Home > Your Council > Agenda and minutes





Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms A, B and C, Civic Offices, Elstree Way, Borehamwood

Contact: Jenny Smith 

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

71.

Communications and Apologies

(a)       Communications (if any) relating to business on the agenda.

 

(b)          Apologies for absence.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting and advised that, in accordance with normal procedure, the meeting was being webcast.

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cohen and Morris.

 

 

72.

Declarations of Interest (If any)

Members are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests they or their spouse/partner have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting.  Members must also declare any other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests they have in any matter to be considered at this meeting. The responsibility for declaring an interest rests solely with the member concerned.

 

Members must clearly state to the meeting the existence and nature of any disclosable pecuniary interest, other pecuniary interest or non‑pecuniary interest and the agenda item(s) to which it/they apply.

 

Disclosable Pecuniary Interests are prescribed by the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 as follows;

 

Employment, office, trade, profession or vocation

Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

 

 

 

Sponsorship

Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the relevant authority) made or provided within the relevant period in respect of any expenses incurred by a member in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. This includes any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

 

 

Contracts

Any contract which is made between the relevant person (or a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest) and the relevant authority— (a) under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed; and (b) which has not been fully discharged.

 

 

Land

Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the relevant authority.

 

 

Licences

Any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the relevant authority for a month or longer.

 

Corporate tenancies

Any tenancy where (to the member’s knowledge) - (a) the landlord is the relevant authority; and (b) the tenant is a body in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest.

 

 

Securities

Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where - (a) that body (to the member’s knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the relevant authority; and (b) either (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or
(ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class.

 

In cases of disclosable pecuniary interest, Members must withdraw from the meeting room while the matter is being considered.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillors Bright and Clapper declared respective ‘other’ interests in agenda item 7.3 (Appointment of Non-Executive Directors to the Elstree Studios Board) as Council‑appointed Directors to the Board and that they had been granted a dispensation from the Chief Executive to speak at the meeting on that item.

 

Councillor Graham declared a similar ‘other’ interest in item 7.2 (Hertsmere Developments Ltd Progress Update) as the Council-appointed Chairman of the HDL Board.  He clarified that his declaration was a ‘belt and braces’ approach following his resignation from the Board on 4 February 2019.

 

73.

Speeches by Non-Executive Members

Non-executive members attending the meeting are reminded that a non-executive member may speak for a maximum of three minutes on any item on the agenda, with a maximum of five members per item (no more than two from any one Group).

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair advised that the usual arrangements for speeches by non‑Executive Members applied at this meeting.

 

74.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 207 KB

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 16 January 2019.

 

No discussion shall take place upon the minutes, except upon their accuracy.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 16 January 2019 were approved and signed as a true record.

 

75.

Key Decisions

Additional documents:

75.1

Setting the Revenue Budget 2019/20 pdf icon PDF 552 KB

The Executive is asked to approve the draft Revenue Budget for 2019/20, as outlined in Appendix 1 to the report, for recommendation to the Council.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that:

 

1.     subject to consideration of the consultation feedback arising from the joint meeting of the Policy and Operational Review Committees, as set out in section 13 of the report, the Council be recommended to approve the draft 2019/20 revenue budget, as set out in report section 10 and Appendix B, which shows a net budget requirement of £11,545k (a reduction of £315k from 2018/19 at £11,860k);

 

2.     the revised Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP), as set out in report section 9 and Appendix C, which shows a total future budgetary gap over the three-year financial period from 2020/21 to 2022/23 of £1,078k if an appropriate course of action is not taken to eradicate this gap, be recommended to the full Council for approval; and

 

3.     the proposed schedule of fees and charges for 2019/20, at Appendix E to the report, be recommended to the full Council for approval.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The Council was required by law to set a balanced budget i.e. the anticipated ongoing costs of providing services should be equal to anticipated funding resources.  Further, it was vital that the budget was sustainable in the long term while achieving the authority’s corporate goals.

 

It was critical that the revenue budget was set in such a way as to ensure that the Council allocated its limited available resources effectively and efficiently, in order to continue providing value-for-money services and meet both its statutory obligations and its aims and objectives, as outlined in the Community Strategy and Corporate Plan.

 

As resolved by the Council, the MTFP was required to be reviewed and updated annually and approved as part of the annual revenue budget setting process.

 

Subsequent to extensive consultation with stakeholders, the Executive gave its approval to the draft balanced budget as presented since it fulfilled the aims outlined above and recommended it for adoption by the Council at its meeting on 27 February 2019.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

          None in terms of the process as the Local Government Act 1992, Section 32 required that all known and anticipated revenue budgetary requirements of the Council for the forthcoming year be calculated prior to setting of the Council Tax.  This had to be done no later than 11 March in the preceding financial year.  Accordingly, there was no alternative but to agree the budget by the statutory deadline.

          The Executive might have decided to recommend adoption by the Council of an alternative revenue budget to that presented in the appendices to Report EX/19/03 but it was considered that the agreed revenue budget would ensure the most effective allocation of resources to maintain service provision taking into account the cumulative reduction in government funding.    

 

Key Points Arising from the Discussion

 

·       In presenting the report, the Finance and Property Portfolio Holder highlighted for Members’ particular attention section 13 which provided details of the questions, comments and recommendations raised at the budget consultation meeting of the scrutiny committees held on 28 January 2019.

 

·       A non-Executive Member thanked Officers for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.1

75.2

Setting the Capital Budget 2019/20 pdf icon PDF 723 KB

The Executive is asked to approve the draft Capital Budget for 2019/20 to 2021/22, as outlined in Appendix 1 to the report, for recommendation to the Council.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that:

 

1.     the removal of the £2m Emergency Funding from the Capital Programme and the setting up of a specific reserve (report paragraphs 7.6 to 7.7) be approved;

 

2.     subject to (1) above, the revised Capital Budget for 2018/19 of £13,340k, as set out in report section 7, be noted;

 

3.     the forecast capital spend for 2018/19 of £9,410k and anticipated net underspend of £3,930k, as set out in report section 8, be noted;

 

4.     the additions to the capital programme amounting to £3,124k, as set out in report section 9 and summarised in table 5, be agreed;

 

5.     the draft capital programme 2018/19 to 2021/22, at report section 10 and Appendix A, be recommended to the Council for approval; and

 

6.     the Capital Strategy 2019, at report section 12 and Appendix C, which has been reviewed and updated to reflect the draft capital programme and to reflect the changes required by the Prudential Code 2017 be recommended to the Council for approval.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The Council had a statutory obligation, as specified in the CIPFA prudential code, to make estimates of the total capital expenditure it planned to incur during the forthcoming year and the following two financial years to facilitate prudent, affordable and sustainable capital investment decisions.

 

The revised capital programme for the period 2019/20 to 2021/22 took account of capital budget adjustments and slippages.  In addition, the revised Capital Strategy for 2019 had been updated to reflect changes required by the Prudential Code 2017.  Both of these were recommended for approval by the Council at its meeting on 27 February 2019.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

The Executive might have decided to recommend that the Council adopt an alternative capital budget to that presented in Appendix A and/or to recommend a variation to any of the individual bids for funding. However, it was considered that these options could adversely affect the Council’s ability to provide its services and make efficiencies going forward and were therefore not supported.

 

(Action:  Head of Finance and Business Services)

 

 

75.3

Council Tax Setting and Collection Fund Levies 2019/20 pdf icon PDF 246 KB

This report presents the Council Tax setting and Collection Fund levies for the year 2019/20 for recommendation to the Council.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that the Council be recommended to agree that:

 

1.     the average Band D equivalent Council Tax levy for 2019/20 be increased by £5.

 

2.     the total Council Tax levies for 2019/20, as set out in report section 6, table 2, which amount to £8,554,230, be utilised as follows:

·     an amount of £7,319,668 be utilised to balance the Council’s 2019/20 General Fund budget; and

·     an amount of £1,234,562 be used to pay Town and Parish Council requirements;

 

3.     the special expenses, as proposed in report paragraph 6.4, be incorporated in the Council Tax setting; and

 

4.     the Empty Homes Premium be raised to 100% from its current 50% with effect from 1 April 2019 for the long term empty properties.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The decisions would enable the Council to set a balanced budget for 2019/20 by 11 March 2019 which was a requirement of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (LGFA 1992).

 

In balancing the 2019/20 budget, the Council would use a combination of realised efficiency gains, increasing fees and charges, utilising the Councils asset base to generate income, applying New Homes Bonus funding and a proposed £5 increase in the average Band D Council Tax.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

·       Utilisation of General Fund Balance The Council had approved a policy to maintain the current level of general fund balances in real terms. As a result, the use of General Fund reserves to balance the revenue budget would be contrary to what had been agreed by the Council. Although the decision could be made to utilise the Council’s general fund balances to help balance its budget, this was considered to be imprudent as this resource was generally reserved for exceptional one-off contingencies only.

 

·       Utilisation of Earmarked Reserves Earmarked reserves were intended for specific purposes and not to fund the revenue budget deficits.

 

·     Non-ring-fenced grants – Since there had been a cumulative reduction in government grants, as referred to in the previous item, this funding source could no longer be relied upon as a sustainable funding option. 

 

 

 

Key Points Arising from the Discussion

 

·       Members noted the content of the tabled addendum to the report and agreed the proposed additional recommendation at paragraph 1.4. 

 

·       Responding to a question from the Chair, the Corporate Director confirmed that the Council could take action as a collection authority to raise the amount of council tax on behalf of other precepting authorities within the legal parameters.

 

·       A non-Executive Member welcomed the inclusion in the report of details relating to the town and parish precepts but expressed slight concern that no apparent mention was made of the amounts of the precepts which he considered would make the document more accessible to the public.  With reference to the addendum, he said that he understood some authorities had decided to apply a premium of 150% on such properties for 2019/20.  He asked if the level of 100% was definite and for the assurance that, in the event that the percentage could be raised further,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.3

75.4

Neighbourhood Plans pdf icon PDF 153 KB

To approve the revised Radlett Neighbourhood Plan for recommendation to the Council for a six-week period of public consultation and to approve authorisation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development to undertake all necessary procedural arrangements for future neighbourhood plans.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that:

 

1.     the letter, enclosed at Appendix B to the report, previously sent to Aldenham Parish Council regarding the draft Radlett Neighbourhood Plan (RNP) (November 2018), be endorsed and the Head of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Localism, be authorised to make further representations on the RNP including to the independent examiner who will be appointed;

 

2.     the Head of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Localism, be authorised to undertake all necessary procedural arrangements for neighbourhood plans including any designation of future applications for neighbourhood areas, as well as the making of representations on draft Neighbourhood Plans including those in adjoining local authority areas; and

 

3.     the Council be recommended to approve that the Constitution is amended to reflect decision (2) above and to note the content of this report.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

As the Council was legally obliged to help parishes who prepared Neighbourhood Plans and was also a consultee for them, the decisions sought to make clear the procedure within the Council’s Constitution.

 

The decisions would give Officers authority to assist in making representations on two Neighbourhood Plans that were currently being prepared, to exercise the Council’s function as local planning authority to designate any future neighbourhood plan areas and to make representations on other Neighbourhood Plans in neighbouring local authorities that might affect this Borough.  The decision in (1) above would also grant authorisation for the publication of a revised draft Radlett Neighbourhood Plan, incorporating changes made by Aldenham Parish Council following the Council’s previous representations. 

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

·         Not to give Officers authority to assist in the Neighbourhood Plan process. 

 

This would require Officers to report any future applications for Neighbourhood Plan area status through the Executive and thereafter seek Executive approval for sign-off at each stage of the process of making a plan.  As such assessments were largely technical in nature, it was considered that staff time would be better spent preparing for the new Local Plan and the South West Hertfordshire Joint Strategic Plan.   In addition, both the National Planning Practice Guidance and legislation around Neighbourhood Plans required the Council to make timely decisions particularly at the start and end of the Neighbourhood Plan process.  For these reasons, this option was not supported.

 

·       Wait for the Constitution to be revised for explicit delegation to be given to Officers.

 

However, as a swift response to requests from Aldenham Parish Council and Shenley Parish Council in relation to their respective neighbourhood plans was necessary, it was not deemed appropriate to wait for a future revision of the Constitution.

 

Key Points Arising from the Discussion

 

·         In response to Members’ comments, the Head of Planning and Economic Development concurred that these documents were draft until formally adopted and that it was for the decision maker to decide what weight they should carry in determining planning applications.  He added that, as a plan went through the process, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.4

75.5

Hertsmere Leisure Trust CIF Bids pdf icon PDF 185 KB

The Executive is asked to consider the recommendations of the Community Infrastructure Levy Investment Panel (CILIP) on the funding for the 8 Hertsmere Leisure Trust Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) bids reviewed by the Panel at its meeting on 4 December 2018.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that:

 

1.     the report be noted, including the details outlined in Appendices A and B, which summarise all of the Hertsmere Leisure Trust bids received through the recent Community Infrastructure Fund bid process; and

 

2.     funding be approved for the 8 Hertsmere Leisure Trust Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) bids at Bushey Grove Leisure Centre (BU2 and BU3 - £120,000); Furzefield Leisure Centre (PB1 - £100,000); Wyllyotts Theatre (PB7 and PB8 - £48,000); The Venue (EB10 and EB11 - £174,000); and Park Events (EB18 - £44,275.19), totalling £486,275.19.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

National legislation specified that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies should be spent on improvements to infrastructure, including its replacement, operation and maintenance to support development which had taken place within the local area.

 

The Council’s CIL Panel was tasked with considering the bids received and ascertaining which projects should receive funding in the light of national and local level legislation as well as the Council’s own guidelines, officer recommendations and input from external and internal consultees.  The recommendations of the Panel were now presented to the Executive, in accordance with the agreed processes, for a final decision on funding pledges to be made specifically in relation to the Hertsmere Leisure Trust projects reviewed by the Panel at its December 2018 meeting.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

          An alternative option was to spend no CIL monies at the current time.  However, this option was not supported due to the recent relaunch of the bidding process and the fact that a number of strong applications had been received from local groups and organisations. 

 

Another option was to endorse a higher number of bids than recommended.  However, this was not supported as the Council needed to ensure that monies were allocated fairly and in accordance with the process previously agreed by the Executive, having regard to the agreed assessment criteria.

 

Key Points Arising from the Discussion

 

·       The report’s recommendations were fully supported by Executive and non‑Executive Members alike.  In response to a non-Executive Member question, the Head of Finance and Business Services confirmed that some of the bids were being effectively match funded by the Council’s loan money, the details of which were set out in Appendix B to the report

 

(Action:  Principal Planning Officer)

 

 

75.6

South West Hertfordshire Partnership Memorandum of Understanding pdf icon PDF 105 KB

The Executive is asked to note the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding set out at Appendix 1 to the report and refer it to the full Council for adoption.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that the contents of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted and referred to the Council for adoption.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The decision reflected the need for a broader Council commitment to continue to participate in this collaborative exercise.

 

The South West Herts Collaboration (SWHC) was made up of five authorities and was committed to preparing for future challenges and opportunities facing the sub‑region.

 

The five authorities were Hertsmere Borough Council; St Albans District Council; Three Rivers District Council; Watford Borough Council and Dacorum Borough Council.  Hertfordshire County Council had also participated fully at member and officer level in these discussions and were therefore included in the collaboration.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

The decision could be made not to participate in the evolving collaboration.  However, as this would leave the Council as an isolated voice within the context of a developing Regional Growth Board and emerging partnership in the North East, this option was not supported.

 

Key Points Arising from the Discussion

 

·       A non-Executive Member welcomed the Chief Executive’s lead on this matter and congratulated him on the work undertaken to date.  He said that he fully concurred with earlier comments made by the Chief Executive and Chair, in presenting the report, regarding the importance of localism and the crossing of party lines.  He added that the advantage of this South West Herts collaboration was the ability to take a more active role on issues of mutual importance.

 

(Action:  Chief Executive)

 

 

76.

Non-Key Decisions

Additional documents:

76.1

Fixed Penalty Notices for Flytipping Duty of Care Offences pdf icon PDF 176 KB

The Executive is asked to approve the adoption of powers for fixed penalty notices (FPNs) in line with the Regulations 2018 in respect of householders’ duty of care for their waste and to set the level of fines accordingly.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that:

 

1.     the adoption of powers for fixed penalty notices (FPNs) in the Environmental Protection (Miscellaneous Amendments) (England and Wales) Regulations 2018 in respect of  householders’ duty of care for their waste, be approved; and

 

2.     in response to the new regulations and in line with the other members of the Hertfordshire Fly Tipping Group, a fine be set of £300, reducing to £200 if paid within ten days, in respect of the new FPNs for duty of care offences.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

With regard to decision (1) and further to the Executive’s approval of a power to serve fixed penalty notices for fly tipping at the beginning of 2018, the Regulations had introduced a similar power for ‘Duty of Care’ offences by householders.  The adoption of this new power would assist the Council’s Officers in tackling the cycle of fly tipping by adding a sanction against those who engaged unlicensed carriers as well as those carrying out the fly tipping.

 

The decision in (2) followed on from the Hertfordshire Fly Tipping Group’s previous recommended adoption of the fly tipping FPN and a common scale of fines across the county.  This had resulted in achieving a relatively even approach to fly tipping fines and powers across Hertfordshire.  Following full consideration of the new power at the December meeting of the Group, all authorities had agreed a maximum fine of £300 with 8 out of 10 authorities also agreeing a £200 charge for early resolution.  This was considered to be in line with penalties previously adopted for the fly tipping FPN.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Each local authority could have taken the decision to set its own local level of fines within the parameters of the guidance or have chosen not to adopt the new measures.  However, this option was not supported as it was considered beneficial to adopt a uniform approach across the county.

 

(Action:  Assistant Chief Environmental Health Officer)

 

 

76.2

Hertsmere Developments Ltd - Progress Update pdf icon PDF 160 KB

To note a progress report on the company to be referred to the Council for consideration at its meeting on 27 February 2019.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that:

  

1.     a review of the Conflict of Interest Policy for Hertsmere Development Limited (HDL), in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Nolan Principles, Section 28/9(1) of the Localism Act 2011 and the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standards in Public Life Committee Report, be agreed;

2.     the policy be recommended for approval by the Council at the earliest possible opportunity following consideration by the Executive at its meeting on 26 June 2019;

3.     a clear statement of specification for qualification and experience for the HDL’s Board of Directors be sought by no later than September 2019 with the assistance from relevant industry professional bodies including the Institute of Directors;

 

4.     the Council be recommended to appoint independent industry Non‑Executive Directors (NEDs) to the HDL Board, in the near future, to ensure the Board is enriched with the necessary expertise and experience;

 

5.     an annual reporting timetable be sought from the Shareholders’ Panel in order to receive performance reports of HDL;

 

6.     the Council be recommended to approve the appointment of Councillor Paul Hodgson-Jones as the Chairman of HDL following the recent resignation from Councillor John Graham as a Director and the Chairman of the Board;

7.     the attached Shareholders’ Panel report, at Appendix A to the Executive Report EX/19/19, be noted; and

8.     a progress report be referred to the Council for consideration at its meeting on 27 February 2019.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

Since the currently constructed Board of HDL had a conflict of interest between their role as Director of the Company and their role within the Council, external, independent advice was sought with a view to identifying and mitigating this conflict whilst setting out a way forward.  It was considered that adopting and acting upon a robust Conflict of Interest Policy would safeguard individuals as well as the organisation.

 

HDL’s governance by its Board of Directors was dependent on identifying the required skills and, in order to achieve this, the Council would seek independent advice from relevant professional bodies to identify the appropriate expertise and experience.

 

 

 

As the Shareholders’ Panel required a quarterly progress report from HDL, it was considered useful to have advance notice to the HDL Board about when the information was required from the Company and in what format.  Both the HDL and the Shareholders’ Panel needed to mutually agree on the format of the reporting and the type of information required for reporting purposes.

 

The small adjustment of wording to report recommendation 1.7 was agreed in view of the current lack of clarity on the reporting process and the fact that there were two potential reports.

 

The appointment of the new Chair of HDL, for recommended approval by the Council, was made by the Leader following the recent resignation of the Finance and Property Portfolio Holder as a Director and Chair of the Board and accorded with the Council resolution of 18 July 2018.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

None as the report and recommendations were the result of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.2

76.3

Appointment of Independent Non-Executive Directors to the Elstree Studios Board pdf icon PDF 159 KB

The Executive is asked to recommend to the Council appointments to the office of Non‑Executive Director of Elstree Film Studios Limited, as listed in the Appendix to the report, such appointments to take effect on and from the date of the annual meeting of the Council in 2019.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Decision that:

 

1.     the Council be recommended to appoint the persons named in the report’s Appendix to the office of Non-Executive Director of Elstree Studios Limited, such appointments to take effect from the date of the Annual Council Meeting 2019; and

 

2.     pending the date of the Annual Council Meeting 2019, the persons named in the Appendix be permitted to attend Board Meetings of Elstree Studios Limited in the capacity of observers provided that they have first entered into a confidentiality agreement with Elstree Studios Limited and the Council, remuneration for such attendance to be paid pro rata in accordance with the annual rate set out in paragraph 6.1 of the report.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The decision to expand the composition of the Elstree Studios Board of Directors was made in accordance with best practice set out in Schedule 3 of the Governance Agreement between the Council and the Studios which stated that, in addition to experienced Directors, the Board should also have new Directors who could provide an independent challenge to long standing practices and thinking. 

 

This advice had also been highlighted in the induction training carried out by the Institute of Directors (IOD) on 29 November 2018 which had covered the composition of an effective Board and the contribution independent Non‑Executive Directors could make to an effective ‘check and challenge’ as well as enhancing the skills, competencies, knowledge and experience of the Board.

 

Furthermore, Members recognised that, during a period of major change in the British film and TV industry and potential expansion of the Studios, it made sound business sense to bring to the Board individuals who were actively working at the heart of the industry and would be able to contribute to the continued success of the Studios.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

The Executive could have chosen not to agree to the report’s recommendations.  However, this option would not have accorded with best practice recommended by the IOD and might result in the Council having insufficient skill sets on an arms-length company Board during a period of change and opportunity in the industry and was therefore not supported.

 

Key Points Arising from the Discussion

 

·       A non-Executive Member welcomed the number and calibre of proposed NEDs which he considered would help his Group to be confident about representation across the Borough.  He added that his Group, however, might still advocate challenging the notion that elected members should form a majority on the Studios Board.

 

·       The Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Culture and Health referred to the Studios’ standing as a huge community asset and said she strongly supported the proposed appointments and the expertise they would undoubtedly bring to the Board.  She added that their appointment could only be of benefit to Elstree Studios and help take it from strength to strength.

 

·       The Chair said that he was delighted to hear the Opposition Group was supportive of the appointments and he was confident that, with the right combination of councillors, officers and outside expertise, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.3

77.

Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Executive is scheduled to take place at 6pm on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 at the Civic Offices, Elstree Way, Borehamwood.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Noted that the next meeting of the Executive was scheduled to be held on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 at 6.00pm.

 

78.

Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation that, under S100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I, Schedule 12A to the said Act:-

 

Part II Agenda Item                                Paragraphs in Schedule 12A

 

1.       KEY DECISIONS

 

1.1           Tree Maintenance Contract                              3

          Award                                                            

 

 

2.       NON-KEY DECISIONS

 

          2.1     None.                    

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I, Schedule 12A to the said Act:-

 

Part II Agenda Item                                  Paragraphs in Schedule 12A

 

1.       KEY DECISIONS

 

1.1     Tree Maintenance Contract Award                   3                           

 

2.       NON-KEY DECISIONS

 

2.1     None.

                                                                                         

 

79.

Tree Maintenance Contract Award

Report of Officers.

 

Minutes:

Decision that Glendale Countryside Limited be awarded a four-year contract for tree maintenance commencing on 1 April 2019.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

To explain the procurement process involved in the re-procurement of the Council’s Tree Maintenance contract.

 

The contract was awarded to the provider of the best bid in accordance with the tender evaluation criteria

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

The Executive could have decided to bring the tree maintenance service in‑house.  However, this was not considered appropriate due to the health and safety implications of managing the service as well as the complexities of managing the schedules without a large pool of labour.

 

The Executive did not have discretion to award the contract to any other bidder as this would have been in breach of EU Procurement Regulations.

 

(Action:  Head of Street Scene Services)