Council Minutes: 14 April 2011

Present:

Before the meeting the Chairman thanked those Members who were standing down at the District Elections for their service to the Council over a number of years.

CL/121/4/11 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Lynch and Mrs L Grisedale

CL/122/4/11 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Mrs M Robinson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 10 on the agenda (Shared Services/Shared Partner Approach) as she was an employee of Carlisle City Council.

Councillor A P Richardson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the late item on the agenda (Treasury Management: Amendment of Investment Policy) as a shareholder of Lloyds.

CL/123/4/11 Minutes

The following minutes

1. HRA/1/7/10 - HRA/3/7/10 of the meeting of the Human Resources and Appeals sub Committee held on 29 July 2010
2. HCp/33/12/10 - HCp/44/12/10 of the meeting of the Housing and Community Panel held on 16 December 2010
3. HRA/4/1/11 - HRA/7/1/11 of the meeting of the Human Resources and Appeals sub Committee held on 13 Jan 2011
4. HRA/8/1/11 - HRA/12/1/11 of the meeting of the Human Resources and Appeals sub Committee held on 24 Jan 2011
5. HRA/13/2/11 - HRA/15/2/11 of the meeting of the Human Resources and Appeals sub Committee held on 2/3 February 2011
6. Cl/110/2/11 - Cl/120/2/11 of the meeting of Council held on 24 February 2011
7. EEp/44/3/11 - EEp/50/3/11 of the meeting of the Environment and Economy Panel held on 17 March 2011
8. ACg/28/3/11 - Agc/37/3/11of the meeting of the Accounts and Governance Committee held on 24 March 2011

were agreed as a correct record of those proceedings

CL/124/4/11 Chairman's Announcements

The Chairman made the following announcements:

Last Friday we celebrated the Eden Local Heroes Award Winners at a Special Civic reception at the Stoneybeck Inn, near Penrith.

The Local Heroes awards are run by the Council in conjunction with the Cumberland and Westmorland Herald. Seven awards were presented to individuals and groups who have made a positive contribution to their local community.

These included two Outstanding Achievement Awards, one of which were presented to the BBC's Blue Presenter, Helen Skelton for her amazing feats raising money for Comic Relief and Sports Relief and the other to Leslie Dowson for his charity fundraising activities during the past 60 years.

The 2011 Local Heroes Award Winners are:

Chairman's Award - For the individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the District over a long period of time.
Winner - Joan Johnstone - Board Member Eden Housing Association
Runner up - Margaret Lightburn - Penrith Show

Business Award - Outstanding contribution by an individual or business to the well-being of the District.
Winner - The Lakes Free Range Egg Company
Runner up - Cumbria Classic Coaches

Young People's Award - For the outstanding contribution made by a young person or group who are 18 years or under.
Winner - Oliver McGeorge - Award winning young chef.
Runner Up - Simon Wright - Friday Night Kickabout Project, Penrith

Community Award - For the outstanding initiative/project by a group or individual in their local area/community.
Winner - Lyvennet Community Trust
Runner up - Valerie Allen - Penrith Rainbow Club

Sport/Cultural Award - Outstanding contribution by an individual or team to the sporting or arts profile/success of the District.
Winner - Ben Williamson - Football coach, Penrith
Runner up - Andrew Collin - Nunwick Cricket Team

At the awards ceremony I presented the Director of Hospice at Home, Sheila Thompson with a cheque for £874.23 for all the fundraising that has gone on over several months for my chosen charity. So I thank you all for your donations.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Herald Editor's Colin Maughan for his support with the awards this year, and to Louise Fawcett from the Chief Executive's office, who has undertaken the hard work planning the awards programme and Civic Reception.

The Council's new Interim Chief Executive, Robin Hooper is now in post and we welcome Robin to Eden and hope he enjoys his time with the authority. He is currently away on leave, but will be at the Annual Meeting of Council on 19 May.

The quality of Eden District Council's website www.eden.gov.uk has been recognised in a national best performance survey carried out by Socitm, which placed the District Council in the top 20 Better Connected websites for local authorities in the UK.

Eden Council's website was one of only 9 (out of 433) to be awarded four stars. It was also cited as showing good practice in the areas of web accessibility for people with disabilities and use of plain language. So congratulations to our dedicated website team and continue with your hard work, this recognition is well deserved.

This month Cumbria's local authorities and housing organisations have introduced a new way of allocating council homes and housing association properties. A new Choice Based Lettings (CBL) system called Cumbria Choice is now being used. Customers who are registered on Cumbria Choice can bid for a home they are interested via a new website, by phone or by texting for more information visit www.cumbriachoice.org.uk

Congratulations should also be passed on to those who have campaigned so readily to save Penrith's independent Lonsdale Alhambra Cinema. It was very welcome news that, the cinema has been granted a longer lease, which keeps a vibrant business going at the heart of the Eden community.

The minerals and mine workings of North East Cumbria have inspired 'Hand Over Hand', a new free exhibition at Penrith and Eden Museum of artwork by Jane Foale. The artist's fascination with geology and mining history is reflected in the work, much of which responds to Silver Gill Mine in the Caldbeck Fells.

The project came about after a visit underground at Silver Gill with Warren Allison of the Cumbria Amenity Trust Mining History Society and has involved the cooperation of the Lake District National Park Authority. Also on show are some of the area's spectacular, but rarely-seen, mineral specimens from the collections of Penrith Museum and Tullie House Museum in Carlisle. For more information visit www.eden.gov.uk/museum.

The Penrith Spring Clean is taking place this Saturday 16 April between 10am-1pm. If you would like to take part, volunteers are meeting at St Andrew's Parish Rooms, in Penrith. Litter picking equipment is provided. All are welcome. For further information, contact Deborah Garnett on tel: (01768) 212343. The Spring Clean is by: Churches Together in Penrith, Eden District Council, Penrith Action for Community Transition (PACT), Soroptimists and University of the Third Age.

Finally, I am sure my fellow Members, were sadden to hear last month of the loss of Pauline Stoddart, who sadly passed away over the weekend 19/20 March. Pauline had only retired relatively recently from her role with the Council's contractor Enterprise and had always been a cherished member of the Eden team. Pauline took great pride and showed great commitment to the management, cleaning and caretaking of Council buildings and our thoughts and prayers are with her family.

The Leader announced that he had received the resignation of Councillor Richard Turner as an Executive Member and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning Policy. He paid tribute to Councillor Turner for his contribution to the Executive, his former role as Planning Committee Chairman and his work as a ward Councillor and wished him the best for the future.

CL/125/4/11 Questions by the Public

There was one question from a member of the public under rule 10 of the constitution:

The Director of Corporate and Legal Services read out a question on behalf of Noel Watson

Please could you provide the complete attendance record of each member of the Planning Committee at Site Visits and Full Planning Committee, particularly the actual number of times a given member attended and also whether apologies were tendered

Councillor J Thompson, Chairman of the Planning Committee, gave the following reply:

16 meetings of the Planning committee were held between 20 May 2010 and 31 March 2011 (including site visits)

Please note Standing Deputy attendance is not included

CL/126/4/11 Question by Members

There were nine questions from Members received under rule 12 of the constitution:

1. Councillor N Hughes asked the following question of the Leader of the Council
   
   Can the Leader please separately iterate all the specific discussions he has had since 10 February 2011 - when this council decided to defer its decision on closing nine public toilets within its area - with parish council chairs and clerks in the wards affected, outlining the content of the themes discussed? Will he please also state whether he took part in such discussions (either by e-mail, phone or face-to-face) either as the Leader of Eden District Council or as a potential Conservative party candidate in the forthcoming elections on May 5, stating which other members of the local Conservative party accompanied him in such discussions?
   
   Councillor Nicolson, Leader of the Council, replied as follows:
   
   I received e mails from the Clerk of Dufton Parish Council on 3 March 2011 and 8 March 2011 regarding the Councils offer of land for a children's play area in Dufton Village. I have had no other communications with Town and Parish Councils in my capacity as Leader of the Council.
   
   I am unable to say whether I attended any meetings with Town or Parish Councils in the wards affected by proposed toilet closures in the capacity of a potential Conservative Party candidate. I believe that election campaigning is not a matter that should be raised in Council.
   
   Councillor Hughes asked the following supplementary question:
   
   I understand that a meeting was held between you and the Chairman and clerk of Shap Parish Council. I believe this covered a number of topics including the potential for alternative management arrangements for the toilets in Shap. If you were not there in your capacity as Leader then can you tell us in what capacity you were there?
   
   In reply Councillor Nicolson repeated that he did not believe that election campaigning should be raised in the Council Chamber.
   
   
2. Councillor Morgan asked the following question of the Resources Portfolio Holder
   
   On 16 September 2010 Council resolved to commit £200,000 capital funding to the regeneration of Penrith town centre. This was to be funded by the reimbursement of £200,000 by Sainsbury's PLC of capital fees of expended by the Council following delays in the New Squares project. At the time we were informed that the £200,000 was the first tranche of a total of £500,000 to be repaid by Sainsbury's PLC. My question is: "In the seven months since that resolution, has the Council received any or all of the remaining £300,000 expected from Sainsbury's PLC?
   
   Councillor Nicolson as Resources Portfolio Holder replied as follows:
   
   Council has a legally binding agreement with Sainsbury's that enables the Council to claim up to £500,000 against costs we have incurred in connection with Legal and Surveyors fees and in delivering the new Frenchfield Stadium.
   
   To date, £274,063.62, including VAT has been claimed and paid. This represents a high proportion of Legal and Surveyors fees and non building contract costs at Frenchfield. There will be a further claim which will cover any remaining fees and outstanding Building Contract costs. However, this cannot be finalized until the Final Account for the contract is agreed. In preparing the Final Account we are required to consult Sainsbury's and have regard to any views they express. Once this has been completed we can prepare the second claim. The first payment will fully cover the sums committed by Council for Penrith regeneration in September and the sums approved by The executive on 5 April for specific projects.
   
   Members may wish to note that my colleague Councillor Mary Robinson is leading work on the preparation of a rural development plan which will, subject to Council approval, utilize some of the remaining funds and ensure that Eden generally will benefit from this windfall.
   
   There are no specific timescales for claiming due sums therefore any delay in finalizing the accounts will not limit the amount to be paid in the future.
   
   Councillor Morgan asked the following supplementary question:
   
   There is £325,000 still to come from Sainsbury's. Can I have an assurance that a proportionate sum will go to the other town centres in the district?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that Councillor Mrs M Robinson was leading work on the Rural Development Plan to address including the three town centres. He added that he could not give actual figures but he would be disappointed if the amount was not as least as much as had been allocated for Penrith.
   
   
3. Councillor Eyles asked his first question of the Leader of the Council
   
   Has the Leader had any feedback from members of staff of Eden District Council about his proposal to share a chief executive officer, senior staff and services with Carlisle City Council and, if so, what proportion would he describe as supportive of his plans and what proportion against them?
   
   Councillor Nicolson, Leader of the Council, replied as follows:
   
   Councillor Eyles has seven questions. Numbers 1, 3, 5 and 7relate directly to item number 10 on the agenda for tonight's meeting. My understanding of the purpose of members' questions to members of the Executive is that it gives members an opportunity to hold the Executive to account on matters not covered elsewhere on the agenda. I feel that Councillor Eyles will have ample opportunity to raise his questions in the debate at item 10 on tonight's agenda and I respectfully suggest that he raises his questions at that time.
   
   However, his fifth question asks: 'Since it will be the electorate who will decide if the current leader of Eden District Council will even be a councillor after the election in May, was his threat to resign from his post if, in April, the council rejects his plan to enter into a shared service agreement with Carlisle City Council not rather hollow since his resignation would be for only three weeks?
   
   I find his reference to "rather hollow" in question 5 interesting. Will he apply the same description to Councillor Mrs Lumley's motion which is to be considered at item 7 on tonight's agenda?
   
   
4. Councillor Eyles asked his second question of the Leader of the Council
   
   Does the Leader of Eden District Council believe in the principle of free speech?
   
   Councillor Nicolson, Leader of the Council, replied as follows:
   
   Absolutely
   
   Councillor Eyles asked the following supplementary question of the Leader:
   
   Was it then appropriate to ask an officer to find out the names of members of staff who were making unkind comments to him
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that he felt it was entirely appropriate, that if he was contacted by a resident it was his practice to ask who they were and where they were from, he said that free speech was a power to express views and he had never prevented anyone from doing so.
   
   
5. Councillor Eyles asked his third question of the Leader of the Council
   
   In any modern organisation computer systems are essential for providing the most efficient services, both in time and money. What analysis has been done of the compatibility of the software platforms used by the three councils involved in the shared services evaluation, namely Eden, Carlisle and South Lakeland?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that the analysis which had been carried out had focused on the areas agreed by the Transformation Board and that these had not included the computer systems.
   
   Councillors Eyles asked the following supplementary question:
   
   Why was IT not included? In the twentieth century it is a fundamental bedrock of business.
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that this question should be addressed to the Transformation Board collectively.
   
   
6. Councillor Eyles asked his fourth question of the Leader of the Council
   
   What was the purpose of the leader's transformation board?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that he did not claim ownership of the Transformation Board. He referred Councillor Eyles to the terms of reference of the Board which had been endorsed by Council.
   
   Councillor Eyles asked the following supplementary question
   
   You created the Board before you told Council about it, will you agree it is your Transformation Board?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that he had initially set up arrangements to obtain external advice regarding the transformation process of the Council. The terms of reference of the Transformation Board had been agreed by Council.
   
   
7. Councillor Eyles asked his fifth question of the Leader of the Council
   
   Since it will be the electorate who will decide if the current leader of Eden District Council will even be a councillor after the election in May, was his threat to resign from his post if, in April, the council rejects his plan to enter into a shared service agreement with Carlisle City Council not rather hollow since his resignation would be for only three weeks?
   
   Councillor Nicolson referred Councillor Eyles to the answer that he had given to this question earlier and asked again whether Councillor Eyles would apply the same description to the motion on notice later on the agenda?
   
   
8. Councillor Eyles asked his sixth question of the Leader of the Council
   
   Will the present prohibition on people who work for Eden District Council standing as a Councillor be extended to any council with which EDC shares senior officers, staff and services?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that this was outside his area of speciality.
   
   The Director of Corporate and Legal Services had responded to him that a person is disqualified from being elected as a member if he holds any paid office or employment with that Authority. This disqualification provision is contained in section 80 of the Local Government Act, 1972. The Council does not have any discretion or role in this prohibition. The law will be applied. The most senior positions in any local authority will be politically restricted posts and they would not be able to be councillors because of this restriction.
   
   Councillor Eyles asked the following supplementary question:
   
   Has the Leader had feedback regarding the proposal to share a Chief Executive and management team with Carlisle? If so, what proportion have been in favour?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that he had received feedback but did not have the percentages requested. He pointed out that he did not know the authors of the comments received and that it was possible that more than one comment had been submitted by each respondent.
   
   
9. Councillor Eyles asked his seventh question of the Leader of the Council
   
   The main reason for the leader wanting Eden Council to enter a shared service agreement with Carlisle City Council seems to be that Carlisle is slightly closer to Penrith than is Kendal. Three websites that calculate distance between towns vary between 17.97 to 21.8 miles for Carlisle and 23.02 to 32.4 miles for Kendal. With such a variation should not other factors be taken into consideration, such as traffic density and ease of access, if travelling between two points is going to decide the future of this council and its taxpayers?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied: no, because it wouldn't.

CL/127/4/11 Motions on Notice

There was one motion on notice received under rule 13 of the constitution

Motion by Councillor Mrs G Lumley
Seconded by Councillor R Turner

This Council has lost all confidence in the way the Leader has handled the process by which we have moved to a recommendation for a potential partner council and with which to enter into a shared staff and shared services agreement. I call upon him to consider his position and resign as Leader immediately

Councillor Lumley said that this was not intended as a personal attack on the Leader or a reflection of her opinion of Carlisle as a potential partner. It had arisen from her concerns around the process by which Carlisle had been chosen as the recommended partner. She said that there had been insufficient time for satisfactory deliberation of the submissions of the councils before the announcement of Carlisle as the preferred partner had been made.

The motion was debated and Members raised the following issues: concerns that the report had not been endorsed by the Transformation Board; lack of involvement by the Executive; the lack of information supplied to the Board and the lack of scrutiny and public involvement.

Motion by Councillor M Holliday
Seconded by Councillor H Sawrey-Cookson

To proceed to the next business

The Chairman, considering that the item had been sufficiently discussed, and Councillor Lumley having exercised her right to reply, the motion was put to a vote where there were:

For the motion 17
Against the motion 17

The Chairman exercised her casting vote for the motion and the motion being passed the meeting proceeded to the next business.

CL/128/4/11 Executive report

Council considered report CE4/11 of the Chief Executive which informed Council on the activities of the Executive and Portfolio Holders since the last full meeting of Council on 10 February 2011.

Members of the Executive responded to a number of questions from Members relating to the activities and engagements outlined in the report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted

CL/129/4/11 Presentation by the Portfolio Holder for Performance and Improvement

The Council received a presentation from Councillor A Richardson, Portfolio Holder for Performance and Improvement.

Councillor Richardson informed Council that it had been a year of change, the Audit Commission and the National Indicators were ending but there was still a need to focus on improvement and monitoring of the Council. The new emphasis was on the monitoring of the corporate plan.

The Equalities Act had brought in new specific duties for the public sector and there was protection for nine groups of people. He reported that the authority had recently be assessed as reaching the achieving level of the Equalities Framework for Local Government.

The Authority was committed to training and development of Members and he encouraged Members to attend the training provided.

Councillor Mary Robinson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business and withdrew from the meeting at 7.52pm

CL/130/4/11 Shared Services/Shared Partner Approach

Council considered report CE5/11 of the Leader of the Council which reported back on the work of the Transformation Board and the work undertaken to assess the suitability of Carlisle City Council and South Lakeland District Council as potential partners for a joint Chief Executive, joint Management Team and shared services. The report had been considered by and amended in light of comments from the Transformation Board, JCC and Executive.

Motion by G Nicolson
Seconded by J Thompson

1. That the preferred partner for the appointment of a joint Chief Executive, joint Management Team and shared services be Carlisle City Council for the following reasons:
   
   Financial Issues
   1. Carlisle City Council have a robust transformation programme which has been in place for about two years and Eden can benefit from the work which has been carried out and the learning which Carlisle have from this process.
   2. Drawing on the information set out in Appendix 10 it is clear that both Carlisle and SLDC are financially sound and well managed. In particular both have Medium Term Financial Plans (MTFP) that show both Councils are robustly tackling their revenue deficits.
   At the end of 2014/15 SLDC's revenue budget is projected to break even whilst Carlisle's is projected to be in surplus by £800,000. Therefore, it is considered that this gives a narrow preference to Carlisle on financial grounds.
   
   Vision
   1. The visions of both Carlisle and South Lakeland were similar in many respects to that of Eden and therefore it would not be possible to distinguish between the two.
   Joint Agenda of Projects etc
   1. Both Councils have a number of projects and programmes they are developing and with the option Eden has selected of having a mixed economy of shared services Eden could benefit from continuing to work with both even with a shared Chief Executive and Management Team so it is not possible to distinguish between the two.
   2. The beneficial impact for other public sector organisations in working with one or other of the Councils. This includes the County Council with its main offices in Carlisle where the Officers can meet locally saving time and money in travel. It also includes the operational command for Police Basic Command Unit which is based on the Districts of Eden and Carlisle. The LEP representative is also for Carlisle and Eden. In comparison the main county and Policy arrangements do not apply for South Lakeland although there are area county offices in Kendal.
   3. In relation to the existing joint working relationships, South Lakeland and Eden already have contracts in place for shared services for IT and Revenues and Benefits. In respect of Eden, car parking enforcement and green waste collection services are provided by Carlisle. Carlisle has also offered to review the waste and other contracting services with Eden to see if further savings can be generated. The mixed economy of shared services is already therefore in place from which sharing of services can develop.
   4. The strength in depth and resilience that each of the organisations presently have and would continue to have. Carlisle as a major administrative and commercial centre is likely to continue to be the centre for much of the activity in the county at an administrative level. That brings with it opportunities for major developments which Eden could benefit from. Where Carlisle for whatever reason is unable to meet the demands for economic development opportunities then in working with Eden, Penrith or indeed other towns in Eden may be able to be given the opportunity. In working with South Lakeland it is unlikely that such economic development opportunities would arise.
   5. The access to a broader range of expertise within each Council that can benefit the relationship. Both South Lakeland and Carlisle are larger authorities with access to a larger number of experts than Eden presently has. Carlisle has a larger range of property assets and a slightly wider portfolio of activity which means it needs a broader range of professionals and access to contracts for the provision of these skill areas that Eden could benefit from.
   External Funding
   1. Funding received by any Council would only be available to it. The opportunity to partner with any Council on shared services means that Eden can continue to benefit from its shared services and joint working with both Councils. The fact that Carlisle is in part an urban authority, the nature of work it will do with the City will provide other perspectives for the Chief Executive and Management Team to work with from which Eden can benefit from and in turn the rural area of Carlisle will benefit from the expertise that Eden can offer to it.
   Sustainability
   1. The overall asset base and income sources that Carlisle has to offer are greater than South Lakeland excluding its housing stock. That brings with it sustainability and resilience in terms of funding its Chief Executive and Management Team thereby providing security for Eden in partnering with it.
   2. The distance from each administrative centre (which for Carlisle to Penrith is 20 miles and from Kendal to Penrith is 28 miles according to Eden District Council's mileage claim system). The shorter the distance the quicker it will be for Officers etc travelling to move between the two locations thereby saving time and also the lower costs of the travelling will be of benefit to both Councils.
   3. The availability of public transport from each administrative centre. Carlisle and Penrith are connected by a main rail route. Penrith and Oxenholme near to Kendal are also on the same route. It is sustainable for Officers to be able to travel by public transport. Having the main shorter rail route with a more direct access to the city centre is of benefit for the Carlisle option.
   4. The location of Cumbria County Council offices where joint working with the Council could be enhanced to benefit Eden. As Carlisle is the administrative centre then Carlisle certainly has advantages on this point.
2. the sovereignty of Eden District Council would be retained and the Council acknowledges that Carlisle City Council would wish to retain its sovereignty.
3. the Council confirms it wishes to retain offices in Penrith for access by the public for the delivery of services.
4. South Lakeland District Council Members and Officers be thanked for offering to work with Eden District Council in sharing the Chief Executive, Management team and working towards further shared services. The IT and Revenues and Benefits shared services arrangements continue.
5. the Council invites Carlisle City Council to work with it in developing the proposal for a joint Chief Executive and Management Team and sharing services to generate financial savings and subject to Carlisle City Council's formal approval in principle of these shared arrangements later in April 2011 the Transformation Board with the appointed group from Carlisle City Council consider the way forward to implement the changes and report back to the Council on 16 June 2011 on the proposals for consideration.
6. the Council acknowledge that in accordance with the Medium Term Financial Plan, approximately £800,000 savings are needed and if money is to be found to support discretionary service priority areas (more savings may be required if the New Homes Bonus is used for housing) and the Interim Chief Executive be requested to consult with Members and employees seeking suggestions on all options available and for him to report to the Executive and Council in June 2011 with options and proposals.
7. the Interim Chief Executive and Management Team have discussions with Officers from Carlisle on the opportunity for sharing services and timetables and report to the Transformation Board on the outcome.
8. consideration be given to having a joint communications strategy.

Councillor Nicolson responded to a number of questions from Members on the process for the analysis and comparison of the two potential partners and the information presented in the report.

The motion was debated.

Members raised issues and concerns including the following:

The staff had been consulted on the proposals and had expressed a clear preference for working with South Lakeland District Council. There were concerns that the views of staff had not been sufficiently taken into consideration.

The report did not take into consideration the transport links to Kendal or the extent of use by Eden residents of services in Kendal

Amendment by Councillor Mrs G Lumley
Seconded by Councillor R Turner

That the decision on the preferred partner for the appointment of a joint Chief Executive, joint Management Team and shared services be deferred for consideration by the new Council after the District Council elections.

The amendment was debated.

Members raised the following issues and concerns:

The matter had not been the subject of public consultation, and stakeholders such as Parish Councils and voluntary groups should have the opportunity to express their views.

New information was still emerging which should be considered before a decision was taken.

A number of the Members would not be standing for re-election and the newly elected Councillors should be given the opportunity to consider the issues and make the decision

The information contained within the report did not contain sufficient evidence on which to make a decision or to form a business case.

The choice between the two potential partner authorities was finely balanced and either could be a suitable partner.

The report relied on travelling costs and did not take into account the option of for example, video conferencing for achieving savings.

Carlisle is a mainly urban authority whereas Eden and South Lakeland are both mainly rural.

Substantial potential savings would be at risk if a shared services partner could not be identified.

Delay in the identification of a shared services partner would set back the implementation of the shared chief executive and management team, reduce the savings achieved and jeopardise the strength of the future partnership.

The report was the result of nine months of work. Current Councillors had many years experience and would be neglecting their duty to defer a decision.

The decision would not be final until considered by Council in June and there remained the option to enter talks with South Lakeland if detailed negotiations with Carlisle were unsuccessful.

Eden and South Lakeland are similar Councils with little recognised deprivation and both could be marginalised. Carlisle and Eden would be able to learn from each other.

The group leaders confirmed that a whip was not in place for the vote on this item.

A recorded vote was held where there were:

For the amendment 17

Councillors: Mrs Bell, Boustead, Burgin, Eyles, Fisher, Hughes, Ladhams, Mrs Langan, Mrs Lumley, Morgan, J Nicholson, Phillips, Mrs Richardson, Mrs E Robinson, Savage, Turner, Mrs Wilcox

Against the amendment 16

Councillors: Davidson, Harrison, Mrs Lowis, G Nicolson, Mrs Orchard, Patterson, A P Richardson, Sawrey-Cookson, Simpson, Smith, Temple, Thompson, Threlkeld, Tonkin, Holliday and Mrs Raine

The amendment was carried and on being put as the substantive motion a recorded vote was held where there were:

For the motion 17

Councillors: Mrs Bell, Boustead, Burgin, Eyles, Fisher, Hughes, Ladhams, Mrs Langan, Mrs Lumley, Morgan, J Nicholson, Phillips, Mrs Richardson, Mrs E Robinson, Savage, Turner, Mrs Wilcox

Against the motion 16

Councillors: Davidson, Harrison, Mrs Lowis, G Nicolson, Mrs Orchard, Patterson, A P Richardson, Sawrey-Cookson, Simpson, Smith, Temple, Thompson, Threlkeld, Tonkin, Holliday and Mrs Raine

And RESOLVED that the decision on the preferred partner for the appointment of a joint Chief Executive, joint Management Team and shared services be deferred until after the district elections for consideration by the new Council.

Councillors: G Boustead, H Harrison, T Ladhams, Mrs Lowis, J Nicholson, Mrs Orchard, G Savage, H Sawrey-Cookson, W Patterson, K Phillips and Mrs Wilcox left the meeting at 9.05pm

Councillor Mrs M Robinson re-joined the meeting at 9.05pm

CL/131/4/11 Eden Business Park Phase 2

Council considered report TS20-11 of the Director of Technical Services which advised Members of various issues that needed to be considered to support the continued expectation of future employment land in Penrith being located on the site designated for Eden Business Park phase 2 between M6 J40 and J41

Councillor Mrs J Lowis re-joined the meeting at 9.12pm

RESOLVED that

1. Preliminary work, involving the flood plain determination and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Eden Business Park Phase 2 land be undertaken as set out in the report - Appendix 1 (PDF: 2 pages / 110 Kb) subject to funding being allocated; and
2. An increase in its Capital Programme be approved of £75,000, funded from revenue. This would require a supplementary estimate of £27,500 in 2011-2012 and addition to the base budget of £25,500 in 2012-2013 and £22,000 in 2013-2014

Councillor Ladhams re-joined the meeting at 9.15pm

CL/132/4/11 Review of the Constitution

Council considered report CLS16/11 of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services which set out the recommendations of the Standards Committee in relation to the review of the constitution.

RESOLVED that:

1. the recommendations of the Standards Committee from its meeting on 30 March 2011 in relation to the
   review of the constitution - Appendix 2 (PDF: 3 pages / 168 Kb) be accepted
2. the Director of Corporate and Legal Services be authorised to undertake the necessary amendments to the constitution to give effect to the resolution of the Council upon the changes to the constitution.

The Chairman advised that item 13 on the agenda: Delegation of Setting of Combined Council Tax, had been withdrawn.

CL/133/4/11 Related Party Transactions and Members' Interests

Council considered report F34/11 of the Director of Finance which reminded Members of the approach for gathering the information required for the 'Related Party Transactions' note in the annual accounts.

RESOLVED that

1. It be confirmed that the disclosures in the accounts and Related Party Transactions be extracted from the Register of Interests
2. Members ensure that their interests in the Register of Interests are up to date

CL/134/4/11 Carry Forward of Revenue Budgets

Council considered the decision at of the Executive of 5 April at E/129/4/11 and

RESOLVED that

1. the budgets set out in section 5.1 of report F35/11 of the Director of Finance and approved by the Executive on 5 April 2011 (Appendix 3 PDF: 3 pages / 126 Kb) be carried forward from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012 and that a supplementary estimate of £189,630 be approved to fund this:
2. the Local Authority Business Growth Incentive Scheme (LABGI) funded budgets, detailed in section 5.2 of report F35/11 of the Director of Finance and approved by the Executive on 5 April 2011 (Appendix 4 PDF: 1 page / 64 Kb), be carried forward into 2011-2012.

CL/135/4/11 Select Tender List for the Retender of Blue Collar and Leisure Management Services and Proposed Tender Evaluation

Council considered report TS36-11 of the Director of Technical Services which set out the details of the Pre-qualification submissions for Contractors wishing to bid for either the Blue Collar Services or Leisure Management Services and asked Council to confirm a select list of contactors to tender for each of the above services.

The report also outlined the principles and general concepts around the criteria which would underpin the award of the contracts and provided an update on the current programme for the project.

RESOLVED that

1. The following Select List of contractors that will be invited to participate in dialogue for Lots 1 to 5 for Blue Collar Services be approved
   
   

   Lot	Contractors to be appointed to the Council's Select List and invited to participate in competitive dialogue for Blue Collar Services
   Lot 1	Contractor C Contractor D Contractor E
   Lot 2	Contractor C Contractor D Contractor E Contractor I
   Lot 3	Contractor C Contractor D Contractor E Contractor I
   Lot 4	Contractor A Contractor C Contractor D Contractor E
   Lot 5	Contractor H Contractor J

2. The following Select List of contractors that will be invited to participate in dialogue for the Leisure Management Services contract be approved:
   
   

   Contractors to be appointed to the Council's Select List and invited to participate in competitive dialogue for Leisure Management Services
   Contractor 2 Contractor 4 Contractor 5 Contractor 6 Contractor 7 Contractor 9

3. The following evaluation criteria for the award of Lots 1 to 5 for Blue Collar Services be approved:
   
   

   Criteria	Detail	Max Points
   Cost	The 70 points could be awarded to the lowest tender and lower points for tenders which are above budget.	70 (Minimum allowed to accord with the Council's Procurement Rules)
   Method Statements	These will be scored on the reasonableness of the respective proposals.	10
   Resources	Operational.	5
   Resources	Management / Supervision.	5
   Performance Management	These will be scored on the extent and reasonableness of the respective proposals.	5
   Innovation / Development	These will be scored on the extent and reasonableness of the respective proposals.	5

4. The following evaluation criteria for the award of the Leisure Management Services contract be approved
   
   

   Criteria	Detail	Max Points
   Cost	The 70 points could be awarded to the lowest tender and lower points for tenders which are above budget.	70
   Method Statements	These will be scored on the reasonableness of the respective proposals.	10
   Resources	Operational.	5
   Resources	Management / Supervision.	5
   Performance Management	These will be scored on the extent and reasonableness of the respective proposals.	5
   Innovation / Development / Investment	These will be scored on the extent and reasonableness of the respective proposals.	5

The Chairman considered that the following item of business should be considered as an urgent item as a delay of one meeting cycle was not in the best interests of the efficient operation of the service.

Councillor AP Richardson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following item of business and withdrew from the meeting at 9.25pm

CL/136/4/11 Treasury Management: Amendment of Investment Policy

Council considered report F44/11 of the Director of Finance which informed Members of the opportunities presented by changes in the rates offered in the money markets that could only be taken if the investment policy was changed.

RESOLVED that the following line be added to the current investment policy:

CL/137/4/11 Exclusion of Press and Public

RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, members of the public (including the press) be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Councillor A P Richardson re-joined the meeting at 9.28pm

CL/138/4/11 Select Tender List for the Retender of Blue Collar and Leisure Management Services and Proposed Tender Evaluation - Appendices

RESOLVED that the appendices to report TS36-11 of the Director of Technical Services be noted

CL/139/4/11 Minutes

Minute E/23/7/10 of the meeting of the Executive held on 6 July 2010 was agreed as a correct record of those proceedings

CL/140/4/11 Date of next meeting

Members were informed that the date of the next full meeting of Council would be held on 19 May 2011

The meeting closed at 9.30pm