan Board as detailed within the report, and
(2) Makes any recommendation for amendment to the draft Strategy and endorses the Strategy for approval at Cabinet in November 2018.
3.0 Background and Proposals
3.1.1 The current corporate property strategy needs updating in line with the Council Plan and the overall Customer Connect Strategy. Lambert Smith Hampton (current property service provider) were appointed in October 2016 and completed the asset review of the Council’s building and land estate in December 2017. The asset review is a summary of each asset and sets out what options there might be for future change and recommends a mechanism whereby future plans and programmes of work/investment can be informed and viewed collectively across the portfolio and help identify and avoid conflicts between budget expenditure.
3.1.2 The new strategy will help guide the Council on a more holistic, inclusive approach to the management of its property and land estate following on from the asset review. The overall aim is to ensure investment is prioritised in the right areas given the increasing financial pressure on Local Authorities, to ensure that the Council has a balanced estate having regard to its medium and long term commitments, to ensure
Page 101
Item No.12
that there is a sufficient governance structure in place to allow the estate to flex with ease and consistency and that the decisions are balanced between the need for capital receipts, investment and revenue income generation.
3.1.3 It is proposed that a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) board be set up which would be made up of a variety of officers across finance, procurement and assets alongside Members to give a corporate view on decisions to be taken. The SAMP board will prioritise any building/service review arising from the asset review and the commissioning of any option appraisals, ensure that the area and service reviews of accommodation are completed following the prioritisation of the assets to challenge the retention of underperforming assets, thus ensuring maximum efficiency. The board will ensure that the Council undertakes forward planning for all accommodation needs to ensure that we are planning and not reacting to any changes in the future. The board will continually review how our assets fit in with the Council’s MTFP, the new commercial strategy (which will be taken forward to Council for approval in the coming months) and the procurement strategy, will improve communication and ensure that various stakeholders (e.g. ward members) where needed are fully briefed and their views taken on board.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 The proposed strategy has been the subject of consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Economy and Assets and the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Section 151 Officer, Financial Service Manager, Chief Accountant, Senior Management Team and discussions held with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in April 2018 which helped inform the strategy.
5.0 Alternative Options
5.1 Continue to use the existing asset management strategy. It is recommended that this should be rejected as it is felt that the existing approach to asset management does not provide a sufficiently corporate approach whether that be disposal, investment or acquisition and is not in line with the new Customer Connect strategy approved by Council in July 2018.
6.0 Links to Council Priorities
6.1 The proposed Property and Land Management Strategy itself focuses heavily on the Council Plan and its priorities and this is key in aligning the Council Plan with any decisions made on investment, acquisition or disposals for our property and land estate.
7.0 Implications
Financial, Resources and Procurement
7.1 It is not expected that the adoption of Property and Land Management Strategy will have any direct financial, resource or procurement implications. However, the Council’s financial and procurement strategy is heavily referenced within the strategy and the approach is to have a more inclusive, corporate view of our estate ensuring that we move away from a departmental view on where investment is needed.
Human Resources
7.2 There are no additional Human Resource requirements with the adoption of the Property and Land Management Strategy. The Strategy requires the development of a stronger corporate and more holistic approach to property and land management. This will involve key personnel working differently and collaboratively through the proposed SAMP Board.
Page 102
Legal
7.3 There are no legal implications arising from the adoption of the Property and Land Management Strategy.
Health, Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4 Have you completed a Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment? / No
7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: No Health, Social, Economic and Environmental impact assessment has been undertaken as it is felt that this would be considered as and when specific key strategic decisions are taken with the assets/ estate. It is felt that this would be considered by the Strategic Asset Management Plan board (their purpose noted with the strategy) as part of any building/ project appraisal undertaken.
Equality and Diversity
7.7 Have you completed an Equality Impact Analysis? No
7.8 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: No equality impact analysis has been undertaken as it is felt that this would be considered as and when specific key strategic decisions are taken with the assets/ estate. It is felt that this would be considered by the Strategic Asset Management Plan board (their purpose noted within the strategy) as part of any building/ project appraisal undertaken.
Risk
Risk Consequence Controls required
Loss of control on a corporate level around property and land management leading to poor decisions being made with no reference to the strategy or Council Plan.
Decisions could potentially be made departmentally and in silo form which is against the principle of Customer Connect. Staff and financial resource will potentially be expended with no overarching strategy in place to prioritise the works.
Approve the new strategy and the creation of a Strategic Asset Management Plan board to allow a more holistic approach be taken for property and land management.
Contact Officers
Sion Thomas, Property Services Contract Manager, 01539 793192 [email protected]
Appendices Attached to this Report
(delete if no appendices attached)
Appendix No. Name of Appendix
1 Asset Management Strategy 2018-2023
Background Documents Available
Page 103
Name of Background document Where it is available
Existing Corporate Property Strategy.
http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/s4329/Corporate%20Property%20Strategy%20-%20Appendix%201.pdf
Tracking Information
Signed off by Date sent
Legal Services 04.10.19
Section 151 Officer 21.09.18
Monitoring Officer 21.09.18
SMT 11.10.19
Circulated to Date sent
Assistant Director 21.09.18
Human Resources Manager N/A
Communications Team N/A
Leader N/A
Committee Chairman N/A
Portfolio Holder 21.09.18
Ward Councillor(s) N/A
Committee N/A
Executive (Cabinet) N/A
Council N/A
Page 104
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 1
Appendix 1
Page 105
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2
South Lakeland District Council
Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy 2019 - 2024
Contents 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 3
2. The Purpose of an Asset Strategy ………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
3. The Estate……….................................................................................................................................. 4
4. Self Assessment................................................................................................................................. 7
5. The Property and Land Management Strategy.……........................................................................... 9
6. Conclusion and way forward........................................................................................................... 16
Page 106
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 3
1.0 Introduction
The Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy aims to support the Council’s overall vision
for the District: “Making South Lakeland the best place to live, work and explore”.
The Council Plan sets out the strategic approach to how the Council will shape delivery of the
desired outcomes. The priorities will be delivered by ensuring we are equipped to provide the best,
most cost effective services through:
- a flexible and skilled workforce
- our community leaders
- a sustainable budget
- improved customer engagement and communication.
The Council Plan details the Council’s current corporate priorities, which are:
- Economy: “Enabling and delivering opportunities for sustainable economic growth”.
- Housing: “Providing homes to meet need”.
- Environment: “Protecting and enhancing our place”.
- Culture and Wellbeing: “Improving wellbeing, reducing inequality and supporting cultural
activities”.
The Council has a long term ambition for “1000 jobs and 1000 affordable homes for rent”. A number
of major strategic reviews are currently underway including:
- Customer Connect programme to create a single view of the customer to put them at the
heart of everything we do and enable them to have better access to services at times which
are more convenient to them.
- Review of corporate assets including South Lakeland House.
- Implementation of housing alternative funding model;
- The Kendal Town Centre Masterplan;
- The Leisure Facilities Strategy and future of Ulverston Leisure Centre;
- The implementation of the Environment Agency’s Kendal Flood Relief Scheme, a major
programme which will require the engagement of the Council as owner of land, local
planning authority and as accountable body for elements of external capital funding which
may be applied in the Scheme;
- The Economic Development Strategy for South Lakeland, and the wider Morecambe Bay
functioning economic, housing, health and travel to work area. These may require changes
in current spending and funding plans. The Council is committed to working with partners
and other key stakeholders to deliver services within South Lakeland. This includes
- Formal arrangements, such as Cumbria Local Economic Partnership (LEP), Cumbria Business
Rate Pool;
- Agreed joint statement of intent of collaborative working with the Borough of Barrow in
Furness and Lancaster City Council on economic development and other related initiatives;
- Formal contractual arrangements as a result of competitive tendering;
Page 107
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 4
- Transfer of assets or management of assets between organisations;
- Sharing of premises;
- Informal collaborations.
Some shared arrangements exist for providing services within the organisation: currently South
Lakeland shares IT with Eden District Council and are jointly implementing the digital element of the
Customer Connect programme.
The Council’s assets are a common thread through these strategic reviews and with the commitment
that the Council has given these reviews above, it emphasises the need to have a new dynamic land
and property management strategy to ensure that any investment in our land/ building portfolio
take into account any financial and resourcing commitments that these reviews will need . It is also
essential that the new strategy is in line with the Customer Connect programme. Further review of
buildings will be needed following the implementation of the Customer Connect Programme.
2.0 The Purpose of a Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy
The strategy will help guide and advise the Council on land and building investment, disposals and
acquisitions. The key points are:
1. Ensuring investment is prioritised in the right areas with the ever increasing financial
pressure on Local Authorities.
2. Ensuring SLDC has a balanced estate looking at the medium and long term commitments of
the Council and in the wider context of other assets in public ownership.
3. Ensuring that there is a sufficient governance structure in place to allow the estate to flex
with ease and consistency.
4. Ensuring that the decisions achieve a balance of requirements for capital receipts,
investment and revenue income generation.
3.0 The Estate
SLDC owns a varied property portfolio that supports a wide range of service delivery throughout the
District. The portfolio has been broken down into a number of key categories as noted below.
Appendix 1 provides an overview of the number of properties divided into geographic area. Each
asset class has a different strategic direction, summarised below;
Agricultural Land
Agricultural land holdings include a range of tenancy types from short term grazing tenancies to
woodlands and leases on Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies. The strategy is to maximise the
income from land holdings and where appropriate seek to invest in land holdings where additional
income can be generated.
Allotments
Page 108
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 5
Majority are statutory allotments. Not able to move or dispose without re-provision and grant of
Secretary of State Approval. All let to local Town Councils.
Bus Shelters
Bus Shelters: Majority were passed to Town Councils in last 10 yrs. There are four remaining on
SLDC’s asset list, it is proposed to transfer the remaining four to Town Councils.
Car Parks
Car parks provide a strong and stable income stream for SLDC. The 2018 White Young Green car
parking study will support the development of an investment strategy for this asset class. Long term
investment is required for the Kendal Multi-storey car park. Other ongoing investments are
recommended in the 2017 LSH car park asset review and will be reviewed in the future.
Cemeteries
Under section 214(1) of the LGA 1972 the following Authorities are permitted to be burial
authorities: district councils, parish councils and parish meetings. Under previous service reviews no
direct approaches regarding the transfer of the management of cemeteries were received from any
parish council. Kendal Parkside Road cemetery is reaching capacity and additional land will soon be
required, this is likely to require a strategy involving adjoining allotments. Other Cemetery assets
provide opportunities for investment and alternative uses.
Depots
The strategy for the depots across the District is currently under review with the key option being
the relocation of the Kendal Canal head depot to an alternative site. The depot strategy will require
capital investment for both the primary objectives and secondary needs of infrastructure at
Ulverston and alternative site use at Kendal.
Garages
The majority of garage assets were disposed of during previous years, the residual garage assets
have little alternative commercial value and we will hold for now whilst other properties with the
estate are dealt with.
Historic Properties
The aim is to use or to maintain these assets for community benefit, for instance the monument in
Market Square Kirkby Lonsdale or the War Memorial, Ambleside. Due to their age they are often
viewed as a liability, as there may be planning restrictions on them in order to ensure they are
maintained correctly and preserved for future generations. Where appropriate, opportunities for
community use will be sought for these assets through asset transfers.
Housing General
Page 109
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 6
Limited general housing remains within the property portfolio. Town View Fields homelessness
hostel is recently refurbished and supports a service need for housing. Other assets provide a
present and future opportunity for disposal.
Housing Residual Land
Following the housing stock transfer the residual land left in the SLDC estate comprises mainly green
verges. These assets provide nominal income from crossings, with the potential for minor increase.
It is felt that there is no benefit in looking for alternate options with this type of land.
Lake Assets
This significant asset provides income from both commercial and non-commercial encroachments.
The present and ongoing strategy is to support business and leisure use of the lake for residents,
commercial operators and visitors, whilst providing an important income stream for the Council.
The asset strategy is to develop a more sustainable and predicable income flow where both the
Council and Tenants have a clear understanding concerning rental charges and development
opportunities.
Land (Housing)
Housing land opportunities across the district have been included in the recent search for land sites.
Markets
The management of Ulverston Market has been transferred to a Community Enterprise on a 5 year
agreement from August 2016. The management of Kendal Markets (indoor and outdoor) is due to be
reviewed in 2018/19 with a view to improve and strengthen the market offer in Kendal.
Miscellaneous Commercial
These assets are held for investment purposes and the strategy is to manage them in accordance
with best practice for investment assets; maintaining and growing the asset value through
appropriate investment and enhancement, tenant management, rent and lease management.
Where appropriate additional assets will be purchased and developed to enhance the commercial
revenue to support general fund requirements.
Mowing and Grazing Land
These land asset have been reviewed to consider alternative uses. It is considered that there are
longer term opportunities for future housing land supply and therefore should be held for long term
future benefits.
Outdoor Centre and Leisure Centres
Ulverston Leisure Centre is currently under review for investment with capital support from both the
operator, local businesses and Sports England. Kendal Leisure Centre is expected to require
significant investment in the medium to long term as the asset infrastructure reaches the end of its
technical and economic life.
Page 110
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 7
Parks and Woods
These assets are held for recreation purposes and there is no strategy for changing the use or
management arrangements. The Council will consider opportunities for local parish and town
councils to take on the ownership and management of these assets where there is an appetite to do
so.
Public Offices
The requirement for office accommodation is currently under review as part of the Customer
Connect Programme. This is expected to result in a reduction in the traditional office
accommodation as the Council moves to new ways of working and changes its means of interacting
with the public in the delivery of services. The current review is expected to result in the proposal to
reduce the footprint of the Council at South Lakeland House, providing opportunities for letting
surplus space.
Recreational Land
This land is held for the long term recreation of the residents and visitors to the District.
Toilets
These have been transferred to Parish Councils to manage.
Retail Properties
The Council holds a limited retail portfolio of four properties. The strategy is to manage the assets in
line with best practice with investment in Finkle St to increase revenue streams and improve the
capital value, further opportunities will be considered with these type of properties whether that be
invest and hold or invest and dispose.
Trading and Industrial
The Council holds a limited trading and Industrial portfolio of two estates. The strategy is to manage
the assets in line with best practice. Options are being considered which includes the expansion of
accommodation where the opportunities present themselves or potential disposal if Capital receipts
support investment in other key areas.
4.0 Self-Assessment
It is important as part of the new Strategy to look at how we do things and where we are now to
understand what our strengths are and where we can improve.
Where are we now?
Responsibility for the management of the District Council’s building’s falls to the Director People and
Places. The Director is supported by the Assistant Director Strategic Development and the Property
Services Contract manager. The Property Services Contract manager takes the lead on all asset
management related issues.
Page 111
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 8
The Council awarded the contract to undertake its property services function to Lambert Smith
Hampton (LSH) in October 2016 on a 5 year plus 5 year contract. In essence, LSH deal with all estate
related matters such as lease renewals, lake encroachments, licences and general estate enquiries
through their estate surveying department and all building services, reactive and planned
maintenance works through the building surveying department. The new contract with LSH also
means that we can utilise the property professionals that not only work out of LSH’s Staveley office
but across the UK ensuring that we have access to some of the leading property professionals in the
field. LSH have recently completed the Asset review which gives oversight of each of our assets and
sets out the potential (if any) for each asset.
The District Council has a good understanding of the importance and potential that property can
contribute for both the Council and the people it serves. It also recognises that as a holder of public
assets, it is often in a key position to influence and stimulate change and improvement. For example,
this should be noted when taking into account the Kendal Town Centre Masterplan being drafted by
Aecom on behalf of the Council and the role that the Council can play in the flood development
works to be undertaken throughout Kendal by the Environment Agency.
SLDC has a strong track record of using its surplus assets to help deliver and facilitate the provision
of affordable housing using disposal and the capital receipt programme. This is a key Council priority
and further work has been undertaken to identify surplus assets that could be used and disposed of
for affordable housing. In disposing of assets at an undervalue in order to achieve a policy objective,
SLDC is governed by The Local Government Act 1972 section 123 and 127, and S25 of the Local
Government Act 1988 with regard this matter.
Whole building life cycle asset management is understood but should be utilised further ensuring
that the council’s asset management software is fully utilised. It is recognised that effective asset
management is not just about delivering single projects. The future life cycle of each building should
be known for 25 years in the future so we are confident of its future repair, maintenance and costs
in use and can be more certain with regards long term planning. Work is currently ongoing in this
area.
Audits of all operational buildings are currently underway to ensure that service information from
the previous property service provider is accurate and following the audit, all service contracts will
be tendered and contracts renewed in this financial year. Work is ongoing with the Council asset
management software provider to ensure that the software is up to date and compatible with the
changes to be brought in with Customer Connect. The new software will help streamline the use of
asset management information. Condition surveys will be completed of all operational buildings in
the 2018/ 19 financial year ensuring that the Council has a 25 year forecast for all operational
buildings. The Health and Safety department is working closely with the facilities manager and
Lambert Smith Hampton to ensure that regular workplace inspections and contractor inspections
are undertaken on day to day and capital projects.
The Council recognises that it must look at how it can engage more fully and openly with other
public asset holders, the public through Council ward members and other organisations. We
understand that the asset management needs to become more joined up and be more corporate in
Page 112
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 9
its view and dealings. It will be important to work with a variety of key service areas such as
economic development, finance, procurement, planning strategy and IT to ensure that a wider
approach is taken to ensure that decisions are not blinkered. It is important that further work is
done to ensure that we engage more with our stakeholders who include, ward councillors for the
District Council, Town and Parish Councils, Kendal Futures, Kendal BID and key employers in the
area. It is also important with the emergence of the economic partnership between Lancaster City
Council, Barrow Borough Council and SLDC around Morecambe Bay, that the asset management
departments work closely in line with the One Public Estate ethos.
The Council is currently reviewing its service delivery process through the Customer Connect
programme to create a single view of the customer and enable them to have better access to
services at times which are more convenient to them. This is the time to consolidate SLDC’s assets
and provide a clear strategic approach to asset management.
The Council’s financial position as set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan is as follows: ‘Overall
the Council’s financial position remains strong as shown by the adequate General Fund balances and
reserves, robust financial management processes and an excellent track record in achieving
efficiency savings.’ MTFP 2018. The work on the Property and Land Management Strategy
complements the MTFP and will need to focus on the key projects and prioritise the potential future
capital investment in order for the Council to decide which projects are to be taken forward.
Areas for improvement
Assets are still often viewed as being held departmentally by service providers and this creates a
degree of silo mentality rather than a more corporate approach that will be required much more in
the future and should come easier to us with the introduction of Customer Connect and the move
away from a traditional departmental structure. This in turn will lead to a more strategic approach
with our assets.
Despite planned investment, and a strong capital investment programme, there is still work required
to fully understand the maintenance requirements over a 25 year period of all our buildings. A full
cycle of condition surveys are currently outstanding and is to be addressed in the 2018/19 financial
year.
5.0 The Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy.
SLDC have moved to a position in the last 2 years where it acknowledges that there must be an
ongoing review of its assets to establish whether it has the property assets it needs now and in the
future to meet the requirements of itself and others. It is moving away from the more traditional
position of separate department silo consideration of property assets, and in new initiatives such as
Customer Connect a much more joined up approach and corporate view is taken.
With the ever present pressure on finances faced by the Council and because of the cost to run and
maintain the estate, efficiencies need to be sought to ensure that property is used intensively or
costs to run are reduced through a variety of methods. The challenge for this Council, and the
corporate management team in conjunction with the property services contract manager, is to find
Page 113
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 10
ways of working assets harder, whilst maintaining or creating an environment in which better
services for the public can be delivered.
The strategy to make our assets work harder is:
- To provide greater challenge to their use based on new ways of working and new ways of
delivering services, especially on the back of technological change and the new ways of
working to be brought about by Customer Connect. This will lead to the building being used
to maximum potential, surplus space to be leased out to other organisation/ partners.
- To explore the relationship between the District Council’s assets and other public sector
organisations (One Public Estate), within the same geographical area.
- To challenge services through a proposed Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) board
(noted below) on ways to increase efficiency through new ways of working, using alternate
means to deliver services. An example of this would be the service process review being
undertaken currently as part of Customer Connect.
- To ensure that the buildings are performing to the highest possible standard from an energy
management viewpoint. Look at the potential for Building Management Systems to be
introduced to reduce energy use and drive revenue savings. Where buildings clearly have a
life span of 10 years or more and are unlikely to be declared surplus the Council shall
undertake an energy management audit on the property looking at fabric improvement and
renewable energy technologies.
- To create a clearer and easier governance process to dispose of assets quickly or to other
social enterprises as and when the buildings are declared surplus and to acquire assets
where they meet with the Council plan and provide a revenue stream for the Council.
Finance Strategy
The corporate property and land management strategy must work alongside the Council’s Medium
Term Financial Plan (MTFP). This is a rolling 5-year plan that takes into account:
- The external financial environment.
- The overall financial demands of services.
- The Council’s existing and projected financial resources.
- The Council’s priorities and stated aims in the Council Plan.
- The major service strategies and plans.
The MTFP was last approved in July 2018 and sets the context for the 2019/20 budget setting
process. ‘In common with all the public sector, the medium term outlook for the Council is extremely
challenging and in order to protect and improve services an ambitious and on-going programme of
savings is key to success. The Council has a good track record for reacting promptly to changes in the
financial situation and delivering a longer term approach to savings.’ MTFP 2018.
The Council’s financial strategy is:
Page 114
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 11
- Balanced budgets: Maintain a balanced budget position, and to set a medium term financial
plan maintaining and strengthening that position
- Five year budgets: the Council sets budgets for a five year period.
- Strong financial management: The Council controls and monitors the actual position of the
authority on a regular basis setting out actions to correct any emerging issues;
- Understanding of key cost-drivers: The Council analyses and reviews the key elements of the
service areas including the use of benchmarking;
- Asset maintenance: the Capital Programme should ensure adequate programmes of
maintenance to sustain values of key assets, especially income-generating assets.
- Legal transactions: the approval and adoption of the Council’s Constitution, particularly the
Budget and Policy Framework, Financial Procedure Rules and the Contract Procedure Rules set
foundations for ensuring legal transactions alongside the whole system of internal control
reviewed annually in the Annual Governance Statement.
- Affordable investment; to undertake a prudent level of capital investment to meet the
Council’s strategic priorities and remain within prudential borrowing limits
- Maximise resource base; the Council will ensure the best use of physical and other assets
including staff time;
-Value for money; Continuous review of budgets to ensure resources are targeted on key
objectives and deliver value for money to local taxpayers.
-Working with others: to ensure all services are delivered by the most appropriate body. This
may require the Council to work in partnership or to facilitate provision by other bodies.
- Minimise financial risk including holding reserves as appropriate and sustainable levels of debt.
The Council’s MTFP sets out the approach to setting out the Capital Programme which this asset
strategy will adopt:
1. A longer-term view will be taken of spending needs to balance priorities and resources more
evenly over the life of the capital programme. The Council’s property advisors will be consulted as to
the on-going maintenance programme with the aim being to develop a 10 year programme for
recurring capital costs.
2. Bids for new initiatives which recover the investment in a 5 year period will be prioritised. Capital
Bid documents will be required prior to a scheme being accepted as part of the Capital Programme.
These are to be signed-off by the relevant Portfolio Holder and will be prioritised by Members as
part of developing the 2020/21 to 2023/24 Capital Programme. Bids will be considered alongside
future expected spend on major projects, as indicated in the capital programme.
3. Schemes which attract external funding should be considered in the light of capacity to deliver
these and need to be prioritised with reference to the Council Plan.
4. Existing schemes within the programme will also be reviewed with reference to their progress and
any external funding restrictions.
5. Capital receipts will only be committed once they have been received. Although there are known
sources of capital receipts (e.g. South Lakes Housing VAT Shelter/Right to Buy receipts), future
aspirations will take into account the resources required to support unavoidable recurring costs.
Page 115
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 12
This is a strategic approach to capital investment, and a long term approach is essential to help
manage the Council’s assets and finances. Appendix 2 sets out how any Capital Investment is
prioritised and scored. This prioritisation and scoring relates to all Capital investment bids and is
used to determine where Capital investment will be directed. It is essential that there is joint
collaboration between the property services team and finance.
Capital Strategy
The recently revised Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities 2017 requires local authorities to produce a Capital Strategy that gives a clear and concise view of how a local authority determines its priorities for capital investment, decides how much it can afford to borrow and sets its risk appetite. The Capital Strategy will encompass all forms of capital investment, not just land and property, but the Property and Land Management Strategy will contribute significantly to the overall Capital Strategy. The Capital Strategy is a new requirement and will be brought to Members for approval as part of the budget setting process. Procurement Strategy
The Strategy provides a framework for a strategic approach to procurement throughout the Council.
It emphasises the importance of procurement decisions. It is designed to ensure compliance with
existing procurement legislation, predominantly the EU Procurement Directives, and reflects all
related legislation and national policy drivers including the Social Value Act, Localism Act, advances
in Equalities legislation, National Procurement Strategy, Transformational Government Agenda, the
‘Roots’ Review and the Sustainable Task Force’s Report ‘Procuring the Future’.
The importance of sustainable procurement is emphasised; using procurement to support wider social, economic and environmental objectives in a way that offers real long term benefits. The Strategy is constructed to highlight our commitment to a more sustainable district, and to enable us to demonstrate improvement in delivering sustainable outcomes through effective procurement practices.
Ultimately the Strategy paves the way for the Council’s contribution to the broader public procurement landscape – one which promotes the needs of the South Lakeland community, fosters innovation and efficiency, and uses procurement to develop and shape the local economy. Intelligent procurement is vital not only in improving the quality and cost effectiveness of services
across the district, but in demonstrating the type of authority the Council wants to be and shaping
how we are perceived by our stakeholders. Any decisions on the asset portfolio needs to involve
procurement from an early stage, for instance, through the procurement schedule for capital
programme delivery. It is essential that there is joint collaboration between the property services
team and the procurement team to ensure a successful delivery plan/ programme that can be
achieved with adequate resources in place.
Energy Saving Strategy
With the ever growing concern around global warming and the very real threat this brings, the
Council, as well as all Councils, businesses and individuals, has a big part to play to in trying to make
a difference. The Council promises to reduce the Council’s carbon emissions by reducing our energy
use, through the efficient management of our land and buildings and be an exemplar to others. The
Page 116
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 13
potential impacts of climate change need to be understood for the entire life cycles of all of SLDC’s
property and land assets. Opportunities for each asset should be understood where the asset has a
greater service life of 10 years plus. For each asset, the new strategy will include:
1. Undertaking a comprehensive energy audit which includes:
- Assessing energy usage over a series of years and where data exists, analyse energy usage by
facility and by site management activities / staffing / public use, broken down into
heating/hot water, electricity and lighting. This will enable an understanding of which
activities/facilities are high/low energy users and on a per capita basis for staff / members of
the public.
- Assessing performance of building envelopes (thermal insulation, building tightness, surface
and orientation of the glazed surfaces etc.);
- Assessing behaviour (how the buildings are used and how visitors and staff interact with the
building on a day-to-day basis);
- Assessing efficiency of the existing technical installations and evaluating any existing or
potential energy management systems; quality of the regulation and maintenance of the
technical installations (are the technical installations managed and maintained in such a way
as to maximise their efficiency and minimise their overall usage?);
- Assessing ability to benefit from heat gains in the winter and limit them in the summer.
- Assessing ability to benefit from natural lighting;
- Determine efficiency of electrical appliances and lighting.
- Determine potential for installing automating systems for smart energy management
2. Undertake a renewable energy audit which includes:
Using the findings from the energy audit on energy usage, advising on appropriate
renewable energy system deployment and locations across the SLDC estate. Any work on
SLDC’s estate should be in conjunction with the Council’s upcoming carbon reduction
strategy and works being undertaken by the newly formed Green team.
Whilst any Capital investment is considered on our property and land, energy management must be
a key consideration.
The current asset review and future governance
A thorough property review has been completed in December 2017 to get a good understanding of
the land and building portfolio with suggestions to be considered/ taken forward. It is imperative to
have a full understanding of the estate and the role each asset plays within the Council. It is
important to note that historically any reviews completed have stood still in time. The asset review
completed in December 2017 will be reviewed annually and updated as needed to ensure that the
review is ever in the present and not stagnant. This will allow decisions to be made with real time
information.
The asset review is:
• A summary of each asset and what options there might be for future change.
Page 117
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 14
• A mechanism whereby future plans and programmes of work/investment can be informed and viewed collectively across the portfolio.
• Meant to work alongside the asset data base, not replace it. • It helps to identify and avoid conflicts between budget expenditure.
It is not:
• It is not meant to replace or replicate data stored in the asset management database. • It is not a full business case for each property, but rather a headline summary of what
could be. • In some cases this review has gone beyond the headline, and looked in more depth at
options & possibilities.
A more strategic approach to management of the Council’s assets requires governance
arrangements that reflects the corporate nature of this work. It is proposed that a new Strategic
Assessment Management Plan (SAMP) board is set up to deal with any decisions to take forward to
Senior Management Team and Cabinet and to work alongside the forthcoming Capital Investment
Strategy and MTFP.
Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) board.
As part of the new strategy, the Council following approval of the strategy will establish a Strategic
Asset Management Plan board with the initial membership of the following members and officers:
- Portfolio Holder for Economy and Assets
- Portfolio Holder for Housing, People and Innovation
- Portfolio Holder for Finance
- Assistant Director Strategic Development
- Community and Leisure Manager
- Property Services Contract Manager
- Financial Services Manager
- Procurement and Contracts Manager
- Lambert Smith Hampton (Director Level).
The following sets out how the SAMP board fits into the overall governance structure of the Council and the role the board will play in property and land management Appendix 3. It is important to note that if the Council does approve the strategy and therefore SAMP board, the Council is confirming its intention to take a more strategic approach to the management of its property estate and that this cannot be undertaken in isolation by the property services department. This will allow a more holistic approach to asset management.
- Step 1. Council Policy is set by Cabinet on utilisation of the Property assets and service
requirements.
- Step 2. Council Policy translated into business strategy by Senior Management team.
Page 118
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 15
- Step3. The business strategy is converted into implementation plans with options
commissioned and reviewed by the SAMP board. This step is key to ensuring that the right
projects are reviewed at the right times. It is important that the SAMP board has a 10 year
plus view of the property and land assets and knows what the significant spend profiles are
likely to be so that the SAMP board can plan adequately and utilise staff resources wisely.
Any request for Capital Investment outside of the normal planned and reactive maintenance
fund should be fed into the SAMP board for review and prioritisation.
- Step 4. Options appraisal set by the SAMP board to be undertaken through the Property
Services Contract manager and LSH in conjunction with the service area affected. This means
that a corporate view is taken on what feasibility to undertake and when, and the feasibility
is a joint study with the service area so that it’s clear and transparent to all.
- Step 5. Options appraisal considered and reviewed by the SAMP panel and decision to be
taken as to whether to recommend to SMT and Cabinet for approval. Early involvement
from finance and procurement colleagues will provide greater clarity on what can be taken
forward based on existing commitments and financial pressures. Resourcing will also be
major consideration.
- Step 6. Options appraisal closed down if not taken forward or report produced for SMT and taken forward to Cabinet for authorisation and sign off. New governance arrangements put forward by the new SAMP board to simplify this process to allow for acquisitions where the acquisition meets with the Council plan and MTFP or disposals where the building / land has been declared surplus and will unlock capital for investment elsewhere.
The SAMP board will meet every 6 months and will be responsible for:
- Prioritising any building/ service review following the asset review and commissioning an
options appraisal. This will be from an officer and member viewpoint ensuring the reviews
are prioritised as needed from an operational and political level. Ensuring that resources are
not stretched and that any review is focused and agreed by all members of the SAMP board.
- Ensuring that the area and service reviews of accommodation are completed following the
prioritisation of the assets to challenge the retention of underperforming assets. This is to
ensure that we maximise efficiency.
- Forward planning of overall accommodation needs, space planning and move management
to ensure that we are planning and not reacting to any changes.
- Provide recommendation to Senior Management team on Capital Growth Bids received
annually and to determine if the Growth bid fits in with the asset strategy and future use of
the site following the prioritisation scoring matrix noted in the previous section. Growth
bids to be ranked by the SAMP and in line with capital funding available. Ensure that time is
spent on bids that meet with the Council priorities.
- Continuous review of how the asset and its future operation fits in with the Council’s MTFP
and procurement strategy.
- To work with Legal and Section 151 officer to prepare a new governance arrangement so
that the Council can acquire/ dispose and lease our portfolio easier, quicker and simpler to
Page 119
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 16
reduce unnecessary processes. This is to ensure that assets do not stagnate, that we are
able to seize the moment and make the right decisions at the right time.
- Improve communication between the SAMP board and relevant stakeholders such as Ward
members. To provide relevant members with a toolkit for liaising with the community,
whether that be through a short briefing note, creation of survey that the ward member can
undertake with constituents to allow the SAMP board to understand a range of views from
the public, or a formal briefing session for ward members where the work will affect their
area. This will allow key issues to be dealt with and reviewed as needed.
- Ensuring the property portfolio can assist where possible to enable SLDC to meet the
Localism agenda as the community requires.
- Work with the Morecambe Bay Partnership and other authorities, services to ensure that
SLDC work within the One Public estate ethos ensuring that buildings are used efficiently.
6.0 Conclusions and Way Forward
1. With the new approach proposed above, the Council will link its Council priorities into the
property and land strategy such as housing delivery, carbon reduction, economic
development, health and well-being.
2. The new way of working will lead to a more informed and corporate view of SLDC’s property
and land portfolio and we will move away from a silo approach.
3. The new way of working proposed will encourage collaborative working and importantly
close links through the SAMP board maintained with finance and other stakeholders to
ensure consideration given to MTFP on any future decision on assets. This will allow
resources to be used effectively and time spent in the right areas at the right time.
4. The time is right, following the asset review in December 2017 and with the increased
intensity of the Customer Connect programme, to move to a more strategic approach to
asset management, which will be achieved through preparation and implementation of the
plan.
5. The governance arrangements will provide a more streamline process to speed up processes
and to remove unnecessary bureaucracy and allow the Council to work in a more
responsive, agile and effective way.
Page 120
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 17
Page 121
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 18
Appendix 1
Central Lakes LAP Grange & Cartmel LAP High Furness LAP Kend
al LAP
Low Furness
& Ulverston LAP
Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale LAP
South Westmorland LAP
Upper Kent LAP
Categories
Ambleside & Grasmere
Bowness & Windermere
Cark
Flookburgh
Grange
Broughton
Consiton
Kendal
Ulverston
Sedbergh
Kirkby Lonsdale
Arnside
Milnthorpe
Staveley
Historic 3 1 1 7 1 3 16
Public Hall
1 1 2
Offices 2 2 1 5
Housing 1 2 3
Depots 2 2 2 2 7
Industrial Estates
1 1 1 3
Market 1 2 1 1 5
Store 2 1 1 4
TIC 1 1
Misc Commercial
1 4 2 15 6 2 30
Cemetery 2 3 1 4 2 1 1 14
Public Convenience
1 1 1 2 1 1 7
Leisure & Sports
4 9 1 8 8 6 1 37
Car Parks 7 8 5 12 7 1 3 2 1 46
Affordable Housing
1 2 2 5
Lake 1 5 6
Page 122
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 19
Appendix 2 Ref: Weighting Criteria Score
30 STRATEGIC
A 9 Policy outcome dependency for Economic Council priority - Enabling and delivering opportunities for sustainable economic growth.
No (0), Yes (8), Essential to delivery (9)
B 9 Policy outcome dependency for Housing Council priority - Providing homes to meet need.
No (0), Yes (8), Essential to delivery (9)
C 6 Policy outcome dependency for Environment Council priority - Protecting and enhancing our place’
No (0), Yes (5), Essential to delivery (6)
D 6 Policy outcome dependency for Culture and Wellbeing - Improving wellbeing, reducing inequality and supporting cultural activities.
No (0), Yes (5), Essential to delivery (6)
0 Does the scheme impact on rurality, age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, marriage or civil partnership
Positive impact (+5), negative impact (-5), no impact (0)
25 RISK MANAGEMENT / CONTINUITY OF SERVICE
E 5 Is the scheme consistent with the Property Asset Review? No (0), Yes (5)
F 10 Urgency of investment in order to meet statutory obligations (e.g Disability Discrimination Act, Health & Safety, Security)
Urgent : Year 1 (10), Year 2 (7), Year 3 (5), 4-5 Years (4), 6-10 Years (3), 11 + Years (2), Later Years (0)
G 10 Addressing future business continuity Yes (10); no (0)
5 PROMOTES PARTNERSHIP / LOCALISM
H 5 External 'partnership' and Localism benefits with public, private or voluntary sector
No (0), Yes (5)
40 FINANCIAL
I 20 Spend to Save Initiative - produces revenue savings / additional income Annual net savings per year as % of cost; 1 mark for every 1% to a max of 20 marks for 20% and above.
J 10 Is part funded from externally generated resources (e.g. grants). 0-19% 5 points, greater than this 10 points.
K 10 Maximises external funding eg NHB and Retained Business Rates? No (0), Yes (10)
Total 100
Page 123
PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 20
Appendix 3
Page 124
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Friday, 26 October 2018
Cabinet
Wednesday, 28 November 2018
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy
Portfolio: Councillor Giles Archibald - Leader of the Council
Report from: Simon McVey - Assistant Director Performance and Innovation
Report Author: James McEvoy – Partnerships and Community Project Officer
Wards: (All Wards);
Forward Plan: Budget and Policy Framework Decision included in the Forward Plan as published on 10 August 2018.
1.0 Expected Outcome
1.1 The expected outcome is that the draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy 2019-22 will be recommended for adoption by Council. The Strategy will set new EDI objectives to improve accessibility and inclusivity at SLDC in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.
2.0 Recommendation
2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:-
(1) Consider the draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-22 for commenting upon and making any recommendation to Cabinet;
(2) Subject to consideration of any comments from Overview and Scrutiny Committee, it is recommended that Cabinet recommend that Council adopts the draft South Lakeland EDI Strategy 2019-22 to replace the existing Equality Scheme within the Council’s Policy Framework;
3.0 Background and Proposals
3.1 The draft South Lakeland District Council EDI Strategy 2019-22 (enclosed as Appendix 1 to this report) sets out how South Lakeland District Council (the Council) is meeting the requirements of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. This includes setting out specific equality objectives, as well as containing useful statistics about our communities to illustrate the different needs of people in South Lakeland.
3.2 The Council first adopted an Equality Scheme in 2006. Since then there have been various revisions to ensure the scheme meets current legislation.
Page 125
Item No.13
3.3 The Council last updated its Equality Scheme and published objectives in 2016. The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011, provides that public bodies must publish equality objectives at least every four years. For this reason, and to be in line with the Customer Connect Programme changes, it is proposed that new equality objectives for 2019-2022 are recommended for adoption.
3.4 The draft EDI Strategy includes definitions of the terms Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion. It is recommended to adopt this updated terminology into the title of the new document, and for this document to supersede the current Equality Scheme 2016-19 which sits within the Council’s Policy Framework.
3.5 It is proposed that the draft EDI Strategy will have its performance reviewed annually by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. This will make it a dynamic document allowing responses to emerging needs, such as changing population or rates of digital inclusion.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 An earlier draft EDI Strategy has been taken to the South Lakeland Equality and Diversity Partnership which is composed of interested representatives from the public and voluntary sectors around EDI.
4.2. Any comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be reported to the Cabinet Meeting of 28 November 2018.
5.0 Alternative Options
5.1 No credible alternative to publishing new equality objectives to comply with the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011. The consequences of not approving new objectives would be the increased risk of legal challenge.
6.0 Links to Council Priorities
6.1 This policy update is a policy framework decision that supports good performance with the Council Plan.
6.2 The draft EDI Strategy 2019-22 links to the health and well-being section of the Council Plan.
7.0 Implications
Financial, Resources and Procurement
7.1 The financial implication for the draft EDI Strategy objective 2 action ‘promote the installation of Changing Places facilities in the community and incorporate where we can within our own buildings’. This may be partly accommodated within a capital budget of £50k in 2018/19 identified for Disabled Toilet Improvements and further growth may be required for additional identified funding.
7.2 The financial implications for other EDI Strategy objectives will be included within business as usual or accommodated by existing resources. If additional growth is identified this will be considered in future budgets.
Human Resources
7.2 Employee equality statistics, titled Workplace Profile, are published on the website as part of the public sector equality duty. A link to the statistics is provided in the draft EDI Strategy 2019-22.
Legal
7.3 By producing and publishing an EDI Strategy with objectives, the Council will comply with the general equality duty and the public sector equality duty as set out in the Equality Act 2010.
Page 126
Health, Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4 A Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and attached at appendix 2.
7.5 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts: more accessible and inclusive working environment at SLDC, improved digital accessibility for communications using digital services, EDI training opportunities for all SLDC employees and members.
Equality and Diversity
7.7 An Equality Impact Analysis has not been completed because by its very nature the EDI Strategy is drafted with a view to having a positive impact on equality and diversity.
Risk
Risk Consequence Controls required
Draft EDI Strategy not recommended for adoption so new equality objectives not adopted.
Risk of external legal challenge, not meeting a statutory requirement and potential impact on the Council’s reputation.
EDI Strategy is implemented, managed and monitored.
Contact Officers
James McEvoy, Partnerships and Community Project Officer, 01539 793424, [email protected]
Appendices Attached to this Report
Appendix No. Name of Appendix
1 Draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-2022
2 Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment
Background Documents Available
Name of Background document Where it is available
South Lakeland District Council Equality Scheme 2016-19
http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2902
Tracking Information
Signed off by Date sent
Legal Services 01/10/2018
Section 151 Officer 01/10/2018
Monitoring Officer 01/10/2018
CMT 11/10/2018
Circulated to Date sent
Assistant Director 01/10/2018
Human Resources Manager 01/10/2018
Communications Team 01/10/2018
Leader 09/10/2018
Committee Chairman N/A
Page 127
Circulated to Date sent
Portfolio Holder 09/10/2018
Ward Councillor(s) N/A
Committee 26/10/2018
Executive (Cabinet) 28/11/2018
Council 18/12/2018
Page 128
South Lakeland District Council: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019 – 2022
Appendix 1
Page 129
Contents South Lakeland District Council: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019 – 2022 ........... 1
1. Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy ................................................................ 3
Protected Characteristics .................................................................................................... 3
EDI Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 4
Objective 1 – Make our services accessible to all ............................................................... 4
Objective 2 – Make our buildings accessible to all .............................................................. 4
Objective 3 – Become more inclusive ................................................................................. 4
Objective 4 – Improve our understanding of EDI ................................................................. 4
2. South Lakeland in figures ................................................................................................ 6
Age ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Disability ............................................................................................................................. 6
Race ................................................................................................................................... 6
Religion and Belief .............................................................................................................. 7
Gender ................................................................................................................................ 7
SLDC Employee and Member information .......................................................................... 7
Contact us .............................................................................................................................. 8
Page 130
1. Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy We define ‘Equality’ as treating all people fairly. We aim to create an environment where everyone can participate and has an equal opportunity to fulfil their potential.
We define ‘Diversity’ as recognising that everyone is different, whether these differences are visible or non-visible. We will respect, value and celebrate these differences.
We define ‘Inclusion’ as developing approaches to make all people feel welcomed and valued in South Lakeland. We will proactively challenge discrimination and exclusion and eliminate barriers.
South Lakeland District Council (SLDC), in line with the Equality Act (2010), will:
• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.
• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
• Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
This EDI Strategy will be reviewed annually by the SLDC Overview and Scrutiny Committee to measure our performance against the EDI objectives.
Protected Characteristics • Age • Disability • Gender reassignment • Marriage and civil partnership • Pregnancy and maternity • Race • Religion or belief • Sex • Sexual orientation
We also include “rurality” and “socio-economic disadvantage” as additional categories. Although socio-economic status and rurality are not recognised protected characteristics under the Equality Act, people on low incomes or in rural isolation are highly likely to be affected by services that are intended to support vulnerable people.
More information about the Protected Characteristics can be found on the Equality and Human Rights Commission website:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics
Page 131
EDI Objectives Objective 1 – Make our services accessible to all We will improve our digital accessibility while maintaining alternative channels to accommodate customer needs.
How will we achieve this? • create a Digital Accessibility Policy – this will include roll-out of staff training, integrating
digital accessibility into procurement exercises, conforming to web accessibility framework standards, and providing assistive technology to internal and external customers as required;
• include accessibility in our Digital Strategy; and • consultation with customers – including groups representing Protected Characteristics -
throughout Customer Connect service re-design, and maintaining customer feedback group following the programme finish in 2020.
Objective 2 – Make our buildings accessible to all We will improve the physical accessibility of our buildings.
How will we achieve this? • complete and publish an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Places project in the
Customer Connect programme; • consult with customers and staff - including groups representing Protected Characteristics –
on potential works on our buildings and make necessary changes to improve accessibility through the Customer Connect Programme;
• provide assistive technology to internal and external customers as required; and • promote the installation of Changing Places facilities in the community and incorporate
where we can within our own public buildings.
Objective 3 – Become more inclusive We will support a diverse workforce and continuously aim to improve our inclusive environment for customers, staff and members.
How will we achieve this? • complete and publish EIA for the People project in the Customer Connect programme; • provide assistive technology as reasonable adjustments to internal and external customers
as required; and • maintain Disability Confident Employer status
Objective 4 – Improve our understanding of EDI We will improve the gathering and use of EDI data on customers, staff and members, to better integrate EDI into our decision making and we will promote awareness of EDI issues.
How will we achieve this? • maintain consultation list of EDI contacts with annual review to update; • include EDI monitoring in Quality of Life and Staff Satisfaction Questionnaires; • produce EIAs for all relevant decisions and key policies (e.g. Council Plan, Local Plan) and
publish these on our website. • train all staff and members on understanding EDI and best practice for EIAs; and
Page 132
• publish workplace profile and gender pay gap reports annually on our website. • implement EDI communications plan to promote key dates and events from national and
local calendar. • look to participate in and support projects and partnerships focusing on advancing EDI. • promote EDI in our partnership working, and include EDI requirements in our procurement
processes.
Page 133
2. South Lakeland in figures The below data is the most up-to-date available at District level. Data is not available to breakdown population statisitcs for all Protected Characteristics.
Population - In mid-2017 South Lakeland’s resident population was estimated to be 104,3211. In 2016 18 million visitors came to South Lakeland, of which 85% were day trippers and 15% were staying visitors2.
Over the last ten years the population of the district has increased by 355 residents1.
Age In mid-2017 it was estimated that 13.8% of the population of South Lakeland are aged 0-14 years of age, 58.5% are 15-64 years of age, and 27.7% are aged over 651.
Children and young people It is projected that numbers of 0-14 year olds in South Lakeland will decrease from 2017 onwards to 20411. Between 2017 and 2041, the number of young people aged 0-14 is forecast to fall by 12.0%1.
Working age In South Lakeland the number of 15-64 year olds are projected to decrease by 8,400 (-14%) to 20411.
South Lakeland has the lowest proportion of young and working age people in the county and both are in decline. Since mid-2007 the greatest percentage decrease occurred in the 30-44 age groups (-23.9%)1.
Older people In South Lakeland numbers of residents aged 65+ are projected to increase by 8,300 persons (+28.4%) to 2041.
Since mid-2007 the greatest percentage increase occurred in the 90+ age group (+140%)1.
Disability 18.8% of the population have a long-term health problem or disability, while 4.6% describe their general health as bad or very bad3.
Race 95.6% of South Lakeland residents are White British, 2.8% are White Other, 0.6% are mixed race, 0.8% are Asian, 0.2% are Black, and 0.1% are from other ethnic groups4.
Of Cumbria’s six districts, South Lakeland has the second highest proportion of residents from BAME groups (4.4%).
1 Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2 STEAM Research 3 www.localhealth.org.uk/assets/Documents/Metadata_July2014.pdf
4Census 2011
Page 134
Religion and Belief 68% of residents are Christian, 23% have no religion. 0.4% are Buddhist, 0.2% are Muslim, 0.1% are Hindu, 0.1% are Jewish and 0.4% are members of other religionsError! Bookmark not defined..
Gender 49% of residents are male, 51% are female1.
There is a gender pay imbalance in South Lakeland, the median gross weekly earnings of a male in full time employment is £579, whereas for a female in full time employment the figure is £4792.
SLDC Employee and Member information As of 1 April 2017, SLDC employs 422 staff and has 51 councillors. The workplace profile on our website highlights the employee profile of SLDC compared with South Lakeland as a district:
https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/equality-and-diversity/our-workforce-profile/
1 Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) 3Census 2011
Page 135
Contact us We welcome your comments on the EDI Strategy and these will be taken into account for future versions.
Please visit the EDI page on our website to find out more information, or get in touch using the contact details below:
https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/equality-and-diversity/
Equality and Diversity Lead Officer:
01539 733333
Senior Officer Equality Champion:
HR Manager
Leader and Promoting South Lakeland:
Portfolio Holder
Page 136
South Lakeland District Council
Health, Social, Economic & Environmental Impact Guidance & Proforma
Project, policy or programme:
Health Impacts Potential Impacts
Positive No impact
Negative Not sure
Comments Recommendations
Please tick the appropriate box
Environmental Conditions Air quality
Water quality and pollution
Built environment
Natural environment and biodiversity
Energy consumption/efficiency
Noise
Transport
Recycling
Food production
Social and Economic Factors Employment
Potential increased employment opportunities at SLDC for people with shared protected characteristics – improved accessibility, more inclusive environment.
Income
Poverty
Education, skills and training
Training for all SLDC employees and elected members on Equality, Diversity
Appendix 2
Page 137
Project, policy or programme:
Health Impacts Potential Impacts
Positive No impact
Negative Not sure
Comments Recommendations
Please tick the appropriate box and Inclusion.
Housing
Crime
Work environment
Improved physical and digital accessibility for SLDC employees.
Factors that impact a person’s ability to improve their own health and wellbeing Nutrition and diet
Physical activity
Alcohol
Drugs
Risk taking behaviour
Smoking
Loneliness and isolation
Access to services, spaces or social opportunities that impact health Communication methods
Digital accessibility policy will improve communication both internally and externally at SLDC for those using digital services.
Active travel
Access to leisure
Access to culture
Access to green spaces
Page 138
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny
26th
October, 2018
Review of the local delivery of the property level
flood resilience grant scheme
Portfolio: Cllr Dyan Jones – Environment Portfolio Holder
Report from: Fiona Inston – Public Protection Manager
Report Author: Fiona Inston, Sean Hall and Shaun Senior (Public Protection)
Wards: All
Forward Plan: N/A
1.0 Expected Outcome
1.1 The report provides an opportunity to comment on the ‘review of the local delivery of the property level flood resilience grant scheme’ report. The purpose of the report is to reflect on the flood grant project and provide recommendations to central government on any future roll outs.
2.0 Recommendation
2.1 (1) That the report be received and forwarded to Cabinet with a recommendation that it be circulated to key organisations to highlight the Council’s learning from this process and to help influence future delivery of such grants.
3.0 Background and Proposals
3.1 In December 2015, the Prime Minster announced the roll out of the flood resilience grant up to the value of £5,000 to all householders flooded by Storm Desmond, this was later opened up to businesses. With limited guidance, clarity and any resources from central government, South Lakeland District Council had to roll out a grant project which continued to evolve and had the potential value of £12 million.
3.2 Previous schemes had been administered by South Lakeland District Council so there was expertise and knowledge lying with those officers who formed the flood grant team.
3.3 The flood grant project operated over two years, with 1,397 applications made resulting in a total of £3.4 million in flood resilience works being carried out.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 Internal workshops have been completed to collate the draft report with members of staff directly involved in the delivery of the flood grant project and a feedback session
Page 139
Item No.14
took place with Alder and Allan. DEFRA has been approached for comments but no response has been recived. The draft report was presented to the senior management team on the 27th September 2018.
5.0 Alternative Options
5.1 Not to receive the report or make recommendations.
6.0 Links to Council Priorities
6.1 Making South Lakeland the best place to work and live.
7.0 Implications
Financial, Resources and Procurement
7.1.1 As detailed in the report.
Human Resources
7.2 N/A for this report
Legal
7.3 N/A for this report
Health, Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4 N/A for this report
Equality and Diversity
7.5 No Equality Impact Analysis has been completed.
Appendices Attached to this Report
Appendix No. Name of Appendix
Appendix 1 Report; Review of the local delivery of the property level
flood resilience grant scheme
Background Documents Available
None.
Tracking Information
Signed off by Date sent
Legal Services 12 October 2018
Section 151 Officer 12 October 2018
Monitoring Officer 12 October 2018
SMT 12 October 2018
Page 140
Circulated to Date sent
Assistant Director 12 October 2018
Human Resources Manager N/A
Communications Team N/A
Leader N/A
Committee Chairman N/A
Portfolio Holder N/A
Ward Councillor(s) N/A
Committee N/A
Executive (Cabinet) N/A
Council N/A
Page 141
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 142
South Lakeland District Council
Review of the local delivery of the Property Level
Flood Resilience Grant scheme
October 2018
Appendix 1
Page 143
2
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 4
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4
Context ............................................................................................................................. 4
Summary of Recommendations ........................................................................................ 5
Section one: Scheme set-up ................................................................................................. 5
Performance management ................................................................................................ 5
Evidence of flooding .......................................................................................................... 6
Criteria .................................................................................................................... 6
Use of flood grant data ...................................................................................................... 7
Resilience and Resistance measures ................................................................................ 8
Scope and definitions .............................................................................................. 8
Example of flood resilience measures for a house ............................................................ 8
Quality Assurance ................................................................................................... 9
Surveys ........................................................................................................................... 10
Application form .............................................................................................................. 11
Layout and content ............................................................................................... 11
Information Management System and standard letters.................................................... 13
Contractors and quotations ............................................................................................. 14
Retrospective applications .............................................................................................. 15
Title of scheme ................................................................................................................ 16
Section two: Operational delivery ........................................................................................ 16
Communications ............................................................................................................. 16
Community engagement ................................................................................................. 17
Standard of applications .................................................................................................. 18
Panel, appeals and administration .................................................................................. 19
Inbox and telephone line ................................................................................................. 19
Customer experience ...................................................................................................... 19
Payments ........................................................................................................................ 20
Section three: Strategic Management ................................................................................. 22
Resourcing ...................................................................................................................... 22
Deadlines ........................................................................................................................ 22
Fraudulent claims ............................................................................................................ 22
Vulnerable residents ....................................................................................................... 23
Page 144
3
Sharing of good practice ................................................................................................. 24
Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 24
Performance ................................................................................................................... 25
Internal Audit ................................................................................................................... 26
Value for money .............................................................................................................. 26
Section four: Key partners ................................................................................................... 27
Cumbria Community Foundation ..................................................................................... 31
Insurance companies ...................................................................................................... 31
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 32
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix 1: Table of Recommendations ......................................................................... 33
Appendix 2: Flood Resilience Grant Process Map ........................................................... 37
Appendix 3 – Flood Resilience Grant Process Map ......................................................... 39
Page 145
4
Introduction
Purpose
This report provides a review of the property level Flood Resilience Grant (FRG) scheme
administered by South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) on behalf of Cumbria County
Council for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) between December 2015 and
March 2017 (for applications to be lodged).
The report is an overview of the FRG with the aim of capturing the achievements and
difficulties experienced during the set up and operational phases. The report also captures
learning points and improvements that may benefit either residents/ businesses or other
local authorities delivering the project, if it was to be rolled out again.
This report is considered to be a learning tool to be referenced for the purposes of either
strategic planning by central government or operational management for local authorities
with a view to assisting the planning of any future schemes similar in nature or scope.
The report is based on the review workshop that took place in March 2018 which captured
the lessons learnt from all those at the fore front of delivering the scheme.
Overview
The FRG scheme was launched in late December 2015 to provide grants of up to £5,000 to
homeowners that had been flooded internally as a result of storms Desmond (5/6 December
2015) and/or Eva (25/26 December 2015). In January 2016 the scheme was extended to
cover business premises as well. The district does have a history of localised flooding and
properties that flooded in November 2015 and February 2016 were not able to apply.
The grants were used to fund measures to improve a property’s resilience or resistance to
flooding, over and above repairs that would normally be covered by insurance. The grant
was not intended to cover standard repairs or to provide compensation but to pay for
measures designed to reduce the impact and cost of any subsequent flooding to the
property.
Context
The extreme and unprecedented storms and rainfall events of November and December
2015 caused flooding to an estimated 2,008 domestic and 350 commercial properties in
South Lakeland. Over 70% of these were in Kendal with Mintsfeet and Far Cross wards (as
they were at that time) being the worst affected areas. Flooding events occurred in other
areas of Cumbria as well as Greater Manchester, North and West Yorkshire and Lancashire.
The Association of British Insurance (ABI) estimated the final bill for the flood damage to
homes, businesses and motor vehicles caused by storms Desmond, Eva and Frank to be
£1.3 billion. (Note: Storm Frank happened over the 29th to the 30th December 2015 in
Scotland).
There were significant operational demands and costs for SLDC in the acute phase of the
flood, which included over 600 tonnes of additional waste collected by street scene and
increased environmental health visits to ensure public safety. This involved visiting flooded
Page 146
5
properties and food businesses, and an increased number of residents displaced from their
homes requiring support from the Housing Options team. At the same time, some of the
council’s own assets had been affected including Rothay and Borrans parks (Ambleside),
The Castle Dairy (Grade 1 Listed Building) (Kendal), the façade of Kendal Town Hall and the
Brewery Street car park (Ulverston).
Summary of Recommendations
A summary of recommendations can be found at the end of the report.
Section one: Scheme set-up
Whilst the scheme was announced on 9 December 2015 no guidance and very little
information to assist the Local Authority in setting up the scheme was provided. The Local
Authority attended the launch event on the 15 January 2016 in Manchester where the
intentions of the scheme were presented but no documented guidance was provided until 20
January 2016.
Prior to this date flood affected residents were aware of the government’s announcement,
but neither they nor those tasked with administering the scheme had any specific detail.
Local flood advice events were held, although the specific scheme criteria was unknown.
This avoidable situation resulted in local conflict and thwarted those moving quickly to
reinstate their properties to install appropriate measures from the onset.
No generic application form was provided which initially resulted in the use of forms
designed for previous and materially different schemes (Flood Repair and Renewal Grant
Scheme 2013/4). Only when an in-house form was developed could the relevant information
be presented by applicants. This again was an issue that could have been avoided.
A significant amount of discussion took place about the funding of the project. From the
onset it was outlined that there was no provision to use any of the grant funding to contribute
or pay for the administration of the scheme. Provisions were made to fund the administration
of the project from reserves.
Performance management
From the outset there was external pressure from Central Government focused on the
uptake of grants (performance figures were requested on a weekly basis for the initial few
months) and this placed additional pressure on the team. The target figures also changed
during the project which was seen as a moving goal post. We were focused on getting the
right measures rather than it being a numbers game. The scheme was open for nearly
eighteen months and therefore we preferred the gradual increase in grant applications rather
than a peak at the start of the project.
Similar schemes in the past have had an uptake rate of around 15-20% and therefore it was
unrealistic to be getting significant uptake at an early stage of the project. In addition, there
seemed to be little consideration of local factors, which affected uptake:
Large scale flooding in areas that had never previously flooded and areas where
residents had no expectation that flooding could happen;
The flooding happened at speed, with people caught unaware so few measures were
taken to protect their property and possessions;
Page 147
6
Residents were very anxious, very upset at what had happened or in denial and took a
while to consider long term planning for their properties. Evidence from previous
schemes has indicated that a property would have to flood three times before there is an
acceptance by the property owner to install measures.
The final uptake levels were - 74% of eligible properties applied for a grant and 81% of these
applications were approved.
Evidence of flooding
Criteria
In order to be eligible to apply for grant funding a property had to meet the eligibility criteria
set out by DCLG guidance. At the outset of the scheme, businesses were not eligible; this
decision was subsequently reversed by Government with eligible businesses entitled to
apply.
The initial decision not to include businesses resulted in challenging discussions between
local authority staff and the respective business proprietors, and a sense of ill feeling
towards the local authority resulted. More definitive guidance at the outset would have
benefitted all parties.
With regard to scheme eligibility the following definition was provided in the Flood Resilience
Scheme – Local Authority Guidance – January 2016;
The owners of the following premises have been deemed eligible for scheme:
a. Residential properties (including accommodation such as static caravans where
primary residence, defined as location registered on electoral role) where habitable
internal area of the premise have been damaged by flooding by Storm Eva and
Desmond
b. Business (including social enterprise) and charitable organisation properties where
internal areas of the premise which are critical to the day to day operations (i.e. not
storage sheds or warehouses) have been damaged by Storm Eva and Desmond.
By the nature of terminology used, this led to differences of opinion to the criteria, in
particular the term ‘habitable’.
Despite requests to DCLG for a definitive definition of this term, none was provided. In the
absence of such the FRG team referred to those provided in building regulations and
housing legislation in conjunction with a subjective opinion, where required.
Further difficulties were encountered with the wording with respect to ‘internal area’. Some
property owners reported flooding to sub floor areas (beneath floorboards) or non-habitable
basements. Similarly, in some circumstances detached garages alone were flooded. The
FRG team took the decision not to award a grant in these circumstances. Integral garages
were considered where it was demonstrated that protecting a garage adjoining a property
that had suffered flooding was relevant and where value for money was demonstrated.
The work undertaken by the council’s Public Protection Officers who visited flooded areas
shortly after the flood helped to verify if a property had suffered internal flooding.
Additionally this aspect was supported by information obtained from the Environment
Agency (EA), concerning flooded areas and information collected at the time of flooding.
Due to the topography of the district many individual properties that were flooded lay outside
Page 148
7
the Environment Agency flood zones, were initially unrecorded or in rural areas. Local
authority officer knowledge proved to be an invaluable source of information.
Photographic evidence was requested in all cases to support an application, but wasn’t
always available or provided. A flood resilience survey of the property was also accepted as
supporting evidence that the property had flooded. Additionally, not all applicants made an
insurance claim and in some cases properties had been stripped out or even renovated at
the time of application. A combination of these made it difficult to verify the eligibility of an
application, even when a site inspection was made by a member of the FRG team. Although
the definition was clear on internal flooding we did receive a number of enquiries from
people whose gardens or greenhouses flooded, or properties which nearly flooded.
To aid the eligibility of an application, Council Tax Flood Relief records were, where required
and more specifically as the time from flooding lengthened, cross referenced. This provided
consistency to the scheme in terms of records. It was however our view that those residents
not willing to register their properties on public record as flooded and who could not prove
internal flooding in any form should not be able to benefit from public money for flood
protection.
Occupants or owners that prevented flooding to a habitable room through exerted efforts
were ineligible to benefit from the scheme as set out in the criteria. This resulted in situations
where those occupying a property adjoining a flooded property, whose owners did receive
maximum grant funding, have to endure the fear and threat of any recurrence in the future.
Any future scheme should allow funding for these properties providing evidence is submitted
as it seems grossly unfair to penalise a householder for being proactive.
With regard to businesses, the criteria ‘critical to day to day operations’ resulted in subjective
assessment which inevitably led to differences of opinion in several applications. In some
circumstances the line between storage/warehouse or business critical was a difficult
decision.
There was not a general agreement on the definition on habitable room at the housing sub
group for Cumbria officers which lead to different local authorities applying different
definitions. There was no definitive steer from DCLG/DEFRA.
Use of flood grant data
Throughout the operation of the scheme, the authority collected a significant amount of data
about properties which had flooded within South Lakeland. It was recognised at a very early
stage that this information may be of benefit to other government agencies with an interest in
flooding such as DEFRA, the EA, and Highways Authority. Consideration was therefore
given to firstly ensure that applicants for the scheme were happy to have their data shared
with other agencies, and secondly that other agencies used this information in a responsible
way.
In order to ensure applicants were informed that their data may be shared, part of the
declaration included a statement which was agreed with the SLDC Corporate Information
Officer.
Data sharing agreements were also established with those other government agencies who
may have need of the information collected.
Page 149
8
In reality, any data requests were for general numbers and the location of properties flooded,
and not for specific measures installed or any other personal data.
Resilience and Resistance measures
Scope and definitions
Resilience – Resilience measures allow for a more speedy recovery when water does enter
a property. Use of flood resilient materials in properties at risk of flooding greatly reduces the
time people are out of properties following a flood event. This approach requires
consideration at an early stage of reinstatement and, where applicable, the engagement of
the insurance provider/reinstatement contractor.
Resistance - The primary aim of resistance measures is to prevent the entry of water into a
property during a flood event. Physical defences, such as flood doors, demountable barriers
for at risk doors and windows and automatic air bricks are common examples.
Example of flood resilience measures for a house
From the outset the local authority promoted resilience over resistance, particularly where
internal flood levels were excessive and resistance would have likely been futile. This
approach followed the intention promoted at the Manchester meeting 15 January 2016 but
was not specified in the guidance subsequently produced. Whilst resilience allows for a more
speedy recovery following a flood event many applicants were adamant that resisting the
entry of water was their preferred option, irrespective of flood depth.
The grants were not intended to cover standard repairs or to provide compensation but to
finance measures designed to reduce the impact and cost of any subsequent flooding to the
property.
Page 150
9
The FRG team referred primarily to the Guidance Notes provided by DEFRA, however the
measures presented were not an exhaustive list and acknowledged as indicative of
measures that were eligible. The list and cost of indicative measures appeared to be
outdated, being drawn from DCLG guidance notes of 2014. The team expanded on the
measures provided, on occasion with DEFRA agreement, in order to ensure eligibility and to
provide a wide range of options to applicants. However, a definitive answer was not always
provided by government, casting more doubt on eligibility and consistency.
As the scheme progressed it became apparent that whilst a property may not have been
subjected to flooding of habitable rooms, as outlined in guidance, the use of a property
became inhabitable if vital utility services were flood affected. This led the team to reconsider
their standpoint with applications subsequently approved to raise utility services that were
not specifically in a habitable room to above the flood level experienced.
The DEFRA Guidance states the aim should be that resistance measures will exclude water
up to 0.9m depth. This in practice is difficult to achieve as the majority of kite marked
resistance measures available are certified closer to a 0.6m depth. However, in numerous
circumstances the local authority established that protection up to 0.6m depth was
acceptable even where previous flood levels had exceeded this. Guidance Notes that
complement measures available would seem a sensible option for any future scheme.
External drainage channels and boundary walls or bunds to divert flood water were not
measures deemed eligible by the local authority as this may have resulted in increasing the
risk to neighbouring property. Similarly, driveway barriers were also rejected in preference of
the promotion of measures adjoining the fabric of the building.
Applications were received where several properties within a curtilage were under the same
ownership or management. In these situations the pooling of funding was permitted, subject
to approval, to allow grant funding to be used for the most effective flood protection.
Whilst the local authority strived to provide a consistent approach, the lack of definition
provided by DEFRA resulted in differences of opinion between applicants and the local
authority. Inevitably, such issues led to a drawn out process, on occasion involving several
tiers of management, councillors, applicants, surveyors and the Flood Grant team, in
attaining an outcome. Had the guidance been more definitive, these distractions would have
been avoided affording more time into providing advice, issuing approvals and ensuring a
more consistent approach nationally.
Quality Assurance
Quality assurance took a considerable amount of officer time both in confirming acceptable
measures and relaying this to all interested parties. We were fortunate however, to hold in-
house expertise with officers who were familiar with relevant products and experience from
previous flood grant schemes.
Guidance documentation (DCLG 20 Jan) recommended the use of British Standards (BS)
(or equivalent) for all works. There is a plethora of flood protection products available, many
of which do not hold BS certification. Although many companies claimed their products met
PAS1188 through in-house testing, as opposed to BS independent assessment, this was
deemed insufficient, particularly where high value products such as flood doors were applied
which could cost over £2,000. This decision led to vociferous objection and challenge from
some companies that fell under this criteria and also from householders who had or were
Page 151
10
intending to install such products. As far as we are aware, SLDC is the only authority to
make this a mandatory requirement, despite forming part of the guidance provided.
In all cases where a flood door was installed, a copy of the respective kite mark certification
was requested along with photographic evidence of the product installed. This quality
assurance check was not infallible as a BS kite mark certificate can easily be obtained via an
internet search. Further conflict arose as many companies supplied both BS and non BS
certificated products. A requirement to apply indelible markings on doors and frames would
provide assurance to all parties in respect of product quality.
Several applicants understandably sought to install measures in keeping with their
properties, in particular where they are located in a conservation area or through personal
preference. A clear development management policy would have assisted in this respect
regarding which measures were appropriate for a given area. Some applicants were left
feeling unable to adequately protect their property due to confusing messages about what
they could or could not install.
Where concerns with the standard of practices, products and workmanship were identified
the relevant Trading Standards departments were informed.
To assist with quality assurance and ensure value for money, two like-for-like quotes were
requested. These were required to be independent of the surveying organisation so as to
avoid a conflict of interest and bias towards self-promoted products. Despite this, a number
of applications were identified by officers where inappropriate measures had been proposed.
Instances included applications for door barriers or flood doors which would have been
ineffective as the flood water had entered through the basement level or ground floor, and
flood doors in settings where no other escape route was available, effectively trapping
residents inside their properties.
Surveys
Government proposed that the local authority could offer a free survey to support an
application or to fund this as part of the £5,000 grant. Due to the number of affected
properties and the perceived financial and resource cost to the local authority, the decision
was taken at the outset to use grant funding for these costs. A grant eligible limit of up to
£500 was permitted for a survey following the figure promoted in the guidance document
from DCLG.
To aid this we invited surveyors, both locally and nationally, to express an interest in
delivering this service to flood affected property owners. A meeting was chaired by the FRG
team, with interested parties, and considered the relevant criteria to be included in a survey
report. Surveyors were invited to submit a draft report for our assessment to ensure an
acceptable standard and consistent approach could be achieved. A list of those surveyors
was published online to allow applicants to consult with and select a surveyor, however, it
was never a requirement of the grant to specifically use one of these surveyors.
Surveys were received from sources in addition to those on the publicised list. Many of these
surveys highlighted the bias element and/or fell below the standard expected. Inappropriate
surveys included measures for properties that had not suffered flooding to an eligible room,
construction details of properties not fully considered (crosswall), surveys being submitted
directly to the flood grant team (in conjunction with an application form) without consultation
with applicants, being of a very low standard and with incorrect critical detail such as flood
Page 152
11
depth, no indication of flood water entry routes, wrongly titled photographs, and
inappropriate measures.
A conflict of interest and lack of independence was clearly apparent in the surveys submitted
by some companies. Surveys of this nature would identify eligible and appropriate
measures, such as a concrete floor however, the subsequent application and quotes were
clearly for off the shelf products and not those that would provide the most appropriate
resilience/resistance measures. These findings were identified through vigilant assessment
and conveyed by the flood grant team to interested parties.
Whilst a survey was recommended, particularly where resistance measures were proposed,
some surveyors insisted that only their organisation could undertake the survey. This led to
an element of hostility between such organisations and homeowners with the local authority
acting on occasion as mediator. Comments such as ‘money making exercise’, ‘incompetent’,
‘rip off merchants’ were reported to the FRG team.
These issues are to be expected as there is no formal recognised qualification, national
training or approved standard for flood protection surveyors. A recognised training and
accreditation scheme would help gain the trust of householders and scheme promoters, and
ensure consistency across the industry.
Within South Lakeland over 70% of applications submitted were supported with a flood
resilience survey.
Application form
Layout and content
No sample application form was provided by government therefore the Cumbria Resilience
Group tasked SLDC with developing a sample form for the scheme. This was developed
based on the application form used by us in the Repair and Renewal Grant 2014 scheme
and subsequently circulated to all Cumbrian Local Authorities and DCLG to agree. (Note:
Government press release dated 9th December 2015 stated that the scheme would provide
targeted support on the same basis as those affected by flooding as part of the previous
scheme).
However, advice received from DCLG was that they did not want the scheme to simply
mirror the previous DEFRA scheme and therefore further consideration was given to the
application form. This included simplified text and additional guidance notes, although advice
on the specific areas to simplify was limited, and a focus was placed on locally agreed
schemes. The application form for this scheme was considered by the Cumbria Housing sub
group on 17th December 2015 with a final draft circulated and agreed on 23rd December
2015.
Although agreed as a part of a Cumbrian scheme, each local authority tailored the
application form to their own design (corporate logo, layout, design etc.) The application form
was subsequently made available on-line as a download prior to Christmas 2015, as
directed by DCLG.
At this stage the scheme parameters were not set and there remained a number of
unanswered questions from DCLG, which directly affected the content of the application
form. These included (but were not limited to), the inclusion of businesses in the scheme,
should housing associations be able to access the scheme, should the scheme be based on
a property or a household, were second homes or empty homes included.
Page 153
12
Changes were made to the application form following additional guidance issued by DCLG in
early January and DEFRA in late January 2016. The changes made included the inclusion
of properties flooded as a result of Storm Eva and commercial properties, the end date for
the scheme was also extended until 31 March 2017.
Where an application was submitted without a flood survey, the applicant was asked to
provide a rationale for their measures, we asked for quotes to show the cost of repairs with
and without resilience measures, supporting evidence such as photographs and, to
encourage people to submit the correct information first time, we added a (short) list of the
information we required to be included with the application.
The third and final version of the application (produced July 2016) asked which rooms had
been flooded and included the proviso that any work carried out prior to receiving written
grant approval was done so at the applicants’ own risk
The most up-to-date application form was always available on our website but prospective
applicants did sometimes use older versions of the form they had received in an initial mail
out or had obtained from our partner agencies which caused confusion and frustration. It
would have been helpful to have included version numbers on the application form and been
clear that updated forms superseded previous versions, and we would only accept the
updated version of the form.
Guidance notes
Guidance information was provided on the council website advising on the availability and
eligibility of the grant, and to assist property owners in applying. These pages were updated
as and when new guidance and information became available from DCLG, DEFRA or other
sources.
Providing an example of a completed application form to help people understand the type
and level of information required would have been beneficial to both the applicant and the
team. A form was partially developed but never completed and published due to time
pressures on officers and also changing guidance from Government. Potentially it would
have reduced the number of forms we returned as incomplete or requiring more information,
this would have speeded up the process for some.
Specific areas where applicants experienced difficulty with the application form included:
Who should apply – tenant/leaseholder/management company/surveyor/owner
Details of flooding - this was often vague and sometimes an assumption that we would
already have this information. Estimated depth of water led to different accounts on
adjacent properties
Measures to be installed - guidance was provided on the difference between resilience
and resistance as initially people were sceptical about the idea of letting the water in to
their property and having resilience measures in place to minimise the damage and
disruption by speeding up the reinstatement process if they flooded again
Cost of repairs v resilient repairs – a quotation form was produced to assist contractors
and applicants understand and work out the betterment costs
People were not aware of the difference between a ‘quote’ and an ‘estimate’ and also did
not understand what ‘like for like’ meant in relation to quotes
Page 154
13
In addition to the guidance notes and information on our website we also held weekly drop in
sessions where people could get first hand technical advice on their situation and receive
help and assistance completing their application form. This proved to be a success and
provided an invaluable face to face opportunity for the FRG team to speak directly to
applicants and flood affected victims.
Information Management System and standard letters
At the onset of the scheme it was decided to utilise the Civica Authority Public Protection
(APP) software system already in use within SLDC’s Public Protection team to record and
administer any enquiries and applications for the grant. All documentation, letters, emails,
details of conversations, site visits, payment details etc. were recorded against the individual
property record. These records were ‘locked down’ with only the staff within the FRG team
being able to access them.
To ensure a consistent approach, speed up the grant process, and reduce the repetitive
work of the team, some template letters were set up within APP.
In some circumstances these letters worked really well as the same information could be
communicated to the applicant quickly and easily. However, one size fits all letters were not
always appropriate and the letters, particularly the approval letters, had to be tailored to the
individual circumstances of the applicant. To further assist this process some additional
standard sentences and paragraphs were then compiled to cover a variety of circumstances
and situations. Nevertheless it was still necessary to write bespoke letters in most instances
due to the complexity or uniqueness of the applicants’ situation.
Using Civica APP to record all the flood grant information also meant that we were able to
set up reports which provided us with real-time information via a dashboard. This data was
used to complete returns and provide updates to our Management Team and Councillors
etc. It was also an essential tool for us to review and monitor the progress of the scheme
and was particularly important as deadlines were approaching to enable us to know who we
had to chase for information.
Data for Portal Return (example of a report)
Number of Applications Received: 1397
Number of Applications Approved: 1131
Value of Applications Approved to Date (£): £3,495,907.75
Number of Applications Paid Out to Date: 1683
Value of Applications Paid Out to Date (£): £3,485,524.17
As the scheme progressed it became evident that approval letters needed to be very clear
and specific about what was being approved in terms of the measures/products, the supplier
and the values and where necessary what was out of scope. We had some instances where
the invoices for completed work/products differed from those approved which then took up
Page 155
14
officer time to review and either accept or refuse these changes.
The approval letter also needed to be very clear where applicants were going to have to
contribute towards measures above the grant award. We had instances where applicants
said they did not realise they would have to contribute towards the costs of the measures
costing more than £5,000 even though their approval letter clearly stated we would be
awarding a specific grant amount (in monetary terms) towards the measures.
Contractors and quotations
As flooding had affected many parts of the UK there was an apparent lack of availability of
national or local contractors from the outset. Many local contractors were involved with
property reinstatement and unable to commit to the increasing demand from other flood
affected properties who were seeking quotes in respect of the scheme.
In order to assist, prospective applicants were signposted to the National Flood Forum –
Blue Pages, where a wide choice of products and national suppliers were available. Whilst a
good source of information, we were unable to endorse the companies listed as
advertisement on that site was via a paid subscription by these companies. It soon became
apparent that whilst many kite marked products, as advocated by the scheme, were
available, some companies were advertising products that had no independent testing
certification to support their claims. On occasion this caused conflict and redirected our
efforts to defend the stance of expected standards as promoted in the DEFRA guidance.
Due to the shortage of suitable contractors, applications were received which included
quotes and/or estimates from contractors whose primary work included the likes of
landscaping, painting and decorating, and plumbing. As there was no recognised standard
for fitting flood products we were left to consider these on an individual basis and approved
only where a level of competency could be demonstrated.
We also received several notifications about the perceived lack of competency of contractors
working under the instruction of the insurance industry. Reports of painting over wet walls
and over mould were reported along with general sub-standard levels of work. This led to
applicants delaying applications while they were having to concentrate efforts on
predominantly insurance financed reinstatement.
It was recommended that two like-for-like quotes were required, however the quality and
content of many we received appeared spurious, not independent of the applicant and we
were aware, through local intelligence, of a level of collusion taking place between some
contractors and applicants.
People were often confused by the terms ‘quote’, ‘estimate’ and ‘invoice’ and did not
understand the difference between them which slowed down the process and caused
localised friction and delay pending submission of the correct paperwork. This was an issue
that was encountered even with the larger companies involved.
It was evident that some contractors, whilst within the indicative guidance figures provided,
appeared to use this to their financial advantage as quotes received were suspiciously close
to the maximum grant available. An example being the guidance figures for concrete floors
which had a range of several thousand pounds with no indicative cost per square metre.
Whilst it is acknowledged that contractor’s rates vary, a national rate per square metre
Page 156
15
should be considered in any similar future scheme to provide financial security and value for
money.
The complexity of establishing the betterment value was seen by some as a blocker to
getting the work done so we produced a quotation form, with a worked example, to help
applicants and contractors work out these costs. This allowed the applicant, with assistance
from the contractor, to demonstrate the cost of a resilience repair as compared to the actual
cost of the reinstatement. Only the additional resilience amount was covered by the grant
scheme.
The launch of a government grant scheme awarding £5,000 per flooded property appeared
to result in a rise in price of many standard products and as the scheme progressed the
price of some products increased significantly i.e. automatic closing airbricks, which were
available for under £40 each prior to flood, rising to a supply and install price of quotes for
over £150 each. Quotes for kite marked doors set out at circa £1,800 however as time
progressed quotes/invoices were also received for closer to £3,500 each. These factors
significantly reduced the measures that grant funding could finance.
It was very noticeable that many of the quotations submitted were for amounts equal to the
grant available and once some contractors were aware that a further £2,000 grant funding
was available to householders through Cumbria Community Foundation (CCF) the quoted
prices increased again and were often for measures that were not appropriate or necessary.
It became evident through the process that some contractors were subcontracting work out.
Either through being unable to deliver or seeking an alternative less expensive contractor so
they would financially benefit from this exercise. Whilst this exercise was seen as morally
dubious we were unable to prevent this, predominantly only becoming aware following the
completion of works.
Many contractors were not VAT registered which allowed them generally to submit more
competitive quotes however, where VAT was included in a quote evidence was requested
through the provision of a VAT registration number so the validity of this cost could be
ascertained.
Retrospective applications
The scheme allowed for applications to be submitted retrospectively. In the beginning this
allowed people who had already begun or completed work immediately following the flooding
(before the start of the scheme), to access the grant to recover the costs of eligible
measures.
The application form requested applicants to describe how they had ensured value for
money and requested evidence of quotes and invoices.
However, the majority of retrospective applications received were not supported with a
survey and had limited rationale for the measures undertaken which resulted in a higher
degree of scrutiny and more officer time in establishing eligibility and appropriateness of
measures. This included site visits, discussions with insurance companies and sometimes
neighbours. This rigorous assessment helped to establish those applications that were
potentially fraudulent/opportunistic.
Retrospective applications were an administrative burden on the team in terms of verifying
validity of claims such as:
Page 157
16
difficulty establishing the pre flood use/eligibility of a room that had subsequently been
re-instated or converted into a habitable room post flooding
difficulty in determining level of eligibility for properties that were undergoing renovation
at the time of the flooding (extent of damage caused, pre-commitment to financing and
construction works)
awarding for measures to property extensions that that did not exist at the time of the
flooding.
Where insurance companies carried out the reinstatement works the property owner
sometimes requested resilience measures, such as the raising of electrics, to be carried out
over and above insured losses. However, on occasion, neither the applicant nor the
insurance company were able to substantiate this by way of invoices or supporting
information making it difficult to award a grant against these additional eligible works.
Some speculative applications were made for items purchased/installed following previous
flooding and as they pre-dated the December 2015 flooding events were deemed not
eligible.
Despite the publicity about the scheme, we continued to receive retrospective applications
up to the application closing date. Early on in the scheme we decided that any measures
undertaken without prior approval were at the risk of the property owner. Some of these
later retrospective applications included measures that pushed the limits of eligibility
resulting in applicants attempting to force the hand of officers. However, all retrospective
applications were considered on a case by case basis to ensure the costs were
proportionate and the measures appropriate.
To facilitate the administration of any future grants the acceptance of retrospective
applications should be time limited.
Title of scheme
The original direction from Government was that this scheme would be similar to the
previous scheme offered and therefore would follow a similar scope as the 2014 Repair and
Renewal Grant. Follow up guidance in early 2016 referred to property level resilience with no
reference to ‘repair’. This name change was welcome as the use of the word ‘repair’
previously had led to confusion from the residents and gave people a false idea of the
purpose of the grant. The name of the scheme subsequently changed as per the guidance
and focus on making properties resilient to future flooding events and became known as the
Property Level Flood Resilience scheme.
Section two: Operational delivery
Communications
To promote the availability of the grant, the team worked closely with the council’s
communications department and an extensive and integrated communications and
marketing plan was drawn up. Details of the communications activities included:
Numerous press releases that were picked up and resulted in coverage in local
newspapers, websites, regional TV and local and national radio, with officers from the
project team completing a number of broadcast interviews for both radio and TV. These
releases included regular updates on the scheme, deadline reminders and specific
Page 158
17
details on kite marked products etc. to support the messaging throughout the duration of
the project.
In January 2016 we posted out application packs to all properties that we believed to
have been flooded. The pack included a covering letter which outlined details and
eligibility for the scheme, a summary of the difference between resilience and resistance
measures, the reasons for carrying out a flood survey, information about working with
their insurance provider and details of websites, including our own, where further
information and advice could be found. The pack also included an application form and
reply paid envelope, general information about the grant, a list of surveyors who would
be able to carry out flood surveys, information on what works would require building
regulations or planning permission and a ABI guide to resistant and resilience repair.
Initiated a ‘Battling Back from the Floods’ campaign in the most widely read local
newspaper, The Westmorland Gazette, both in print and online (a combined 100,000
weekly readership) and provided copy and case studies for a series of features
promoting the flood grant scheme, how to apply etc.
Integrated social media campaign on Facebook and Twitter to encourage take-up.
Dedicated flood grant section on website, with clear presence on the home page.
Regular features on the scheme in the resident newsletter South Lakeland News, which
distributes to every household in the district.
Case studies on residents and businesses that had accessed the grant to illustrate the
process and the measures.
Regular briefings for councillors on the flood grant scheme to enable them to support
activities in their communities.
Communications officers attended meetings and provided regular briefings for the South
Lakeland Community Flood Recovery Group, made up of representatives of charity
groups, community organisations and businesses supporting the flood recovery, so they
could promote the flood grant scheme.
Supported awareness of drop-in events at the town hall to assist with flood grant
applications.
Supported awareness of community engagement work to encourage flood grant
applications, including promoting a ‘Lend a Hand’ day at Sandylands in Kendal, one of
the worst affected areas.
Supported awareness of the flood fair event in Kendal.
Supported awareness of the flood grant scheme with leaflets and information at strategic
locations, including the flood recovery unit/foodbank that was set up in Westmorland
Shopping Centre in Kendal.
Staff internally briefed about the scheme so that residents contacting council tax to
update the status of their property were also provided with information about the
scheme.
Community engagement
A significant amount of activity took place to promote the scheme. As well as the
communication plan and actions there was work within the community, some of these
included hosting training for various third sector partners (Age UK, CAB, Lions, Gateway,
Kings Foodbank, Sandylands Methodist Church, Cancer Care, Samaritans, Buddhist Group
of Kendal), Kendal Town Council and elected members on the scheme and how to apply.
Page 159
18
A flood fair was organised on the 8 October 2016 at a local shopping centre in Kendal to
showcase potential products, suppliers providing examples of solutions and access to the
team to discuss how to make an application, status of their application or any other
information. The team attended a significant number of Cumbria County Council arranged
events across the district which were primarily aimed at collecting information from flooded
properties to help the Section 19 (Flood and Water Management Act 2010) report. Whilst
attending these events local residents wanted support and advice on how to protect their
property, and this was seen as being beneficial.
The team also attended and supported the local community recovery group which has a high
turnout of the third sector who would cascade information back into the community and
report any areas of concerns and recommendations. Further community engagement
including support to community events such as give a day, door knocks with the third sector
and working closely with the Red Cross who visited property owners to talk about their
application and encourage up take.
At the onset of the project there was a significant amount of people attending the council
offices for advice. Most of these did not make appointments and officers were not always on
site to provide assistance. We recognised that we needed to provide the public with the
opportunity to speak to the FRG team for help and support. We set up weekly drop in
sessions every Wednesday from 1pm – 6pm in Kendal Town Hall. A total of 40 sessions
were held between April 2016 and March 2017 dealing with over 500 enquiries and were
deemed as an extremely useful and beneficial exercise.
Unfortunately, at times there was negative media and coverage that was inaccurate about
the grants which could have put people off applying. The FRG team worked closely with the
communication team to counterbalance these claims.
Standard of applications
The standard of applications throughout the scheme was generally low. Initially the
applications lacked detail as they were partially completed, there was no supporting
evidence of flooding, had limited or no details of measures applied for, no quotes were
provided and no flood protection survey had been carried out.
Between 1 January and 31 March 2016 we received 195 applications of which only 23 of the
101 assessed met the scheme criteria and were approved. Sixty eight applications did not
pass the initial assessment and were returned as incomplete with the areas requiring further
information highlighted. Ten applications passed the initial assessment but further details
were requested before a decision could be made to accept or refuse.
In order to improve people’s understanding of the scheme and clarify the scheme’s criteria,
weekly drop in sessions were held. These proved invaluable and resulted in a noticeable
improvement in the standard of applications as people were better informed and the most
appropriate and effective measures to best protect their properties from future flooding were
identified. This then speeded up the approval process if when the application and quotes
were submitted they were for the measures previously discussed and agreed as appropriate.
However, as the scheme was drawing to a close many of the applications received in the
final month were again of a poor standard. Some were speculative and others lacked detail
and supporting information despite applicants having had over a year to complete and
submit their application.
Page 160
19
Panel, appeals and administration
Once an application was received an initial screening was completed by a member of the
support team and appendix two outlines the checks completed. This first screening allowed
for applications to be screened before they were reviewed by a technical officer. This
process provided a triage to the team.
After screening, the officer would complete an assessment, again in appendix two and any
that were considered to be contentious were assessed by the flood grant panel.
The panel comprised a manager and two technical officers and they met as necessary to
make a final determination. The decision letter was the formal summary notes from the
meeting.
The flood grant panel reviewed 45 applications (some of which were repeated following
additional information or changes to the scope). There was no process of appeal against the
decision and the only formal route was via the council complaints procedures and then to the
ombudsman.
We received 10 complaints which were dealt with through our formal complaint process, and
one complaint which was referred to the Local Government Ombudsman which is discussed
in greater detail in the customer experience section below.
Inbox and telephone line
A dedicated phone line and email address were set up and promoted at the start of the
scheme to enable the public and partner agencies to contact the FRG team directly.
However, at times the volume of calls and emails was overwhelming with the small team
unable to answer all the phone calls and reply in a timely manner to emails in addition to
speaking to people in reception, making site visits, progressing applications etc. To help
this, the weekly drop in sessions were introduced, more information was put onto the
website to help answer frequently asked questions and customer services were provided
with briefing notes and training.
As there were limited resources available to answer the phone and respond to less complex
emails it would have been of huge benefit to all to have more bespoke scripting in the
customer service team. It would have been of particular assistance in dealing with calls from
people who had not read the letters/emails we had sent them and phoned to ask what was
happening or what they needed to do next when all this had been explained in the
correspondence sent.
Many phone calls were lengthy as the public sought guidance and clarity on their sometimes
complex situation yet- this was seen as welcome by both the team and the applicants.
These calls enabled us to better understand their situation, identify any constraints, and talk
through the options and for appropriate measures to be agreed verbally, which enabled
applications to be progressed quicker to the satisfaction of the team and the applicant.
Customer experience
Customer experience was extremely difficult to gauge during the initial stages of this
scheme. Some customers were extremely frustrated at the difficulties experienced in
accessing the grant, directly after it had been announced by Government whilst others were
happy that the council was here to help them after they had been affected by flooding.
Page 161
20
We did make a point of listening to what our customers wanted, particularly in terms of
advice and guidance, and adapted our service to meet their needs where possible. This
included making officers available to attend flood advice fairs and community events, having
a regular weekly drop in on a Wednesday afternoon, and keeping the information on our web
site up to date. We also frequently revisited our communications plan to target key deadlines
for the scheme and focused on any emerging issues where customer feedback had
suggested additional support was required.
During the course of the scheme 22 written compliments, 10 formal complaints, and 1 Local
Government Ombudsman (LGO) complaint were received in relation to this scheme. Whilst
the compliments generally focused on the assistance which officers had given to applicants,
formal complaints were generally orientated towards applications which had been rejected
by officers, and where further explanation was required to support the rejection.
The involvement of the LGO in one complaint highlighted a number of areas in the scheme
where we had not published sufficient local decisions regarding eligible criteria. As
discussed at length in previous sections, the lack of Government guidance did result in a
number of localised decisions concerning eligible criteria and the LGO suggested that
because we did not publish localised decisions we were not operating the scheme in a
transparent manner. The recommendation from the LGO was that we review the failed
application and also ensure all rules associated with any future scheme should be
transparent. The failed application was subsequently reviewed by a Flood Grant Panel, with
due consideration for the LGO comments, and the decision was taken to award the grant.
The involvement of the LGO in this complaint has highlighted a number of areas of the
scheme which would require greater consideration should the scheme be repeated following
a future flood event. These have been included, where appropriate, in the recommendations
section of this report.
Throughout the scheme it was difficult for all parties to agree on measures and eligibility in
all situations, however the aim of the FRG team was always to obtain the most appropriate
measures. This frequently resulted in differences of opinion, which were often clouded and
driven by emotional and misguided advice received from others.
Payments
One of the main considerations as the scheme was established was that financial means
should not be a barrier to accessing the grant and as payment would only be made on
completion of the work, the payment process had to be thorough but allow for prompt
payments.
With this in mind we developed procedures to allow flexibility with regards to payments i.e.
we made part payments for works completed to date and facilitated some direct payments to
contractors. To encourage the take up of the grant we put procedures in place to pay
contractors directly for flood surveys so people who were already under financial pressures
from the flooding were not put under any further strain and put off from applying for the
grant.
At the development stage of the scheme it was decided that access to the payment records
within Civica APP would be securely managed by limiting access to the System
Administrator in IT and one member of the FRG team. This team member was the only
person to deal with the payment forms and inputted the applicant’s bank details onto the
Page 162
21
payment record to enable a CSV file to be generated so the finance team could make the
BACS payment. This procedure worked well and issues only arose when the team member
was on leave and there was a short delay of a few days in making payments.
The grant application form gave applicants the option for the grant to be paid to themselves
or the contractor with the majority requesting payment to themselves and they then settled
their invoice/s with their contractor/s direct. Despite the Council’s constitution and
procurement rules prohibiting direct payments over a specified amount to be paid to
contractors without a formal contract in place, all the payments made directly were under this
threshold and so the team was in compliance with the Council’s Constitution.
Along with the grant approval letter, payment forms were issued to the applicants to be
completed and returned once the measures had been installed/works finished along with an
invoice/receipt and where possible, photographs showing the completed works.
The technical officers would review the information provided by the applicant and either
authorise payment to be made, request supplementary information, make further enquires of
the applicant/contractor or undertake a site visit prior to approving any payment. In the main
these BACS payments were made within 5 working days of the payment being approved.
We understand that a small number of applicants delayed paying the contractor once they
had received their grant money with some then entering into payment agreements with them
to settle their invoice.
The payment process was sometimes delayed due to the applicant not fully completing the
payment form (e.g. not filling in their bank details or providing incorrect details) or not
providing an invoice/receipt for the completed works.
A small number of flood product companies requested a deposit at the point the order was
placed by the property owner, which in some cases was up to 50%. We took the position
that the approval letter was a guarantee the property owner would be receiving the grant so
this should be as good as a bond to secure the order. This approach was accepted in the
majority of cases but it appeared that a few applicants who had the funds to do so did pay
the requested deposits and were then reimbursed by us on completion of the works.
As the scheme was drawing to a close considerable effort was made chasing up outstanding
paperwork to ensure we could make payments to all who had had been approved grants.
Despite making repeat phone calls, leaving messages, sending emails and letters, we did
have to visit several properties to collect the information to make sure they did not miss the
payment deadline.
Applicants were not notified as a matter of course when a BACS payment had been made to
them due to the extra work this created. If this process could have been automated it would
have reduced the number of phone calls and emails checking if/when the payment would be
made as people phoned us rather than checking their bank accounts.
Reviews undertaken by internal audit evidenced that sufficient checks occurred throughout
the application process in relation to quotes and invoices submitted and that there was an
audit trail for each payment from approval, payment authorisation to payment being made
and all payments recorded on Civica APP were evidenced to the financial ledger.
Page 163
22
Section three: Strategic Management
Resourcing
The project was resourced by SLDC. The grant scheme did not allow any financial
contribution to be compensated to SLDC to deliver the project. At the onset of the project, a
team was set up and officers were seconded from their statutory duties relating to public
protection and were backfilled.
The team consisted of two full time flood grant officers (both had administered previous flood
grant projects), a coordinator and support staff and was assisted by a number of officers
within the council including communications, finance, building control, planning, IT and the
customer contact centre. The project was overseen by an operational manager and an
internal project board made up of members of the senior management team.
The total cost for resourcing the project was just over £192,000 which was equivalent to
£137 per application. The cost of administrating the Repair and Renew Grant scheme in
Surrey in 2014/15 was an average of £284 per application.
Deadlines
Confusion was raised over the duration of the scheme as no time scales were provided by
DEFRA/DCLG at the outset or throughout the scheme. We were mindful from experience of
previous schemes we have administered that these projects take a significant amount of
time and resources which are affected by the scale of the flood event, clarification of scheme
eligibility, availability of contractors and products, and slow uptake. The local authority
subsequently promoted their own extensive deadlines for applications and completed works
which were accepted by DEFRA. The promoted SLDC dates were ultimately adopted by
adjacent local authorities who had initially set their own earlier and unrealistic scheme dates.
These extended dates allowed additional opportunity for those who had been unable to
return to their property following the flood events and dealing with outstanding insurance
claims, to submit an application and benefit from the flood grant scheme. A Cumbria wide
agreement at the outset would have supported a county wide approach.
At SLDC we accepted applications up to 31 March 2017, works to be completed by 30
September 2017 and final grant award payments made by 31 January 2018.
Fraudulent claims
Although the scheme ethos set by DCLG was ‘light touch’ it was necessary in the
administration of public funds to ensure that all monies were accountable. The distribution of
potentially £12m of public funding could not be done without diligence and scrutiny.
The scheme, through the processes introduced, the scrutiny of the applications and the
technical knowledge of officers identified a number of potentially fraudulent claims and these
were investigated by the Council’s Fraud Officer.
The fraud attempts varied in type, ranging from submitting invoices for work not carried out,
submitting fake quotes and invoices, inflated invoices, applications for properties which were
not flooded and photographs of measures from another location.
Seven people were interviewed under caution. Some of these were the applicant, others
were the builder/contractor.
Page 164
23
As a result of the intervention of the fraud section, three people were successfully
prosecuted, two at Magistrates’ Court, one at Crown Court, all who offered guilty pleas.
Sentences ranged from community orders to suspended prison sentences. Two people
withdrew their application after the intervention of the Fraud section and three people were
refused the grant.
To assist in this aspect a reference folder was produced in which a selection of invoices and
quotes were filed. This led to the identification of fraudulent documentation and subsequent
investigation.
The FRG team, although attentive in initially identifying suspicious documentation, were
fortunate to be able to access and obtain the assistance of the council’s fraud officer.
Without this support the team would have likely been unable to pursue fraudulent cases to a
satisfactory conclusion.
During one court case the Judge was full of praise for the council’s work in this matter and
said the local authority was to be “congratulated on a careful and efficient investigation of
this case, substantial sums of money are involved in the grant. The local authority are to be
congratulated on their proper and careful enquiries. The local authority were able to identify
this as a bogus claim”.
We are not aware of any other local authorities in Cumbria undertaking a prosecution or
enforcement action linked to fraudulent claims.
Vulnerable residents
The flooding was a very traumatic experience for flood victims and we often had to deal with
individuals who were struggling physically, financially and emotionally – this was especially
evident at our early weekly drop in sessions.
To help support vulnerable applicants we had a member of the Red Cross attend the
sessions and who also made home visits if we were alerted to concerns via site visits, letters
or calls. Towards the close of the project the Regional Flooding and Coastal Committee
funded technical support for NewGround to assist but unfortunately their involvement
commenced long after the floods had receded and residents had moved back into their
properties.
Other key partners included Cumbria Community Foundation who offered emergency grants
(usually up to £500) to relieve hardship caused directly or indirectly by the storm or floods as
well as Resistance and Resilience ‘top up’ grants of up to £2,000 for property level measures
that exceeded the £5,000 limit of the FRG.
Kendal Gateway coordinated by Age UK South Lakeland collected an abundance of
information including help required for grants via a bus and outreach work in the community.
Our officers had little day-to-day contact with the team and subsequently made very few
referrals. No follow up was made to these referrals and the outcome or action taken was
unclear. At times there appeared to be a duplication of support and lack of coordinated effort
which resulted in a whole range of forms that people were faced with. Residents often felt
that numerous organisations were requesting the completion of forms for unknown reasons.
Flooding has a negative impact on mental health. At times the team had to work with
residents to consider the most appropriate measures based on their health needs e.g. a
heavy barrier would not be suitable for an elderly person etc.
Page 165
24
Further reading about the impact on mental health can be found in the following report
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da
ta/file/348903/Flooding_and_mental_health_essential_information_for_frontline_responders.
Sharing of good practice
From the outset the FRG team took, and created, opportunities to discuss and share good
practice across all elements of the scheme.
It is disappointing that there was a relatively long time delay from the government
announcement of a scheme on 9 December 2015 and the launch in Manchester on the 15
January 2016. Earlier publication and clarity would have benefitted all, not least those who
had already commenced reinstatement of their property.
At the Manchester event, resilience was heavily promoted over resistance however this was
not conveyed in the subsequent guidance published. This caused confusion over the
hierarchy of flood mitigation measures although the local authority set out to promote the
initial brief.
At the same event the insurance industry fully supported and promoted the inclusion of
resilience measures during reinstatement, although in practice this did not materialise.
Despite the council forming a local agreement with one insurance company, including an
agreed schedule of rates and the grant eligible elements, the invoicing element to validate
any grant funding could not be finalised. A formal agreement across the industry should be
considered to facilitate the mechanism for funding the installation of resilience measures
during reinstatement.
As the scheme progressed a national forum/knowledge hub was formed, managed by
DEFRA, where technical queries were raised regarding eligibility criteria. Despite an
occasional positive response, in general a limited non-committal or no response at all was
the outcome. This inevitably led to local frustrations and will have contributed to an
inconsistent approach nationally.
With the intention of creating a Cumbria wide scheme the local authorities liaised at an early
stage with the aim of adopting a locally consistent approach. This proved difficult with the
each local authority interpreting the guidance at a more local level. Definitive specific
national guidance is perhaps required to ensure consistency.
Monitoring
The scheme was intended to require a light touch approach however, as the scheme
progressed it quickly became apparent that monitoring in excess of the obligatory 5% audit
of properties receiving a grant award payment was required. All applications were subject to
a stringent administrative process which was bolstered through the vigilance and actions of
officer scrutiny.
The assessment of surveys in conjunction with the application form, evidential photos and
supporting documentation/commentary provided an early opportunity to identify concerns.
Officers liaised with the householder and/or surveyor as appropriate to establish the facts
and make a judgement call on the validity and promoted effectiveness of proposals. Several
onsite meetings were often required prior to an approval being issued.
Page 166
25
In order to facilitate the acceptance of the quality of works the FRG team liaised with and
observed the works of contractors, where applicable, during their initial installations. This
provided opportunity to ensure the expected standard was likely to be achieved, intended to
reduce the necessity of revisits and provided confidence to the property owner and the team.
Administrative scrutiny was supported with physical audits following installation, which
despite our pre installation vigilance, identified a significant number of approved measures
that were installed incorrectly or obvious entry routes for flood water overlooked. Examples
include self-closing airbricks installed upside down and operating/maintenance leaflets left
inside, doorways protected but not adjacent high risk windows and pumps provided without
sufficient hosing length.
Without further intervention such measures were practically ineffective. It was disappointing
that some contractors fell below the expected degree of competency. Householders, who
lacked technical knowledge or raised concern with the flood grant team, were thankful for the
intervention of and advice from officers undertaking audits which often resulted in a revisit
and corrective actions by the respective or on occasion alternative contractor.
Bulk applications required regular meetings and visits throughout the scheme to initially
allow approval to be reached, monitor progress, ensure that approved measures were being
installed and identify the reasons for and approve alterations (where amended measures
were submitted). These applications and approvals required significant officer input due to
the numbers and complexities encountered.
Of the total 1683 grant payments made, in excess of 250 physical visits were made totalling
around 15% of measures installed.
Performance
From the onset of the project, unrealistic targets were promoted by central government. A
document produced by DEFRA suggested a 24 hour turnaround time of an application. In
practice most applications required additional information, required follow up calls and or
visits. As an authority we had a target date of a decision or further communication within
fifteen working days.
At peak times during the project this was unachievable. Applications were processed and for
fairly simple applications a decision was made within 48 hours.
Previous schemes had a take up rate of around 20%, and despite historic previously low
uptake levels DEFRA and DCLG were looking for high levels of uptake from the outset.
Benchmarking was set against other local authorities which was not considered appropriate
for the following reasons: -
Significant parts of the flooded areas had never flooded before and most people wanted
to accept the incident as a one off event and therefore did not want to put measures in
place
Some areas had large numbers of social housing flooded and housing associations put
in large bulk applications
Research has found that a property floods on average three times before measures are
installed.
External pressures were focused on application approval whilst we focused on getting
appropriate measures for properties at a competitive cost to demonstrate value for money.
Page 167
26
To support performance management a number of tools were set up, a dashboard with real
time data on our information management system as well as peer reviews, site visits and a
weekly drop in session to raise concerns. Complaints and compliments were dealt with via
the normal council procedures.
Internal Audit
In April 2017 Internal Audit carried out a review of the management and administration of the
grants scheme to provide assurance on the effectiveness of the scheme (but not on the
effectiveness of the measures funded by the scheme itself). They concluded that we had
“designed and implemented” an application process with “appropriate checks and controls”,
“there were effective and proportionate controls over the quotation process and verification
of the actual work undertaken”. A rating of “Substantial Assurance” was given.
Value for money
Value for money must be considered across all elements of the grant scheme.
Administration costs – SLDC calculate the administration costs to be just over £192,000. The
administration and success of the scheme ensued from the initial secondment of three full
time officers to form the backbone of the flood grant team at the outset, being supported
throughout by various colleagues. This resulted in stability, experience and efficiency as the
scheme progressed and delivered value for money. Although additional officers were
involved to support the full time officers, the lack of familiarity did impact on the efficiency
developed by the dedicated flood grant team. As administration costs were non-recoverable
and clearly a financial and resource burden on the local authority, value for money to
benefactors of the grant scheme is clearly evident, but a burden on local authority resources.
The continuing dedication of the team and commitment to assist those during a traumatic
time further supports value for money.
Quotes – In order to demonstrate value for money more than one quote was required,
initially three quotes were requested as used in previous schemes. This changed to two
quotes when guidance became available. As the scheme progressed and where
neighbouring properties or those in close proximity of similar construction submitted an
application for eligible measures with supporting evidence, one quote was often deemed
sufficient, following a positive assessment by the team, for an application to be approved.
On occasion, quoted figures were increased post approval leading to an increased invoice.
The team challenged these where appropriate notifying the homeowner and relevant
company that a quote is a fixed sum. Some companies were unable to appreciate or
understand the contractual differences between a quote and estimate. All invoices for figures
higher than those quoted were challenged by the grant team to obtain a reduction where
applicable to the approved quote. Without supporting justification estimates were not
accepted, not least to provide assurance to the householder and to demonstrate value for
money to the local authority.
Products and labour charges - Value for money concerns were highlighted as the scheme
progressed. The noticeable increase in the cost of products cast doubt over value for money,
as in some circumstances the supplier of products appeared to be increasing the cost of
items purely as a profit exercise. Concerns were also raised where the cost quoted for items
exceeded the cost of identical or similar products that were readily available from alternative
suppliers. This aspect was particularly noticeable where an applicant would apply for
Page 168
27
products only, choosing to install themselves, and in doing so obtaining an increase in value
for money and a wider selection of products. This further increased value for money as no
labour element was awarded where an applicant chose to self-install. It was evident that
some contractors, whilst within the indicative guidance figures set out in guidance notes that
resilience measures, such as concrete floors or tanking systems, were suspiciously close to
the grant maximum available.
Retrospective Applications – Conflict often arose where retrospective applications were
submitted. Where these were not supported by an independent survey or supporting quotes,
just an invoice, generally in the region of £5,000 - it was difficult for the applicant to
demonstrate value for money. It was predominantly these applications that were subject to
greater scrutiny and the implementation of further action where fraudulent activity was
identified. In an attempt to gain greater control over retrospective applications a time limit,
such as within the first two months following the announcement of a scheme, would negate
the requirement for increased scrutiny and resource impact at a later stage. This would
lessen the number of speculative applications and afford more time to the team to administer
legitimate applications.
The audit process – Whilst a light touch was the intention it was through the vigilance and
actions following officers’ findings that further safeguarded value for money. Physical audits
identified a significant number of installed products that had been installed incorrectly and
without intervention were practically ineffective. It is disappointing that some contractors
appeared incompetent.
Section four: Key partners
At the onset of the project, concerns were raised with DCLG and DEFRA about the
resources required to deliver nearly 2,400 grants which a potential total value of twelve
million pounds – all at the time when the council was still heavily involved in recovery. The
Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council also had discussions with the Northern
Powerhouse Minister and it was raised as a major concern with the strategic recovery group
which feedback to central government.
It is likely that on the back of requests for help some discussions took place with Business in
the Community (BITC). BITC is the Prince of Wales’s initiative aiming to provide a
responsible business network with a group of members who work together to tackle a wide
range of issues. The aim is to create a fairer society and a more sustainable future. They are
a business-led charity with more than 30 years' experience of mobilising business with a
core membership of more than 800 organisations from small enterprises to global
corporations. Under BITC, is Business Emergency Resilience Group (BERG). BERG
facilitates access to the resources of the member businesses of BITC to assist small
businesses to plan for, respond to and recover from events which disrupt their
business and impact their community.
BERG is fairly new and is evolving in response to events, keen to fill gaps and complement
rather than replicate the activities of others. BERG is not a first responder service and aim to
complement recovery. The principal strength is the convening power. Whilst the
following is not intended to be exhaustive review it is indicative of the sort of resource
BERG may be able to access and offer.
Winter Flood Response – One area of BERG support
Page 169
28
Web based resource. We are working to collate and make easily accessible all of our
information resources on line http://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/business-
emergency-resilience-group-berg
Insurance surgeries - from high level process to detailed advice for individuals.
Insurance claim resolution - in the rare circumstance where the appropriate
response or process is not followed BERG has had the opportunity to support
insurers and the insured
Loss Adjuster facilitation - BERG has facilitated an ‘on the ground’ and within
24 hour response from the Loss Adjuster community
Specific flood recovery advice - given in surgeries and one to one to assist
those affected to understand how their property will react and recover
Resilience repairs advice - specific guidance in how to undertake a repair which
is more likely to be ‘flood proof’ should a flood recur
Resilience repairs leaflet - created and distributed
Request for assistance forms - provided to those who seek specific/ particular
support from BERG
Provision of 4 wheel drive vehicles - to assist the recovery and relief effort –
(Jaguar Land Rover)
Provision of new, essential furniture - to enable temporary housing of those
displaced by flooding (John Lewis)
Provision of flood defence materials - Floodsacks (Alder and Allan)
Provision of technical advice - regarding clean-up operations (Adler and Allan)
Regarding ICT recovery (RBS/ Barclays etc.)
Provision of emergency food and toiletries for individuals (ASDA)
Establishment of fund raising campaign for affected rural communities (Virgin
Money Foundation & Virgin Money Foundation and Virgin Money Giving)
Provision of fencing – to replace damaged/ washed away fences for farming/
tourism and safety (Cordiners)
Emerging offers in process of negotiation
Creation of containerised/ mobile co-ordination and communication incident
office
Network of recovery facilitators, seconded from business, to work with
businesses, communities and the public sector agencies for 3 months post
event
In March 2016, SLDC was approached by BERG and DEFRA about support for the flood
grant project. The initial scope was a collaboration of businesses (made up of BERG
members), other agencies such as the EA and local organisations to provide a one stop
shop approach to flood grant/ insurance claim and general flooding support. The initiative
was led by Adler and Allan (A&A) on behalf of BERG. A&A’s areas of expertise include
emergency response; environmental, mechanical, electrical and civil engineering services as
well as specialist fuel service capabilities.
A portacabin was quickly mobilised to Asda (Kendal) (BERG Partner), being staffed by A&A
representatives. It was anticipated that partners/agencies would also operate from the unit,
however this unfortunately did not materialise and throughout the project the only BERG
member and partner involved was A&A. This resulted in conflict with the team as A&A, being
Page 170
29
a product supplier and survey provider, were the sole organisation operated from the unit
which led to a bias towards their services.
The portacabin remained at Asda for three months and was found not to be in the best
location, especially for the flood affected properties in north Kendal. BERG relocated to a
vacant commercial property on Blackhall Road, Kendal and remained at the shop until 26th
May 2017.
As outlined in the chapter on surveys we recommended that before consideration of
measures a flood grant survey should be completed. Locally the building surveyors were
overwhelmed with the amount of survey work and other additional building work associated
to the flooding and there was a demand on the trade. A&A stepped into this market as they
saw an opportunity and started providing surveys. For the factors highlighted about the
concerns about surveys (e.g. no standard form, training or accreditation) the first batch of
surveys were not of the standard expected and the team at SLDC helped support A&A to
increase the standard – the team put in a considerable amount of resources providing
support, educating and reading and reviewing surveys and in the first few months it put
additional pressure on the project as resources were diverted from processing applications.
A&A had a standard price of £360 for surveys. The grant had a maximum limit of £500 and
the costs varied from £240 (SLDC Building Control) up to £500.
The core of A&A’s business linked to flooding is recovery on industrial scale and they deliver
24/7 emergency response and post incident remediation for over 80% of the UK, deploying
equipment such as flood barriers, pumps and temporary storage tanks. They had no
experience of the flood grant scheme or working with communities and members of the
public as their work is all commercial nature and all flood work was focused on resistance.
As a result all the quotes were linked to resistance work which did cause ongoing debate
with the team, as for some properties resilience e.g. concrete floor should have had more
consideration. When concerns about the package of work were raised the householder/
business was informed.
Uncertainty was encountered with ‘crosswall construction’. This is a construction method
where a house has a timber framed front and rear wall (elevation) which has little structural
or flood resistance properties. Some houses of this construction style had extensions or
alterations previously made as an improvement to remove these stud wall elevations,
however this construction method was not identified by Adler & Allan. This resulted in poor
advice at the outset from survey through to promoted measures. This issue was identified
through the vigilance of the FRG team.
From the onset A&A, working under the BERG umbrella, considered this as commercial
opportunity whilst the FRG team focused on promoting the most beneficial and appropriate
measures for applicants, at a market price and standard resulting in the two objective
approaches making the relationship contentious at times. On a number of occasions senior
members from BERG and A&A were invited in for high level discussions with SLDC. DEFRA
and DCLG were invited to these meetings but did not attend. During the project, update
meetings took place on average once a week with BERG and A&A requiring numerous site
visits to obtain a satisfactory outcome. This was an additional drain on the FRG team and
although BERG may have helped to promote uptake there were clearly different agendas.
One particular measure where conflict arose was around the installation of a sump pump
(installed beneath suspended flooring with discharge hosing plumbed in). In many cases,
Page 171
30
despite approval being provided and considered greatly beneficial, a free standing puddle
pump (to pump water off a solid surface) was often supplied instead. A sump pump removes
a greater volume of water and has the potential to prevent a water level rising up to the
floorboard/carpet level. A puddle pump is only generally effective once the water level has
risen above the floor finish level. A&A often reported this was a customer decision whereas
the applicant was usually unaware of the exchange and more importantly unaware of the
reduced protection provided. The installation time and inconvenience was considered to be
the primary driver behind this approach.
SLDC was the first local authority to roll out the BERG/A&A model however, before the
project was embedded the scheme was rolled out to Lancaster, Allerdale and then later
Carlisle City Council. The absence of definitive guidance led to local variations, such as
SLDC were the only local authority requesting two quotes from A&A, as advocated in
government guidance, as opposed to one in neighbouring authorities This created tension in
the relationship with A&A despite our aim of achieving value for money.
Other areas of significant debate included:
The flood grant team often found items quoted for which were not required, for
example sealing of cable entry points, mortar repair and repainting for the same part
of the premises
Price increases from an approved quote to invoice. We rejected any increases and
the original prices were honoured after significant debate
Invoices often had new items or a change of scope from the approval. We remained
flexible to re-review requests as at times the schedule of work would change on the
day of installation e.g. opting for different measures, barrier heights etc.
The above practices created suspicions about performance related pay, bonuses and
commission although we understand staff were not based on any additional payment linked
to sales.
BERG/A&A experienced similar frustrations with the project including:
No rules, no procedures and no steer when they asked senior members of DCLG
No clear accountability on who was leading the scheme - DCLG or DEFRA
Externally the focus was on the uptake and not on quality
Lessons learnt in previous schemes had not been taken into consideration
Very resource intensive and required a project manager from the onset who was
from the sector
The two organisations are different in operating model, the private sector can take risks and
are responsible to shareholders.
Some of the feedback about SLDC from A&A/BERG
Remained clear on outcomes, governance, remained focussed and challenged
Technical input helped shape the surveys and we always highlight issues
Figures
425 surveys received via A&A
471 applications received via A&A – with 45 applications for commercial properties.
142 complaints/concerns from 111 people
Page 172
31
Following the project a debrief meeting took place in August 2018 with A&A and some of the
key findings from the meeting included:-
The lack of clarity, guidance and support from central government about the scheme
was a major barrier to the project
It was seen as a commercial opportunity which resulted in losses reported in the
region of £1.5 million over the scheme (all areas)
There is no aspiration to get involved in any further schemes
Cumbria Community Foundation
Cumbria Community Foundation (CCF) were an invaluable source of additional information
for applicants and an effective and important support partner throughout the duration of the
scheme.
Through donations made to them in the region of £10 million through 37,000 donations, CCF
were able to assist flood affected victims with initial hardship payments up to £500 intended
to help residents cover costs associated with flood damage, loss of income and increased
travel expenses. In addition where an applicant was approved for the full £5,000 flood
resilience grant, administered by the local authority, a top-up grant of up to £2,000 was
available to cover measures up to a maximum of £7,000. Whilst this aided many to install a
comprehensive package of measures some organisations saw this as an opportunity to
apply for extra measures, which on occasion were unnecessary.
In particular circumstances of vulnerability and hardship where the combined efforts of CCF
and the flood grant team deemed appropriate, CCF awarded a top-up grant in excess of the
publicised limit. CCF also provided financial aid and emotional support where vulnerable
residents had suffered impact to a property as a result of the flood event, even where they
did not meet the flood grant criteria.
Insurance companies
At the initial meeting in Manchester in January 2016 it was presented that insurance
companies would play a vital role in the reinstatement of flooded properties and they should
incorporate resilience measures during this process. This agreement would permit the costs
above like-for-like reinstatement to be grant eligible. At an early stage this appeared to a
positive step, unfortunately it became apparent that only a minority of companies were acting
on this understanding. There appeared to be breakdown in communication of this message
to those tasked with arranging reinstatement or a conscious decision by insurers to ignore
the publicised approach.
The vast majority of properties were reinstated on a like-for-like basis with no consideration
of the incorporation of resilience measures despite requests from householders at an early
stage. The local authority initially worked closely with one company and agreed that the cost
of resilience measures above like-for-like reinstatement could be grant funded. A site
meeting at a flood affected property undergoing reinstatement resulted in a mutual
understanding. The decision, however, to consider the installation of resilience measures
appeared to be a lottery and no consistency was apparent.
It transpired that the inability of the insurance company to raise invoices for any eligible
measures due to their internal processes appears to be a significant reason why the system
failed. Another reason for difficulties was the requirement of building regulation compliance
Page 173
32
for structural, thermal or similar enhancements. The raising of electrical sockets to above the
flood level was an obvious improvement and although some contractors carried this out at
no extra charge or where an insurance company refused, a separate contractor was brought
in and a subsequent grant award payment could be made.
Ultimately no payments in respect of insurance company instructed improvements were
possible.
Acknowledgements
The administration of the FRG has required the involvement of a wide range of services
within the district council and assistance from partner organisations. We would therefore like
to thank everyone that has contributed to the scheme as it would not have been possible to
deliver such a successful scheme without the support and dedication of the following staff at
SLDC:
Core flood grant team:
Fiona Inston
Sean Hall
Shaun Senior
Elaine Hall
Tom McCormick
Others include:
Cat Brumwell
Lorraine Kissock
Lisa Shaw
Alison Coward
Katie Booth
Richard Machin
SLDC teams:
Building Control
Communications
Revs and Bens
Economic Development
Finance
Legal
Contact Centre
Public Protection
Streetscene
Conclusion
The flood grant team were tireless, regularly working long hours (including weekends and
evenings) under pressure to deliver the scheme and despite this, due to the sheer number of
Page 174
33
applications and their complexity, there were unavoidable backlogs at times. We remained
consistent throughout, with our focus on the most appropriate measures while ensuring
value for money. At times our robust and challenging approach resulted in conflict and the
absence of good quality guidance did not support our project objectives.
There is significant amount of learning and we hope that DCLG, DEFRA and any other local
authorities that roll out future schemes reflect on our learning.
Appendix 1: Table of Recommendations
Section one: Scheme set up
Issue Detail Improvements/Recommendations
Minimal information
available at the
announcement and
outset of scheme
Lack of detail regarding
scheme criteria
Announce scheme with definitive
guidance, templates, forms, letters,
key scheme dates for efficiency
and clarity
Inconsistent approach
by insurers
Removing already
present resilience
measures e.g. removing
lime plaster
Painting over mould and
wet walls
Lack of knowledge,
procedures, buy in and
seeing the bigger
picture
Work to be done with loss adjustors
and insurance industry to include
resilience into re-instalment as
standard practice
Better education within the industry
Evidence of internal
flooding
Lack of clarity on overall
scheme scope and
definition e.g.
basements and integral
garages
Clear definition of what is the
acceptable standard of evidence to
support the application
Penalised for being
proactive to prevent
flooding
If an owner did proactive
measures during the
flooding and as a result
did not flood they were
not eligible for the grant
The criteria reflects owners who are
proactive
Page 175
34
Promotion of resilience
above resistance
Heavily promoted by
DEFRA however not
supported in their
guidance document and
difficult to sell
Insurance companies
not engaging with this
approach
Different interpretation
by different LA’s
Clear hierarchy of acceptable
measures which promote resilience
above resistance
Education material/messages to
promote resilience
Agreed, scheme specific approach
in resilient reinstatement of
properties with insurance
companies
Habitable Clear definition – does
property need to be
lived in at time of
flooding?
Clearer definition of which internal
areas of property which are eligible
from the start or remove the criteria
Business critical
definition
The example of
business critical was
inflexible
Remove the business critical criteria
of the grant
Surveys
No national standard –
no template or
recognised format
Different levels of
competency amongst
surveyors as no
standard qualification
Product focused
Develop national standard
Develop accepted format for survey
Requirement to be independent
from products
(Aware of some work nationally in
this area taking place)
Nationally recognised qualification
Include post install survey in future
schemes to validate installation and
ensure standards maintained
Application form
No application template
available
Lack of guidance on
how to complete form
National template
Available online
Different app. for small joint
schemes
Plain English – accessible
Template application completed as
a guide
Contractor and
quotations
Inundation of new
contractors in district
Need to ensure value for money
Page 176
35
Lack of understanding
between estimate and
quote
Indicative DEFRA
product cost list not
current
Contractors aware of
DEFRA prices and
adjust their costs
accordingly
Some prices became
inflated because of
demand e.g. silicon
sealant
Costings should be bench marked.
Minimum standard for invoices – not
hand written
Addition funds/resource should be
given to local trading standards to
police contractors and deal with
customer enquiries
Retrospective
applications
No definitive timescale
provided
Remove or provide a definitive
timescale
Eligibility of bespoke
flood mitigation
measures
Conflict over definitions To document local decisions to
ensure clarity and consistency
Section two: Operational delivery
Issue Detail Improvements/Recommendations
Communications Developed comms plan
at early stage and
ensured lots of
engagement. Worked
well
Ensure comms plan developed at
an early stage
Standard of applications No supporting
documentation provided
Supporting guidance notes to aid
completion of an application
Quotations not
independent of applicant
Ensure independence of the quote
from property ownership/interest
Indicative costs for
measures were out of
date and ambiguous
No clarity if these figures
included materials and
installation/labour costs
Indicative costs to be current and
unambiguous e.g. £/m², to include
installation cost and materials
Administration of
application amendments
Changes to approved
applications
Officer to consider on individual
basis or Flood Grant Panel to
minute meetings and document
decisions
Page 177
36
Section three: Strategic Management
Issue Detail Improvements/Recommendations
Resourcing Impact on day to day
statutory functions
Funding to backfill seconded staff
and to facilitate business continuity
Fraudulent claims Identification of and
action in respect of
fraudulent applications
Worked well with cross
departmental involvement.
Alternative delivery
model
Significant impact on
local authority staff
Reduce administrative burden
Performance targets Short term unrealistic
targets which focus on
numbers rather than
quality or the right
measures
Remove the focus on KPI’s.
Section four: Partners
Issue Detail Improvements/Recommendations
Other Government
Agencies
Scheme announced
before detail clarified
Template scheme/process to be
made available prior to
announcement
Third Sector Too many partner
organisations –
confusing for flood
victims
Clarity for the process and
responsibilities for the respective
organisations
Page 178
Appendix 2: Flood Resilience Grant Process Map
Audit % of
applications
Paying
surveyor
directly
Pay
insurance
company
Pay
contractors
Payment Made
Pay
householder
Change of mind
BERG follow up
Additional measures required
Change of suppler/ products—
checks needed on suitability
Applicant cannot contact builder
Price goes up
BERG quotes—wrong number of
products or products do not fit
Complaints about standard of work
Aborted work or throwing supplier
off site
Approval letter details:
Amount, measures, claim
submission date and payment info
Work complete
Confirmation of
Work
Forms not complete e.g. Not
signed, missing pages or info
Do not provide info on flooding
or damage
Previous application coming
back for additional work.
Not sure on measures & next
stage
Not sure on what supplier &
where to go
Repair work
No quotes
Not flooded e.g. damp issues
Not flooded but near- after info
Work out of scope e.g. roof
repair
Not the property owner
Various
stages
Do not obtain an invoice
or proof of payment
Do not supply full info
Bank details incomplete
Different work completed
as agreed
Chasing payment that
has been paid
Forms not complete
Setting up new contactor
Inform
applicant by
letter of
approval
Yes
No
Info provided
Request more info
(Speak with
agencies)
Officers assess
application:
If community
scheme (more
than 5) project
team to review
Accept
Application
Yes
Request
more info
(Letters/calls)
Support team
assess form:
Accepted
SRU Entered
on APP
Application
received:
email or post
Pre Enquiry
Via website, call
and drop in calls.
Additional work streams
Section 19 reports Flood events and evening meetings Promoting uptake
Fraud cases Drop in sessions Newground
Insurance companies Partnership working Comms work
Community schemes Challenges with suppliers
Officer assessment— see page two
Assessment: Are measures
appropriate, effective, value for
money and quality assured?
No
Page 179
2
Page 180
3
Appendix 3 – Flood Resilience Grant Process Map
Page 181
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 182
South Lakeland District Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Friday, 26 October 2018
Scrutiny Recommendations Progress Report
Chairperson: Councillor Vicky Hughes – Chairperson of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Report from: Debbie Storr- Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)
Report Author: Jemma Fells – Project Support Officer
Wards: Not applicable
Forward Plan: Not applicable
1.0 Expected Outcome
1.1 By monitoring the progress made by Cabinet and officers in implementing the recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Members will retain sight of proposals and their outcomes. The regular reviewing of recommendations made by Members will also ensure the effectiveness of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is both maintained and monitored.
2.0 Recommendation
2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee notes the progress made by Cabinet in implementing the recommendations of the Committee.
3.0 Background and Proposals
3.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee plays a key role in reviewing policies and performance in delivering services, managing finances and other aspects of the Council. Each year the Committee sets an annual Work Programme which combines both formal committee meetings and in-depth reviews. The Committee primarily makes recommendations to Cabinet, but can also make recommendations to other decision makers or external bodies.
3.2 Monitoring the progress of these recommendations is an important part of the effective governance provided by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In addition to these biannual reports, the Committee can receive verbal updates at meetings throughout the year during consideration of the latest Work Programme.
3.3 During 2017/18, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee presented two formal reports to Cabinet: Outcomes of the Review of Active Travel (CEX/84) and a task and finish group report contained within South Lakeland District Council and Eden District Council Joint Older Persons’ Housing Strategy 2018 – 2025 (CEX/124). The recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were agreed by Cabinet. An Asset Management Strategy Workshop was held in April 2018.
Page 183
Item No.15
Review of Active Travel
3.4 Following the Active Travel review, “work is continuing so as to meet the objectives of the action plan. Additional detail will be provided in the Environment portfolio holder’s annual report.
Joint Older Persons’ Housing Strategy
3.5 The Joint Older Persons’ Housing Strategy was approved by Cabinet on 21 March 2018 and work has been undertaken to progress actions within the Strategy’s Action Plan since then. The table below shows some highlights of work undertaken:
Action Progress
1a) Produce a directory of services for older people in partnership with statutory and voluntary agencies.
Work has been undertaken in partnership with statutory and voluntary actions and the Directory is now on the web-site and was circulated to all Members. A printed version is about to be distributed to key locations as described in the Strategy. This will help to advertise what services are available.
2a) Use discretionary non-means tested DFGs for falls prevention (SLDC).
Non-means tested DFGs are now in place in South Lakeland and this has led to a big increase in the number of DFGs being undertaken under £5000 which fall into this category. The number of DFG referrals was 106 in 2016-17 before the discretionary grants. In 2017-18 the number of referrals rose to 189. In 2018-19 the figure is likely to be higher.
2b) Become an accredited Home Improvement Agency in 2018 in South Lakeland.
The Council became an accredited Home Improvement Agency on 1 July 2018.
2f & 2g) Undertake a review of the procurement and application process for DFGs and Complete the procurement for the Handy Person Scheme.
A procurement process has been undertaken in respect of stair lifts and the contract runs until 2019. Further procurement to start in October 2018 for the remaining 6 lots. Procurement has taken place also for the Handy Person Scheme and the contract runs for 3 years from April 2018.
2k) Develop a system for DFG Officers to liaise with hospital staff regarding planned discharge of patients where a DFG can assist; and
3a) Establish a scheme to facilitate older people in the private sector to downsize targeting households where a DFG would be inappropriate, or where there are Category 1 Hazards
An additional member of staff is now in place to help in the development of HIA, increasing numbers of DFGs and to take forward actions regarding hospital discharge and downsizing. A scoping exercise to be undertaken on the above. The Council has now introduced its own architectural services within the DFG process in South Lakeland.
Page 184
in the home.
4a) Work in partnership with Cumbria County Council and Registered Providers to enable extra care schemes to be developed in line with evidenced need.
Planning consent has been provided for a 104 unit scheme at Oxenholme, Kendal and work will start in the near future on the scheme. There is also a community led extra care development taking place at Gatesbield, Windermere in partnership with Cumbria County Council. The Scheme is being part funded by South Lakeland Community Led Housing Grant and Cumbria County Council Extra Care Housing Grant. Work is progressing on the legal agreement before the development gets underway.
4c) Update Development Management Policy to require all new homes in the South Lakeland District Planning Authority area to be built to M4(2) Category 2 – Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings standard and a percentage to be built to M4(3) category wheelchair adaptable standard.
The draft Development Management Policies have now been through examination and the examiner has supported the Council approach in these requirements.
Appropriate publicity will be issued for achievements outlined in the above table in line with the Strategy’s first priority about promoting existing services.
Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy
(previously known as Corporate Asset Strategy)
3.6 The workshop was held on 12 April 2018, the comments from which have fed into the draft Strategy which is elsewhere on the agenda.
Northern Rail
3.7 A letter to Northern Rail was sent following the last meeting, the response has been circulated and Northern Rail have agreed to attend the meeting in January to provide further information and answer questions from Members.
Other recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3.8 In addition to the formal recommendations made by the Committee, a number of comments and/or suggestions were raised throughout various items considered at committee meetings. In situations where these comments were raised against executive items, these comments were highlighted during consideration by Cabinet. Other changes requested of officers, for example in relation to grammatical or presentational issues, are typically taken into account before the item is presented to Cabinet. Portfolio Holders have shown a strong commitment to the scrutiny process over the past twelve months.
4.0 Consultation
4.1 This report has been prepared in consultation with the relevant lead officers.
Page 185
5.0 Alternative Options
5.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee could choose not to undertake regularly monitoring of the recommendations that it has made. This is not recommended, as the Committee will have no sight of its recommendations after they have been made.
5.2 Should the Committee feel that its recommendations are not being progressed adequately it could request more regular updates from the relevant decision-maker.
6.0 Links to Council Priorities
6.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s broad remit and varied work programme means that its work often links to all of the priorities and targets set out within the current Council Plan.
7.0 Implications
Financial, Resources and Procurement
7.1 There are no direct financial or resource implications arising from this report. The report provides an update on the implementation of previously agreed recommendations.
Human Resources
7.2 There are no staffing implications arising from this report. The report provides an update on the implementation of previously agreed recommendations.
Legal
7.3 There is a legal requirement for local authorities to operate an overview and scrutiny committee. The committee needs to be effective in its role. This report provides an update on the implementation of previously agreed recommendations.
Health, Social, Economic and Environmental
7.4 Have you completed a Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment? No
7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons:
This report provides an update on the progression of recommendations previously made by the Committee.
7.6 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts: N/A
Equality and Diversity
7.7 Have you completed an Equality Impact Analysis? No
7.8 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons:
This report provides an update on the progression of recommendations previously made by the Committee.
7.9 Summary of equality and diversity impacts: N/A
Risk
Risk Consequence Controls required
That recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee are not actioned.
The value added by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be lessened.
Regular monitoring of progress made against the recommendations from the Committee.
Page 186
Contact Officers
Jemma Fells, Project Support Officer, 01539 793278, [email protected]
Background Documents Available
Name of Background document Where it is available
Active Travel
Joint Older Person’s Housing Strategy
http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/s20330/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Review%20of%20Active%20Travel.pdf
http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/s21386/South%20Lakeland%20District%20Council%20and%20Eden%20District%20Council%20Joint%20Older%20Persons%20Housing%20Strategy%202018-.pdf
Tracking Information
Signed off by Date sent
Legal Services 28/09/18
Section 151 Officer 28/09/18
Monitoring Officer 28/09/18
SMT N/A
Circulated to Date sent
Assistant Director N/A
Human Resources Manager N/A
Communications Team N/A
Leader N/A
Committee Chairman N/A
Portfolio Holder N/A
Ward Councillor(s) N/A
Committee 26/10/18
Executive (Cabinet) N/A
Council N/A
Page 187
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 188