Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Richard Gold, Councillor Andrea Simpson and Councillor James Mason.

Members of Cabinet are asked to consider whether they have an interest in any of the matters of the Agenda and, if so, to formally declare that interest.

Councillor Nick Jones declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of items 7 and 18, Disposal of Land at Wheatfields in Whitefield to Enable Affordable Housing Development (Parts A and B), owing to his position as a Board Member of Six Town Housing.

Questions are invited from members of the public about the work of the Council and the Council’s services.

Notice of any question must be given to Democratic Services by midday on Monday, 11 October 2021. Approximately 30 minutes will be set aside for Public Question Time, if required.

There were no public questions.

Questions are invited from Elected Members about the work of the Cabinet.  15 minutes will be set aside for Member Question Time, if required.

Notice of any Member question must be given to the Monitoring Officer by 9.30am 8 October 2021.

The following question was submitted in advance of the meeting by Councillor Russell Bernstein:

Bearing in mind the feedback from the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge how will Cabinet ensure that critical priorities both current and future will be delivered in a timely and appropriate manner?

Responding, Councillor Tahir Rafiq reported that delivery against the Corporate Plan is monitored and reported on a quarterly basis to the Council’s Cabinet. These reports provide an opportunity to reflect on scheduled progress; identify new priorities and reconfigure planned work programmes if necessary. Reported delivery progress is underpinned through individual performance management of the council’s workforce, which has recently been strengthened and a significant improvement in the volume of PDRs completed has been secured. 

A further supplementary question was asked:

How will resources be moved around the organisation if and when different priorities are identified?

Councillor Rafiq reported that resources would be reviewed based on the assessment of priorities and allocated appropriately. Councillor O’Brien added that this was wrapped up in the budget process.

The following question was submitted in advance of the meeting by Councillor Carol Birchmore:

According to the Manchester Evening News (dated 6th October) Paul Ormerod who heads up the Rochdale Council backed Rochdale Development Agency said at the Conservative Party Conference that Rochdale does not want any more affordable housing because "the council gets no money from it".

He went on to say that they wanted “unaffordable housing” and that they were deliberately creating homes that were expensive for the area and according to the Evening News when talking about Manchester residents and their housing costs he stated that: "We want some of them to come and live round Rochdale station where they can get it for half the price and the cost of a 15minute train journey."

Can the Leader please tell us if Bury Council has adopted a similar approach? If the Leader does not agree with this policy please can he explain why Bury Council are not following the lead of Salford and Manchester councils who are planning to build genuinely affordable housing available at social rent on brownfield land that they own rather than selling the brownfield land off to housing developers and only insisting for the majority of these sites that developers provide 20-25% of so called “affordable” rents which are based on the Local Housing Allowance figure for Bury.

Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien reported that Bury has carried out an assessment of housing demand and need and developed a housing strategy. There was a shortage of affordable housing, a genuine issue many residents across the borough faced, and the Council’s priority was to have as much affordable housing as it could reasonably get in the current housing market. To that end, the ambition to secure a mix of types was at the heart of the housing strategy.

He noted that there were numerous definitions of ‘affordable’ housing, some of which was not truly affordable to the majority of people so Bury Council was trying  ...  view the full minutes text for item CA.144

Minutes from the meeting held on 1 September 2021 are attached.

It was agreed:

Minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2021 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

A report from the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth is attached.

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth, presented the report regarding the refresh of the  Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), a 4 year plan which aligns the Councils spending decisions and priorities with its corporate plan and those identified through the Boroughs Let’s Do It! Strategy.

In response to Members’ questions it was noted the transformation and reform agendas maintained a system of checks and balances to monitor and measure cost pressures and ensure early signs of non-delivery or additional pressures were picked up and addressed. In most cases these would be absorbed internally, with directorates tasked with tackling emerging pressures in existing budget envelopes. With regards to Council Tax growth, an assumption had been made in the figures that this would increase by 0.5% each year which was based on the pipeline of work coming though planning. With regards to the Real Living Wage, these were set out in the report but included an assumed national increase year on year.

In response to a question about use of reserves, it was noted that there was an assumption that reserves would not be used as a long term solution but using them now would allow space for the reform and transformation savings to be realised. This strategic use allowed for reserves to be built back in later. Finally, it was noted that the terminology of Labour/Council amendments in the report were all the same and should all read ‘Council’.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.   Approved the medium term financial strategy and the assumptions regarding resources and spending requirements as at October 2021;

2.   Noted that additional demand pressures are subject to directorates identifying and delivering demand management programmes, mitigations, or savings to offset;

3.   Noted that the option of an adult social care precept is not reflected in the strategy until further national government announcements are made;

4.   Noted the projected budget gap of £2.306m in 2022/23 and £16.656m in 2023/24;

5.   Noted the significant financial risks for funding, income and demand pressures in future years and the ongoing impact of COVID on the strategy;

6.   Noted that the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) is to be updated when the government Spending Review (SR21) takes place and the outcome of the local government settlement is announced in December; and

7.   Noted further reports will be coming to Cabinet identifying proposals for consideration on how to close the financial gap in future years.

Reasons for the decision:

The Council has a statutory duty to set a legal budget for the following financial year. This report sets out an approach that enables this to be achieved within the required timescales. The MTFS aligns the Council’s spending decisions and priorities with its corporate plan and those identified through the Boroughs Let’s Do It Strategy.

Other options considered and rejected:

N/A

A report from the Cabinet Member for Housing Services is attached.

Councillor Clare Cummins, the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, presented the report which sought approval to dispose of Wheatfields, a Council owned brownfield site in Whitefield, to Onward Homes, a registered provider, for the delivery of a 100% affordable housing scheme on Council owned brownfield land. This would enable the construction of 30 new affordable homes, generate a capital receipt and also take over liability for the grant repayment. Councillor Cummins advised that the Regenda / STH supported living accommodation would not be affected by the proposed land disposal and that the Council had worked with Onward to develop the plans which included bungalows to be designed to meet the needs of those with mobility issues. It was noted that full details of the commercial terms were set out in the Part B paper later in the agenda.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.   Approved the disposal of this site to Onward Homes for affordable housing development;

2.   Approved the Heads of Terms for this disposal as set out in this report and the Part B report; and

3.   Delegated the finalised terms of the agreement to the Director of Economic Regeneration and Capital Growth in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, S151 Officer and Monitoring Officer.

Reasons for the decision:

·         The development of this site contributes to the delivery of the Councils brownfield first policy.

·         There is an increasing shortage of affordable housing in the Borough, and many families are finding it difficult to access a suitable home they can afford which meets their needs.

·         The recently published Housing Strategy has been developed to deliver the Council’s housing priorities and ensure the delivery of sufficient high quality housing to meet the current and future needs of residents. The Strategy prioritises affordable housing development, including provision for older people and specialist groups such as people with disabilities.

·         The proposal will deliver 30 two and three bed affordable homes with provision for older people and those with a disability.

·         The sale of the land will also generate a capital receipt, remove any repair and maintenance liabilities and result in wider social, environmental and financial benefits including new homes bonus and council tax revenue.

·         This proposal will accelerate delivery of this site allowing resources to be spent unlocking other brownfield housing sites across the district.

Other options considered and rejected:

·         Sale on the open market to a private developer – this option has been rejected as the sale would be subject to a viability assessment which may have the potential to mitigate the requirement for the provision of affordable housing and, potentially, reduce any capital receipt.

·         Sale via traditional approach - appoint an agent, formulate development brief through planning analysis, collate marketing materials, openly market the site and attract offers from providers. This option has been rejected as it would incur sales and marketing costs and delay the construction of the new homes by circa 18 months.

A report from the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth is attached.

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth, presented the report regarding the proposed 50:50 Joint Venture vehicle between Bury Council and Muse Developments in the regeneration programme in Prestwich. It was noted that full financial and legal details were set out in the Part B paper later in the agenda.

In response to Members’ questions it was noted that liaison with existing tenants had taken place early on to inform them of the changes and how it would affect them. Relationships were being developed so tenants knew who to contact and were kept informed and the management office in Prestwich would ensure face-to-face contact was available. With regards to site being left empty, details and phasing were still to be developed but efforts would be made to minimise the inevitable disruption. 

In terms of environmental standards, it was noted that anything the Council built would be as modern and eco-friendly as was reasonable. The Council’s involvement would ensure this type of added value above the market itself, costing more at the outset but driving high standards and securing lower running costs long-term.  

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.   Approved the Heads of Terms and the formation of a JV with Muse Developments contained within Part B of this report with final approvals delegated to the Director of Regeneration, the Section 151 and Monitoring Officer’s;

2.   Approved the principle of underwriting predevelopment costs to enable the acceleration of the planning submission. This will be limited to works completed prior to entering into the JV agreement over the next 3 months; and

3.   Noted the Councils ongoing work to manage the Longfield Shopping Centre and achieve vacant possession.

Reasons for the decision:

·         Muse have an Option Agreement on the leasehold of the Longfield Shopping Centre, this puts Muse in a unique position, the Longfield Shopping Centre is integral to the regeneration scheme, and the Council could not have purchased the Shopping Centre without Option Agreement remaining in place.

·         Muses’ exclusive rights position is based upon the fact that their consent would be required for any entity (including the Council) to develop the Longfield Shopping Centre and deliver the wider regeneration programme.

·         Addleshaw Goddard have provided clear legal advice to the Council regarding the exclusive rights position and procurement considerations when using the proposed JV.

Other options considered and rejected:

·         Following acquisition of the Longfield Shopping Centre and the acknowledgment that the centre needs significant investment and must be regenerated, the council has an alternative option to redevelop:

·         Muses’ option agreement expires in 2025. Council retains the income producing asset until expiration then procure an OJEU compliant developer. However, this is not the preferred option. This would delay the project by 6+ years and would cause significant uncertainty to local businesses and the community.

A report from the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth is attached.

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth, presented the report which identified the Phase 3 list of sites surplus to the requirements of the Council and sought approval for their disposal to help meet urgent savings targets and rationalise the estate. It also set out how the recommendation accepted by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be taken forward in relation to Community Asset Transfers (CATs).

In response to Members’ questions, it was noted that phases 1 and 2 would be revisited to develop deadlines for community groups to engage with the Council with regards to CATs, and members of the public were encouraged to speak with local Councillors and engage with officers. With regards to the projected c£8m to be generated in capital receipts, this was based on market testing but needed further monitoring and updating to be a reliable estimate. It was further noted that some investment was sometimes needed up-front to get sites ready for development and achieve a higher value.

It was noted that engagement with communities would be carried out before any transfer, but also support would be provided afterwards to mitigate issues of capacity and access to funding.

Decision:

Cabinet gave approval for the disposal of the Phase 3 property assets that have been identified as surplus to the Council’s requirements.

Reasons for the decision:

·         To enable the Council to achieve its revenue savings targets through the Transformation Programme, as well as generate capital receipts that can enable other Council projects to be supported.

·         To support community groups take on the management of property assets via CATs. This will allow residents to continue to enjoy the benefits they provide to local communities. This will also support the Council’s ‘Let’s Do It Real’ strategy – the work around the Neighbourhood Model and Team Bury’s Community Wealth Building Framework.

Other options considered and rejected:

·         Do nothing/not dispose of property assets – revenue savings and capital receipts would not be generated by not reducing the number of property assets and the Council would continue to be responsible for maintaining them with a finite budget.

·         Identify other Council programmes where revenue savings could be made, and capital receipts generated. Other areas across the Council have already been earmarked for further revenue savings and this programme is required to enable savings targets to be met. With regards to the latter, there is no other programme that will bring about capital receipts.

A report from the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth is attached.

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth, presented the report which outlined proposals to dispose of Council owned land at School Street and Green Street. This would allow the construction of 225 new homes (of which 125 will be of affordable tenures) and would generate a significant capital receipt along with unlocking in excess of £30million of private investment and driving economic growth. It was noted that this report had been received and endorsed by the Radcliffe Cabinet Committee, and that full details of the proposal commercial terms were set out in the Part B report later in the agenda. 

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.   Approved the disposal of land at School Street and Green Street in Radcliffe for housing development;

2.   Approved the commercial terms of these disposals as set out in the report; and

3.   Delegated authority to approve the finalised terms of the agreement to the Director of Economic Regeneration and Capital Growth in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, S151 Officer and Monitoring Officer.

Reasons for the decision:

·         Enable the delivery of key sites as part of the Councils Strategic Regeneration Framework for Radcliffe.

·         Facilitate the Councils Brownfield first approach to housing delivery.

·         Delivery of much needed homes with a range of affordable tenures and typologies to reflect the modern demands of housing in Radcliffe.

·         Generate capital receipt upon the successful disposal of the sites.

·         Reduce revenue cost to the council of holding, maintaining and securing this long term cleared sites.

Other options considered and rejected:

·         An alternative traditional approach would be to appoint an agent, formulate development brief through planning analysis, collate marketing materials, openly market the site and attract commercial offers from the market. This would incur sales and marketing costs along with delaying the construction of homes by approximately.18 months. This would then risk oversaturation of the Radcliffe property market when other sites come online at the same time.

·         In line with the CBRE advice, the quality of the proposals is considerable, the affordable housing is in excess of the planning policy compliant threshold and accelerates the construction of the homes. In addition the commercial offer is considerably higher than the Councils book value.

·         The Council is also disposing of 40 other sites through the Accelerated Land Disposal Programme (ALDP). Capacity is limited and there is an acute housing need across the district. These disposals are oven ready, allowing resources to be spent unlocking other brownfield housing sites.

·         For these reasons this was discounted.

A report from the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth is attached.

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth, presented the report regarding a request from WHP Telecom Ltd that an area of land next to the temporary mast on an area of open space on Peel Brow, Ramsbottom be considered as a permanent location for the telecommunications equipment.

Councillor Clare Cummins advised that she was sympathetic to the Council’s position but owing to the concerns in her community she would not be voting in favour of this report.

Decision:

Cabinet approved the grant of a lease to the telecoms operators.

Reasons for the decision:

·         The lease of the site will maintain the provision of existing mobile telecommunications for the area and provide a site that will enable the rollout of technologies such as 5G to improve digital connectivity for the area.

·         It should be noted that the agreement with EE Ltd and Hutchison 3G UK Ltd would be subject to the Electronic Communications Code. The Code was created by Schedule 2 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. Electronic communication services are now classed as essential services – this includes landlines, mobile phones and internet services. To allow these services to be provided where they are needed, the Electronic Communications Code provides a statutory basis whereby communications providers can place their apparatus on land or buildings owned by another person or organisation, which includes land owned by Councils.

Other options considered and rejected:

·         Refuse the request from the telecoms operators for a lease of the land - refusing the request could threaten the provision of the mobile telecommunications service to the area if an alternative location cannot be found. Refusal could also result in the operators exercising powers enjoyed under the Electronic Communications Code which include the ability to apply to the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) seeking the imposition of the agreement.

·         Ask the telecoms operators to look for an alternative area of land on which to locate the telecommunications equipment - this was discussed with WHP however we are informed that the Council’s land at Peel Brow is the preferred location for the siting of the equipment.

A report from the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth and Cabinet Member for Culture and the Economy is attached.

Councillor Charlotte Morris, the Cabinet Member for Culture and the Economy, presented the report advised that a funding application had been made to the Museum Estate and Development (MEND) fund to support the work on the gallery roof in order to preserve the building and the collections within, and sought approval for the release of funds to match-fund the cost of the required works. In response to Members’ questions it was noted that a breakdown of how many people used the building each year could be provided after the meeting, and that if the application was not successful a Council decision would be needed to fund the works. 

Decision:

1.   If the funding application to MEND was successful, Cabinet approved that circa £201,000 is released from the Capital Reserve to meet the cost of the required works; or

2.   If the funding from MEND is not received, Cabinet agreed to recommend to Council that the costs are met from the capital budget.

Reasons for the decision:

The money in the capital reserves has already been earmarked for investment into the Arts Service. The decision to use the money from the reserves is good management of risk to the gallery as it will prevent further disrepair of the gallery roof, further deterioration of the building and further risk of damage to the Borough’s Collections.

Other options considered and rejected:

Bury Art Museum initially requested funding of £30k to carry out work to improve better access to the roof in order that some remedial repairs could be undertaken. It is currently unsafe for anyone to access the roof. Having consulted with architectural services and in view of the roof’s age, along with health and safety considerations a condition survey was commissioned to provide a view on the best way forward. The conclusion was that remedial work might help to arrest the situation in the short term but it is merely treating the symptoms and not addressing the causes.

A report from the Cabinet Member for Corporate Affairs and HR is attached.

Councillor Tahir Rafiq, the Cabinet Member for Corporate Affairs and HR, presented the report which summarised feedback received from the LGA team’s Corporate Peer Challenge Revisit received in summer 2021, and the Council’s proposed action plan in response. In response to Members’ questions it was noted that there was a focus on developing and upskilling existing staff and ensuring core systems, such as member casework and complaints, and processes like corporate planning were working efficiently.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.   Noted the feedback from the LGA team;

2.   Endorse the “3R” Framework to inform prioritisation; and

3.   Endorsed the proposed action plan.

Reasons for the decision:

To note the progress made against the recommendations identified during the original peer challenge and the impact this has had, and to ensure the Council responds to the further issues identified.

Other options considered and rejected:

N/A.

A report from the Cabinet Member for Environment, Climate Change and Operations is attached.

Councillor Alan Quinn, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Climate Change and Operations, presented the report which outlined the proposed arrangements to oversee the implementation and governance of the Climate Action Strategy and Action Plan developed in response to the Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency in 2019.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.   Noted the findings of the public consultation and the post consultation revisions, comments, and updates;

2.   Adopted the updated Climate Action Strategy with a target of achieving carbon-neutrality by 2038;

3.   Adopted the Climate Action Plan, which will be reviewed annually;

4.   Approved the proposed arrangement for implementation and governance as set out in this report and delegate authority to the Director of Operations in consultation with the Cabinet Member for the Environment, Climate Change and Operations and Monitoring Officer to agree amendments to the governance arrangements if needed to ensure effective delivery; and

5.   Approved the method outlined for distributing the Community Climate Action Fund and delegate authority to the Director of Operations in consultation with the Cabinet Member for the Environment, Climate Change and Operations to agree amendments to the arrangements if needed to ensure effective delivery.

Reasons for the decision:

We have declared a Climate Emergency and have committed to achieving carbon neutrality in the Let’s do it strategy by 2038.

Other options considered and rejected:

The Council could attempt to achieve carbon neutrality by 2038 without a Strategy or Action Plan. This option has been considered and rejected as the Council and its partners would be unclear on their priorities and how to deliver them.

To consider the minutes of meetings of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority held on 10 September 2021.

Members discussed the minutes of the GMCA meeting held on 10 September 2021 noting the discussions around flooding, both significant storm events and instances of flash-flooding from heavy rainfall. Councillor Nick Jones requested sight of the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Strategy and asked for officers to request GMCA minutes earlier than their current publication. Members also expressed their concerns regarding GMCA scrutiny and it was noted that Bury was ensuring vacancies were filled and logistical support was given to Councillors struggling to attend meetings. It was agreed that a discussion would be held at the Democratic Arrangements Forum regarding GMCA’s flexibility regarding meeting times.

It was agreed:

Minutes of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority meeting held on 10 September 2021 be noted.

Decision:

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting under Section 100 (A)(4), Schedule 12(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, for the reason that the following business involves the disclosure of exempt information as detailed against the item.

A report from the Cabinet Member for Housing Services is attached.

Councillor Clare Cummins, the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, presented the Part B report which set out the full details of the commercial terms.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.   Approved the disposal of this site to Onward Homes for affordable housing development;

2.   Approved the Heads of Terms for this disposal as set out in this report and the Part B report; and

3.   Delegated the finalised terms of the agreement to the Director of Economic Regeneration and Capital Growth in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, S151 Officer and Monitoring Officer.

Reasons for the decision:

As set out for the Part A report.

Other options considered and rejected:

As set out for the Part A report.

A report from the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth is attached.

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth, presented the Part B report which set out the full financial and legal details of the joint venture.

Decision:

Cabinet approved the recommendations set out in the report.

Reasons for the decision:

As set out for the Part A report.

Other options considered and rejected:

As set out for the Part A report.

A report from the Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth is attached.

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance and Growth, presented the Part B report which set out the full details of the proposal commercial terms.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.   Approved the disposal of land at School Street and Green Street in Radcliffe for housing development;

2.   Approved the commercial terms of these disposals as set out in the report; and

3.   Delegated authority to approve the finalised terms of the agreement to the Director of Economic Regeneration and Capital Growth in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, S151 Officer and Monitoring Officer.

Reasons for the decision:

As set out for the Part A report.

Other options considered and rejected:

As set out for the Part A report.