Agenda and minutes

The Sub-Committee was advised that a matter had arisen which required immediate attention by the Sub-Committee because a decision was required before the date of the next meeting (Minute ES103 refers), therefore pursuant to Section 100B (4) and 100E Local Government Act 1972, the Chairman ruled that the items be considered as a matter of urgency. 

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 6^th March 2008 were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Councillor Wharton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the item below as a Board member of Halton Transport and left the room during its discussion.

COUNCILLOR HARRIS IN THE CHAIR

            The Sub-Committee was advised that 11 local supported bus service contracts were due for renewal in March 2008. A re-tendering exercise to replace these services was initiated in December 2007. All contracts were advertised using an open tendering system. The existing cost of the contracts up for renewal was £151,645 which equated to 23% of the supported local bus service budget in 2007/8. All the new contracts were due to commence on Thursday 27^th March 2008.

 

            Under Procurement Standing Order 3.2 the Sub-Committee was advised of the reasons why tenders other than the lowest had been accepted for 7 of these contracts. Four contracts were successfully tendered to the lowest price tender. Details of these contracts and the reasons why these could not be awarded to the lowest tenderer were set out in the report.

 

            RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee

 

(1) note the tender report and its conclusions; and

 

(2) note the decision by the Operational Director (Highways, Transportation and Logistics) to award contracts 200, 281, 282, 292, 290, 251 and 211 to non- lowest price tenderers most able to commence the contracts to the required specification.

COUNCILLOR WHARTON IN THE CHAIR

            The Sub-Committee was advised of the intention to invite tenders for the Silver Jubilee Bridge, Runcorn Spandrel (Y5 to L4) – Preparation and Repainting of Steelwork Contract, the estimated cost of which was £1.4m. In accordance with Procurement Standing Order 2.5, tenders would be invited from the following contractors who had been drawn from the Construnctionline database of approved contractors:

 

Pyeroy Limited

Roy Hankinson Limited

T.I. Protective Coatings

Jack Tighe Ltd.

 

            Tenders were expected to be returned in mid March 2008 with work commencing on site in June 2008. Award would be assessed on the basis of quality, method of execution and price in accordance with the criteria set out in the instructions for tendering.

 

            RESOLVED: That the Operational Director Highways, Transportation and Logistics be authorised to invite tenders for the Silver Jubilee Bridge, Runcorn Spandrel (Y5 to L4) – Preparation and Repainting of Steelwork Contract, as outlined above, in accordance with Procurement Standing Order 2.5.

            The Sub-Committee considered a report setting out the proposed increase in charges for services relating to Planning, Transportation and Development, Environment and Regulatory areas. A number of areas had been identified where income was not being maximised. As a result, some new charges had been added and were highlighted in the schedule.

 

            RESOLVED: That the proposed fees and charges be agreed and referred to the relevant Policy and Performance Boards for information.

            Prior to 1998 Local Government Review there had been significant underfunding of the maintenance of the Silver Jubilee Bridge and its adjacent structures. As a result, the Council recognised that there was a need to address this neglect as a matter of priority. This culminated in the preparation of 10 year maintenance strategy document, which identified, costed and programmed the structural maintenance activity necessary to bring the condition of the structures to a steady state of maintenance.

 

            Prior to the introduction of the second Local Transport Plan (LTP2), the maintenance strategy for the complex was used to underpin and provide defendable reasoning for the annual bids made through LTP for Major Maintenance and Strengthening Schemes. This identified a total of £25.6m of work (at a 2003 cost base).

 

            During compilation of LTP2, the Council received guidance that the new LTP rules meant that implementation of a 10 year programme of maintenance activity as a strategy would have to be through the Major Scheme Appraisal process. This was a highly procedural process for major transportation initiatives costing greater than £5m requiring consideration of many issues such as environmental impact, safety, economic benefit, accessibility and integration.

 

            Consequently, the Council engaged consultants Mott MacDonald to prepare a formal Major Scheme Bid for delivery of the 10 year maintenance strategy for the Silver Jubilee Bridge Complex. The final draft was submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT) on 8^th March 2006.

 

            The preferred option was for a 10 year funding programme delivered by partnership. It was noted that although the level of work identified remained at £25.6m in the Strategy document, by the time it had gone through the economic processes of the Bid (including application of Optimism Bias) the figure had increased to £38.5m.

 

            Although DfT approval of the Major Scheme Bid was yet to be granted, one of the areas of the submission identified as being in need of development included proposals for project procurement. A report was therefore being prepared by Mott Macdonald to investigate the procurement options available for delivering an extended programme of bridge maintenance and to ascertain the option likely to yield the most effective outcomes. The recommended option would involve engagement of a single partnering contractor using a construction framework form of contract based upon the NEC (ECC) Suite of Contracts. This arrangement was viewed to be advantageous in terms of overall flexibility, quality and value for money through continuity of service.

 

            In December 2007, DfT informed the Council that its £14.3m bid for funding through the Primary Route Network (PRN) bridge maintenance had been successful. It was therefore intended to initiate procedures to prepare contract documentation and invite tenders for delivery of major bridge maintenance works through the engagement of a single partnering contractor using a construction framework form of contract.

            The term of the contract would be for an initial four-year period plus potential two-year extension with an estimate value range of between £12m and £18m depending on the future success of the Major  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

            The Sub-Committee considered a report which provided an update on Halton’s SP grant allocation for 2008 to 2011, set out the outcomes achieved by the pilot services and sought approval to:

 

i) extend contracts for pilot services for one year with a potential option to extend for a further twelve months or two years; dependent on the identified need for the service and the timescale of exit strategies; and

 

ii) to direct spend to fund new short-term developments in order to ensure that the Council minimises the risk of being required to meet the financial strategic objectives of the Council and the Supporting People Strategy.

 

            It was reported that by 2014 Halton’s SP allocation within the area-based grant could be as low as £6,071,789 (based on allocation at standard deprivation indices and no cross authority adjustment). In anticipation of reduced funding levels, a comprehensive programme of reviews had been carried out to ensure services offered value for money and were strategically relevant.

 

            As a result, a number of contract values were reduced and the projected spend on contracts for Halton’s 104 permanent Supporting People services was now less than the projected three-year allocation for 2008 to 2011. The implication being that whilst Halton faced a significantly reduced SP grant allocation by 2011, unless spend was increased, particularly in 2008/9, there was a risk of accumulating an underspend.

 

            Therefore suspension of standing orders was requested in that compliance with standing orders relating to procurement was not practicable within the timeframe established by the confirmation of grant in January 2008 and the expiry of services in April 08 and would result in a loss of services for a significant number of vulnerable people. In addition, it was not practicable due to the urgency to spend the time-limited funding on vulnerable members of our community.  This would mean that the Council would not be able to fulfil its obligations in the Supporting People Strategy. Also, undertaking tender exercises would reduce the time available to spend the grant and compliance would result in the Council having to forego a clear financial benefit, in that, government could claw back any under-spent Supporting People Programme Grant.

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1) in the exceptional circumstances detailed below, for the purpose of Standing Order 1.6, Procurement Standing Orders 3.1 to 3.7 be waived on this occasion. Compliance was not practicable within the timeframe established by the confirmation of grant in January 2008 and the existing contract expiry date (end March 2008), and would place vulnerable people at risk of loss of service. Compliance was also not practicable for reasons of urgency, in that undertaking tender exercises would reduce the time available to spend the time-limited funding on vulnerable members of our community; and compliance would result in the Council having to forgo a clear financial benefit, in that the Council could be required to return to Central Government any significant sum of under-spent Supporting People Programme Grant from April 2009 onwards;

 

(2) delegated powers be granted to the Strategic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

            The Sub-Committee considered a report which outlined the proposed increase in fees and charges for Health and Community Care Services and Consumer Protection Services. Fees and charges for Health and Community Care would be increased with effect from 7^th April 2008 to coincide with the date of the annual increase in benefits rates. Fees and charges for Bereavement, Registration and Consumer Protection Services would be increased with effect from 1^st April 2008.

 

            It was noted that the proposed fee for Inscriptions on Memorial Stone denoted by Rev. Phillip Mears (Hospital Chaplain) per inscription should read £44.

 

            RESOLVED: That the proposed fees and charges outlined in the report be approved.

            In 2005/06, authority was granted to tender for the provision of a number of supported living services on the grounds that the current provider was failing to due poor performance. Following an open tender exercise Creative Support were offered a contract for a period of two years for the provision of supported living services. The services provided care and support for Adults with Learning Disabilities, the majority of whom were assessed under Fair Access to Care as having critical or substantial needs.

 

            Since the award of the contract in 2006, Creative Support had significantly improved the quality of services being delivered. In view of the proven track record of good performance and in order to prevent any disruption to vulnerable clients with profound learning disabilities, approval was sought to extend the contract for a period of two years with effect from 1^st April 2008.

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1) in the exceptional circumstances set out in the report, for the purpose of Standing Order 1.6 Procurement Standing Orders 3.1 to 3.7 be waived on this occasion on the basis that the market was tested two years ago and the current contract offered value for money and was performing well in meeting the needs of service users with profound and complex needs. Compliance was also not practicable, in that, it would result in unnecessary disruption to extremely vulnerable clients; and

 

(2) delegated powers be approved to enable the Strategic Director, Health and Community, in consultation with the portfolio holder for Community, to extend contracts for the provision of supported living services listed in the report for a period of two years with effect from April 2008.

            The Sub-Committee considered a request to waive Procurement Standing Orders 4.1 and 4.3 and 3.1 to 3.7 in order to extend a number of voluntary sector contracts listed in the report for a period of 12 months and for approval to extend the contracts on the understanding that those services would be subject to tender within the financial year 2008/09.

 

            The waiver of Standing Orders was requested as undertaking tender exercises could disadvantage small but local voluntary sector organisations that did not have the administrative capacity to complete tender documentation and in that a mass tender exercise could destabilise the local voluntary sector market.

 

            In addition, it was noted that since the last report to Committee on 2^nd November 2006, work had been ongoing to improve the performance management of voluntary sector contracts and as a result there had been an improvement in the quality and efficiency of the voluntary sector contracts.

 

            In addition to improving the performance of services delivered via the voluntary sector, work was ongoing to achieve a 5% savings target in 2008/9. Ongoing work to achieve these savings included redesigning services to reduce duplication and the re-tender of services listed in the report.

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1) in the exceptional circumstances detailed in the report, for the purposes of Standing Order 1.6, Procurement Standing Orders 4.1 and 4.3 be waived in respect of contracts listed in Appendix 1 whose value were less than £50,000 and that contracts and specifications are improved and linked to a standard process;

 

(2) in the exceptional circumstances detailed in the report, for the purposes of Standing Order 1.6 Procurement Standing Orders 3.1 to 3.7 be waived in respect of contracts listed in Appendix 2 whose value were in excess of £50,000 but not exceeding £1m and contracts and specifications are improved and linked to a standard process; and

 

(3) re-tendering takes place on each of the contracts listed in Appendix 3.

            The Sub-Committee were advised on the proposed 2008/9 inflationary increases for Adult Social Care contracts within Domiciliary Care, Residential and Nursing Care fees, Dementia fees and Out of Borough Placements.

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1) an inflationary uplift for providers of Domiciliary, Residential and Nursing contracts of up to 2.5% which was within the inflationary allowance allocated by the Council to Social Services for 2008/09 be endorsed;

 

(2) an inflationary uplift of 8.24% for the Dementia fees within Halton services, in order to take into account increased financial pressures on the provider market be endorsed; and

 

(3) approval of inflationary uplifts for out-of-borough placements on a case-by-case basis, limited to the 2.5% HBC inflationary increase or the prevailing Local Authority rate.

            The Sub-Committee considered a report which sought approval for the proposed increases in fees and charges for the rates paid to Foster Carers. It had been previously agreed that the rates of allowances for Foster Carers could be increased in line with those recommended by the Fostering Network. For those circumstances where the Fostering Network did not make a recommendation, it was proposed that rates were increased by 2.5%.

 

            RESOLVED: That fees and charges increases for Foster Carers outlined in the report be approved.

            The Sub-Committee considered a request for temporary support to the Building Schools for the Future programme prior to the appointment of the Programme Manager. The Programme Manager was due to take up post in the next few months. However, prior to the commencement of the Programme Manager there were a number of key areas of work which needed to be undertaken. These key areas of work included the completion of the Staff Workforce Audit, a detailed analysis of all secondary and secondary special staff in each of the Halton schools and the preparation of the Strategy for Change Part 1 submission.

 

            It was therefore requested that a further contract up to the value of £8,000 be awarded to M.D. Consultancy. The daily rate for this consultancy work was £400.00. This would allow an additional 20 days of support. The daily rates quoted for this support from other consultancies had been £725 and £952 for Programme Management.

 

            RESOLVED: That the Operational Director Business Planning and Resources be authorised to award the contract for Temporary Programme Manager Support for Building Schools for the Future to the contractor M. D. Consultancy in the sum of £8,000 and, in accordance with Procurement Standing Order 1.6 Standing Orders 3.1 to 3.7 and 3.10 be waived on this occasion as compliance with Standing Orders was not practicable for reasons of urgency which could not reasonably have been anticipated.

            The Sub-Committee was advised that the current system for supporting pupils with EAL needs in Halton was set up when pupils with EAL were rare and dealt with from within the existing additional tuition budget. Giving the growing number of EAL pupils requiring support, this approach was not sustainable or capable of meeting the needs of EAL Learners.

 

            In reviewing this issue, practice in several neighbouring authorities that have had to respond to an increase in EAL Learners had been examined. Consequently, a broadly similar model appeared to emerge. These models have the Authority supporting schools via a team, usually an EAL consultant/team leader and typically a number of higher-level teacher assistants or bi-lingual assistants.

 

            In order to address the increase in demand in EAL, the Schools Forum was approached in Spring 2007 to seek to fund an EAL service from the Designated Schools Grant. Schools Forum agreed to make available £146,828, which was estimated the cost of a small service.

 

            Subsequently, St. Chad’s Language Specialist College, a local high school, had offered to provide an EAL support service to other schools in the Borough. There would be many advantages to doing this through a school and particularly a school that had a language specialism:

 

- it would reduce the management costs as delivering from within a school, management and support systems were already in place;

 

- the availability of a range of foreign language expertise and integration into the Borough’s systems for supporting schools and pupils;

 

- there was currently no commercial market for borough wide English as an Additional Language Service, as this was something that was delivered by local authorities; and

 

- any external commercial contractor would seek to return a profit whereas a partnership with St. Chad’s Language Specialist College would mean that all of the funding would be used to support Halton learners.

 

            RESOLVED: That the Operational Director (Preventative Services) be authorised to award the contract for English as an Additional Language (EAL) Support for Pupils in Halton Schools and that in the light of the exceptional circumstances, namely that compliance with the tendering Standing Orders would result in a clear financial detriment to the Council (1.6(c)) and because compliance with Standing Orders was not possible (1.6(a)).

            The Sub-Committee considered the Council’s Treasury Management and Investment Strategy for 2008/09.

 

            The Strategy covers the treasury limits in force which would limit the treasury risk and activities of the Council, prudential indicators, the current treasury position, the borrowing requirement, prospects for interest rates, the borrowing strategy, debt re-scheduling, the investment strategy and any extraordinary treasury issues.

 

            RESOLVED: That the Council be recommended to adopt the policies and strategies outlined in the report.

            The Sub-Committee considered a request to vary the approval given under Minute No. ES 115 for a small increase in the area of land to be exchanged with a private developer as part of the proposed new Mersey Gateway. This would allow the developer to secure a development for a 130 bed hotel development with offices (B2) on this site.

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1) approval be given to exchange the land identified on Plans B4027/4PC/82 and B4027/4/PC/87, the area edged in red is transferring to Council ownership whilst the area edged in blue will transfer from the Council to the developer; and

 

(2) authority be given to the Operational Director Property Services, in consultation with the portfolio holder for Corporate Services to conclude the deal.

            The Sub-Committee considered a report which outlined the current procedures adopted by the Environmental Health Division for silencing misfiring burglar alarms and the new provisions under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Under the new provisions of the 2005 Act if an authorised Officer of the Council was satisfied that:

 

i) an alarm had been sounding continuously for more than 20 minutes or intermittently for more than 1 hour;

 

ii) the noise was likely to give persons living or working in the vicinity reasonable cause for annoyance (note: this is a lesser standard than having to establish the existence of a statutory nuisance); and

 

iii) reasonable steps had been taken by the Council to get the nominated keyholder to silence the alarm;

 

            Then the Officer may enter the premises (without the need for a warrant) to silence the alarm including taking with him such other people (e.g. a contractor) as are needed to silence the alarm. However, the Officer may not enter the premises by force.

 

            In addition a local authority could designate its area or parts of it as an alarm notification area. Once the designation was in place the occupiers or (if none) the owners of alarmed residential and non-residential properties in the designated areas, must nominate a keyholder for the premises and notify the Local Authority of the contact details of the keyholder. The penalty for failing to notify the Local Authority of keyholders in a designated area was a maximum fine of Level 3 (currently £1,000). The Local Authority may adopt a fixed penalty notice scheme for this offence, for offenders to discharge liability to the offence by payment of a fixed penalty rather than face prosecution in the Magistrates Court.

 

            It was reported that to date, there had been some reluctance by local authorities to take on board the new provisions, because of the uncertainty of interpretation of force and reasonable force until such time, as they had been tested in Court. Notwithstanding, as the new provisions would allow for misfiring alarms to be silenced much more quickly and less expensively, thus shortening the period that anyone living or working nearby had to suffer the effects of the associated noise pollution, the new provision represented a positive way of tackling the alarm nuisance issue.

 

            With regard to designation of an alarm notification area large numbers of local authorities were operating a voluntary registration scheme with what appeared to be varying degrees of success. It was proposed that Council consult on the introduction of a scheme for Halton and introduce it for a trial period. The scheme would have to be marketed widely.

 

            It was noted that this would have implications for the Council’s constitution and would be included in amendments as part of the Annual Review in May 2008.

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1) the Sub-Committee adopt the provision in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 for dealing with misfiring alarms and that authority to act under these provisions is delegated to the Strategic Director  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

            The Sub-Committee considered a report which sought a retrospective waiver of Procurement Standing Orders section 3 with regard to additional works to restore the drainage system and railings around entrance at Victoria Park and to upgrade the tennis/ball courts surface (particularly the drainage and fencing elements). The total cost of these additional items was £81,000 and was covered by the contingency sum and by other cost heads in the overall project budget. This enabled the works to continue on schedule and meet the Heritage Lottery Fund agreed expenditure profiles.

 

            Due to the nature of the work required to upgrade the tennis/ball courts, work needed to take place immediately to avoid a conflict with the remaining programmed restoration work. Extending the existing contract also kept the number of contractors and contractors’ cabins to minimum on site, reducing conflict with park users. Therefore the existing contractor was asked to carry out this work.

 

            RESOLVED: That a retrospective waiver of the tendering requirements of Procurement Standing Orders section 3 be given.

It was noted that the following report had been recommended by Officers to be placed in Part II of the agenda as the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. Therefore members of the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during its consideration in accordance with Sub-Section 4 of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 because it was likely that, in view of the nature of the business, exempt information would be disclosed, being information defined in Section 100 (1) and paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

However, Members of the Sub-Committee considered the officer recommendation and resolved that the item should be discussed in Part I of the agenda and the press and public included. 

 

            At a previous meeting of the Executive Board Sub Committee held on 20^th March 2008, a decision was made regarding the future use of the site of Halton Village Youth Club building at Camelot Walk, Castlefields. Following the meeting officers wrote to both Halton Voluntary Youth Club and HAMS. Subsequently a letter was received from HAMS setting out the impact of the decision on them, on the service they provide to the community and on HAMS’ investment in the premises. In view of that position and the fact that there was no current other interests registered for the building, the Sub Committee agreed the following:

 

            RESOLVED: That

 

(1)       no new lease be offered to the trustees of the Halton Village Youth Club; and

 

(2)       the Strategic Director – Corporate and Policy be authorised to enter into negotiations and conclude terms of a lease for the building between the Council and HAMS.

MINUTES ISSUED: 4^th April 2008

CALL IN:  11^th April 2008

Any matter decided by the Executive Board Sub Committee may be called in no later than 11^th April 2008