EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL · 5. Annual Audit Letter ITEMS FOR DECISION/RECOMMENDATION -...

AGENDA

1. Public Question TimeThe meeting will commence with up to 15 minutes public question time

2. Minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held 12 September 2001

3. Apologies and Substitutions

4. Corporate Plan Update

5. Annual Audit Letter

ITEMS FOR DECISION/RECOMMENDATION - PUBLIC

6. Council Tax Base 2002/03(Report herewith – Paper A62)

7. 2002/03 Revenue and Capital Budget(Report herewith – Paper A63)

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIREDISTRICT COUNCILTHE GRANGE, NUTHOLT LANE,ELY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE CB7 4PLTelephone: Ely (01353) 665555 Direct Dialling: (01353) 668833

NOTICE OF MEETING: Policy and Resources CommitteeTIME: 9.00amDATE: Monday, 17 December 2001VENUE: Council Chamber, The Grange, Nutholt Lane, ElyCOMMITTEE OFFICER: Adrian Stokes EXTENSION: 6281

Liberal Democrat Members Independent Members Labour MembersCouncillor Edward Twentyman (Ch) Councillor John Brooks Councillor Anne TuiteCouncillor Charlotte Cane (V-Ch) Councillor Philip WarrenCouncillor Donald Adey Councillor Andrew WrightCouncillor Sheila Friend-SmithCouncillor John Gibb

Substitute Substitute SubstituteCouncillor Valerie Leake Councillor Colin Fordham Councillor Graham Steward

Deputy Substitute Deputy Substitute Deputy SubstituteCouncillor Philip Lewis Councillor Sue Kerridge Councillor Cyril Hempstead

Lead Officer: John Hill QUORUM: 4 MEMBERS

8. Best Value and the Implementation of the Performance Management Framework(Report herewith – Paper A64)

9. Best Value Timetable(Report herewith – Paper A65)

10. Brandon Creek Amenity Site(Report herewith – Paper A66)

11. East Cambridgeshire Healthy Living Centre(Report herewith – Paper A67)

12. Play areas in Ely(Report herewith – Paper A68)

ITEMS FOR INFORMATION – PUBLIC

13. Amounts Written Off as Irrecoverable(Report herewith – Paper A69)

14. Statement of Council’s External Investments as at 30th November 2001(Report herewith – Paper A70)

15. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PRESS

ITEMS FOR DECISION/RECOMMENDATION - PRIVATE

16. Minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held 12 September 2001 relating toconfidential items

A62/1COUNCIL TAX BASE 2002/03

A62To: Policy and Resources Committee

Date: 17 December 2001

From: Executive Director (Finance)

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To consider setting the Council Tax base for 2002/03. Appendix A shows the calculation andAppendix B analyses the recommended tax base by parish area.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 The Committee is recommended

to approve the calculation of the 2002/03 tax base as 25,057 band D equivalents.

to recommend to Council that it approve the calculation of the Council Tax base as set out atAppendix B.

3.0 COSTS

3.1 The setting of the Council Tax base provides the basis on which the precepting bodies can settheir budgets and tax yields.

3.2 The figure recommended for approval is in line with the budget assumptions set out elsewhereon this agenda.

4.0 BACKGROUND/ OPTIONS

4.1 The Council is required to set its tax base by the end of January each year. To do this it has touse the information provided by the Inland Revenue’s Valuation Service that bands individualproperties into one of 8 property valuations. Using information from taxpayers, the Council isable to give discounts and exemptions to this liability to recognise, for example, single personoccupation, disability or occupation by overseas armed forces personnel. These two sets of dataare combined to produce a schedule of the number of chargeable properties in proportion tovaluation band D, which is the required presentation.

5.0 ARGUMENT/CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The Council Tax base calculation is attached at Appendix A. A small allowance has been madefor losses on collection of 0.25%. The detailed analysis by Parish area is shown at Annex B.

6.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

Inland Revenue Valuation Service Reports.

A62/2

Appendix A2002/03 Council Tax Base Calculation

Band Number of Dwellings Discounts Chargeable Ratio Band D Allow CouncilDwellings Subject to and Equivalent to Equiv loss Tax

on Valuation Exemptions Disabled Dwellings Band D on BaseList Relief Ninths Colln

As at November 2001

A - Disabled Reduction (2) 2 5 1 0 1 A 3,641 262 423 2,957 6 1,971 5 1,966 B 9,244 318 822 8,104 7 6,303 16 6,287 C 6,198 270 425 5,503 8 4,892 12 4,879 D 5,714 249 303 5,162 9 5,162 13 5,149 E 3,528 155 146 3,227 11 3,944 10 3,934 F 1,426 52 54 1,320 13 1,907 5 1,902 G 564 29 37 498 15 830 2 828 H 69 6 8 55 18 111 0 110

30,384 1,341 2,216 26,827 25,120 63 25,057

Nov 2000 29,703 1,142 2,115 26,446 24,716 62 24,654

A62/3

Appendix B2002/03 Council Tax Base by Parish Area

ParishArea 2002/03 2001/02

Ashley 222.8 220.7 Bottisham 730.8 730.7 Brinkley 152.9 154.2 Borrough Green 141.2 142.6 Burwell 2,117.0 2,111.3 Cheveley 754.1 759.2 Chippenham 203.1 199.6 Coveney 142.7 139.7 Dullingham 291.3 291.9 Ely, City of 5,219.5 4,941.9 Fordham 893.8 887.6 Haddenham 1,129.0 1,135.9 Isleham 714.4 701.3 Kennett 121.1 121.0 Kirtling 158.1 157.0 Little Downham 796.3 781.5 Little Thetford 257.7 257.8 Littleport 2,218.9 2,201.1 Lode 350.7 354.2 Mepal 319.8 292.1 Reach 136.2 134.0 Snailwell 72.1 71.8 Soham 2,851.3 2,845.0 Stetchworth 254.8 259.4 Stretham 579.1 582.3 Sutton 1,139.3 1,127.7 Swaffham Bulbeck 331.7 326.7 Swaffham Prior 325.8 322.7 Wentworth 58.5 58.3 Westley Waterless 52.9 53.8 Wicken 283.4 278.7 Wilburton 414.9 411.9 Witcham 151.3 152.2 Witchford 771.7 754.8 Woodditton 698.8 693.2

25,057.0 24,653.8

Band D Equivalents

A63/1

2002/03 REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET




1.0 ISSUE

To update the Committee on the progress with public consultation on the draft budget for 2002/03. (seeAppendix A)

To consider the proposed revenue budget for 2002/03 and the latest projections for 2001/02.(Summarised at Appendix B and C; the circulated Draft Budget contains full details)A copy of the Draft Budget 2002/03 (as Appendix 1) is included with the agenda papers for allCommittee Members only. Other copies are available on public deposit in Reception at theCouncil offices or in each of the Group Rooms for other Members.

To consider the latest projections for the capital programme for 2001/02 – 2005/06 (see Appendix D)

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS2.1 Members are requested:

(i) to note the results of the budget consultation exercises to date

(ii) to approve the proposed revenue budget for 2002/03 and predicted outturn for 2001/02

(iii to note the implications for the 2003/04 revenue budget

(iv) to recommend to the March 2002 meeting of the Council that it approve theconsequent budget requirement for 2002/03

(v) to approve the revised 2001/02 – 2005/06 capital programme as detailed at AppendixD.

3.0 REVENUE BUDGET 2001/02 – 2003/043.1 A summary of the latest predictions of spending for the 2001/02 – 2003/04 revenue budgets is

attached at Appendix B; the detailed service budgets are included in the draft budget bookcirculated under separate cover.

3.2 Since the Committee considered the results of the base budget review in September it has beennecessary to revisit some of the assumptions underlying the revenue budget and update theprojections accordingly. The variations to the budget are set out at Appendix C.

3.3 It is possible, however, to anticipate increased sums from Revenue Support Grant and yieldsfrom a higher tax base so that the implications of the revisions to the budget are as follows:

A63/2

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04£’000 £’000 £’000

Amendment to Net District Spending 7 212 212 Collection Fund Surplus 0 (40) 0 Contribution to/(from) Reserves (7) 0 0 Increased Revenue Support Grant 0 (115) (115)Increased Tax Yields 0 (10) (10)

Shortfall 0 47 87

3.4 The main variations to the revenue budget presented in September are as follows:

(i) As will be seen elsewhere on the agenda, investment returns are lower than this timelast year. The outlook for interest rates has changed significantly, even sinceSeptember, and it has been necessary to revise downwards the likely returns for thenext financial year.

(ii) Revised guidance on the treatment of the building control service’s income has reducedthe sum available to support other activities.

(iii) Detailed construction of the budget has highlighted a number of areas that requirecorrection. To minimise the impact of these additional costs, a modest target forsavings from staff turnover has been introduced.

(iv) The Land Charges service is generating higher than anticipated income due to thebuoyancy of local market conditions.

(v) The Council has been successful in being awarded £645,000 from the NewOpportunities Fund towards the Healthy Living Centre. The centre will act as a focalpoint for a range of projects but requires the Council to fund the administration costsestimated to be around £30,000 per year. Funding towards individual projects will alsobe required but it is anticipated that this will be from existing budgets. This is thesubject of a full report elsewhere on the agenda.

3.5 The Committee, in September, requested further feasibility studies to be undertaken in relationto:

(i) Introduction of charges for Bulky Waste collection – the study has confirmed that£50,000 net income can be achieved. The details of the scheme and administrativearrangements will need to be approved by the Environment and Transport Committee.

(ii) Chapel Street Car Park – following consultations with the Joint ConsultativeCommittee the Chief Executive has implemented a number of measures to provideadditional spaces at the Grange. The closure of Chapel Street car park will be delayeduntil this has been achieved. This will not affect the budget savings anticipated in thebase budget review.

4.0 CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2001/02 – 2005/064.1 The latest projections on the Capital Programme are attached at Appendix D and largely reflect

the decisions of the Committee in September. Some minor amendments to reflect timings ofexpenditure and updates to project costs have been recognised and the opportunity has also beentaken to incorporate the following additions for members consideration:

(i) Healthy Living Centre – This project will see the extension and enhancement of theLittleport Leisure Centre and will cost £446,000. Being an important element of the

A63/3

overall scheme, see the full report elsewhere on the agenda, £275,000 of funding willbe available from external funders and developer contributions with the balance to befunded by the Council. £25,000 has been identified from the budget for Arts Grantsleaving a requirement for £156,000 additional funding.

(ii) Maltings Kitchen Ventilation – Environmental Health inspections have found theventilation to the Kitchen to be not of the required standard. Making the improvementsis a landlord responsibility and accordingly investigations have been undertaken toascertain available options and estimates of cost. It is likely these improvements willcost in the region of £22,000.

4.2 The proposed revisions to the capital programme agreed by the Committee in September aredetailed below:

Scheme Variation to NotesProgramme

£'000

Healthy Living Centre 181 Addition to programmePublic Offices 6 Wicken Fen (5) Removed from ProgrammePayroll Implementation 5 Maltings - Ventilation 22 Addition to programmeCapital Arts Grant (25) Towards Healthy Living CentreRiverside Enhancements, Ely 5 Adjustment to Contingency (5)

Total 184

5.0 BACKGROUND/ OPTIONS

5.1 The budget shortfall identified at paragraph 3.3 can be addressed by reducing expenditure plans,use of balances or through increasing the Council Tax.

(i) This Committee and the Base Budget Review Working Party have previouslyconsidered a number of options to reduce expenditure. Those options that were notdeemed to be acceptable could be reconsidered but, at this stage, no new options havebeen identified.

(ii) The Council has resolved not to make further withdrawals from reserves.

(iii) Increasing Council Tax to fund this shortfall would add a further £1.88 to a band DCouncil Tax. This option has been illustrated at Appendix B.

5.2 The level of next year’s revenue support grant will not be confirmed until January and theconsultation process will continue into the new year. Full Council will set the budgetrequirement and, therefore, the level of the Council Tax in March but consideration of thedetailed budget and the likely tax implications can be resolved now.

6.0 ARGUMENT/CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The public consultation on the budget has demonstrated a low level of understanding of theamount of Council Tax residents pay to the District Council relative to the County Council.

A63/4This suggests the need to continue the campaigns to inform taxpayers on local taxation issues.

6.2 The survey also demonstrated that the public expects to pay the same Council Tax as theywould to other similar Councils, even if they don’t recognise what that level is. In England,District Council taxes range from £29 to £215 for a band D property. The arithmetical averageis £112 against the East Cambs District Council charge of £64. This ranks as the tenth lowestlevy of the 237 English District Councils.

6.3 It can be assumed that a levy of £102 would still be below the English average next year andwould, assuming a 6% average rise, leave East Cambs in the lowest quartile of levying DistrictCouncils.

6.4 The remaining consultation with the Parish Councils and the voluntary sector is yet to show asignificant response although the few letters that have been received are against any proposedrise in the tax and are available to members at the meeting.


7.1 Priority Research Budget Survey Report7.2 Results of “Listening Week” Consultation7.3 Correspondence with Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions7.4 Correspondence with Parish Councils

A63/5

Appendix A

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE BUDGET

As part of the budget-making process it was agreed by Policy and Resources Committee on the 12September 2001 to undertake consultation with the public on this issue.

The following consultation exercises were agreed:

A public survey using qualitative and quantitative techniques to identify community prioritiesfor local services.

A Listening Week exercise in Local Democracy Week in October.

Parish Survey

Staff meetings

Other specialist meetings ie. with the business community.

Progress to date

Public Survey

The public survey of 500 residents was undertaken by Priority Research Limited in October 2001. Thesurvey provided the Council with a wide range of interesting data on Council services and the public'spriorities for their families.

In relation to the Council tax the consultants report found:-

"Respondents showed that they were generally satisfied with Council Tax when asked whetherthe rate was comparable to other similar districts over half perceived it as being such …… overthree quarters (75.6%) felt it should be."

the report goes on to state

"although there was little awareness of shown of the Council's expenditure from Council Tax,there was little indication of a serious concern about the current rate…"

Part of the survey was also to establish people's views on council services and how important the issueof keeping Council Tax low was to local people. In this part of the survey it was interesting to note thatpeople felt it was less important than 18 other issues ranking it 19 out of 30 issues (Appendix (i). Themost important 3 issues were Reducing Benefit Fraud, Home improvements to enable elderly anddisabled people remain in their own home and support to keep village shops and post offices open. Afull copy of the report has been circulated to all Members of this Committee and is available in eachGroup meeting room.

A63/6

Listening Week

Public consultation was also undertaken as part of "Listening Week" in the second week in October.Stalls were set up in Ely Market on Saturday 13 and Thursday 18 October and were staffed by DistrictCouncillors.

The consultation concentrated on issues the public wanted to raise but there was also an opportunity toestablish people's view on the level of Council Tax they pay. The few people (9 out 115) who wantedtheir views recorded felt that the Council Tax was too high, although some of the comments make itclear they are objecting to their total Council Tax bill not just the element from the District Council. Afull report of the comments is attached at Appendix (ii).

Parish Survey

A letter was sent to all Parish Councils asking for their comments on the draft budget. Three responseshad been received at the time of drafting the report. Copies of the correspondence are attached to thisAnnex at Appendix (iii).

Staff Meetings

A series of staff meetings were held at the end of September. Staff were extremely concerned at theproposal to end the lease on the Chapel Street car park as it would exacerbate parking problems at TheGrange.

Other Meetings

A meeting with the business community will take place in January and the outcome of the meeting willbe reported to the next meeting of this committee.

Other Consultation

As well as this, letters have been received from the public following press coverage of the proposedCouncil Tax increase in the draft budget.

In summary the Council have received letters from five people who express concern at the increase,however, it is thought that two of the correspondents had not realised that the increase concerns thedistrict council element of the Council Tax reinforcing the conclusions of the Priority Research survey.

Costs

The cost of the Priority Research consultation was £12,890. These costs were found from within theexisting consultation budget.

A63/7

APPENDIX (i)

Priority Research Consultation

Question "What is more important to you and your family for the Council to spend your Council Taxmoney on?"

Ranking (Most Important to Least)

1. Reducing benefit fraud (most important)2. Home improvements to enable elderly or disabled people remain in their own homes3. Support to keep village shops and post offices open4. Clean streets and pavements5. Support for crime prevention measures6. Support for activities for young people7. Affordable housing for local people8. Ensuring food premises are clean and safe9. Traffic calming measures to reduce the speed of traffic10. Better access to Council services for disabled or elderly people11. Promoting health and safety in the workplace12. Removing abandoned vehicles.13. Support to community groups and voluntary organisations14. More parking in Ely, Littleport and Soham15. Attracting more businesses to the area16. More/better local recycling facilities17. Helping local food producers to sell locally, eg farmers' markets18. More CCTV19. Substantial cuts to services to keep Council Tax low20. Upkeep of grass and grounds in public areas21. Subsidised transport for rural areas22. Support for local sports facilities23. Support for parks and recreational areas24. Promoting healthy living25. Making Council services more accessible locally26. Stricter enforcement of planning conditions27. Support to help village pubs stay open28. Promoting open democracy and greater public participation29. Supporting and promoting the local tourist industry30. Support for the Arts (least important)

APPENDIX (ii)A63/8

LISTENING WEEK 2001Comments from the PublicPublic consultation was conducted via the Listening Week stall set up in the Market Place in Ely on the market days of Saturday 13th and Thursday 18th

October. The Listening Week stall was manned at various times by Councillors Donald Adey, Charlotte Cane, James Coppola, Gordon Frankland, JeremyFriend-Smith, Sheila Friend-Smith, Simon Higginson, Valerie Leake and officers of the Council. There was a constant stream of people throughout both dayswanting to talk about 'What I think is...'. On several occasions people were queuing up to make their points/inquiries to Members. Quite a few commentsabout how refreshing it was to see the councillors taking the trouble to get out amongst the people to ask their opinions and listen to their views.

The comments from the public covered a range of topics and a summary is listed below:

Transport (Car Parking) 24 commentsStreetscene (Ely) 14 commentsTransport (Buses) 12 commentsTransport (Traffic) 11 commentsWaste Management (Refuse) 10 commentsCouncil Tax 9 commentsTransport (Cycling) 5 commentsStreetscene (Miscellaneous) 5 commentsWaste Management (Recycling) 4 commentsBusiness 3 commentsLeisure 2 commentsTransport (Miscellaneous) 2 commentsMiscellaneous 14 comments

A63/9

Business

Business rates too high.Things OK developing well especially in e-business.Old Bank, Prickwillow - outbuildings used for publishing business - is this legal? 1st house (ex Post Office) after bungalows. 4/5 employees. Like a tip. Health & Safety? No facilities.

Council Tax

Council Tax too much.Pay more towards service.Too high - why does the Council waste money on a sundial that would only look good on an aerial photograph, the cycle rack for 2 bikes and showers. Other people cycle to work without theseluxuries. Money should be spent for the younger generation!! Not all the teenagers in Ely are vandals.£1000+ a year for Council Tax. Family of 6 asked for an extra bin bag and was told it was not possible. Yet you'll waste our money on non ESSENTIALS.We get value for money.Too expensive for pensioners and other people of lower income.Too expensive.Too much money spent on altering the paths.A rip off!

Leisure

Babylon Gallery much appreciated.ADeC - useful service - good events - Babylon Gallery.

A63/10

Miscellaneous

Forms to be filled in every year. Why not send a formGood place to be.Lack of hotel spaceCity Council rejects planning and we overturn their views.Courts should fine vandals more.Another surgery is needed - put pressure on by the Council.Are there any cheap (social) housing, e.g. 1 beds going up in Ely?Move E.C.D.C. offices and police and ambulance service to Lancaster Way or similar site and use space for parking, shops, housing, etc.Meeting space. Old Dispensary.Difficulty filling in form for Blue Badge.Happy with all facilities.Council doing a good job.95% perfect.CHS John Beckett Court. Lift problems. Better alarm.

Street SceneElyReasonably good. Except Christmas lights. Like pedestrianisation.Fore Hill - pavement - dips, causing falling.Fore Hill - slopes in pavements - dangerous to older poorly sighted people.XIT and other signs on pavement on Fore Hill.Lancaster Way - street light out.Steeplegate full of rubbish and vandalism Friday and sometimes Saturday night.Roof over Cloisters with kiosks.Why spend $40,000 on putting the sundial on the Market Place when we can't now afford to purchase Xmas lights for Ely - I think this is a disgrace!!Water going under war memorial off Forehill.Sundial - £40K but what is it and where is it? Need an explanation.Why bins out back of Steeplegate? 6 smashed panes last year. Mrs Dawn Hustle is owner Steeplegate Tea Rooms & Gallery.

A63/11Dog mess fine. Clean up graffiti first. First class loos.Fieldside (even side) - path not been maintained since ' 78.Mural on wall by cycle racks on entering Cloisters? Graffiti etc.

MiscellaneousSutton High St - rubbish opposite One Stop Shop. Litter pickers.Too small skatepark- not very good. Adequate equipment. Plastic slippery and unstable. Wouldn't mind being asked for ideas. Is frequently searched by police.Children's rec at Soham littered with glass. Rubbish at Stop Shop.CCTV cameras in car park to cover skateboard park as well.Make sure shop buildings are well maintained.

TransportBusesWe already have good bus service to Cambridge - don't need P&R to Cambridge.Bus service is TERRIBLE. Need to get more services in to stop monopoly. When they have a monopoly they can do what they want, no thought for customers. And buggy friendly buses - can't get on with prams.More buses for WICKEN as us kids don't get to go out anywhere.Children on school routes, e.g. Stuntney, are expected to walk to school along A142. No bus service supplied. Why NOT!!!Possibility of mini-bus circular service for centre access?Bus drivers on High Barns route won't let passengers take shopping trolleys on the buses.A bus service for Prickwillow because we have nothing on Saturdays, only Thursday. As young ones can't get to town.A better bus service for outlying villages, especially PrickwillowA bus should go to WICKEN at least every 15-20 minutes. Cars and buses are bad pollution.Either shuttle bus from Cresswells car park on Thursday/Saturday OR do away with underused Cresswells and put deck on Fore Hill car park even if have to

use NCP or similar.Coveney needs a bus.Buses won't take trolleys from High Barns.

Car Parking A63/12All disabled drivers allowed to stay longer than 2 h ours? Answer yet, but obviously we need to get that message across (parish magazines?).Car parking is a problem - need more spaces.I have used Cresswells car park but it is dangerous and unsafe, particularly at night. There are no other places near town that are available when I come in (mid-morning).Prickwillow Road - market days lorries dangerously parked. Today large blue lorry parked by residents driveway - same every week.Not enough public parking at the Grange. More disabled car parking, e.g. on Market Place when no market. I need room to open car door.2 hour car parking is ridiculous. Doesn't leave enough time to do a decent shop. 3 hours is better.Walk up from Cresswells as gesture of solidarity.142 West Fen Road - regular parking on grass verge killing grass. Her hsg?OK. Pay and display 50p per hour.Willing to pay 70p for a days parking.Want car park by station for train users and bus service up to town.Some market traders not parking in Cresswells - using Fore Hill car park.Removal of cars.Car parking free at first, charge after 2 hours.Short stay shoppers are parking in the long stay spaces in Fore Hill car park.Car park map.Car park on Paradise left of footpath behind pool - no to car park charges.Reduced parking causing problems.Waitrose car parking should have pedestrian walks to make it safer.Residents parking permits - Victoria St.Better and more parking at station.Station overflow parking.Victoria Street - difficulty of parking for residentsThe station car park should be enlarged. Perhaps they will then not take all the space in the surrounding area.

CyclingCycle lane all the way up Lynn Road.Cycle paths along major roadsNot enough cycle racks and buses - too many cars.

A63/13Bike parking needed in Cloisters, e.g. Waitrose

Jam Factory Path needs tarmac. Dog mess and stinging nettles. Should be a cycle path.

MiscellaneousChildren walking along A142 2 and three-quarter miles along road Little Downham. Kids get free bus passes.Local transport OK.

TrafficLynn Road - heavy lorries shake the foundations. Would like to have map to show weight restrictions on lorries. Possible petition about heavy traffic.Roundabouts bottom Silver Street and New Barns Road. Will help slow traffic and would clear queuing traffic.Lynn Road traffic lights should be 2-way not as now.Refuge by King Edgar Close - no pavement on l/h sideEly High Street should not be shut at all.Need a roundabout at Little Thetford junction, VERY dangerous. Are you waiting for so many deaths before you take action?Silver St - 'over the top'Stripes to indicate pedestrian right of way Newnham Street crossing.Brays Lane - can we have traffic calming there?Branch Bank, Prickwillow - lane very muddy (from farm traffic from potato fields) and not cleaned.30mph signs on Lynn Road - 40 signs removed.

Waste Management

RecyclingWhy no recycling bin?Recycling - Bell Gardens, Haddenham black box not collected.Bins for recycle, rubbish and green.Need more re-cycling facilities! All types of re-cycling please - not just bottles and paper.

A63/14

RefuseDustbin bags never delivered to 14A, 14B off Egremont Street despite repeated phone calls.Althorp Court - could there be a litter bin in green space near Millennium Tree?Have wheelie bins been considered? Emptying bins by river - bigger bins?Don't take tyres and exhaust to dump. What else are people supposed to do with them? Cheaper to take cars off them.Refuse good.When will we get wheelie bins. Where would most of us put them?Vineyards - Cleanaway not always delivering a black bagPadnal area - black bags not delivered this week.Refuse collection good and staff helpful.Cleanaway left garden refuse end of Old Bank half way down Queen Adelaide Way near pumping station.

A63/15

APPENDIX (iii)

Parish Council Responses

City of Ely Council – “The budget proposals were noted and there was some criticism of the substantialincreases which Council Tax payers would have to bear in the coming year.”

Reach Parish Council – “Whilst appreciating that action needs to be taken before reserves are used up,councillors are nevertheless concerned that council tax payers on a fixed income would find the increaseparticularly difficult to stand.”

Soham Town Council – “Whilst understanding the reasoning and accepting that an increase is necessaryto provide the required level of services the Town Council are nevertheless very disappointed at theproposed level of increase, and expressed concern at the recent use of scarce resources, particularlywithin Ely.”

A63/16Appendix B

GENERAL FUND Page Actual Estimate Probable Estimate EstimateGRAND SUMMARY No. 2000-2001 2001-2002 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

£ £ £ £ £

Net District Spending from Summary 3 6,041,316 6,867,202 6,773,942 7,330,237 7,570,913AddParish Council Precepts 624,388 684,280 684,280 718,494 754,419NET REVENUE EXPENDITURE 6,665,704 7,551,482 7,458,222 8,048,731 8,325,332

Addition to/(Withdrawal from) balances -34,840 -660,954 -567,694 87 -40,660BUDGET REQUIREMENT 6,630,864 6,890,528 6,890,528 8,048,818 8,284,671DeductTransfer to/(from) Coll. Fund (re CT) -26,224 -40,357 -40,357 -40,000 0Residual Community Charge Income 0 0 0 0 0AMOUNT TO BE MET FROM RSG,NNDR AND COUNCIL TAX 6,604,640 6,850,171 6,850,171 8,008,818 8,284,671DeductSSA Reduction Grant 0 0 0 0 0Redistributed Business Rates -2,775,498 -2,740,839 -2,740,839 -3,135,000 -3,135,000Revenue Support Grant -1,727,300 -1,842,032 -1,842,032 -1,655,000 -1,737,750CTB Subsidy Limitation Scheme 0 0 0 60,000 60,000

DEMAND ON COLLECTION FUND 2,101,842 2,267,300 2,267,300 3,278,818 3,471,921

Actual Estimate Probable Estimate EstimateUNALLOCATED GENERAL FUND 2000-2001 2001-2002 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004FINANCIAL RESERVES £ £ £ £ £

In hand at 1st April 1,143,868 1,889,272 2,448,824 1,881,130 1,881,217

Revenue Reserve for future capital financing - Transfer to 0 0 0 0 0 - Transfer from 1,339,796 0 0 0 0

Movement in year -34,840 -660,954 -567,694 87 -40,660

In hand at 31st March 2,448,824 1,228,318 1,881,130 1,881,217 1,840,557

Standard Spending Assessment 6,569,169 6,808,941 6,808,941 7,238,000 7,599,900

IMPLIED BAND 'D' COUNCIL TAX (District only i.e. excluding parish levies)Demand on Collection Fund as above 2,101,842 2,267,300 2,267,300 3,278,818 3,471,921Less Parish Precepts as above 624,388 684,280 684,280 718,494 754,419

1,477,454 1,583,020 1,583,020 2,560,324 2,717,503

Council Tax Base 24,158.1 24,653.8 24,653.8 25,057.0 25,450.0

District Council Tax - Band D 61.15 64.21 64.21 102.18 106.78

A63/17Appendix C

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04£'000 £'000 £'000

Predicted Spend (P&R Sept 2001) 6,767 7,118 7,359

Changes to Forecast:

Building Control Surplus 82 94 94Grange Business Rates Over Paid (70)Healthy Living 11 30 30ADAPT Grant (11)Land Charges Increased Turnover (80) (80) (80)Members Allowances 36Public Conveniences (7)Interest on Balances 40 120 120Correction to Capital Contribution Budget 50 50 50Provision for Retendering Costs 7 7Correction to Staff Budgets 72 72Correction to Paradise Pool Budgets (26) (12) (12)Efficiency Savings Target (50) (50)Other Net Variations (18) (19) (19)

New Net District Spending 6,774 7,330 7,571

Appendix DA63/18

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL - CAPITAL PROGRAMME AS AT PAGE 1Actual Actual 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Scheme Scheme Total of 5

Expenditure 1.4.2001 to

Service Heading 1.4.94to

Original Revised Programme

Programme

Programme

Programme

Total TotalPmt.

year Narrative Lead

code 30.11.2001

and Scheme 31.3.01 Programme

Programme Budget To date programme

Officer

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000ACTUA

LSERVICE PR PROG2 PROG2 PROG3 PROG4 PROG5 PROG6 SCTOT

COMMUNITY GRANTP20 000 0 Unallocated provision 0 105 80 80 80 80 80 400 0 400 RHP20 154 0 Burwell Sports Centre 6 49 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 May not be spent - RH to Grants Cmte SBP20 260 0 Pymoor Cricket & Social Club 53 2 2 0 0 0 0 55 53 2 A/w inv re drainage wrks,a/w suitable grnd

conditionsRH

P20 261 0 Victoria Hall, Fordham 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 14 13 1 A/w inv £700 then wrk cmplte, remaining grant notreqd

RH

P20 277 0 Bottisham Swimming Pool 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 £10k from Forest Heath [out of £20k grant] - SB RHP20 278 0 Burwell Day Centre 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 RHP20 285 0 Hiams Sports & Social Club 17 2 2 0 0 0 0 19 17 2 Works in progress RHP20 287 13 Westley Waterless Village hall - disabled facilities 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 RHP20 288 0 Sutton P.C. - sports pavilion 0 35 35 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 Applied for Lottery Grant SBP20 290 9 Arkenstall Village Hall - kitchen refurbishment 8 9 9 0 0 0 0 17 17 9 Final instalment paid 7/01 £2,786. RHP20 291 12 Ellesmere Centre - roof repairs 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 RHP20 292 0 Kennett & Kentford Village Hall - pavilion 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 15 0 15 RHP20 400 15 Branching Out 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 Funding package in place SBP20 401 0 Coveney Parish Council 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 SBP20 402 0 Ely Community Unit - Family Centre 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 SBP20 403 0 Forest Heath - Newmarket Leisure Centre Project 32 0 32 0 0 0 32 0 32 Lottery funding approved [F.H.] Start date 7/02 SBP20 0 Healthy Living Centre 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 181 0 181 RHZ29 000 61 Swaffham Bulbeck Village Hall [loan] 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 140 0 { Completed 3.12.99 - Towers & Hill Charity.

{ Expenditure 2001/02 is b/fwd bal. less incomeRH

Totals 110 176 337 231 293 80 80 80 940 286 764

MILLENNIUM FUNDP19 151 0 Bottisham Village College, Garden 7 3 3 0 0 0 0 10 7 3 SBP19 154 0 Millennium Green Scheme - Burwell Woodland 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 0 Completed SBP19 157 0 Coveney P.C., Village pond 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Works progressing SBP19 160 3 Fordham, Paved Area 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 Final invoice paid 6/4/01 SBP19 165 0 Little Downham, Cart Shed 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 10 1 Work has commenced SBP19 168 0 Lode, Book & Video 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 SBP19 174 0 Stretham County Primary School, Garden 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 9 1 In progress SBP19 185 0 Arkenstall - Scented Garden 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 Completion by Xmas 2000. Completed. SBP19 254 0 Burwell Community Forum, Video 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 Video not progressing,£3.5k only needed.

Completed.SB

P19 259 13 City of Ely, Human Sundial 0 10 15 0 0 0 0 15 13 15 SBP19 262 0 Haddenham Millennium Map 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 SBP19 272 0 Soham, Millennium Walk 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 Completed SBP19 274 0 Stretham Village, History 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 Completed SBP19 354 1 St Peter's Church, Wentworth 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Completed; final instalment paid SBP19 355 0 St Peter's Church, Wentworth 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Completed SBTotals 17 70 43 35 0 0 0 0 105 87 35

ELY MARKETP05 107 14 Extended electricity supply 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 40 14 40 Deferred to 2000/01; contract now let 4/01 with

ForehillRH

Totals 14 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 40 14 40 work

PARADISE POOL Net of Relaxion's contrib. of £10,000 towards café etc.P07 431 5 Learner Pool, etc extension 1,090 16 7 0 0 0 0 1,097 1,095 7 and Sports Council grant of £327,484 99/00 RHTotals 5 1,090 16 7 0 0 0 0 1,097 1,095 7 [total grant received £791,658]

Retention left only-SC;possible consultants fees CT 1/01

A63/19EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL - CAPITAL PROGRAMME AS AT PAGE 2

Actual Actual 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Scheme Scheme Total of 5Expenditure

1.4.2001to



Programme

Programme

Programme

Total TotalPmt.

year Narrative Lead

code 30.11.2001


Programme Budget To date programme

Officer

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

MUSEUMS/CULTURAL PROJECTSEly, Community-based Arts Centre:-

P07 441 0 - performing arts venue; The Maltings 32 43 43 0 0 0 0 75 32 43 } Subject to JHP07 442 295 - village performance facilities upgrades; 93 315 315 52 0 0 0 460 388 367 } review JHP07 443 24 - bank of portable equipment for arts/eqpt. store 8 33 33 0 0 0 0 41 33 33 Poss. £88k lottery award;pd £55k arts lottery £ to

AdecJH

P07 445 0 Oliver Cromwells House 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 20 18 2 RHP07 448 0 Maltings - Chair Lift 1 17 17 0 0 0 0 18 1 17 RHP07 0 Maltings - Ventilation 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 22 0 22 RHTotals 319 152 410 432 52 0 0 0 636 471 484

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE BUSINESS INCENTIVE SCHEMEP04 000 0 EC/FRDA project and other unallocated grants -3 40 28 20 20 20 19 104 -3 107 £6,452 grant recovered from Camcraft [2000/01

narr.]RH

P04 415 0 Cambs Business Park - final surfacing,etc 108 3 3 0 0 0 0 111 108 3 Awaiting completion RHP04 462 428 Littleport Innovation Park, Wisbech Rd. 783 78 174 0 0 0 0 957 1,211 174 £304k rec'd Eng.P/shps+£95k 6/01+ EEDA

£87,694+ 76,570. £100k County Council contrib.G.O.£57,388

JH

P04 481 0 Grant - Shearline Precision Eng. Ltd 15 5 5 0 0 0 0 20 15 5 RHP04 485 214 Ely Managed Workspace Scheme 117 185 197 37 0 0 0 351 331 234 Addt £12,220 7/01 Strat Dev Cmte for structural

cablingRH

P04 491 5 JDR Cables Systems - Enterprise plc 1,122 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,122 1,127 0 RHP04 492 2 Wisbech Rd. highways works re. Innovation Park 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 25 0 RHP04 493 6 Satellite Delivery Centre: Soham Village College 12 6 6 0 0 0 0 18 18 6 RHP04 494 0 Satellite Delivery Centre: Ely Village College 5 13 13 0 0 0 0 18 5 13 RHP04 495 18 Satellite Delivery Centre: Bottisham Village College 18 18 0 0 0 0 18 18 18 RHP04 496 0 G's Marketing 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 RHP04 498 2 Cranfield University - CHP Test Rig Development Scheme 2 2 0 0 0 0 10 10 2 RHP04 499 0 Grovemere -Witchford Roundabout - infrastructure - on-

site road20 20 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 RH

P04 500 0 Glovers, Chettisham Garage, Lynn Road, Ely 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 RHP04 501 5 Labgear Ltd 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 RHP04 502 0 Allways Glass & Joinery Ltd 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 11 RHP04 503 3 Soham Scientific 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 RHP04 504 68 ICT Learning Centres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 Nil capital cost to ECDC; Ely £25k, District £475k RHTotals 751 2,194 393 489 57 20 20 19 2,799 2,945 605 N.B. P04 491/462 - funds to be recovered

VEHICLE PARKINGP15 460 18 Major repairs / refurbishment programme (incl.signs) 35 35 0 0 0 0 46 29 35 } To be completed by June 2000. Incls final for

461/2/3RH

P15 466 0 High Barns Car Parking 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 12 1 £10k rec'd from HHA. Retention only to pay-received

EMH

P15 467 4 Car Park enhancements (Ely) 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 50 4 50 RHTotals 22 23 86 86 0 0 0 0 109 45 86

PARISH/VILLAGE SMALL GRANTS SCHEMEP13 517 4 Parish/Village small grants scheme 38 9 7 0 0 0 0 45 42 7 Fund committed - Grants Cmte 24.10.00 RHP13 600 1 Riverside Enhancements, Ely 1 10 11 0 0 0 0 12 2 11 RH/SCCTotals 5 39 19 18 0 0 0 0 57 44 18

CCTVP03 402 -5 CCTV - Ely/Soham 0 0 166 0 0 0 0 166 -5 166 Expected income: Home Office £634k,City of Ely

£99k,RH

Totals -5 0 0 166 0 0 0 0 166 -5 166 Soham TC £45k, others £15k over next 3 yrs.Total £964k

MORTGAGE ADVANCESZ10 6515 18 - PRC/Waites/Airey houses N/A 40 40 30 30 15 15 130 18 130 EMHTotals 18 0 40 40 30 30 15 15 130 18 130



1.4.2001to



Programme

Programme

Programme

Total TotalPmt.

year Narrative Lead

code 30.11.2001


Programme Budget To date programme Officer

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

ELY, BROAD STREETP13 465 0 Ely Town Centre redevelopment 801 0 0 0 0 0 0 801 801 0 JHP13 509 139 Redevelopment 177 322 352 30 0 0 0 559 317 382 Incls. Public art Broad St JHP13 539 0 Reclamation of former Jewson site 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 77 0 JHTotals 139 1,055 322 352 30 0 0 0 1,437 1,194 382

GENERAL IMPROVEMENT AREASP03 401 4 Littleport Drainage 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 Accrued 2000/01; paid 2001/02 SCCTotals 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 4

ELY CENTRAL AREAP13 900 0 Fish And Chip Shop 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No longer ECDC to fund - new owner. SCCTotals 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RECYCLING INITIATIVES AND ENVIRONMENT PROMOTIONP21 000 6 Other initiatives [black box scheme] 0 54 54 10 10 5 5 84 6 84 SCCP21 307 0 Provision of Air Quality monitoring equipment 18 11 11 0 0 0 0 29 18 11 Requires internet availability SCCP21 308 0 Recycling Centres 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 6 1 5 Awaiting final invoices [internal] re Lt Downham SCCP21 311 1 Recycling "Bring" System 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 SCCTotals 7 21 68 71 10 10 5 5 122 28 101

PRIVATE SECTOR IMPROVEMENTSN01 88 Disabled Facilities Grants, ECDC Funded N/A 162 162 186 186 186 186 906 88 906 Net of 60% subsidy (max. subsidy £243,000 for

01/02)SCC

N01 / N02 273 Renovation Grants [E.C.D.C.Funded] & Home Repair Asst. 415 415 387 333 214 214 1,563 273 1,563 SCCTotals 361 0 577 577 573 519 400 400 2,469 361 2,469

VEHICLE REPLACEMENTSP12 000 29 Rolling programme N/A 60 44 22 6 6 6 84 29 84 00/01 Vans for Dog Warden, Works Manager, and

Enforcement Officer. AK:grant aprvd apprx. £1kSCC

AS

Totals 29 0 60 44 22 6 6 6 84 29 84 2 in March 01, 1 in October 01

PUBLIC OFFICESP09 455 0 Ely, The Grange - car park 7 18 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 ASP09 456 2 Public address system - council chamber 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 9 9 2 ASP09 457 16 New extension & reception, The Grange 259 0 17 0 0 0 0 276 275 17 ASP09 458 4 Ely, The Grange - telephone system 2 7 8 0 0 0 0 10 6 8 Amended, mostly revenue expenditure ASP09 462 0 Ely, The Grange - air cooling 24 1 16 0 0 0 0 40 24 16 ASP09 463 0 Ely, The Grange - security 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 20 ASP09 464 0 Ely, The Grange - re-roofing 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 25 0 25 ASP09 467 0 Babylon Bridge 44 2 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 0 Work in progress - final stages 11/00 ASP09 468 17 Office Accommodation Phase II 22 53 37 0 0 0 0 59 39 37 ASTotals 39 365 133 80 45 0 0 0 490 404 125

CORPORATE COMPUTER STRATEGYP09 460 15 C.A.P.S. / G.I.S. 20 16 91 100 100 100 0 411 35 391 Scheduled for 1st qtr 2000/01 AKP09 461 49 Computer development 151 100 80 50 50 110 110 551 200 400 On target AKP09 469 0 Contaminated Land Software 0 25 25 0 0 0 0 25 0 25 AKP09 470 0 Payroll System 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 0 25 AKP09 471 0 Finance System 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 150 0 150 AKP09 472 0 Other I.T. Initiatives 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 20 AKP09 473 0 Web Development (egovt) 0 0 0 25 25 0 0 50 0 50 AKTotals 64 171 141 221 345 175 210 110 1,232 235 1,061



1.4.2001to



Programme

Programme

Programme

Total TotalPmt.

year Narrative Lead

code 30.11.2001


Programme Budget To date programme Officer

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

OPEN SPACESP08 427 39 Open spaces - footpath renovation etc. 6 74 74 40 0 0 0 120 45 114 DATotals 39 6 74 74 40 0 0 0 120 45 114

CHURCHYARD ENHANCEMENT SCHEMESP13 514 1 Churchyard enhancement Schemes 3 16 16 7 7 7 7 47 4 44 DAP13 650 1 Burwell Churchyard Wall 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 1 10 DATotals 2 3 26 26 7 7 7 7 57 5 54

HISTORIC BUILDINGSP13 000 0 Other Unallocated Major Grants 91 83 2 48 51 51 51 294 91 203 2002/03 budget reduced due to 2001/02

commitmentsDA

P13 518 0 Burrough Green White Hart Farm 0 34 34 0 0 0 0 34 0 34 Grant not yet claimed; not expired DAP13 519 0 All Saints Church Kirtling 10 3 3 0 0 0 0 13 10 3 DAP13 520 0 Ely Cathedral 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 100 50 50 Final claim awaited. [Not John Selby's] SBP13 537 0 St Peter ad Vincula Church Coveney 9 6 6 0 0 0 0 15 9 6 Grant incorrectly coded 99/00; amended 00/01 DAP13 542 0 Holy Trinity Church, Bottisham 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 DAP13 543 6 St Peter 's Church, Snailwell 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 Completed DAP13 544 3 St Mary's Church, Woodditton 3 4 4 3 0 0 0 10 6 7 Net of English Heritage grant of £7,035 expected DAP13 546 0 St Mary's Church, Ashley 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 DAP13 547 10 St Mary & the Holy Ghost in Heaven, Cheveley 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 Work commenced. DAP13 548 7 21 Sun Street, Isleham 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 8 7 8 Work commenced. DAP13 549 3 The Steelyard, Fountain Lane, Soham 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 DAP13 550 0 Burwell Windmill 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 DAP13 551 1 Style & Trend, Main Street, Littleport [HERS scheme] 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 English Heritage grant of £922 received DAP13 552 2 St Peters Church, Prickwillow 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 16 2 16 Work commenced. DAP13 553 3 34 St Mary's Street, Ely conservation area 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 Await final bill DAP13 554 9 Manor House, Reach 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 DAP13 556 4 Wall, Orchard House, 8 The Green, Haddenham 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 Work started.Addt grant £1,166 5/01 [original £2,363] DAP13 557 10 St Martins Church, Witcham 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 Work commenced. DAP13 558 2 Baptist Church, Clay Street, Soham 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Will be paid DAP13 559 1 38 Station road, Haddenham - re-roof 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 DAP13 560 0 Ivy House, Witchford 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 DAP13 562 2 Cut-in-Time, 4 Globe Lane, Littleport 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 DAP13 563 1 7A Main St., Littleport [Shop Front] 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 DAP13 564 0 33 Main Street, Littleport 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 DAP13 565 0 St Nicholas' Church, Kennett 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 DAP13 566 0 St Peter's Church, Wilburton 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 DAP13 567 4 31 Market Place, Ely 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 DAP13 568 12 53 High St., Haddenham 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 14 12 14 DAP13 569 6 Hall Farmhse, Newmarket Rd, Kirtling 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 addt £2k grant 24.7.01 [original grant £4,333] DAP13 570 0 The Pound & Lock Up, Coveney 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 DAP13 571 0 20-22 Market Place, Ely 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 DAP13 572 0 Sundial House, 22 Pratt Street, Soham 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 18 0 18 DAP13 573 0 44 Ditton Green, Woodditton 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 DAP13 574 0 Dove Cottage, Little Ditton, Woodditton 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 DAP13 575 0 The Guildhall, Station Road, Dullingham 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 DAP13 576 5 Wall to The Berristead, Wilburton 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 DAP13 577 0 Windmill, Mill Ln., Burwell 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 DAP13 578 0 31 St Mary's St., Ely 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 DAP13 579 2 Churchyard Wall, Kennett 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 DAP13 580 0 7b Main St., Littleport 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 DAP13 581 1 36 Pratt St., Soham 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 DAP13 582 3 Downfield Windmill, Soham 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 DAP13 584 0 Maltings Cottage 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 55 0 55 DATotals 97 163 273 288 51 106 51 51 710 260 547


Actual Actual 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Scheme Scheme TotalExpenditure 1.4.200

1 toService Heading 1.4.94

toOriginal Revised Programm

eProgramm

eProgramm

eProgram

meTotal Total

Pmt.of 5 Narrative Lead

code 30.11.2001


Programme Budget To date years Officer

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

TOWN / VILLAGE CENTRE ENHANCEMENT SCHEMESP13 453 0 Burwell Conservation Area [1st round] 381 10 10 0 0 0 0 391 381 10 Invoice awaited DAP13 488 0 Littleport, Fleet Close [not conserv. area] 15 17 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 0 EMHP13 511 -0 Littleport Phase 2 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 136 0 Ext fndng EEC&EEDA claim in, total budget

£187.5k Complete 4/01. £75,392 rec'd [DETR].Need £87k more

DA

P13 524 0 Walls - Arkenstall Centre Burial Ground 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 8 7 1 DAP13 534 6 18 Main St / 4 - 6 Hitches St, Littleport 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 13 6 13 { Eng.Heritage matching grant expected. Work

started. { End 6/01? Incls.addt grant £7,8303/01

DA

P13 536 -27 Conservation area schemes - 2nd round 501 253 223 101 0 0 0 825 474 324 Credit due to J Henry invoice miscoded s/be 511 DAP13 540 0 Town Centre Strategies 10 40 40 40 30 13 13 146 10 136 { Net of £1,000 rec'd from Ely City Council 99/00;

£8358 { expected from EnglishHeritage [HERS]

DA

P13 700 2 Ely City Centre enhancement 2 23 23 0 0 0 0 25 4 23 Incls. HERS, Littleport; Civic Trust schemes etc. DAP13 701 0 Forehill / Waterside, Ely 0 34 34 0 0 0 0 34 0 34 County funding 50% direct. DAP13 702 2 33 Main St., Littleport 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 DAP13 703 0 Cemetery Wall, Wilburton [conservation area] 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 DATotals -17 1,056 393 348 141 30 13 13 1,601 1,039 545

TRANSPORTP23 001 0 20 mph Zones [Silver Street] 0 150 150 0 0 0 0 150 0 150 DAP23 002 42 Cycle Strategy 0 155 155 100 100 69 69 493 42 493 DAP23 003 0 Ely Station 0 50 0 50 0 0 0 50 0 50 DAP23 004 0 Minor Highway Improvements - contrib. to 40 40 50 50 50 0 0 190 40 150 DAP23 005 0 Soham / Cambridge Station 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DAP23 006 0 Littleport Station -20 70 5 65 0 0 0 50 -20 70 Railtrack grant received 2000/01 DAP23 007 0 Witchford Village Access 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 20 DATotals 42 20 485 360 285 150 69 69 953 62 933total "P"codes

1,623 6,525 3,374 3,372 1,378 584 461 360 12,680 8,151 6,155

0 Contingencies - general provision 0 0 7 20 20 20 20 87 0 87 JHTotals 0 CONTINGENCY PROVISIONS 0 0 7 20 20 20 20 87 0 87

TOTAL 2,063 Total Capital Programme Excl.L.A.S.H.G. 6,605 3,951 3,996 2,001 1,153 896 795 15,446 8,670 8,841NB this relates to schemes shown only

LASHG SCHEMESZ11 621 0 Swaffham Bulbeck, Downing Court (8) 0 56 56 84 0 0 0 140 0 140 Pre acquisition. Joint funded with Hsng Corp MBZ11 646 0 Downham Rd. Ely Ph 2 (Flagship - Peddars Way) (20) 82 82 0 0 0 0 410 328 82 Approved & on site MBZ11 647 0 West Fen Rd, Ely (HHA) (28) Rent 0 206 205 51 0 0 0 256 0 256 Joint fund with Housing Corporation MBZ11 648 0 Bell Road Bottisham (Hastoe) (14) 0 79 79 20 0 0 0 99 0 99 Joint fund with Housing Corporation MBZ11 649 0 Cambourne CR01 (Circle 33) (3) 0 91 91 0 0 0 0 91 0 91 MBZ11 652 0 Downham Road Ph.1 (Flagship - Peddars Way) (20) 1 1 0 0 0 0 204 203 1 Completed MBZ11 653 0 Foxwood South Soham (CHS) (12) 160 160 160 80 0 0 0 400 160 240 Approved . Acquisiton completed MBZ11 654 0 The Brook Sutton (CHS) (5) 0 34 34 23 0 0 0 57 0 57 Joint fund with Housing Corporation MBZ11 655 0 Brange Hill Lane Mepal (HHA) (6) 0 106 106 26 0 0 0 132 0 132 MBZ11 657 0 Mill Pit Furlong (HHA) (6) 0 59 59 15 0 0 0 74 0 74 Joint fund with Housing Corporation MBZ11 658 0 YMCA (2) 0 17 0 28 0 0 0 28 0 28 Joint fund with Housing Corporation MBZ11 000 0 Contingency 0 10 10 271 460 611 0 1,352 0 1,352 MBTOTAL 0 Total L.A.S.H.G. [NB this relates to schemes shown only] 460 611 0 3,243 691 2,552

NB this relates to schemes shown only C:\TEMP\[12-171201AppendixD.xls]CapitalProgram

10-Dec-01

Totals £000 2,063 Capital Programme Including L.A.S.H.G. 7,296 4,852 4,879 2,599 1,613 1,507 795 18,689 9,360 11,393

A64/1

BEST VALUE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEPERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK



From: Deputy Chief Executive

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To consider and make amendments to the proposals to implement the final stages of theCouncil's performance management framework.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 To adopt the final phase of the implementation of performance management as outlined in thisreport.

3.0 COSTS

3.1 There are no direct costs associated with this report.

4.0 OPTIONS/BACKGROUND

4.1 The objective of the performance management framework is to ensure that through systematicand comprehensive planning the corporate objectives are implemented by the Council and itspartners. A good analogy is that of a "golden thread" that runs from the high-level corporateobjectives through to service objectives and actions ending with individual performance targetswhich are appraised each April. Most importantly the process is linked to the Councilbudgetary cycle in order that service plans are realistic and deliverable. The performancemanagement cycle needs to be constantly reviewed and monitored to ensure that the necessarysteps are taken to continually improve services.

4.2 At its meeting of the 26 September 2000, the Monitoring Panel Members agreed to adopt andimplement the following performance management framework in line with district auditrecommendations and Best Value guidance.

4.3 The framework included four key elements:

collecting and monitoring performance indicatorstaking action to improve poorly performing servicescomprehensive service planningBest Value Performance Plan

All of these elements are linked to form the performance management framework for EastCambridgeshire District Council.

A64/2

This report updates Members on progress to date and reports on the final stages ofimplementing the framework.

4.4 Collecting and monitoring performance indicators

All relevant service departments have put in place robust systems and are collecting the BestValue Performance Indicators (BVPI) that must be reported in the Best Value Performance Plan(BVPP) each March. Despite some initial teething problems with interpretation of guidancemost departments are producing accurate statistics. To assist lead officers the CorporateStrategy Officer (Performance Review) and the Internal Auditor are auditing each indictorbefore they are published as well as running training sessions for staff.

Management Team review these BVPIs on a six monthly basis and compare with historicalperformance as well as targets.

Targets are set by the relevant team and Executive Director in line with national targets, topquartile authorities and historical performance.

All targets are moderated by Management Team in January of each year to ensure they arechallenging and realistic.

Next Steps

Monitoring now needs to take place at the service level to enable Executive Directorsand lead Members to identify patterns of performance.

The draft service plan for each service will be reported to the relevant policy committeeon an annual basis between October and December each year. This annual review willalso report historical performance to Members and compare it to the family group ofauthorities.

From January 2002 each service will also be expected to introduce its own group ofservice indicators and a cycle for monitoring these indicators internally. These serviceindicators will be the measures or indicators included in the individual service plan.

A hierarchy of indicators has been established across the authority which will allowmonitoring to take place at the appropriate level. This hierarchy is explained below:

Level A: Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs)

Level B: Local Sustainable Development IndicatorsLocal Corporate Health Indicators

Level C: Service Indicators

A64/3

Performance Indicators Frequency CommentA B C

Policy and ResourcesCommittee Annual

Special role to agree theBest Value PerformancePlan each year

All Policy CommitteesPolicy and ResourcesCommittee

Some Annual Includes relevant BVPIs

Management Team Some Sixmonthly

Includes some serviceindicators if of concern

Internal ServiceMonitoring

Some Quarterly All services willmonitor relevant BVPIs

Management Team have already started monitoring these indicators. All services willbe expected to monitor internally from January 2002.

4.5 Taking action to improve poorly performing services

The result of regularly collecting and monitoring performance data is that poorly performingservices are quickly identified. If a service is deteriorating the following action will beundertaken by the Executive Director and/or Management Team:-

(i) A mini-review and urgent intervention if there is a steep decline in performance.

(ii) Inclusion in the next years programme of Best Value Reviews if indicators or customerfeedback points to a gradual pattern of decline in performance.

Next Steps

Regular monitoring should allow Members and Executive Directors to identify poorlyperforming services in future.

4.6 Comprehensive Service Planning

In November 2000 the Council employed IPF to draw up a comprehensive service planningmethodology for the organisation. Following workshops of all senior staff, each service has aservice plan and all have been presented to relevant Council committees. Now the service plansneed to be standardised and linked to resources to ensure that they are realistic and can beimplemented.

Next Steps

Service plans need to be more closely aligned to the budget cycle and the followingcycle is proposed.

A64/4July - Policy & Resource CommitteeResource projections andresource allocations

Autumn - Policy Committeesreceive draft service plans based

on available budgetsSpringService plans agreed by policycommittees and feed into BVPP

DecemberAgree budget

This year the 2002/2003 service plans, based on the budget set following the BaseBudget Review, will go to January/February Policy Committees and will miss the draftstage. It is proposed the full cycle illustrated above starts in July 2002 for the 2003/04Service Plans. This will mean that the service plans feeding into the BVPP will bealigned to the current budget and the Council's political priorities.

4.7 Best Value Performance Plan

The Best Value Performance Plan published last March was inspected by District Auditand a report and recommendations were made by them in June. The authority hascomplied with all of the recommendations including the one statutory recommendationto:

"Ensure that a revised and realistic timetable exists to enable the performancemanagement system to be implemented without further delay."

Next Steps

Now that the implementation of the performance management framework is in its finalstages it is possible to produce a Best Value Performance Plan which clearly links thecorporate objectives to how the Council resources and plans its activities.

The service planning framework also allows the authority to fully integrate the BestValue Review Implementation Plan resulting from each best value review. TheEnvironmental Health, Housing and Development Control Service Plans are all goodexamples of where the actions from the reviews have been incorporated in theoperational, improvement or change plans of the service plan.

All of the completed Best Value Inspections Reports contain recommendations andfollowing their presentation to the relevant policy committee it is also envisaged thatthese recommendations are fed into the next review of service plans.

Next years BVPP will also more clearly demonstrate how the Council will achieve 2%efficiency improvements across the organisation both through the comprehensiveoverhaul of its resource base through the base budget review and in future by closelyaligning the budgetary and service planning cycles.

A64/55.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The Government has recently published its annual report on best value entitled "ChangingGear". In this report the Government undertake to carry out a review of best value and theinspection service accepting they need to produce "a more integrated regime …. that targetswork in a way which better differentiates between the needs of different councils" and that a"one-size-fits-all" inspection is not the most effective means to support improvements in localservices." This report is expected in the spring of next year.

5.2 "Changing Gear" does make it clear, however, that Councils who embrace the culture of BestValue will be rewarded with more freedoms and flexibility than those who they feel are under-performing. The report sets out a matrix in order to assist Councils identify which of the fourfollowing categories they fall into:

Top performing councilsStriving councilsCoasting councilsUnder-performing councils

5.3 It is management teams view that this Council is a striving council which accepts the need toimprove and a willingness to take difficult decisions and a preparedness to try innovativesolutions. The major challenge for us all in this final stage of the implementation of theperformance management framework is that the framework is fully utilised to identify areas ofweakness, plan and introduce improvement and monitor the implementation of corporateobjectives from the top to the bottom of the "golden thread".


Item 5 Monitoring Panel - 26 September 2000"Changing Gear" Best Value Annual Statement 2001 Audit CommissionIntegrating Strategic Planning with 3 year budgeting - A guide for practitioners CIPFA.

A65/1BEST VALUE TIMETABLE




1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To consider and make any amendments to the timetable for the third year of Best Value Servicereviews due to commence April 2002.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 To adopt Option Two to review the following services in Year Three of Best Value.

Legal and Democratic ServicesCultural ServicesCustomer CareOffice Services, Reprographics

3.0 COSTS

3.1 There are no additional costs associated with this report.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option One: to adopt the timetable as proposed in last year's Best Value Performance Plan(BVPP) below:

Year Three

Financial ServicesCultural ServicesInformation TechnologyForward PlanningTravellersReception

4.2 Option Two: to adopt a revised timetable with some of the original proposals from last year'sBVPP and the reviews not undertaken as planned as set out below:

Year Three

Legal and Democratic ServicesCultural ServicesCustomer CareOffice Services, Reprographics

A65/25.0 ARGUMENT

5.1 Option One is not recommended as it does not take into account the changes that have takenplace in the past 12 months and does not include Legal and Democratic Services.

5.2 Option Two is the recommended option and provides the Council with a challenging timetablefor the forthcoming year. Option Two addresses the Audit Commissions concern for larger,fewer reviews. It also includes a customer focussed cross-cutting review of customer care inline with audit commission advice. The arguments for each review are:

(i) Legal and Democratic Services

The review of Legal Services was postponed from last year in order for a larger reviewof the whole department to be undertaken in Year three.

(ii) Cultural Services

This review is well underway and will be concluded by the early summer of 2002. Itlinks to the re-tendering of the contract for the Paradise Swimming Pool and enabledthe Council to review ADeC following the Best Value Review of Grants undertaken inYear Two.

(iii) Customer Care

This review was originally to review the reception function of the Council. Given thatapproximately 70% of Council business is conducted by phone, and the AuditCommissions advice to carry out reviews from a customer perspective, it is proposedthat a review of all customer interfaces is undertaken in this cross-cutting review. Thisalso links to the emerging e-government agenda and will allow the authority to considerand plan this important development.

(iv) Office Services, Reprographics

These services are closely linked to the reception service and therefore necessary toreview as a consequence of a review of Customer Care.

5.3 If Option Two is adopted by Members then it will be necessary to re-schedule the following:

Community Safety - This review should have been undertaken this year but was postponed inorder for the Community Safety Strategy to be reviewed and published by March 2001. Thisreview will now be put with the other corporate strategy issues, LA21 and Health Improvementand considered as part of the Year Four programme.

Information Technology - It is proposed that this review will now commence in Year Four tolink to the re-tendering of this service by 2004.

Forward Planning - This review is too small by itself and could be considered alongside theother development service reviews in Year Four.

A65/3

Financial Services - This review would include all financial services including those undertakenby the contractor, Capita. This service was included in the original Best Value timetable andlinks to the Customer Care review and the reception function of the Council. This review wouldbe carried out in Year Four.

Travellers - It is proposed that this review is now undertaken as part of the Best Value Reviewof Environmental Services in Year Four.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Each year it has been necessary to amend the Five Year Best Value Review Timetable to takeaccount of local circumstances and Audit Commission recommendations. If adopted, therevised programme will be included in the Best Value Performance Plan to be published inMarch 2002.


Best Value Performance Plan 2001.

A66/1BRANDON CREEK AMENITY SITE




1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To consider the option to enter into a management arrangement with the County Council tomaintain the amenity site at Brandon Creek.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 In consultation with the Chairman of Policy and Resources Committee develop a robustagreement with the County Council to manage the capital works and amenity site at BrandonCreek.

3.0 COSTS

3.1 There are capital and revenue costs associated with the report. The County Council areproposing to invest approximately £30k of capital to bring the amenity site up to a goodstandard. This investment will lever in approximately £25k of external funding to improve theinterpretation and tourist facilities at the site.

3.2 The revenue costs associated with the maintenance of the site are approximately £12.5k perannum. These costs are still subject to negotiation with the County Council and are initialestimates. If Members approve the management arrangements, detailed costs will be obtainedand included in the agreement with the County Council.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Brandon Creek is an amenity site including a waterside picnic area, public toilets and openspace adjacent to the A10 North approximately 6 miles of Littleport. It is a popular site withtransport operators and tourists and was the first of its kind in England.

4.2 As part of the de-trunking of the A10 the Highways Agency asked East Cambridgeshire DistrictCouncil if it would take over the amenity site at Brandon Creek. After looking at the risksassociated with this, the authority declined and it was transferred to the County Council in May2001.

4.3 At a meeting of the East Cambs Environment and Transport Area Joint Committee on 2 October2000 the following recommendation was agreed by Members:

"To recommend that the County Environment and Transport Committee accept liabilityfor the Brandon Creek picnic site and agree a partnership with the district council for itsmanagement, on the basis of seeking to ensure satisfactory funding."

A66/2There is clearly some expectation that the district council will work in partnership with theCounty to retain Brandon Creek.

4.4 The County Council have approached the authority to request that it enters into a managementagreement to project manage capital works to improve the site then to maintain the site on theirbehalf. A proposal showing the capital and revenue options of maintaining the site is includedfor information in appendix A.

4.5 There are two clear options for the Council to consider:

Option One: After detailed negotiation enter into a management contract with the CountyCouncil to maintain the site.

Option Two: Reject the County Council's proposal to maintain the site.

5.0 ARGUMENT

5.1 Option One: Enter into a management agreement with the CountyCouncil to maintain the site.

5.1.1 The main advantage of this option is that the District Council could enhance theamenity site and create a "gateway" for tourists into the district. The capital investmentfrom the County Council would lever in external funding to improve interpretation andtourism facilities at the site which would encourage tourists to visit the district andneighbouring districts in Norfolk.

5.1.2 A further advantage of this option is that the facilities are of a poor standard and thispartnership would enable the district to improve the WC block and site to a highstandard for the public at no cost to East Cambs. The Council would use its in-houseexpertise and County Council funding to improve the WC block to a similar standard asthe other high quality facilities in the rest of the authority.

5.1.3 A disadvantage could be the risks associated with taking on responsibilities without thenecessary agreements in place to ensure all costs remain with the County Council.Agreements would need to ensure that the financial risks of the district are covered andthat the revenue contribution includes provisions for inflation and unforeseencircumstances.

5.1.4 A further disadvantage would be the additional work for client officers who would needto ensure that the WC and open space are kept in good order.

5.1.5 The WC block is currently cleaned by a toilet cleaner employed by Ringway, theCounty Council's contractor. There are TUPE issues associated with this post and thiscould be a further complication.

5.2 Reject the County Council proposal to maintain the site.

5.2.1 The advantage of this option is that it does not involve the Council in any additionalwork or responsibility.

5.2.2 The disadvantage of this option is that the amenity site will possibly close or remain ofa low standard with no encouragement to tourists to visit East Cambridgeshire.

A66/3

5.2.3 A further disadvantage is the opportunity to improve an important amenity site locatedat a gateway to-and-from the district by levering in external funding thereby incurringlittle or no capital cost to the authority. Furthermore it enables the authority to developa high quality tourist site that reflects positively on the district and its partnership withthe County Council.

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 It is evident from the initial discussions with the County Council that if the authority is toproceed with the proposal to maintain Brandon Creek, a robust agreement needs to be firmly inplace.

6.2 The proposal obviously brings significant benefits to the County Council and neighbouringdistricts who gain improved tourist facilities managed at a local level by a district who have anexcellent reputation for managing similar facilities.

6.3 This authority would benefit from improved facilities for tourists and a 'gateway' to the district,this needs to be carefully weighed up with the financial risk associated with the proposal.

6.4 The main beneficiary of the proposal will almost certainly be the tourists and transport operatorswho use the amenity. The site is in need of major investment and this proposal would make itan enjoyable stopping off place and a gateway to the Fens.


Item 6 - East Cambridgeshire Environment and Transport Area Joint Committee -2 October 2000

A66/4APPENDIX A

ECDC CAPITAL AND REVENUE COST OPTIONS FOR BRANDON CREEK

After taking advice from professional bodies, the following costings and ideas have been put forward.

CAPITAL

A - Public Toilets Refurbishment - New Build

1. Conversion to Automatic Toilet Block (Danfo WMT)

Total conversion to an automatic toilet system comprising of 4 units (including a disabled one)within the existing building shell. This involves a complete stripping out of all internal wallsand rebuilding 4 units plus service area. All surfaces are super hard laminates very easy forcleaning graffiti. All fittings are supplied to keep vandalism to a minimum. Toilets can beautomatically locked/opened at certain times and these will not lock unless the units are empty.

The cost will be approx. £75,000.

Plus:

Peace of mind facilities management package to cover all building operation, cleaning,consumables, spares and repairs to malicious damage. This will completely take away all of theproblems of opening/closing/cleaning/maintenance etc. - cost £12,000 p.a.

2. InterPublic Urban Systems

Total conversion to an automatic toilet system comprising of 4 units (including a disabled one)within the existing building shell. Materials/surfaces etc will be very similar to that given above.Cost approx. £97,000.

Inter Public do not operate a management/maintenance system.

Public Toilets Refurbishment - Upgrade of Existing Facilities

3. Building Company One

To carry out refurbishment as follows to bring toilets up to acceptable standard:

Renewal of Asphalt roof (excluding decking if required)New internal ceilings

Install disabled toilet area (+ all fittings) with new external door and adjustladies cubicles sizes to make room for disabled.Replace all sanitary ware throughout with new stainless steelInstall hot water systemNew steel lined doors to 3 cubicles.Install necessary ramps outside

Total Cost: £18,672

A66/5Plus:

If new china sanitary ware used instead of stainless steel, cost would be £15,050.

Replacing floor and wall tiles throughout at a cost of £10,570

4. Building Company Two

Option i) to include:

Renewal of Asphalt roofNew internal ceilingsInstall disabled toilet area (+ all fittings) with new internal door from inside ladies entrance and adjust ladies cubicles sizes to make room for disabled.Replace all sanitary ware throughout with new stainless steel with the exception ofthe urinal. 3 new s/s urinal bowls would be £209 each plus necessary builders workextra to price below.Install hot water systemNew steel lined doorsNew concrete external ramps

Total Cost £18,900

Option ii) to include:

All of option 1 plus:New pitched roofSkylights in new roofExtra cubicle in gents toiletsRemove old bulkhead lights and replace with recessed lightsInstallation of rainwater disposal system

Total cost £28,000

Recommendation

Whilst Option i would be the most desirable, it is recommended to progress Option 4 - BuildingCompany Two - ii

B - Picnic Site Capital Costs

1. To reduce the cost of repairs and maintenance to the fence, the length from the end ofthe picnic area roadway towards the Norfolk boundary (approx. 100 metres) beremoved, (99% of accidents happen at this point) the material can be saved and used forfuture repairs to other parts of the fence. Cost of removal is minimal £100-00.

2. The cost of litter bins could be kept to a minimum by only installing four ECDC largermetal bins in the toilet area and utilising the four smaller concrete bins in the lay-by theother side of the A10. Total cost including installation £1440-00.

A66/6

3. Excess litter bin rubbish could be stored in the sewerage plant compound which wouldkeep the area tidy at no extra cost or a small storage area be made using four 3 x 6fence panels. Total cost including installation £150-00.

4. The cost of installing lifebuoys and housings at the mooring is £342-00 each.

5. Replacement of Picnic Tables. Total cost £10,000.

C - Tourist/ Visitor Information

1. Fens Tourism can provide general waterway signage free of charge. New Tourist Informationboards are required and will cost in the region of £5,000 (including inserts and installation). Aminimum of two boards is required. Opportunities for joint working with Kings Lynn and WestNorfolk Borough Council.

Approx. Cost £10,000

D - Tree Works

1. To undertake a survey of the trees on the site and to carry out any immediate and necessaryworks to ensure ECDC is not liable for negligence if damage or injury occurred resulting fromthe poor standard of trees.

Approx. Cost £5,000

REVENUE

1. To keep the grassed area tidy during the growing season it is recommended to cut over an eightmonth period twice monthly except March and October, these would be cut once at thebeginning of March and the end of October. This would amount to fourteen cuts at a cost of£125-00 per cut. Total annual cost £1750-00

2. The maintenance of the trees and shrubs would normally only require attention twice yearly, atthe beginning of the growing season and the end, this would mainly entail pruning. Cost of thisservice would be approximately £1000-00.

3. The maintenance of the fence and picnic tables (repairs/staining) could be carried out byBranching Out at approximately £1000 per annum.

4. The maintenance cost for the Bio Sewerage Plant based on an average of the threemaintained at ECDC traveller sites is £730-00 per annum.

5. Toilet Cleaning Costs:To open/close and carry out one clean per day £5,250Consumables £1,000One extra clean per day £1,750Total Cost £8,000

CAPITAL/REVENUE SUMMARY

Capital Costs (including recommended options)

Public Toilet Upgrade £28,000Removal of some fencing £ ,100

A66/7New Picnic Tables £10,000Four litter bins £ 1,444Storage Area £ ,150Lifebouys £ ,342Tourist Information £10,000Survey of Trees/recommendedWorks £ 5,000Total Capital Costs £55,036

Revenue Costs (per year)

Grass Cutting £1,750Tree/shrub maintenance £1,000Fence/picnic table maintenance £1,000Bio Sewerage Plant maintenance £ ,730Toilet Cleaning £8,000

Total Revenue Costs £12,480

ISSUES

• The costs of toilet cleaning are estimates. We require from the County Council thecurrent cleaner's terms and conditions and hourly rate of pay before a more accuratefigure can be determined.

• External funding from the EU Transitional fund (at 32% of total project costs) andEEDA (at 40-50% of total project costs) could be applied for to support the capitalexpenditure. Financial support could be provided under the tourism measure if thesite was re-marketed as a `visitor gateway' to the fens and the Norfolk Coast. Asowners of the site, the County would need to apply for funding to the appropriate body.

• A contingency sum should be considered on the annual revenue maintenance sum for costsarising from travellers, additional tree work, vandalism and liability issues.

A67/1EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE HEALTHY LIVING CENTRE

A67To: Policy & Resources Committee

Date: 17th December 2001

From: Executive Director (Community Services)

1.0 PURPOSE

1.1 To appraise members of the award of funds from the National Lottery for the EastCambridgeshire Rural Healthy Living Centre (ECRHLC) and request Resources Committee tomake provision for a revenue and capital contribution from ECDC.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

That members :-

1) Note the award of £645,000 from the New Opportunities Fund for the ECRHLC2) Incorporate an ongoing revenue contribution to the scheme of £30,000 per annum from

the year 2002/3.3) To make provision in the capital programme for the sum of £156,000 for the Healthy

Living Centre, across the financial year 2002/3 and 2003/44) That the ongoing monitoring of the programme be undertaken by the Community

Services Committee, including the receipt of an annual report, and the annual forwardbusiness plan.

3.0 COSTS

3.1 This is a complex 5 year multi-agency/multi dimensioned project. Contributions from ECDCwhere appropriate to the individual projects will be considered by the Community ServicesCommittee through the normal Community Grants programme.

3.2 There is however, a need to identify a contribution towards the costs of the project managersand administrators costs. The contribution required from the District Council towards thesecosts is £25,000 per annum. The Primary Care Group will be providing the officeaccommodation and administration support. The balance of the costs for the projectmanagement and administration will be met from within the New Opportunities Fundcontribution. The financial appraisal for the management of the project is attached at appendix1.

3.3 An important element of the project is the development of the physical base of the FamilyHealthy Living Centre itself. It is proposed to achieve this at a relatively low cost by buildingan extension onto the existing Littleport Leisure Centre, and to enhance key features of theexisting premises. It is intended to establish a shared usage arrangement with the LeisureCentre. This approach has many advantages not least of which is to raise the current low levelof day time use of the facility and to mainstream a more positive sport/health focus for thecentre.

A67/2The estimated capital costs are £446,000 to be met by:

Existing ECDC Capital Arts Grant £25,000European Regional Development Fund £55,000East of England Development Agency £50,000ECDC Community Grants Scheme £20,000New Opportunities Fund £90,000Littleport Section 106 £50,000ECDC Capital Programme £156,000

£446,000

3.4 As indicated in the narrative below the ECRHLC is made up of around 20 individual projects,each with its own lead organisation. In order to manage the overall finances of the programmeeach lead organisation is required to provide a mini business plan for their individual projectand detailed financial forecasts for the forthcoming year, prior to approval by the steering group.These include letters of commitment from each of the funders. A breakdown of the 5 yearprogramme is illustrated at appendix 2. Prior to the commencement of each financial year forthe project these figures will be agreed in detail with the New Opportunities Fund.

4.0 OPTIONS/DISCUSSION

4.1 The District Council has led a multi-agency partnership in developing a healthy living initiativefor the district. The initiative will form the basis of the delivering of the joint health promotionstrategy developed with the East Cambs Primary Care Group. In terms of options there areeffectively only 2 options, either to proceed with the implementation of the programme or not todo so.

4.2 The East Cambs Healthy Living Centre project has been developed as a rural model to addressthe health inequalities issues in our District identified in the joint ECDC/ ECPCG HealthStrategy.

4.3 The project is a multi-dimensional initiative structured to address the health impacts of ruraldeprivation, social exclusion, isolation and health inequalities.

4.4 The initiative has been drawn together to address both the needs of the District’s most deprivedlocations (Littleport and the High Barns social housing estate in Ely) and the needs of the smallnumbers of socially excluded people spread throughout the District’s sparsely populated ruralvillages.

4.5 Activities designed to address social exclusion will operate at two levels, firstly targetinggeographical concentrations of the socially excluded, particularly in the town of Littleport andin the deprived High Barns estate in Ely and secondly, projects designed to address the needs ofthe rurally isolated socially excluded, spread thinly throughout the District.

4.6 The project will increase the health and well being of the people who will use it, through thedevelopment of a healthy living centre, providing a community facility and a range of services –both medical and social.

4.7 The centre will provide the focus for a range of outreach projects which will be provided toidentified areas of disadvantage around the District.

A67/3

The project objectives are:

- To promote healthy living in the most disadvantaged areas of the community.- To improve access to information, services and opportunities.- To reduce social isolation amongst socially excluded groups throughout East

Cambridgeshire and- To improve quality of life.

4.8 The priorities for action which reflect both the rural nature of the district and geographicalconcentrations of deprivation are:

- The provision of health information in its broadest sense.- The promotion of healthy lifestyles.- Developing community capacity and skills.- Addressing isolation and mental health problems.

Support for young people.

These priorities will be addressed through the integrated package of initiatives some of whichwill operate at the Healthy Living Centre and others will use the Centre as a base to reach out todisadvantaged groups in the District’s large rural hinterland as outlined below.

Families and ChildrenFamilies in LittleportHomestart

Young PeopleBedford House Counselling and InformationYouth Arts Worker

Older and Isolated PeopleAge ConcernHealth for LifeRural Outreach

Fitness and FoodGP Referral SchemeHealthy Living StylesLittleport Community Café

Community Development/SupportLittleport Community Development ProjectHigh Barns ProjectBreaking Through the Barriers

Health and Social InformationIT Touchscreen ServicesOuse BusOpportunity Links

Healthy Living Centre

A67/4

4.9 Target Groups

The core of the catchment area are the wards of Littleport and Downham, together with theHigh Barnes estate in Ely. However, a significant proportion of the projects users will be drawnfrom outside of the core area through the targeting of specific socially excluded groups:

deprived people in rural areastravellerspeople on low incomeslone parentselderly people with low incomesyoung peoplepeople with mental illness

The project has been developed as a rural model using outreach provision, ICT informationnetworks, mobile services, linking with community transport and community educationprovision, and using a community development/capacity/confidence and skill buildingapproach. We estimate that the total target population will be 11,500.

The Partnership has decided to market the project to these groups as they make up the majorityof the Districts socially excluded population. Thinly spread, often living in remote butotherwise affluent villages, these groups are not reached easily by the existing health and socialproviders.

4.10 Management

The project will employ a full time manager/co-ordinator who will be expected to be able todemonstrate a strong track record in developing, launching and managing projects in a health,regeneration or related field. She/he will be supported by a part time administration/bookkeeperand a community development worker (part time).

For the first 2 years of the project it will be managed by East Cambridgeshire District Councilwho will act as employers for staff and provide the direct line management. They will also beresponsible for the projects financial management. During this period, Cambridgeshire ACREwill work with the Healthy Living Centre Partnership to establish the East CambridgeshireHealthy Living Centre as a free standing charitable organisation at the commencement of year3. This process will enable us to ensure that the new organisation is set up with a robust fullytrained board of trustees who have developed the skills necessary to run the organisation.Responsibility for financial management systems will remain with the District Councilthroughout the 5 years of NOF funding. However, decisions with respect to the allocation ofbudgets and spending, project planning and fundraising will be delegated to the community ledProject Steering Group (within the parameters set by the Lottery award and the projectsbusiness plan, transferring formally to the Board of the Charity once established.

The manager will prepare an annual business plan with monthly output and financial (includingfundraising) targets which will be reported to the Steering Group (monthly). QuarterlyManagement Accounts will be prepared initially by the Finance Department at EastCambridgeshire District Council and subsequently by a local accountancy practice who willalso act as the projects auditors. A Board member with appropriate skills will act as Treasurer.

A67/5

A Steering Group is to be established drawing from the main partners and the projects themegroups.

4.11 Evaluation

It is intended to employ 2 post graduate students from the Anglia Polytechnic University toundertake the evaluation of the project as part of their social policy research. The evaluationwill focus on community involvement within the partnership and the effective promotion ofhealth and well-being of a dispersed, deprived community in a rural context. Their work will befed directly into the steering group to enable them to make adjustments to the programme tomaximise its impact and effectiveness.

In addition to this research, each of the network initiatives has also built in its own monitoringand evaluation procedures. For example:

Health, Social and Community Information – Number of people referred to adviceagencies for benefits, number taking up home improvement grants, number undertakingICT sessions, number attending events groups, number of enquiries to information andadvice agencies.

Reports on the outputs and outcomes against targets from the individual projects will besubmitted to the steering group on a regular basis for review.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The East Cambridgeshire Rural Healthy Living Centre Project is the first in Cambridgeshire toreceive approval, and stands in testament to the quality and depth of partnership working in theDistrict. Members are commended to actively support this initiative.

A67/6Appendix 1

Financial Appraisals - Revenue

Project: Healthy Living Centre - Project Management

Year 1 Year 2 Full YearEffect

£ £ £Running CostsEmployee 7,308 30,035 30,035Premises 1,200 4,850 4,850Travel 400 2,000 2,000Supplies 1,000 1,500 1,500Overhead (addt cost)Training 250 1,200 1,200Management / Supervision 1,000 6,000 6,000Administrative Support 1,315 14,248 14,248One-off Set Up CostsRecruitment 3,000 - -IT 3,000 - -

Expenditure 18,458 59,833 59,833

IncomeNew Opportunities Fund 5,000 20,000 20,000ECPCG 2,473 9,833 9,833

Income 7,473 29,833 29,833

ECDC Contribution 11,000 30,000 30,000

NB All costs shown not just ECDC's expenditure

Prepared by: R. Harding

Assumptions:• The staff will be located at the East Cambs Primary Care Group• Admin post on Scale 2/3, commences work March• HLL Co-ordinator commences work January 2002

A67/7Appendix 2

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 TOTAL

INCOMENOF Grant 139,725 117,171 113,960 107,766 76,712 555,334Grants/Income from Partner Organisations 186,548 231,550 187,303 238,962 219,023 1,063,386Payments for Services 2,000 7,000 14,500 22,050 45,550User Charges/Fees 11,100 20,600 44,875 44,663 45,592 166,830TOTAL INCOME 337,373 371,321 353,138 405,891 363,377 1,831,100EXPENDITURESalaries/Wages (including oncosts) 138,081 163,114 184,297 244,193 224,615 954,300Other Staff Costs 23,010 28,471 21,613 13,471 9,171 95,736Travel 7,200 7,227 16,054 16,087 15,760 62,328Telephone 6,038 4,991 6,777 7,535 7,054 32,395Creche 2,420 3,420 3,920 4,520 4,920 19,200Stationery and Postage 7,600 7,785 7,505 10,397 8,939 42,226Equipment 27,445 50,878 10,915 6,137 2,332 97,707Repairs and Maintenance 1,050 1,410 10,433 11,455 11,674 36,022Insurance 2,875 3,140 7,545 8,870 8,866 31,296Recruitment 10,425 3,041 2,238 1,919 1,142 18,765Training 10,860 10,663 11,873 11,286 9,155 53,837Rent/Room Hire 24,575 22,137 17,836 14,385 11,078 90,011Volunteers' Expenses 10,008 11,575 8,193 8,974 8,476 47,226Publicity and Marketing 13,120 14,157 14,567 12,902 6,473 61,219Professional Fees 13,454 12,828 8,095 9,168 9,122 52,667Miscellaneous 39,212 26,484 21,277 24,592 24,600 136,165TOTAL EXPENDITURE 337,373 371,321 353,138 405,891 363,377 1,831,100

A68/1PLAY AREAS IN ELY

A68To: Policy & Resources


From: Executive Director, Legal & Democratic Services

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To consider a request from the City of Ely Council for top-up funding towards adoption of playareas by the City Council.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the request from Ely City Council to take over the play areas be agreed but that no top-upfunding be given.

3.0 COSTS

3.1 No current budget with capacity to meet the proposed expenditure.

Current annual play area maintenance budget is £548. All other open space budgets are fullycommitted.

4.0 ISSUES

4.1 Prior to the adoption of the current Local Plan, the Council completed a number of S106Agreements on proposed development sites between West Fen Road and St John's Road, Elysecuring, among other things, a number of areas of public open space, in relation to a number ofproposed developments at West Fen Road/St John’s Road, Ely. Within these large areas ofpublic open space will be located 8 play areas.

4.2 The Agreements followed on from a general S106 Agreement covering the majority of the sites(basically those allocated under the old Ely Local Plan) which set the commuted sum in respectof maintenance of these open space areas to be paid to the Council at £2.20 per square metre. Inthe end, because some of the sites included ‘new’ (previously unallocated) land, this figure wasincreased in some instances to £2.80/m2 or £3.50/m2.

4.3 At the design stage, a number of equipped play areas are being included within the public openspace, which the Ely City Council would like to take over. So far 2 out of the likely 8 havedesigns in, both comprising around 270 square metres.

4.4 The City Council are keen to take on these play areas and have the staff in place to do so. If theCouncil were to agree to the proposals, the play areas would be transferred direct from thedeveloper to the City Council who would also receive the commuted sums for maintenance ofthese areas set in the S106 Agreement. However, the City Council are not prepared to takethem over at the rates negotiated under these old S106 Agreements and want this Council toprovide additional ‘top-up’ funding to them to our current public open space rate of £4.20 persquare metre. This produces a shortfall of around £2,376 as set out in the Annex. (It is notpossible to be more precise at this stage as full details of play area proposals elsewhere on thesites have yet to come forward).

A68/2

4.5 It should be noted the City Council are only looking to take over the play areas, not themaintenance of the general public open space on these sites, which would still be undertaken bythe Council.

4.6 It should also be noted that the City Council are only asking for a 'top-up' to our current openspace commuted sum, not to our current play area sum, which is £16,000 per play area.

5.0 OPTIONS

5.1 Transfer the areas and pay the ‘top-up’

Advantages - secures the long term maintenance of these play areas by the City Council - relieves this Council of a long-term maintenance liability for the play

areas.

Disadvantages - no existing budget capacity. If found from existing budgets, would take a sizeable part of the District-wide maintenance budget

- still leaves the grass cutting and maintenance of the general public open space with this Council

- sets a precedent with other Parish Councils.

5.2 Transfer the land but do not pay the ‘top up’

Advantages - maintains our open space budget as a district wide resource- relieves this Council of a long term maintenance liability for the play areas.

Disadvantages - effect on relationship with Ely City Council- still leaves grass cutting and general public open space maintenance with this Council.

5.3 Do not transfer the areas

Advantages - Council receive the commuted sum towards future maintenance- maintains our open space budgets as a district-wide resource

Disadvantages - effect on relationship with Ely City Council- responsibility for maintenance stays with the Council


6.1 S106 Agreements as set out in the Annex.

A68/3

ANNEX

S106 Obligation Play Area Size S106 Adoption Sum Ely City CouncilProposal

Cornwell c 270m2 £594(@ £2.70/m2)

£540(shortfall @ £2/m2)

Trinity c 270m2 £945(@ £3.50/m2)

£189(shortfall @ 70p/m2)

Green II c 270m2 £756(@ £2.80/m2)

£378(shortfall @ £1.40/m2)

Runciman I c 270m2 £594(@ £2.20/m2)

£540(shortfall @ £2.00/m2)

Runciman II c 270m2 £945(@ £3.50/m2)

£189(shortfall @ 70p/m2)

Green I c 270m2 £594(@£2.20/m2)

£540(shortfall @ £2.00/m2)

£4,428Total play areaadoption sumreceivable under S106Deeds

£2,376Total shortfall if ElyCity Council take over@ £4.20/m2

A69/1FOR INFORMATIONAMOUNTS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE




1.0 ISSUE

1.1 Financial Regulation 13 requires the Committee to be informed of amounts written off asirrecoverable.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 The Committee is asked to note the report.

3.0 COSTS

3.1 For Council Tax, an allowance is made in setting the Council Tax Base to cover the cost ofirrecoverable debts. National Non-Domestic Rate (NNDR) irrecoverables are offset against theCouncil's contribution to the national pool.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 There are no options associated with this report.

5.0 ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The amounts written off are as tabulated below. The Policy and Resources CommitteeChairman has been consulted about each individual write-off exceeding £1,000.

Write-off relating to: Amounts individuallyunder £1,000

Amounts individuallyover £1,000

No. Total Value No. Total ValueCouncil Tax 23 £78.41 Nil NilNNDR 9 £4,198.70 5 £21,856.71Sundry Debtors Nil Nil Nil Nil

5.2 7 Council Tax debts totalling £26.25, previously written off, have been reinstated as it hassubsequently proved possible to collect the sums due.


6.1 The background papers to this report are exempt information by virtue of Category 7 of Part 1of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

A70/1FOR INFORMATION - STATEMENT OF COUNCIL'SEXTERNAL INVESTMENTS AS AT 30TH NOVEMBER 2001




1.0 ISSUE

1.1 To inform Committee of external investment position as at 30th November 2001.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 The Committee is asked to note the report.

3.0 ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

3.1 The Council's temporary investments position at 30th November 2001 was:-

CashManagementSchemes

BuildingSocieties

UK Banks LocalAuthorities

ForeignBanks

TotalInvestments

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

Investmentsheld as at1.4.2001

0 0 6,100 0 4,500 10,600

Investmentsmade in year

0 9,100 14,950 350 16,200 40,600

Investmentsredeemedin year

0

0

9,100

6,100

21,050

15,250

350

350

20,700

16,700

51,200

38,400

Investmentsheld as at30.11.2001

0 3,000 5,800 0 4,000 12,800

3.2 Interest earned on the funds temporarily invested with outside organisations for varying periodsup to 30th November 2001 was £444,345.83. (The total interest earned for the same period in2000/2001 was £617,527.72).


4.1 Loans Register for period to 30th November 2001. (Confidential)

EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL · 5. Annual Audit Letter ITEMS FOR DECISION/RECOMMENDATION -...

Documents

Transcript of EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL · 5. Annual Audit Letter ITEMS FOR DECISION/RECOMMENDATION -...