No apologies were received.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2016 to be submitted and signed.

Copies of the minutes of this meeting are usually available seven working days following the meeting.

(All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2016 were submitted and signed.

The Cabinet may wish to consider whether there are any items on which there is general agreement which could be considered now, to enable discussion to focus on those items where the Cabinet sees a need for further debate.

Councillor Bell spoke on behalf of the Labour group.

Report of Head of Community and Customer Services

A report was received from the Head of Community and Customer Services on proposals for investment in two of the Council’s Adventure Playgrounds.

The Mayor introduced the report and explained that council members wanted to make sure that the right decision was made after considering everything raised following the last meeting.  The council had received advice, including legal advice.  It was up to the Cabinet to determine what sort of service was run in Watford and prior to the meeting there had been considerable discussions and briefings.   There were four things for Cabinet to consider:  1. the possibility of a legal challenge, 2. the proposal received from the SWAPS (Save Watford Adventure Playgrounds) group, 3. the feedback received, 4. the recommendations contained in the report.

The Head of Democracy and Governance commented that, as stated in the report, the council had received a legal letter challenging the previous decision.  Whilst officers did not agree all grounds, it was prudent to consider the decision again.  The council had a discretionary power under section 19 (1) Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 to provide adventure playgrounds (APG); therefore, there was no statutory duty to consult on future provision.  However, all comments received since the proposals had become public in June 2016 had been included in the report and copies had been given to Cabinet.  The report contained a detailed Equalities Impact Analysis (EIA) and members’ attention was drawn to its contents, and paragraph 5.6 of the report commented on issues raised regarding crime and disorder.  Correspondence had been received from Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) who had confirmed that under Sections 507 and 508 of the Education Act 1996 there was a separate and distinct statutory duty placed on HCC as the education authority not Watford Borough Council.  HCC did not require the use of APG in order to discharge their duty in Watford.  The County Council used children’s centres and an HCC owned youth centre.  The APG were not registered as child care provision as they were open access sites where children were free to come and go. 

The Head of Community and Customer Services explained that, in terms of Appendix B to the report, he had circulated a revised proposal at the meeting which showed a larger tower at the Harebreaks site following feedback.  He continued that a key reason for the decision was that the council had a £3m gap in the revenue budget due to the removal of the government grant.  The proposals would provide modern, enhanced equipment available all year which would be done using capital money.  There would be revenue savings of £250k per year, and it would preserve the areas for play.  There was no statutory duty to undertake formal consultation.  The council had consulted staff as an employer.  As part of this consultation a submission was received from staff (the SWAPs’ submission).  Whilst the submission was admirable, it failed to address the investment needed in the equipment whilst achieving the revenue savings.  It also had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Report of Shared Director of Finance

Cabinet received a report of the Head of Finance (Shared Services) regarding the decision on whether to accept the Government’s offer.

The Shared Director of Finance explained that there was a four year deal offered by the government for funding until 2019-2020.  The recommendation was that the council accepted the deal.  This was in order to provide some certainty for future funding, and it was unlikely that those that did not accept the deal would gain a better settlement. 

In response to a question from Councillor Taylor, the Shared Director of Finance explained that some councils had not accepted the offer either due to negative revenue support grant or for political reasons.  The vast majority of authorities had or were indicating that they would accept the government’s offer.

The Mayor commented that the report would be going to the Council meeting on the following evening, 11 October.

RESOLVED

That Cabinet recommends to Council that:

1. the offer be accepted

2. if Council accepts the government’s offer then they should also agree and approve the Efficiency Plan at Appendix 1 of the report to allow the four-year settlement to be taken.

Report of Shared Director of Finance

A report was received from the Shared Director of Finance asking Cabinet to note two contract exemptions.  One for the support of the Revenues and Benefits (Academy) system and one for the provision of network support services.

Councillor Watkin introduced the report and explained that Cabinet was asked to note exemptions from normal procurement rules.

The Managing Director explained that there were a number of contract exemptions submitted on ICT which was due to the urgency of the situation.  It was important to follow the procurement code and it was not something the council’s leadership team would easily let through.

RESOLVED

That Cabinet notes the approved exemption to the Council’s Procurement Procedures in relation to the appointment of support to the Academy system and also the provision of network services.

Report of Transport and Infrastructure Section Head

A report was received from the Transport and Infrastructure Section Head setting out that in 2018 the council would commence a new parking management contract following a procurement process. 

Councillor Sharpe introduced the report and explained that the council was in the process of retendering the parking management contract in partnership with Three Rivers.   As part of that process it was useful to have technical support and advice of the kind that the councils did not have in-house.  It was a specialist and technical area and the tendering process was lengthy and complex.  Parking Associates, a specialist parking management consultancy, had specific expertise in that area.  It was the best option by far to get advice in order to re-tender the contract.

In response to a question from Councillor Bell, Councillor Sharpe confirmed that the company had been used previously in the last piece of work.

The Managing Director explained that the rules for exemptions were specified as:

•          acquisition or disposal of land

•          unforeseeable emergency

•          exceptional circumstances

•          limited market

Requests for exemptions were measured against these standards as set out in the contract procedure rules.

RESOLVED

That Cabinet notes the approved exemption to the Council’s procurement procedures in relation to the appointment of specialist support for the procurement of a Parking Management Contractor.