Decisions

In recommending the Dorset Council Plan for adoption, the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Development and Change reminded Council that all members had been invited to attend a number of workshops and a series of seminars.  Public conversations were also held in order to formulate the plan that was before members for decision.

 

Cllr M Roberts seconded the recommendation.

 

In response to questions and concerns raised regarding the link to climate change within the Dorset Plan, the Portfolio Holder advised that there were a number of actions around climate change underpinning wider actions for the council.  He also acknowledged that social deprivation needed to be considered as part of the overarching action plan and performance would be continually monitored by Cabinet.

 

Decision

 

That the Dorset Council Plan be adopted

 

Reason for Decision

 

To provide clarity about the Council’s priorities for the next four years.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Commerical and Assets set out the budget paper for 2020 – 2021.  He welcomed the input given to the budget from the Scrutiny Café event which had been a constructive challenge to the budget process.  He noted the transfer of additional resources to adults and children’s social care, the movement of funding from back office to front line services and that the proposals set out a balanced budget for 2020/21 which supported those in most need in the community.

 

Cllr T Ferrari proposed the budget for 2020 – 2021 and this was seconded by Cllr S Flower.

 

The Chairman invited Group Leaders to respond to the budget proposals.

 

Cllr S Flower noted that it was a well presented budget which had been brought together with the cross party involvement of councillors including the key role of the scrutiny committees.  He referred to work already undertaken to achieve initial convergence and further transformation work to be undertaken.  Although there had been a need to increase council tax, this would enable investment in adults and children’s services and the ability to safeguard services.  He expressed full support for the budget as set out in the recommendations presented to Council.

 

Cllr N Ireland expressed gratitude that the budget proposals refrained from cutting services.  He noted that the report was honest about the challenges faced by the council but felt that the budget did not cover all areas that needed to be considered, including funding for the council’s response to the climate emergency.  In particular he made reference to the use of reserves, the lack of funding from central government which did not acknowledge the need in social care, social mobility indicies and noted that residents were being faced with the maximum council tax increase.  He added that he expected the Leader to engage with all councillors and for there to be ongoing monitoring and challenge through the scrutiny process.  The Liberal Democrat Group had established  a Shadow Cabinet in order to work on and offer genuine options for consideration.

 

Cllr L Fry expressed thanks to all who had worked on the budget and a desire to progress action required.

 

Cllr C Sutton noted that since 2010, councils had suffered huge reductions in funding from central government.  She welcomed additional funding for adult and children’s services and noted that the budget process had been an inclusive process.  She thanked all staff who had assisted the council but who were no longer with the council.  She noted that the Green Group would be proposing amendments to the budget and it was felt that the budget could be more ambitious in the use of reserves.

 

Cllr P Kimber speaking as an individual, expressed a level of concern about where the budget was being spent and made particular reference to issues of deprivation and housing.

 

The following amendment was proposed by Cllr C Sutton and seconded by Cllr B Heatley:-

 

“Change the CPI (Consumer Price Index) inflation assumption underlying the budget in Appendix 6 (Page 165) for 2020/21 from 1.2% to 1.1%, and make all the consequential changes predicted by the spreadsheet to any figure affected in the budget by them.  In particular this will reduce overall net expenditure by £260,643.

In Appendix 1, Table 1a (page 119) add to the figures in line 404,  £261k in each of the pay and net budget columns, so the new figures are £6412k and £4845k respectively, and the budget overall is balanced at the same net expenditure.

 

In Appendix 1, 1h, Children’s Services budget 2020/21 (page 126) add an additional line after the EHCP’s transport line

 

Youth Work 260,643

 

Make any further consequential changes to the budget that are required”

 

In presenting the amendment Cllr Sutton advised that youth clubs/centres had  reduced in number dramatically across Dorset and indicated that studies commissioned had shown a correlation between a reduction within youth services and increase in school exclusions and anti social behaviour.  She further highlighted that the Police and Crime Commissioner had also expressed concerns.  In proposing her amendment she stated that it was essential that the council invested in youth services to ensure clubs that had survived to date kept going in the future.

 

Cllr Heatley advised that it was important that the council started to return to supporting youth clubs that offered such a valuable service to young people in Dorset.

 

Although acknowledged as a worthy cause, the Leader of the Council stated that any change in budget should be considered through policy change and the most appropriate means to do this would be through the member scrutiny process.

 

Cllrs P Barrow and D Gray left the meeting prior to the vote on the amendment. Upon being put to the vote the amendment was LOST.

 

In accordance with procedure rule 19.6 a recorded vote was taken.  Those who voted in favour of the amendment:- Cllr J Andrews, M Barron, S Bartlett, D Beer, R Biggs, D Bolwell, A Brenton, K Clayton, S Cocking, T Cook, J Dover, B Ezzard, L Fry, M Hall, B Heatley, R Holloway, R Hughes, N Ireland, S Jones, P Kimber, H Legg, D Morgan, J Orrell, M Rennie, M Roe, A Starr, C Sutton, R Tarr, D Taylor, G Taylor, D Tooke, S Williams and J Worth.

 

Against:- Cllrs R Adkins, A Alford, P Batsone, C Brooks, P Brown, R Bryan, G

Carr-Jones, S Christopher, R Cook, T Coombs, J Dunseith, M Dyer, T Ferrari, S Flower, S Gibson, B Goringe, P Harrison, S Jespersen, C Jones, A Kerby, N Lacey-Clarke, C Lugg, L Miller, L O’Leary, E Parker, M Parkes, A Parry, M Penfold, B Pipe, V Pothecary, B Quayle, B Ridout, M Roberts, J Robinson, D Shortell, J Somper, G Sutte, D Turner, D Walsh, P Wharf and K Wheller.

 

There were no abstentions.

 

The following amendment was put by Cllr K Clayton seconded by Cllr B Heatley:-

 

“Amend paras 1.1 and 1.2 of the Budget Report (page 103) as follows (new text in italics, deleted text with strike- through):

 

1.1 The Council’s budget provides a financial framework for the Council to achieve its priorities and its cross-cutting commitment to addressing the climate and ecological emergency. These priorities are described …

 

1.2 The Council’s budget strategy is based on a commitment to deliver these priorities and action on the climate and ecological emergency within the resources it has available...

 

Amend para 4.4 (page 106) as follows

 

 ... An investment fund of £5m has been established to finance transformation projects which either have a material, lasting and positive impact on the revenue budget, and/or reflect the extra costs of doing something in a way that materially mitigates or adapts to climate change and/or improves Dorset's ecology.

 

Amend para 12.4 (page 114) as follows:

 

12.4 The work so far indicates that Dorset Council will be able to establish a prudent level of earmarked reserves and will work towards releasing some of these for investment in future service capacity and improvement once the direction of future funding is clearer.  In particular, a priority for such released reserves will be the Transformation Fund (para 4.4 above) and the Council will decide in Autumn 2020 whether it is in a position to release a further £5m for this fund.”

 

Cllr P Barrow returned to the meeting.

 

In presenting the amendments, Cllr K Clayton stated that this was a modest proposal and the first part of the amendment giving  the Climate and Ecological Emergency a place in the financial framework was analogous to the Corporate Plan priorities.  The second part of the amendment gave substance to the first part by extending the scope of the Transformation Fund to include climate change and ecological projects and increasing its size by a further £5m in Autumn 2020 if Dorset Council’s reserves position so permitted.

 

Councillors discussed the amendment and particular reference was made to why the figure of £5m had been chosen?  In response it was noted that the amendment was about putting climate change in the budget which would allow the opportunity for related projects to be considered in a similar way to transformation items.  A request was made for there to be more ambition in this area which would require available funding.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Commercial and Assets recognized the aspiration of the amendment but noted that the Council should not commit money to a single issue as this could limit the ability of the Council to transform in the future.  He provided examples of action already being taken in respect of climate change issues.

 

Upon being put to the vote the amendment was LOST.  In accordance with procedure rule 19.6 a recorded vote was taken.

 

Those who voted in favour of the amendment:- Cllrs J Andrews, P Barrow, D Beer, R Biggs, A Brenton, K Clayton, T Cook, J Dover, B Ezzard, L Fry, M Hall, B Heatley, R Holloway, N Ireland, S Jones, P Kimber, H Legg, D Morgan, J Orrell, M Rennie, M Roe, A Starr, C Sutton, R Tarr, D Taylor, G Taylor, D Tooke and S Williams.

 

Those who voted against the amendments:- Cllrs R Adkins, T Alford, S Bartlett, P Batstone, C Brooks, P Brown, R Bryan, G Carr-Jones, S Christopher, S Cocking, R Cook, T Coombs, J Dunseith, M Dyer, T Ferrari, S Flower, S Gibson, B Goringe, P Harrison, R Hughes, S Jespersen, C Jones, A Kerby, N Lacey-Clarke, C Lugg, L Miller, L O’Leary, E Parker, M Parkes, A Parry, M Penfold, B Pipe, V Pothecary, B Quayle, B Ridout, M Roberts, J Robinsons, D Shortell, J Somper, G Suttle, D Turner, D Walsh, Peter Wharf, K Wheller and J Worth.

 

Abstentions:- Cllr M Barron

 

Proposed amendment Youth Centres

 

The following amendment was proposed by Cllr L Fry and seconded by Cllr N Ireland.

 

Amend item 5.2 (page 8 of report, page 106 of agenda).

 

5.2       Additional resources are being put into the budget to provide for increasing levels and costs of support for children and young people with more complex needs. In addition, any positive balance from the budgeted amount and actual national pay award will be directed towards provision for youth services, in the form of grants to properly constituted youth centres across Dorset. The Council is also examining how it might better use its capital budget to develop some of its own solutions to financial pressures caused by a limited national market where councils are competing for finite resources that can provide some of the services required.

 

Councillors discussed the issues arising from the amendment and during discussion the following points were raised:

 

·                A point was raised that this was a modest amendment which would not commit funding until money was available.  It would form a statement of intent and recognise the area as a priority

·                A discussion was held in respect of the different ways that youth clubs could be supported

·                A point was raised that the amendment should have been brought up and discussed during the budget scrutiny process

·                The support for youth services and the intention of the amendment were recognised however it was planned to establish an executive advisory panel to look at youth services support moving forward.  This was felt to be a more appropriate way of progressing the issue

·                Various councillors shared their experiences of working with youth clubs within the council area

·                Those councillors supporting the amendment urged the Council to vote in support so that work in this area could be progressed

·                A point was raised that the amendment and the work of the executive advisory panel to be established could work alongside each other

·                A point was noted that the amendment had been put forward as there were currently no proposals for youth services

·                The need to support young people was recognised but a point was noted that it needed to be considered in a structured way.

 

Cllr P Barrow left the meeting prior to the vote taking place.

 

Upon being put to the vote the amendment was LOST. In accordance with procedure rule 19.6 a recorded vote was taken.

 

Those who voted in favour of the amendment:- Cllrs J Andrews, M Barron, S Bartlett, D Beer, R Biggs, D Bolwell, A Brenton, K Clayton, S Cocking,  T Cook, J Dover, L Fry, M Hall, B Heatley, R Holloway, R Hughes, N Ireland, S Jones, P Kimber, H Legg, D Morgan, J Orrell, M Rennie, M Roe, A Starr, C Sutton, R Tarr, D Taylor, G Taylor, D Tooke K Wheller, S Williams and J Worth.

 

Those who voted against the amendments:- Cllrs R Adkins, T Alford, P Batstone, C Brooks, P Brown, R Bryan, G Carr-Jones, S Christopher, R Cook, T Coombs, J Dunseith, M Dyer, T Ferrari, S Flower, S Gibson, B Goringe, P Harrison, S Jespersen, C Jones, A Kerby, N Lacey-Clarke, C Lugg, L Miller, L O’Leary, E Parker, M Parkes, A Parry, M Penfold, B Pipe, V Pothecary, B Quayle, B Ridout, M Roberts, J Robinsons, D Shortell, J Somper, G Suttle, D Turner, D Walsh and Peter Wharf.

 

There were no abstentions.

 

Members returned to the original motion.  Councillors thanked all those who had been involved in preparing the budget.  The budget setting arrangements including the Budget Scrutiny Café had provided for a transparent process and allowed a high level of engagement.

 

Cllr T Ferrari proposed that the vote be taken.

 

Those in favour of the recommendation:- Cllrs R Adkins, A Alford, J Andrews, M Barron, S Bartlett, P Batstone, D Beer, R Biggs, D Bolwell, A Brenton, C Brooks, P Brown, R Bryan, G Carr-Jones, S Cocking, T Cook, R Cook, T Coombs, J Dover, J Dunseith, M Dyer, T Ferrari, S Flower, L fry, S Gibson, B Goringe, P Harrison, R Holloway, R Hughes, S Jespersen, S Jones, C Jones, A Kerby, P Kimber, N Lacey-Clarke, H Legg, C Lugg, L Miller, D Morgan, L O’Leary, J Orrell, E Parker, M Parkes A Parry, M Penfold, B Pipe, V Pothecary, B Quayle, M Rennie, B Ridout, M Roberts, J Robinson, M Roe, D Shortell, J Somper, A Starr, G Suttle, R Tarr, D Taylor, D Turner, D Walsh, P Wharf, K Wheller, S Williams and J Worth.

 

Those who voted against the recommendation:- Cllrs B Ezzard, M Hall, N Ireland and G Taylor.

 

Abstentions:- Cllrs K Clayton, B Heatley and C Sutton

 

Decision

 

(a)       That the revenue budget summarised in Appendix 1 of the report to Council of 18 February 2020 be approved;

(b)       That the increase in general council tax of 1.995%; to levy 2% as the social care precept, providing a band D council tax figure for Dorset Council of £1,694.79 be approved  and

(c)        That the full council tax recommendation as set out in Appendix 2 of the report be approved;

(d)       That the capital strategy set out in Appendix 3 and the capital programme set out in Appendix 4 of the report be approved;

(e)       That the treasury management strategy set out in Appendix 5 of the report be approved;

(f)        That the assumptions used to develop the budget strategy and MTFP as set out throughout the report to Council of 18 February 2020 and summarised in Appendix 6 be approved;

(g)       That the recommended balances on earmarked reserves and on general funds, including the minimum level of the general fund be approved;

(h)       That the application of council tax premiums as set out in the report, for long-term empty properties, to encourage those homes back into use, be approved;

(i)         That the responses to the recommendations and comments made as part of the budget scrutiny process (Appendix 8) be agreed;

(j)         That the cost reductions flowing from reorganisation, summarised in Appendix 7 be received and noted.

 

Reason for Recommendation: 

  

The Council is required to set a balanced revenue budget, and to approve a level of council tax as an integral part of this.

 

The Council is also required to approve a capital strategy, a capital programme and budget, and a treasury management strategy.

 

The draft budget proposals have been considered and endorsed by the four Dorset Council scrutiny committees (People, Place, Resources and Health).

Reason for Decision

A collaboration for water refill points between Wessex Water, Weymouth Town Council and Dorset Council.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected:

The Delegated powers clearly gives the authority, the delegated powers are the obvious way forward.

Licence for new Water Refill Points in Weymouth.

Reason for Decision

To remove a temporary RNLI facility as per planning consent.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected:

The Delegated Powers clearly gives the authority, the delegated powers are the obvious way forward.

A Licence for Alterations (Minor Works) Weymouth.

Reason for Decision

To renew the existing 10 year lease at market rent.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected:

The Delegated Powers clearly gives the authority, the delegated powers are the obvious way forward.

A new internal repairing lease for 10 years at Weymouth Sands Guest House, 5 the Esplanade, Weymouth.

The Committee were being asked to consider proposed changes to Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) governing the use and positioning of loading bays on Institute Road, Swanage to complement and ensure that a footway improvement scheme could be readily accommodated.  Institute Road was a one-way road bisecting the south eastern part of the town and formed part of its main retail and commercial centre, being the only vehicular access to the southern half of the town, serving the harbour, quay and Durlston Country Park, as well as residential areas. The proposals for the changes to be made to the TROs had received the full support of the Swanage Town Council and both Dorset Council ward Councillors. The principle of the footway improvement scheme had been agreed and approved by both Dorset Council and Swanage Town Council, with funding being readily available, with contributions being allocated to this between the two councils and from the Local Transport Plan and from local development.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the reasoning behind the need for the TRO modifications to be made and the basis of the objections received. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed what the changes would be; how they would affect the traffic management of the road; what alternative arrangements were being proposed; and how the general situation currently looked. The characteristics, configuration and topography of the road and its setting within the townscape were drawn to the attention of the Committee, giving an idea of the relationship between the traffic using the road, pedestrians using the footways and the proximity of the commercial and retail properties.

 

As the road was relatively narrow - at 5m wide – this being further  exacerbated by a loading bay running its entire eastern length, access along the road was only some 2.5m in width, which was evidently too narrow for larger vehicles trying to pass vehicles parked in the loading bay, as had proven to be the case on numerous occasions. This had habitually resulted in vehicles having to mount the footway to pass - made easier to do given their height was little more than the road surface - which invariably conflicted with pedestrian movements. There had been evidence of incidents occurring which significantly compromised road safety. Moreover, parts of the available footways were privately owned by shops and used by them for displaying merchandise, further limiting the available space for pedestrians.

 

So as to improve the safety of pedestrians, it was now being proposed to widen the footways on both sides of the road, allowing satisfactory access for them. In order to facilitate and complement this however, it was necessary for the loading bay traversing the length of the road to be removed and repositioned, requiring changes to the Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) governing its use. What other traffic management measures were to be implemented to complement the scheme was described by officers, including the upgrading of a puffin crossing.

 

Following the advertisement of the proposals, objections had been received on the basis that the loss of the extent of the loading bay would adversely affect the ability for retailers to readily load and unload goods efficiently and conveniently and would affect their trade and the viability of their businesses. However, officers considered that adequate, reasonable and proportionate alternative arrangements had been made for there to still be adequate and satisfactory provision for this activity in the near vicinity.

 

Consequently, the Committee was now being asked to consider the objections received and whether the proposal should be recommended for endorsement by the Portfolio Holder for implementation, as advertised.

 

The Committee heard from one of the two local ward Members, Councillor Bill Trite, speaking on behalf of both of them - as well as Councillor Avril Harris of the Town Council - who considered that given the necessity for the implementation of the footway improvements and given that the changes to the TRO’s was a necessary consequence of this, the proposals should be supported, as they stood. The Town Council would be making a significant contribution to the works’ costs, showing he importance of the scheme to the town. Much consultation on this had taken place in the recent past with the scheme design addressing the majority of concerns raised and, whilst he understood the reasons for those concerns, this length of road remained one of the busiest in Swanage, especially during the summer months, and the widening of the footways would give pedestrians much safer access to shops and along the road, whilst still providing for the necessary access by vehicles along its length.  He considered the proposals to be integral to the benefits to be gained from the improvement scheme and would improve the retail experience.

 

So as to inform their decision making, the Committee took the opportunity to gain a better understanding of what the proposals entailed, how concerns had been addressed and what alternative arrangements for loading had been made. Officers confirmed that the new scheme would ensure the kerbs were raised so there was a clear distinction between the footways and the road. They also confirmed that the repositioned loading bays would still prove sufficient opportunity for this activity to take place and were being located as close as practicable to those commercial businesses for their convenience.

 

Whilst there would undoubtedly need to be some degree of negotiations between shopkeepers and their suppliers over when deliveries would take place and how this would be done, the Committee considered that what was being proposed was, in the circumstances, reasonable and a suitable alternative in meeting retailer’s needs. The need to ensure improved pedestrian access on road safety grounds on Institute Road, on balance, outweighed any inconvenience which might be expected by businesses and could well encourage an increase in trade by having this enhanced environment.  Members emphasised though that there would be a need for stringent enforcement of the TROs for them to be as effective and successful as they could be.

 

Having considered the objections received, and understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this and having heard from officers at the meeting and what they had read in the report, the Committee considered that the proposed changes to the TROs governing the location of the loading bays were necessary both on safety grounds and on practicability and to complement and accommodate the benefits to pedestrian safety the footway widening scheme would bring, being both reasonable and proportionate in achieving this. Given this, and taking into account the support of the local Ward Councillors, Swanage Town Council and other primary consultees, on being put to the vote, the Committee considered that the proposals should be implemented as advertised.

 

Recommended

That having considered the representations received, in response to public advertisement, the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Highways, Travel and Environment be asked to support the proposed changes to the Traffic Regulation Orders, as advertised.

 

Reason for Recommendation

To enable and complement the footway widening improvement scheme in Institute Road in providing a safer environment for pedestrian, in considering that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the potential impacts on local businesses, from reduced loading provision and on-street parking.

Decision

 

That the quarterly high-level performance framework for the Council Plan be agreed.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

To ensure progress towards the council plan is measured and monitored.

Decision

 

That the press and the public be excluded for the following item (item15) in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Decision

 

(a)       That the updated Dorset Heathland Planning Framework 2020-2025 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), with any updates, and the SPD be implemented from 1 April 2020;

 

(b)       That the Service Manager for Spatial Planning and the Portfolio Holder for Planning,  be delegated authority to sign off and make changes as a result of the Cabinet meeting of 3 March 2020 and Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch Council (BCP).

 

Reason for the Decision

 

(i)         Due to different report deadlines the SPD is still to be agreed by BCP Council.

 

(ii)        To ensure the Council maintains a planning framework for mitigating impact of new residential, tourist accommodation and equestrian development on Dorset Heathland.  The document once adopted will have significant weight in decision making, when determining relevant planning applications.  It will enable the Council, as Competent Authority under the Habitats Regulations, in combination with the appropriate assessments at planning application stage, the certainly that the impact of development can be mitigated avoiding an adverse effect upon Dorset Heathland.

Decision

 

That the Single Use Plastic Policy be adopted.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

Bringing consistency of approaches to reducing Single Use Plastic (SUP) throughout Dorset Council offices and services.

Decision

 

That the procurements and awards of proposed contracts (as set out in appendix A of the report) be approved.

 

In giving the approval, members were approving known/likely procurement set for implementation during 2020/21 (or as specifically noted otherwise) on terms to be agreed by the delegated officer, Corporate Director or Portfolio Holder for each arrangement.

 

Procurements exceeding the key decision threshold which are not yet identified will be subject to a separate report or approval during 2020/21, as need arises.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

Cabinet is required to approve all key decisions with financial consequences of £500K or more.  It is also good governance to provide cabinet with a summary of all proposed procurements prior to them formally commencing.

Decision

 

(a)       That the forecast for Dorset Council’s position at the end of Quarter 3 and the movements since Quarter 2 be noted;

 

(b)       That the actions to improve the position during the year be received and noted;

 

(c)        That the impact of any overspend on reserves and the general fund be noted.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

To review the forecast quarterly to ensure any risks to the in-year position are appropriately addressed and the impact on the MTFP and longer-term position is understood.