aquobex.com › wp-content › uploads › 2020 › 06 › ... · SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL South Lakeland House, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ You are requested to attend a meeting

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

South Lakeland House, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4UQ www.southlakeland.gov.uk

You are requested to attend a meeting of

the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

on Friday, 26 October 2018, at 10.30 a.m.

in the District Council Chamber, South Lakeland House, Kendal

Committee Membership

Councillors

Robin Ashcroft Pat Bell

Brian Cooper Anne Hall

Hazel Hodgson Vicky Hughes (Chairman)

Anne Hutton Janette Jenkinson

Ian Mitchell Doug Rathbone (Vice-Chairman)

Vivienne Rees Mark Wilson

Note – Where relevant, agendas for Members are labelled “Private Document Pack” and contain exempt information within the papers. Any relevant pages are marked as restricted within Agendas labelled “Public Document Pack”. Wednesday, 17 October 2018 Debbie Storr, Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer) For all enquiries, please contact:-

Committee Administrator: Committee Services

Telephone: 01539 733333

e-mail: [email protected]

Public Document Pack

http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/

AGENDA

Page Nos.

PART I

1 APOLOGIES

To receive apologies for absence, if any.

2 MINUTES 5 - 10

To authorise the Chairman to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 August 2018.

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. Members are reminded that, in accordance with the revised Code of Conduct, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other registrable interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting.) Members may, however, also decide, in the interests of clarity and transparency, to declare at this point in the meeting, any such disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, as well as any other registrable or other interests. If a Member requires advice on any item involving a possible declaration of interest which could affect his/her ability to speak and/or vote, he/she is advised to contact the Monitoring Officer at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

4 DECLARATION OF THE PARTY WHIP

In accordance with Rule 17 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, any Member who is subject to a party whip on any item must declare the existence and nature of the whip.

5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS

To consider whether the items, if any, in Part II of the Agenda should be considered in the presence of the press and public.

6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Any member of the public who wishes to ask a question, make representations or present a deputation or petition at this meeting should apply to do so by no later than 0:01am (one minute past midnight) two working days before the meeting. Information on how to make the application can be obtained by viewing the Council’s Website www.southlakeland.gov.uk or by contacting the Committee Services Team on 01539 733333.

(1) Questions and Representations

To receive any questions or representations which have been received from members of the public.

(2) Deputations and Petitions

To receive any deputations or petitions which have been received from members of the public.


7 WORK PROGRAMME AND FORWARD PLAN 11 - 26

To consider the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2018/19, and the contents of the latest Forward Plan.

8 CORPORATE FINANCIAL MONITORING QUARTER 2 27 - 52

To consider the projected year end position based on performance to the end of Quarter 2 2018/19.

9 COUNCIL PLAN PERFORMANCE MONITORING QUARTER 2 2018/19 53 - 92

To monitor progress against the measures of success as detailed within the Council Plan 2014-2019.

10 PORTFOLIO HOLDER REPORT - PROMOTING SOUTH LAKELAND 93 - 96

To consider the annual report from the Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder on the progress made within the portfolio area and their plans for the future.

11 PORTFOLIO HOLDER REPORT - ENVIRONMENT 97 - 100

To consider the annual report from the Environment Portfolio Holder on the progress made within the portfolio area and their plans for the future.

12 ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2018- 2023 101 - 124

To consider the draft Property and Land Management Strategy 2018- 2023, including the creation of a Strategic Asset Management Plan Board, and make any recommendations to Cabinet.

13 EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION STRATEGY 125 - 138

To consider the draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-22 for commenting upon and make any recommendations to Cabinet.

14 REVIEW OF THE LOCAL DELIVERY OF THE PROPERTY LEVEL FLOOD RESILIENCE GRANT SCHEME

139 - 182

To reflect on the flood grant project and provide recommendations on any future roll outs.

15 SCRUTINY RECOMMENDATIONS PROGRESS REPORT 183 - 188

To consider the progress made by Cabinet in implementing the recommendations of the Committee.

16 CUMBRIA HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE UPDATE

To receive an update on the work of the Cumbria Health Scrutiny Committee from the Council’s representative or substitute.

PART II

Private Section (exempt reasons under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, specified by way of paragraph number)

There are no items in this Part of the Agenda.

This page is intentionally left blank

11 17.08.2018 Overview and Scrutiny Committee

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Minutes of the proceedings at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held in the Bindloss Room, Kendal Town Hall, on Friday, 17 August 2018, at 2.00 p.m.

Present

Councillors

Vicky Hughes (Chairman) Doug Rathbone (Vice-Chairman)

Anne Hall

Hazel Hodgson

Anne Hutton Janette Jenkinson

Vivienne Rees Mark Wilson

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Robin Ashcroft, Pat Bell and Brian Cooper.

Officers

Una Bell Assistant Committee Services Officer

John Davies Performance and Risk Officer

Jemma Fells Project Support Officer

Jason Habbershon Committee Services/Scrutiny Officer

Sean Hall Principal Environmental Protection Officer

Peter Holland Senior Communications Officer

Joe Marriott Environmental Protection Officer

Debbie Storr Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)

David Sykes Director People and Places

Also in attendance were Councillors Jonathan Brook (Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder), Dyan Jones (Environment Portfolio Holder) and Graham Vincent (Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder).

O&S/14 MINUTES Members felt that, despite assurances offered at the Committee’s last meeting by the Interim Regional Director of Northern Rail, concerns remained regarding the rail service on both the Furness and Lakes Lines. At the Committee’s meeting of 13 July 2018, Northern Rail’s Interim Regional Director had stated that the full timetable would not be put in place until reliability of service and accurate station information could be guaranteed. However, following reinstatement of the timetable cancellations had continued, with ten being experienced on the Lakes Line in just one day, with inadequate information being provided to customers. Members did not feel that this was acceptable, and expressed a view that Northern Rail had not held to their franchise agreement or to the commitments made to this Committee in July. No further information had been received regarding the marketing funds, nor on the discussions which the Interim Regional Director had stated he would arrange with Virgin Trains to discuss the co-ordination of offers. The Committee felt that the Council should be included within the circulation of the findings and recommendations of the independent assessment being conducted by the Office of Rail and Road, and would seek reassurance regarding the organisation’s planned mitigation of the risks to the effective operation of rail services within the South

Page 5

Item No.2


Lakeland area. It was highlighted that the compensation scheme for season ticket holders was due to come to an end in mid-September, and Members felt that this required extension and greater advertisement to ensure all customers had the opportunity to make use of the offer. Members agreed that a letter should be written, on behalf of the Committee, to the Interim Regional Director of Northern Rail setting out the concerns above. The Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder offered to include updates from the Cumbria Better Connected group as part of his portfolio holder reports to both full Council and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee later in the year. RESOLVED – That (1) the Chairman be authorised to sign, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 July 2018; and (2) a letter be written to the Interim Regional Director of Northern Rail on behalf of the Committee, highlighting its continuing concerns and inviting him to attend and provide an update at the meeting of the Committee in January 2019.

O&S/15 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST RESOLVED – That it be noted that no declarations of interest were raised.

O&S/16 DECLARATION OF THE PARTY WHIP RESOLVED – That it be noted that no declarations of the party whip were raised.

O&S/17 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 - EXCLUDED ITEMS RESOLVED – That it be noted that there are no excluded items on the agenda.

O&S/18 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION RESOLVED – That it be noted that no questions, representations, deputations or petitions have been received in respect of this meeting.

O&S/19 WORK PROGRAMME AND FORWARD PLAN The Committee Services/Scrutiny Officer introduced the latest version of the Forward Plan and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s 2018/19 Work Programme. He explained that, following the despatch of the agenda for this meeting, a new version of the Forward Plan had been published on 10 August 2018, and set out the changes which had arisen. In relation to the Update on Tackling Poverty Together item scheduled for January 2019, a suggestion was made that the Building Financial Resilience Group could give consideration to the work of the Red Box Project, a nationwide project to provide free sanitary wear within schools. The Project Support Officer explained that this had also been raised during a recent Strategic Child Poverty Group meeting and that there were plans to roll out a project across Cumbria.

Page 6


A suggestion was made to ask Cumbria County Council to deliver a briefing session for all district councillors on the County’s Rural Transport Policy. It was felt that rural transport needs were ever-changing and more information was needed about the policies, services and opportunities available at present and the plans for the future. The Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder added that there were many areas of the District without established transport routes which could go unrecognised and requested that efforts be made to ensure that information was made available as widely as possible. RESOLVED – That (1) the latest Forward Plan published on 24 July 2018 be received and the verbal update regarding that published on 10 August 2018 be noted; (2) the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s current work programme be noted; and (3) a briefing be organised for all Members on the Cumbria County Council Rural Transport Policy.

O&S/20 COST RECOVERY AND HARDSHIP POLICY The draft Cost Recovery and Hardship Policy was presented by the Environmental Protection Officer. The Policy, which was required by statutory guidance to be adopted in support of the Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy, would provide a framework for the Council to apply when recovering costs of remediation of contaminated land and prevent hardship on decisions made. The Environmental Protection Officer provided additional wording to the Legal Implications section of the covering report which would be included within the version presented to Cabinet at its meeting on 10 September. In response to a query, the Principal Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that the Council held a list of sites which could potentially contain contaminants due to prior usage. However, it was emphasised that the primary means of remediation for contaminated land was through the planning process, during which the Public Protection Team would be consulted to ensure suitability for the type of development proposed. It was queried whether paragraph 11.1 of the draft Policy would cover contaminants introduced through the unauthorised burning of waste materials such as carpet rolls or debris. The Principal Environmental Protection Officer explained that due to the variety of circumstances that could apply a written response would be provided following the meeting. Members thanked officers for their work in producing the draft Policy. RESOLVED – That the Cost Recovery and Hardship Policy, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be noted and recommended to Cabinet for adoption.

O&S/21 COUNCIL PLAN PERFORMANCE MONITORING QUARTER 1 2018/19 The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder introduced the Council Plan Performance Monitoring report for quarter one of 2018/19 on behalf of the Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder. The report highlighted areas of significantly good or poor performance relating to the measures of success set out in the current Council Plan. The report also included the latest Strategic Risk Register and benchmarking information using the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Nearest Neighbours Model.

Page 7


Concern was raised regarding the large variation in the number of long-term empty homes between 2011 and 2017. The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder explained that the number of long-term empty properties fluctuated due to a variety of reasons and the Performance and Risk Officer highlighted that the report contained only maximum and minimum figures which made the changes appear more extreme than they actually were. It was queried whether the Council encouraged housing associations to build new affordable homes. The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder explained that the Council had a very good relationship with South Lakes Housing and that there were various ongoing conversations with them regarding the delivery of affordable homes. The Council had a long history of grant funding to provide additional affordable housing, and regular meetings took place with a group of preferred local providers. The Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder added that he had recently been involved in meetings between officers within the Council’s Strategic Housing and Economic Development teams which would result in a sharing of information regarding both economic goals and housing ambitions for areas of South Lakeland, allowing both services to better promote further development. The effectiveness of using the Quality of Life Survey 2017 as a measure of health within South Lakeland was questioned and it was suggested that its findings did not reflect statistics used by Public Health England. In response to a suggestion that Public Health England statistics be incorporated within future iterations of the report, the Director People and Places suggested that a good starting point for the upcoming Strategic Review of Health and Wellbeing Task and Finish Group would be to compare the figures held by the Council and by Public Health England and to make recommendations regarding which are more meaningful and appropriate. The Committee felt that there would be value in organising further briefing sessions for councillors and parish and town councils to provide information on how communities could utilise the Community Housing Fund in their area, particularly considering the number of new councillors following the local elections in May 2018. The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder agreed that this would be beneficial and undertook to make the necessary arrangements. The importance of Strategic Risk 9 “Essential strategic partnerships required to deliver the Council Plan do not operate effectively” was raised, particularly in relation to the Council’s strategic partnerships with local health service organisations. It was suggested that, in addition to the briefing sessions being held for councillors, it was important that events be organised to inform members of the public about the changes to health services in the area. The Committee Services/Scrutiny Officer undertook to investigate the most appropriate way to progress this. With reference to the benchmarking data contained within Appendix 2 to the report, it was highlighted that previous versions of the report had contained more detailed information which had been useful in comparing differences between groups of residents, for example the variation between male and female workers’ median weekly pay. It was requested that this be considered for inclusion within future reports. RESOLVED – That the following be noted:- (1) the Summary of Performance, as detailed within the report; and (2) the detailed risks information contained within Appendix 1 to the report.

Page 8


O&S/22 PORTFOLIO HOLDER REPORT - HOUSING, PEOPLE AND INNOVATION The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder presented his annual report on progress made and plans for the future within the portfolio area. He reported the key focuses relating to Strategic Housing and set out the changes within the Development Management and Building Control Services arising from Customer Connect. The effect of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2018 on the Council’s Housing Options Service was highlighted, and the Portfolio Holder reported on the progress being made on the Customer Connect Programme. Members discussed the decision to move Development Management to a ‘paperlight’ method of working, and particularly on the impact that this had had on local parish and town councils. Concern was raised by some Members that a move to make planning application documents available online only would disenfranchise some residents. The Director People and Places suggested that there could be merit in communities linking up with professional planning specialists from outside of the Council to help residents and businesses understand planning applications affecting their area. Similar schemes had been used previously in relation to Local Plans, and the Director People and Places undertook to speak to officers following the meeting. Following a request from the Committee, the Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder undertook to provide a short briefing paper regarding the upcoming review of Town View Fields Hostel. It was suggested that all Members should encourage residents to register for the Cumbria Choice-Based Lettings scheme. The Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder undertook to speak to officers about how best to progress this. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

O&S/23 CUMBRIA HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE UPDATE The Committee Services/Scrutiny Officer introduced a written report that had been produced by the Council’s representative to the Cumbria Health Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Vivienne Rees. Councillor Rees had reported that progress was beginning to be made in bringing focus to the health and service needs of rural areas. RESOLVED – That the update be noted. The meeting ended at 4.05 p.m.

Page 9


Page 10

South Lakeland District Council

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Friday, 26 October 2018

Work Programme and Forward Plan

Portfolio: Cllr Vicky Hughes - Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Report from: Simon McVey - Assistant Director Performance and Innovation

Report Author: Jemma Fells – Project Support Officer

Wards: Not applicable

Forward Plan: Not applicable

1.0 Expected Outcome

1.1 An effective and timely work programme will allow the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to maximise the value it can add to the work of the Council and the services provided for residents.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:-

(1) receives the latest Forward Plan; and

(2) notes and/or amends the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s current work programme.

3.0 Background and Proposals

3.1 The Forward Plan as published on 2 October 2018 is attached as Appendix 1. Of the items on the Forward Plan the following are currently scheduled to be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee prior to a decision being made:

South Lakeland District Council Equality Scheme

Council Plan 2019-2024

Budget 2019/20 to 2023/24

Procurement Schedule 2018/19 and 2019/20

Treasury Management Framework 2019/20 to 2023/24

3.2 Attached as Appendix 2 is the updated Work Programme for 2018/19. Following the previous meeting, the amendments shown below have been made:-

Further update for Northern Rail is now being reported to January’s meeting

Date for the Customer Connect review has been updated to January 2019

Page 11

Item No.7

The Economic Growth Strategy Review has been updated to early 2019 due to a delay in completion of the local industrial strategy

Due to the police being unable to attend, the CSP update that was planned for the October meeting, will now be deferred to the April meeting for an annual review

Following the Policy Away day with Cabinet and senior management it was decided that the draft council plan will move from the October 26 meeting to be presented at the O&S scheduled for 11 January 2019.

3.3 The Strategic Review of the Health and Wellbeing Priority will be scoped on 7 November 2018 following the consideration of the draft revised Council Plan by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 26 October. This will allow Members to take direction from the new Council Plan and will ensure that the findings from the review can feed into the following annual review.

4.0 Consultation

4.1 The Work Programme is set by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following consultation with a number of parties including officers, councillors and external organisations. The Forward Plan is considered by the Council’s Senior Management Team and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council prior to publication.

5.0 Alternative Options

5.1 There are no alternative options presented.

6.0 Links to Council Priorities

6.1 The topics on the Overview and Scrutiny work programme link closely to the various priorities and aims as set out within the Council Plan 2014-2019 (2017 Update).

7.0 Implications

Financial, Resources and Procurement

7.1 There are no financial, resource or procurement implications arising from this report.

Human Resources

7.2 There is a need to ensure that there are sufficient resources to enable the work programme to be supported.

Legal

7.3 There is a legal requirement for local authorities to operate an overview and scrutiny committee. The committee needs to be effective in its role. By preparing a planned work programme, the Committee can ensure that it has adequate time to properly consider those key areas where it can add greatest value. In turn, this will enable the Council to demonstrate that it has effective scrutiny arrangements in place.

Health, Social, Economic and Environmental

7.4 Have you completed a Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment? No

7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons:

Page 12

There are no implications arising from this report. Consideration will be given to any potential implications during reviews.

7.6 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts:

Equality and Diversity

7.7 Have you completed an Equality Impact Analysis? No


There are no implications arising from this report. Consideration will be given to any potential implications during reviews.

7.9 Summary of equality and diversity impacts:

Risk

Risk Consequence Controls required

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee does not monitor its work programme

Opportunities to add value through additional work are missed.

The Work Programme is not fit for purpose.

Regular review of both the Work Programme and the upcoming work of the Cabinet through review of the Forward Plan.

Contact Officers

Jemma Fells, Project Support Officer, 01539793278, [email protected]

Appendices Attached to this Report

Appendix No. Name of Appendix

1 Latest Forward Plan (published 2 October 2018)

2 Current O&S Work Programme

Background Documents Available

None.

Tracking Information

Signed off by Date sent

Legal Services 27 September 2018

Section 151 Officer 27 September 2018

Monitoring Officer 27 September 2018

SMT N/A

Circulated to Date sent

Assistant Director 27 September 2018

Human Resources Manager N/A

Communications Team N/A

Leader N/A

Committee Chairperson 11 October 2018

Portfolio Holder N/A

Ward Councillor(s) N/A

Committee 26 October 2018

Executive (Cabinet) N/A

Council N/A

Page 13


Page 14

1

SOUTH LAKELAND DISTRICT COUNCIL NOTICE OF FORTHCOMING KEY DECISIONS, PRIVATE EXECUTIVE MEETINGS AND

BUDGET AND POLICY FRAMEWORK DECISIONS AS PUBLISHED ON 2 OCTOBER 2018

The Council is required to give 28 days’ notice when Key Decisions are to be made, and when an executive meeting is to be held in private. The Notice has been drafted to comply with that requirement. It is available for inspection on the Council’s website as well as at South Lakeland House, Kendal and sets out the following:- (1) the matters which the Executive (also known as the Cabinet) believes fall within the

definition of a Key Decision (see definition below) to be taken by the Executive or a Senior Officer of the Council;

(2) details of any private meeting (see definition below) of the Executive; and

(3) proposals for the recommendation to Council of any plan, strategy or budget that

forms part of the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework, and its timetable and arrangements for consultation. The policies which make up the Budget and Policy Framework can be found in Article 4, Part 2 of the Council’s Constitution, viewable on the Council’s website www.southlakeland.gov.uk

(Budget and Policy Framework Decisions are not Key Decisions (i.e. they are not Executive decisions but are decided by the Full Council; although the Executive may make recommendations to Council about them). In the spirit of openness and transparency the Council has decided to publicise the decision making process for such matters in the same manner as for Key Decisions.)

Documentation Reports, as well as any background information, will be available for public inspection five working days before the date of the meeting at which the decision is going to made. However, some of the reports may contain confidential information and, in that case, will not be available to the public. When the Executive is going to consider a confidential report, at least 28 days’ notice will be given of the intention to hold the meeting in private. A Notice to this effect will be published on the Council’s website. Background Information If you wish to inspect background information, which will inform the decision-making process, contact the Lead Officer identified in the Notice as dealing with that matter. When the agenda for the meeting is published on the Council’s website, normally at least 5 working days before the meeting, these documents will also be made available via the website. However, you will not be allowed to access any papers which contain exempt or confidential information. Representations (views you wish to make) If you wish to make a representation, either about one of the Key Decisions listed (where the meeting is to be held in private), or that an Executive meeting should be open to the public, you must write to the Lead Officer identified as dealing with that decision with your reasons why the meeting should not be held in private. This must be received at least five clear working days before the date of the meeting.

Appendix 1

Page 15


2

Decision Notice A Decision Notice for each Key Decision, or other Executive decision, will be produced as soon as practicable after the decision has been taken. These Decision Notices will be available for inspection at South Lakeland House, Kendal and on the Council’s website. Urgent Decisions The Law and the Council’s Constitution provide for urgent decisions to be made provided certain criteria are met and relevant Notices published accordingly. None of the decisions detailed in this Notice are deemed to be Urgent Decisions - unless expressly stated. Key Decision This definition was adopted by Council on Thursday, 17 December 2015 and is as follows :- “An executive decision which, in relation to an executive function, has a significant effect on communities in two or more Wards of the Council and/or is likely to result in the Authority incurring expenditure or making savings above £100,000.” Private Meetings In regard to this Notice, private meetings are meetings of the Executive, or part of a meeting, during which the public are excluded as a result of confidential or exempt information being discussed. A reason will be given why it is felt that there is a need for the public to be excluded. If you wish to make a representation regarding the intention to hold the meeting in private, you must follow the procedure shown above under “Representations”. The District Council’s Executive Members are:- Cllr Giles Archibald – Leader and Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder Cllr Jonathan Brook – Deputy Leader and Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder Cllr Chris Hogg – Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder Cllr Graham Vincent – Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder Cllr Dyan Jones – Environment Portfolio Holder Cllr Andrew Jarvis – Finance Portfolio Holder Cllr Philip Dixon –Health and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder The District Council’s Chief Officers are:- Lawrence Conway – Chief Executive Debbie Storr – Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer) David Sykes – Director People and Places Shelagh McGregor – Assistant Director (Resources) and Chief Finance Officer The District Council’s Assistant Directors are:- Ian Hassall –Assistant Director Strategic Development Simon McVey – Assistant Director Performance and Innovation Simon Rowley – Assistant Director of Neighbourhood Services

Page 16

3

Key Decision - Housing Loans Scheme

To consider the details and pilot scheme.

Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Cabinet (31 Oct 2018)

Date notice first published: 29 May 2018

(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 26 June 2018)

Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: None.

Lead Officer: Dan Hudson, Development Strategy and Housing Manager [email protected]

Assistant Director: Assistant Director Strategic Development

Portfolio Holder: Housing, People and Innovation Portfolio Holder (Cllr Jonathan Brook)

Key Decision - Cumbria Care Leaver Council Tax Exemption

To create a local discount for Council Tax to exempt care leavers from Council Tax with effect from the 1st April 2018 in conjunction with other Cumbrian Authorities and Preceptors


Date notice first published: 19 June 2018

(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 17 July 2018)

Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Copy of Proposed policy

Lead Officer: Michael Fisher, Revenues and Benefits Services Manager [email protected]

Assistant Director: Assistant Director Resources (Section 151 Officer)

Portfolio Holder: Finance Portfolio Holder (Cllr Andrew Jarvis)

Page 17

4

Key Decision - Longlands Park, Bowness on Winderemere *NEW*

Windermere Town Council have expressed interest in taking over the ownership and management of the park. The decision will consider in principle a transfer of the park to the Town Council


Date notice first published: 2 October 2018

(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 30 October 2018)

Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: None

Lead Officer: David Sykes, Director People and Places [email protected]

Portfolio Holder: Deputy Leader of the Council (Cllr Jonathan Brook), Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder (Cllr Graham Vincent)

Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - The Gambling Act 2005 - Revised Statement of Gambling Policy

Revision of Gambling Policy under Section 349 of the Gambling Act 2005 and to ensure it is in line with the Gambling Commission guidance to local authorities 5th Edition (September 2016)

Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (10 Oct 2018)

Also considered by/to be considered by: Licensing Regulatory Committee (21 Aug 2018)

Date notice first published: 29 May 2018

(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 26 June 2018)

Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Report to the Licensing Regulatory Committee, report to Full Council and revised Statement of Gambling Policy

Lead Officer: Hardeep Burnley, Principal Food, Licensing and Safety Officer [email protected]

Assistant Director: Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services

Portfolio Holder: Culture and Leisure Portfolio Holder (Cllr Chris Hogg)

Page 18

5

Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Statement of Community Involvement

Updating of Statement of Community Involvement to take account of legislative and regulatory changes and Council's procedural changes relating to Customer Connect.


Also considered by/to be considered by: Cabinet (18 Jul 2018)

Date notice first published: 19 June 2018

(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 17 July 2018)

Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Draft Revised Statement of Community Involvement

Lead Officer: Alastair McNeill, Development Plans Manager [email protected]



Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Local Development Scheme

The Local Development Scheme (LDS) comprises the programme and milestones for the preparation and adoption of Local Plan policy and guidance documents. It is proposed to request Council to consider amending and updating the LDS in regard to the dates for the adoption of the Development Management Policies and Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plan Documents, and also the programme for the Local Plan review


Date notice first published: 10 August 2018

(If Key or Private, decision cannot be until after 7 September 2018)

Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Draft Revised Local Development Scheme




Page 19

6

Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Development Management Policies and Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plans Documents

To request Council to adopt, as part of the Development Plan for South Lakeland, the Development Management Policies and Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plans Documents, on receipt of the Inspector's reports on the conclusion of the independent examination of both documents (expected in October or November 2018).

Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (18 Dec 2018)



Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Final versions of the Development Management Policies and Arnside & Silverdale AONB Development Plans Documents (DPDs) . The Inspector's reports following the independent examination of both DPDs.




Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - South Lakeland District Council Equality Scheme

A review of the current SLDC Equality Scheme 16-19 and proposals for a new Equality Scheme to commence in 2019. This will set out the SLDC Equality and Diversity objectives in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (18 Dec 2018)

Also considered by/to be considered by: Overview and Scrutiny (26 Oct 2018) Cabinet (28 Nov 2018)



Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: South Lakeland District Council Equality Scheme 2016-19 Decided at meeting: 31/03/2016 - Council http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/g3760/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2031-Mar-2016%2018.30%20Council.pdf?T=1

Lead Officer: James McEvoy, Partnerships and Community Project Officer

Assistant Director: Assistant Director Performance and Innovation

Portfolio Holder: Leader of the Council (Cllr Giles Archibald)

Page 20

http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/g3760/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2031-Mar-2016%2018.30%20Council.pdf?T=1

http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/g3760/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2031-Mar-2016%2018.30%20Council.pdf?T=1

7

Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Budget 2019/20 to 2023/24 (including capital programme and fees and charges) *NEW*

To set the 2019/20 - 2023/24 capital and revenue budgets, the level of Council tax increase to apply from 1 April 2019. To also consider the level of reserves, fees and charges.

Proposed Decision Maker (Decision Date): Council (26 Feb 2019)

Also considered by/to be considered by: Lake Administration Committee (5 Oct 2018) Cabinet (31 Oct 2018) Licensing Committee (6 Nov 2018) Cabinet (28 Nov 2018) Cabinet (12 Dec 2018) (if needed) Council (19 Dec 2018) Planning Committee (3 Jan 2019) Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11 Jan 2019) Licensing Committee (15 Jan 2019) Cabinet (23 Jan 2019) (if needed) Lake Administration Committee (25 Jan 2019) Cabinet (6 Feb 2019)



Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 - 2023/24

Lead Officer: Helen Smith, Financial Services Manager [email protected]



Page 21

8

Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Council Plan 2019-2024 *NEW*

The Council Plan 2014-19 is complete. The 2019-2024 sets out the Council's ambition and priorities over the five year period to 2024 and details key projects that will contribute to achieving those priorities.


Also considered by/to be considered by: Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11 Jan 2019) Cabinet (23 Jan 2019)



Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: C/61 2014-2019 Council Plan (2018 Update) - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=4276&Ver=4 C/78 2014-2019 Council Plan (2017 Update) - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=4058&Ver=4 C/79 2014-2019 Council Plan (2016 Update) - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=3771&Ver=4 C/82 2014-2019 Council Plan (2015 Update) - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=3566&Ver=4 C/78 - Council Plan 2014-2019 - http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=3460&Ver=4

Lead Officer: Paul Mountford, Principal Performance and Intelligence Officer [email protected]

Assistant Director: Assistant Director Performance and Innovation

Portfolio Holder: Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio Holder (Cllr Giles Archibald)

Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Procurement Schedule 2018/19 and 2019/20 *NEW*

To set out the Council's plans for procurement exercises during 2019/20 and to update the plans for 2018/19 including the decision route for each procurement.


Also considered by/to be considered by: Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11 Jan 2019) Cabinet (6 Feb 2019)



Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Budget report 2019/20 to 2023/24 to be reported to same Committees




Page 22

http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=4276&Ver=4





9

Non-Key Budget and Policy Framework Decision - Treasury Management Framework 2019/20 to 2023/24 *NEW*

To set the 2019/20 Prudential Indicators, Treasury Management Strategy, Treasury Management Policy and MRP statement which controls the Council's capital financing, borrowing and investment activities.


Also considered by/to be considered by: Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11 Jan 2019) Cabinet (6 Feb 2019)



Open/Exempt: Open

Relevant reports/background papers which are/will be available: Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 - 2023/24 Budget report 2019/20 to 2023/24 to be reported to same Committees




FIELD_ISSUE_SUMMARY

FIELD_CONSULTEESD

Page 23


Page 24

Appendix 2

Page 1 of 1

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2018/19

(Changes made since the last meeting are highlighted in red)

Committee Meetings

Date Expected agenda items

2018

Fri, 13 Jul 10.30am 9.30am Scrutiny Training

Update from Northern Rail; Draft Treasury Management Annual Report; Draft Medium Term Financial Plan; Revenue and Capital Out-turn; Procurement Annual Report; Appointment of representative to the North West Regional Scrutiny Members’ Network;

Fri, 17 Aug 2pm 10am Scrutiny and Risk Training

Council Plan Performance Monitoring Q1; Portfolio Holder Report – Housing, Innovation and People (Deputy Leader); Contaminated Land Cost Recovery and Hardship Policy;

Fri, 26 Oct 10.30am

Council Plan Performance Monitoring Q2; Portfolio Holder Report – Promoting South Lakeland (Leader) and Environment; Financial Monitoring Q2; Flood Grant Report; Equality Scheme; Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy (previously referred to as Corporate Asset Strategy); Scrutiny Progress Report;

2019

Fri, 11 Jan 2pm

Draft Council Plan; Draft Budget and Procurement Schedule; Draft Treasury Management Framework; Homelessness Strategy 2019 – 2024 (tbc); Update on Tackling Poverty Together; Further Update from Northern Rail;

Fri, 1 Feb 2pm

Financial Monitoring Q3; Council Plan Performance Monitoring Q3; Portfolio Holder Report – Economy and Assets and Finance; Green Team Update;

Fri, 26 Apr 2pm

Council Plan Performance Monitoring Q4; Portfolio Holder Reports – Culture and Leisure and Health and Wellbeing; Draft Scrutiny Annual Report; Work Programme 2019/20 Setting; Effectiveness Review and Scrutiny Progress Report; Community Safety Partnership Year-End Update;

Scrutiny Reviews

Date Format Information

7 Nov 2018 Task and Finish Strategic Review of the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Priority

Early 2019 Task and Finish Economic Growth Strategy

January 2019 Task and Finish/Workshop Development of locality working through Customer Connect

Page 25


Page 26


Overview and Scrutiny Committee 26 October 2018

Cabinet 31 October 2018

Council 18 December 2018

Corporate Financial Monitoring Quarter 2, 2018/19

Portfolio: Finance Portfolio Holder

Report from: Assistant Director Resources (Section 151 Officer)

Report Author: Lee Hurst – Chief Accountant

Wards: All



1.1 It is expected that Members note the projected year end position based on performance to the end of Quarter 2 2018/19, that Council approve the changes to the capital programme as set out in the report, and Cabinet approve the use of reserves identified in the report.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 It is recommended that Overview and Scrutiny Committee:-

(1) Note the contents of the report

2.2 It is recommended that Cabinet: (1) Note the contents of the report; (2) Request that Council approve the virements and budget changes to

increase the capital programme as outlined in paragraph 3.6.1 and reflected in the revised capital programme at appendix 2; and

(3) Approve the use of £82k of the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve, £20k of the General Reserve, and £12k of the Statutory Duties Reserve as set out in paragraphs 3.5.2 to 3.5.4.

2.3 It is recommended that Council:

(1) Note the contents of the report; and (2) Approve the virements and budget changes to increase the capital

programme as outlined in paragraph 3.6.1 and reflected in the revised capital programme at appendix 2.


3.0.1 Revenue – Appendix 1 sets out the revenue variances to date. The approved net

revenue budget for 2018/19 set by Council in February 2018 was £12.931m which included a Customer Connect savings target of £361k and a vacancy factor savings target of £560k. Additionally, carry forward requests of £486k were approved by

Page 27

Item No.8

Council on the 22nd May 2018. Expenditure budgets have been increased in accordance with those approved carry forwards along with the matching funding from reserves. Overall, at the end of Quarter 2, budget monitoring has identified a forecast year-end overspend of £251k. Trends identified in these budget monitoring results will be fed into the 2019/20 budget setting process.

3.0.2 Capital – Appendix 2 sets out the position on the capital programme. The capital budget for 2018/19 approved by Council in February 2018 was £4.655m. Carry forward requests of £3.249m were approved by Council on the 22 May 2018, and additional capital expenditure of £1.686m was approved by Council on the 24th July for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Flood Alleviation Scheme (£1.557m) and Customer Connect Business Case (£129k) which, along with some other minor housekeeping virements brings the 2018/19 capital programme budget to £9.795m. Expenditure against this programme to the end of Quarter 2 was £2.366m. A revised capital programme will be submitted as part of the 2019/20 budget setting process.

3.0.3 Treasury – Appendix 3 provides an update on Treasury management for the quarter. All activity has been within the approved limits. Investments have performed better than the relevant benchmarks. No repayment of existing borrowing or new borrowing is anticipated up to the end of the financial year.

3.1 Revenue Variances by Assistant Director

3.1.1 Appendix 1 provides the detail of the revenue variances for each Assistant Director’s service area. The projected out-turn is for a net overspend of £251k. Further detail is provided below in Table 1 and paragraphs a) to e) below.

Table 1: Summary by Assistant Director Service Area

AD area Expenditure Budget Full

Year £000

Income Budget

Full Year £000

Expenditure Variance to Date

£000

Income Variance to Date

£000

Overall Variance to Date

£000

Out-turn projection

£000

Year-end

Carry Forward

£000

Resources (a) 23,725 -20,164 12 -43 -31 -78 0

Performance and Innovation (b)

2,027 -67 -111 42 69 -25 -89

Strategic Development (c) 8,537 -4,433 -130 174 44 227 -39

Neighbourhood Services (d)

14,962 -8,469 -15 -188 -203 80 0

Corporate (e) 191 -15,948 0 10 10 47 0

Total GF 49,442 -49,081 -244 -5 -249 251 -128

Net General Fund Before Corporate Savings Target

361

Corporate Savings Target (para. 3.3.1)

(361)

Net GF 0

a Resources – The current projection is for a £78k underspend at year-end. This relates

to a number of smaller variances, as set out in Appendix 1. The main reasons are:

£10k underspend in Legal Services relating to vacant posts.

Additional Council Tax Support administration grant of £12k.

£20k underspend due to unclaimed Members allowances. This is due to specific Members not claiming and so no recurring saving has been identified.

Page 28

It is projected that bank charges may be £12k underspent as the pattern of fees is lower than budgeted, but activity has been low in the early part of the year so close monitoring will continue.

A one-off £41k budget saving due to a salary budgeting correction.

An £27k overspend on salaries in Finance due to backfilling of a business critical post with agency staff which was required to meet the statutory accounts closure deadline.

b Performance and Innovation - The current projection is a £25k underspend. The full

list of variances is detailed in Appendix 1. The main reasons are:

Part back-filled vacant posts in Customer Services resulting in a net underspend of £12k.

An overspend of £13k in Policy and Performance relating to payments for additional responsibilities and exceptional effort under the interim management arrangements.

A net salary underspend of £12k in Corporate Communications due to vacant posts.

A £14k underspend in Electoral Registration. This is the result of an underspend of £28k on equipment, partially offset by a £14k shortfall in grant.

Four vacant posts in ICT, two now recruited to, leading to an underspend of £59k. This is currently subject to a carry forward request to fund fixed-term posts in 2019/20.

A potential carry forward request of £30k relating to a contribution to Brewery Arts Centre development project due to delays in scheme implementation.

c Strategic Development - There is currently a £227k forecast overspend with variances detailed in Appendix 1. The main reasons for the projected out-turn are:

Projected £12k surplus on Health and Safety income due to providing services externally.

Underspend of £12k due to £32k saving on vacant office cleaning posts offset by a £20k shortfall in rental income. Alternatives are currently being worked up with a consideration of the longer-term impact of the Customer Connect ‘Places’ (office accommodation) programme being taken into account.

A forecast £37k salary underspend in Development Implementation due to vacant posts. No recruitment is planned as this forms a key part of the Customer Connect changes.

Development Control salary overspend of £24k and income shortfall of £307k relating to planning applications. This is a mid-year projection based on comparison with earlier years. During budget setting for 2018/19 the planning fee charges and income budgets were increased by 20% (£118k) under a government initiative to direct the additional income into reinvestment in the planning process to deliver improvements in service delivery. Accordingly, a matching expenditure budget of £118k was created for 2018/19 to fund this investment. The current position of managing the planning service to maintain minimum service levels means that the planned reinvestment will not take place this financial year. Therefore it is proposed to reduce both the income budget and expenditure budget in the service by £118k through a housekeeping virement. As the actual planning fee prices will not be reduce, it is proposed that 20% of the actual planning fee income achieved in the year will be set aside to reinvest in the service in future years. Detailed proposals for the service will be developed as part of the budget setting process and through a report to Members.

A forecast underspend of £25k of the self-build and custom-build register element of the Housing and Enabling service.

Homelessness overall is projected to be £22k over budget. This is made up of a £37k income shortfall due to changes in the way Supporting People grant is

Page 29

allocated by the County Council for which future budgets will be amended, £10k additional homelessness grants from MHCLG, and net vacancy savings of £5k.

Land Charges is projected to overspend by £20k on the Positional Accuracy Improvement initiative. This overspend is to be funded from the existing Land Charges Trading Account surplus.

Local Plans is forecast to underspend on salaries by 27k due to vacant posts.

£13k underspend on the Museum management fee. The method of provision of this service is currently under review and future budgets will be amended accordingly. This underspend may be required to fund any potential costs relating to the implementation of the new arrangements.

A projected underspend of £39k in relation to the Community Housing Fund scheme due to delays in implementation. This underspend will be transferred back to the Community Housing Fund Reserve at the year end and therefore does not constitute an out-turn saving.

d Neighbourhood Services - There is currently a £80k underspend projected. This is

made up of a number of variances across the service as detailed in Appendix 1. The main reasons for the projected underspend are:

Car parking income is projected to overachieve its budget by £167k. Contextually, this is only a 3.8% overachievement of budget and is considered to be mainly due to the exceptionally good weather in the early part of the summer and particularly relates to the lakes car parks, while others, such as Kendal car parks, achieved income in line with expectations. It should be noted that a spell of bad weather could have a comparable negative impact on car park income and there have been some signs of this in September with winter still to come. Three car parks are due to be resurfaced over the coming months and the full impact of these closures has not been accounted for in the projection, although these are expected to cause only a minor impact. Furthermore, an underspend of £26k on Westmorland Shopping Centre Car Park relating to the structural survey costs, which came in under budget, have been requested to be used to cover costs relating to further work on car parking surveys to inform the car parking strategy.

A £26k income shortfall relating to Lake Windermere moorings due to a small number of jetty births not being let due to both the exceptionally dry weather and external market pressures. A capital scheme to dredge the births to improve access has been submitted.

A £35k underspend relating to Parks due to a 0.6 FTE Green Spaces Officer vacancy. A £49k overspend on Street Cleansing. The corporate vacancy saving will not be met leading to a salaries overspend of £20k. Furthermore, fuel costs are projected to be overspent by £18k due to the larger fleet, and tipping and disposal costs are forecast to be overspent by £11k due to increased waste volume requiring disposal. Both these issues will be built into budget setting for 2019/20.

The Transport service is forecasting a £49k overspend on vehicle repairs due to the additional number of vehicles in the fleet. Further work will be undertaken for the 2019/20 budget setting process.

Kerbside Recycling is projected to overspend by £174k. This is due to a number of variances within the service. A £28k shortfall on recycling credits is expected due to the impact of the hot summer on green waste, but tipping and disposal costs should be lower. Sale of recycling materials is expected to underachieve its income budget target by £66k due to low demand and low price for the materials. This could improve towards the end of the year should prices and demand increase as current market improvements are suggesting.

A £16k demand led underspend on emptying bring site recycling banks. Thismay result in a corresponding reduction in bring site credits.

Page 30

e Corporate items – Corporate items, which include the Council’s funding through taxation and grants, investment interest income and expenditure, and movements to and from reserves are currently forecast to be in £47k overspent.

Investment interest income forecasts are for a surplus of £15k. Short-term treasury investments are outperforming benchmarks and budgets do not include the recent interest rate rise.

Retained Business Rates income is expected to be £62k lower than budgeted. This is explained in paragraph 3.8.3.

3.2 Analysis of employee budgets

3.2.1 The position on employee costs at Quarter 2 is summarised in Table 2 below. The

total variance against the Quarter 2 profiled budget is an underspend of £70k, 1.0% of the year to date budget. This is over and above the 4% vacancy saving built in to all direct employee cost budgets.

Table 2: Employee costs

Full year

budget

Profiled

budget

Actual to

date

Variance

to date Variance

£000 £000 £000 £000 %

14,576 7,325 7,255 -70 1.0%

3.2.2 To date, the profiled vacancy factor of £280k has been achieved as net vacancy

savings after the vacancy factor stand at £444k, but also included in table 2. above is expenditure on contract and agency staff. The total overspend to date on this element of employee costs was £262k (£333k expenditure against a profiled budget of £71k). This expenditure on contract and agency staff equates to 4.5% of the total spend on employee costs up to Quarter 2. The majority of this relates to the Waste and Recycling service (£122k) which will be met from salary savings from within the service, Development Control (£56k) for which proposals are currently being developed, and the hostel (£36k) where compensating savings on security will be used to cover some of the costs. There is also an £86k overspend to date on allowances such as overtime, exceptional effort and merit payments. There were also some other minor overspends resulting in the net £70k underspend to date.

3.3 Savings, deficit and 2019/20 budget setting cycle

3.3.1 As part of the 2018/19 budget process, £361k of savings were built into the base budget to be delivered through vacancy management in the lead in to the Customer Connect programme. Table 2 above currently shows a £70k underspend to date on employee related budgets over and above the built in vacancy factor. Corporate Financial Monitoring forecasts suggest that this underspend should increase to a c£118k by the financial year end, but £59k of this forecast underspend is the subject of a carry forward request which, if approved, would leave a projected underspend of c£59k by the end of the financial year. But this underspend must also be viewed in the context of on overall net projected overspend across the Council of £251k.

3.3.2 Further Customer Connect savings of £740k for 2019/20 and £1.550m from 2020/21 onwards have been identified as part of the updated Customer Connect business case and the updated Medium Term Financial Plan both approved by Council during July. Detailed profiling of the exact timings of when these further future savings will be delivered is currently being undertaken by the programme manager and

Page 31

information on performance against these targets and the interaction with other budget variances reported earlier in this report will be reviewed in future budget monitoring reports and through Customer Connect programme monitoring.

3.3.3 As set out in the MTFP update to Council 24 July 2018, £0.554m of further budget

reductions are required to set a balanced budget for 2019/20, rising to £2.036m by 2023/24. This figure includes £500k of unallocated growth and is after the savings from Customer Connect identified above have been applied. This deficit figure is being updated as part of the budget process as further considerations must now me taken into account, such as the loss of the Second Homes income from the county council.

3.3.4 The budget setting process for 2019/20 onwards is well underway, beginning over a

month earlier than in previous years due to the obvious financial challenges faced. Budget Change Bids were considered by Corporate Management Team and Cabinet on the 14 September 2018 and options to deliver a balanced 2019/20 budget will be presented to Cabinet on 28 November 2018. These options will include the impact of future budget pressures and any potential recurring savings that are identified from 2018/19 budget monitoring.

3.3.5 An efficiency programme is also being developed to assess other areas that could

deliver savings or additional income. This will ensure that robust proposals are in place to meet any savings targets over and above the £1.550m to be delivered from the Customer Connect programme.

3.4 Changes to Revenue budgets under delegation 3.4.1 A balanced 2018/19 budget was approved in February 2018. Since then, the major

change relates to £486k of carry forward requests approved by Council 22 May 2018. A number of other increases to 2018/19 budgets have been made, funded by contributions from reserves. These are as follows:

45k of the Economic Development Reserve has been temporarily allocated to cover the costs of submitting the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme application. It is proposed that this temporary funding be replaced by use of the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve as the scheme is intended to protect businesses in the affected area. Therefore, approval is sought from Cabinet in paragraph 3.5.2 to allocate £45k of the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve to fund the ERDF Scheme application process which will allow the Economic Development Reserve to be subsequently reimbursed.

£53k has been transferred back to the Economic Development Reserve after its temporary use to fund the progression of the Grange Lido work to RIBA Stage 2 & 3. A growth bid for the Grange Lido scheme was approved and so the scheme secured its own revenue funding source.

A number of transfers, totalling £264k, have been made from the Customer Connect Reserve to fund various aspects of the Customer Connect programme.

3.5 Revenue budget change request – use of reserves not delegated to officers.

3.5.1 A £70k use of the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve in 2018/19 was approved by

Council on the 24th July. Of this, £40k is to be used to fund the Lancashire and South Cumbria Economic Region initiative, where each of the partners have pledged to allocated £40k to the project to resource a programme of activity. A further £30k has

Page 32

been utilised to fund the bid writing elements of the application process for the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme for which the Council will act as accountable body.

3.5.2 An additional £45k is now required to fund the costs of the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme application process, for elements such as environmental, heritage and ecology studies. In addition, a sum of £25k is requested for use to fund the Kendal Markets review and of £12k to fund the project development phase of the Burton-in-Kendal Heritage Scheme. Therefore approval is sought for an £82k transfer from the Cumbria NDR Pool Income Reserve.

3.5.3 At the Council meeting on the 24th July 2018 it was requested that a £20k Community Projects Fund be created from the 2017/18 underspend on community grants. To facilitate this, approval is sought to transfer £20k from the General Reserve to the Community Grants budget heading.

3.5.4 A £12k transfer from the Statutory Duties Reserve is requested to fund the costs associated with dealing with the planning appeal for the Kirkby Moor Wind Farm planning application.

3.6 Capital programme

3.6.1 As outlined earlier, further to the £4.655m capital programme approved in February 2018 as part of the 2018/19 budget, Council approved 2017/18 carry forwards of £3.249m at its meeting on the 22nd May 2018. With the addition of these carry forwards and the £1.686m approved by Council on the 24th July 2018 for the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme and the Customer Connect Business Case, the capital programme approved by Council in July stood at £9.760m. Also required are a number of minor amendments which would bring the total of the current programme in Appendix 2 to £9.795m and for which we seek Council’s approval. The main reasons for these minor changes are:

£34k virement from the revenue planned maintenance budget to complete the Kendal Town Hall stonework (£30k) and Waterhead public jetty (£4k).

£12k virement from car parking (revenue) to increase the funding to the Millerground play capital project.

£5k increase in expenditure budget for Abbott Hall playground (£2k) and Kendal Public Realm (£3.1k) to reflect income carry forwards approved by Council to facilitate the additional expenditure.

£63k reduction in the Nobles Rest Park Improvement budget as two invoices totalling this amount were charged back to 2017/18 and dealt with in the financing of the 2017/18 capital programme.

Expenditure budgets increased to reflect additional income secured to fund schemes totalling £47k. These related to Kendal Parks playground where £29k of additional income was secured through developer and councillor contributions, £17k for Nobles Rest park improvements secured through external and town council contributions, and £1k for Abbot Hall playground through an external contribution.

3.6.2 Spend against the £9.795m programme to the end of Quarter 2 was £2.366m with a

further £1.252m committed expenditure through purchase orders. Of the £7.429m unspent budget, £1.501m is heavily reliant on third party partner organisations for delivery.

Page 33

Table 3: Summary of capital programme and expenditure

Full Year Budget

Expenditure Budget

Remaining Requires

re-profiling

£000 £000 £000 £000

Performance and Innovation 785 99 686 0

Strategic Development 5,174 893 4,281 1,857

Neighbourhood Services 3,836 1,374 2,462 0

Total 9,795 2,366 7,429 1,857

3.6.3 Appendix 2 contains further comments and updates on all capital schemes.

3.6.4 In prior years there has been significant re-profiling of the capital programme. New capital bids were considered by Cabinet on the 14 September 2018 and a revised programme will be presented to Cabinet on 28 November 2018. Potential re-profiling of £1.557m has been identified as the ERDF Flood Alleviation Scheme, for which we are acting as the accountable body, is still at the application stage. This application is due to be submitted by the end of November and even if work does begin in 2018/19, it is now our understanding that the Environment Agency will only draw down the funds periodically. Furthermore, potential re-profiling of £300k in relation to the Cross-a-Moor junction improvement scheme is also highlighted. This is a scheme lead by Highways England and the expenditure is likely to now fall into 2019/20. As the ERDF application process develops and the picture becomes clearer in relation to the Cross-a-Moor junction project, should it be required a request to approve this re-profiling will be sought as part of the updated capital programme submitted during the budget setting process.

3.7 Treasury Management

3.7.1 There are no issues to report in terms of compliance with the approved Treasury

Management Strategy. Appendix 3 contains an overview of the Council’s position against the agreed indicators and limits.

3.7.2 To date the Council’s investments have performed well against market expectations. Furthermore, the Bank of England base rate increased by a quarter per cent to 0.75% on the 2nd August but investment interest income and expenditure budgets have not been increased for this.

3.7.3 All investment activity has been within the approved limits. Operational investment

return continues to outperform the benchmarks, but core (Long Term) investments

are 0.05% below the benchmark rate of 0.71%. This is as a result of investments

from before the last rate rise still working their way through our portfolio. Borrowing is

not expected to change and no repayment is planned at the current time, due to

market conditions.

3.8 Collection Fund

3.8.1 Table 4 below sets out the Quarter 2 performance on local tax collection. The Council Tax Collection figure at 30 September 2018 is 58.23%, a decrease of only

Page 34

0.08% compared to the same period last year and in line with same period for 2016/17. Normal recovery procedures are now back in place after the implementation of the new system and it is expected that the collection rate will remain close to target.

3.8.2 The Non Domestic Rates (NDR) collection rate figure is 55.73% which is 0.20% lower

than last year. Normal collection procedures were put back in place in mid-August, a

little later than for Council Tax and only half wat through Quarter 2. It is expected that

collection rates will continue to move closer to target as recovery procedures

continue to take effect.

Table 4: Local Taxation Collection rate

Percentage Collected Quarter 2

2013/14 %

2014/15 %

2015/16 %

2016/17 %

2017/18 %

2018/19 %

Council Tax 58.76 58.60 58.64 58.20 58.31 58.23

Business Rates

60.09 57.97 57.73 56.07 55.93 55.73

3.8.3 Monitoring of the business rate retention scheme has identified a reduction in business rates collectable for 2018/19 of £461k (1.1%), largely due to an increase in small business rate relief. This is offset by a reduction in the provision for appeals of £306k mainly due to a number of large appeals being withdrawn. Overall, after adjustments for levy and income from the pool, it is expected that the net income retained by the Council will be £62k lower than estimated.

3.9 Sundry Debts

3.9.1 The aim of this section is to describe the current debt position and to provide

assurance over collection performance. Table 5 below summarises the current collection rate on sundry debts:

Table 5: Summary of collection

An analysis of outstanding sundry debts reveals that over 99% of debts have been recovered in years up to 2016/17, and 98% of debts in 2017/18. In the current year to date, 61% of debt has been recovered, but 62% of the current year debt is still

2013/14 and

earlier 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

2018/19 to date

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Debt outstanding 74 8 16 43 55 1,228

Total value of invoices/credit notes raised

19,206 4,808 4,606 5,028 5,086 3,168

Collection Rate (%) 99.6% 99.8% 99.6% 99.1% 98.9% 61.2%

Page 35

within its credit terms so not overdue. The table below splits down in more detail the age profile of the current outstanding debts.

Page 36

Table 6: Age profile of 2018/19 invoices

2018/19 Invoices £000

6 months overdue 0

5 months overdue 40

4 months overdue 8

3 months overdue 31

2 months overdue 25

1 month overdue 365

Not yet due 759

Total end of Quarter 1 1,228

3.9.2 Significant success has been achieved in resolving encroachment disputes in recent months. At the end of June 2017 the total debt (across all financial years) relating to encroachments was £224k, this was reduced to £114k at the end of September 2017 and is now £72k for all years where the sums are overdue. Of the remaining outstanding debt for 2018/19, £322k relates to a single invoice which is in the process of being cancelled and reissued for a revised amount, and which will then be paid promptly. £40k of the remaining outstanding debt relates to invoices which have instalment payment plans arranged.

4.0 Consultation

4.1 Senior management, budget holders and the Finance Portfolio Holder have been consulted.


5.1 There are no alternative options.


6.1 Regular budget monitoring forms part of the corporate governance arrangements that support all Council priorities.

7.0 Implications


7.1 Financial and resource information are contained within the report.

Human Resources

7.2 There are no direct Human Resources implications of the report.

Legal

7.3 There are no direct legal implications of the report.



7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: This report is an historic review of financial performance to the end of Q2. The overall impact assessment of the choices and decisions required to set the annual budget is undertaken at budget setting time.

Page 37

7.6 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts: There are no additional Health, Social, Economic or Environmental impacts as a result of the report.



7.8 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: This report is an historic review of financial performance to the end of Q2. The overall impact assessment of the choices and decisions required to set the annual budget is undertaken at budget setting time.

7.9 Summary of equality and diversity impacts: There are no additional Equality impacts as a result of the report.

Risk


Not effectively managing budgets could lead to overspending.

Possible legal challenge, audit qualification and ultra vires expenditure.

Scrutiny of budgets through review of monitoring reports.

Recurring pressures or savings are not identified

Medium Term Financial Planning may not reflect the future impact of current issues.

Regular monitoring of budgets in year to inform the MTFP and annual budget setting process.

Contact Officers

Lee Hurst, Chief Accountant, [email protected], 01539 793599

Helen Smith, Financial Services Manager, [email protected], 01539 793147



Appendix 1 Detailed Revenue Budget Monitoring

Appendix 2 Detailed Capital Budget Monitoring

Appendix 3 Treasury Management Review


Name of Background document Where it is available

2018/19 Budget Book including MTFP projections

https://tinyurl.com/ybarr92t

Budget Setting Report https://tinyurl.com/y7h7ehne

Medium Term Financial Plan 2019/20-2023/24

https://tinyurl.com/ya988w5b



Legal Services N/A

Section 151 Officer 09/08/2018

Monitoring Officer N/A

Page 38

https://tinyurl.com/ybarr92t

https://tinyurl.com/y7h7ehne

https://tinyurl.com/ya988w5b


SMT 11/08/2018


Assistant Director 09/08/2018



Leader N/A

Committee Chairman N/A



Committee N/A

Executive (Cabinet) 31/10/2018

Council 18/12/2018

Page 39


Page 40

Appendix 1

Service Portfolio

Expenditure

Budget Full

Year

£

Income Budget

Full Year

£

Expenditure

Variance

to Date

£

Income

Variance

to Date

£

Overall

Variance

to Date

£

Out-turn

projection

>£10k

Carry

Forward

Requests

>£10k

Commentary

ECL LegalHousing People

and Innovation55,014 -30,250 -22,086 2,964 -19,122 -10,000 0

£22k underspend from salaries but it is anticipated that some of

this will be needed to acquire services elsewhere so forecast 10k.

EFS Financial Services Finance 18,277 -4,000 30,065 1,923 31,988 27,000 0 Vacancy savings target will not be met.

GBN Council Tax Benefits Finance 341,310 -65,826 2,125 -14,515 -12,390 -12,390 0Localised Council Tax Support Admin Grant greater than

anticipated.

GMM MembersHealth and

Wellbeing465,504 0 -28,153 0 -28,153 -20,000 0 Unclaimed Members' allowances.

GTH Other Items Finance 5,000 0 -38,500 -150 -38,650 -41,000 0 One off budget savings.

GTV Bank Charges Finance 94,051 0 -7,056 0 -7,056 -12,000 0Pattern of fees to date lower than budgeted, we will continue to

monitor closely during the year.

Other Resources 22,746,151 -20,064,167 75,293 -33,273 42,020 -10,000 Individual variances <£10k

Total Resources 23,725,307 -20,164,243 11,687 -43,051 -31,363 -78,390 0

Performance and Innovation

ECU Customer ServicesHousing People

and Innovation227,302 0 -8,060 0 -8,060 -12,000 0

Underspend on vacant post, part back-filled by contractor and

overtime £12k.

ERI Information ServicesHousing People

and Innovation29,212 0 -41,828 0 -41,828 0 -59,400

Underspend on four vacant posts £99k; recruitment to two posts

expected by September, part offset by corresponding shortfall on

Eden shared service recharge £40k, net carry forward request to

fund two fixed term ICT Officers posts; Customer Connect saving

on NDL software £12k, offset by increased MS license costs

£12k.

EXS Policy and PerformanceHealth and

Wellbeing-120,817 -9,400 16,112 -6,800 9,312 13,000 0

Underspend on vacant posts £6k, offset by Customer Connect

related additional responsibilities and exceptional effort costs

£19k.

GCCCorporate

Communications

Promoting South

Lakeland166,763 -3,393 -5,279 1,697 -3,582 -12,000 0

Underspend on vacant post, part back-filled by contractor and

overtime £12k.

GCG Community Grants Finance 837,869 0 -27,605 0 -27,605 0 -30,000

Potential underspend on Brewery Arts contribution to

development project £30k, subject to update on project

implementation, may require carry forward to complete.

GER Electoral RegistrationHousing People

and Innovation254,509 -31,657 3,933 -526 3,407 -14,000 0

Potential underspend on 2017/18 carry forward equipment £28k,

part offset by grants shortfall £14k.

Other Performance and Innovation 631,688 -22,371 -48,487 47,781 -706 0 Individual variances <£10k

Total Performance and Innovation 2,026,526 -66,821 -111,213 42,153 -69,061 -25,000 -89,400

Strategic Development

EHS Health and SafetyHealth and

Wellbeing608 -600 -2,513 -13,025 -15,538 -12,000 0

Potential £12k surplus income due to services being provided and

recharged to Eden Council.

EPX OfficesEconomy and

Assets50,269 -21,842 -22,123 8,459 -13,664 -12,000 0

Underspend on South Lakeland House cleaners' vacant posts

£32k, part offset by South Lakeland House rental income shortfall

£20k due to rented space discontinued.

EURAD Community Inv and

Dev

Economy and

Assets608 0 -18,425 -90 -18,515 -37,000 0

Net underspend on Development Implementation vacant posts

£13k; net underspend on Development Management vacant post

£24k,

GCH Community Housing Fund Finance 41,770 0 -17,410 0 -17,410 0 -39,000

Net underspend on vacant post £39k due to delay in scheme

implementation (any underspend to be transferred back to

reserve at year-end).

GDC Development ControlHousing People

and Innovation1,299,333 -743,256 -19,470 156,749 137,279 331,000 0

Vacancy saving £24k may not be achieved due to back-filling with

agency; potential demand led income shortfall relating to planning

applications of £307k based on comparison to previous year.

The purpose of this appendix is to set out the revenue budget variance projections based on data up to 30/09/2018 Period-6

Resources

Page 41

Service Portfolio

Expenditure

Budget Full

Year

£

Income Budget

Full Year

£

Expenditure

Variance

to Date

£

Income

Variance

to Date

£

Overall

Variance

to Date

£

Out-turn

projection

>£10k

Carry

Forward

Requests

>£10k

Commentary

GEN Housing Enabling RoleHousing People

and Innovation998,883 0 -16,062 0 -16,062 -25,000 0

Potential underspend £25k self build and custom build housing

register.

GHL Town View Fields HostelHousing People

and Innovation385,885 -268,273 -4,552 36,636 32,084 37,000 0

Supporting People income shortfall £37k due to Cumbria County

Council changing to block grant basis. Budget Pressure to be

revised as part of 2019/20 budget setting.

GHM HomelessnessHousing People

and Innovation478,016 -101,503 -8,836 -15,347 -24,184 -15,000 0

Grants received £10k higher than budgeted, net underspend

vacant posts £32k, partially offset by agency costs £27k.

GLP Local PlansHousing People

and Innovation564,563 -112 -6,032 -244 -6,276 -27,000 0 Net underspend vacant posts £27k.

GMU MuseumCulture and

Leisure296,148 0 -12,902 0 -12,902 -13,000 0

Underspend on management fee £13k due to budget set too high,

may be required to fund in-year costs of implementing new

arrangements with Kendal College. budget to be revised in future

years.

Other Strategic Development 4,420,627 -3,296,930 -1,673 1,125 -548 0 Individual variances <£10k

Total Strategic Development 8,536,710 -4,432,516 -130,000 174,263 44,263 227,000 -39,000

GCK Car ParksEconomy and

Assets2,717,089 -4,369,983 -17,143 -243,265 -260,408 -167,000 0

Potential underspend of £26k on £50k growth budget for

Westmorland Shopping Centre Car Park structural survey.

Request to use this underspend to fund car parking surveys.

Potential demand led surplus on car parking income £166k,

(impact of three re-surfacing's expected to be minimal).

GLW Lake WindermereCulture and

Leisure804,985 -1,425,493 3,683 11,750 15,433 26,000 0

Potential shortfall jetty berths £26k due to low water levels during

summer.

GPK Parks Environment 1,337,392 -74,532 -23,917 94 -23,823 -35,000 0Potential £35k net underspend on vacant 0.6FTE Green Spaces

Officer, and apprentice post.

GTG Street Cleansing Client Environment 1,372,109 -6,575 42,472 3,110 45,581 49,000 0

Net overspend on salaries circa £20k, due to corporate vacancy

budget will not be met; potential overspend on fuel £18k due to

more vehicles on fleet and higher mileage; demand led

overspend on tipping and disposal £11k.

GTS Transport Environment 75,792 -74,940 28,377 -7,142 21,235 49,000 0

Potential overspend on repairs £49k, due to more vehicles on

fleet, further investigation to be carried out for 2019/20 budget

setting.

GWK Kerbside Recycling Client Environment 5,040,998 -1,538,454 -9,976 51,887 41,912 174,000 0

Net overspend on salaries circa £80k, due to corporate vacancy

budget will not be met; potential demand led shortfall £28k on

recycling credits due to hot summer impact on green waste (this

may result in a corresponding reduction in tipping and disposal

costs); potential demand led shortfall £66k on sales of materials

based on comparison to previous year.

GWR Waste Recycling Environment 262,139 -144,830 -17,128 -11,547 -28,676 -16,000 0

Potential demand led underspend £16k on emptying bring site

recycling banks (this may results in a corresponding reduction in

bring site credits).

Other Neighbourhood services 3,351,750 -834,187 -21,385 7,036 -14,350 0 Individual variances <£10k

Total Neighbourhood Services 14,962,254 -8,468,994 -15,017 -188,079 -203,096 80,000 0

Corporate items

VGR26 Interest Recievable 0 -175,500 0 0 0 -15,000 0

Interest to date is slightly higher than budgeted we will continue to

monitor closely during the year. Budgets do not assume an

interest rate rise.

VGR44 Interest Recievable 0 -3,440,500 0 0 0 62,000 0

A reduction in business rates collectable for 2018/19 of £461k

(1.1%), largely due to an increase in small business rate relief.

This is offset by a reduction in the provision for appeals of £306k

mainly due to a number of large appeals being withdrawn.

Overall, after adjustments for levy and income from the pool, it is

expected that the net income retained by the Council will be £62k

lower than estimated.

Other Corporate items 190,915 -12,332,138 0 10,328 10,328 0 Individual variances <£10k

Neighbourhood Services

Page 42

Service Portfolio

Expenditure

Budget Full

Year

£

Income Budget

Full Year

£

Expenditure

Variance

to Date

£

Income

Variance

to Date

£

Overall

Variance

to Date

£

Out-turn

projection

>£10k

Carry

Forward

Requests

>£10k

Commentary

Total Corporate items 190,915 -15,948,138 0 10,327 10,328 47,000 0 Individual variances <£10k

Total GF 49,441,712 -49,080,712 -244,543 -4,387 -248,930 250,610 -128,400 0

Net GF 361,000

Page 43


Page 44

Appendix 2

AD/code Scheme Portfolio

Full Year

Budget

£

Expenditure

£

Variance

to Date

£

re-profiling

£Commentary

KIP01

Locally Important Projects

(previoulsy presented within

revenue)

Culture and

Leisure295,367 40,500 -254,867 Budget allocated to schemes except for circa £41k

KIT27 Mobile WorkingHousing, People

and Innovation120,000 0 -120,000

Specification and integration with new digital platform to be

assessed before project can begin.

KIT30 Digital Innovation ProjectHousing, People

and Innovation 290,000 25,625 -264,375 Current budget committed.

KIT90 IT Replacement FundHousing, People

and Innovation 80,000 32,933 -47,067

785,367 99,058 -686,309 0

KDE04Former Knitwear Factory

Ulverston

Economy and

Assets89,154 95,955 6,801

Scheme complete, final account outstanding. Overspend to be

covered.

KDE06ERDF Funded Flood Defence

Works

Economy and

Assets1,556,700 0 -1,556,700 1,556,700

Bid for ERDF funding to be submitted to MHCLG on 23

November 2018. Planning permission (early March 2019) and EA

Internal Business Case (11 March 2019) must be in place prior to

decision on ERDF funding, anticipated in early April. Grant and

partnership agreements must be signed by end of April

2019. Therefore no expenditure anticipated in 2018/19.

KCD01 Castle DairyEconomy and

Assets19,932 0 -19,932

Work complete and now in defects liability period. Retention to

pay. Contractor has gone into administration so payment and

timing uncertain.

KEP52 Disabled Toilet Improvements 50,000 0 -50,000Work yet to be agreed. Public consultation to take place before

work starts.

KIL01Community Infrastructure

Levy

Economy and

Assets0 16,112 16,112

KLH02Ulverston Asset Transfer

programme

Economy and

Assets79,767 0 -79,767 Funds to be transferred to UCE when bid completed.

KLH03 Kendal Town Hall stoneworkEconomy and

Assets32,866 25,724 -7,142 Completed and now in defects liability period.

KMR01 Grange FootbridgesEconomy and

Assets0 -5,262 -5,262

Network Rail - credit note against invoice for installation of

refurbished footbridge no.19 Clare House Lane

KMR32Wordsworth Trust

Contribution42,000 0 -42,000

Aiming to schedule the payment in one sum to Wordsworth Trust

by 30 September.

KMR34 Kendal Castle 42,000 0 -42,000 Work to paths to be arranged this year.

KMR21 Kendal Museum alterationsEconomy and

Assets85,000 0 -85,000 Cabinet report to include approval of payment to Kendal College.

SLDC 2018/19 Capital Programme Monitoring Period 6

Performance and Innovation

Total Performance and Innovation

Strategic Development

Page 45

Appendix 2


Full Year

Budget

£

Expenditure

£

Variance

to Date

£

re-profiling

£Commentary


KPE18Towpath Trail Kendal-

LancasterEnvironment 140,000 20,000 -120,000

Remaining £120k payment to CCC to be made soon once grant

agreement has been finalised.

KRE53 Kendal Public Realm Environment 22,600 6,865 -15,735Work complete and now in defects liability period. Retention to

pay. Underspend earmarked for other public realm project.

KRE55 New Road Common Environment 231,023 219,243 -11,780Completed and now in defects liability period. Payments to be

made shortly to expend all budget.

KRE66Grange Promenade structural

worksEnvironment 100,000 0 -100,000

Work has started with consultants re drainage repairs by United

Utilities. Meeting held with Natural England and Environment

Agency on site, but awaiting a decision on the Lido before moving

to further approval by Natural England.

KAH10Affordable Homes TC Prop

Empty

Housing, People

and Innovation359,000 2,000 -357,000

£99,000 housing association grant to be paid Q3 (legal delay).

Further 3 empty homes grants totalling £60,000 to be paid in Q3

and Q4. Remaining balance of £198,000 may need to be

transferred to the DFG budget (KGD21). To review end Q3.

KAH11

Other Housing Schemes

(Cross-a-Moor junction

improvements)

Housing, People

and Innovation300,000 0 -300,000 300,000

Highways England leading scheme to build a roundabout to

enable delivery of 1000 homes. Discussions on-going re specifics

of funding agreement to include SLDC's £300k and £1.7m

developer contributions. SLDC contribution now likely to be paid

next financial year.

KAH12 Town View Fields worksHousing, People

and Innovation0 -927 -927 Complete

KAH13Commuted Sums Affordable

Housing

Housing, People


Grant applications totalling £110,000 expected shortly and to be

paid by Q4. Underspend of £36,000 expected.

KGD21 Mand Disabled Fac GrantsHousing, People

and Innovation743,400 487,381 -256,019

Demand for DFGs continues to be high so full budget expected to

be spent by year-end. Likely overspend to be reviewed end Q3

(see KAH10 above).

KRT10 Right To Buy ReplacementHousing, People


Awaiting signing of legal agreement with SLH before £495k grant

can be provided. To be paid Q3 due to legal delay.

KCH01 Community Housing FundHousing, People

and Innovation490,000 16,022 -473,978

£16k spent in Q1 and a further £90k to be spent in Q3.

Remainder is allocated for full spend by year-end but will depend

on progress made by individual community land trusts.

Application for £350,000 received and awaiting to be processed.

KXB27Energy Saving Building

Enhancement

Economy and

Assets149,200 10,000 -139,200

Draft report from consultant on review of 7 main buildings

received. Works to follow in this financial year.

5,173,642 893,113 -4,280,529 1,856,700

0

KEG35Flood Impact Works Rothay

ParkEnvironment 207,200 30,941 -176,259

Out to tender. Work to complete in September. Underspend on

scheme expected.

Total Strategic Development

Neighbourhood Services

Page 46

Appendix 2


Full Year

Budget

£

Expenditure

£

Variance

to Date

£

re-profiling

£Commentary


KRE61 Waterhead Public Jetty Environment 31,431 3,996 -27,435Design work done, work to take place Sept-Oct when

Environment Agency approval granted.

KLC01Leisure Centres inc KLC

changing room refurbishment

Culture and

Leisure159,567 153,090 -6,477 Completed and now in defects liability period. Retention to pay.

KLL17 Ferry Nab redevelopment Lake Admin 42,644 0 -42,644Work complete. Defects/ snagging to finalise. Underspend

expected.

KLL18Cockshott Point entrance

improvementsLake Admin 1,750 0 -1,750

KMR33Braithwaite Fold Caravan

ParkLake Admin 214,300 5,205 -209,095

Work to start January. Planning submitted and tender documents

being prepared. Additional income from improvements not

expected until 2019/20.

KMR31 Festival InfrastructureCulture and

Leisure64,800 0 -64,800

Uncertainty regarding plans to progress this project. £24k scheme

for lamp post banners in Kendal being developed.

KNM51 Play Areas Environment 0 0 0Budget re-allocated to be used for work at Maryfell (£10k),

Rayrigg Meadow (£27.7k), Broadgate Meadow (£5k).

KNM54 Rinkfield Playground Environment 3,447 0 -3,447 Project complete.

KNM55 Hallgarth Phase 2 Environment 80,000 0 -80,000 Awaiting confirmation of grant funding.

KNM56 Millerground Play Project Environment 160,539 5,215 -155,324Path works (£80k) to start on site in October. Remainder for

playground out to tender in Sept, completion expected April 2019.

KNM57Play Space Audit

ImplementationEnvironment 0 0 0

Plans in place, awaiting councillor approval. £60k budget has

been re-allocated to Lightburn Park (£10k), Maryfell (£10k),

Greenbank (£10k), Rayrigg Meadow (£10k), Broadgate Meadow

(£10k), Abbot Hall (£10k).

KNM58 Kendal Parks playground Environment 78,410 0 -78,410

Work at Howe Bank (£45k) to complete Sept. Work at Hayclose

Road (£80k) to commence in Sept, to finish in Nov, subject to

assurance of funding.

KNM59Lightburn Park MUGA &

playgroundEnvironment 115,852 79,500 -36,352

MUGA compete. Work on playground awaiting successful grant

applications.

KNM60 Abbot Hall Playground Environment 58,000 0 -58,000 Awaiting further funding.

KNM61 Yew Tree Playground Grange Environment 5,000 0 -5,000 Awaiting final grant.

KNM62Greenbank & Castlefield Play

AreaEnvironment 30,000 0 -30,000

KNM63 Queens Park play area Environment 10,000 0 -10,000

KNM64Broadgate Meadow

GrasmereEnvironment 35,000 0 -35,000

KNM65 Maryfell Sedbergh Play Area Environment 20,000 0 -20,000

KNM66 Rayrigg Meadow Play Area Environment 37,753 0 -37,753

Page 47

Appendix 2


Full Year

Budget

£

Expenditure

£

Variance

to Date

£

re-profiling

£Commentary


KPY42 Car Park machines updateEconomy and

assets140,000 410 -139,590

Potential saving on this scheme as orders placed (£106k + £3k)

will complete project.

KPY44Town and Car Park/public

information Signs

Economy and

assets16,200 2,649 -13,551 Will be fully utilised this year.

KPY45SLH Car Park - structural

repair and re-surfacing works

Economy and

assets377,541 0 -377,541

Work to take place either Sept/Oct or Feb/Mar to avoid Xmas

period.

KPY46 Car Park ResurfacingEconomy and

assets339,730 23,185 -316,545

Buxton Place to be resurfaced in October, other planned car

parks (Red Bank, Park Road) out to tender.

KPY48 Parkside Rd Car ParkEconomy and

assets160,400 234 -160,166

With planning. Parking study appraisal of need for car park to

take place, following low take-up of discounted parking at Kendal

Ski Club.

KRE65 The Glebe Planting Environment 50,000 37,463 -12,538 Work complete, final account to be paid.

KLR31Nobles Rest park

improvementsEnvironment 178,100 178,359 259

Expected £20k overspend on this scheme, due to weather

conditions over winter delaying scheme and subsequent extra

costs. Virement from other underspent schemes to be arranged.

KFL01 Footway Lighting Environment 49,400 0 -49,400Spend dependant on Electricity North West and Cumbria CC

programming works.

KSC91Refurb Replace Recycled

BinsEnvironment 60,000 47,228 -12,772

Expected spend in 2018/19 £100k. Demand is high from

customers to replace damaged bins and provide additional bins to

properties. Furthermore new build developments of approximately

800 homes in year each require servicing.

KSC91 Vehicle Purchase Environment 1,109,002 806,276 -302,726

Actual cost of two new Romaquip vehicles less than anticipated,

saving of £33k.Boat engine for lake wardens now quoted at £30k,

budgeted £50k, saving of £20k. Recycling vehicle (£158k), tractor

(£25k) and boat engine still to be purchased in year. Savings and

uncommitted budget (£37k) leave projected underspend of £90k.

3,836,066 1,373,751 -2,462,315 0

9,795,075 2,365,922 -7,429,153 1,856,700

Total Neighbourhood Services

GRAND TOTAL

Page 48

Appendix 3

2018/19 Quarter 2 Treasury Management Update

This appendix reviews treasury performance for the period 01/04/2018 – 30/09/2018 against

the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy, which was approved by Council on

27th February 2018

The Councils Treasury Management operation ensures cash flows are adequately planned,

with surplus monies being invested in low risk counterparties, providing adequate liquidity

initially before considering optimising investment return.

The second main function of the treasury management service is the funding of the Council’s capital plans. These capital plans provide a guide to the borrowing need of the Council, this is the element of the capital programme that is not financed from external grants, capital receipts or other contributions. Which when added to the Council’s Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) shows the underlying borrowing need of the Council. This underlying borrowing need is managed by the treasury team through short and long term borrowing arrangements and the use of longer term cash flow surpluses.

Borrowing

No new borrowing has been undertaken in the year to date, therefore the Council has maintained external borrowing at £12.8 million. As a result, gross and net borrowing are below the capital financing requirement (CFR). This is a key indicator as it shows that the Council is not borrowing to fund revenue activities or borrowing to lend-on. Table 1: Borrowing Limits

£m

Actual borrowing 12.800

Authorised limit 24.600

Operational boundary 18.600

Capital Financing Requirement (CFR)

18.558

Table 1 also shows that the Council hasn’t breached its operational boundary and authorised limit (which must not be breached) on external debt. The current premium on the Councils borrowing is circa 69% (i.e. £690k per £1m repaid), which would take nearly 18 years to repay. This is not low enough to consider making an early repayment, however we will keep this under review. It is anticipated that the Council will not need to undertake any additional borrowing in 2018/19, with the increase in the CFR being met through the use of cash balances, increasing our internal borrowing position. Our internal borrowing position is estimated to be £5.758 million or 31% of the CFR at year end. This position will be carefully monitored against changes to reserves to ensure that the position is sustainable.

Page 49

Appendix 3

Investments Graph 1 below shows the movement on the Councils investment portfolio between 01/04/18 and 30/09/18.

The Council held £28.95m of investments as at 30 September 2018. Table 2 shows the outstanding investments by type. Table 2 Investment Summary

Counterparty Value (£m)

Call Operational

Blackrock 1.950

CCLA 0.000

Fixed Operational

Bank of Scotland 3.000

Coventry Building Society 1.000

Leeds Building Society 1.000

NatWest (Ring Fenced Bank) 1.000

Nottingham Building Society 1.000

Principality Building Society 1.000

Sumitomo Mitsui Bank 1.000

Toronto Dominion Bank 2.000

West Bromwich Building Society 1.000

UK Treasury Bills 2.995

Fixed Core

Goldman Sachs 2.000

Lancashire County Council 3.000

Nationwide Building Society 1.000

Newcastle Building Society 2.000

NatWest (Ring Fenced Bank) 1.000

Sumitomo Mitsui Bank 2.000

Surrey Heath Borough Council 1,000

28.945

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

Op

enin

g B

alan

ce

07

/04

/20

18

14

/04

/20

18

21

/04

/20

18

28

/04

/20

18

05

/05

/20

18

12

/05

/20

18

19

/05

/20

18

26

/05

/20

18

02

/06

/20

18

09

/06

/20

18

16

/06

/20

18

23

/06

/20

18

30

/06

/20

18

07

/07

/20

18

14

/07

/20

18

21

/07

/20

18

28

/07

/20

18

04

/08

/20

18

11

/08

/20

18

18

/08

/20

18

25

/08

/20

18

01

/09

/20

18

08

/09

/20

18

15

/09

/20

18

22

/09

/20

18

29

/09

/20

18

Call Operational Fixed Operational Core Investments

Page 50

Appendix 3

Graph 2 below shows the maturity profile of the Councils investment portfolio split between operational and core investment types

Table 3 below summarised the performance to date, benchmarked against the London Interbank Bid Rate (LIBID) that best matches the duration of the investments. For example, Call investments can be called back the same day and so the overnight LIBID rate is the bench mark.

Table 3 Performance

Average Return

Benchmark Rate

Variance

Call Operational 0.56% 0.42% 0.14%

Fixed Operational 0.63% 0.60% 0.03%

Fixed Core (Long Term) 0.66% 0.71% -0.05%

Operational investments are outperforming their respective benchmarks. However Core

(Long Term) investments are 0.05% below the benchmark rate of 0.71%. This is as a result

of investments from before the last rate rise still working their way through our portfolio. £8

million pounds of this is maturing in October and will be invested in the current higher

interest rate environment and it is therefore expected that core investment returns will pick

up in the next quarter.

Looking Forward

The first half of 2018/19 has shown modest growth in the UK economy, but robust enough

growth for the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to vote on 2nd August to

unanimously (9-0) increase the base rate from 0.50% to 0.75%.

Concerns have been raised about a build-up of inflationary pressures, particularly with the

pound falling in value again against both the US dollar and the Euro. The Consumer Price

Index (CPI) measure of inflation rose unexpectedly from 2.4% in June to 2.7% in August due

to increases in volatile components, but is expected to fall back to the 2% inflation target

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

Call 1 Month 1-3 Months 3-6 Months 6 Months +

Operationl Core

Page 51

Appendix 3

over the next two years given a scenario of minimal increases in Bank Rate. The MPC has

indicated Bank Rate would need to be in the region of 1.5% by March 2021 for inflation to

stay on track. Financial markets are currently pricing in the next increase in Bank Rate for

the second half of 2019.

Conclusion

The Council Investments continue to perform well against benchmarks, with all activity within

approved limits and Borrowing has been maintained at £12.8 million within the debt

indicators.

Page 52




Council Plan Performance Monitoring Quarter 2 2018/19

Portfolio: Councillor Giles Archibald - Leader of the Council


Report Author: John Davies - Performance and Risk Officer

Wards: (All Wards);



1.1 Monitoring the success of the Council Plan through scorecards informs improvements and ensures Council services address the needs of residents in an open and transparent way. Influenced by the three key values as set out in the current Council Plan, this report sets out the Council Plan Priorities and Measures of Success.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee note:-

(1) the Summary of Performance as detailed in the report; and

(2) the detailed risks information contained within Appendix 1; and

(3) considers whether it wishes to make any recommendations to Cabinet


3.1 The Council is committed to delivering high quality, cost effective services that meet the needs of residents and improve quality of life. To help achieve our goals, we measure performance frequently. The performance management process helps us to demonstrate how well we are doing.

3.2 Benchmarking information is provided for quarter one each year and allows the Council to compare its own performance with that of fifteen other statistically similar Councils – using the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Nearest Neighbours Model. Information is sourced from the Local Government Association.

3.3 Summary of Performance

Each Council Plan Priority has ‘Measures of success’ – allowing progress to be monitored. Detailed information for each of the measures is listed below.

3.4 Economy - Measures of success

Page 53

Item No.9

Measure: By 2025, we will achieve investment enabling the creation of 1,000 new

jobs in the area.

Estimates show that the Council is on target to achieve 1000 new jobs in the

area by 2025. Since 01/01/14 an estimated 489 new jobs have been created

in South Lakeland. It is estimated that 36 new jobs were created in Quarter

Two 2018/19 (Source: Estimate by Partnerships and Organisational

Development.)

Measure: Between 2015 and 2025, we will have enabled, with the private sector, the

rise of higher paid jobs and a year-on-year increase in the current median household

income of £31,189 for people who live in South Lakeland.

For 2017 the median income varied across the districts, from the lowest in

Barrow-in-Furness (£24,381) to the highest in South Lakeland (£32,506). The

median household income in Cumbria was £27,633 and Great Britain was

£30,921. (Source: Cumbria Intelligence Observatory.)

Measure: Between 2015 and 2025, in partnership with the district’s towns and

villages, the council will ensure they maintain their distinctive character and thrive

commercially by supporting and improving the business start-up rate of 90 per 10,000

working population year-on-year.

From Mar 2017 to Mar 2018 South Lakeland had the highest number of

business start-ups per 10,000 working age residents at 80.8. This compares

to 61.6 for Cumbria and 104.2 for England. (Source: Cumbria Intelligence

Observatory.)

The total number of business units in South Lakeland has increased from

6850 in 2013 to 7385 in 2017 and surpasses a previous high of 7060 units in

2010. (Source: National Office for Statistics)

3.5 Housing - Measures of success

The Council’s Housing Strategy 2016-2025 describes the housing issues within South Lakeland. Measure: By 2025, we will have enabled, with the private sector, the development of

1,000 new affordable homes to rent.

During Quarter Four a total of 7 new affordable homes for rent have been

completed giving a cumulative total of 407 since 01/01/14. Updated figures for

Quarter Two will be available for O&S on 26th October 2018. The Council is

on target to deliver the 1,000 new affordable homes for rent by 2025. (Source:

Strategic Housing and Building Control.)

Measure: By 2025, we will have enabled, with the private sector and housing associations, an average of 60 completed permanent dwellings each quarter.

In 2017 there were 60 permanent dwellings completed in Quarter One, 50 in

Quarter Two, 60 in Quarter Three, 40 in Quarter Four and 80 in Quarter One

2018. Since 2015 the Council has enabled the completion of 820 permanent

Page 54

dwellings – an average of greater than 63 over 13 quarters. (Source: DCLG

Live tables on house building: table 253a)

Measure: By 2025, the number of long-term empty homes, currently 827 (2016), will

have reduced by 20%.

The number of long term empty homes fluctuates, however there has been an

overall reduction from 1079 (2011) to 973 (2017.) The total number of long

term empty homes fluctuate as homes are brought back into use - and as

properties become empty. Homes become empty for a number of reasons -

all of which are relevant to South Lakeland: for example people needing care,

properties becoming inhabitable due to widespread flooding and properties

being inherited. Second homes also increase results until they are identified.

(Source: DCLG tables on housing: table 615)

Measure: Between 2015 and 2019, the council through targeted interventions will,

year on year, bring a minimum of 70 empty homes back into use.

Since 2015 the Council has brought 214 empty homes back into use. Data for

Quarter Two 2018/19 will be available for Quarter Three 2018/19 reporting.

(Source: Housing Strategy Team)

Measure: During 2018/19 the number of homeless households living in temporary

accommodation will be no more than 20 at any one time.

The maximum of households in temporary accommodation at any one time

was 18 in Quarter Three 2017/18, 17 in Quarter Four 2017/18, 20 in Quarter

One 2018/19 and 21 in Quarter Two 2018/19. Records show that this target

has been met for at least the last 5 years - however the latest result is outside

target. The main reasons for homelessness are the reduced benefits for

people of age under 35 years; high rents and loss of private sector tenancy;

lack of affordable housing; family relationship breakdowns with young adults

leaving home - sometimes leaving home due to abuse. The implementation of

the Homelessness Reduction Act in April this year has also influenced results

and this is reflected both regionally and nationally. (Source: Housing Options

Team)

3.6 Environment - Measures of success

Measure: By 2019, the amount of household waste sent for reuse, recycling and

composting will increase from 43% to 50%. During the same period the range of

recyclables will be widened.

For 2017/18 provisionally 44.4% of waste has been recycled which is an

increase on 42.4% for 2016/17. Green waste influences this result

significantly. This is because green waste is produced in large quantities and

contributes to significant tonnages compared to lighter plastic and cardboard.

During the summer drought 2017/18 green waste was greatly reduced and

therefore the 44.4% provisional figure may now be optimistic. If the Council

was able to collect food waste this would make the target of 50% much more

Page 55

achievable. However food processing plants are currently to distant from

South Lakeland to make this viable. Plastic and cardboard kerbside collection

covers 100% of households. (Source: Street Scene)

Measure: By 2019, the amount of residual household waste not sent for reuse,

recycling and composting will have reduced from the current baseline of 511kg per

household

South Lakeland’s residual household waste is sent for reuse rather than to

landfill. The residual waste is processed to provide refuse derived fuel for

large industrial processes. In line with other councils residual waste includes

grey bin waste, waste from litter bins, street sweepings and other sources.

The tonnage of street sweepings varies significantly each year and therefore

impacts on residual waste totals. The level of residual waste is measured in

kilos of waste per household per year: 2013/14 480kg, 2014/15 470kg,

2015/16 495kg, 2016/17 511kg and a provisional 468kg for 2017/18. Grey bin

waste on its own has fluctuated from 444kg in 2007/8 to 479kg in 2009/10 to

a reduced 399kg in 2017/18. (Source: Street Scene)

Measure: Between 2015 and 2019 the council will, year on year, have reduced its

operational carbon footprint by 100 tonnes of carbon, from a baseline of 2,869

tonnes.

For 2017/18 the total for carbon emitted was 2992 tonnes – a reduction of 170

tonnes from 3162 tonnes at 31/03/15. As well as reducing emissions the

Council prevents 5500 tonnes of emissions by reusing, recycling and

composting nearly all of the waste collected across the District. (Source:

Partnerships and Organisational Development)

3.7 Culture and wellbeing - Measures of success

Measure: By 2019, through collaborative and preventative action the level of self-

reported general health of South Lakeland’s residents will demonstrate an

improvement above the baseline of 70% as reported in the Quality of Life Survey.

The Quality of Life Survey 2017 shows that 72% of residents reported good or

very good health. (Source: Partnerships and Organisational Development)

Measure: By 2025, the health inequality gap for residents in South Lakeland’s 18

most deprived communities will be narrowed resulting in the improved healthy life

expectancy above the national average of 81 years.

Life expectancy from birth has improved consistently for many years to 81.5 years in 2016 and is better than NW or England. (Data source: Public Health England)

Health related quality of life for older people has fluctuated from a score of 0.772 in 2012/13 to a slightly improved score of 0.778 in 2016/17. Annual results for the previous six years are better than the North West and England.

Results for 2015 show that in South Lakeland there are 4 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA’s) in the 30% most health deprived LSOAs in England. Within Cumbria only Eden is better with only 1 area in the 30% most deprived.

Page 56

LSOAs are a set of geographies designed specifically for statistical purposes. LSOAs have an average population of 1,600 people. (Source: Cumbria Observatory)

Measure: By 2019, the overall level of reported crime will not exceed the 2014/15

level of 3,425.

During Quarter One 2017/18 there were 981 crimes, Q2 964, Q3 1000 and

Q4 1090 – a total of 4035 crimes for 2017/18. Q1 2018/19 saw 1359 crimes

reported, Quarter 2 2018/19 saw 1248 crimes reported - this increase is

explained by Police training on the recording of crimes. (Source: Cumbria

Constabulary. 2017/18 figures revised October 2018.)

3.8 Strategic Risk Register – Appendix 1

All strategic risks in their current stage of development are visible within appendix 1. There are 4 strategic risks above the Council’s tolerance for risk and these are being managed effectively. The Strategic Risks have been reviewed in line with risk management arrangements.

Risks summary this quarter

Total number of risks: 15 risks

New risks: 1 risk – Risk No 19 ‘Business Continuity: Flu Pandemic – Loss of people, skills and supply chain disruption’

Archived Risks: 0 risks

Risks above tolerance: 4 risks

(risks above tolerance are reviewed every quarter)

Risks below tolerance: 11 risks

73% of risks are below tolerance.

(risks below tolerance are reviewed annually at Quarter 4)

4.0 Consultation

4.1 This report details measures of success against each of the priorities within the Council Plan. These have been consulted on extensively prior to the Plan being adopted by Full Council.


5.1 No alternative options – the purpose of the report is to receive a performance update. The Council must note successes, monitor progress and take action where appropriate.

Page 57


6.1 Reporting measures of success contained within the Council Plan 2014-2019.

6.2 The report is directly linked to the following Council Plan commitment to ensure that the Council is equipped to provide the best, most cost effective services.

6.3 Details regarding performance monitoring are published in line with the Council’s current Performance Management Framework.

7.0 Implications


7.1 There are no financial implications associated with this report. However, strategic risks can relate to financial issues and are considered as part of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan, budget preparation and monitoring process.

Human Resources

7.2 There are no human resources implications associated with this report.

Legal

7.3 There are no legal implications associated with this report.



7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: Reporting performance has a positive impact on health, social, economic and environmental needs.

7.6 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts: No negative impacts.



7.8 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: Reporting performance has a positive impact on equality and diversity needs.

7.9 Summary of equality and diversity impacts: No negative impacts.

Risk


For indicators and performance measures not to be monitored, corrective action is not identified early.

Ambitions as set out in the Council Plan are not achieved.

Recommendations for corrective action are implemented.

Good performance is not acknowledged.

Poor morale and performance culture.

Successes are recognised and celebrated.

Contact Officers

Report Author – John Davies, Performance and Risk Officer, 01539 733333, [email protected]

Page 58

mailto:[email protected]


(delete if no appendices attached)


1 Strategic Risk Register



Detailed Performance information – South Lakeland

South Lakeland Website

Council Plan – South Lakeland South Lakeland Website

Performance Management Framework – South Lakeland


Risk Management Arrangements – South Lakeland


Description of Nearest Neighbours Model - CIPFA

CIPFA Website

Benchmarking data - Local Government Association

Local Government Association Website

Economy data - Office for National Statistics Official Labour Market Statistics

Office for National Statistics Website

Health data - Public Health England Public Health Outcomes Framework

Public Health England Website



Legal Services 14/09/2018


Monitoring Officer 14/09/2018

SMT 11/10/2018



Human Resources Manager 14/09/2018

Communications Team 14/09/2018

Leader 11/10/2018

Committee Chairman

Portfolio Holder 11/10/2018


Committee 27/10/2018


Council N/A

Page 59

https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/council-business/performance-measures/

https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/council-documents/council-plan/

https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/council-documents/council-plan/performance/

https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/council-documents/council-plan/performance/

http://www.cipfastats.net/default_view.asp?content_ref=8193

http://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/lgastandard?mod-metric=185&mod-period=1&mod-area=E07000031&mod-group=South_Lakeland_CIPFA_Near_Neighbours&modify-report=Apply

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1946157080/report.aspx?#idbr

http://www.phoutcomes.info/public-health-outcomes-framework#page/0/gid/1000049/pat/6/par/E12000002/ati/101/are/E07000031/iid/92311/age/1/sex/4


Page 60

Appendix 1

1 Version: 1 Date: 01/10/2018 Quarter: 2, 2018/19

Strategic Risks Register - Quarter 2, 2018/19

Introduction Risk Management is an essential element of corporate governance arrangements. The process of risk management allows the Council to identify, prioritise and mitigate risks which may have a negative effect on services. This is an important and underpinning process which ensures good value for money and also continuity of services. Risks are recognised as essential management information and so contribute towards decision making. This document lists all those risks which are considered as strategic in nature – in other words those risks that could have a wide impact or require senior management control. This Strategic Risks Register is reviewed and updated every quarter by Senior Management Team. Risks above the line of tolerance are a priority and so are reviewed every quarter – whilst those below tolerance are reviewed once a year. Strategic risks are by their very nature problematic and so can remain on the register for significant periods of time. Page 2 and 3 of this report explain the risk matrix and layouts used for the risks. Page 4 provides a Risk ‘Heat Map’ which provides an ‘at a glance’ view of the priority risks – those currently in the blue zone and so above the line of risk appetite/tolerance.

Page 61

Appendix 1


How to understand the Risk Matrix: This register contains the full and complete list of the Council’s Strategic Risks. Each risk is plotted on a risk matrix to show degree of likelihood and impact. The greater the likelihood and impact the higher the priority for management. Those risks which lay above the line of ‘risk appetite’ can be seen in the blue zone of the matrix. These risks are a priority for management and are reviewed every quarter. Risks below the risk appetite, in the green zone, are a lower priority and so are reviewed on an annual basis.

The next page shows how the information for each risk is presented.

Lik

eli

ho

od

High

Medium

x

Low

x

Very Low

Negligible Marginal Serious Critical

Impact

Risks positioned in the blue zone of the risk matrix are above ‘risk appetite’ (high priority) and require quarterly mitigation and management. Mitigation updates are listed for these risks.

Risks positioned in the green zone of the risk matrix are below ‘risk appetite’ (lower priority) and require an annual review in Quarter Four.

Page 62

Appendix 1


How to understand the layout of each risk in this report

Risk No. & Name The risk name is a concise and clear title for the risk Description A description of the circumstances which help to generate risk

Current Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the current position of the risk.

Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: The date when this risk will be considered and reviewed

Target Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the future position of the risk following the completion of mitigations.

Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: The date that the risk must reach the target position – through the completion of mitigations.

Mitigation Mitigation Progress Mitigation Action Owner Mitigation Due Date

A mitigation is an action which is designed to reduce or eliminate the risk. The mitigation can improve the likelihood or impact of the risk.

A short update on progress made with the mitigation

The person responsible for progressing the mitigation

Mitigations should be implemented by their due dates for the risk to be improved effectively.

History of Risk Improvement

For each risk a history of risk review and improvement is shown: RISK POSITION IMPROVED ↓ = a risk review indicates that there is now less risk RISK POSITION INCREASED ↑ = a risk review indicates that there is now more risk RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ = a risk review indicates that there is the same level of risk RISK IDENTIFIED ● = a newly identified risk is entered onto this register

Risk Owner The person with sufficient authority to control this risk Portfolio the Portfolio that this risk is relevant to

Page 63

Appendix 1


Risk ‘Heat Map’ - showing the current position of all risks in this report

This matrix provides an ‘at a glance’ view of the priority risks which are positioned in the blue zone and so are above the line of risk appetite/tolerance. Click on a risk to navigate to the right page.

Lik

elih

oo

d

High

Medium

Risk 5 Risk 6 Risk 9 Risk 14 Risk 15

Low

Risk 2 Risk 13 Risk 18

Risk 4 Risk 7 Risk 8 Risk 12 Risk 19

Very Low

Risk 16 Risk 17

Negligible Marginal Serious Critical

Impact

About 73% of risks are now positioned in the green zone - below the line of ‘risk appetite’

Page 64

Appendix 1


Strategic Risks Register

Risk 1 was archived during quarter 1 2016/17

Risk 2

Contracts do not deliver the standards of performance required within the contract fee agreed. Back to ‘Heat Map’

Current Position of Risk

Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Annual – end of March

Target Position of Risk

Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19


Mitigations are not applicable as this risk is below tolerance.

n/a n/a n/a


This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change as the Council has three new major contracts. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Review indicates that the current risk remains the same in terms of likelihood and impact.

Risk Owner Assistant Directors Portfolio Finance Portfolio

Page 65

Appendix 1


Risk 3 was archived during quarter 1 2018/19

Risk 4

Affordable housing targets are not met. Description There is a risk that the Council may not achieve the Council Plan target: ‘By 2025 we will have enabled with the private sector the development of 1,000 new affordable homes for rent’. The Council will need to enable delivery of new affordable and open market housing particularly through private sector led development across the district. Performance is influenced by New Homes Bonus and Local Government Financing. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

X



Like

liho

od

X



Mitigations are not applicable as risk is below tolerance

n/a n/a n/a


This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - This risk will be retained on the register to allow regular monitoring.

Risk Owner Assistant Director Strategic Development Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio

Page 66

Appendix 1


Risk 5

Impact of the Welfare Reform on communities

Description Welfare reform is a major element of recent government spending cuts - resulting in significant changes to taxes and benefits. Universal Credit may have an impact on the level of benefits. Welfare reform therefore impacts on low-income tenants and social landlords. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

X



Like

liho

od

X



Mitigations are not applicable as this risk is below tolerance.

n/a n/a n/a


This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - The risk will be retained on the risk register whilst there is a potential for impacts.

Risk Owner Assistant Director & Chief Finance Officer Portfolio Culture, Wellbeing and Leisure Portfolio

Page 67

Appendix 1


Risk 6

Medium Term Financial Planning – delivery of a balanced budget Description Current and future years proposed budget reductions (expenditure and income) are not achieved. Future year’s budget reductions (expenditure or income) are not identified. Significant existing income sources are not protected or effectively managed. Income from Central Government is reduced above the current assumptions. NDR income assumptions are not achieved. Other key factors are the Spending Review 2019-2022, Business Rates Retention, the Second Homes agreement with Cumbria County Council and the Fair Funding Review. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Quarterly


Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date Annual – end of March


MTFP assumptions are reviewed, updated and reported on a quarterly basis

Mitigation is in place and on track Assistant Director of Resources (Section 151)

Each quarter

Options to resolve any issues are provided to the Cabinet each quarter

Mitigation is in place and on track Assistant Director of Resources (Section 151). Assistant Directors Directors

Each quarter


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - The annual statutory requirement has been met however longer term goals will require continuous monitoring. Q1 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change however uncertainty over future funding may influence future risk position. 02/08/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - At the request of Audit Committee SMT reviewed the current position of this risk – deciding that the

Page 68

Appendix 1


existing position is appropriate. Q2 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to risk position.

Risk Owner Assistant Director & Chief Finance Officer Portfolio Finance Portfolio

Page 69

Appendix 1


Risk 7

Information Management is not effective Description The Council is required to have effective information governance procedures. It will be necessary to manage corporate information by implementing processes, roles and controls - including GDPR and the Data Protection and Information Security Policies. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Annual


Like

liho

od

X



Continue to reinforce key standards and policies via regular communication. Ensure Managers are appropriately trained and requirements are clearly set out in Job Descriptions and reinforced via appraisals. Ensure Internal Audit findings are acted on in a timely manner.

This mitigation added on 11/11/15. Update 07/06/17: Training schedule in early draft. Key standards to be agreed by Customer Connect Programme Board in autumn 2017 Update 14/12/17: Training schedule designed and on target to be delivered, in line with board approval, for end of 2018. 60% of staff to receive e-learning by end of July 2018, remaining 40% by end of December 2018.

Principal Performance and Intelligence Officer

31/12/18

Clear and ongoing communications to staff to reinforce policies and protocols. Regular review and monitoring of arrangements

This mitigation added on 11/11/15. Update 07/06/17: Training schedule


31/12/18

Page 70

Appendix 1


across services by Operational Managers supported by Information Security/ Governance Teams in Policy & Partnerships and ICT.

in early draft. Key standards to be agreed by Customer Connect Programme Board in autumn 2017. Update 14/12/17: Training schedule designed and on target to be delivered, in line with board approval, for end of 2018. 60% of staff to receive e-learning by end of July 2018, remaining 40% by end of December 2018.

The Information Governance (IG) Framework was approved by Cabinet on 16 September 2015 and provides the structure to govern how the Council captures, creates, accesses, secures, manages and shares its information both internally and externally. In line with Customer Connect Programme, the Council had to its approach to information governance.

This mitigation added on 07/06/17 In order to implement the Information Governance Framework it is proposed that a learning package deliverable is created. It is proposed that the learning package deliverable will be 100% e-learning. Scope will be provided to design and develop workbooks for those members of staff without access to ICT equipment.


31/12/18


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Mitigation due dates updated in line with Information Governance Board Highlights Report 14/12/17. This risk is remains within risk tolerance. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - review indicates no change at this time, relevant mitigations are in place.

Risk Owner Assistant Director Performance and Innovation Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio

Page 71

Appendix 1


Risk 8

The infrastructure required to deliver the Council Plan priorities is not provided. Description Infrastructure is required to support businesses and housing development objectives. The Council will need to implement the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to provide funding stream for infrastructure delivery. There will need to be protocols for CIL Governance and an up to date Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Due to the impacts of Storm Desmond there may be implications associated with future flood resilience measures and infrastructure repairs. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Quarterly


Like

liho

od

X



Annual update of Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Review largely complete to be reported to Cabinet. Update 21/12/16: approach to meeting education needs in Kendal being worked up by Cumbria County Council. Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be reported to Cabinet in March 2017. Update 04/04/17: extra time required for education aspect due date extended to 31/05/17 Completed. Updated Infrastructure

Development Strategy and Housing Manager

01/12/16 Amended to 31/05/17 Completed 13/09/17

Page 72

Appendix 1


Delivery Plan reported to Cabinet on September 13th. Significant progress on infrastructure delivery including: • Kendal highways and transport improvements (£3.4m) • Ulverston junction improvements (£4.5m) including access to Lightburn Road employment site through Blue Light Hub. • The development of a funding package to deliver a new roundabout at Swarthmoor to enable housing development at Swarthmoor and Croftlands.

Development of protocols for CIL Governance. To be reported to Cabinet Update 21/12/16: CIL Governance Protocols will be reported with Infrastructure Delivery Plan to Cabinet in March 2017. Update 04/04/17: extra time required for education aspect due date extended to 31/05/17 Completed. CIL Governance arrangements approved by Cabinet on September 13th.


01/12/16 Amended to 31/05/17 Completed 13/09/17

CIL Review proposed as part of Development Management Policies process.

To be undertaken when draft Development Management policies are consulted upon in Autumn 2016. Update 21/12/16: Viability study scheduled for mid 2017 – will update


01/03/18 Completed

Page 73

Appendix 1


viability position in relation to affordable housing, CIL and impact of Development Management policies. Update 04/04/17: Viability study Commisioned. Update 13/03/18: Viability study completed.


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. There has been positive progress and further collaboration with partners on infrastructure needs is required. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Updated evidence, in support of the new development management policies, on viability has concluded that development can support current levels of CIL. The results of examination will inform the future position of this risk.

Risk Owner Assistant Director Strategic Development Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio

Page 74

Appendix 1


Risk 9

Essential strategic partnerships required to deliver the Council Plan do not operate effectively. Description Where necessary robust agreements will be needed. Also opportunities and resource implications should be identified. Partnerships will need to work supportively to achieve Council Plan objectives. The introduction of NHS STP’s and the movement of South Cumbria CCG’s into Lancashire/Morecambe Bay in April 2017 requires new strategic partnerships to be formed with these groups to ensure SLDC and its communities gain maximum benefit from any changes. This risk applies to all our strategic partnerships, such as the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), CCC, LDNPA and Morecambe Bay Economic Partnership as examples. The risk is not specific to any one initiative or approach from partner organisations, rather the strategic direction and policies that they take and make, and their correlation to SLDC achieving its aims and objectives through its Council Plan. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date Annual


Like

liho

od

X



Monitor resource, cost and reputational impact with established strategic partnerships

No cost implications to the council in maintaining partnerships

CEX 31/03/19 annual review


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - There is a meeting planned for political leaders and officers within the 1st qtr of 2017/18 to raise and discuss this issue across partners and Morecambe Bay authorities. A governance review of the Cumbria LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) is also underway. Positive collaborative relationships are being seen with Cumbria County Council locally, with Joint Districts in Cumbria, and now as a partner in the Northern Powerhouse Partnership at an Officer level. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk.

Page 75

Appendix 1


Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. Risk description updated to include additional examples of strategic partnerships. Q1 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. There have been recent developments that may affect our essential partnerships in helping delivery of the Council Plan 2014-19. This includes 1. Local Government reorganisation and 2. Morecambe Bay Economic Partnership - further political and managerial influence is required to ensure that one or more of the partners keeps upto date with actions. Q2 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change to position of risk. Officer representation on the Morecambe Bay CCG has now been offered and accepted. Meeting held with Northern Powerhouse Minister 27/09/18 - Morecambe Bay Prospectus discussed and future meetings agreed with Government departments.

Risk Owner Chief Executive Portfolio Leader and Finance Portfolio

Page 76

Appendix 1


Risk 10 and Risk 11 were archived during quarter 1 2016/17

Risk 12

Health and Safety management of contracts – records for on site checks

Description of risk Health and safety management arrangements require a review for officer led contracts. Officers that are managing contractors are required to make safety checks and keep records. Safety checks should be proportional to risk. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

x

Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Next Review Date Annually in quarter 4


Like

liho

od

x

Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date Target met


Contracts Management Health and Safety training is provided

Completed Principle Health, Safety and Wellbeing Officer

09/04/15 Completed

Officer leads carry out onsite H&S monitoring which is proportionate to the risk

ongoing All staff managing contracts Ongoing requirement

Officer led contracts are subject to spot checks for onsite monitoring records.

Q4 2015/16: Initial assessment indicates that evidence exists for H&S checks Q3 2016/17: A second assessment identifies training needs

All managers with contracts.

Completed.

Promote training on active monitoring Building/property and all external contractors to be involved in the training. Further training ‘Control of

All Managers with contracts 13/04/17, further training sessions to be completed by end of Qtr 1 2017/18. Completed 24/10/17.

Page 77

Appendix 1


Contractors’ completed on 24/10/17.

Further spot checks to be made for records of onsite contractor safety

Mitigation added following SMT review on 06/07/17. Completed

Performance and Risk Officer 01/10/17 Completed

A further review will be completed by Assistant Directors in October 2017

Mitigation added 12/10/17. Update 05/04/18: Completed

Assistant Directors 01/11/2017 Completed


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ – impact reduced to reflect completion of training however likelihood increased to maintain the risk position as above tolerance ensuring regular quarterly reviews - and the focus on spot checks for evidence of on site safety monitoring. Risk name updated for the focus on records of onsite checks – likelihood medium and impact serious. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Additional mitigation added. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Review is near completion and indicating positive results - will inform quarter four update. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION IMPROVED ↓ = Review indicates that this risk has now reduced in terms of likelihood to target position. Risk is reduced due to health and safety performance, training provided and availability of resources. This risk is now below tolerance and will be reviewed annually during quarter four.

Risk Owner Chief Executive Portfolio Finance Portfolio

Page 78

Appendix 1


Risk 13

Impact of new projects and initiatives on existing Council Plan priorities

Description of risk There is a risk that new projects and initiatives take the resources required by other projects and initiatives currently in the programme. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

x

Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Next Review Date Quarterly


Like

liho

od

x

Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19


Ensure that potential new projects and initiatives are subject to a pre-assessment which measures their priority

Completed and ongoing requirement. Update 10/11/16: Reinforce the assessment and prioritisation of new projects – review in six months. Update 18/01/18: the assessment and prioritaisation of projects is an ongoing requirement.

Director of People and Places Ongoing requirement


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q4 2016/17: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION - This risk is within risk tolerance and requires an annual review during Quarter Four. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change however to be reviewed at quarter three subject to prioritisation of resources. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION IMPROVED ↓ - Review indicates that likelihood is low with existing controls. Controls will continue to be applied including prioritisation against Strategic Projects Log.

Risk Owner Director of People and Places Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio

Page 79

Appendix 1


Risk 14

Unintended impacts of efficiencies and service changes Description of risk New efficiencies and changes brought about by one service or another organisation can have unintended negative impacts on the efficiency and running of another service – especially if proposals are not consulted on until to late in the process. These impacts can increase the cost of running other services. Focus required on the expiry of the Second Homes agreement between Cumbria County Council and South Lakeland District Council. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

x

Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly

Next Review Date Annual – end of March


Like

liho

od

x

Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date 31/03/19


This risk is managed via the Service Planning and Budgeting processes.

Completed Operational Managers Senior Management Team

Mitigations in place within existing Service Planning and Budgeting processes.

Promote early discussions on potential change with external parties

New mitigation on 10/11/16 06/07/17: Mitigations underway and ongoing

Director of People and Places

In place and ongoing requirement


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q1 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Mitigations are in progress. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change – this risk is linked to ‘Risk 15: Customer Connect’. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - SMT review indicates no change Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Review indicates no change due to period of organisational change and ongoing partnership discussions. Q1 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Review indicates no change for the reasons listed previously at Q4 2017/18. Target date reviewed and set to 31/03/2019.

Page 80

Appendix 1


Q2 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED ↔ - Review indicates no change to position of risk.

Risk Owner Director of People and Places Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio

Page 81

Appendix 1


Risk 15

Customer Connect Programme Description The programme fails to deliver what’s set out in the programme definition and customer contact strategy. Customer Connect is a challenging programme that requires significant change to ways of working for staff across the Council. The Programme Board manages the Customer Connect Risk Log on a regular basis. Mitigations are in place for the risks and the main challenges to the programme are: Scope and Ambition, Staff resources and capacity, Skills and Workforce Planning, Buy in from Customers and Training and development for staff and Councillors. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: Each quarter

Target Position of Risk This risk matrix shows the desired position of the risk following the completion of mitigations.

Like

liho

od

X

Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: 31/03/19


The programme is being managed via the Programme Board with resources identified to deliver year 1 and 2 of the programme.

Financial resources are set aside for the programme, but there is a requirement to identify all the staff needed over the next two years to support the projects Update 07/06/17: In May 2017 membership of the Programme Boards was revised and updated to reflect the additional roles required to deliver the various projects within the programme.

Partnerships & Organisational Development Manager

01/07/2017 Completed

Page 82

Appendix 1


Update 05/06/18: An external partner is providing assurance to the programme using experience gained from similar transformation programmes. Update: 05/07/18: Revised business case to be considered by Cabinet on 18/07/18 and Council on 24/07/18. This sets out a number of risks which will be managed as part of the programme. Update: 26/09/18: Business Case approved and implementation underway. Significant progress in all workstream areas. Staff appointed to programme roles. Programme Board meets weekly. Audit Committee reciving regular reports. Management Structure due to Cabinet on 10/10/18.

There is a risk log for the programme

SMT have ownership of all the risks and identified mitigations - completed.

Projects & Innovation Officer 15/04/2018 Completed

All risks on the Customer Connect risk log were updated during April 2018. The risks are reviewed at each Board meeting and are managed accordingly.

All risks above the line are being managed and have mitigations in place to reduce the likelihood. The Senior Responsible Owner has taken direct responsibility for managing the partnership

Partnerships & Organisational Development Manager

Reviewed weekly by the Programme Board

Page 83

Appendix 1


arrangements with Eden.


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Q1 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Mitigations updated. Q2 2018/19: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change. Mitigations updated on 26/09/18.

Risk Owner Assistant Director Performance and Innovation - Senior

Responsible Owner. Portfolio Housing & Innovation and Council Organisation and

People

Page 84

Appendix 1


Risk 16

Waste Collection – Reversing Manoeuvres Description Management of waste collection vehicle manoeuvres on recycling and waste collection rounds. There are many practical and advanced technological safety precautions in place including the following: Waste collection rounds have risk assessments and safe systems of work in place. All drivers and crews have been trained. All rounds are monitored to ensure that safe systems are adhered to. Vehicles have advanced technologies fitted e.g. reversing CCTV and sophisticated radar to assist the driver and crews manoeuvre safely Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

x Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: Each quarter when above the line of risk tolerance


Like

liho

od

X

Impact Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Target Date: 31/03/17


Maintain and keep up to date the Safe System of Work, inspections and the utilisation of risk reducing technologies.

In progress and reviewed by the Street Scene Health and Safety Working Group on a quarterly basis

Street Scene Manager Ongoing requirement

Commission specialist support to assist in the completion of a further review of vehicle movements including reversing on private drives, private roadways and narrow access highways

Update 17/11/16: Support commissioned and interim report received. Considering key actions for the service within operational health and safety plans. Completed.

Street Scene Manager 31/12/16 Completed.

Page 85

Appendix 1


Implement the priority findings of the above review

Specific Action plan has been developed to implement the findings of the review. High Priority Areas have been identified and the implementation of necessary changes commenced and planned for completion by amended due date of 31/12/17. Completed.

Street Scene Manager 31/12/17 Completed.

Implement the lower priority findings of the above review

Planned for completion by 31/12/17. Update 15/01/18: lower priority findings will now be completed by 31/03/18. Update 13/03/18: Now complete. There will be an ongoing review of all manoeuvres as part of business as usual arrangements.

Street Scene Manager 13/03/18 Completed


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates no change – work is in progress. Q3 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - All Ulverston rounds have been assessed and mitigating measures introduced. Results have been provided to the Health and Safety Committee 15th January 2018. Some lower priority areas remain pending with completion expected before end March 2018. Risk position remains the same until all reversing manoeuvres are assessed and mitigating measures have been implemented as required. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION IMPROVED - ↓ - Review indicates that risk has been reduced to the target position due to completed mitigations. Decision made not to archive risk in order to maintain awareness.

Risk Owner Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services Portfolio Environment Portfolio

Page 86

Appendix 1


Risk 17

Cyber Security incident Description There have been many high profile examples of cyber security breaches across the World and in the UK recently. The Council has effective security in place to protect data and deliver services - however threats are becoming ever more sophisticated and organisations need to be one step ahead. Cyber-attacks can cross international boundaries and may be initiated by organised criminal groups, lone individuals or be state sponsored. Cyber criminals are broadening their efforts towards UK citizens, organisations and institutions. Terrorists are conducting low-level attacks and aspire to carry out more significant acts. Examples of threats are Botnets, Distributed denial-of-service, Hacking, Malware, Pharming, Phishing, Ransomware and Spam. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

x Impact

Green zone: review annually Blue zone: manage quarterly Review Date: Quarter Four each year


Like

liho

od

x

Impact



Cyber security actions within the ICT Risk Register

Cyber security actions are on track

Shared IT Service Manager In line with cyber security due dates

Review of Insurance Mitigation added 12/10/17 Update 15/01/18: Predicted complete by 31/01/18 for insurance renewal deadline.

Financial Services Manager Deputy Section 151 Officer

31/12/17 Completed


For previous updates please see earlier versions of this risk register. RISK IDENTIFIED ● = Audit Committee of 26/07/17 suggested that the Information management risks should be split to create this separate risk for Cyber Security. Agreed on 08/08/17 by the Monitoring Officer. Q2 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - SMT review indicates likelihood very low and impact critical. Additional insurance mitigation

Page 87

Appendix 1


added. ICT maintains up to date software patches. Staff have guidance on how to keep IT Networks Secure and what to do if a virus or malware is suspected. Q4 2017/18: RISK POSITION UNCHANGED - ↔ - The risk remains very low. ICT continue to maintain security related Microsoft updates, virus software updates and follow industry best practice. Business Continuity arrangements are strengthened.

Risk Owner Assistant Director Performance and Innovation Portfolio Housing and Innovation Portfolio

Page 88

Appendix 1


Risk 18

Potential reduction in income from the disposal of recyclable materials as a consequence of market changes affected by China’s waste policy Description China has made a decision to receive only very low contaminated recycled waste. As a consequence there will be very large quantities of waste across the UK and other international countries that will not be eligible for sending to China. Without an alternative outlet for large quantities of contaminated recyclable waste the value of this waste will fall significantly. South Lakeland District Council’s waste collection approach is to separate recyclables in a way that mitigates against contamination and maintains a high quality product so may be less affected by new policy from China. The advantageous position that South Lakeland has is confirmed in a recent APSE report. However the income provided from waste recycling is significant and would have a large impact on services should it be reduced drastically. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Like

liho

od

x

Impact



Like

liho

od

X

Impact



The Council already has legally compliant, waste recycling processes in place that minimise contamination.

Complete and in place Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services

Complete and in place

The Council continues to maintain a high Ongoing Community and Leisure Manager with Ongoing

Page 89

Appendix 1


profile message to residents to avoid contamination of recyclable materials placed out for collection.

assistance from Communications Team


13/03/18: RISK IDENTIFIED ● = This risk identified by Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services and Community and Leisure Manager. Risk prepared for escalation from operational level to Senior Management Team and approved for inclusion on the Strategic Risks Register.

Risk Owner Assistant Director Neighbourhood Services Portfolio Environment Portfolio

Page 90

Appendix 1


Risk 19

Business Continuity: Flu Pandemic - Loss of people, skills and supply chain disruption Description Flu Pandemic is listed with the top three risks and rated ‘Very High’ in the Cumbria Community Risk Register. This is because the new virus would be an unknown quantity - therefore people will have no immunity and effective antivirals may not be available for six months. In addition to this all services will be affected by staff absences at a time when demand will increase on services. Planning assumptions for the reasonable worst case scenario:

Clinical attack rates of up to 50% of the population in total, spread over one or more waves each of around 12 – 15 weeks. Peak clinical attack rate Locally, 10% - 12% of population per week

Small teams within larger organisations should plan for 30-35% absenteeism in addition to usual absenteeism levels on any given day.

Staff will be absent from work if:

They are ill with flu.

They need to care for dependants who are ill with flu

They need to care for children due to school closures

They have non-flu medical problems

Their employers have advised them to stay away from work

This may be unevenly distributed throughout organisations

They will require time for dealing with personal bereavements with an increase in compassionate leave and stress

They fear becoming ill


Like

liho

od

x

Impact



Like

liho

od

x

Impact


Page 91

Appendix 1


Impact: Absenteeism levels in small teams within Large Organisations at 30-35%. Flu Pandemic would place an unprecedented demand on local authorities, Police, Coroner and undertakers. It is likely that schools would be closed causing further absences from work. It is highly likely that mutual aid would be difficult. All the above issues and many more were highlighted during the multi-agency Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise on 03/07/2018. Business Continuity was highlighted as key for meeting statutory obligations. A number of effective Business Continuity mitigations are in place - however there is an opportunity following the Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise to enhance Business Continuity Plans with mitigations learned during the exercise. Back to ‘Heat Map’


Capture and implement the recommendations and mitigations identified within the Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise report.

Awaiting Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise report.

Performance and Risk Officer Capture by 01/12/18 Implement by 31/03/20

Benchmark with Cabinet Office ‘Flu pandemic Checklist for businesses’ and include actions within Business Continuity Plans where necessary.

Benchmarking with checklist is underway

Performance and Risk Officer Necessary actions included in Business Continuity Plans by 01/12/18


13/03/18: RISK IDENTIFIED ● = This risk identified following Cumbria Flu Pandemic Exercise 3rd July 2018. Escalation agreed to the Strategic Risk Register. Risk reviewed on 16/08/18 as below risk appetite with Likelihood Low and Impact Serious. 27/09/18: Mitigations improved and updated.

Risk Owner Senior Management Team Portfolio Leader of the Council

Page 92



26 October 2018

Executive Report

Portfolio: Promoting South Lakeland Portfolio

Report from: Cllr Giles Archibald

Portfolio Responsibilities Working with partners and stakeholders in the public, private and voluntary sector, at national, regional and sub-regional level. To act as an ambassador and advocate for the Communities of South Lakeland. To represent the Council on local and other strategic partnerships including nominated representative on the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership as appropriate. The development and implementation of the Council Plan. The Council Plan objectives in relation to quality of service and high performance culture. Policies, Plans and Strategies

Council Plan (incorporating the Five Year Strategy)

Performance Management

Equality Scheme

Emergency Plan

Communications Strategy Key Areas:

Community strategy/ area planning/ development of recovery group

Emergency Planning

Performance Management

Local and Cumbria Wide Strategic Partnerships

Relationships with Government Departments and other relevant authorities at a sub-regional, regional and national level

Media and Communications

Page 93

Item No.10

Council Plan The current Council Plan is in place until 2019. A review of the Council Plan has recently taken place with Cabinet, Management Team and lead Operational Managers to discuss the Council Plans future strategic focus. The future Council Plan will run from 2019 to 2024, with updates and ammendments provided each year where appropriate. It is intended that the updated Council Plan will reflect key strategic developments and be made more user friendly for residents, stakeholders and potential investors. The draft plan will be presented at Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cabinet and presented for adoption by Council in February 2019. Community Strategy/ Area Planning and Development of the Recovery Group The Council is continuing to work closely with the Enivronment Agency (EA) as they develop and implement plans to adapt the local infrastructure to protect the communities against the increased frequency and intensity of storms resulting from climate change. The EA recently undertook a community drop in session for members and residents to attend to view the potential flood defence options to be installed across the town to protect residents and businesses from future flooding events. Following feedback from the EA the event was successful and positive feedback received. Emergency Planning South Lakeland District Council is supporting Community Resilience Groups by ensuring that they receive situational awareness information at the earliest opportunity. The Council is continuing to work with the Resilience Unit and other agencies to formalise how the multi-agency response will communicate with Community Resilience Groups. Responding agencies are currently working together to formalise the Multi-Agency Intelligence Cell (MAIC) – this will collate intelligence during an incident and will inform multi-agency responses and enhance prioritisation. Responding agencies have also worked together to provide a facility where Community Resilience Groups can upload their emergency plans and update their contact details. It is hoped that there will also be the opportunity for agency-community communication and community to community networking via this facility. Council Staff have been provided with training opportunities for key emergency roles. There will be Member’s Emergency Role training on 28 November 2018. Performance Management Throughout 2018/18 Performance Management is continuing to focus on the Council Plan measures of success to monitoring progress towards the priorities for South Lakeland. These measures continue to be reported on a quarterly basis to Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet. Local and Cumbria Wide Strategic Partnerships The Council continues to engage with the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and Cumbria County Council through a technical officers group to shape and influence policy and specific

Page 94

strategic documents. The LEP’s annual report will be avaliable to view in the near future, I will ensure a copy is circulated to all members. The Council is continuing to work jointly with Lancaster City and Barrow Borough Councils to develop the South Cumbria and Lancaster Economic Region strategy to enhance economic activity which will benefit all three districts. The Leaders have contacted all the Local MP’s to highlight the vision, outcomes and priorities that the initiative will deliver for the benefit of our residents and businesses. The authorities are currently working together to create a prospectus which can used to promote the economic region to potential investors. The prospectus will address:

Connectivity

Learning and Development

World Class Skills and Innovation

Future Development Opportunites

Business Support

Growth and Prosperity through Housing

Quality of Life Following a recent meeting, the Northern Powerhouse and Local Growth Minister Jake Berry MP, stated he wishes to discuss the plans for the Lancaster and South Cumbria Economic Region in greater detail. He also praised the three authorities for taking the initative to work collaboratively. Relationships with Government Departments and other relevant authorities at a sub-regional, regional and national level The Council has continued to raise any concerns to government offices and other relevant authorities surrounding issues that cause the district difficulties. For example as Leader, I have attended meetings in London Ulverston and Carlisle to discuss with Government, Northern Rail and Network Rail the poor quality of the rail service in the County. Following a motion at Council on 24 July 2018 the Chief Executive wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport regarding the recent failings of Local Rail Services, to gain support to prevent future distrubtion. Media and Communications The Council’s communications team continue to keep residents and other stakeholders fully informed about what the council does in a way which supports Council Plan priorities. These messages are dlievered through a variety of channels including newspapers, TV, radio, websites, social media, and other digital platforms. This ensures the Communications operation is merged with Customer Services to provide a consistent joined-up approach to how we interact with the public. Recently there has been increased level of communication around the Customer Connect Project to ensure that staff, members and residents are aware of the upcoming re-strcuture. The Council is providing a number of opportunites to communicate the changes within Customer Connect through 1:1’s, workshops, staff newsletters, various training opportunities, customer connect email address and drop in sessions with the programme board.

Page 95


Page 96



26 October 2018

Executive Report

Portfolio: Enivronment Portfolio

Report from: Cllr Dyan Jones

Portfolio Responsibilities To take the lead on Waste Management/ Recycling and relevant Council Plan measures under the environment objectives. Providing and maintaining parks infrastructure. To develop and implement a Playground Strategy. Policies, Plans and Strategies

Waste Management Strategy

Air Quality Strategy and action plan

Active Travel Strategy and action plan Key Areas:

Waste Management and Recycling

Streetscene

Community microenergy schemes

Carbon/ Greenhouse gas Reduction

Green agenda – Low carbon reduction

Public realm (Parks and open spaces, including cemeteries)

Page 97

Item No.11

Waste Management and Street Scene

The Council has have been working with Croppers, Cumbria Waste Recycling and the Westmorland County Agricultural Society to look at how coffee cups could be recycled at large events. A working group successfully delivered a trial facility at Country Fest in June 2017 and the Westmorland County Show in September 2018. The working group will continue to look at other future large-scale events where recycling facilities can be provided and continue to engage with the public about waste minimisation and recycling as a whole. The Council has installed 3 litter bins for the segregated collection of plastic and cans, alongside general litter bins, as a trial at 3 locations in Kendal. This will be for a trial period to determine how well-used the bins are, the levels of contamination in the recycling bins; and the operational infrastructure required to provide the service. Since 2015 the percentage of households with plastic and cardboard recycling has risen from 38% to 100% in 2017. In 2017 68% of residents who took part in the Quality of Life survey stated that they are satisfied with waste recycling services. The Waste Management Service is continuing to review the recycling collections and ways to introduce further recycling and effective waste management opportunities. For example the Council is currently trialling sensors in 104 litter bins that measure the fill level of the bin and collate usage data. The software builds a dataset of these usage levels to predict when a bin will be filled and require emptying. The trial has already delivered some success in reducing the number of empties required for bins in the trial area from 80 per day to around 20-25 per day. The nature of any trial is also to highlight any problems that might arise; and this technology has not previously been used in rural areas. As issues arise we are working with the manufacturer to determine the impact on our services and how solutions can be found. In-Cab Technology The Waste Management Service is continuing to work on the procurement of in-cab technology for waste and recycling collection vehicles that will help deliver improvements to customer service and offer opportunities for service efficiencies as part of the Customer Connect Project. Carbon/ Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Green Agenda Throughout 2018/19 the Council is continuing to support the Cumbria Cycling Strategy and remain involved in the Cumbria Cycling Partnership. The Council supported Cumbria County Council in the delivery of the Tour of Britain 2018 which came through the district in September. The Green Team has now been reintroduced to provide leadership in reducing effects of climate change and implement the single use plastic goal. The aim of the green team is to have the responsibility of informing, influencing and implementing actions to reduce the impacts of climate change and reduce carbon/ greenhouse gas reduction. Informative sessions for the community were held throughout the summer 2018 where suggestions were gathered from the communities. From this the Green team are currently establishing an action plan identifying the short term and long term actions the Council can undertake to help mitigate the effects of climate change. The Council was involved in producing a report “Air Quality and Public Health – Reducing Deaths and Ill Health Caused by Poor Air Quality in Lancashire and Cumbria”.

Page 98

The purpose of the report was to: improve awareness and engagement for action on air quality and understanding of everyone’s role in tackling air pollution, building on existing plans and strategies; start a conversation about the ways in which we can work together and hold each other to account for action to improve air quality; and outline potential areas for further action to reduce population exposure to air pollution. This will support the Council’s priority as identified in the Council Plan to influence and encourage others to reduce their carbon footprint as well as reducing our own levels. The Council has reduced the number of Air Quality Management Areas to one across the whole district. The Council has also steadily reduced carbon emissions to 3,488 tonnes in 2017 compared to 4,877 tonnes in 2010. The Green Team will identify actions that can be taken forward to continue the reduction of emissions such as installation of energy saving equipment on Council Assets. South Lakeland District Council are continuing to actively support the Lancaster Canal Regeneration Partnership (LCRP) ambitions to create a fully accessible, multi-user leisure route connecting Kendal and Lancaster along the route of the historic Lancaster Canal. SLDC agreed to grant fund phase one of the project via £140k LIPs grant for path improvements from the outskirts of Kendal to Natland, which is being delivered throughout 2018/19. This funding has also been used to form the basis of further investment funding via applications to Sports England, Heritage Lottery Funding, Rural Development Programme, Fells and Dales Leader, with decisions expected on each of these funding applications throughout 2018. Public Realm The Council is continuing to work with Continental Landscapes Ltd to deliver quality grounds maintenance and support to community groups. Throughout this year the Council is working towards completing various works to upgrade parks and open spaces across the district. These improvements will encourage communities to enjoy outside spaces and encourage active travel throughout the area. Most recently a toddler playground at Howe Bank re-opened following a £45,000 makeover. The works included resurfacing and the installation of new play equiptment. Following a public consultation on four parks within the Kendal area it was clear that residents felt it was important that toddlers have a play space of their own. The Council is also investing in playareas to support adults as well as children by installing Gym equipment. Recently equiptment was installed at Broadgate Meadow, Grasmere through the Locally Important Project funding (LIPs), a fundraising campaign lead by the local community with the support of the Council is currently underway to raise money for a new playground. Another achievement from the Parks and Open Spaces teams is the re-opening of Nobles Rest park following Phase 1 of the improvement works. This phase included the installation of new drainage and pathways as part of a community led enhancement project.

Trees on land owned by SLDC are managed carefully for their amenity value and using a hazard assessment process on a regular cyclical basis; with risk reduction works being carried out in a risk priority basis, where required. The council also carry out tree works to comply with the Highways Act and in the interests of good woodland management.

Page 99

SLDC endeavour to replace any trees that have to be felled with more than were removed, where possible, desirable and depending on the location.

For example in recent years we have worked with Continental Landscapes Ltd to utilise their carbon off set programme and planted whips (small trees) at Kendal Castle and other sites. Approximately 2400 tree whips and 40 standard form trees have been planted since 2015. During the same period 450 trees have been removed. We have not committed to a two for one policy of tree planting in the exact location a tree has been removed or that a standard tree will be planted, due to consideration of space and amenity of the area.

Planting is encouraged and supported on development sites that are coming on stream and where ever possible on our own land holdings, although these are not extensive and limit the opportunity for planting.

The management of our parks and open spaces needs to be balanced with a desire for woodland creation / extensive tree planting, and the team are always considering options to enhance and complement our own parks and open spaces with trees where appropriate.

Page 100




Property and Land Management Strategy 2019- 2024

Portfolio: Cllr Graham Vincent - Economy and Assets Portfolio Holder

Report from: David Sykes - Director People and Places

Report Author: Sion Thomas – Corporate Asset Manager

Wards: N/A

Forward Plan: N/A


1.1 The expected outcome is that the Property and Land Management Strategy 2018-23 delivers improved management of the Council’s property and land portfolio, maximising its contribution to the delivery of the Council’s priorities whilst aligning resource requirements with the Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Strategy.

1.2 As part of the Strategy’s development, Overview and Scrutiny consider the proposed Strategy, making any recommendation for amendment and its endorsement to Cabinet for approval.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

(1) Considers the draft Property and Land Management Strategy 2018- 2023, including the creation of a Strategic Asset Management Plan Board as detailed within the report, and

(2) Makes any recommendation for amendment to the draft Strategy and endorses the Strategy for approval at Cabinet in November 2018.


3.1.1 The current corporate property strategy needs updating in line with the Council Plan and the overall Customer Connect Strategy. Lambert Smith Hampton (current property service provider) were appointed in October 2016 and completed the asset review of the Council’s building and land estate in December 2017. The asset review is a summary of each asset and sets out what options there might be for future change and recommends a mechanism whereby future plans and programmes of work/investment can be informed and viewed collectively across the portfolio and help identify and avoid conflicts between budget expenditure.

3.1.2 The new strategy will help guide the Council on a more holistic, inclusive approach to the management of its property and land estate following on from the asset review. The overall aim is to ensure investment is prioritised in the right areas given the increasing financial pressure on Local Authorities, to ensure that the Council has a balanced estate having regard to its medium and long term commitments, to ensure

Page 101

Item No.12

that there is a sufficient governance structure in place to allow the estate to flex with ease and consistency and that the decisions are balanced between the need for capital receipts, investment and revenue income generation.

3.1.3 It is proposed that a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) board be set up which would be made up of a variety of officers across finance, procurement and assets alongside Members to give a corporate view on decisions to be taken. The SAMP board will prioritise any building/service review arising from the asset review and the commissioning of any option appraisals, ensure that the area and service reviews of accommodation are completed following the prioritisation of the assets to challenge the retention of underperforming assets, thus ensuring maximum efficiency. The board will ensure that the Council undertakes forward planning for all accommodation needs to ensure that we are planning and not reacting to any changes in the future. The board will continually review how our assets fit in with the Council’s MTFP, the new commercial strategy (which will be taken forward to Council for approval in the coming months) and the procurement strategy, will improve communication and ensure that various stakeholders (e.g. ward members) where needed are fully briefed and their views taken on board.

4.0 Consultation

4.1 The proposed strategy has been the subject of consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Economy and Assets and the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Section 151 Officer, Financial Service Manager, Chief Accountant, Senior Management Team and discussions held with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in April 2018 which helped inform the strategy.


5.1 Continue to use the existing asset management strategy. It is recommended that this should be rejected as it is felt that the existing approach to asset management does not provide a sufficiently corporate approach whether that be disposal, investment or acquisition and is not in line with the new Customer Connect strategy approved by Council in July 2018.


6.1 The proposed Property and Land Management Strategy itself focuses heavily on the Council Plan and its priorities and this is key in aligning the Council Plan with any decisions made on investment, acquisition or disposals for our property and land estate.

7.0 Implications


7.1 It is not expected that the adoption of Property and Land Management Strategy will have any direct financial, resource or procurement implications. However, the Council’s financial and procurement strategy is heavily referenced within the strategy and the approach is to have a more inclusive, corporate view of our estate ensuring that we move away from a departmental view on where investment is needed.

Human Resources

7.2 There are no additional Human Resource requirements with the adoption of the Property and Land Management Strategy. The Strategy requires the development of a stronger corporate and more holistic approach to property and land management. This will involve key personnel working differently and collaboratively through the proposed SAMP Board.

Page 102

Legal

7.3 There are no legal implications arising from the adoption of the Property and Land Management Strategy.


7.4 Have you completed a Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment? / No

7.5 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: No Health, Social, Economic and Environmental impact assessment has been undertaken as it is felt that this would be considered as and when specific key strategic decisions are taken with the assets/ estate. It is felt that this would be considered by the Strategic Asset Management Plan board (their purpose noted with the strategy) as part of any building/ project appraisal undertaken.



7.8 If you have not completed an Impact Assessment, please explain your reasons: No equality impact analysis has been undertaken as it is felt that this would be considered as and when specific key strategic decisions are taken with the assets/ estate. It is felt that this would be considered by the Strategic Asset Management Plan board (their purpose noted within the strategy) as part of any building/ project appraisal undertaken.

Risk


Loss of control on a corporate level around property and land management leading to poor decisions being made with no reference to the strategy or Council Plan.

Decisions could potentially be made departmentally and in silo form which is against the principle of Customer Connect. Staff and financial resource will potentially be expended with no overarching strategy in place to prioritise the works.

Approve the new strategy and the creation of a Strategic Asset Management Plan board to allow a more holistic approach be taken for property and land management.

Contact Officers

Sion Thomas, Property Services Contract Manager, 01539 793192 [email protected]


(delete if no appendices attached)


1 Asset Management Strategy 2018-2023


Page 103


Existing Corporate Property Strategy.

http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/s4329/Corporate%20Property%20Strategy%20-%20Appendix%201.pdf



Legal Services 04.10.19

Section 151 Officer 21.09.18

Monitoring Officer 21.09.18

SMT 11.10.19


Assistant Director 21.09.18



Leader N/A


Portfolio Holder 21.09.18


Committee N/A


Council N/A

Page 104




PROPERTY AND LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 1

Appendix 1

Page 105



Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy 2019 - 2024

Contents 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 3

2. The Purpose of an Asset Strategy ………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

3. The Estate……….................................................................................................................................. 4

4. Self Assessment................................................................................................................................. 7

5. The Property and Land Management Strategy.……........................................................................... 9

6. Conclusion and way forward........................................................................................................... 16

Page 106


1.0 Introduction

The Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy aims to support the Council’s overall vision

for the District: “Making South Lakeland the best place to live, work and explore”.

The Council Plan sets out the strategic approach to how the Council will shape delivery of the

desired outcomes. The priorities will be delivered by ensuring we are equipped to provide the best,

most cost effective services through:

- a flexible and skilled workforce

- our community leaders

- a sustainable budget

- improved customer engagement and communication.

The Council Plan details the Council’s current corporate priorities, which are:

- Economy: “Enabling and delivering opportunities for sustainable economic growth”.

- Housing: “Providing homes to meet need”.

- Environment: “Protecting and enhancing our place”.

- Culture and Wellbeing: “Improving wellbeing, reducing inequality and supporting cultural

activities”.

The Council has a long term ambition for “1000 jobs and 1000 affordable homes for rent”. A number

of major strategic reviews are currently underway including:

- Customer Connect programme to create a single view of the customer to put them at the

heart of everything we do and enable them to have better access to services at times which

are more convenient to them.

- Review of corporate assets including South Lakeland House.

- Implementation of housing alternative funding model;

- The Kendal Town Centre Masterplan;

- The Leisure Facilities Strategy and future of Ulverston Leisure Centre;

- The implementation of the Environment Agency’s Kendal Flood Relief Scheme, a major

programme which will require the engagement of the Council as owner of land, local

planning authority and as accountable body for elements of external capital funding which

may be applied in the Scheme;

- The Economic Development Strategy for South Lakeland, and the wider Morecambe Bay

functioning economic, housing, health and travel to work area. These may require changes

in current spending and funding plans. The Council is committed to working with partners

and other key stakeholders to deliver services within South Lakeland. This includes

- Formal arrangements, such as Cumbria Local Economic Partnership (LEP), Cumbria Business

Rate Pool;

- Agreed joint statement of intent of collaborative working with the Borough of Barrow in

Furness and Lancaster City Council on economic development and other related initiatives;

- Formal contractual arrangements as a result of competitive tendering;

Page 107


- Transfer of assets or management of assets between organisations;

- Sharing of premises;

- Informal collaborations.

Some shared arrangements exist for providing services within the organisation: currently South

Lakeland shares IT with Eden District Council and are jointly implementing the digital element of the

Customer Connect programme.

The Council’s assets are a common thread through these strategic reviews and with the commitment

that the Council has given these reviews above, it emphasises the need to have a new dynamic land

and property management strategy to ensure that any investment in our land/ building portfolio

take into account any financial and resourcing commitments that these reviews will need . It is also

essential that the new strategy is in line with the Customer Connect programme. Further review of

buildings will be needed following the implementation of the Customer Connect Programme.

2.0 The Purpose of a Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy

The strategy will help guide and advise the Council on land and building investment, disposals and

acquisitions. The key points are:

1. Ensuring investment is prioritised in the right areas with the ever increasing financial

pressure on Local Authorities.

2. Ensuring SLDC has a balanced estate looking at the medium and long term commitments of

the Council and in the wider context of other assets in public ownership.

3. Ensuring that there is a sufficient governance structure in place to allow the estate to flex

with ease and consistency.

4. Ensuring that the decisions achieve a balance of requirements for capital receipts,

investment and revenue income generation.

3.0 The Estate

SLDC owns a varied property portfolio that supports a wide range of service delivery throughout the

District. The portfolio has been broken down into a number of key categories as noted below.

Appendix 1 provides an overview of the number of properties divided into geographic area. Each

asset class has a different strategic direction, summarised below;

Agricultural Land

Agricultural land holdings include a range of tenancy types from short term grazing tenancies to

woodlands and leases on Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies. The strategy is to maximise the

income from land holdings and where appropriate seek to invest in land holdings where additional

income can be generated.

Allotments

Page 108


Majority are statutory allotments. Not able to move or dispose without re-provision and grant of

Secretary of State Approval. All let to local Town Councils.

Bus Shelters

Bus Shelters: Majority were passed to Town Councils in last 10 yrs. There are four remaining on

SLDC’s asset list, it is proposed to transfer the remaining four to Town Councils.

Car Parks

Car parks provide a strong and stable income stream for SLDC. The 2018 White Young Green car

parking study will support the development of an investment strategy for this asset class. Long term

investment is required for the Kendal Multi-storey car park. Other ongoing investments are

recommended in the 2017 LSH car park asset review and will be reviewed in the future.

Cemeteries

Under section 214(1) of the LGA 1972 the following Authorities are permitted to be burial

authorities: district councils, parish councils and parish meetings. Under previous service reviews no

direct approaches regarding the transfer of the management of cemeteries were received from any

parish council. Kendal Parkside Road cemetery is reaching capacity and additional land will soon be

required, this is likely to require a strategy involving adjoining allotments. Other Cemetery assets

provide opportunities for investment and alternative uses.

Depots

The strategy for the depots across the District is currently under review with the key option being

the relocation of the Kendal Canal head depot to an alternative site. The depot strategy will require

capital investment for both the primary objectives and secondary needs of infrastructure at

Ulverston and alternative site use at Kendal.

Garages

The majority of garage assets were disposed of during previous years, the residual garage assets

have little alternative commercial value and we will hold for now whilst other properties with the

estate are dealt with.

Historic Properties

The aim is to use or to maintain these assets for community benefit, for instance the monument in

Market Square Kirkby Lonsdale or the War Memorial, Ambleside. Due to their age they are often

viewed as a liability, as there may be planning restrictions on them in order to ensure they are

maintained correctly and preserved for future generations. Where appropriate, opportunities for

community use will be sought for these assets through asset transfers.

Housing General

Page 109


Limited general housing remains within the property portfolio. Town View Fields homelessness

hostel is recently refurbished and supports a service need for housing. Other assets provide a

present and future opportunity for disposal.

Housing Residual Land

Following the housing stock transfer the residual land left in the SLDC estate comprises mainly green

verges. These assets provide nominal income from crossings, with the potential for minor increase.

It is felt that there is no benefit in looking for alternate options with this type of land.

Lake Assets

This significant asset provides income from both commercial and non-commercial encroachments.

The present and ongoing strategy is to support business and leisure use of the lake for residents,

commercial operators and visitors, whilst providing an important income stream for the Council.

The asset strategy is to develop a more sustainable and predicable income flow where both the

Council and Tenants have a clear understanding concerning rental charges and development

opportunities.

Land (Housing)

Housing land opportunities across the district have been included in the recent search for land sites.

Markets

The management of Ulverston Market has been transferred to a Community Enterprise on a 5 year

agreement from August 2016. The management of Kendal Markets (indoor and outdoor) is due to be

reviewed in 2018/19 with a view to improve and strengthen the market offer in Kendal.

Miscellaneous Commercial

These assets are held for investment purposes and the strategy is to manage them in accordance

with best practice for investment assets; maintaining and growing the asset value through

appropriate investment and enhancement, tenant management, rent and lease management.

Where appropriate additional assets will be purchased and developed to enhance the commercial

revenue to support general fund requirements.

Mowing and Grazing Land

These land asset have been reviewed to consider alternative uses. It is considered that there are

longer term opportunities for future housing land supply and therefore should be held for long term

future benefits.

Outdoor Centre and Leisure Centres

Ulverston Leisure Centre is currently under review for investment with capital support from both the

operator, local businesses and Sports England. Kendal Leisure Centre is expected to require

significant investment in the medium to long term as the asset infrastructure reaches the end of its

technical and economic life.

Page 110


Parks and Woods

These assets are held for recreation purposes and there is no strategy for changing the use or

management arrangements. The Council will consider opportunities for local parish and town

councils to take on the ownership and management of these assets where there is an appetite to do

so.

Public Offices

The requirement for office accommodation is currently under review as part of the Customer

Connect Programme. This is expected to result in a reduction in the traditional office

accommodation as the Council moves to new ways of working and changes its means of interacting

with the public in the delivery of services. The current review is expected to result in the proposal to

reduce the footprint of the Council at South Lakeland House, providing opportunities for letting

surplus space.

Recreational Land

This land is held for the long term recreation of the residents and visitors to the District.

Toilets

These have been transferred to Parish Councils to manage.

Retail Properties

The Council holds a limited retail portfolio of four properties. The strategy is to manage the assets in

line with best practice with investment in Finkle St to increase revenue streams and improve the

capital value, further opportunities will be considered with these type of properties whether that be

invest and hold or invest and dispose.

Trading and Industrial

The Council holds a limited trading and Industrial portfolio of two estates. The strategy is to manage

the assets in line with best practice. Options are being considered which includes the expansion of

accommodation where the opportunities present themselves or potential disposal if Capital receipts

support investment in other key areas.

4.0 Self-Assessment

It is important as part of the new Strategy to look at how we do things and where we are now to

understand what our strengths are and where we can improve.

Where are we now?

Responsibility for the management of the District Council’s building’s falls to the Director People and

Places. The Director is supported by the Assistant Director Strategic Development and the Property

Services Contract manager. The Property Services Contract manager takes the lead on all asset

management related issues.

Page 111


The Council awarded the contract to undertake its property services function to Lambert Smith

Hampton (LSH) in October 2016 on a 5 year plus 5 year contract. In essence, LSH deal with all estate

related matters such as lease renewals, lake encroachments, licences and general estate enquiries

through their estate surveying department and all building services, reactive and planned

maintenance works through the building surveying department. The new contract with LSH also

means that we can utilise the property professionals that not only work out of LSH’s Staveley office

but across the UK ensuring that we have access to some of the leading property professionals in the

field. LSH have recently completed the Asset review which gives oversight of each of our assets and

sets out the potential (if any) for each asset.

The District Council has a good understanding of the importance and potential that property can

contribute for both the Council and the people it serves. It also recognises that as a holder of public

assets, it is often in a key position to influence and stimulate change and improvement. For example,

this should be noted when taking into account the Kendal Town Centre Masterplan being drafted by

Aecom on behalf of the Council and the role that the Council can play in the flood development

works to be undertaken throughout Kendal by the Environment Agency.

SLDC has a strong track record of using its surplus assets to help deliver and facilitate the provision

of affordable housing using disposal and the capital receipt programme. This is a key Council priority

and further work has been undertaken to identify surplus assets that could be used and disposed of

for affordable housing. In disposing of assets at an undervalue in order to achieve a policy objective,

SLDC is governed by The Local Government Act 1972 section 123 and 127, and S25 of the Local

Government Act 1988 with regard this matter.

Whole building life cycle asset management is understood but should be utilised further ensuring

that the council’s asset management software is fully utilised. It is recognised that effective asset

management is not just about delivering single projects. The future life cycle of each building should

be known for 25 years in the future so we are confident of its future repair, maintenance and costs

in use and can be more certain with regards long term planning. Work is currently ongoing in this

area.

Audits of all operational buildings are currently underway to ensure that service information from

the previous property service provider is accurate and following the audit, all service contracts will

be tendered and contracts renewed in this financial year. Work is ongoing with the Council asset

management software provider to ensure that the software is up to date and compatible with the

changes to be brought in with Customer Connect. The new software will help streamline the use of

asset management information. Condition surveys will be completed of all operational buildings in

the 2018/ 19 financial year ensuring that the Council has a 25 year forecast for all operational

buildings. The Health and Safety department is working closely with the facilities manager and

Lambert Smith Hampton to ensure that regular workplace inspections and contractor inspections

are undertaken on day to day and capital projects.

The Council recognises that it must look at how it can engage more fully and openly with other

public asset holders, the public through Council ward members and other organisations. We

understand that the asset management needs to become more joined up and be more corporate in

Page 112


its view and dealings. It will be important to work with a variety of key service areas such as

economic development, finance, procurement, planning strategy and IT to ensure that a wider

approach is taken to ensure that decisions are not blinkered. It is important that further work is

done to ensure that we engage more with our stakeholders who include, ward councillors for the

District Council, Town and Parish Councils, Kendal Futures, Kendal BID and key employers in the

area. It is also important with the emergence of the economic partnership between Lancaster City

Council, Barrow Borough Council and SLDC around Morecambe Bay, that the asset management

departments work closely in line with the One Public Estate ethos.

The Council is currently reviewing its service delivery process through the Customer Connect

programme to create a single view of the customer and enable them to have better access to

services at times which are more convenient to them. This is the time to consolidate SLDC’s assets

and provide a clear strategic approach to asset management.

The Council’s financial position as set out in the Medium Term Financial Plan is as follows: ‘Overall

the Council’s financial position remains strong as shown by the adequate General Fund balances and

reserves, robust financial management processes and an excellent track record in achieving

efficiency savings.’ MTFP 2018. The work on the Property and Land Management Strategy

complements the MTFP and will need to focus on the key projects and prioritise the potential future

capital investment in order for the Council to decide which projects are to be taken forward.

Areas for improvement

Assets are still often viewed as being held departmentally by service providers and this creates a

degree of silo mentality rather than a more corporate approach that will be required much more in

the future and should come easier to us with the introduction of Customer Connect and the move

away from a traditional departmental structure. This in turn will lead to a more strategic approach

with our assets.

Despite planned investment, and a strong capital investment programme, there is still work required

to fully understand the maintenance requirements over a 25 year period of all our buildings. A full

cycle of condition surveys are currently outstanding and is to be addressed in the 2018/19 financial

year.

5.0 The Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy.

SLDC have moved to a position in the last 2 years where it acknowledges that there must be an

ongoing review of its assets to establish whether it has the property assets it needs now and in the

future to meet the requirements of itself and others. It is moving away from the more traditional

position of separate department silo consideration of property assets, and in new initiatives such as

Customer Connect a much more joined up approach and corporate view is taken.

With the ever present pressure on finances faced by the Council and because of the cost to run and

maintain the estate, efficiencies need to be sought to ensure that property is used intensively or

costs to run are reduced through a variety of methods. The challenge for this Council, and the

corporate management team in conjunction with the property services contract manager, is to find

Page 113


ways of working assets harder, whilst maintaining or creating an environment in which better

services for the public can be delivered.

The strategy to make our assets work harder is:

- To provide greater challenge to their use based on new ways of working and new ways of

delivering services, especially on the back of technological change and the new ways of

working to be brought about by Customer Connect. This will lead to the building being used

to maximum potential, surplus space to be leased out to other organisation/ partners.

- To explore the relationship between the District Council’s assets and other public sector

organisations (One Public Estate), within the same geographical area.

- To challenge services through a proposed Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) board

(noted below) on ways to increase efficiency through new ways of working, using alternate

means to deliver services. An example of this would be the service process review being

undertaken currently as part of Customer Connect.

- To ensure that the buildings are performing to the highest possible standard from an energy

management viewpoint. Look at the potential for Building Management Systems to be

introduced to reduce energy use and drive revenue savings. Where buildings clearly have a

life span of 10 years or more and are unlikely to be declared surplus the Council shall

undertake an energy management audit on the property looking at fabric improvement and

renewable energy technologies.

- To create a clearer and easier governance process to dispose of assets quickly or to other

social enterprises as and when the buildings are declared surplus and to acquire assets

where they meet with the Council plan and provide a revenue stream for the Council.

Finance Strategy

The corporate property and land management strategy must work alongside the Council’s Medium

Term Financial Plan (MTFP). This is a rolling 5-year plan that takes into account:

- The external financial environment.

- The overall financial demands of services.

- The Council’s existing and projected financial resources.

- The Council’s priorities and stated aims in the Council Plan.

- The major service strategies and plans.

The MTFP was last approved in July 2018 and sets the context for the 2019/20 budget setting

process. ‘In common with all the public sector, the medium term outlook for the Council is extremely

challenging and in order to protect and improve services an ambitious and on-going programme of

savings is key to success. The Council has a good track record for reacting promptly to changes in the

financial situation and delivering a longer term approach to savings.’ MTFP 2018.

The Council’s financial strategy is:

Page 114


- Balanced budgets: Maintain a balanced budget position, and to set a medium term financial

plan maintaining and strengthening that position

- Five year budgets: the Council sets budgets for a five year period.

- Strong financial management: The Council controls and monitors the actual position of the

authority on a regular basis setting out actions to correct any emerging issues;

- Understanding of key cost-drivers: The Council analyses and reviews the key elements of the

service areas including the use of benchmarking;

- Asset maintenance: the Capital Programme should ensure adequate programmes of

maintenance to sustain values of key assets, especially income-generating assets.

- Legal transactions: the approval and adoption of the Council’s Constitution, particularly the

Budget and Policy Framework, Financial Procedure Rules and the Contract Procedure Rules set

foundations for ensuring legal transactions alongside the whole system of internal control

reviewed annually in the Annual Governance Statement.

- Affordable investment; to undertake a prudent level of capital investment to meet the

Council’s strategic priorities and remain within prudential borrowing limits

- Maximise resource base; the Council will ensure the best use of physical and other assets

including staff time;

-Value for money; Continuous review of budgets to ensure resources are targeted on key

objectives and deliver value for money to local taxpayers.

-Working with others: to ensure all services are delivered by the most appropriate body. This

may require the Council to work in partnership or to facilitate provision by other bodies.

- Minimise financial risk including holding reserves as appropriate and sustainable levels of debt.

The Council’s MTFP sets out the approach to setting out the Capital Programme which this asset

strategy will adopt:

1. A longer-term view will be taken of spending needs to balance priorities and resources more

evenly over the life of the capital programme. The Council’s property advisors will be consulted as to

the on-going maintenance programme with the aim being to develop a 10 year programme for

recurring capital costs.

2. Bids for new initiatives which recover the investment in a 5 year period will be prioritised. Capital

Bid documents will be required prior to a scheme being accepted as part of the Capital Programme.

These are to be signed-off by the relevant Portfolio Holder and will be prioritised by Members as

part of developing the 2020/21 to 2023/24 Capital Programme. Bids will be considered alongside

future expected spend on major projects, as indicated in the capital programme.

3. Schemes which attract external funding should be considered in the light of capacity to deliver

these and need to be prioritised with reference to the Council Plan.

4. Existing schemes within the programme will also be reviewed with reference to their progress and

any external funding restrictions.

5. Capital receipts will only be committed once they have been received. Although there are known

sources of capital receipts (e.g. South Lakes Housing VAT Shelter/Right to Buy receipts), future

aspirations will take into account the resources required to support unavoidable recurring costs.

Page 115


This is a strategic approach to capital investment, and a long term approach is essential to help

manage the Council’s assets and finances. Appendix 2 sets out how any Capital Investment is

prioritised and scored. This prioritisation and scoring relates to all Capital investment bids and is

used to determine where Capital investment will be directed. It is essential that there is joint

collaboration between the property services team and finance.

Capital Strategy

The recently revised Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities 2017 requires local authorities to produce a Capital Strategy that gives a clear and concise view of how a local authority determines its priorities for capital investment, decides how much it can afford to borrow and sets its risk appetite. The Capital Strategy will encompass all forms of capital investment, not just land and property, but the Property and Land Management Strategy will contribute significantly to the overall Capital Strategy. The Capital Strategy is a new requirement and will be brought to Members for approval as part of the budget setting process. Procurement Strategy

The Strategy provides a framework for a strategic approach to procurement throughout the Council.

It emphasises the importance of procurement decisions. It is designed to ensure compliance with

existing procurement legislation, predominantly the EU Procurement Directives, and reflects all

related legislation and national policy drivers including the Social Value Act, Localism Act, advances

in Equalities legislation, National Procurement Strategy, Transformational Government Agenda, the

‘Roots’ Review and the Sustainable Task Force’s Report ‘Procuring the Future’.

The importance of sustainable procurement is emphasised; using procurement to support wider social, economic and environmental objectives in a way that offers real long term benefits. The Strategy is constructed to highlight our commitment to a more sustainable district, and to enable us to demonstrate improvement in delivering sustainable outcomes through effective procurement practices.

Ultimately the Strategy paves the way for the Council’s contribution to the broader public procurement landscape – one which promotes the needs of the South Lakeland community, fosters innovation and efficiency, and uses procurement to develop and shape the local economy. Intelligent procurement is vital not only in improving the quality and cost effectiveness of services

across the district, but in demonstrating the type of authority the Council wants to be and shaping

how we are perceived by our stakeholders. Any decisions on the asset portfolio needs to involve

procurement from an early stage, for instance, through the procurement schedule for capital

programme delivery. It is essential that there is joint collaboration between the property services

team and the procurement team to ensure a successful delivery plan/ programme that can be

achieved with adequate resources in place.

Energy Saving Strategy

With the ever growing concern around global warming and the very real threat this brings, the

Council, as well as all Councils, businesses and individuals, has a big part to play to in trying to make

a difference. The Council promises to reduce the Council’s carbon emissions by reducing our energy

use, through the efficient management of our land and buildings and be an exemplar to others. The

Page 116


potential impacts of climate change need to be understood for the entire life cycles of all of SLDC’s

property and land assets. Opportunities for each asset should be understood where the asset has a

greater service life of 10 years plus. For each asset, the new strategy will include:

1. Undertaking a comprehensive energy audit which includes:

- Assessing energy usage over a series of years and where data exists, analyse energy usage by

facility and by site management activities / staffing / public use, broken down into

heating/hot water, electricity and lighting. This will enable an understanding of which

activities/facilities are high/low energy users and on a per capita basis for staff / members of

the public.

- Assessing performance of building envelopes (thermal insulation, building tightness, surface

and orientation of the glazed surfaces etc.);

- Assessing behaviour (how the buildings are used and how visitors and staff interact with the

building on a day-to-day basis);

- Assessing efficiency of the existing technical installations and evaluating any existing or

potential energy management systems; quality of the regulation and maintenance of the

technical installations (are the technical installations managed and maintained in such a way

as to maximise their efficiency and minimise their overall usage?);

- Assessing ability to benefit from heat gains in the winter and limit them in the summer.

- Assessing ability to benefit from natural lighting;

- Determine efficiency of electrical appliances and lighting.

- Determine potential for installing automating systems for smart energy management

2. Undertake a renewable energy audit which includes:

Using the findings from the energy audit on energy usage, advising on appropriate

renewable energy system deployment and locations across the SLDC estate. Any work on

SLDC’s estate should be in conjunction with the Council’s upcoming carbon reduction

strategy and works being undertaken by the newly formed Green team.

Whilst any Capital investment is considered on our property and land, energy management must be

a key consideration.

The current asset review and future governance

A thorough property review has been completed in December 2017 to get a good understanding of

the land and building portfolio with suggestions to be considered/ taken forward. It is imperative to

have a full understanding of the estate and the role each asset plays within the Council. It is

important to note that historically any reviews completed have stood still in time. The asset review

completed in December 2017 will be reviewed annually and updated as needed to ensure that the

review is ever in the present and not stagnant. This will allow decisions to be made with real time

information.

The asset review is:

• A summary of each asset and what options there might be for future change.

Page 117


• A mechanism whereby future plans and programmes of work/investment can be informed and viewed collectively across the portfolio.

• Meant to work alongside the asset data base, not replace it. • It helps to identify and avoid conflicts between budget expenditure.

It is not:

• It is not meant to replace or replicate data stored in the asset management database. • It is not a full business case for each property, but rather a headline summary of what

could be. • In some cases this review has gone beyond the headline, and looked in more depth at

options & possibilities.

A more strategic approach to management of the Council’s assets requires governance

arrangements that reflects the corporate nature of this work. It is proposed that a new Strategic

Assessment Management Plan (SAMP) board is set up to deal with any decisions to take forward to

Senior Management Team and Cabinet and to work alongside the forthcoming Capital Investment

Strategy and MTFP.

Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) board.

As part of the new strategy, the Council following approval of the strategy will establish a Strategic

Asset Management Plan board with the initial membership of the following members and officers:

- Portfolio Holder for Economy and Assets

- Portfolio Holder for Housing, People and Innovation

- Portfolio Holder for Finance

- Assistant Director Strategic Development

- Community and Leisure Manager

- Property Services Contract Manager

- Financial Services Manager

- Procurement and Contracts Manager

- Lambert Smith Hampton (Director Level).

The following sets out how the SAMP board fits into the overall governance structure of the Council and the role the board will play in property and land management Appendix 3. It is important to note that if the Council does approve the strategy and therefore SAMP board, the Council is confirming its intention to take a more strategic approach to the management of its property estate and that this cannot be undertaken in isolation by the property services department. This will allow a more holistic approach to asset management.

- Step 1. Council Policy is set by Cabinet on utilisation of the Property assets and service

requirements.

- Step 2. Council Policy translated into business strategy by Senior Management team.

Page 118


- Step3. The business strategy is converted into implementation plans with options

commissioned and reviewed by the SAMP board. This step is key to ensuring that the right

projects are reviewed at the right times. It is important that the SAMP board has a 10 year

plus view of the property and land assets and knows what the significant spend profiles are

likely to be so that the SAMP board can plan adequately and utilise staff resources wisely.

Any request for Capital Investment outside of the normal planned and reactive maintenance

fund should be fed into the SAMP board for review and prioritisation.

- Step 4. Options appraisal set by the SAMP board to be undertaken through the Property

Services Contract manager and LSH in conjunction with the service area affected. This means

that a corporate view is taken on what feasibility to undertake and when, and the feasibility

is a joint study with the service area so that it’s clear and transparent to all.

- Step 5. Options appraisal considered and reviewed by the SAMP panel and decision to be

taken as to whether to recommend to SMT and Cabinet for approval. Early involvement

from finance and procurement colleagues will provide greater clarity on what can be taken

forward based on existing commitments and financial pressures. Resourcing will also be

major consideration.

- Step 6. Options appraisal closed down if not taken forward or report produced for SMT and taken forward to Cabinet for authorisation and sign off. New governance arrangements put forward by the new SAMP board to simplify this process to allow for acquisitions where the acquisition meets with the Council plan and MTFP or disposals where the building / land has been declared surplus and will unlock capital for investment elsewhere.

The SAMP board will meet every 6 months and will be responsible for:

- Prioritising any building/ service review following the asset review and commissioning an

options appraisal. This will be from an officer and member viewpoint ensuring the reviews

are prioritised as needed from an operational and political level. Ensuring that resources are

not stretched and that any review is focused and agreed by all members of the SAMP board.

- Ensuring that the area and service reviews of accommodation are completed following the

prioritisation of the assets to challenge the retention of underperforming assets. This is to

ensure that we maximise efficiency.

- Forward planning of overall accommodation needs, space planning and move management

to ensure that we are planning and not reacting to any changes.

- Provide recommendation to Senior Management team on Capital Growth Bids received

annually and to determine if the Growth bid fits in with the asset strategy and future use of

the site following the prioritisation scoring matrix noted in the previous section. Growth

bids to be ranked by the SAMP and in line with capital funding available. Ensure that time is

spent on bids that meet with the Council priorities.

- Continuous review of how the asset and its future operation fits in with the Council’s MTFP

and procurement strategy.

- To work with Legal and Section 151 officer to prepare a new governance arrangement so

that the Council can acquire/ dispose and lease our portfolio easier, quicker and simpler to

Page 119


reduce unnecessary processes. This is to ensure that assets do not stagnate, that we are

able to seize the moment and make the right decisions at the right time.

- Improve communication between the SAMP board and relevant stakeholders such as Ward

members. To provide relevant members with a toolkit for liaising with the community,

whether that be through a short briefing note, creation of survey that the ward member can

undertake with constituents to allow the SAMP board to understand a range of views from

the public, or a formal briefing session for ward members where the work will affect their

area. This will allow key issues to be dealt with and reviewed as needed.

- Ensuring the property portfolio can assist where possible to enable SLDC to meet the

Localism agenda as the community requires.

- Work with the Morecambe Bay Partnership and other authorities, services to ensure that

SLDC work within the One Public estate ethos ensuring that buildings are used efficiently.

6.0 Conclusions and Way Forward

1. With the new approach proposed above, the Council will link its Council priorities into the

property and land strategy such as housing delivery, carbon reduction, economic

development, health and well-being.

2. The new way of working will lead to a more informed and corporate view of SLDC’s property

and land portfolio and we will move away from a silo approach.

3. The new way of working proposed will encourage collaborative working and importantly

close links through the SAMP board maintained with finance and other stakeholders to

ensure consideration given to MTFP on any future decision on assets. This will allow

resources to be used effectively and time spent in the right areas at the right time.

4. The time is right, following the asset review in December 2017 and with the increased

intensity of the Customer Connect programme, to move to a more strategic approach to

asset management, which will be achieved through preparation and implementation of the

plan.

5. The governance arrangements will provide a more streamline process to speed up processes

and to remove unnecessary bureaucracy and allow the Council to work in a more

responsive, agile and effective way.

Page 120


Page 121


Appendix 1

Central Lakes LAP Grange & Cartmel LAP High Furness LAP Kend

al LAP

Low Furness

& Ulverston LAP

Sedbergh & Kirkby Lonsdale LAP

South Westmorland LAP

Upper Kent LAP

Categories

Ambleside & Grasmere

Bowness & Windermere

Cark

Flookburgh

Grange

Broughton

Consiton

Kendal

Ulverston

Sedbergh

Kirkby Lonsdale

Arnside

Milnthorpe

Staveley

Historic 3 1 1 7 1 3 16

Public Hall

1 1 2

Offices 2 2 1 5

Housing 1 2 3

Depots 2 2 2 2 7

Industrial Estates

1 1 1 3

Market 1 2 1 1 5

Store 2 1 1 4

TIC 1 1

Misc Commercial

1 4 2 15 6 2 30

Cemetery 2 3 1 4 2 1 1 14

Public Convenience

1 1 1 2 1 1 7

Leisure & Sports

4 9 1 8 8 6 1 37

Car Parks 7 8 5 12 7 1 3 2 1 46

Affordable Housing

1 2 2 5

Lake 1 5 6

Page 122


Appendix 2 Ref: Weighting Criteria Score

30 STRATEGIC

A 9 Policy outcome dependency for Economic Council priority - Enabling and delivering opportunities for sustainable economic growth.

No (0), Yes (8), Essential to delivery (9)

B 9 Policy outcome dependency for Housing Council priority - Providing homes to meet need.


C 6 Policy outcome dependency for Environment Council priority - Protecting and enhancing our place’


D 6 Policy outcome dependency for Culture and Wellbeing - Improving wellbeing, reducing inequality and supporting cultural activities.


0 Does the scheme impact on rurality, age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, marriage or civil partnership

Positive impact (+5), negative impact (-5), no impact (0)

25 RISK MANAGEMENT / CONTINUITY OF SERVICE

E 5 Is the scheme consistent with the Property Asset Review? No (0), Yes (5)

F 10 Urgency of investment in order to meet statutory obligations (e.g Disability Discrimination Act, Health & Safety, Security)

Urgent : Year 1 (10), Year 2 (7), Year 3 (5), 4-5 Years (4), 6-10 Years (3), 11 + Years (2), Later Years (0)

G 10 Addressing future business continuity Yes (10); no (0)

5 PROMOTES PARTNERSHIP / LOCALISM

H 5 External 'partnership' and Localism benefits with public, private or voluntary sector

No (0), Yes (5)

40 FINANCIAL

I 20 Spend to Save Initiative - produces revenue savings / additional income Annual net savings per year as % of cost; 1 mark for every 1% to a max of 20 marks for 20% and above.

J 10 Is part funded from externally generated resources (e.g. grants). 0-19% 5 points, greater than this 10 points.

K 10 Maximises external funding eg NHB and Retained Business Rates? No (0), Yes (10)

Total 100

Page 123


Appendix 3

Page 124




Cabinet

Wednesday, 28 November 2018

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy

Portfolio: Councillor Giles Archibald - Leader of the Council


Report Author: James McEvoy – Partnerships and Community Project Officer

Wards: (All Wards);

Forward Plan: Budget and Policy Framework Decision included in the Forward Plan as published on 10 August 2018.


1.1 The expected outcome is that the draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy 2019-22 will be recommended for adoption by Council. The Strategy will set new EDI objectives to improve accessibility and inclusivity at SLDC in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:-

(1) Consider the draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-22 for commenting upon and making any recommendation to Cabinet;

(2) Subject to consideration of any comments from Overview and Scrutiny Committee, it is recommended that Cabinet recommend that Council adopts the draft South Lakeland EDI Strategy 2019-22 to replace the existing Equality Scheme within the Council’s Policy Framework;


3.1 The draft South Lakeland District Council EDI Strategy 2019-22 (enclosed as Appendix 1 to this report) sets out how South Lakeland District Council (the Council) is meeting the requirements of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. This includes setting out specific equality objectives, as well as containing useful statistics about our communities to illustrate the different needs of people in South Lakeland.

3.2 The Council first adopted an Equality Scheme in 2006. Since then there have been various revisions to ensure the scheme meets current legislation.

Page 125

Item No.13

3.3 The Council last updated its Equality Scheme and published objectives in 2016. The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011, provides that public bodies must publish equality objectives at least every four years. For this reason, and to be in line with the Customer Connect Programme changes, it is proposed that new equality objectives for 2019-2022 are recommended for adoption.

3.4 The draft EDI Strategy includes definitions of the terms Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion. It is recommended to adopt this updated terminology into the title of the new document, and for this document to supersede the current Equality Scheme 2016-19 which sits within the Council’s Policy Framework.

3.5 It is proposed that the draft EDI Strategy will have its performance reviewed annually by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. This will make it a dynamic document allowing responses to emerging needs, such as changing population or rates of digital inclusion.

4.0 Consultation

4.1 An earlier draft EDI Strategy has been taken to the South Lakeland Equality and Diversity Partnership which is composed of interested representatives from the public and voluntary sectors around EDI.

4.2. Any comments from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be reported to the Cabinet Meeting of 28 November 2018.


5.1 No credible alternative to publishing new equality objectives to comply with the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011. The consequences of not approving new objectives would be the increased risk of legal challenge.


6.1 This policy update is a policy framework decision that supports good performance with the Council Plan.

6.2 The draft EDI Strategy 2019-22 links to the health and well-being section of the Council Plan.

7.0 Implications


7.1 The financial implication for the draft EDI Strategy objective 2 action ‘promote the installation of Changing Places facilities in the community and incorporate where we can within our own buildings’. This may be partly accommodated within a capital budget of £50k in 2018/19 identified for Disabled Toilet Improvements and further growth may be required for additional identified funding.

7.2 The financial implications for other EDI Strategy objectives will be included within business as usual or accommodated by existing resources. If additional growth is identified this will be considered in future budgets.

Human Resources

7.2 Employee equality statistics, titled Workplace Profile, are published on the website as part of the public sector equality duty. A link to the statistics is provided in the draft EDI Strategy 2019-22.

Legal

7.3 By producing and publishing an EDI Strategy with objectives, the Council will comply with the general equality duty and the public sector equality duty as set out in the Equality Act 2010.

Page 126


7.4 A Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment has been completed and attached at appendix 2.

7.5 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts: more accessible and inclusive working environment at SLDC, improved digital accessibility for communications using digital services, EDI training opportunities for all SLDC employees and members.


7.7 An Equality Impact Analysis has not been completed because by its very nature the EDI Strategy is drafted with a view to having a positive impact on equality and diversity.

Risk


Draft EDI Strategy not recommended for adoption so new equality objectives not adopted.

Risk of external legal challenge, not meeting a statutory requirement and potential impact on the Council’s reputation.

EDI Strategy is implemented, managed and monitored.

Contact Officers

James McEvoy, Partnerships and Community Project Officer, 01539 793424, [email protected]



1 Draft South Lakeland District Council Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019-2022

2 Health, Social, Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment



South Lakeland District Council Equality Scheme 2016-19

http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2902






CMT 11/10/2018



Human Resources Manager 01/10/2018

Communications Team 01/10/2018

Leader 09/10/2018


Page 127





Portfolio Holder 09/10/2018


Committee 26/10/2018


Council 18/12/2018

Page 128

South Lakeland District Council: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019 – 2022

Appendix 1

Page 129

Contents South Lakeland District Council: Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2019 – 2022 ........... 1

1. Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy ................................................................ 3

Protected Characteristics .................................................................................................... 3

EDI Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 4

Objective 1 – Make our services accessible to all ............................................................... 4

Objective 2 – Make our buildings accessible to all .............................................................. 4

Objective 3 – Become more inclusive ................................................................................. 4

Objective 4 – Improve our understanding of EDI ................................................................. 4

2. South Lakeland in figures ................................................................................................ 6

Age ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Disability ............................................................................................................................. 6

Race ................................................................................................................................... 6

Religion and Belief .............................................................................................................. 7

Gender ................................................................................................................................ 7

SLDC Employee and Member information .......................................................................... 7

Contact us .............................................................................................................................. 8

Page 130

1. Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy We define ‘Equality’ as treating all people fairly. We aim to create an environment where everyone can participate and has an equal opportunity to fulfil their potential.

We define ‘Diversity’ as recognising that everyone is different, whether these differences are visible or non-visible. We will respect, value and celebrate these differences.

We define ‘Inclusion’ as developing approaches to make all people feel welcomed and valued in South Lakeland. We will proactively challenge discrimination and exclusion and eliminate barriers.

South Lakeland District Council (SLDC), in line with the Equality Act (2010), will:

• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.

• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

• Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

This EDI Strategy will be reviewed annually by the SLDC Overview and Scrutiny Committee to measure our performance against the EDI objectives.

Protected Characteristics • Age • Disability • Gender reassignment • Marriage and civil partnership • Pregnancy and maternity • Race • Religion or belief • Sex • Sexual orientation

We also include “rurality” and “socio-economic disadvantage” as additional categories. Although socio-economic status and rurality are not recognised protected characteristics under the Equality Act, people on low incomes or in rural isolation are highly likely to be affected by services that are intended to support vulnerable people.

More information about the Protected Characteristics can be found on the Equality and Human Rights Commission website:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

Page 131

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

EDI Objectives Objective 1 – Make our services accessible to all We will improve our digital accessibility while maintaining alternative channels to accommodate customer needs.

How will we achieve this? • create a Digital Accessibility Policy – this will include roll-out of staff training, integrating

digital accessibility into procurement exercises, conforming to web accessibility framework standards, and providing assistive technology to internal and external customers as required;

• include accessibility in our Digital Strategy; and • consultation with customers – including groups representing Protected Characteristics -

throughout Customer Connect service re-design, and maintaining customer feedback group following the programme finish in 2020.

Objective 2 – Make our buildings accessible to all We will improve the physical accessibility of our buildings.

How will we achieve this? • complete and publish an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Places project in the

Customer Connect programme; • consult with customers and staff - including groups representing Protected Characteristics –

on potential works on our buildings and make necessary changes to improve accessibility through the Customer Connect Programme;

• provide assistive technology to internal and external customers as required; and • promote the installation of Changing Places facilities in the community and incorporate

where we can within our own public buildings.

Objective 3 – Become more inclusive We will support a diverse workforce and continuously aim to improve our inclusive environment for customers, staff and members.

How will we achieve this? • complete and publish EIA for the People project in the Customer Connect programme; • provide assistive technology as reasonable adjustments to internal and external customers

as required; and • maintain Disability Confident Employer status

Objective 4 – Improve our understanding of EDI We will improve the gathering and use of EDI data on customers, staff and members, to better integrate EDI into our decision making and we will promote awareness of EDI issues.

How will we achieve this? • maintain consultation list of EDI contacts with annual review to update; • include EDI monitoring in Quality of Life and Staff Satisfaction Questionnaires; • produce EIAs for all relevant decisions and key policies (e.g. Council Plan, Local Plan) and

publish these on our website. • train all staff and members on understanding EDI and best practice for EIAs; and

Page 132

• publish workplace profile and gender pay gap reports annually on our website. • implement EDI communications plan to promote key dates and events from national and

local calendar. • look to participate in and support projects and partnerships focusing on advancing EDI. • promote EDI in our partnership working, and include EDI requirements in our procurement

processes.

Page 133

2. South Lakeland in figures The below data is the most up-to-date available at District level. Data is not available to breakdown population statisitcs for all Protected Characteristics.

Population - In mid-2017 South Lakeland’s resident population was estimated to be 104,3211. In 2016 18 million visitors came to South Lakeland, of which 85% were day trippers and 15% were staying visitors2.

Over the last ten years the population of the district has increased by 355 residents1.

Age In mid-2017 it was estimated that 13.8% of the population of South Lakeland are aged 0-14 years of age, 58.5% are 15-64 years of age, and 27.7% are aged over 651.

Children and young people It is projected that numbers of 0-14 year olds in South Lakeland will decrease from 2017 onwards to 20411. Between 2017 and 2041, the number of young people aged 0-14 is forecast to fall by 12.0%1.

Working age In South Lakeland the number of 15-64 year olds are projected to decrease by 8,400 (-14%) to 20411.

South Lakeland has the lowest proportion of young and working age people in the county and both are in decline. Since mid-2007 the greatest percentage decrease occurred in the 30-44 age groups (-23.9%)1.

Older people In South Lakeland numbers of residents aged 65+ are projected to increase by 8,300 persons (+28.4%) to 2041.

Since mid-2007 the greatest percentage increase occurred in the 90+ age group (+140%)1.

Disability 18.8% of the population have a long-term health problem or disability, while 4.6% describe their general health as bad or very bad3.

Race 95.6% of South Lakeland residents are White British, 2.8% are White Other, 0.6% are mixed race, 0.8% are Asian, 0.2% are Black, and 0.1% are from other ethnic groups4.

Of Cumbria’s six districts, South Lakeland has the second highest proportion of residents from BAME groups (4.4%).

1 Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2 STEAM Research 3 www.localhealth.org.uk/assets/Documents/Metadata_July2014.pdf

4Census 2011

Page 134

http://www.localhealth.org.uk/assets/Documents/Metadata_July2014.pdf

Religion and Belief 68% of residents are Christian, 23% have no religion. 0.4% are Buddhist, 0.2% are Muslim, 0.1% are Hindu, 0.1% are Jewish and 0.4% are members of other religionsError! Bookmark not defined..

Gender 49% of residents are male, 51% are female1.

There is a gender pay imbalance in South Lakeland, the median gross weekly earnings of a male in full time employment is £579, whereas for a female in full time employment the figure is £4792.

SLDC Employee and Member information As of 1 April 2017, SLDC employs 422 staff and has 51 councillors. The workplace profile on our website highlights the employee profile of SLDC compared with South Lakeland as a district:

https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/equality-and-diversity/our-workforce-profile/

1 Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) 3Census 2011

Page 135

https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/equality-and-diversity/our-workforce-profile/

Contact us We welcome your comments on the EDI Strategy and these will be taken into account for future versions.

Please visit the EDI page on our website to find out more information, or get in touch using the contact details below:

https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/equality-and-diversity/

Equality and Diversity Lead Officer:

[email protected]

01539 733333

Senior Officer Equality Champion:

HR Manager

Leader and Promoting South Lakeland:

Portfolio Holder

Page 136

https://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/your-council/equality-and-diversity/



Health, Social, Economic & Environmental Impact Guidance & Proforma

Project, policy or programme:

Health Impacts Potential Impacts

Positive No impact

Negative Not sure

Comments Recommendations

Please tick the appropriate box

Environmental Conditions Air quality

Water quality and pollution

Built environment

Natural environment and biodiversity

Energy consumption/efficiency

Noise

Transport

Recycling

Food production

Social and Economic Factors Employment

Potential increased employment opportunities at SLDC for people with shared protected characteristics – improved accessibility, more inclusive environment.

Income

Poverty

Education, skills and training

Training for all SLDC employees and elected members on Equality, Diversity

Appendix 2

Page 137

Project, policy or programme:

Health Impacts Potential Impacts

Positive No impact

Negative Not sure

Comments Recommendations

Please tick the appropriate box and Inclusion.

Housing

Crime

Work environment

Improved physical and digital accessibility for SLDC employees.

Factors that impact a person’s ability to improve their own health and wellbeing Nutrition and diet

Physical activity

Alcohol

Drugs

Risk taking behaviour

Smoking

Loneliness and isolation

Access to services, spaces or social opportunities that impact health Communication methods

Digital accessibility policy will improve communication both internally and externally at SLDC for those using digital services.

Active travel

Access to leisure

Access to culture

Access to green spaces

Page 138


Overview and Scrutiny

26th

October, 2018

Review of the local delivery of the property level

flood resilience grant scheme

Portfolio: Cllr Dyan Jones – Environment Portfolio Holder

Report from: Fiona Inston – Public Protection Manager

Report Author: Fiona Inston, Sean Hall and Shaun Senior (Public Protection)

Wards: All

Forward Plan: N/A


1.1 The report provides an opportunity to comment on the ‘review of the local delivery of the property level flood resilience grant scheme’ report. The purpose of the report is to reflect on the flood grant project and provide recommendations to central government on any future roll outs.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 (1) That the report be received and forwarded to Cabinet with a recommendation that it be circulated to key organisations to highlight the Council’s learning from this process and to help influence future delivery of such grants.


3.1 In December 2015, the Prime Minster announced the roll out of the flood resilience grant up to the value of £5,000 to all householders flooded by Storm Desmond, this was later opened up to businesses. With limited guidance, clarity and any resources from central government, South Lakeland District Council had to roll out a grant project which continued to evolve and had the potential value of £12 million.

3.2 Previous schemes had been administered by South Lakeland District Council so there was expertise and knowledge lying with those officers who formed the flood grant team.

3.3 The flood grant project operated over two years, with 1,397 applications made resulting in a total of £3.4 million in flood resilience works being carried out.

4.0 Consultation

4.1 Internal workshops have been completed to collate the draft report with members of staff directly involved in the delivery of the flood grant project and a feedback session

Page 139

Item No.14

took place with Alder and Allan. DEFRA has been approached for comments but no response has been recived. The draft report was presented to the senior management team on the 27th September 2018.


5.1 Not to receive the report or make recommendations.


6.1 Making South Lakeland the best place to work and live.

7.0 Implications


7.1.1 As detailed in the report.

Human Resources

7.2 N/A for this report

Legal





7.5 No Equality Impact Analysis has been completed.



Appendix 1 Report; Review of the local delivery of the property level

flood resilience grant scheme


None.



Legal Services 12 October 2018

Section 151 Officer 12 October 2018

Monitoring Officer 12 October 2018

SMT 12 October 2018

Page 140


Assistant Director 12 October 2018



Leader N/A




Committee N/A


Council N/A

Page 141


Page 142


Review of the local delivery of the Property Level

Flood Resilience Grant scheme

October 2018

Appendix 1

Page 143

2

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4

Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 4

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4

Context ............................................................................................................................. 4

Summary of Recommendations ........................................................................................ 5

Section one: Scheme set-up ................................................................................................. 5

Performance management ................................................................................................ 5

Evidence of flooding .......................................................................................................... 6

Criteria .................................................................................................................... 6

Use of flood grant data ...................................................................................................... 7

Resilience and Resistance measures ................................................................................ 8

Scope and definitions .............................................................................................. 8

Example of flood resilience measures for a house ............................................................ 8

Quality Assurance ................................................................................................... 9

Surveys ........................................................................................................................... 10

Application form .............................................................................................................. 11

Layout and content ............................................................................................... 11

Information Management System and standard letters.................................................... 13

Contractors and quotations ............................................................................................. 14

Retrospective applications .............................................................................................. 15

Title of scheme ................................................................................................................ 16

Section two: Operational delivery ........................................................................................ 16

Communications ............................................................................................................. 16

Community engagement ................................................................................................. 17

Standard of applications .................................................................................................. 18

Panel, appeals and administration .................................................................................. 19

Inbox and telephone line ................................................................................................. 19

Customer experience ...................................................................................................... 19

Payments ........................................................................................................................ 20

Section three: Strategic Management ................................................................................. 22

Resourcing ...................................................................................................................... 22

Deadlines ........................................................................................................................ 22

Fraudulent claims ............................................................................................................ 22

Vulnerable residents ....................................................................................................... 23

Page 144

3

Sharing of good practice ................................................................................................. 24

Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 24

Performance ................................................................................................................... 25

Internal Audit ................................................................................................................... 26

Value for money .............................................................................................................. 26

Section four: Key partners ................................................................................................... 27

Cumbria Community Foundation ..................................................................................... 31

Insurance companies ...................................................................................................... 31

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 32

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 32

Appendix 1: Table of Recommendations ......................................................................... 33

Appendix 2: Flood Resilience Grant Process Map ........................................................... 37

Appendix 3 – Flood Resilience Grant Process Map ......................................................... 39

Page 145

4

Introduction

Purpose

This report provides a review of the property level Flood Resilience Grant (FRG) scheme

administered by South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) on behalf of Cumbria County

Council for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) between December 2015 and

March 2017 (for applications to be lodged).

The report is an overview of the FRG with the aim of capturing the achievements and

difficulties experienced during the set up and operational phases. The report also captures

learning points and improvements that may benefit either residents/ businesses or other

local authorities delivering the project, if it was to be rolled out again.

This report is considered to be a learning tool to be referenced for the purposes of either

strategic planning by central government or operational management for local authorities

with a view to assisting the planning of any future schemes similar in nature or scope.

The report is based on the review workshop that took place in March 2018 which captured

the lessons learnt from all those at the fore front of delivering the scheme.

Overview

The FRG scheme was launched in late December 2015 to provide grants of up to £5,000 to

homeowners that had been flooded internally as a result of storms Desmond (5/6 December

2015) and/or Eva (25/26 December 2015). In January 2016 the scheme was extended to

cover business premises as well. The district does have a history of localised flooding and

properties that flooded in November 2015 and February 2016 were not able to apply.

The grants were used to fund measures to improve a property’s resilience or resistance to

flooding, over and above repairs that would normally be covered by insurance. The grant

was not intended to cover standard repairs or to provide compensation but to pay for

measures designed to reduce the impact and cost of any subsequent flooding to the

property.

Context

The extreme and unprecedented storms and rainfall events of November and December

2015 caused flooding to an estimated 2,008 domestic and 350 commercial properties in

South Lakeland. Over 70% of these were in Kendal with Mintsfeet and Far Cross wards (as

they were at that time) being the worst affected areas. Flooding events occurred in other

areas of Cumbria as well as Greater Manchester, North and West Yorkshire and Lancashire.

The Association of British Insurance (ABI) estimated the final bill for the flood damage to

homes, businesses and motor vehicles caused by storms Desmond, Eva and Frank to be

£1.3 billion. (Note: Storm Frank happened over the 29th to the 30th December 2015 in

Scotland).

There were significant operational demands and costs for SLDC in the acute phase of the

flood, which included over 600 tonnes of additional waste collected by street scene and

increased environmental health visits to ensure public safety. This involved visiting flooded

Page 146

5

properties and food businesses, and an increased number of residents displaced from their

homes requiring support from the Housing Options team. At the same time, some of the

council’s own assets had been affected including Rothay and Borrans parks (Ambleside),

The Castle Dairy (Grade 1 Listed Building) (Kendal), the façade of Kendal Town Hall and the

Brewery Street car park (Ulverston).

Summary of Recommendations

A summary of recommendations can be found at the end of the report.

Section one: Scheme set-up

Whilst the scheme was announced on 9 December 2015 no guidance and very little

information to assist the Local Authority in setting up the scheme was provided. The Local

Authority attended the launch event on the 15 January 2016 in Manchester where the

intentions of the scheme were presented but no documented guidance was provided until 20

January 2016.

Prior to this date flood affected residents were aware of the government’s announcement,

but neither they nor those tasked with administering the scheme had any specific detail.

Local flood advice events were held, although the specific scheme criteria was unknown.

This avoidable situation resulted in local conflict and thwarted those moving quickly to

reinstate their properties to install appropriate measures from the onset.

No generic application form was provided which initially resulted in the use of forms

designed for previous and materially different schemes (Flood Repair and Renewal Grant

Scheme 2013/4). Only when an in-house form was developed could the relevant information

be presented by applicants. This again was an issue that could have been avoided.

A significant amount of discussion took place about the funding of the project. From the

onset it was outlined that there was no provision to use any of the grant funding to contribute

or pay for the administration of the scheme. Provisions were made to fund the administration

of the project from reserves.

Performance management

From the outset there was external pressure from Central Government focused on the

uptake of grants (performance figures were requested on a weekly basis for the initial few

months) and this placed additional pressure on the team. The target figures also changed

during the project which was seen as a moving goal post. We were focused on getting the

right measures rather than it being a numbers game. The scheme was open for nearly

eighteen months and therefore we preferred the gradual increase in grant applications rather

than a peak at the start of the project.

Similar schemes in the past have had an uptake rate of around 15-20% and therefore it was

unrealistic to be getting significant uptake at an early stage of the project. In addition, there

seemed to be little consideration of local factors, which affected uptake:

Large scale flooding in areas that had never previously flooded and areas where

residents had no expectation that flooding could happen;

The flooding happened at speed, with people caught unaware so few measures were

taken to protect their property and possessions;

Page 147

6

Residents were very anxious, very upset at what had happened or in denial and took a

while to consider long term planning for their properties. Evidence from previous

schemes has indicated that a property would have to flood three times before there is an

acceptance by the property owner to install measures.

The final uptake levels were - 74% of eligible properties applied for a grant and 81% of these

applications were approved.

Evidence of flooding

Criteria

In order to be eligible to apply for grant funding a property had to meet the eligibility criteria

set out by DCLG guidance. At the outset of the scheme, businesses were not eligible; this

decision was subsequently reversed by Government with eligible businesses entitled to

apply.

The initial decision not to include businesses resulted in challenging discussions between

local authority staff and the respective business proprietors, and a sense of ill feeling

towards the local authority resulted. More definitive guidance at the outset would have

benefitted all parties.

With regard to scheme eligibility the following definition was provided in the Flood Resilience

Scheme – Local Authority Guidance – January 2016;

The owners of the following premises have been deemed eligible for scheme:

a. Residential properties (including accommodation such as static caravans where

primary residence, defined as location registered on electoral role) where habitable

internal area of the premise have been damaged by flooding by Storm Eva and

Desmond

b. Business (including social enterprise) and charitable organisation properties where

internal areas of the premise which are critical to the day to day operations (i.e. not

storage sheds or warehouses) have been damaged by Storm Eva and Desmond.

By the nature of terminology used, this led to differences of opinion to the criteria, in

particular the term ‘habitable’.

Despite requests to DCLG for a definitive definition of this term, none was provided. In the

absence of such the FRG team referred to those provided in building regulations and

housing legislation in conjunction with a subjective opinion, where required.

Further difficulties were encountered with the wording with respect to ‘internal area’. Some

property owners reported flooding to sub floor areas (beneath floorboards) or non-habitable

basements. Similarly, in some circumstances detached garages alone were flooded. The

FRG team took the decision not to award a grant in these circumstances. Integral garages

were considered where it was demonstrated that protecting a garage adjoining a property

that had suffered flooding was relevant and where value for money was demonstrated.

The work undertaken by the council’s Public Protection Officers who visited flooded areas

shortly after the flood helped to verify if a property had suffered internal flooding.

Additionally this aspect was supported by information obtained from the Environment

Agency (EA), concerning flooded areas and information collected at the time of flooding.

Due to the topography of the district many individual properties that were flooded lay outside

Page 148

7

the Environment Agency flood zones, were initially unrecorded or in rural areas. Local

authority officer knowledge proved to be an invaluable source of information.

Photographic evidence was requested in all cases to support an application, but wasn’t

always available or provided. A flood resilience survey of the property was also accepted as

supporting evidence that the property had flooded. Additionally, not all applicants made an

insurance claim and in some cases properties had been stripped out or even renovated at

the time of application. A combination of these made it difficult to verify the eligibility of an

application, even when a site inspection was made by a member of the FRG team. Although

the definition was clear on internal flooding we did receive a number of enquiries from

people whose gardens or greenhouses flooded, or properties which nearly flooded.

To aid the eligibility of an application, Council Tax Flood Relief records were, where required

and more specifically as the time from flooding lengthened, cross referenced. This provided

consistency to the scheme in terms of records. It was however our view that those residents

not willing to register their properties on public record as flooded and who could not prove

internal flooding in any form should not be able to benefit from public money for flood

protection.

Occupants or owners that prevented flooding to a habitable room through exerted efforts

were ineligible to benefit from the scheme as set out in the criteria. This resulted in situations

where those occupying a property adjoining a flooded property, whose owners did receive

maximum grant funding, have to endure the fear and threat of any recurrence in the future.

Any future scheme should allow funding for these properties providing evidence is submitted

as it seems grossly unfair to penalise a householder for being proactive.

With regard to businesses, the criteria ‘critical to day to day operations’ resulted in subjective

assessment which inevitably led to differences of opinion in several applications. In some

circumstances the line between storage/warehouse or business critical was a difficult

decision.

There was not a general agreement on the definition on habitable room at the housing sub

group for Cumbria officers which lead to different local authorities applying different

definitions. There was no definitive steer from DCLG/DEFRA.

Use of flood grant data

Throughout the operation of the scheme, the authority collected a significant amount of data

about properties which had flooded within South Lakeland. It was recognised at a very early

stage that this information may be of benefit to other government agencies with an interest in

flooding such as DEFRA, the EA, and Highways Authority. Consideration was therefore

given to firstly ensure that applicants for the scheme were happy to have their data shared

with other agencies, and secondly that other agencies used this information in a responsible

way.

In order to ensure applicants were informed that their data may be shared, part of the

declaration included a statement which was agreed with the SLDC Corporate Information

Officer.

Data sharing agreements were also established with those other government agencies who

may have need of the information collected.

Page 149

8

In reality, any data requests were for general numbers and the location of properties flooded,

and not for specific measures installed or any other personal data.

Resilience and Resistance measures

Scope and definitions

Resilience – Resilience measures allow for a more speedy recovery when water does enter

a property. Use of flood resilient materials in properties at risk of flooding greatly reduces the

time people are out of properties following a flood event. This approach requires

consideration at an early stage of reinstatement and, where applicable, the engagement of

the insurance provider/reinstatement contractor.

Resistance - The primary aim of resistance measures is to prevent the entry of water into a

property during a flood event. Physical defences, such as flood doors, demountable barriers

for at risk doors and windows and automatic air bricks are common examples.

Example of flood resilience measures for a house

From the outset the local authority promoted resilience over resistance, particularly where

internal flood levels were excessive and resistance would have likely been futile. This

approach followed the intention promoted at the Manchester meeting 15 January 2016 but

was not specified in the guidance subsequently produced. Whilst resilience allows for a more

speedy recovery following a flood event many applicants were adamant that resisting the

entry of water was their preferred option, irrespective of flood depth.

The grants were not intended to cover standard repairs or to provide compensation but to

finance measures designed to reduce the impact and cost of any subsequent flooding to the

property.

Page 150

9

The FRG team referred primarily to the Guidance Notes provided by DEFRA, however the

measures presented were not an exhaustive list and acknowledged as indicative of

measures that were eligible. The list and cost of indicative measures appeared to be

outdated, being drawn from DCLG guidance notes of 2014. The team expanded on the

measures provided, on occasion with DEFRA agreement, in order to ensure eligibility and to

provide a wide range of options to applicants. However, a definitive answer was not always

provided by government, casting more doubt on eligibility and consistency.

As the scheme progressed it became apparent that whilst a property may not have been

subjected to flooding of habitable rooms, as outlined in guidance, the use of a property

became inhabitable if vital utility services were flood affected. This led the team to reconsider

their standpoint with applications subsequently approved to raise utility services that were

not specifically in a habitable room to above the flood level experienced.

The DEFRA Guidance states the aim should be that resistance measures will exclude water

up to 0.9m depth. This in practice is difficult to achieve as the majority of kite marked

resistance measures available are certified closer to a 0.6m depth. However, in numerous

circumstances the local authority established that protection up to 0.6m depth was

acceptable even where previous flood levels had exceeded this. Guidance Notes that

complement measures available would seem a sensible option for any future scheme.

External drainage channels and boundary walls or bunds to divert flood water were not

measures deemed eligible by the local authority as this may have resulted in increasing the

risk to neighbouring property. Similarly, driveway barriers were also rejected in preference of

the promotion of measures adjoining the fabric of the building.

Applications were received where several properties within a curtilage were under the same

ownership or management. In these situations the pooling of funding was permitted, subject

to approval, to allow grant funding to be used for the most effective flood protection.

Whilst the local authority strived to provide a consistent approach, the lack of definition

provided by DEFRA resulted in differences of opinion between applicants and the local

authority. Inevitably, such issues led to a drawn out process, on occasion involving several

tiers of management, councillors, applicants, surveyors and the Flood Grant team, in

attaining an outcome. Had the guidance been more definitive, these distractions would have

been avoided affording more time into providing advice, issuing approvals and ensuring a

more consistent approach nationally.

Quality Assurance

Quality assurance took a considerable amount of officer time both in confirming acceptable

measures and relaying this to all interested parties. We were fortunate however, to hold in-

house expertise with officers who were familiar with relevant products and experience from

previous flood grant schemes.

Guidance documentation (DCLG 20 Jan) recommended the use of British Standards (BS)

(or equivalent) for all works. There is a plethora of flood protection products available, many

of which do not hold BS certification. Although many companies claimed their products met

PAS1188 through in-house testing, as opposed to BS independent assessment, this was

deemed insufficient, particularly where high value products such as flood doors were applied

which could cost over £2,000. This decision led to vociferous objection and challenge from

some companies that fell under this criteria and also from householders who had or were

Page 151

10

intending to install such products. As far as we are aware, SLDC is the only authority to

make this a mandatory requirement, despite forming part of the guidance provided.

In all cases where a flood door was installed, a copy of the respective kite mark certification

was requested along with photographic evidence of the product installed. This quality

assurance check was not infallible as a BS kite mark certificate can easily be obtained via an

internet search. Further conflict arose as many companies supplied both BS and non BS

certificated products. A requirement to apply indelible markings on doors and frames would

provide assurance to all parties in respect of product quality.

Several applicants understandably sought to install measures in keeping with their

properties, in particular where they are located in a conservation area or through personal

preference. A clear development management policy would have assisted in this respect

regarding which measures were appropriate for a given area. Some applicants were left

feeling unable to adequately protect their property due to confusing messages about what

they could or could not install.

Where concerns with the standard of practices, products and workmanship were identified

the relevant Trading Standards departments were informed.

To assist with quality assurance and ensure value for money, two like-for-like quotes were

requested. These were required to be independent of the surveying organisation so as to

avoid a conflict of interest and bias towards self-promoted products. Despite this, a number

of applications were identified by officers where inappropriate measures had been proposed.

Instances included applications for door barriers or flood doors which would have been

ineffective as the flood water had entered through the basement level or ground floor, and

flood doors in settings where no other escape route was available, effectively trapping

residents inside their properties.

Surveys

Government proposed that the local authority could offer a free survey to support an

application or to fund this as part of the £5,000 grant. Due to the number of affected

properties and the perceived financial and resource cost to the local authority, the decision

was taken at the outset to use grant funding for these costs. A grant eligible limit of up to

£500 was permitted for a survey following the figure promoted in the guidance document

from DCLG.

To aid this we invited surveyors, both locally and nationally, to express an interest in

delivering this service to flood affected property owners. A meeting was chaired by the FRG

team, with interested parties, and considered the relevant criteria to be included in a survey

report. Surveyors were invited to submit a draft report for our assessment to ensure an

acceptable standard and consistent approach could be achieved. A list of those surveyors

was published online to allow applicants to consult with and select a surveyor, however, it

was never a requirement of the grant to specifically use one of these surveyors.

Surveys were received from sources in addition to those on the publicised list. Many of these

surveys highlighted the bias element and/or fell below the standard expected. Inappropriate

surveys included measures for properties that had not suffered flooding to an eligible room,

construction details of properties not fully considered (crosswall), surveys being submitted

directly to the flood grant team (in conjunction with an application form) without consultation

with applicants, being of a very low standard and with incorrect critical detail such as flood

Page 152

11

depth, no indication of flood water entry routes, wrongly titled photographs, and

inappropriate measures.

A conflict of interest and lack of independence was clearly apparent in the surveys submitted

by some companies. Surveys of this nature would identify eligible and appropriate

measures, such as a concrete floor however, the subsequent application and quotes were

clearly for off the shelf products and not those that would provide the most appropriate

resilience/resistance measures. These findings were identified through vigilant assessment

and conveyed by the flood grant team to interested parties.

Whilst a survey was recommended, particularly where resistance measures were proposed,

some surveyors insisted that only their organisation could undertake the survey. This led to

an element of hostility between such organisations and homeowners with the local authority

acting on occasion as mediator. Comments such as ‘money making exercise’, ‘incompetent’,

‘rip off merchants’ were reported to the FRG team.

These issues are to be expected as there is no formal recognised qualification, national

training or approved standard for flood protection surveyors. A recognised training and

accreditation scheme would help gain the trust of householders and scheme promoters, and

ensure consistency across the industry.

Within South Lakeland over 70% of applications submitted were supported with a flood

resilience survey.

Application form

Layout and content

No sample application form was provided by government therefore the Cumbria Resilience

Group tasked SLDC with developing a sample form for the scheme. This was developed

based on the application form used by us in the Repair and Renewal Grant 2014 scheme

and subsequently circulated to all Cumbrian Local Authorities and DCLG to agree. (Note:

Government press release dated 9th December 2015 stated that the scheme would provide

targeted support on the same basis as those affected by flooding as part of the previous

scheme).

However, advice received from DCLG was that they did not want the scheme to simply

mirror the previous DEFRA scheme and therefore further consideration was given to the

application form. This included simplified text and additional guidance notes, although advice

on the specific areas to simplify was limited, and a focus was placed on locally agreed

schemes. The application form for this scheme was considered by the Cumbria Housing sub

group on 17th December 2015 with a final draft circulated and agreed on 23rd December

2015.

Although agreed as a part of a Cumbrian scheme, each local authority tailored the

application form to their own design (corporate logo, layout, design etc.) The application form

was subsequently made available on-line as a download prior to Christmas 2015, as

directed by DCLG.

At this stage the scheme parameters were not set and there remained a number of

unanswered questions from DCLG, which directly affected the content of the application

form. These included (but were not limited to), the inclusion of businesses in the scheme,

should housing associations be able to access the scheme, should the scheme be based on

a property or a household, were second homes or empty homes included.

Page 153

12

Changes were made to the application form following additional guidance issued by DCLG in

early January and DEFRA in late January 2016. The changes made included the inclusion

of properties flooded as a result of Storm Eva and commercial properties, the end date for

the scheme was also extended until 31 March 2017.

Where an application was submitted without a flood survey, the applicant was asked to

provide a rationale for their measures, we asked for quotes to show the cost of repairs with

and without resilience measures, supporting evidence such as photographs and, to

encourage people to submit the correct information first time, we added a (short) list of the

information we required to be included with the application.

The third and final version of the application (produced July 2016) asked which rooms had

been flooded and included the proviso that any work carried out prior to receiving written

grant approval was done so at the applicants’ own risk

The most up-to-date application form was always available on our website but prospective

applicants did sometimes use older versions of the form they had received in an initial mail

out or had obtained from our partner agencies which caused confusion and frustration. It

would have been helpful to have included version numbers on the application form and been

clear that updated forms superseded previous versions, and we would only accept the

updated version of the form.

Guidance notes

Guidance information was provided on the council website advising on the availability and

eligibility of the grant, and to assist property owners in applying. These pages were updated

as and when new guidance and information became available from DCLG, DEFRA or other

sources.

Providing an example of a completed application form to help people understand the type

and level of information required would have been beneficial to both the applicant and the

team. A form was partially developed but never completed and published due to time

pressures on officers and also changing guidance from Government. Potentially it would

have reduced the number of forms we returned as incomplete or requiring more information,

this would have speeded up the process for some.

Specific areas where applicants experienced difficulty with the application form included:

Who should apply – tenant/leaseholder/management company/surveyor/owner

Details of flooding - this was often vague and sometimes an assumption that we would

already have this information. Estimated depth of water led to different accounts on

adjacent properties

Measures to be installed - guidance was provided on the difference between resilience

and resistance as initially people were sceptical about the idea of letting the water in to

their property and having resilience measures in place to minimise the damage and

disruption by speeding up the reinstatement process if they flooded again

Cost of repairs v resilient repairs – a quotation form was produced to assist contractors

and applicants understand and work out the betterment costs

People were not aware of the difference between a ‘quote’ and an ‘estimate’ and also did

not understand what ‘like for like’ meant in relation to quotes

Page 154

13

In addition to the guidance notes and information on our website we also held weekly drop in

sessions where people could get first hand technical advice on their situation and receive

help and assistance completing their application form. This proved to be a success and

provided an invaluable face to face opportunity for the FRG team to speak directly to

applicants and flood affected victims.

Information Management System and standard letters

At the onset of the scheme it was decided to utilise the Civica Authority Public Protection

(APP) software system already in use within SLDC’s Public Protection team to record and

administer any enquiries and applications for the grant. All documentation, letters, emails,

details of conversations, site visits, payment details etc. were recorded against the individual

property record. These records were ‘locked down’ with only the staff within the FRG team

being able to access them.

To ensure a consistent approach, speed up the grant process, and reduce the repetitive

work of the team, some template letters were set up within APP.

In some circumstances these letters worked really well as the same information could be

communicated to the applicant quickly and easily. However, one size fits all letters were not

always appropriate and the letters, particularly the approval letters, had to be tailored to the

individual circumstances of the applicant. To further assist this process some additional

standard sentences and paragraphs were then compiled to cover a variety of circumstances

and situations. Nevertheless it was still necessary to write bespoke letters in most instances

due to the complexity or uniqueness of the applicants’ situation.

Using Civica APP to record all the flood grant information also meant that we were able to

set up reports which provided us with real-time information via a dashboard. This data was

used to complete returns and provide updates to our Management Team and Councillors

etc. It was also an essential tool for us to review and monitor the progress of the scheme

and was particularly important as deadlines were approaching to enable us to know who we

had to chase for information.

Data for Portal Return (example of a report)

Number of Applications Received: 1397

Number of Applications Approved: 1131

Value of Applications Approved to Date (£): £3,495,907.75

Number of Applications Paid Out to Date: 1683

Value of Applications Paid Out to Date (£): £3,485,524.17

As the scheme progressed it became evident that approval letters needed to be very clear

and specific about what was being approved in terms of the measures/products, the supplier

and the values and where necessary what was out of scope. We had some instances where

the invoices for completed work/products differed from those approved which then took up

Page 155

14

officer time to review and either accept or refuse these changes.

The approval letter also needed to be very clear where applicants were going to have to

contribute towards measures above the grant award. We had instances where applicants

said they did not realise they would have to contribute towards the costs of the measures

costing more than £5,000 even though their approval letter clearly stated we would be

awarding a specific grant amount (in monetary terms) towards the measures.

Contractors and quotations

As flooding had affected many parts of the UK there was an apparent lack of availability of

national or local contractors from the outset. Many local contractors were involved with

property reinstatement and unable to commit to the increasing demand from other flood

affected properties who were seeking quotes in respect of the scheme.

In order to assist, prospective applicants were signposted to the National Flood Forum –

Blue Pages, where a wide choice of products and national suppliers were available. Whilst a

good source of information, we were unable to endorse the companies listed as

advertisement on that site was via a paid subscription by these companies. It soon became

apparent that whilst many kite marked products, as advocated by the scheme, were

available, some companies were advertising products that had no independent testing

certification to support their claims. On occasion this caused conflict and redirected our

efforts to defend the stance of expected standards as promoted in the DEFRA guidance.

Due to the shortage of suitable contractors, applications were received which included

quotes and/or estimates from contractors whose primary work included the likes of

landscaping, painting and decorating, and plumbing. As there was no recognised standard

for fitting flood products we were left to consider these on an individual basis and approved

only where a level of competency could be demonstrated.

We also received several notifications about the perceived lack of competency of contractors

working under the instruction of the insurance industry. Reports of painting over wet walls

and over mould were reported along with general sub-standard levels of work. This led to

applicants delaying applications while they were having to concentrate efforts on

predominantly insurance financed reinstatement.

It was recommended that two like-for-like quotes were required, however the quality and

content of many we received appeared spurious, not independent of the applicant and we

were aware, through local intelligence, of a level of collusion taking place between some

contractors and applicants.

People were often confused by the terms ‘quote’, ‘estimate’ and ‘invoice’ and did not

understand the difference between them which slowed down the process and caused

localised friction and delay pending submission of the correct paperwork. This was an issue

that was encountered even with the larger companies involved.

It was evident that some contractors, whilst within the indicative guidance figures provided,

appeared to use this to their financial advantage as quotes received were suspiciously close

to the maximum grant available. An example being the guidance figures for concrete floors

which had a range of several thousand pounds with no indicative cost per square metre.

Whilst it is acknowledged that contractor’s rates vary, a national rate per square metre

Page 156

15

should be considered in any similar future scheme to provide financial security and value for

money.

The complexity of establishing the betterment value was seen by some as a blocker to

getting the work done so we produced a quotation form, with a worked example, to help

applicants and contractors work out these costs. This allowed the applicant, with assistance

from the contractor, to demonstrate the cost of a resilience repair as compared to the actual

cost of the reinstatement. Only the additional resilience amount was covered by the grant

scheme.

The launch of a government grant scheme awarding £5,000 per flooded property appeared

to result in a rise in price of many standard products and as the scheme progressed the

price of some products increased significantly i.e. automatic closing airbricks, which were

available for under £40 each prior to flood, rising to a supply and install price of quotes for

over £150 each. Quotes for kite marked doors set out at circa £1,800 however as time

progressed quotes/invoices were also received for closer to £3,500 each. These factors

significantly reduced the measures that grant funding could finance.

It was very noticeable that many of the quotations submitted were for amounts equal to the

grant available and once some contractors were aware that a further £2,000 grant funding

was available to householders through Cumbria Community Foundation (CCF) the quoted

prices increased again and were often for measures that were not appropriate or necessary.

It became evident through the process that some contractors were subcontracting work out.

Either through being unable to deliver or seeking an alternative less expensive contractor so

they would financially benefit from this exercise. Whilst this exercise was seen as morally

dubious we were unable to prevent this, predominantly only becoming aware following the

completion of works.

Many contractors were not VAT registered which allowed them generally to submit more

competitive quotes however, where VAT was included in a quote evidence was requested

through the provision of a VAT registration number so the validity of this cost could be

ascertained.

Retrospective applications

The scheme allowed for applications to be submitted retrospectively. In the beginning this

allowed people who had already begun or completed work immediately following the flooding

(before the start of the scheme), to access the grant to recover the costs of eligible

measures.

The application form requested applicants to describe how they had ensured value for

money and requested evidence of quotes and invoices.

However, the majority of retrospective applications received were not supported with a

survey and had limited rationale for the measures undertaken which resulted in a higher

degree of scrutiny and more officer time in establishing eligibility and appropriateness of

measures. This included site visits, discussions with insurance companies and sometimes

neighbours. This rigorous assessment helped to establish those applications that were

potentially fraudulent/opportunistic.

Retrospective applications were an administrative burden on the team in terms of verifying

validity of claims such as:

Page 157

16

difficulty establishing the pre flood use/eligibility of a room that had subsequently been

re-instated or converted into a habitable room post flooding

difficulty in determining level of eligibility for properties that were undergoing renovation

at the time of the flooding (extent of damage caused, pre-commitment to financing and

construction works)

awarding for measures to property extensions that that did not exist at the time of the

flooding.

Where insurance companies carried out the reinstatement works the property owner

sometimes requested resilience measures, such as the raising of electrics, to be carried out

over and above insured losses. However, on occasion, neither the applicant nor the

insurance company were able to substantiate this by way of invoices or supporting

information making it difficult to award a grant against these additional eligible works.

Some speculative applications were made for items purchased/installed following previous

flooding and as they pre-dated the December 2015 flooding events were deemed not

eligible.

Despite the publicity about the scheme, we continued to receive retrospective applications

up to the application closing date. Early on in the scheme we decided that any measures

undertaken without prior approval were at the risk of the property owner. Some of these

later retrospective applications included measures that pushed the limits of eligibility

resulting in applicants attempting to force the hand of officers. However, all retrospective

applications were considered on a case by case basis to ensure the costs were

proportionate and the measures appropriate.

To facilitate the administration of any future grants the acceptance of retrospective

applications should be time limited.

Title of scheme

The original direction from Government was that this scheme would be similar to the

previous scheme offered and therefore would follow a similar scope as the 2014 Repair and

Renewal Grant. Follow up guidance in early 2016 referred to property level resilience with no

reference to ‘repair’. This name change was welcome as the use of the word ‘repair’

previously had led to confusion from the residents and gave people a false idea of the

purpose of the grant. The name of the scheme subsequently changed as per the guidance

and focus on making properties resilient to future flooding events and became known as the

Property Level Flood Resilience scheme.

Section two: Operational delivery

Communications

To promote the availability of the grant, the team worked closely with the council’s

communications department and an extensive and integrated communications and

marketing plan was drawn up. Details of the communications activities included:

Numerous press releases that were picked up and resulted in coverage in local

newspapers, websites, regional TV and local and national radio, with officers from the

project team completing a number of broadcast interviews for both radio and TV. These

releases included regular updates on the scheme, deadline reminders and specific

Page 158

17

details on kite marked products etc. to support the messaging throughout the duration of

the project.

In January 2016 we posted out application packs to all properties that we believed to

have been flooded. The pack included a covering letter which outlined details and

eligibility for the scheme, a summary of the difference between resilience and resistance

measures, the reasons for carrying out a flood survey, information about working with

their insurance provider and details of websites, including our own, where further

information and advice could be found. The pack also included an application form and

reply paid envelope, general information about the grant, a list of surveyors who would

be able to carry out flood surveys, information on what works would require building

regulations or planning permission and a ABI guide to resistant and resilience repair.

Initiated a ‘Battling Back from the Floods’ campaign in the most widely read local

newspaper, The Westmorland Gazette, both in print and online (a combined 100,000

weekly readership) and provided copy and case studies for a series of features

promoting the flood grant scheme, how to apply etc.

Integrated social media campaign on Facebook and Twitter to encourage take-up.

Dedicated flood grant section on website, with clear presence on the home page.

Regular features on the scheme in the resident newsletter South Lakeland News, which

distributes to every household in the district.

Case studies on residents and businesses that had accessed the grant to illustrate the

process and the measures.

Regular briefings for councillors on the flood grant scheme to enable them to support

activities in their communities.

Communications officers attended meetings and provided regular briefings for the South

Lakeland Community Flood Recovery Group, made up of representatives of charity

groups, community organisations and businesses supporting the flood recovery, so they

could promote the flood grant scheme.

Supported awareness of drop-in events at the town hall to assist with flood grant

applications.

Supported awareness of community engagement work to encourage flood grant

applications, including promoting a ‘Lend a Hand’ day at Sandylands in Kendal, one of

the worst affected areas.

Supported awareness of the flood fair event in Kendal.

Supported awareness of the flood grant scheme with leaflets and information at strategic

locations, including the flood recovery unit/foodbank that was set up in Westmorland

Shopping Centre in Kendal.

Staff internally briefed about the scheme so that residents contacting council tax to

update the status of their property were also provided with information about the

scheme.

Community engagement

A significant amount of activity took place to promote the scheme. As well as the

communication plan and actions there was work within the community, some of these

included hosting training for various third sector partners (Age UK, CAB, Lions, Gateway,

Kings Foodbank, Sandylands Methodist Church, Cancer Care, Samaritans, Buddhist Group

of Kendal), Kendal Town Council and elected members on the scheme and how to apply.

Page 159

18

A flood fair was organised on the 8 October 2016 at a local shopping centre in Kendal to

showcase potential products, suppliers providing examples of solutions and access to the

team to discuss how to make an application, status of their application or any other

information. The team attended a significant number of Cumbria County Council arranged

events across the district which were primarily aimed at collecting information from flooded

properties to help the Section 19 (Flood and Water Management Act 2010) report. Whilst

attending these events local residents wanted support and advice on how to protect their

property, and this was seen as being beneficial.

The team also attended and supported the local community recovery group which has a high

turnout of the third sector who would cascade information back into the community and

report any areas of concerns and recommendations. Further community engagement

including support to community events such as give a day, door knocks with the third sector

and working closely with the Red Cross who visited property owners to talk about their

application and encourage up take.

At the onset of the project there was a significant amount of people attending the council

offices for advice. Most of these did not make appointments and officers were not always on

site to provide assistance. We recognised that we needed to provide the public with the

opportunity to speak to the FRG team for help and support. We set up weekly drop in

sessions every Wednesday from 1pm – 6pm in Kendal Town Hall. A total of 40 sessions

were held between April 2016 and March 2017 dealing with over 500 enquiries and were

deemed as an extremely useful and beneficial exercise.

Unfortunately, at times there was negative media and coverage that was inaccurate about

the grants which could have put people off applying. The FRG team worked closely with the

communication team to counterbalance these claims.

Standard of applications

The standard of applications throughout the scheme was generally low. Initially the

applications lacked detail as they were partially completed, there was no supporting

evidence of flooding, had limited or no details of measures applied for, no quotes were

provided and no flood protection survey had been carried out.

Between 1 January and 31 March 2016 we received 195 applications of which only 23 of the

101 assessed met the scheme criteria and were approved. Sixty eight applications did not

pass the initial assessment and were returned as incomplete with the areas requiring further

information highlighted. Ten applications passed the initial assessment but further details

were requested before a decision could be made to accept or refuse.

In order to improve people’s understanding of the scheme and clarify the scheme’s criteria,

weekly drop in sessions were held. These proved invaluable and resulted in a noticeable

improvement in the standard of applications as people were better informed and the most

appropriate and effective measures to best protect their properties from future flooding were

identified. This then speeded up the approval process if when the application and quotes

were submitted they were for the measures previously discussed and agreed as appropriate.

However, as the scheme was drawing to a close many of the applications received in the

final month were again of a poor standard. Some were speculative and others lacked detail

and supporting information despite applicants having had over a year to complete and

submit their application.

Page 160

19

Panel, appeals and administration

Once an application was received an initial screening was completed by a member of the

support team and appendix two outlines the checks completed. This first screening allowed

for applications to be screened before they were reviewed by a technical officer. This

process provided a triage to the team.

After screening, the officer would complete an assessment, again in appendix two and any

that were considered to be contentious were assessed by the flood grant panel.

The panel comprised a manager and two technical officers and they met as necessary to

make a final determination. The decision letter was the formal summary notes from the

meeting.

The flood grant panel reviewed 45 applications (some of which were repeated following

additional information or changes to the scope). There was no process of appeal against the

decision and the only formal route was via the council complaints procedures and then to the

ombudsman.

We received 10 complaints which were dealt with through our formal complaint process, and

one complaint which was referred to the Local Government Ombudsman which is discussed

in greater detail in the customer experience section below.

Inbox and telephone line

A dedicated phone line and email address were set up and promoted at the start of the

scheme to enable the public and partner agencies to contact the FRG team directly.

However, at times the volume of calls and emails was overwhelming with the small team

unable to answer all the phone calls and reply in a timely manner to emails in addition to

speaking to people in reception, making site visits, progressing applications etc. To help

this, the weekly drop in sessions were introduced, more information was put onto the

website to help answer frequently asked questions and customer services were provided

with briefing notes and training.

As there were limited resources available to answer the phone and respond to less complex

emails it would have been of huge benefit to all to have more bespoke scripting in the

customer service team. It would have been of particular assistance in dealing with calls from

people who had not read the letters/emails we had sent them and phoned to ask what was

happening or what they needed to do next when all this had been explained in the

correspondence sent.

Many phone calls were lengthy as the public sought guidance and clarity on their sometimes

complex situation yet- this was seen as welcome by both the team and the applicants.

These calls enabled us to better understand their situation, identify any constraints, and talk

through the options and for appropriate measures to be agreed verbally, which enabled

applications to be progressed quicker to the satisfaction of the team and the applicant.

Customer experience

Customer experience was extremely difficult to gauge during the initial stages of this

scheme. Some customers were extremely frustrated at the difficulties experienced in

accessing the grant, directly after it had been announced by Government whilst others were

happy that the council was here to help them after they had been affected by flooding.

Page 161

20

We did make a point of listening to what our customers wanted, particularly in terms of

advice and guidance, and adapted our service to meet their needs where possible. This

included making officers available to attend flood advice fairs and community events, having

a regular weekly drop in on a Wednesday afternoon, and keeping the information on our web

site up to date. We also frequently revisited our communications plan to target key deadlines

for the scheme and focused on any emerging issues where customer feedback had

suggested additional support was required.

During the course of the scheme 22 written compliments, 10 formal complaints, and 1 Local

Government Ombudsman (LGO) complaint were received in relation to this scheme. Whilst

the compliments generally focused on the assistance which officers had given to applicants,

formal complaints were generally orientated towards applications which had been rejected

by officers, and where further explanation was required to support the rejection.

The involvement of the LGO in one complaint highlighted a number of areas in the scheme

where we had not published sufficient local decisions regarding eligible criteria. As

discussed at length in previous sections, the lack of Government guidance did result in a

number of localised decisions concerning eligible criteria and the LGO suggested that

because we did not publish localised decisions we were not operating the scheme in a

transparent manner. The recommendation from the LGO was that we review the failed

application and also ensure all rules associated with any future scheme should be

transparent. The failed application was subsequently reviewed by a Flood Grant Panel, with

due consideration for the LGO comments, and the decision was taken to award the grant.

The involvement of the LGO in this complaint has highlighted a number of areas of the

scheme which would require greater consideration should the scheme be repeated following

a future flood event. These have been included, where appropriate, in the recommendations

section of this report.

Throughout the scheme it was difficult for all parties to agree on measures and eligibility in

all situations, however the aim of the FRG team was always to obtain the most appropriate

measures. This frequently resulted in differences of opinion, which were often clouded and

driven by emotional and misguided advice received from others.

Payments

One of the main considerations as the scheme was established was that financial means

should not be a barrier to accessing the grant and as payment would only be made on

completion of the work, the payment process had to be thorough but allow for prompt

payments.

With this in mind we developed procedures to allow flexibility with regards to payments i.e.

we made part payments for works completed to date and facilitated some direct payments to

contractors. To encourage the take up of the grant we put procedures in place to pay

contractors directly for flood surveys so people who were already under financial pressures

from the flooding were not put under any further strain and put off from applying for the

grant.

At the development stage of the scheme it was decided that access to the payment records

within Civica APP would be securely managed by limiting access to the System

Administrator in IT and one member of the FRG team. This team member was the only

person to deal with the payment forms and inputted the applicant’s bank details onto the

Page 162

21

payment record to enable a CSV file to be generated so the finance team could make the

BACS payment. This procedure worked well and issues only arose when the team member

was on leave and there was a short delay of a few days in making payments.

The grant application form gave applicants the option for the grant to be paid to themselves

or the contractor with the majority requesting payment to themselves and they then settled

their invoice/s with their contractor/s direct. Despite the Council’s constitution and

procurement rules prohibiting direct payments over a specified amount to be paid to

contractors without a formal contract in place, all the payments made directly were under this

threshold and so the team was in compliance with the Council’s Constitution.

Along with the grant approval letter, payment forms were issued to the applicants to be

completed and returned once the measures had been installed/works finished along with an

invoice/receipt and where possible, photographs showing the completed works.

The technical officers would review the information provided by the applicant and either

authorise payment to be made, request supplementary information, make further enquires of

the applicant/contractor or undertake a site visit prior to approving any payment. In the main

these BACS payments were made within 5 working days of the payment being approved.

We understand that a small number of applicants delayed paying the contractor once they

had received their grant money with some then entering into payment agreements with them

to settle their invoice.

The payment process was sometimes delayed due to the applicant not fully completing the

payment form (e.g. not filling in their bank details or providing incorrect details) or not

providing an invoice/receipt for the completed works.

A small number of flood product companies requested a deposit at the point the order was

placed by the property owner, which in some cases was up to 50%. We took the position

that the approval letter was a guarantee the property owner would be receiving the grant so

this should be as good as a bond to secure the order. This approach was accepted in the

majority of cases but it appeared that a few applicants who had the funds to do so did pay

the requested deposits and were then reimbursed by us on completion of the works.

As the scheme was drawing to a close considerable effort was made chasing up outstanding

paperwork to ensure we could make payments to all who had had been approved grants.

Despite making repeat phone calls, leaving messages, sending emails and letters, we did

have to visit several properties to collect the information to make sure they did not miss the

payment deadline.

Applicants were not notified as a matter of course when a BACS payment had been made to

them due to the extra work this created. If this process could have been automated it would

have reduced the number of phone calls and emails checking if/when the payment would be

made as people phoned us rather than checking their bank accounts.

Reviews undertaken by internal audit evidenced that sufficient checks occurred throughout

the application process in relation to quotes and invoices submitted and that there was an

audit trail for each payment from approval, payment authorisation to payment being made

and all payments recorded on Civica APP were evidenced to the financial ledger.

Page 163

22

Section three: Strategic Management

Resourcing

The project was resourced by SLDC. The grant scheme did not allow any financial

contribution to be compensated to SLDC to deliver the project. At the onset of the project, a

team was set up and officers were seconded from their statutory duties relating to public

protection and were backfilled.

The team consisted of two full time flood grant officers (both had administered previous flood

grant projects), a coordinator and support staff and was assisted by a number of officers

within the council including communications, finance, building control, planning, IT and the

customer contact centre. The project was overseen by an operational manager and an

internal project board made up of members of the senior management team.

The total cost for resourcing the project was just over £192,000 which was equivalent to

£137 per application. The cost of administrating the Repair and Renew Grant scheme in

Surrey in 2014/15 was an average of £284 per application.

Deadlines

Confusion was raised over the duration of the scheme as no time scales were provided by

DEFRA/DCLG at the outset or throughout the scheme. We were mindful from experience of

previous schemes we have administered that these projects take a significant amount of

time and resources which are affected by the scale of the flood event, clarification of scheme

eligibility, availability of contractors and products, and slow uptake. The local authority

subsequently promoted their own extensive deadlines for applications and completed works

which were accepted by DEFRA. The promoted SLDC dates were ultimately adopted by

adjacent local authorities who had initially set their own earlier and unrealistic scheme dates.

These extended dates allowed additional opportunity for those who had been unable to

return to their property following the flood events and dealing with outstanding insurance

claims, to submit an application and benefit from the flood grant scheme. A Cumbria wide

agreement at the outset would have supported a county wide approach.

At SLDC we accepted applications up to 31 March 2017, works to be completed by 30

September 2017 and final grant award payments made by 31 January 2018.

Fraudulent claims

Although the scheme ethos set by DCLG was ‘light touch’ it was necessary in the

administration of public funds to ensure that all monies were accountable. The distribution of

potentially £12m of public funding could not be done without diligence and scrutiny.

The scheme, through the processes introduced, the scrutiny of the applications and the

technical knowledge of officers identified a number of potentially fraudulent claims and these

were investigated by the Council’s Fraud Officer.

The fraud attempts varied in type, ranging from submitting invoices for work not carried out,

submitting fake quotes and invoices, inflated invoices, applications for properties which were

not flooded and photographs of measures from another location.

Seven people were interviewed under caution. Some of these were the applicant, others

were the builder/contractor.

Page 164

23

As a result of the intervention of the fraud section, three people were successfully

prosecuted, two at Magistrates’ Court, one at Crown Court, all who offered guilty pleas.

Sentences ranged from community orders to suspended prison sentences. Two people

withdrew their application after the intervention of the Fraud section and three people were

refused the grant.

To assist in this aspect a reference folder was produced in which a selection of invoices and

quotes were filed. This led to the identification of fraudulent documentation and subsequent

investigation.

The FRG team, although attentive in initially identifying suspicious documentation, were

fortunate to be able to access and obtain the assistance of the council’s fraud officer.

Without this support the team would have likely been unable to pursue fraudulent cases to a

satisfactory conclusion.

During one court case the Judge was full of praise for the council’s work in this matter and

said the local authority was to be “congratulated on a careful and efficient investigation of

this case, substantial sums of money are involved in the grant. The local authority are to be

congratulated on their proper and careful enquiries. The local authority were able to identify

this as a bogus claim”.

We are not aware of any other local authorities in Cumbria undertaking a prosecution or

enforcement action linked to fraudulent claims.

Vulnerable residents

The flooding was a very traumatic experience for flood victims and we often had to deal with

individuals who were struggling physically, financially and emotionally – this was especially

evident at our early weekly drop in sessions.

To help support vulnerable applicants we had a member of the Red Cross attend the

sessions and who also made home visits if we were alerted to concerns via site visits, letters

or calls. Towards the close of the project the Regional Flooding and Coastal Committee

funded technical support for NewGround to assist but unfortunately their involvement

commenced long after the floods had receded and residents had moved back into their

properties.

Other key partners included Cumbria Community Foundation who offered emergency grants

(usually up to £500) to relieve hardship caused directly or indirectly by the storm or floods as

well as Resistance and Resilience ‘top up’ grants of up to £2,000 for property level measures

that exceeded the £5,000 limit of the FRG.

Kendal Gateway coordinated by Age UK South Lakeland collected an abundance of

information including help required for grants via a bus and outreach work in the community.

Our officers had little day-to-day contact with the team and subsequently made very few

referrals. No follow up was made to these referrals and the outcome or action taken was

unclear. At times there appeared to be a duplication of support and lack of coordinated effort

which resulted in a whole range of forms that people were faced with. Residents often felt

that numerous organisations were requesting the completion of forms for unknown reasons.

Flooding has a negative impact on mental health. At times the team had to work with

residents to consider the most appropriate measures based on their health needs e.g. a

heavy barrier would not be suitable for an elderly person etc.

Page 165

24

Further reading about the impact on mental health can be found in the following report

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da

ta/file/348903/Flooding_and_mental_health_essential_information_for_frontline_responders.

pdf

Sharing of good practice

From the outset the FRG team took, and created, opportunities to discuss and share good

practice across all elements of the scheme.

It is disappointing that there was a relatively long time delay from the government

announcement of a scheme on 9 December 2015 and the launch in Manchester on the 15

January 2016. Earlier publication and clarity would have benefitted all, not least those who

had already commenced reinstatement of their property.

At the Manchester event, resilience was heavily promoted over resistance however this was

not conveyed in the subsequent guidance published. This caused confusion over the

hierarchy of flood mitigation measures although the local authority set out to promote the

initial brief.

At the same event the insurance industry fully supported and promoted the inclusion of

resilience measures during reinstatement, although in practice this did not materialise.

Despite the council forming a local agreement with one insurance company, including an

agreed schedule of rates and the grant eligible elements, the invoicing element to validate

any grant funding could not be finalised. A formal agreement across the industry should be

considered to facilitate the mechanism for funding the installation of resilience measures

during reinstatement.

As the scheme progressed a national forum/knowledge hub was formed, managed by

DEFRA, where technical queries were raised regarding eligibility criteria. Despite an

occasional positive response, in general a limited non-committal or no response at all was

the outcome. This inevitably led to local frustrations and will have contributed to an

inconsistent approach nationally.

With the intention of creating a Cumbria wide scheme the local authorities liaised at an early

stage with the aim of adopting a locally consistent approach. This proved difficult with the

each local authority interpreting the guidance at a more local level. Definitive specific

national guidance is perhaps required to ensure consistency.

Monitoring

The scheme was intended to require a light touch approach however, as the scheme

progressed it quickly became apparent that monitoring in excess of the obligatory 5% audit

of properties receiving a grant award payment was required. All applications were subject to

a stringent administrative process which was bolstered through the vigilance and actions of

officer scrutiny.

The assessment of surveys in conjunction with the application form, evidential photos and

supporting documentation/commentary provided an early opportunity to identify concerns.

Officers liaised with the householder and/or surveyor as appropriate to establish the facts

and make a judgement call on the validity and promoted effectiveness of proposals. Several

onsite meetings were often required prior to an approval being issued.

Page 166

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348903/Flooding_and_mental_health_essential_information_for_frontline_responders.pdf



25

In order to facilitate the acceptance of the quality of works the FRG team liaised with and

observed the works of contractors, where applicable, during their initial installations. This

provided opportunity to ensure the expected standard was likely to be achieved, intended to

reduce the necessity of revisits and provided confidence to the property owner and the team.

Administrative scrutiny was supported with physical audits following installation, which

despite our pre installation vigilance, identified a significant number of approved measures

that were installed incorrectly or obvious entry routes for flood water overlooked. Examples

include self-closing airbricks installed upside down and operating/maintenance leaflets left

inside, doorways protected but not adjacent high risk windows and pumps provided without

sufficient hosing length.

Without further intervention such measures were practically ineffective. It was disappointing

that some contractors fell below the expected degree of competency. Householders, who

lacked technical knowledge or raised concern with the flood grant team, were thankful for the

intervention of and advice from officers undertaking audits which often resulted in a revisit

and corrective actions by the respective or on occasion alternative contractor.

Bulk applications required regular meetings and visits throughout the scheme to initially

allow approval to be reached, monitor progress, ensure that approved measures were being

installed and identify the reasons for and approve alterations (where amended measures

were submitted). These applications and approvals required significant officer input due to

the numbers and complexities encountered.

Of the total 1683 grant payments made, in excess of 250 physical visits were made totalling

around 15% of measures installed.

Performance

From the onset of the project, unrealistic targets were promoted by central government. A

document produced by DEFRA suggested a 24 hour turnaround time of an application. In

practice most applications required additional information, required follow up calls and or

visits. As an authority we had a target date of a decision or further communication within

fifteen working days.

At peak times during the project this was unachievable. Applications were processed and for

fairly simple applications a decision was made within 48 hours.

Previous schemes had a take up rate of around 20%, and despite historic previously low

uptake levels DEFRA and DCLG were looking for high levels of uptake from the outset.

Benchmarking was set against other local authorities which was not considered appropriate

for the following reasons: -

Significant parts of the flooded areas had never flooded before and most people wanted

to accept the incident as a one off event and therefore did not want to put measures in

place

Some areas had large numbers of social housing flooded and housing associations put

in large bulk applications

Research has found that a property floods on average three times before measures are

installed.

External pressures were focused on application approval whilst we focused on getting

appropriate measures for properties at a competitive cost to demonstrate value for money.

Page 167

26

To support performance management a number of tools were set up, a dashboard with real

time data on our information management system as well as peer reviews, site visits and a

weekly drop in session to raise concerns. Complaints and compliments were dealt with via

the normal council procedures.

Internal Audit

In April 2017 Internal Audit carried out a review of the management and administration of the

grants scheme to provide assurance on the effectiveness of the scheme (but not on the

effectiveness of the measures funded by the scheme itself). They concluded that we had

“designed and implemented” an application process with “appropriate checks and controls”,

“there were effective and proportionate controls over the quotation process and verification

of the actual work undertaken”. A rating of “Substantial Assurance” was given.

Value for money

Value for money must be considered across all elements of the grant scheme.

Administration costs – SLDC calculate the administration costs to be just over £192,000. The

administration and success of the scheme ensued from the initial secondment of three full

time officers to form the backbone of the flood grant team at the outset, being supported

throughout by various colleagues. This resulted in stability, experience and efficiency as the

scheme progressed and delivered value for money. Although additional officers were

involved to support the full time officers, the lack of familiarity did impact on the efficiency

developed by the dedicated flood grant team. As administration costs were non-recoverable

and clearly a financial and resource burden on the local authority, value for money to

benefactors of the grant scheme is clearly evident, but a burden on local authority resources.

The continuing dedication of the team and commitment to assist those during a traumatic

time further supports value for money.

Quotes – In order to demonstrate value for money more than one quote was required,

initially three quotes were requested as used in previous schemes. This changed to two

quotes when guidance became available. As the scheme progressed and where

neighbouring properties or those in close proximity of similar construction submitted an

application for eligible measures with supporting evidence, one quote was often deemed

sufficient, following a positive assessment by the team, for an application to be approved.

On occasion, quoted figures were increased post approval leading to an increased invoice.

The team challenged these where appropriate notifying the homeowner and relevant

company that a quote is a fixed sum. Some companies were unable to appreciate or

understand the contractual differences between a quote and estimate. All invoices for figures

higher than those quoted were challenged by the grant team to obtain a reduction where

applicable to the approved quote. Without supporting justification estimates were not

accepted, not least to provide assurance to the householder and to demonstrate value for

money to the local authority.

Products and labour charges - Value for money concerns were highlighted as the scheme

progressed. The noticeable increase in the cost of products cast doubt over value for money,

as in some circumstances the supplier of products appeared to be increasing the cost of

items purely as a profit exercise. Concerns were also raised where the cost quoted for items

exceeded the cost of identical or similar products that were readily available from alternative

suppliers. This aspect was particularly noticeable where an applicant would apply for

Page 168

27

products only, choosing to install themselves, and in doing so obtaining an increase in value

for money and a wider selection of products. This further increased value for money as no

labour element was awarded where an applicant chose to self-install. It was evident that

some contractors, whilst within the indicative guidance figures set out in guidance notes that

resilience measures, such as concrete floors or tanking systems, were suspiciously close to

the grant maximum available.

Retrospective Applications – Conflict often arose where retrospective applications were

submitted. Where these were not supported by an independent survey or supporting quotes,

just an invoice, generally in the region of £5,000 - it was difficult for the applicant to

demonstrate value for money. It was predominantly these applications that were subject to

greater scrutiny and the implementation of further action where fraudulent activity was

identified. In an attempt to gain greater control over retrospective applications a time limit,

such as within the first two months following the announcement of a scheme, would negate

the requirement for increased scrutiny and resource impact at a later stage. This would

lessen the number of speculative applications and afford more time to the team to administer

legitimate applications.

The audit process – Whilst a light touch was the intention it was through the vigilance and

actions following officers’ findings that further safeguarded value for money. Physical audits

identified a significant number of installed products that had been installed incorrectly and

without intervention were practically ineffective. It is disappointing that some contractors

appeared incompetent.

Section four: Key partners

At the onset of the project, concerns were raised with DCLG and DEFRA about the

resources required to deliver nearly 2,400 grants which a potential total value of twelve

million pounds – all at the time when the council was still heavily involved in recovery. The

Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council also had discussions with the Northern

Powerhouse Minister and it was raised as a major concern with the strategic recovery group

which feedback to central government.

It is likely that on the back of requests for help some discussions took place with Business in

the Community (BITC). BITC is the Prince of Wales’s initiative aiming to provide a

responsible business network with a group of members who work together to tackle a wide

range of issues. The aim is to create a fairer society and a more sustainable future. They are

a business-led charity with more than 30 years' experience of mobilising business with a

core membership of more than 800 organisations from small enterprises to global

corporations. Under BITC, is Business Emergency Resilience Group (BERG). BERG

facilitates access to the resources of the member businesses of BITC to assist small

businesses to plan for, respond to and recover from events which disrupt their

business and impact their community.

BERG is fairly new and is evolving in response to events, keen to fill gaps and complement

rather than replicate the activities of others. BERG is not a first responder service and aim to

complement recovery. The principal strength is the convening power. Whilst the

following is not intended to be exhaustive review it is indicative of the sort of resource

BERG may be able to access and offer.

Winter Flood Response – One area of BERG support

Page 169

28

Web based resource. We are working to collate and make easily accessible all of our

information resources on line http://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/business-

emergency-resilience-group-berg

Insurance surgeries - from high level process to detailed advice for individuals.

Insurance claim resolution - in the rare circumstance where the appropriate

response or process is not followed BERG has had the opportunity to support

insurers and the insured

Loss Adjuster facilitation - BERG has facilitated an ‘on the ground’ and within

24 hour response from the Loss Adjuster community

Specific flood recovery advice - given in surgeries and one to one to assist

those affected to understand how their property will react and recover

Resilience repairs advice - specific guidance in how to undertake a repair which

is more likely to be ‘flood proof’ should a flood recur

Resilience repairs leaflet - created and distributed

Request for assistance forms - provided to those who seek specific/ particular

support from BERG

Provision of 4 wheel drive vehicles - to assist the recovery and relief effort –

(Jaguar Land Rover)

Provision of new, essential furniture - to enable temporary housing of those

displaced by flooding (John Lewis)

Provision of flood defence materials - Floodsacks (Alder and Allan)

Provision of technical advice - regarding clean-up operations (Adler and Allan)

Regarding ICT recovery (RBS/ Barclays etc.)

Provision of emergency food and toiletries for individuals (ASDA)

Establishment of fund raising campaign for affected rural communities (Virgin

Money Foundation & Virgin Money Foundation and Virgin Money Giving)

Provision of fencing – to replace damaged/ washed away fences for farming/

tourism and safety (Cordiners)

Emerging offers in process of negotiation

Creation of containerised/ mobile co-ordination and communication incident

office

Network of recovery facilitators, seconded from business, to work with

businesses, communities and the public sector agencies for 3 months post

event

In March 2016, SLDC was approached by BERG and DEFRA about support for the flood

grant project. The initial scope was a collaboration of businesses (made up of BERG

members), other agencies such as the EA and local organisations to provide a one stop

shop approach to flood grant/ insurance claim and general flooding support. The initiative

was led by Adler and Allan (A&A) on behalf of BERG. A&A’s areas of expertise include

emergency response; environmental, mechanical, electrical and civil engineering services as

well as specialist fuel service capabilities.

A portacabin was quickly mobilised to Asda (Kendal) (BERG Partner), being staffed by A&A

representatives. It was anticipated that partners/agencies would also operate from the unit,

however this unfortunately did not materialise and throughout the project the only BERG

member and partner involved was A&A. This resulted in conflict with the team as A&A, being

Page 170

http://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/business-emergency-resilience-group-berg

http://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/business-emergency-resilience-group-berg

29

a product supplier and survey provider, were the sole organisation operated from the unit

which led to a bias towards their services.

The portacabin remained at Asda for three months and was found not to be in the best

location, especially for the flood affected properties in north Kendal. BERG relocated to a

vacant commercial property on Blackhall Road, Kendal and remained at the shop until 26th

May 2017.

As outlined in the chapter on surveys we recommended that before consideration of

measures a flood grant survey should be completed. Locally the building surveyors were

overwhelmed with the amount of survey work and other additional building work associated

to the flooding and there was a demand on the trade. A&A stepped into this market as they

saw an opportunity and started providing surveys. For the factors highlighted about the

concerns about surveys (e.g. no standard form, training or accreditation) the first batch of

surveys were not of the standard expected and the team at SLDC helped support A&A to

increase the standard – the team put in a considerable amount of resources providing

support, educating and reading and reviewing surveys and in the first few months it put

additional pressure on the project as resources were diverted from processing applications.

A&A had a standard price of £360 for surveys. The grant had a maximum limit of £500 and

the costs varied from £240 (SLDC Building Control) up to £500.

The core of A&A’s business linked to flooding is recovery on industrial scale and they deliver

24/7 emergency response and post incident remediation for over 80% of the UK, deploying

equipment such as flood barriers, pumps and temporary storage tanks. They had no

experience of the flood grant scheme or working with communities and members of the

public as their work is all commercial nature and all flood work was focused on resistance.

As a result all the quotes were linked to resistance work which did cause ongoing debate

with the team, as for some properties resilience e.g. concrete floor should have had more

consideration. When concerns about the package of work were raised the householder/

business was informed.

Uncertainty was encountered with ‘crosswall construction’. This is a construction method

where a house has a timber framed front and rear wall (elevation) which has little structural

or flood resistance properties. Some houses of this construction style had extensions or

alterations previously made as an improvement to remove these stud wall elevations,

however this construction method was not identified by Adler & Allan. This resulted in poor

advice at the outset from survey through to promoted measures. This issue was identified

through the vigilance of the FRG team.

From the onset A&A, working under the BERG umbrella, considered this as commercial

opportunity whilst the FRG team focused on promoting the most beneficial and appropriate

measures for applicants, at a market price and standard resulting in the two objective

approaches making the relationship contentious at times. On a number of occasions senior

members from BERG and A&A were invited in for high level discussions with SLDC. DEFRA

and DCLG were invited to these meetings but did not attend. During the project, update

meetings took place on average once a week with BERG and A&A requiring numerous site

visits to obtain a satisfactory outcome. This was an additional drain on the FRG team and

although BERG may have helped to promote uptake there were clearly different agendas.

One particular measure where conflict arose was around the installation of a sump pump

(installed beneath suspended flooring with discharge hosing plumbed in). In many cases,

Page 171

30

despite approval being provided and considered greatly beneficial, a free standing puddle

pump (to pump water off a solid surface) was often supplied instead. A sump pump removes

a greater volume of water and has the potential to prevent a water level rising up to the

floorboard/carpet level. A puddle pump is only generally effective once the water level has

risen above the floor finish level. A&A often reported this was a customer decision whereas

the applicant was usually unaware of the exchange and more importantly unaware of the

reduced protection provided. The installation time and inconvenience was considered to be

the primary driver behind this approach.

SLDC was the first local authority to roll out the BERG/A&A model however, before the

project was embedded the scheme was rolled out to Lancaster, Allerdale and then later

Carlisle City Council. The absence of definitive guidance led to local variations, such as

SLDC were the only local authority requesting two quotes from A&A, as advocated in

government guidance, as opposed to one in neighbouring authorities This created tension in

the relationship with A&A despite our aim of achieving value for money.

Other areas of significant debate included:

The flood grant team often found items quoted for which were not required, for

example sealing of cable entry points, mortar repair and repainting for the same part

of the premises

Price increases from an approved quote to invoice. We rejected any increases and

the original prices were honoured after significant debate

Invoices often had new items or a change of scope from the approval. We remained

flexible to re-review requests as at times the schedule of work would change on the

day of installation e.g. opting for different measures, barrier heights etc.

The above practices created suspicions about performance related pay, bonuses and

commission although we understand staff were not based on any additional payment linked

to sales.

BERG/A&A experienced similar frustrations with the project including:

No rules, no procedures and no steer when they asked senior members of DCLG

No clear accountability on who was leading the scheme - DCLG or DEFRA

Externally the focus was on the uptake and not on quality

Lessons learnt in previous schemes had not been taken into consideration

Very resource intensive and required a project manager from the onset who was

from the sector

The two organisations are different in operating model, the private sector can take risks and

are responsible to shareholders.

Some of the feedback about SLDC from A&A/BERG

Remained clear on outcomes, governance, remained focussed and challenged

Technical input helped shape the surveys and we always highlight issues

Figures

425 surveys received via A&A

471 applications received via A&A – with 45 applications for commercial properties.

142 complaints/concerns from 111 people

Page 172

31

Following the project a debrief meeting took place in August 2018 with A&A and some of the

key findings from the meeting included:-

The lack of clarity, guidance and support from central government about the scheme

was a major barrier to the project

It was seen as a commercial opportunity which resulted in losses reported in the

region of £1.5 million over the scheme (all areas)

There is no aspiration to get involved in any further schemes

Cumbria Community Foundation

Cumbria Community Foundation (CCF) were an invaluable source of additional information

for applicants and an effective and important support partner throughout the duration of the

scheme.

Through donations made to them in the region of £10 million through 37,000 donations, CCF

were able to assist flood affected victims with initial hardship payments up to £500 intended

to help residents cover costs associated with flood damage, loss of income and increased

travel expenses. In addition where an applicant was approved for the full £5,000 flood

resilience grant, administered by the local authority, a top-up grant of up to £2,000 was

available to cover measures up to a maximum of £7,000. Whilst this aided many to install a

comprehensive package of measures some organisations saw this as an opportunity to

apply for extra measures, which on occasion were unnecessary.

In particular circumstances of vulnerability and hardship where the combined efforts of CCF

and the flood grant team deemed appropriate, CCF awarded a top-up grant in excess of the

publicised limit. CCF also provided financial aid and emotional support where vulnerable

residents had suffered impact to a property as a result of the flood event, even where they

did not meet the flood grant criteria.

Insurance companies

At the initial meeting in Manchester in January 2016 it was presented that insurance

companies would play a vital role in the reinstatement of flooded properties and they should

incorporate resilience measures during this process. This agreement would permit the costs

above like-for-like reinstatement to be grant eligible. At an early stage this appeared to a

positive step, unfortunately it became apparent that only a minority of companies were acting

on this understanding. There appeared to be breakdown in communication of this message

to those tasked with arranging reinstatement or a conscious decision by insurers to ignore

the publicised approach.

The vast majority of properties were reinstated on a like-for-like basis with no consideration

of the incorporation of resilience measures despite requests from householders at an early

stage. The local authority initially worked closely with one company and agreed that the cost

of resilience measures above like-for-like reinstatement could be grant funded. A site

meeting at a flood affected property undergoing reinstatement resulted in a mutual

understanding. The decision, however, to consider the installation of resilience measures

appeared to be a lottery and no consistency was apparent.

It transpired that the inability of the insurance company to raise invoices for any eligible

measures due to their internal processes appears to be a significant reason why the system

failed. Another reason for difficulties was the requirement of building regulation compliance

Page 173

32

for structural, thermal or similar enhancements. The raising of electrical sockets to above the

flood level was an obvious improvement and although some contractors carried this out at

no extra charge or where an insurance company refused, a separate contractor was brought

in and a subsequent grant award payment could be made.

Ultimately no payments in respect of insurance company instructed improvements were

possible.

Acknowledgements

The administration of the FRG has required the involvement of a wide range of services

within the district council and assistance from partner organisations. We would therefore like

to thank everyone that has contributed to the scheme as it would not have been possible to

deliver such a successful scheme without the support and dedication of the following staff at

SLDC:

Core flood grant team:

Fiona Inston

Sean Hall

Shaun Senior

Elaine Hall

Tom McCormick

Others include:

Cat Brumwell

Lorraine Kissock

Lisa Shaw

Alison Coward

Katie Booth

Richard Machin

SLDC teams:

Building Control

Communications

Revs and Bens

Economic Development

Finance

Legal

Contact Centre

Public Protection

Streetscene

Conclusion

The flood grant team were tireless, regularly working long hours (including weekends and

evenings) under pressure to deliver the scheme and despite this, due to the sheer number of

Page 174

33

applications and their complexity, there were unavoidable backlogs at times. We remained

consistent throughout, with our focus on the most appropriate measures while ensuring

value for money. At times our robust and challenging approach resulted in conflict and the

absence of good quality guidance did not support our project objectives.

There is significant amount of learning and we hope that DCLG, DEFRA and any other local

authorities that roll out future schemes reflect on our learning.

Appendix 1: Table of Recommendations

Section one: Scheme set up

Issue Detail Improvements/Recommendations

Minimal information

available at the

announcement and

outset of scheme

Lack of detail regarding

scheme criteria

Announce scheme with definitive

guidance, templates, forms, letters,

key scheme dates for efficiency

and clarity

Inconsistent approach

by insurers

Removing already

present resilience

measures e.g. removing

lime plaster

Painting over mould and

wet walls

Lack of knowledge,

procedures, buy in and

seeing the bigger

picture

Work to be done with loss adjustors

and insurance industry to include

resilience into re-instalment as

standard practice

Better education within the industry

Evidence of internal

flooding

Lack of clarity on overall

scheme scope and

definition e.g.

basements and integral

garages

Clear definition of what is the

acceptable standard of evidence to

support the application

Penalised for being

proactive to prevent

flooding

If an owner did proactive

measures during the

flooding and as a result

did not flood they were

not eligible for the grant

The criteria reflects owners who are

proactive

Page 175

34

Promotion of resilience

above resistance

Heavily promoted by

DEFRA however not

supported in their

guidance document and

difficult to sell

Insurance companies

not engaging with this

approach

Different interpretation

by different LA’s

Clear hierarchy of acceptable

measures which promote resilience

above resistance

Education material/messages to

promote resilience

Agreed, scheme specific approach

in resilient reinstatement of

properties with insurance

companies

Habitable Clear definition – does

property need to be

lived in at time of

flooding?

Clearer definition of which internal

areas of property which are eligible

from the start or remove the criteria

Business critical

definition

The example of

business critical was

inflexible

Remove the business critical criteria

of the grant

Surveys

No national standard –

no template or

recognised format

Different levels of

competency amongst

surveyors as no

standard qualification

Product focused

Develop national standard

Develop accepted format for survey

Requirement to be independent

from products

(Aware of some work nationally in

this area taking place)

Nationally recognised qualification

Include post install survey in future

schemes to validate installation and

ensure standards maintained

Application form

No application template

available

Lack of guidance on

how to complete form

National template

Available online

Different app. for small joint

schemes

Plain English – accessible

Template application completed as

a guide

Contractor and

quotations

Inundation of new

contractors in district

Need to ensure value for money

Page 176

35

Lack of understanding

between estimate and

quote

Indicative DEFRA

product cost list not

current

Contractors aware of

DEFRA prices and

adjust their costs

accordingly

Some prices became

inflated because of

demand e.g. silicon

sealant

Costings should be bench marked.

Minimum standard for invoices – not

hand written

Addition funds/resource should be

given to local trading standards to

police contractors and deal with

customer enquiries

Retrospective

applications

No definitive timescale

provided

Remove or provide a definitive

timescale

Eligibility of bespoke

flood mitigation

measures

Conflict over definitions To document local decisions to

ensure clarity and consistency

Section two: Operational delivery


Communications Developed comms plan

at early stage and

ensured lots of

engagement. Worked

well

Ensure comms plan developed at

an early stage

Standard of applications No supporting

documentation provided

Supporting guidance notes to aid

completion of an application

Quotations not

independent of applicant

Ensure independence of the quote

from property ownership/interest

Indicative costs for

measures were out of

date and ambiguous

No clarity if these figures

included materials and

installation/labour costs

Indicative costs to be current and

unambiguous e.g. £/m², to include

installation cost and materials

Administration of

application amendments

Changes to approved

applications

Officer to consider on individual

basis or Flood Grant Panel to

minute meetings and document

decisions

Page 177

36

Section three: Strategic Management


Resourcing Impact on day to day

statutory functions

Funding to backfill seconded staff

and to facilitate business continuity

Fraudulent claims Identification of and

action in respect of

fraudulent applications

Worked well with cross

departmental involvement.

Alternative delivery

model

Significant impact on

local authority staff

Reduce administrative burden

Performance targets Short term unrealistic

targets which focus on

numbers rather than

quality or the right

measures

Remove the focus on KPI’s.

Section four: Partners


Other Government

Agencies

Scheme announced

before detail clarified

Template scheme/process to be

made available prior to

announcement

Third Sector Too many partner

organisations –

confusing for flood

victims

Clarity for the process and

responsibilities for the respective

organisations

Page 178

Appendix 2: Flood Resilience Grant Process Map

Audit % of

applications

Paying

surveyor

directly

Pay

insurance

company

Pay

contractors

Payment Made

Pay

householder

Change of mind

BERG follow up

Additional measures required

Change of suppler/ products—

checks needed on suitability

Applicant cannot contact builder

Price goes up

BERG quotes—wrong number of

products or products do not fit

Complaints about standard of work

Aborted work or throwing supplier

off site

Approval letter details:

Amount, measures, claim

submission date and payment info

Work complete

Confirmation of

Work

Forms not complete e.g. Not

signed, missing pages or info

Do not provide info on flooding

or damage

Previous application coming

back for additional work.

Not sure on measures & next

stage

Not sure on what supplier &

where to go

Repair work

No quotes

Not flooded e.g. damp issues

Not flooded but near- after info

Work out of scope e.g. roof

repair

Not the property owner

Various

stages

Do not obtain an invoice

or proof of payment

Do not supply full info

Bank details incomplete

Different work completed

as agreed

Chasing payment that

has been paid

Forms not complete

Setting up new contactor

Inform

applicant by

letter of

approval

Yes

No

Info provided

Request more info

(Speak with

agencies)

Officers assess

application:

If community

scheme (more

than 5) project

team to review

Accept

Application

Yes

Request

more info

(Letters/calls)

Support team

assess form:

Accepted

SRU Entered

on APP

Application

received:

email or post

Pre Enquiry

Via website, call

and drop in calls.

Additional work streams

Section 19 reports Flood events and evening meetings Promoting uptake

Fraud cases Drop in sessions Newground

Insurance companies Partnership working Comms work

Community schemes Challenges with suppliers

Officer assessment— see page two

Assessment: Are measures

appropriate, effective, value for

money and quality assured?

No

Page 179

2

Page 180

3

Appendix 3 – Flood Resilience Grant Process Map

Page 181


Page 182




Scrutiny Recommendations Progress Report

Chairperson: Councillor Vicky Hughes – Chairperson of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Report from: Debbie Storr- Director of Policy and Resources (Monitoring Officer)

Report Author: Jemma Fells – Project Support Officer

Wards: Not applicable



1.1 By monitoring the progress made by Cabinet and officers in implementing the recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Members will retain sight of proposals and their outcomes. The regular reviewing of recommendations made by Members will also ensure the effectiveness of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is both maintained and monitored.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 It is recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee notes the progress made by Cabinet in implementing the recommendations of the Committee.


3.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee plays a key role in reviewing policies and performance in delivering services, managing finances and other aspects of the Council. Each year the Committee sets an annual Work Programme which combines both formal committee meetings and in-depth reviews. The Committee primarily makes recommendations to Cabinet, but can also make recommendations to other decision makers or external bodies.

3.2 Monitoring the progress of these recommendations is an important part of the effective governance provided by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In addition to these biannual reports, the Committee can receive verbal updates at meetings throughout the year during consideration of the latest Work Programme.

3.3 During 2017/18, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee presented two formal reports to Cabinet: Outcomes of the Review of Active Travel (CEX/84) and a task and finish group report contained within South Lakeland District Council and Eden District Council Joint Older Persons’ Housing Strategy 2018 – 2025 (CEX/124). The recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were agreed by Cabinet. An Asset Management Strategy Workshop was held in April 2018.

Page 183

Item No.15

Review of Active Travel

3.4 Following the Active Travel review, “work is continuing so as to meet the objectives of the action plan. Additional detail will be provided in the Environment portfolio holder’s annual report.

Joint Older Persons’ Housing Strategy

3.5 The Joint Older Persons’ Housing Strategy was approved by Cabinet on 21 March 2018 and work has been undertaken to progress actions within the Strategy’s Action Plan since then. The table below shows some highlights of work undertaken:

Action Progress

1a) Produce a directory of services for older people in partnership with statutory and voluntary agencies.

Work has been undertaken in partnership with statutory and voluntary actions and the Directory is now on the web-site and was circulated to all Members. A printed version is about to be distributed to key locations as described in the Strategy. This will help to advertise what services are available.

2a) Use discretionary non-means tested DFGs for falls prevention (SLDC).

Non-means tested DFGs are now in place in South Lakeland and this has led to a big increase in the number of DFGs being undertaken under £5000 which fall into this category. The number of DFG referrals was 106 in 2016-17 before the discretionary grants. In 2017-18 the number of referrals rose to 189. In 2018-19 the figure is likely to be higher.

2b) Become an accredited Home Improvement Agency in 2018 in South Lakeland.

The Council became an accredited Home Improvement Agency on 1 July 2018.

2f & 2g) Undertake a review of the procurement and application process for DFGs and Complete the procurement for the Handy Person Scheme.

A procurement process has been undertaken in respect of stair lifts and the contract runs until 2019. Further procurement to start in October 2018 for the remaining 6 lots. Procurement has taken place also for the Handy Person Scheme and the contract runs for 3 years from April 2018.

2k) Develop a system for DFG Officers to liaise with hospital staff regarding planned discharge of patients where a DFG can assist; and

3a) Establish a scheme to facilitate older people in the private sector to downsize targeting households where a DFG would be inappropriate, or where there are Category 1 Hazards

An additional member of staff is now in place to help in the development of HIA, increasing numbers of DFGs and to take forward actions regarding hospital discharge and downsizing. A scoping exercise to be undertaken on the above. The Council has now introduced its own architectural services within the DFG process in South Lakeland.

Page 184

in the home.

4a) Work in partnership with Cumbria County Council and Registered Providers to enable extra care schemes to be developed in line with evidenced need.

Planning consent has been provided for a 104 unit scheme at Oxenholme, Kendal and work will start in the near future on the scheme. There is also a community led extra care development taking place at Gatesbield, Windermere in partnership with Cumbria County Council. The Scheme is being part funded by South Lakeland Community Led Housing Grant and Cumbria County Council Extra Care Housing Grant. Work is progressing on the legal agreement before the development gets underway.

4c) Update Development Management Policy to require all new homes in the South Lakeland District Planning Authority area to be built to M4(2) Category 2 – Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings standard and a percentage to be built to M4(3) category wheelchair adaptable standard.

The draft Development Management Policies have now been through examination and the examiner has supported the Council approach in these requirements.

Appropriate publicity will be issued for achievements outlined in the above table in line with the Strategy’s first priority about promoting existing services.

Corporate Property and Land Management Strategy

(previously known as Corporate Asset Strategy)

3.6 The workshop was held on 12 April 2018, the comments from which have fed into the draft Strategy which is elsewhere on the agenda.

Northern Rail

3.7 A letter to Northern Rail was sent following the last meeting, the response has been circulated and Northern Rail have agreed to attend the meeting in January to provide further information and answer questions from Members.

Other recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

3.8 In addition to the formal recommendations made by the Committee, a number of comments and/or suggestions were raised throughout various items considered at committee meetings. In situations where these comments were raised against executive items, these comments were highlighted during consideration by Cabinet. Other changes requested of officers, for example in relation to grammatical or presentational issues, are typically taken into account before the item is presented to Cabinet. Portfolio Holders have shown a strong commitment to the scrutiny process over the past twelve months.

4.0 Consultation

4.1 This report has been prepared in consultation with the relevant lead officers.

Page 185


5.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee could choose not to undertake regularly monitoring of the recommendations that it has made. This is not recommended, as the Committee will have no sight of its recommendations after they have been made.

5.2 Should the Committee feel that its recommendations are not being progressed adequately it could request more regular updates from the relevant decision-maker.


6.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s broad remit and varied work programme means that its work often links to all of the priorities and targets set out within the current Council Plan.

7.0 Implications


7.1 There are no direct financial or resource implications arising from this report. The report provides an update on the implementation of previously agreed recommendations.

Human Resources

7.2 There are no staffing implications arising from this report. The report provides an update on the implementation of previously agreed recommendations.

Legal

7.3 There is a legal requirement for local authorities to operate an overview and scrutiny committee. The committee needs to be effective in its role. This report provides an update on the implementation of previously agreed recommendations.




This report provides an update on the progression of recommendations previously made by the Committee.

7.6 Summary of health, social, economic and environmental impacts: N/A




This report provides an update on the progression of recommendations previously made by the Committee.

7.9 Summary of equality and diversity impacts: N/A

Risk


That recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee are not actioned.

The value added by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be lessened.

Regular monitoring of progress made against the recommendations from the Committee.

Page 186

Contact Officers

Jemma Fells, Project Support Officer, 01539 793278, [email protected]



Active Travel

Joint Older Person’s Housing Strategy

http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/s20330/Outcomes%20of%20the%20Review%20of%20Active%20Travel.pdf

http://democracy.southlakeland.gov.uk/documents/s21386/South%20Lakeland%20District%20Council%20and%20Eden%20District%20Council%20Joint%20Older%20Persons%20Housing%20Strategy%202018-.pdf






SMT N/A


Assistant Director N/A



Leader N/A




Committee 26/10/18


Council N/A

Page 187









Page 188