Decisions

Councillor Lucy Smith, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, presented the report which sought approval for additional costs in respect of the delivery of the new secondary school in Radcliffe arising from a number of site-specific costs, largely relating to the existence of former coal mine workings in the area, which impact on the construction of the building.

In response to Members’ queries regarding potential delays, it was noted that DfE had given assurances that the project was on track and would be handed over in September 2024, but that every project had potential for delays and as such the Council and Star Academy continued to work with the DfE and hold them to account to ensure any delays were flagged early and mitigated appropriately.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.    Approved the funding of indicative costs as set out in Part B of this report, to meet the Council’s financial obligations, to be met from the Children’s Services schools capital programme; and

2.    Delegated approval of the finalised costs to the Executive Director of Finance.

Reasons for the decision:

·         To unlock the delivery of a new secondary school for Radcliffe.

·         Utilise a Council owned Brownfield site for development.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

In order to deliver the new school in Radcliffe, the Council is required to confirm that it will commit to meet certain financial obligations. Failure to provide such a commitment will prevent the scheme from being progressed.

The alternative option to not proceed with the school was rejected owing to the demonstrative need for new secondary school provision in Radcliffe and the importance of that provision in supporting the economic growth and sustainability of Radcliffe and its alignment with the wider objectives of the Radcliffe Strategic Regeneration Framework (SRF).

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth and Skills, presented the report which provided an update in respect of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (PfE). It provided details on the Borough’s updated housing land supply, which has significantly increased since PfE was submitted to Government in February 2022 owing to the acquisition of the Mill Gate and the work undertaken through master planning and the Joint Venture with Bruntwood.

In the light of the updated housing supply evidence, Members noted there was an opportunity to reduce the amount of Green Belt land that is needed to meet Bury’s proposed PfE housing target without impacting on the overall strategy of the submitted Plan and, following an appraisal of the existing PfE sites, the report recommended that a request be made to the Planning Inspectorate to make a Main Modification to the plan involving the removal of the Walshaw site.

Councillor O’Brien thanked everyone for their contribution and work in bringing this forward and thanked residents for their engagement.

In response to Members’ questions, Councillor O’Brien advised that this change was consistent with the Cabinet’s brownfield first approach and was a result of months of hard work in delivering change to Bury Town Centre. It was agreed that any reduction in use of greenbelt land was positive but that the final decision was out of the Council’s control. It was noted that this was the reason for such comprehensive due diligence, to provide robust evidence to support such a reduction. With regards to infrastructure, the benefit of having a wider strategic plan was that this could be planned and secured in advance.

With regards to why the Walshaw site was identified over others, it was noted that each site was assessed on its own merits, not just what was being lost but also what was being gained by each development and, in the view of the Council, the Walshaw site presented the least amount of strategic benefit.

Wider discussion from Members highlighted that a vote against PfE would not save greenbelt land; Bury Council were required to work within a government-mandated housing allocation and only had choice over where those sites could be. Brownfield land was being utilised as much as possible, but was not sufficient to cover the entire allocation, even with the reductions secured through the PfE Plan.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.    Noted the findings of the updated evidence on Bury’s housing land supply as set out in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (April 2022);

2.    Noted the conclusions of an assessment of options for addressing issues arising from the updated housing supply evidence; and

3.    Authorised Officers to request a Main Modification to PfE involving the removal of the proposed housing allocation at Walshaw.

Reasons for the decision:

To ensure that the Examination of PfE takes account of the most up-to-date evidence on housing supply and pursues a sound approach to the future provision of housing in Bury.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

The recommendation set out in this report is fundamentally underpinned by the emergence of new evidence that shows an increase in opportunities for new housing in sustainable locations within the existing urban area that were not apparent at PfE submission stage. In accordance with the NPPF and the need to make effective use of land, it has been necessary to consider this new supply within the context of the PfE’s approach to housing in Bury.

The inclusion of this newly identified supply whilst maintaining the PfE’s current proposed site allocations would lead to Bury having an overall housing supply that would be significantly in excess of the PfE target. As such, the review of the housing supply has considered options to reduce the extent of the housing supply buffer.

The recommended approach seeks to reduce Bury’s housing land supply through the removal of a proposed PfE site allocation. An alternative means of reducing the buffer is to maintain the supply but to propose an increase to Bury’s PfE housing target. Consideration of the options for reducing the buffer is set out in the main body of this report. The consideration of options for reducing housing supply and minimising the impact of the Green Belt is contained within the site options appraisal (summarised in Section 5 of this report).

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth and Skills, presented the report which sought approval to delegate authority to agree to potential modifications to the Submitted Places for Everyone Plan Joint Plan 2021 (PfE) as may be considered necessary during the PfE Examination and to the content of any Statements of Common Ground that may be considered necessary to aid the Examination process.

In response to Members’ questions it was noted that it was ultimately up to the Planning Inspector to determine whether the Plan was sound, but we believe it is and that the changes being put forward would keep the Plan sound. It was noted that public consultation would be carried out in the best way possible, with the Council remaining transparent about how, why and when decisions were being made.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.    Delegated authority to the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth and Skills and the Director of Law & Democratic Services, to agree proposed Main Modifications to the Places for Everyone Joint Plan 2021 as may be necessary to meet the tests of ‘soundness’ defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (or any equivalent following the amendment or revocation thereof); and the relevant statutory requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (or any equivalent Regulations following the amendment, re-enactment or revocation thereof);

2.    Delegated authority to the Executive Director of Place to propose any minor modifications to the Places for Everyone Joint Plan 2021, as may be necessary; and

3.    Delegated authority to the Executive Director of Place to prepare and agree Statements of Common Ground for the Places for Everyone Joint Plan as required.

Reasons for the decision:

To ensure that any necessary modifications to the Submitted Places for Everyone Joint Plan 2021 that arise through the Examination process, can be agreed and approved in a timely manner. PfE needs to progress through Examination as smoothly as possible. If it is necessary to amend policies and/or site allocations this will need to be done quickly, by a proposed modification, as recommended by the Inspectors to ensure that the Plan can be considered ‘sound’ and proceed to Adoption.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

There are not considered to be any reasonable alternative options. Following the normal approvals process to agree Main Modifications and Statements of Common Ground will significantly extend the Examination period, frustrating the Inspectors, participants and local communities in Bury and across the plan area. It would also result in a significant increase in costs to the Council (and others) for the Inspectors, expert witness and QC representation time.

Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Growth and Skills, presented the report which sought formal approval to use the YPO electricity supply framework for the purchase and supply of the Council’s corporate electricity for the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2027, with the option to extend for a further two-year period to 2029 and for a further two years until 2031. The Council’s corporate electricity supply contract covers the supply of electricity to office buildings, schools, community centres, libraries, leisure facilities and buildings occupied by Persona and Six Town Housing. This comprises in excess of 500 supply points across the borough.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.    Approved the use of the YPO Energy Framework Agreement to administer the purchase and supply of the Council’s corporate electricity contract for the period 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2027 (at an annual cost of circa £7m per annum). The total estimated contract value will be circa £28m over a four-year period, with options to extend to 2029 and 2031. (The annual and total contract value may change significantly as current energy prices have been significantly affected by the conflict in Ukraine);

2.    Approve the use of YPO’s appointed framework supplier, Npower Business Solution, for the supply of electricity through the framework duration; and

3.    Provide delegated authority to the Executive Director of Operations and Executive Director of Finance, in consultation with the portfolio lead for Corporate Affairs and HR, to award the contract and facilitate the execution, implementation, and operation of the contract.

Reasons for the decision:

The proposed arrangements ensure that the Council has a compliant contract in place and has tested the market for best value.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

Spot Buy (Fixed Price Contracts)

This is where the Council would buy short-term contracts for a fixed price over the time period. Although savings could potentially be made, the council would be more exposed to the vagaries of the wholesale market (a price is fixed on a single day in the year) and could pay higher off-contract prices until an appropriate new contract is in place. It is also not compliant with either Contract Procedure Rules (CPR) or public procurement legislation. This was ruled out due to the risk of price volatility, lack of in-house expertise and the fact that this does not comply with Council Constitution.

Procure our own energy by direct tender

This option is possible, but it would involve a standalone OJEU (Official Journal of the European Union) tender to secure contracts directly with the selected energy provider(s) (or via a broker see option 6.2.3). This approach is unlikely to produce the best results due to the relatively small scale of the portfolio compared to that of most large purchasing organisations. In contrast, a Public Sector Buying Organisation such as YPO, can obtain good wholesale prices through aggregating the demand of a large number of public sector organisations. In addition, a direct tender would require the Council to engage additional resources (skilled energy traders and additional staff for contract management) and provide greater risk of exposure to energy price fluctuations. It was therefore determined as unviable.

Procure through a Private Sector based provider

The Council would be required to invite tenders for a private sector Third Party Intermediary (TPI) to procure energy supply (as per 4.2.2), but it would need to be sure that it would be getting best value through a truly aggregated, flexible contract. Full price transparency of all costs, including TPI fees and any commission paid by suppliers to the TPI would be needed. By aggregating the Council’s volumes, the TPI could access the wholesale market on our behalf, but we may only receive prices based on the supplier’s view of the market. A full OJEU tender process would be required to engage with such a provider with all the associated resource and time implications this would entail. TPIs may have issues regarding business continuity in the present economic climate and are unlikely to be able to aggregate the council’s volume with other customers in an OJEU compliant manner or to the same level or offer the same additional and social value as the YPO contract. Due to this level of complexity and lack of in-house resources to deliver this,

this option was dismissed.

Do nothing

This is not an option as the Council and users of its buildings rely on energy to operate. It would place a requirement on services, schools, Persona and Six Town Housing to procure their own energy supplier or run out of contract which is a cost with a premium.

Councillor Richard Gold, Cabinet Member for Finance and Communities, presented the report which outlined the forecast financial position of the Council at the end of the first quarter of the 2022/23 financial year based on information known on 30th June 2022. The report sets out the position for both revenue and capital and provided an analysis of the variances, both under and overspending.

Members discussed the report, noting the increasing costs of fuel and utility services which would affect future budgets. It was agreed that Bury were not the only one in this position and it was hoped that a Government solution would be introduced. In response to a query over the vacancy factor, it was noted this was not a target but reflected the typical turnover of the Council and was common practice in Local Authority finances. It did not include services where agency staff were needed to cover vacancies, and it was positive that monitoring matched predictions.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.    Noted the forecast overspend of £1.509m within the revenue budgets at quarter 1 and the need for Directorates to continue to work with their finance managers to maintain tight budgetary control and identify mitigating actions and deliver these to ensure services work within their budgets. It should be noted that this is a forecast only at this stage and is before the utilisation of the £1.5m utilities reserve but also before the full impact of the pay award for 2022/23 is taken into account which could increase costs over and above those budgeted by a further £1.6m;

2.    Noted the use of the reserves in line with the criteria and one-off departmental priorities;

3.    Noted forecast delivery of the 2022/23 MTFS savings as agreed by Council in February 2022;

4.    Noted the position on the Dedicated Schools Grant, Collection Fund and the Housing Revenue Account;

5.    To approve an overall increase in the capital programme of £8.020m, as a consequence of new and updated external grant allocations and additional external funding secured by 30th of June;

6.    Noted the current position on the capital programme and that a further update will be brought to Cabinet in quarter 2 in respect of forecast spend this financial year; and

7.    Approved the extension of the current Insurance contract by 12 months.

Reasons for the decision:

To ensure the Council’s budgetary targets are achieved.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

This report is in accordance with the Council’s financial procedure regulations.

Councillor Lucy Smith, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, presented the report which set out those proposed plans for relocation of the Secondary Pupil Referral Unit (Spring Lane School) in order to provide the Department for Education (DfE) with vacant possession of the site, and sought approval for the financial arrangements to deliver those plans. Members noted the request for ease of access for the leisure centre, which was not part of this report but was linked with the wider regeneration.

Decision:

Cabinet approved the transfer of Spurr House from Adult Care to Children and Young People within the Council’s estate management arrangements.

Reasons for the decision:

·         To unlock the delivery of a new secondary school for Radcliffe.

·         Utilise a Council owned vacant building for re-development.

·         To enable the project to develop new specialist educational provision to progress.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

In order to deliver the new school in Radcliffe, the Council is required to confirm that it will commit to meet certain obligations, including providing DFE with vacant possession of the Spring Lane site by an agreed date, to facilitate the construction of the new secondary school in Radcliffe. Failure to provide such commitments will prevent the new school in Radcliffe scheme from progressing.

Councillor Lucy Smith, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, presented the report which updated Cabinet on the findings of the Viability Study for the proposed Youth Zone in partnership with the charity Onside, as well as potential funding, sites and next steps. Members voiced their cross-party support for the scheme and noted that work on engagement in townships outside of the Youth Zone itself was being undertaken from now until the next Cabinet report expected in January 2023.

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.    Noted the outcomes of the Viability Study;

2.    Agreed that Bury Town Centre is the most appropriate location for the facility, to enable the project to move to the next stage;

3.    Requested that the Chief Executive submit a further report in January 2023 after undertaking further work to agree the most suitable site in Bury Town Centre and develop an outline financial plan; and

4.    Agreed to bring back to the January 2023 Cabinet meeting further information about how a youth partnership will be formed setting out how the targeted offer from the Council and voluntary sector will be complimentary and integrated into the Youth Zone’s wider universal offer.

Reasons for the decision:

To deliver a new youth facility in Bury town centre following a 60 week build period.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

None - Onside is developing Youth Zones around the Country and can bring additional private sector financing into Bury.

Councillor Tamoor Tariq, Cabinet Member for Adult Health, Health and Wellbeing, presented the report which outlined a case for investment in data quality and project coordination to support the development of a population health management in primary care, with an initial focus on coronary heart disease (CHD). Members supported the proposal, noting that simple checks had the potential to save lives, and that this demonstrated a collaborative and invest to save approach.

Decision:

Cabinet agreed that £550,000 from the public health reserves be invested in building population health capacity, including in data quality and project coordination over three years (financial years 22/23, 23/24, and 24/25) through the GP Federation to support a wider programme of work focussed on reducing CHD and inequalities in CHD.

Reasons for the decision:

A population health management approach to reducing CHD and inequalities in coronary heart disease (and other long-term conditions) will depend on good quality data and project coordination. This investment supports the development of data and capacity that will enable this approach to be expanded to other major causes of illness and deaths and health inequalities.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

Do nothing: the lack of high-quality data on aspects of inequality such as ethnicity as well as aspects of care for people with CHD will prevent the measurement and reduction of inequalities in CHD, limiting the primary care system’s ability to identify and reduce inequalities in diagnosis and care for people with CHD and to improve uptake of preventive treatments.

Councillor Alan Quinn, Cabinet Member for Environment, Climate Change and Operations, presented the report which provided details of a proposed floodlit 3G Football Turf Pitch (FTP) at Redbank Playing Fields in Radcliffe together with associated pavilion, car parking and grass pitch improvements, and set out the details of a funding bid submitted to the Football Foundation as well as seeking approval to the overall funding package including expenditure of approved Council capital match funding.

In response to Members’ questions it was noted that ensuring clear soil samples had dictated the placing of the pitch. The Cabinet Member advised he was happy for further consultation to take place and that pricing mechanisms for the facility would be sensitive to the locality.  

Decision:

Cabinet:

1.    Approved the overall 3G scheme package including submission for external grants which (subject to grant approval) will total £2,060,000;

2.    Approved to expend the £500,000 capital match funding that is within the Councils approved capital programme (subject to grant approval); and

3.    Approved up to a maximum of £150,000 from Operations Reserve and S106 Reserve to cover any shortfall in partnership funding. The reserve would be used to meet any currently unforeseen costs which may accrue due to changes in inflation rates or planning conditions (subject to grant approval).

Reasons for the decision:

Development for 3G FTP’s is identified as a priority for Council. The Redbank 3G pitch project has been developed in partnership with the County FA, Football Foundation and Radcliffe Football Foundation. The project aims to maximise external funding and utilises approved capital match funding. This will provide a much needed facility for the community of Radcliffe, supporting the delivery of the People and Communities Plan for Radcliffe and broader Let’s Do It! Strategy of the Borough.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

·         A reduced size scheme with a reduced external grant submission. This has been rejected as it would reduce the outcomes of the project and would be less likely to attract external funding.

·         Consideration of an alternative site to develop the next 3G FTP within Radcliffe or elsewhere within the Borough. This option has been rejected as it is envisaged that it could take up to two years to develop an alternative site proposal with the Football Foundation.

Councillor Tamoor Tariq, Cabinet Member for Adult Health, Health and Wellbeing, presented the report which proposed an innovative support service, providing a transitional home for seven young Bury adults with Learning Disabilities and/or autism, aged 18-25 years. Members voiced their cross-party support for this scheme, and noted that this could be a catalyst for further similar schemes.

Decision:

Cabinet confirmed commissioning intentions to Merston and Inclusion to proceed with the Crompton Street project, therefore confirming the building can be secured for Bury clients.

Reasons for the decision:

This innovative support scheme offers a transitional living service for young adults with Learning Disability aged 18-25 years. The potential for cost savings/cost avoidance has been demonstrated. The scheme offers seven units towards our corporate and Adult Social Care housing commitments and supports our ‘Let’s Do It’ strategy in offering an opportunity for people to live locally, independently, and with choice.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

Option 1: Not to proceed with the scheme.

The impact of this will mean young adults continue to be placed in more expensive placements. This accommodation and model of care (including follow-up support to prevent escalation of crisis/ challenging behaviour), follows best practice. Not to proceed with the scheme would be a missed opportunity to:

i)     pilot a new transitional offer for young adults;

ii)    contribute towards our Adult Social Care housing targets, which provide people with learning disabilities the chance to live locally, independently, with choice;

iii)   save and prevent costs compared to people living independently/placing young people in more expensive placements.

Option 1 was therefore rejected.

Option 2: To proceed with the scheme using an alternative property/landlord.

This scheme was brought to our attention by the property developer Merston. Adult Social Care operational social work lead and commissioning staff viewed the property for suitability along with providers. All agreed the property as suitable for this type of service. The property developer and vendor have been very supportive in the current fast-paced housing market. Whilst we could pursue the scheme with another property and landlord, time would be lost and the objectives of the scheme (outlined above) not achieved for another 6 months. Option 2 was therefore rejected.