AGENDA - Hart District · RECOMMENDATION 1 That an approved list of Registered Providers of Social Housing in Hart be ... that a letter would be prepared from the Chief Executive

- 1 -

NOTICE OF MEETING

Meeting: Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Date and Time: Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at 7.00 pm

Place: Committee Room 1, Civic Offices, Fleet

Telephone Enquiries to: 01252 774141 (Mrs G Chapman)[email protected]

Members: Neighbour (Chairman), Axam, Barrell, Davies, Healey, Hunt, Murr, Radley JE, Southern, Street and Wheale

G BonnerChief Executive

CIVIC OFFICES, HARLINGTON WAYFLEET, HAMPSHIRE GU51 4AE

AGENDA

COPIES OF THIS AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINTAND BRAILLE ON REQUEST

1 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of 18 January 2011 are attached to be confirmed and signed as a correct record. Paper A

2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

3 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

- 2 -

4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (PERSONAL AND PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL)

5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA)

6 SERVICE BOARDS

Oral updates from members on Service Board meetings.

7 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THAMES WATER, ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AND HAMPSHIRE CC WITH MEMBERS OF HART DISTRICT COUNCIL

To note the minutes of the meeting of 17 January 2011. Paper B

8 APPROVED LIST OF REGISTERED PROVIDERS OF SOCIAL HOUSING IN HART

To establish an approved list of Registered Providers of Social Housing in Hart that can deliver good quality housing and housing services in Hart. Paper C

RECOMMENDATION

1 That an approved list of Registered Providers of Social Housing in Hart be established, consisting initially of the four providers: Sentinel Housing Association, Thames Valley Housing, Hyde Housing Association and Kingfisher Sovereign

2 That the levels of satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service for Thames Valley Housing and Kingfisher Sovereign be monitored closely over the next four quarters to ensure an improvement in satisfaction levels.

9 2010–11 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET MONITORING

To provide the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the opportunity to comment on the third quarter (to 31 December 2010) budget monitoring report that was considered by Cabinet on 3 February 2011. Paper D

RECOMMENDATION

That Overview and Scrutiny Committee note the contents of the budget monitoring report.

10 2010/11 THIRD QUARTER PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REPORT

To update Members on how the authority is currently performing in Organisational Development, relevant National and Local Performance Indicators (NIs, PIs) and Complaints/Compliments. Paper E

- 3 -

RECOMMENDATION

That member’s comments be communicated to Cabinet and Service Boards where it is considered action is needed.

11 PROJECT INTEGRA REVIEW

To obtain member comments on the Project Integra Review Report, prior to the report being considered by Cabinet. Paper F

RECOMMENDATION

That members consider, comment and agree amendments to Hart District Council’s proposed response to Project Integra, as attached at Appendix 1.

12 PROJECT INTEGRA ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2011- 2016

To obtain member comments on the Project Integra Annual Action Plan 2011-2016, prior to the plan being considered by Cabinet, and to the Project Integra Partner Implementation Plan, prior to this being submitted to Project Integra. Paper G

RECOMMENDATION

That member’s comments on the Project Integra Draft Annual Action Plan 2011-2016, and Project Integra Partner Implementation Plan be communicated to Cabinet.

13 CABINET WORK PROGRAMME

The Cabinet Work Programme is attached for information. Paper H

14 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME

The Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme is attached for consideration and amendment. Paper I

Date of Despatch: 8 February 2010

PAPER B

1

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THAMES WATER, ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AND HAMPSHIRE CC WITH

MEMBERS OF HART DISTRICT COUNCIL

17 January 2011

Present: Cllrs Axam, Davies, Healey, Neighbour (Chairman), Parker, Southern, WhealeCllr Collett (HCC)John Elson, Ian Plummer, Gill Chapman, Joe Fulbrook, Robert Jackson (HDC)Philip Todd, Eversley Parish CouncilSteve Pellatt, HCC Highways (HCC)James Holt, HCC HighwaysBrian Roberts, Environment Agency

1 Apologies

Cllr Jenny Radley, Hilary Murgatroyd (Thames Water)

2 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes of the meeting of 26 January 2010 were agreed.

3 Planning Issues

Robert Jackson updated the meeting.

Cabinet had agreed to to building of 200 houses per annum, up to 2028. This meant an additional 2000 dwellings around the district. No final decisions had been made yet, eg where.

Occupation had begun on the development at Hitches Lane Occupations would start at Dilly Lane next month QEB – an application for the first phase, 872 dwellings, had just been received,

but not yet finalised. There was no date yet for it to go to Committee

4 Reports on Flooding

See Appendices A and B.

Councillors and Officers were very concerned that there were no representatives from Thames Water. Ian Plummer reported that Thames Water had not attended the last two meetings scheduled with Officers. The Thames Water re-organisation, and the loss of Len Moore, meant that we did not now have a technical contact and TW had chosen not to support meetings with HDC. After discussion it was agreed that a letter would be prepared from the Chief Executive to the Technical Director at TW expressing Councillor and Officers concern at the lack of support, and asking for a technical representative to attend all meetings, along with a written update on the issues (See Appendix A items )

PAPER B

2

Councillors were also concerned at the lack of response from Network Rail on the Elvetham Road issue (Appendix A January 2011 item 6) Cllr Neighbour would take this up with Network Rail at the Overview & Scrutiny meeting they are due to attend in March.

5 Any Other Business

None.

6 Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Monday, 25 July 2011 at 2pm in the Council Chamber.

Priority

L=Low

M=Medium

H = High

Address Status1.Albany Close, Fleet Surface water flooding.

EA - To update by reporting on survey work.EA - maintenance ongoing Cllr Healey would like updateEA - To inspect next month and report back. Will remind residents of their riparian responsibilities.

HCC no intention to resite gullies - the pipe is shallow because the watercourse is shallow

2. Avondale Road /

Brookly Gardens /

Kenilworth Road, Fleet

EA completed work where level should be reduced and HCC will now survey it

Cllr Wheale - Brookly Stream has narrowed with tree roots encroaching. EA to investigate.

EA - No further action

HCC will look into this resiting gulliesEA continue with their regular inspections

Jan 11 - Cllr Healey confirmed there is still a problem. EA to confirm the date of the last inspection.

Jan 11 - HCC to notify likely date for CCTV survey.

Ongoing

LP

EA - on programme of works, to be undertaken very soon. CCTV has been completed report to be submitted to B Roberts of EA

HCC - Difficult to survey at present due to level of silt.EA - Will remove silt and liaise with HCC. EA meeting with contractor imminent.

Ongoing

HP

EA - Silt removal is out to tender through framework contractor. CCTV inspection is on programme, will check with HCC if this will clash with their

programme.

Appendix A Rev January 2011

Hart flooding sites

EA - Action required for removal of silt from open watercourse downstream of Avondale Road, to be followed by further investigation and clearance

by HCC if found necessary.TWU - No further action proposed requiredEA - Utility searches and design underway. Cllr Healy would like updates

TWU - Sewer through culvert has been descaled and cleaned. All TW sewers between Greenways and Crookham road have been cleaned. Cleaned.

Non Culvert sewer can take more flow, cost estimate for works in progress.

Hart Issue

Action Taken/Proposed

EA - Met Cllr Healey on site. EA to confirm with HCC if highway gulllies can be redirected away from stream to surface water sewer. Maintenance

reminder to be sent to residents

Combination of problems. Drains seemed ok. Watercourse starts in

Beacon Hill and runs through Albany Road / Close, Kenilworth /

Avondale – overflows / major problem.

Sentinel - Watercourse checked by Sentinel's contractor (Lotus) - Nov 08 and found satisfactory.

EA - Will inspect watercourse, Maintenance is landowners responsibility.Cllr Healey has inspected and request gullies draining to watercourse be moved to catch water more effectively EA have looked at this issue and discussed with HCC


EA to monitor the standard of maintenance carried out by residents downstream of Crookham Road.


3. Basingstoke

Canal/Sandy Lane Ditch

Foul and surface water flooding

(Including Greenways, Fern Drive & Crookham Road)

TWU - Have carried out high pressure water jetting and CCTV survey of the public foul sewer from Greenways to Fern Drive. Where the pipework is

in cast iron it is heavily scaled and a further contractor will be needed to complete the work and TW will continue work until the problem is resolved.

TW will check for any hydraulic problem with their modelling group. It was agreed that it was likely that the public foul sewer being positioned in the

culvert under the canal would have been agreed between Fleet Urban District Council and the canal owner.

It was also agreed that the ponds adjacent to the canal and the Sandy Lane Ditch were originally fish ponds and not a designed flow balancing system. EA

consider that they are unable to serve notice for the removal of brickwork chamber upstream of the canal, as a result of the length of time it has been

in place. EA will arrange for the culvert under the canal to be jetted and CCTV'd.

Ongoing

A meeting was held in the Civic Offices on 28/11/08 attended by Anne Houlihan/Len Moore - TWU, David van Beesten - EA, Steve Pellatt/Robert

Hopkins - HCC and David Goddard/Ian Plummer - HDC to discuss the flooding problems between Greenways and Crookham Road including the

Basingstoke Canal/Sandy Lane Ditch crossing and Fern Drive.

TW to provide information to HDC on total length of sewers to be jetted in the Greenways to Crookham Road sectionRegarding flooding at 99a/101a Crookham Road HCC has jetted silt and minor debris and cleared silt from the culvert under Crookham Road and

cleared silt for a short distance downstream of the culvert outlet. EA has indicated that the culvert appears to be of sufficient size and that they do not

consider there is any justification for modelling this section of the ditch. Both HDC and HCC supported this view but it was agreed that the area should

be monitored and reviewed in the light of any further evidence. HCC confirmed that all gullies and drains to the watercourse had been cleared twice

since the July 2007 storm. HCC also confirmed an additional road gully was not needed but the situation would be monitored regarding future storm

flows.

TWU- will improve flow by cleaning. Greenways to beyond Fern Drive. TW agree the pipes a risk under storm conditions. Possible land drainage

issues. Problem of EA wanting pipe removed. TW to update DG on obstruction in foul sewer

HCC - Cllr Appleton feels the culvert under Crookham Road is undersized.EA - Has attended, No evidence to suggest it is sub standard.

TWU_ Flow modelling confirmed 2 sewers at peak capacity and therefore reluctant to move

TWU - For 1in 30yr storm the sewer currently overflows. Cleaning may resolve this. 14 Fern Drive and 99a crookham road have flooded from sewer.

TW to assess the risk of further flooding, decision on priority will depend on OFWAT formula.

EA are not aware of a problem of the Sandy Lane Ditch flooding in the vicinity of the canal but it will write to TW and ask for a concrete wall adjacent

to the manhole to be moved if considered necessary (HDC to be copied in). Letter sent by EA 1/12/08 which confirmed removal of foul sewer from

culvert under canal and upstream manhole or widening of channel.

HCC - Do not have any evidence of sub standard culvertEA - have not agreed to date that the culvert under the canal is overloaded because of the sewer pipe in it. Flood zone modelling to be undertaken in

Sandy Lane Ditch this year. BR will let DG know when this undertaken.

EA would like to see Manhole removedCllr Axam - Speedier solution to problem required, and would like updates as they occur.

1

Priority

L=Low

M=Medium

H = High

Address Status


Hart flooding sites

Hart Issue

Jan 11 - Discussion on shed built across the canal and its effect on water movement. EA reported they would have difficulty in taking any action against the residents for the hut.EA have identified a number of trees which would cause a problem and have written to residents regarding obstruction of the watercourse.EA to report back on progress at next meeting.4. Calthorpe Road

School Fleet

Cllr Appleton

HDC still to investigate.

Jan 11 - HDC - no problems found. Ditch has recently been cleared.

5. Crondall area /

Pankridge St, Crondall

HCC - high risk area with

6. Elvetham Road, Fleet

(22)

IP - arrange meeting with interested parties

7. Eversley - Various

sites

Ongoing

MP

Ongoing

MP

TW- Sycamore Road end extensively cleaned.

Cllr Appleton feels that the culvert is of insufficient capacity. The houses on either side of the stream were both flooded relatively recently and the

houses are now uninsurable.


HCC - in 2009 there was a flood warning event and the engineer went to look at the culvert, there was no evidence of flooding. EA - only 3 properties would benefit work, which is not enough to be viable, any work undertaken would have to be justified. The culvert is adequate

for normal events. This watercourse is checked regularly to make sure it is well maintained. All the residents downstream have been written to to

remind them of their responsibilites. The EA has powers to do work but not a duty.

Cllr Appleton to update IP.

EA - Will place on priority list for further investigations

TWU - Have completed sewer jetting.Cllr Bennison - Is this part of TWU's maintenance regime?TWU - Will investigate options for regular maintenance.

EA - Reported condition of stream is ok. Maintenance is down to land owners one of which is a farmer in Dogmersfield, EA will remind those

concerned or their maintenance responsibilities, by letter.

Cllr Appleton/Cllr Davies very concerned about culvert capacity and vegetation restricting flow.

Surface water flooding - Network rail owned sewer possibly

undersized

TWU - To write to Network Rail as effective diameter of NR pipework is reduced (below 600mm dia) by the use of a "liner"

HCC - Works on site currently stopped due to public utility clashes, investigating further works.

TWU - Will review risks monthly.

TWU to review in May. No works planned

Jan 11 - HCC to roll over into next financial year.


TWU - Will arrange meeting with Network rail in 2-3 weeks

TWU - seeking contact with Network Rail HDC - Will TWU "take over" responsibility for this sewer? TWU to confirm.


HCC - For information - Will be repairing Highway drainage in Pankridge Street. Larger (gully) sumps will be included.

Cllr Axam - Not aware of any problems following recent heavy rainfall.

TWU - Cleared branch inlet length to outfall and repaired dropped pipe which has improved flow. Pipe section with unknown ownership no update at

present.

HDC - Highlighted the fact that this pipe takes all the effluent from the TWU sewage treatment works.

Cllr Bennison - very concerned about future flooding if no further action taken.

Floods, Ditch round school needs inspecting. Manhole blocked under

old hitches lane?

HDC to investigate


TWU- Are in contact with Network Rail/drainage and structures.

HCC - Stopped works at present due public utility service issues.TWU - to investigate linking to culvert in road. TWU & HCC to investigate options on a 50/50 basis regarding responsibility. Possible site meeting

TWU - Still trying to progress with the "right" NR contact person

HCC - Hope to complete works in financial yearTWU - Will remove roots.

EA explained their responsilibilities - There are not enough properties affected to justify running a computer model at this location

EA - Downstream of Crookham Road has been inspected and found to be in fairly good condition. The issue of unconsented work in Lea Springs has

been passed to EA enforcement team.

Cllr Parker asked for confirmation of criteria for running a model, EA to confirm.Cllr Appleton confirmed 2 properties in Fern Drive had flooded in the past

NR to remove the obstruction. TW to continue to remind NR of their responsibilities.

Cllr Axam - What is the condition of the of the watercourse downstream of Crookham Road?

Sewage and sewerage issues.

Cllr Simpson asked EA to monitor any landowner maintenance as this will affect the capacity of Sandy Lane Ditch.

Internal foul flooding July 07

TWU - Will resolve the flooding problem in the highway as a gesture of goodwill.TWU - have cleared roots/debris and rubble from a long length of drain. Further work currently underway including works around Rose Cottage.

TWU - Sewer cleaning completed. Also reported possible hydraulic issue with section of sewer under the canal. 99a also has possible hydraulic issue.

Will update after TWU site staff report on laterals drains. If flooding is more than 1 in 10 year occurrence will look into further as part of Fleet Area

Drainage plan review.HCC - Re 101/991 Crookham road, Will raise kerb line and upsize 30 No gullies.

Jan 11 - TW to provide written update. Cllr Neighbour to approach Network Rail when they attend Overview & Scrutiny meeting in March/April.

2

Priority

L=Low

M=Medium

H = High

Address Status


Hart flooding sites

Hart Issue

Eversley PC Doug Bradley - TWU/HDC/EPC meeting went well and various actions agreed. Some flooding extending across B3272 - issues with surface water and sewage. TW - very diluted sewage, health risks are remote.

8. Gables Road, Fleet Ponding in Carriageway.

No progress with Thames Valley Housing - IP to chase.

9. Hares Lane, Hartley

Wintney.

HCC/HDC - Progressing 20/01/09

HCC - easement waiting to

10. Hitches Lane, Fleet /

Grove Farm PS

Link with Tavistock Road (No 21)

11. Holt Lane/ Pantile

Drive, Bow Field

Balancing Pond, Hook

Ongoing

Ongoing

MP

Eversley centre TWU foul sewer network - sewage back up and overflow into residents houses frorm TWU network.

Eversley Street TWU foul sewer network - sewage back up and overflow into residents houses frorm TWU network.

Lower Common TWU foul sewer network - sewage back up and overflow into residents houses frorm TWU network.

TWU - Sewer cleaning increased from annual to 6 monthy clean, Longwater pump station capacity to be checked.

As agreed during Agenda item "Any Other Business" Eversley PC sites of concern to be listed, see below

Jan 11 - TW to provide written update.

Jan 11 - no response from TVH. IP to investigate appealing to Board etc with Housing team and Cllr Parker.

TWU - To monitor. Possible capacity issue as dry weather flow high. Have also removed redundant utility crossings which were a restriction to flow.

Update at next meeting.


Ditch in filled by residents resulting in highway flooding and No 10

has reported flooding.

EPC gave overview of sewage flooding in the Parish and requested ongoing dialogue TWU regarding these issues. It was widely agreed the various sites

specific issues and complexity of the individual issues required a separate meeting to address Eversley PC's concerns. HDC to arrange with input from

HDC planning Dept.

TWU - To excavate further along road as cannot drill test pipe due to Health and Safety regs. Possible old rising main for Hitches lane pumping station.

Also reported the pumping station now runs two pumps in storm conditions, only ran one pump previously due to faulty sensor.

Sewage flooding

HCC - To ensure highway drainage system is working satisfactorily.

HCC - Outfall pipe to No 10 cannot be found. Propose to install new pipe to existing ditch.

TWU - Service crossing found in manhole to be drill tested. Sensors in Pumping Station have been repositioned.

TWU - Sewer cleaning increased from annual to 6 monthy clean, ongoing sewer replacement works in progress.

Flooding to Evergreens, Holt Lane and 1a Pantile Drive and adjoining

properties.

HDC - Bowfield balancing pond is in their ownership.

EA - Will continue maintenance as per programme.


EA - Siphons checked and cleared

Cllr Appleton very concerned regarding the affect of future development on this network.

TWU - Will be responding to issue of transfer of ownership

Cllr Appleton/Davies concerned about lack of action, sewage flooding on average 3-4times year and consider this to be an OFWAT issueTWU - Customer Care have reviewed this issue, possible hydraulic issue. TWU Asset planning to consult their modelling group to confirm modelling in

the past. TWU are progressing this matter. Further meeting proposed between HDC/TWU.

HDC - Have written to Thames Valley Housing Ltd - no reply/acknowledgement received

Jan 11 - Easement recently been signed. Work to be done in the new financial year, hopefully be end July.

HCC - Evergreens very sensitive to flooding, however no further action proposed. Will monitor for future meetings.

HDC - Do own balancing ponds, and have cleared TWU grilles in the past.

TWU - 1/03/09 Flooded due to extreme weather, questionnaire sent to residents. Cllr Davies feels there were more complaints than TWU recorded.

HDC EH have found blockage on private system after a number flooding incidents reported to them 19/01/09. These were reported to TWU.

HCC - Not aware of any flooding since last meeting.

HDC - Letter to residents to clear watercourse where in filled.

TWU - The modelling previously carried out has been revisited and it has been found that the Grove Farm pumping station can accommodate the

additional flows from the Hitches Lane development.

EA - No other siphons are involved


Eversley Parish Council - Separate report produced by EPC

TWU - Have questioned the ownership of the balancing ponds at Bowfield, Hook. HDC to check ownership.


HDC - Gave overview of their understanding of this issue. Will confirm via email to TWUHDC - Will continue to investigate.

EA - Have cleaned silt from inverted siphon which carries the Griffin Stream under the River Whitewater. EA to check for any other siphons on the

system.

HCC - To jet clean gully and lead opp No 10 to end of pipe. Ditch to be excavated for 75m past prefabricated garage Jun/July.

HCC - 75m ditch now completed to culvert crossing under Hares lane, which will be jetted in the near future. HCC responsible to highway boundary.

Looking at further works in the future.

TWU - No works undertaken at this site at present.

HCC - Have jet cleaned culvert under road and update further. HDC/HCC to lipase further

Cllr Radley - Reported surface water ponding after heavy rain.HCC - Understand this is caused by poorly maintained ditches in the area, not allowing water to flow away.HDC - To investigate, Land owner is a housing association.

Priority to

be set?

TWU - Sewer cleaning increased from annual to 6 monthy clean, Pumping station trip to be checked for correct operation.

Ongoing

3

Priority

L=Low

M=Medium

H = High

Address Status


Hart flooding sites

Hart IssueTW - still awaiting transfer

12. Ibworth Lane,

Elvetham Heath, Fleet

IP to follow up with EA and HDC Environmental Health.

13. Kingsway /

Rosemary Lane PS

TWU - 1070m of sewer has been cleaned in this area

14. Mill Corner, N.

Warnborough

EA reviewing - decision

15. Pale Lane/Station

Road Winchfield

Cllr Davies

HCC to investigate

16. Priory Ln/Phoenix

Terrace, Hartley

Ongoing

MP

Ongoing

HP

HDC Environmental Health consulting with developers to get further works done before adopted by TW. No apparent incentive for developer to comply. Request for Robert Jackson to attend the next meeting for discussion on options for forcing the developer to comply with TW standard in order for it to be adopted by TW.

Jan 11 - Cllr Collett reported that there had been flooding, with sewage, in November. A topographical problem which needs more inventive solutions.

DN to bring up with Network Rail at Overview and Scrutiny meeting. TW to provide written update.

HDC - Confirmed ongoing investigation in consultation with residents/EA/HCC regarding further works required. HCC reviewing - will investigate the section near Mill Corner, adopt a phased approach and start phase 1 late 2010.

Cllr Glen and Crookes to be informed of HDC officer/EA site visit


EA have served notice - EA to investigate whether a notice or warning letter.

Jan 11 - no complaints received since Jan 10.

HCC to Investigate

HCC to clarify exact location, investigate and report back.

Jan 11 - work done recently by EA and HCC Highways. A further meeting with residents will be scheduled to agree an action plan as there are a

number of issues that could be resolved. IP to report back to next meeting.

HDC - Needs investigation by survey of residents and existing pipework to identify solution following infilling/piping of watercourse by residents over a

lengthy period.

At a meeting of HDC/EA/TW/HCC staff on 28/11/08 TW were informed that this work had been completed and that they could now arrange the

desilting of surface water sewer system serving the Kingsway area.TW were also asked to liaise with Network Rail for the desilting of pipework under

railway land as it is believed that they have no direct access for their land and may need access from the TW system.

HCC - Details of Highway Drainage required, draining into system.

EA - To check report status and report back

TWU - Have programmed sewer cleaning in June.

Properties flooding internally and in gardens

HDC - Asked if flap valves can be installed.

TWU - Further sewer cleaning programmed

EA - To advise possible differences in EA/TWU datum levels

From HDC analysis of EA River Blackwater levels for a 1 in 5 year storm and a 1 in 50 year storms and TW cover and invert levels concerns were

raised regarding river water entering the TW public surface water sewer and the Network Rail drainage ditches. DvB explained that as a result of the

delay in the river responding to rainfall, any storm flows should enter the drainage system and flow away before the rise in river levels takes effect.


TWU - Bolted down covers on the public foul sewer appear to have prevented the system from being flooded with storm water.

TWU - Have meeting with Nrail on 22/01/09 re jetting works required.Cllr Collett - Reported fallen tree in the river. Houses in EA flood zone? EA stated current works will not change this. EA can send out letter to

EA - Confirmed previous level information supplied is above newlyn datum

TWU - Bracknell Forest have cleared silt form tributary

HCC - To provide plans of Highway drains

EA - To study, look at possible solutions and report back.

HDC - Date Network Rail cleaned culvert required.

Low lying area of Mill Corner prone to flooding

Network Rail - Have cleaned culvert under railway.TWU - to jet clean surface and foul water sewers

Surface water and sewage flooding to 30 properties (60-118 even

nos.) Action Taken/Proposed

HDC EH - Developer concerned is addressing problems, HDC EH to monitor.

HCC - To send HDC drawing of known highway drainage in this area.

HDC - Still waiting for EA Mill corner report

Private pumping station surcharging above ground level.

Further visit needed by EA/HDC following additional information provided by local resident to EA.

EA - To locate 2001 report. TWU - There is a bolt down cover on island in middle of the pond. Properties that flood are called Playford and Sandridge. TW will also check regards


BFBC - Work has been carried out by Bracknell Forest Borough Council with assistance and approval of the EA and English Nature to clear a build up

of silt over 80m of watercourse. The section lies downstream of Kingsway and Christchurch Drive and is due to be taken over by the EA as Main River

in April 2009, when it will be become known as Kingsway Ditch.

HCC - Have supplied drawing to HDC. HDC confirmed this.

TWU - Sewer cleaning to be undertaken within next 2 weeks.Cllr Collet - Network Rail to remove all debris in future. Also very concerned about possible 4th flood in the future.

Surface Water Flooding in Road and opposite field entrance. Culvert

blocked


Sentinel - Owner of a number of properties in Priory Lane.


4

Priority

L=Low

M=Medium

H = High

Address Status


Hart flooding sites

Hart Issue

Further bid made, response in October. HW Parish Council in discussions with Planning for options.

17. 152 Reading Road

South, Fleet

HCC had no reports of flooding. Serves residents well though not an adopted highway trench system.

Surface water flooding from highway and main river

HCC - Believes the flooding was a one off incident HDC EH - reported ongoing problem over previous 18 months, will confirm details to HCC via email. Believes outfall to EA Main River blocked?

Meeting still to be arranged. HDC EH to arrange meeting - HCC to attend, invitation to Adrian Collett.

20. Fugelmere Road,

Fleet

Jan 11 - TW to provide written update.21. Bracknell Lane,

Hartley Wintney

Flooding.

22. The Crescent,

Crookham Village

Flooding.

HCC to investigate.

Jan 11 - Slow to drain, has been jetted twice. Will be diverting line to carrier drain because it could be a problem in future.

Priority to

be set?

Ongoing

MP



Councillor Wheale to email details to IP to pass on to TW.


Jan 11 - HCC have worked on this and there is currently a works order to clear ditches. Should be done by the end of January. The ditch rests with

HDC or Parish. IP to investigate.

Ongoing

HDC - Outlined current situation regarding the application which did not recieve funding from the EA. EA confirmed the submission was very good but

the funding available is awarded on benefit/cost basis and other areas of the England had higher priority and scored higher in the decision process. HDC

to rebid when next round of funding is announced

Jan 11 - unlikely HDC will receive funds from EA, but will apply again. Alternative solutions being investigated.

HCC to confirm issue

Flooding and sewage

Jan 11 - HDC to continue to investigate.

HDC - To undertake further works.

Jan 11 - HCC had that section jetted. IP to investigate any relevant planning application to pipe.

HDC - currently investigating. HDC EH offered assistance

Flooding to garage and gardens19. Tavistock Road,

Fleet

HCC - To investigate flooding from highway.

HDC EH /HCC to arrange meeting.

HDC - jetting/CCTV works ongoing.

Action Taken/Proposed HDC - Flooding to garage and gardens requires further investigation from Dukes Mead to Sandy Lane Ditch to determine extent of flooding and cause

including CCTV survey.

HCC - Looking to adjust gullies and install chamber

HCC - Responsibility for pipework under highway.

HCC/ HDC Environmental Health to arrange meeting.

HDC - Have send sandbags to protect from flooding (8/8/08)

18. No 20 Sandhurst

Road Yateley


HDC EH /HCC to arrange meeting.

Jan 11 - Meeting still to be arranged. Joe Fulbrook to arrange meeting - HCC to attend, invitation to Adrian Collett.

EA - Results of HDC submission to be made available in Oct 09. If successful study to commence Apr 2010.

TWU - Foul Sewer in Priory Lane overflowed in July 2007.

HDC - Have submitted £35k bid for funding to the EA, for feasibility study to identify flood mitigation measures.

HCC/HDC to investigate, possible planning issue.

EA - To investigate if flooded from Tudor Stream (Sandhurst Road) of if affected by Cricket Hill Stream.

HCC investigating

EA - Provided details of possible funds available for investigation works. HDC to liaise with EA

HDC - trying to gain access to private rear garden to inspect watercourse, Resident not responding to enquiries. Cllr concern re development at No2

affecting watercourse and culverts downstream. HDC to continue investigations.

HDC - currently speaking to residents for access to watercourse.

HDC - To hear from EA result of HDC application EA - HDC application currently with EA regional team.

Ownership of pipe in footway, causing flooding

HCC - need to determine ownership to resolve problem.

5

Date

Archived

Address Status1. Albert Street, Fleet

TW - Deferred AMP5 project. Options have been identified. Design and works from 2010. 4/5 properties affected.

2. Aldershot Rd (38-40

& 47-55) / Regent St

junction, Fleet

3. Applegarth, Hook

Road, Rotherwick.

4. Avondale Road

junction with Fleet

Road, Fleet

HCC - Extra road gullies have resolved problem, situation to be monitored.

5. Avondale PS

6. Branksomewood

Road/Fleet Road

7. Chestnut Grove,

Fleet

8. Dares Lane Farm

Ewshot

Cllr J Radley

9. Dinorben Avenue,

Fleet

10. Dudley Court (7 &

8), Award Road, Fleet

11. Elvetham Heath,

Fleet

Jul-10

Jul-10

HDC Parks - Fleet Pond Management Team to be resurrected, they will look into this problem, careful thought required. Pond silting is a separate

Residents are progressing their own proposal to build their own protective garden wall.TWU - None AMP5 projectTWU - gave overview of AMP5 process.Cllr request that this item remain on list and be reviewed July 2010.

HDC Parks - Outfall drowned due to level of Fleet pond, therefore not easy to resolve. A number of ditches in this area are soakaway ditches.

Fleet Pond Society - Grilles have been removed on Brookley Stream. Problem also caused by tree debris in stream causing water level to rise.

Surface water still standing on road, may possibly be damaged

pipework.

Surface water flooding.


HCC - No further works proposed.

HCC Have jetted pipework in Holland gardens.

Appendix B January 2011

Archived flooding sites

Status

HCC - Have already root cut pipework in Holland Gardens.

HCC - Property owners believed to be willing to install non return valve. Status of pipe in road still being discussed TW/HCC. HCC have replaced

TWU - Modelling group confirm sewer is surcharged but okEA - Will continue to monitor

HCC - Confirmed jetting has been completed.

HCC- Root cutting undertaken no problems since

Surface water flooding to 2 shops

EA - Considerer the pipe size to be ok.

Cllr Glen would like EA/HCC to liaise on this and similar issues. EA BR to report back.

TWU - Will continue to monitor the operation of the pumping station.

HCC - Resident has paid for remedial works.

20th July rain caused problems with electricity supply / contact no.

not supplied on gates

Surface water flooding of highway at junction on Fleet Road. Road

gully at junction with Kings Road, blocked outlet ? This is not as a

result of leaves blocking the road gully (which residents keep clear).

Length affected to Pinewood Hill.

HCC - Recent flooding, HCC to jet clean main drain

HCC - Not aware of any problems since last meeting.

Agreed that meeting is required, early in November 08 between HCC and TWU to enable alterations to the local drainage system so that any private

drainage connections to the pipework in Branksomewood Road are removed after which it will be maintained as a highway drain. (2 commercial

properties affected)

TWU - update of sewer record

HDC EH - Monitoring pitch fibre pipe in Holland gardens

HCC - Have cleaned and CCTV'd pipe by Clinton Cards.

HCC - Outfall still drowned.

HCC to Investigate

HCC wrote to owner to inform him of his responsibilities and track grids have been provided.

All - Not aware of further issues

Jul-09

Jul-09

Action Taken/Proposed TW - Have identified "non-return valves" fitted to private connections in Aldershot Road. LM (TWU) to speak to TWU modelling group regarding

Surface water and sewage flooding - manhole cover surcharging and

flooding adjacent properties

EA - Will look at watercourse. (Regent Street Brook)

Risk of flooding resulting from resident piping roadside ditch with an

undersize pipe. (Reported by Cllr Glen/HCC).


EA - Have taken action to ensure either pipework is removed or upsized.

TWU to take over responsibility 2010.


Highway flooding resolved.

TWU - To add an assumed route of their public surface water sewer to the public sewer records .



Sewer surcharging in private garden.

TWU - Have jet cleaned, now on annual programme.

Blocked Culvert HCC issue. Resident approached to install trash

screen. HCC attempted jetting and pulled out bricks


HCC - Have checked the highway drainage system and have found it to be satisfactory.

Sentinel - To carry out building improvements December 08 to make the building more watertight.

HDC EH - To send GIS info to TWU re missing surface water sewer.

HDC EH - Have route of the missing section of TWU surface water sewerSeparate item on agenda as non flooding

SH - Building work completed

Jan-09

Hart Issue

HCC - Drainage is sufficient if gully gratings are kept clear of leaves

Odour problems from Fleet STW

Internal surface water flooding

HCC - Have upsized pipework.

HCC - Have jetted end to end, and commented the ditches are in poor condition, drowning the outfall.

Jan-09

Jul-09

Jul-09

Jan-10

Jan-10

1

Date

Archived

Address StatusSurface water flooding.



Hart Issue

13. Fleet Station to

Fleet Road, Fleet

14. Frenchmans Creek

Zebon Copse Fleet

15.Frogmore Road,

16. Handford Lane /

Tudor Drive / Hall Lane

(adjacent to 57)

Yateley

17. High Street,

Hartley Wintney.

18. Leawood Road,

Fleet

Reported sewer flooding

19. The Lea, Fleet Additional grille proposed.

20. Ives Close /

Moulsham Copse Lane

21. Pale Lane,

Winchfield

HCC - Currently investigating scheme to place pipe crossing under the road and raise level of the carriageway.

HCC - Investigating options.

TWU - Will undertake further surveys on High Street to Hares Lane foul sewer network

Foul Sewer blockage.


TWU - Have spoken to gas utility who do not have a problem so no further action on this aspect. Further blockage March 09 downstream of No 301

TWU - Reported that the public foul sewer is inspected every 6 months, the flow model has been checked and the system found to be satisfactory.

Root cutting has recently been carried out and the sewer is programmed to be jetted out every 3 years.

Status

EA - To advise on suggestion put forward by Cllr Appleton for a second grille to be installed on the Sandy Lane Ditch (main river) upstream of the

existing Sentinel grille

Jul-10

TWU - Are reviewing options following ongoing foul sewer issues at this location, a non return valve has been installed at Deva Antiques.

Cllr Band - Very concerned if further works affect residents and shop owners.

Cllr Radley - HDC have cleared in the past.HDC - DG/AG - To investigate.HDC - To check HDC land ownership records HDC - Investigations have revealed land is owned by Martin Grant Homes who own the land and lease the shops affected Land owner to address

problem

TWU - Since flooding in July 2007 TW have root cut the public sewer and jetted it to remove fat and will continue to monitor.

HCC - Have completed works to reduce the risk of highway flooding.

EA - To continue to monitor the Tudor Stream (Main River)

TWU - Further design review in progress, may proceed as early AMP 5 project. (High Street Foul sewer problems raised within this item - discussion

on this moved to "New areas of concern")

TWU - Works to commence Jan 2010TWU - Residents are aware of proposals. CACTI survey to be completed March 2010. Remaing works delayed due to weather.

Surface water flooding.

Floods Avondale Road junction.


TWU - Construction on site now Aug/Sept

12. Fire Station +

Architects Practice

Harding's Lane, Hartley

Witney.

Surface water flooding

Jan-10

HCC - new culvert installed, will continue to monitor.

HCC - No residents flooded, therefore low priority. Road has been closed due to ice in the past. Elvetham estate appears to be source of water.

Highway flooding

Cllr Davies - Flooded after road resurfaced, land owner not maintaining ditches in this area.

EA - Additional grille not to the liking of the EA. Grille needs to be bigger than cross section of ditch. DvB to approve?

Surface water flooding to roads. Manhole surcharged in footway (no

public surface water sewers in this area of Hall Lane).

StatusHCC - has installed additional road gullies and jetted system and will continue to monitor.


Action Taken/Proposed Cllr Radley reported the SPAR shop has flooded in the past.

HCC - Not adopted, private matterHCC - Same position as last meeting

Status

TWU - Brick sewer partially collapsed, temporary pipe in place pending final sewer construction May 2009

Sewage flooding July 07

TWU - Are aware of deformed surface water drainage system which overflows in periods of heavy rainfall and have carried out temporary works

pending a permanent solution in April 2009.

Status

Jan-09Status

Jan-09

Jul-09

TWU - Now on an annual clean programme. Scottish Gas to be consulted re service crossing.

TWU - reported clash with Gas pipe is cause of dip in sewer, trying to resolve will add to annual sewer clean


Jul-09

surface water flooding, lots of debris left after the flooding.

TWU - Aware of a "dip" in a length of pitch fibre pipework and works are to be undertaken to remove the problem.

HCC - Works currently underway

Jan-09

HCC - Have programmed works to repair concrete bag wall in 2008/9 and work has been ordered.

HCC - Works complete.

TWU - No further problemsHDC EH - Aware of problems from 1/01/09 to 4/01/09 TWU to provide update.

Action Taken/Proposed TWU - Odour problem, not flooding related

Jan-09

Jan-09

Jul-10

Jul-10

Jul-09

2

Date

Archived

Address StatusSurface water flooding.



Hart Issue22. Rasset Mead

/Browning Rd / Brandon

Rd C.Crookham

23. Rectory Road,

Hook

Surface water flooding

TWU- are liaising with Nrail and promised copy of record.

SH satisfied that flooding has been resolved

Cllr Glen requires summary of work carried out to date.

24. Shed on Sandy Lane

Ditch, Lea Springs.

To be merged with site 4

25. 17/19 Sandhurst

Lane Blackwater

26. Station Road nr

Hurst Farm Winchfield

27. Wellington Avenue,

Fleet

DG/ Cllr Parker to discuss

28. Well Road,

Crondall

Jul-10

29. Weybridge Mead /

Frys Lane PS, Yateley

30. Winchfield Hurst

PS

TWU - Have found roots in the sewer which will be removed. Also reported fat and grease. Pub not affected. TWU will also check for structural

damage on the 150mm dia pipe.

TWU - To inspect regularly and have spoken to landlord re disposing fat down drain.

Status

TWU - Operational problems reported by TW, have been resolved by one pump being refurbished and the second replaced.

Looking to archive as no further flooding reported

Foul Sewer blockage.

Cllr Davies suggested ditches required cleaning out , HCC confirmed this is the adjacent farmers responsibility.

HCC to confirm further jetting works.

HCC - Have jet cleaned, highways network ok. Groundwater flooding?

TWU - Have recorded flooding in Aug 08 and Feb 09.


HCC- Access Kerbs have been raised, work completed, will monitor situation.

HDC EH reported surface water flooding. HCC to investigate.

Further details required. Officers not aware of flooding at this location.

Highway flooding

Cllr Davies reported surface water flooding in the road to a depth of 125mm

HCC - To add culvert to jetting list.


HCC - to confirm jetting completed.


Shed over watercourse.

EA - Site visited no shed found

EA - Have investigated further, some residents in Lea Springs have built structures (decking etc) over the stream. EA enforcement team investigating.

EA - Consent required, EA inspector to visit and report for the next meeting.

EA - Inspected and found garden extended over water course, Currently with EA enforcement.

TWU - To report on latest situation with regard to sewerage flooding which has occurred over many years. Recent incidents reported (HCC Cllr

Collet) November 2006 and January 2007.TWU - to carry out drop test to see if this impacts on work undertaken by modelling group, by end of week


20th July balancing pond overflowed

EA - To determine if location of garden shed is acceptable.

TWU - Are continuing to liaise with Network Rail on the route of the drainage system after it enters Railway land.

Sentinel - Update required on any further flooding problems on the south west side of the estate.

Cllr Radley reported no further problems since blockage clearance.


Jul-09

Cllr Healy reported on Cllr Wheale's behalf: drainage system is working but needs to be checked.

HDC - Reported the road levels were similar to the pond levels. Not aware of any recent problems.

Jul-09

TWU - provided mapping details, surface water outfall in Network Rail land.


HCC - To add manhole chamber for HCC highway maintenance purposes.

HCC will update at next meeting.

Jul-10

Jul-10

Jan-09

Highway flooding.


Cllr Wheale - some clearance work undertaken

Highway flooding is believed to have been resolved as a result of ditch clearance by HDC Countryside rangers.

Tarmac very muddy / new pumps needed

Jan-10

TWU - Will monitor situation.

Cllr Collett - No recent instances of flooding.

Sewage flooding

Cllr Parker is concerned the right section of bund has been addressed

TWU - Report no further problems since container obstructing outlet removed. TWU to level bund to remove dip. TWU - to check on works completed to date regarding stability and reports of children playing on reinstated bund

Jul-09

3

PAPER C

1

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

DATE OF MEETING: 15 FEBRUARY 2011

TITLE OF REPORT: APPROVED LIST OF REGISTERED PROVIDERS OF SOCIAL HOUSING IN HART

Report of: Head of Housing

Cabinet Member: Councillor Chris Butler, Housing

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To establish an approved list of Registered Providers of Social Housing in Hart that can deliver good quality housing and housing services in Hart.

2. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That an approved list of Registered Providers of Social Housing in Hart be established, consisting initially of the four providers listed in paragraph 4.4.

2.2 That the levels of satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service for Thames Valley Housing and Kingfisher Sovereign be monitored closely over the next four quarters to ensure an improvement in satisfaction levels.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 In its strategic housing role, the Council has a responsibility to ensure that housing supply and services meet local need and are delivered to an appropriate standard.

3.2 In 2008, the Council’s Preferred Partner Agreement with developing housing associations in Hart came to an end. Since that date, the council has continued to work with partners and other housing providers to deliver affordable housing in thedistrict.

3.3 Last year, the council started the process to introduce new arrangements for working with developing housing associations in the future, by creating an approved list. The purpose of an approved list is to ensure that RPs delivering new affordable housing are able to provide good quality housing and housing management services to residents in the district in the long term.

3.4 The approved list will be used to inform developers who the council wants to work with and to support future bids to Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to fund affordable housing which meets local need.

PAPER C

2

3.5 When assessing bids for funding, the HCA consults with local housing authorities as part of the assessment process. However, the HCA may choose to fund a RP that may not be the local authority’s first choice. An approved list will demonstrate to the HCA that the Council supports RPs that can ensure the residents in the district get the best possible service from their landlord.

3.6 It should be noted that all housing providers registered with the Tenants Services Authority (TSA), including Registered Social landlords (RSLs), are now referred to as Registered Providers (RPs).

4. PROCESS

4.1 In December 2009, the council invited the following RPs, working in the district tobe considered to join its approved list:

Sentinel Housing Association (previously a Preferred Partner) Thames Valley Housing (previously a Preferred Partner) Hyde Housing Association (previously a Preferred Partner) Radian Accent Peerless Kingfisher Sovereign

4.2 RPs were asked to submit a pack of information to demonstrate that they can deliver good quality housing and housing services to local residents and meet therequired standard. The information requested is shown in Appendix 1.

4.3 The intention was to establish a clear and simple process that is not too time-consuming or onerous for RPs to comply with. RPs with an interest in delivering affordable housing in the district in the future can apply to join the approved list at a later date and their submission will be considered at that time.

4.4 RPs on the approved list will be asked to provide annual information updates.

4.4 Four RPs submitted an information pack for consideration by the end of January 2011. These were:

Sentinel Housing Association Thames Valley Housing Hyde Housing Association Kingfisher Sovereign

5 SUBMISSIONS

5.1 A summary of each RP submission is attached at Appendix 2.

5.2 Each of the submissions provides examples of good practice in development, resident involvement, community development and sustainability within each organisation and demonstrates that they deliver good quality services to their tenants.

PAPER C

3

5.3 Each of the RPs exceed the national averages for rent arrears, re-let times and overall tenant satisfaction, but Thames Valley Housing and Kingfisher Sovereign have performed marginally below the national average for satisfaction with repairs and maintenance. Performance in responding to emergency, urgent and routine repairs for both these organisations was higher than 95% in all cases, but satisfaction levels are not as high as response times.

5.4 Submissions are expected from Radian and Accent Peerless, when the HCA framework prospectus has been issued and their strategic direction for the next four years can be finalised with their Boards.

Contact Details: Jane Abraham, ext 4231, [email protected]

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Housing Association InformationAppendix 2 – Housing Association Submissions

PAPER C

4

APPENDIX 1

Information Measure

Annual report and accounts Most recently available version showing that the organisation is financially stable

Stock profile for Hart Details of housing stock in Hart

Performance indicators at district-level and across your organisation

Performance above the national average:Rent arrears < 4.4% Satisfaction with repairs > 77.1%Re-let times for void properties < 37 days

Examples of how you involve and communicate with your tenants

Evidence of tenant involvement consultations, resident newsletters etc.

Tenant satisfaction survey results (including STATUS report outcomes)

Tenant satisfaction levels above the national average of 82.3%

Community development and regeneration activities in Hart and/or across your organisation

Evidence of community development and regeneration activities

Ways in which your organisation is addressing sustainability issues in Hart or across your organisation

Evidence of sustainability activities

Organisational structure Provide local contact details for development and housing management; demonstrate adequate management arrangements are in place for the management of stock in Hart

How your organisation is planning to develop in the future?

Eg. future funding options, alternative housing products

Added value for Hart What else could your organisation bring to the district, eg innovation, community involvement

PAPER C

5

APPENDIX 2

Registered Provider Sentinel Housing Association

Office location Fleet

Stock Profile in Hart 2,342 affordable homes in Hart

Rent arrears 1.85% Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance 81.6%

Performance Indicators (2009/10)

Average re-let time 23 days Report & Accounts Sentinel Housing Association is financially stable

Tenant involvement Regular Resident Newsletters and Resident Week events; Community Involvement statement; 5 tenant Board members; Community Chest funding distributed by Neighbourhood Panels to support community groups and projects, such as the intergenerational project between Courtmoor School and Wickham Court in Fleet; Focus groups to look at lettings and estate management process.

Tenant satisfaction Tenant satisfaction levels above national average. Status survey 2009: 88% of residents say SHA provide an efficient and effective service;2010 customer survey: 91% satisfaction with overall landlord service.

Community development and regeneration activities

Sentinel co-ordinate the annual ‘Get With’ summer holiday event for young people; work with social enterprise projects, such as ‘Fresh Start’ catering, support Safer Hart. Track record of successful regeneration projects, current projects in Hart include Campbell Close and Curtis Court.

Sustainability issues 300 homes across the stock are benefitting from renewable energy systems, such as solar thermal panels, air source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels. Investment in “greening up” homes through installation of energy efficient doors and windows, new boilers, insulation and green technology, to reduce carbon emissions.

Organisational structure

Full organisational structure provided

Future plan Intention to deliver affordable housing in Hart over the next four years following negotiation of investment contract with HCA

Added value for Hart Proven track record in Hart; manage the majority of the stock; invest in the local community; involved in Local Strategic Partnership and other joint working arrangements; commitment to create great neighbourhoods.

PAPER C

6

Registered Provider Sovereign Kingfisher (created in April 2010 when Kingfisher HVHS amalgamated with the Sovereign Group)

Office location Basingstoke

Stock Profile in Hart 19 affordable homes in Hart – 7 units in Greywell, 6 units in Long Sutton, 6 units in South Wanborough

Rent arrears 4.56% Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance 73%

Performance Indicators (as at 30th Nov 2010)

Average re-let time 23.8 days Report & Accounts Sovereign Kingfisher is financially stable

Tenant satisfaction 86% of residents are satisfied with the service they receive from their landlord

Tenant involvement 3 dedicated staff members work closely with local communities; active Residents’ Committee; Quality Improvement Forums and Panels; Resident Involvement Guide.

Communitydevelopment and regeneration activities

Part-fund Community Development Officer posts in neighbouring authorities to ensure the success of new developments; have created allotments as part of a rural housing scheme; support charity projects with local communities; have experience of estate regeneration.

Sustainability issues Sustainability Strategy in place. 5% of new developments built to Code Level 4. Design and place making integral to new development brief.




Added value for Hart Sovereign is the lead member of The Sovereign Development Consortium, a successful partnership that has achieved significant investment from HCA to deliver affordable homes, including specialist housing solutions.

PAPER C

7

Registered Provider Thames Valley Housing

Office location Twickenham

Stock Profile for Hart 426 affordable homes in Hart (183 social rented, 221 intermediate)


Performance Indicators(2009/10)

Average re-let time 30.4 days Report & Accounts TVHA is in a strong financial position with its own funding

reserves to contribute towards the funding of future delivery

Tenant involvement TVHA has a dedicated Residents Involvement Team to continually improve services; Resident Involvement Statement; ‘Link Up’ magazine published quarterly; Resident Board members

Tenant satisfaction 82.4% of residents are satisfied with the service they receive from their landlord


Community Chest funding for activities such as breakfast clubs,youth groups, peer mentoring; created strong links with money advice services to address financial literacy, welfare rights and promote credit unions; dedicated Neighbourhood Teams to develop long term community cohesion; in-house training centre for residents and staff

Sustainability issues Sustainability activities include retro-fitting ground source heat pumps and piloting new solar hot water system. Sustainability Strategy in place to address key activities.




Added value for Hart Proven track record in Hart; vision for all projects is to provide homes in communities where people are proud to live; innovative mortgage product to help home owners access the local market; involved in Local Strategic Partnership.

PAPER C

8

Registered Provider Hyde Martlet

Office location Southampton

Stock Profile in Hart 210 affordable homes in Hart (89 social rented, 61 shared ownership, 60 supported)


Performance Indicators (2009/10)

Average re-let time 36.2 days Report & Accounts Hyde Marlett demonstrates strong financial performance

Tenant satisfaction 85% of residents are satisfied with the service they receive from their landlord

Tenant involvement Innovative resident involvement structures; Hyde 5000 online polling group for instant feedback;13 Hyde Local Offer (resident engagement) events held in October 2010 to determine residents’ priorities; local Resident Panel reviews; resident-led inspections; Tenant Board members; Youth Forum.


Hyde Plus (comprising Neighbourhoods Plus, Jobs Plus, Money Plus and Youth Plus) and the Community Engagement Team run activities to strengthen community cohesion, such as fun days and holiday clubs and offer outreach advice and guidance services, such as energy and benefits advice to older people. Other initiatives include diversity training for contractors. Intouch subsidiary.

Sustainability issues Experience of low and zero carbon technology systems. Renewable systems retro-fitted to current stock or under construction include solar thermal (hot water) systems, photovoltaic systems, combined heat and power, air source heat pumps and a wind turbine. Hyde recognised for commitment to sustainability and exemplar innovation.




Added value for Hart Proven track record in Hart; local development teams with local expertise; developing new products to meet local need

PAPER D

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY


TITLE OF REPORT: 2010–11 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET MONITORING

Report of: S151 Officer and Corporate Director

Cabinet Member: Councillor Ken Crookes, Leader

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To provide the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the opportunity to comment on the third quarter (to 31 December 2010) budget monitoring report that was considered by Cabinet on 3 February 2011.

1.2 The Cabinet report is attached as Appendix 1.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That Overview and Scrutiny Committee note the contents of the budget monitoring report.

Contact details: Sue Reekie / Emma Broom, [email protected] / [email protected]

PAPER DAppendix 1

1

CABINET


TITLE OF REPORT: 2010-11 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET MONITORING

Report of: S151 Officer and Corporate Director

Cabinet Member: Councillor Ken Crookes, Leader

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise Members of the position on revenue and capital spending in the current financial year and to ask Members to note the write offs approved under delegated powers.


2.1 To note the revised projections and reasons for the main variations shown in Appendix A

2.2 To note the write-offs approved under delegated powers shown at Appendix B

2.3 To note the current spending position on the Capital Programme shown at Appendix C.

3 REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING

3.1 Appendix A shows the third quarter budget monitoring exercise for the revenue account. The original budget is shown plus any virements and adjustments that have been made since the original budget was approved.

3.2 Several adjustments have been made since the original budgets were set. This has been done to ensure that all budgets and costs are apportioned to the correct cost centres, ensuring transparency and a clear understanding of the Council’s expenditure. The result of this is the Current budget; this is what cost centre managers are now working to. Members will note the effect of the virements and adjustments only moves one budget to another; the overall total remains the same.

3.3 The remainder of the report shows the budget and actual for the year to date and a forecast of the outturn position – i.e. the final position for the year. Variances are given between the forecast outturn and current budget.

3.4 Overall the outturn is forecast to be £180.2k above budget. The major reasons (variances over £25k) for this are:

Reductions in net expenditure (£634k) Partnership support – Customer Services Manager post not filled from July

onwards (£25k) and reduction in contributions (£33k) Leisure Strategy – salary savings due to vacant posts (£42.2k)

PAPER DAppendix 1

2

Grounds Maintenance – reduction in expenditure on trees (£38k) Development Control – Salary savings due to decreased staff hours and pension

fund contributions (£29.9k) Development Control – increased income from S106 compliance (£45k) Development Control – additional fee income (£55k) Environmental Health (Pollution) – savings of £74.7k due to vacancies (net of

cover) Emergency Planning – savings of £56.2k due to vacancies Refuse collection – expected expenditure on contractors £30k less than budget

as joint waste project has been managed in house Waste Management – increase in income from sale of recycled material (£54.9k.) Off Street parking – reduced expenditure on rates, mainly due to refunds (£89k) Office services (procurement) - vacancy management savings (£31.2k) Area Based Grant of £30k that was not budgeted for.

Increases in net expenditure (£735k) Corporate leadership team - additional cost in relation to the delay and

additional cost in securing planned redundancy (£44k) Increased cost in relation to IT Microsoft license fees following an audit (£36k) Housing needs service – budgeted reduction in bad debt provision not now

thought to be achievable £30k Open spaces – reduction in contribution income from developers £69k Planning – £70k budgeted income from Housing & Planning Delivery Grant will

not be received, due to in year cuts made by the Government Refuse Collection – increase in cost of fuel (£29.1k) and vacancy management

savings taken from other cost centres plus salary transfers from other cost centres (£52.6k)

Green waste – forecast income lower than estimated (£29.8k) Off Street parking – forecast income from charges, penalty notices and season

tickets below estimate (£121k) On Street parking – forecast income from penalty charge notices lower than

estimated (£26.5k) Various services - Final payment of Special expenses to newly formed parishes

(£63.9k) Loss of grants due to in-year cuts announced by the Government; Local

Performance Service Agreement (LPSA) £123k and Local Authority Business Grant Incentive (LABGI) £40k.

3.5 The major variances within each service area are shown in Appendix A, from which it can be seen that expenditure on services is predicted to be only £4.2k above estimate.

3.6 These variations are the subject of ongoing detailed scrutiny. Managers are aware that the budget is cash limited and they are expected to manage within it. The in year grant cuts made by the government, totalling £233k (Planning delivery £70k, LPSA £123k, LABGI £40k) have made that task significantly harder.

3.7 The forecast at the end of the second quarter was for net expenditure to be £352k above budget. The current forecast of £180.2k is £172k less.

PAPER DAppendix 1

3

4 WRITE OFFS/WRITE ONS

4.1 Under delegated powers, a total of £23,622.14 has been written off for Council Tax debts, £154,598.44 for Business Rates and £1,307.62 for sundry debts.

4.2 There have been no write ons for either Council Tax or Business Rates.

4.3 A summary of these write ons/offs is provided at Appendix B for information. As requested at the Cabinet meeting on 4 November 2010, the write off information for the current and precious financial year is shown individually, but information for earlier years has been shown in total.

5 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE MONITORING

5.1 A summary of Capital expenditure against budget is attached at Appendix C. The summary shows an overall spending position of £454k as at 31 December, and forecast expenditure for the year of £1.227m. The Capital Board is regularly monitoring the situation and will continue to do so for the remainder of the year.

6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The financial implications are contained within this report.

7 MANAGEMENT OF RISK

7.1 The monthly budget monitoring process examines all income and expenditure against budgets in order that significant variances are highlighted immediately and to identify areas where expenditure is being incurred but where insufficient or no budgetary provision exists. This allows officers to take corrective action to maintain overall expenditure within budgets. Page 1 of Appendix A identifies the impact on balances should this not be achieved.

8 CONCLUSION

8.1 Service managers are projecting an overspend of £4.2k in the current financial year. Overall the General Fund is expected to be £180k above the original estimate for the year. Service managers will continue to look for opportunities to bring expenditure within budget but it is possible that a small overspend will remain at the end of the financial year, resulting in a reduction in the General Fund balance from that anticipated when the budget was set.

Contact Details: Sue Reekie/Emma Broom

email: [email protected]/ [email protected]

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Budget report to Cabinet/Council February 2010

PAPER DAppendix 1

4

APPENDICES:Appendix A Revenue budget summaryAppendix B Write-off summaryAppendix C Capital monitoring

Paper D

Appendix 1A

HART DISTRICT COUNCIL - REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 2010/11 - Period 9 Qtr 3

OriginalBudget

Virements & Adjustments

CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual

To DateForecastOutturn

Forecast Variance to Current Budget

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

OVERALL SUMMARY

Community and Partnership 863.5 24.9 888.4 416.5 369.1 844.1 ( 44.3 )

Corporate Management 824.3 153.9 978.2 1,849.8 1,695.0 1,014.1 35.9

Democratic Services 1,112.1 4.7 1,116.8 702.4 708.9 1,061.3 ( 55.5 )

Finance 1,030.6 ( 128.1 ) 902.5 1,498.6 ( 1,394.6 ) 958.9 56.4

Housing 1,183.5 ( 88.2 ) 1,095.3 536.5 493.8 1,150.6 55.3

Leisure 1,991.7 ( 38.9 ) 1,952.8 840.2 610.2 1,971.3 18.5

Planning 1,151.0 6.7 1,157.7 451.8 286.7 1,123.3 ( 34.4 )

Regulatory Service 674.3 83.0 757.3 426.8 418.6 745.2 ( 12.0 )

Technical 2,757.9 ( 110.7 ) 2,647.2 1,698.9 1,887.4 2,631.5 ( 15.7 )

Total Service Cost 11,588.9 ( 92.7 ) 11,496.2 8,421.5 5,075.1 11,500.3 4.2

Accounting Treatment ( 11,616.4 ) 92.7 ( 11,523.7 ) ( 9,654.4 ) ( 1,009.0 ) ( 11,347.7 ) 176.0

Withdrawal/(Contribution) to General Reserve ( 27.5 ) 0.0 ( 27.5 ) ( 1,232.9 ) 4,066.1 152.6 180.2

HART DISTRICT COUNCIL - GENERAL FUND BALANCES SUMMARY 2010/11

General Reserve Statement

Balance b/fwd at 1st April 2010 ( 1,246.0 ) ( 2,045.0 ) ( 2,045.0 )

(Contribution to)/Use of Balance ( 27.5 ) ( 27.5 ) 152.6

Projected Balance at 31st March 2011 ( 1,273.5 ) ( 2,072.5 ) ( 1,892.4 )

Recommended Minimum Level of Balance ( 950.0 ) ( 950.0 ) ( 950.0 )

Excess General Fund Balance above minimum requirement ( 323.5 ) ( 1,122.5 ) ( 942.4 )

Page 1

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

COMMUNITY (Manager - Caroline Ryan) Budget2 Budget1 Actuals Budget 6

1 Licenses 103.0 16.3 119.3 11.8 ( 5.2 ) 92.8 ( 26.5 )

Fleet Town Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6

Hackney Carriages 39.4 ( 22.1 ) 17.3 12.6 ( 4.0 ) 15.5 ( 1.8 )

2 CCTV 361.1 ( 3.5 ) 357.6 211.2 239.0 344.9 ( 12.7 )

Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) 3.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 4.2 7.5 4.1

3 Local Flexibility Grant (LFG) 126.6 24.6 151.2 70.5 34.7 150.6 ( 0.6 )

4 Community and Safety 230.0 9.6 239.6 110.4 99.4 232.2 ( 7.4 )

Local Economy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0

863.5 24.9 888.4 416.5 369.1 844.1 ( 44.3 )

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR COMMUNITY & PARTNERSHIPS £'000

1 ( 11.3 )

1 ( 12.2 )

2 ( 16.0 )

2 6.7

3 ( 15.0 )

3 ( 10.0 )

3 63.0

3 ( 34.1 )

3 ( 11.1 )

4 7.7

4 ( 15.0 )

3.0 ( 44.3 )

CCTV - Reduction of CCTV recharge income

LFG - Drug and Alcohol Vacant post

LFG - Community Warden post used for contributions to various organisations

LFG - Equipment & Furniture saving being used for various contributions (linked to above)

LFG - Contributions to various organisations (linked to above)

LFG - Flexibility grant income greater than budgeted

Miscellaneous

Licenses - Vacant post saving

Licenses - Increased income on gaming permits, licenses and lotteries licenses

CCTV - Reduction in supplies and services

Community and Safety - Admin Support

Community and Safety - Reduction on Supplies and Services

Page 2

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT (Manager - Emma Broom)

Civic Function + Chairman 90.9 ( 10.3 ) 80.6 48.2 42.4 81.1 0.5

1 Corporate Communication 54.5 0.0 54.5 39.8 18.0 37.3 ( 17.2 )

2 Leadership Team 417.9 ( 1.2 ) 416.7 226.8 276.4 462.6 45.9

3 Corporate Performance Team 79.9 4.9 84.8 40.6 40.4 79.1 ( 5.7 )

External Audit & Inspection 168.4 0.0 168.4 123.8 70.3 165.4 ( 3.0 )

4 Non-Distributed Costs 0.0 155.9 155.9 78.0 90.8 168.8 12.9

5 Climate Change 12.7 0.0 12.7 0.5 5.3 7.3 ( 5.4 )

Customer Services Contract - Expenditure 301.7 0.0 301.7 193.5 167.6 299.6 ( 2.1 )

Customer Services Contract - Income ( 301.7 ) 0.0 ( 301.7 ) 0.0 0.0 ( 301.7 ) 0.0

6 IT Contract - Expenditure 437.9 4.5 442.4 280.9 274.0 483.7 41.3

IT Contract - Income ( 437.9 ) 0.0 ( 437.9 ) 0.0 ( 24.4 ) ( 472.2 ) ( 34.3 )

HR Contract - Expenditure 238.1 0.1 238.2 147.5 128.5 239.7 1.5

HR Contract - Income ( 238.1 ) 0.0 ( 238.1 ) 0.0 ( 0.5 ) ( 238.6 ) ( 0.5 )

7 Internal Audit - Expenditure 182.4 0.0 182.4 94.1 79.3 159.9 ( 22.5 )

7 Internal Audit - Income ( 182.4 ) 0.0 ( 182.4 ) 0.0 ( 7.2 ) ( 189.6 ) ( 7.2 )8 Legal Services - Expenditure 428.2 0.0 428.2 342.6 330.2 421.1 ( 7.1 )

Legal Services - Income ( 428.2 ) 0.0 ( 428.2 ) ( 37.8 ) ( 37.9 ) ( 428.1 ) 0.1

Customer Services Client - Expenditure 47.7 0.0 47.7 27.3 23.6 63.4 15.7

Customer Services Client - Income ( 47.7 ) 0.0 ( 47.7 ) ( 1.6 ) ( 16.8 ) ( 62.5 ) ( 14.8 )

9 IT - Expenditure 268.0 0.0 268.0 157.6 160.1 320.1 52.1

IT - Income ( 268.0 ) 0.0 ( 268.0 ) 0.0 ( 0.6 ) ( 271.3 ) ( 3.3 )

10 HR client - Expenditure 171.5 0.0 171.5 88.0 76.8 162.5 ( 9.0 )

HR client - Income ( 171.5 ) 0.0 ( 171.5 ) 0.0 ( 1.3 ) ( 173.5 ) ( 2.0 )

824.3 153.9 978.2 1,849.8 1,695.0 1,014.1 35.9

Page 3

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR CORPORATE £'000

1 ( 16.5 )

2 44.0

3 5.7

4 12.8

5 4.6

5 ( 10.0 )

6 7.0

7 ( 22.0 )

7 ( 7.2 )

8 ( 7.0 )

9 5.6

9 ( 2.0 )

9 5.0

9 7.5

9 34.0

10 ( 17.0 )

10 ( 12.0 )

10 18.0

( 14.6 )

35.9

IT - Reduced training budget

HR Client - Reduced training budget

IT - Provision of secure network link to other local authorities to exchange data

Miscellaneous

HR Client - Salary savings

Internal Audit - IESE credit

Climate Change - No budget for Contribution to Local Area Agreement theme, climate change vision for Hampshire

Corporate Communications - Consultants projection reduced

Non Distributed Costs - Early retirement costs

Corporate Performance - Salary saving not achieved

Leadership Team - Delay and additional cost in securing planned redundancy.

Climate Change - HCC grant received to cover the Climate change post

IT - Licence fees and software (Microsoft audit licence)

Internal Audit - salary saving due to restructure

IT Contract - Incorrect treatment of costs, as they were fully incurred last year

Legal Services - Reduction in consultants budget

IT - Increase in salary due to job evaluation

IT - Fees for disaster recovery service

HR Client - Occupational Health Medical costs, plus extra costs for late transfer of service from HCC

Page 4

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

DEMOCRATIC SERVICES (Manager - Andy Tiffin)

1 Partnership Support 387.5 3.4 390.9 287.6 269.6 333.0 ( 57.9 )

3 Register of Electors 79.3 1.5 80.8 43.8 45.2 86.3 5.5

Rechargeable Elections 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.5 0.0 0.0

3 Elections 129.3 0.3 129.6 77.8 67.7 144.7 15.1

Parish Petition 13.4 0.0 13.4 0.0 6.3 9.6 ( 3.8 )

Setting up New Parish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 1.8

4 Support to Elected bodies 271.4 0.0 271.4 170.3 157.6 265.3 ( 6.1 )

5 Committee Services 231.2 4.8 236.0 87.8 84.3 233.8 ( 2.2 )

6 Print Room - Expenditure 101.5 ( 5.3 ) 96.2 36.1 28.8 87.2 ( 9.0 )

Print Room - Income ( 101.5 ) 0.0 ( 101.5 ) ( 1.0 ) 0.0 ( 100.4 ) 1.1

1,112.1 4.7 1,116.8 702.4 708.9 1,061.3 ( 55.5 )

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR DEMOCRATIC £'000

1 ( 25.0 )

1 ( 33.0 )

2 5.5

3 15.0

4 ( 5.1 )

5 ( 9.0 )

( 3.9 )

( 55.5 )

Register of Electors - Supplies and Services

Support to Elected Bodies - Supplies and services

Miscellaneous

Print room - Expected printing charges to be less than budget.

Partnership Support - Reduction in contributions

Elections - General election expenses greater than budgeted for

Partnership Support - Customer Service Manager post not filled from July onwards

Page 5

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

FINANCE (Manager - Jo Laurie)

1 Revenues & Benefits Contractor Costs - Expenditure 1,077.4 0.0 1,077.4 717.5 772.5 1,122.8 45.4

1 Revenues & Benefits Contractor Costs - Income ( 1,077.4 ) 0.0 ( 1,077.4 ) 0.0 ( 25.9 ) ( 1,106.3 ) ( 28.9 )

1 Revenues & Benefits Client Costs - Expenditure 418.2 ( 128.1 ) 290.1 ( 25.5 ) 99.3 227.3 ( 62.8 )

1 Revenues & Benefits Client Costs - Income ( 418.2 ) 0.0 ( 418.2 ) ( 384.9 ) ( 312.6 ) ( 399.9 ) 18.3

1 Housing/Council Tax Benefits 1,014.7 0.0 1,014.7 786.6 ( 2,312.2 ) 1,061.4 46.7

Meals on Wheels 13.1 0.0 13.1 3.7 ( 3.5 ) 10.6 ( 2.5 )

Housing Act Advances 2.8 0.0 2.8 ( 0.4 ) 0.1 3.4 0.6

2 Bank Charges 0.0 80.0 80.0 60.0 40.3 75.0 ( 5.0 )

3 Finance Client - Expenditure 156.1 ( 80.0 ) 76.1 41.0 89.3 122.0 45.9

Finance Client - Income ( 156.1 ) 0.0 ( 156.1 ) ( 3.5 ) ( 5.5 ) ( 157.4 ) ( 1.3 )

Finance Contractor - Expenditure 407.4 0.0 407.4 304.1 273.6 417.4 10.0

Finance Contractor - Income ( 407.4 ) 0.0 ( 407.4 ) 0.0 ( 10.0 ) ( 417.4 ) ( 10.0 )

1,030.6 ( 128.1 ) 902.5 1,498.6 ( 1,394.6 ) 958.9 56.4

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR FINANCE £'000

1 67.7

1 ( 14.6 )

1 ( 38.0 )

2 ( 5.0 )

3 23.9

3 22.4

0.0 56.4

Housing and Council tax benefit - Contractor repayment

Bank Charges - bank charges under budget

Finance Client Expenditure - Pension costs relating to redundancies in 2009

Finance Client Expenditure - S151 costs

Revenues & Council tax benefit - Housing subsidy 08/09 repayment following DWP investigation

Miscellaneous

Housing and Council tax benefit - Movements

Page 6

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

HOUSING (Manager - Nigel Preston)

1 Private Sector Housing 420.8 ( 79.4 ) 341.4 157.1 126.2 344.0 2.6

2 Strategic Housing 260.8 49.5 310.3 119.0 95.5 317.2 6.9

3 Housing Needs Service 501.9 ( 43.2 ) 458.7 125.2 118.0 491.7 33.0

Contact Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Photocopying 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Postal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 Housing & Customer Services Support - Expenditure 289.1 ( 15.1 ) 274.0 135.2 154.1 286.8 12.8

Housing & Customer Services Support - Income ( 289.1 ) 0.0 ( 289.1 ) 0.0 0.0 ( 289.1 ) 0.0

1,183.5 ( 88.2 ) 1,095.3 536.5 493.8 1,150.6 55.3

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR HOUSING £'000

1 ( 5.0 )

1 4.5

1 2.4

2 2.5

2 3.5

3 30.0

3 3.5

4 10.2

4 2.6

1.1 55.3

Housing and Customer support Expenditure - Vacancy saving not met (Head of Housing currently working on savings)

Housing Needs Service - Increased License fees & Insurance premiums

Miscellaneous

Housing and Customer support Expenditure - Small increases in S&S

Private Sector Housing - Reduction in contractors

Strategic Housing -£2.5K salary saving not met

Private Sector Housing - Reduced income on training courses

Private Sector Housing - Small increases in S&S

Strategic Housing -Contractors

Housing Needs Service - Bad debt provision saving not achievable as reviewed in 2009/10

Page 7

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

LEISURE (Manager - Carl Westby)

Land Repossession 7.5 0.0 7.5 2.1 0.0 5.4 ( 2.1 )

1 Leisure Strategy 260.9 10.2 271.1 121.7 99.8 229.0 ( 42.1 )

2 Fleet Pond 100.8 ( 6.0 ) 94.8 47.4 29.0 93.1 ( 1.7 )

2 Commons 101.8 ( 2.4 ) 99.4 76.4 47.2 98.1 ( 1.3 )

2 Odiham Common 68.7 0.9 69.6 35.3 39.6 70.4 0.8

2 Elvetham Heath Nature Reserve 36.7 ( 2.4 ) 34.3 36.7 35.0 35.3 1.0

3 Hart Leisure Centre 443.8 ( 6.1 ) 437.7 57.8 ( 69.2 ) 417.8 ( 19.9 )

HLC Catering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4 Frogmore Leisure Centre 304.6 ( 1.8 ) 302.8 19.3 15.7 282.9 ( 19.9 )

Outdoor Sports-Southwood 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 Velmead Outdoor Sports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

P 6 Peter Driver Outdoor Sports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 23.9 23.9

P 6 Basingbourne Outdoor Sports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ( 0.9 ) ( 0.9 ) ( 0.9 )

P 6 Calthorpe Outside sports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 8.7 8.7

P 6 Oakley Park Outdoor Sports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 9.3 9.3

P 6 Elvetham Heath Outdoor Sports 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.5 7.5

P 6 Parks and Play areas(Fleet and CC) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 3.4 3.4

Parks & Play Areas (Outside Fleet) 83.5 ( 5.9 ) 77.6 60.2 57.2 77.7 0.1

P 6 Harlington Centre 115.0 0.0 115.0 0.0 1.6 116.6 1.6

P 6 Harlington Centre-Catering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ( 16.2 ) ( 16.2 ) ( 16.2 )

5 Velmead Community Centre 21.5 0.0 21.5 13.2 14.3 36.5 15.0

P 6 Elvetham Heath Community Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 18.0

6 Environmental Enhancements 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.6

2 Open Spaces 446.9 ( 17.5 ) 429.4 35.6 30.0 499.3 69.9

2 Grounds Maintenance - Expenditure 517.4 ( 7.9 ) 509.5 387.2 391.8 586.1 76.6

2 Grounds Maintenance - Income ( 517.4 ) 0.0 ( 517.4 ) ( 52.7 ) ( 137.1 ) ( 632.2 ) ( 114.8 )

1,991.7 ( 38.9 ) 1,952.8 840.2 610.2 1,971.3 18.5

Page 8

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR LEISURE £'000

1 ( 42.2 )

2 69.0

2 ( 38.0 )

3 ( 5.0 )

3 ( 15.0 )

4 ( 15.0 )

4 ( 5.0 )

5 15.0

6 57.0

( 2.3 )

18.5

Frogmore Leisure Centre - Increased income

Frogmore Leisure Centre - Reduction in R&M projection

Velmead Community Centre - Now moved to the parish, income budget is for 12 months

Miscellaneous

Leisure Strategy -Salary saving due to vacant positions that will not be filled, Sporting lifestyles post filled Jan-March and Leisure Admin

Hart Leisure Centre - Rates refund due to revaluation

Grounds Maintenance - reduction in tree expenditure

Open spaces income insufficient due to loss of Developers income contribution.

Hart Leisure Centre -Leisure Officer salary recharge to the parish

Final payment of Special expenses to newly formed parishes

Page 9

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

PLANNING (Manager - Daryl Phillips)

Local Land Charges ( 48.6 ) ( 0.5 ) ( 49.1 ) ( 74.7 ) ( 74.6 ) ( 52.2 ) ( 3.1 )

1 Development Control 359.4 ( 6.5 ) 352.9 ( 12.0 ) ( 174.2 ) 301.1 ( 51.8 )

2 Planning Delivery Grant 241.5 0.5 242.0 160.0 151.2 232.5 ( 9.5 )

3 Building Control (Fee) ( 80.6 ) 70.1 ( 10.5 ) ( 116.1 ) ( 83.5 ) ( 32.4 ) ( 21.9 )

Building Control (Non-Fee) 110.0 ( 64.8 ) 45.2 50.5 24.0 47.1 1.9

Landscape and Conservation 210.7 6.7 217.4 99.2 95.2 220.3 2.9

4 Planning Policy 358.6 1.2 359.8 164.8 160.1 390.1 30.3

5 Planning Support - Expenditure 369.1 0.0 369.1 180.1 188.5 385.9 16.8

Planning Support - Income ( 369.1 ) 0.0 ( 369.1 ) 0.0 0.0 ( 369.1 ) 0.0

1,151.0 6.7 1,157.7 451.8 286.7 1,123.3 ( 34.4 )

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR PLANNING £'000

1 ( 29.9 )

1 14.9

1 ( 45.0 )

1 6.5

1 57.9

1 ( 55.0 )

2 6.8

2 ( 17.3 )

3 8.8

3 ( 24.5 )

3 ( 4.4 )

4 28.4

4 3.1

Development Control - Salary saving due to employee decreasing their hours and pensions not been taken out

Planning Delivery Grant - Two additional staff to help with the backlog of scanning

Planning policy - loss of planning delivery grant

Development Control - Award of costs

Building Control (Fee) - Overspend on agency fees

Planning Delivery Grant - Planning Delivery grant

Development Control - Actual additional Planning application fee income

Development Control - S106 compliance income not previously projected

Development Control - Loss of planning Delivery Grant

Development Control - Government decision not to advertise in local papers was made in 2009/10 but re instated in 2010/11 with no budget

Building Control (Fee) - Building application income fees

Building Control (Fee) - Savings on license fees

Planning policy -Vacancy saving cannot be met

Page 10

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

5 5.4

5 9.0

6 2.1

( 1.2 )

( 34.4 )

REGULATORY SERVICES - (Nick Steevens)

1 Dog Warden 62.0 ( 13.3 ) 48.7 20.6 51.3 63.7 15.0

2 Pest Control 51.8 ( 29.4 ) 22.4 ( 23.0 ) 7.8 34.2 11.8

3 Environmental Health (Pollution) 125.0 88.1 213.1 159.4 79.1 142.2 ( 70.9 )

4 Environmental Health (Commercial) 324.0 31.1 355.1 167.0 178.0 384.4 29.3

Fleet Cemetery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.1 4.1

Churchyards 8.1 0.0 8.1 1.6 1.9 8.1 0.0

Environmental Health (Public) 87.1 6.4 93.5 37.5 44.6 92.8 ( 0.7 )

Out of Hours Noise Service 16.2 0.0 16.2 9.6 8.7 18.2 2.0

Health & Safety - Expenditure 92.0 0.0 92.0 54.1 43.1 89.5 ( 2.5 )

Health & Safety - Income ( 91.9 ) 0.0 ( 91.9 ) 0.0 0.0 ( 91.9 ) ( 0.0 )

674.3 82.9 757.2 426.8 418.6 745.2 ( 12.0 )

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR REGULATORY £'000

1 15.0

2 12.1

3 ( 88.1 )

3 13.4

3 2.9

4 13.8

Environmental Health (Pollution) - 3 Vacant post were budgeted for but two remain vacant

Environmental Health Commercial - Vacancy savings cannot be met& salary budget set to low for one post

Miscellaneous

Dog Warden - Service being brought back in house

Pest Control - Income projection reduced for Rodents

Environmental Health (Pollution) -Contractor costs

Environmental Health (Pollution) - Small increases in S&S

Planning Support - Expenditure - Salary budget set at too low level

Planning Support - Expenditure - Vacancy saving cannot be met

Planning Support - Expenditure - Small increases in S&S

Page 11

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

4 20.7

4 ( 7.3 )

4 2.0

2.8

0.7

( 12.0 )

Miscellaneous


Environmental Health Commercial - Contractors costs

Environmental Health Commercial - Small increases in S&S

Environmental Health Commercial - Increase in income

Page 12

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

TECHNICAL (Manager - John Elson)

1 Emergency Planning 60.3 40.1 100.4 56.7 21.8 44.2 ( 56.2 )

2 Refuse Collection 1,732.1 ( 112.7 ) 1,619.4 741.3 859.1 1,620.0 0.6

3 Green Waste Collection ( 35.0 ) ( 32.7 ) ( 67.7 ) ( 116.5 ) 43.3 ( 45.0 ) 22.7

4 Glass Waste Collection 264.1 ( 5.8 ) 258.3 107.3 112.3 245.0 ( 13.3 )

Public Conveniences 18.0 ( 18.0 ) 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.1 0.1

5 Amenity Cleaning 677.8 19.4 697.2 460.7 473.5 726.0 28.8

6 Waste Management & Recycling ( 48.9 ) 1.4 ( 47.5 ) ( 110.6 ) 39.7 ( 105.7 ) ( 58.2 )

7 Hart Drainage 132.8 ( 33.3 ) 99.5 61.7 44.2 89.7 ( 9.8 )

Street Furniture 18.9 ( 2.0 ) 16.9 11.9 4.4 16.7 ( 0.2 )

8 Highways Traffic Management 87.6 2.3 89.9 81.3 91.2 106.1 16.2

HCC Development Control ( 25.1 ) ( 2.3 ) ( 27.4 ) 49.6 ( 83.7 ) ( 31.8 ) ( 4.4 )

9 Estates/Asset management 75.9 9.6 85.5 15.5 17.6 92.9 7.4

Corporate Buildings Maintenance - Expenditure 258.1 ( 38.0 ) 220.1 150.5 126.0 204.0 ( 16.1 )

Corporate Buildings Maintenance - Income ( 258.1 ) 0.0 ( 258.1 ) 0.0 0.0 ( 243.1 ) 15.0

10 Off Street Parking ( 691.5 ) 56.4 ( 635.1 ) ( 424.7 ) ( 407.9 ) ( 606.0 ) 29.1

11 On Street Parking 186.7 ( 56.9 ) 129.8 47.4 57.7 158.2 28.4

12 Concessionary Travel 301.3 1.4 302.7 211.7 180.5 310.2 7.5

Community Transport 2.9 ( 2.9 ) 0.0 0.7 ( 19.3 ) ( 19.3 ) ( 19.3 )

13 Administrative Buildings - Expenditure 763.6 ( 39.9 ) 723.7 320.8 310.6 750.9 27.2

Administrative Buildings - Income ( 763.6 ) 102.2 ( 661.4 ) ( 37.1 ) ( 34.6 ) ( 652.0 ) 9.4

Hartley Wintney Depot - Expenditure 112.8 ( 7.6 ) 105.2 45.7 33.6 106.5 1.3

Hartley Wintney Depot - Income ( 112.8 ) 0.0 ( 112.8 ) 0.0 0.0 ( 112.8 ) 0.0

14 Office Services (Procurement) - Expenditure 63.2 ( 6.3 ) 56.9 25.0 4.4 25.0 ( 31.9 )

Office Services (Procurement) - Income ( 63.2 ) 14.9 ( 48.3 ) 0.0 0.0 ( 48.3 ) 0.0

2,757.9 ( 110.7 ) 2,647.2 1,698.9 1,887.4 2,631.5 ( 15.7 )

Page 13

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR TECHNICAL £'000

1 ( 56.2 )

2 52.6

2 ( 10.7 )

2 ( 12.1 )

2 29.1

2 ( 11.5 )

2 ( 30.0 )

2 ( 7.0 )

2 ( 9.8 )

3 ( 11.8 )

3 29.8

3 5.0

4 ( 7.9 )

Refuse collection - Reduced vehicle maintenance costs

Emergency Planning - Salary savings

Refuse collection - Clothing & uniforms

Green Waste Collection - Increase in cost of fuel.

Green Waste Collection - Forecast income less than budget.

Glass Waste - Saving on agency costs.

Refuse collection - Saving on consultants costs for joint working project as work carried out in-house.

Green Waste Collection - Saving on agency budget.

Refuse collection - Saving in agency costs

Refuse collection - Increase in fuel costs

Refuse collection - Vacancy management saving taken from other cost centres + salaries moved from glass and amenity cleaning .

Refuse collection - Saving in overtime costs

Refuse collection - Additional income from Sale of Bulk Containers

Page 14

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

4 ( 8.0 )

4 14.6

4 ( 12.9 )

5 ( 17.9 )

5 ( 20.7 )

5 ( 19.5 )

5 43.4

5 20.4

5 23.5

6 ( 54.9 )

6 ( 4.3 )

6 5.0

6 ( 5.3 )

7 ( 10.0 )

Amenity Cleaning - Loss of income from litter picks due to delay in implementing CNEA powers

Amenity Cleaning - Various employee costs savings

Waste Management -Savings in Supplies and Services

Amenity Cleaning - LPSA2 grant accrual for 2009/10 will not come in

Hart Drainage - Decrease in contractors spend

Waste Management - Reduction in payments to Hampshire County Council

Waste Management - Increased income from sale of recycled material

Glass Waste - Savings in employee costs and supplies and Services

Amenity Cleaning - Additional vehicle hire costs

Amenity Cleaning - Saving on vehicle maintenance

Glass Waste - Additional Glass Collection Income

Amenity Cleaning - Reduction in forecast expenditure on removal of fly tips.

Glass Waste - Additional Transport costs

Waste Management - Carry Forward in Off Street Parking

Page 15

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

8 7.7

8 7.5

9 7.0

10 ( 5.0 )

10 ( 4.0 )

10 ( 89.0 )

10 3.7

10 3.9

10 82.0

10 35.0

10 4.0

11 26.5

11 2.6

12 ( 9.0 )

On street Car Parking - Overspend in salaries due to incorrect scale points in budget setting, less savings after implementation of Service Changes

Concessionary Travel - Forecast reduction in token claims to reflect 09/10 actual.

Off Street Parking - Forecasted penalty charges notices less than budget

On street Car Parking - Reduced income from Penalty charge notices due to staff shortages, vacancies to be filled once review of parking team completed.

Off Street Parking - Forecasted season ticket income less than budget

Off Street Parking - Carry forward to move to Waste Management

Off Street Parking - Small increases in S&S

Off Street Parking - Small salary savings after implementation of Service Changes

Off Street Parking - Small increases in premises costs

Highways Traffic management - Reduced forecasted income

Off Street Parking - Forecast car park income less budget.

Off Street Parking - Rates rebate of £77K. Actual costs less than budget

Highways Traffic Management - Increased salary costs due to employment of temporary member of staff, funded from vacancy management savings elsewhere.

Estates/Asset Management - Capita estates management contract, funded from vacancy management savings elsewhere.

Page 16

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

12 23.0

13 24.9

13 4.8

14 ( 31.2 )

( 24.0 )

1.0

( 15.7 )

Miscellaneous

Administrative Buildings -Loss of rental income from the Apex Centre

Administrative Buildings -Vacancy management saving has been met in Emergency planning


Office Services (Procurement) - Vacancy management savings.

Concessionary Travel - outstanding claims subject to Bus Company appeals for Period to 31 March 2011

Page 17

Paper D

Appendix 1A


OriginalBudget


CurrentBudget

YTD BudgetActual



£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

ACCOUNTING TREATMENT (Manager - Jo Laurie)

Parish Council Precepts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Contributions, Provisions, Grants ( 11,616.4 ) 11,696.4 80.0 60.0 109.3 109.3 29.3

Other Operating Costs-Income 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ( 20.0 ) ( 20.0 ) ( 20.0 )

1 Grants And Taxes 0.0 ( 9,818.8 ) ( 9,818.8 ) ( 8,405.1 ) ( 955.8 ) ( 9,691.3 ) 127.5

Movement in general fund balance - Appropriations 0.0 ( 1,475.6 ) ( 1,475.6 ) ( 1,106.7 ) 20.0 ( 1,455.6 ) 20.0

Movement in general fund balance - Capital & Pensions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Movement in general fund balance - Transfers From Reserves 0.0 ( 65.1 ) ( 65.1 ) ( 19.9 ) ( 103.8 ) ( 65.1 ) 0.0

2 Interest 0.0 ( 244.2 ) ( 244.2 ) ( 182.7 ) ( 58.7 ) ( 225.0 ) 19.2

Reserve Transfers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

( 11,616.4 ) 92.7 ( 11,523.7 ) ( 9,654.4 ) ( 1,009.0 ) ( 11,347.7 ) 176.0

TOP FORECAST VARIANCE INFORMATION FOR ACCOUNTING TREATMENT £'000

1 28.1

2 127.5

4 23.5

( 3.1 )

176

Miscellaneous

Grants & Taxes - LPSA2/LABGI grant will not be received. Area based grant £30k was not in budget

Interest income - Reduction in interest income from investments


Page 18

PAPER DAppendix 1B

Council Tax and NNDR Write Off/On Summary 2010/11

Third quarter October - December 2010

COUNCIL TAXAged Year Number £ Average

Prior to 2009 136 23,622.14 173.69 2009 0 0.00 0.00 2010 0 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 136 23,622.14 173.69

NNDRLiquidation Year Number £ Average

Prior to 2009 18 120,234.93 6,679.72 2009 12 29,465.21 2,455.43 2010 4 4,898.30 1,224.58

TOTAL 34 154,598.44 4,547.01

WRITE ONSCouncil Tax Year Number £ Average

TOTAL 0 0.00 0.00

NNDR Year Number £ AverageTOTAL 0 0.00 0.00

COUNCIL TAX Number £ AverageThird Quarter Total Write Offs 136 23,622.14 173.69 Third Quarter Total Write Ons 0 0.00 0.00

NNDRThird Quarter Total Write Offs 34 154,598.44 4,547.01 Third Quarter Total Write Ons 0 0.00 0.00

Housing and Council Tax Benefit Write-Offs

Q3 - 2010/11 Housing BenefitCouncil Tax Benefit

No £ No £Oct 2 9.30 0.00 0.00 Nov 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dec 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2 9.30 0.00 0.00

Sundry Debtors Write-Offs

Q3 - 2010/11 No £Oct 9 1,011.61 Nov 1 16.01 Dec 1 280.00 Total 11 1,307.62

Paper DAppendix 1C

Capital

Receipts

general

£'k

Capital

receipts

housing

£'k

Housing

£'k

Leisure

£'k

NEHTS

£k

Education

£k

TOTAL

£'k

Capital resources available as at 1st April 2010 (1,872) (1,894) 0 (557) (611) (273) (82) (5,289)Funding used to Finance Capital programme 455 100 278 255 107 0 0 1,195

Capital Loan for Optimisation Units 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 32

Social Housing Easement - Odiham Byways (50) 0 0 50 0 0 0 0

Right to buy 0 (94) 0 0 0 0 0 (94)

DFG Grant 0 0 (260) 0 0 0 0 (260)

External contributions (Monteagle Lane & Voltage

units)0 0 (50) 0 0 0 0 (50)

Capital Resources available as at 1st April 2011 (1,467) (1,888) 0 (252) (504) (273) (82) (4,466)

S106

CAPITAL FUNDING STATEMENT 2010/11

External

contribution

£'k

Capital receipts

Paper D

Appendix 1C

Budget

Brought

forward

from

2009/10

New

schemes

approved

in year

Current

BudgetActual

Forecast

ExpenditureVariance

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

Corporate Management 22 24 38 84 15 74 (10)

Community & Partnerships 30 0 0 30 8 23 (7)

Housing & Customer Services 500 0 465 965 366 855 (110)

Leisure & Environmental Promotion 669 22 112 803 27 236 (567)

Planning & Environmental Regulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Technical Services 112 39 0 151 39 39 (112)

Capital Programme provisions 255 0 (191) 64 0 0 (64)

TOTAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME 1,588 85 424 2,097 454 1,227 (870)

Service

AreaScheme Budget

Brought

forward

from

2009/10

New

schemes

approved

in year

Current

BudgetActual

Forecast

ExpenditureVariance

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

IT Equipment Replacement (Desktop Refresh) 22 0 0 22 0 22 0

Grant 6K Fleet Town Football Club 0 0 6 6 0 0 (6)

Future of Fleet Town Centre 0 24 0 24 15 20 (4)

Voltage Optimisation 0 0 32 32 0 32 0

22 24 38 84 15 74 (10)Provision to support Parish Schemes 30 0 0 30 8 23 (7)

30 0 0 30 8 23 (7)

Private Sector Renewal 60 0 0 60 29 40 (20)

Social Housing - Step by Step Aldershot 0 0 50 50 50 50 0

Social Housing - HCC-Contribution to empty houses 0 0 205 205 0 205 0

Social Housing - 1 Green Lane,Blackwater 0 0 30 30 0 0 (30)

Social Housing - Odiham Byways 0 0 50 50 0 0 (50)

Social Housing - Ewshot Land Sale 0 0 30 30 0 0 (30)Disabled Facilities Grants 440 0 100 540 287 560 20

500 0 465 965 366 855 (110)

Capital Programme 2010/11

Corporate Management

Community & Partnerships

Housing

Page 2

Paper D

Appendix 1CService

AreaScheme Budget

Brought

forward

from

2009/10

New

schemes

approved

in year

Current

BudgetActual

Forecast

ExpenditureVariance

C/Side Workshop 16 0 0 16 0 0 (16)

Public Art 0 5 0 5 0 0 (5)

Fleet Pond Project-Restoration 0 0 30 30 2 26 (4)

Fleet Pond-Bridges 0 0 39 39 0 39 0Velmead Coms 0 15 0 15 15 15 0South Warnborough Safer Surfacing 0 0 15 15 5 15 0Ashwells Copse-Biodiversity Improvements 0 0 12 12 0 12 0

Hartney Witney Central Mgmt Plan 0 0 16 16 4 0 (16)

Calthorpe Park 0 2 0 2 0 0 (2)

Harlington Centre - Planned Maintenance 60 0 (60) 0 0 0 0

Frogmore Leisure Centre 35 0 (35) 0 0 0 0

Extend and upgrade Fire Alarm 0 0 13 13 0 13 0

Install heating to outer changing area 0 0 15 15 0 15 0

Hart Leisure Centre 523 0 (30) 493 0 0 (493)

UpGradeFire Escape 0 0 5 5 0 5 0

Paths to Hall Nos1&2 for fire escape to meet regs 0 0 35 35 0 35 0 UpGradeFire Alarm System 0 0 11 11 0 11 0The Workshop - Fleet Pond Staff/shower and

ventilation equipment 35 0 46 81 0 50 (31)669 22 112 803 27 236 (567)

Disability Discrimination Act 86 0 0 86 0 0 (86)Car Park Improvements - Monteagle Lane, Yateley 0 30 0 30 30 30 0Depot Improvements 0 4 0 4 4 4 0Car Parking 0 5 0 5 5 5 0Civic Offices - Planned Maintenance 26 0 0 26 0 0 (26)

112 39 0 151 39 39 (112)Social Housing initiatives 195 0 (191) 4 0 0 (4)Hart Leisure Centre 60 0 0 60 0 0 (60)

255 0 (191) 64 0 0 (64)TOTAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME 1,588 85 424 2,097 454 1,227 (870)

Technical Services

Capital Programme Provisions

Leisure & Environmental

Promotion

Page 3

PAPER E

1



TITLE OF REPORT: 2010/11 THIRD QUARTER PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REPORT

Report of: Corporate Director

Cabinet member: Councillor Ken Crookes, Leader

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To update Members on how the authority is currently performing in:

I. Organisational Development – Business Process Reengineering, partnership working with other Local Authorities, and outsourcing

II. Relevant National and Local Performance Indicators (NIs, PIs)III. Complaints/Compliments


2.1 For all areas of concern highlighted in the report Members either:

(a) Recommend to Cabinet where it is considered action is needed and an update report presented by the Portfolio Holder at the next appropriate Cabinet, and/or Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC)

(b) Recommend issue(s) which should be referred to the relevant Service Board and/or Performance Improvement Board (PIB) for action, and

(c) Where an issue is of high importance, request that the issue is escalated by Management Team.

2.2 That Members continue to feedback to the Performance Improvement Officer any amendments or new information they wish to see included in the Corporate Performance Reports.

3 BACKGROUND

3.1 The Corporate Performance Reports are designed to ensure that performance is managed more effectively within the Council.

4 CURRENT POSITION

4.1 The table below provides a summary of this quarter’s performance.The full reports are contained on the pages that follow.

PAPER E

2

Data HeadlinesOrganisational Development

There are currently 18 review or outsourcing projects on the agenda. There are 4 completed projects and 14 underway, a number of projects are linked t the 2011/12 budget process.

National and Localperformance Indicators

Majority of local indicators performing well with 57 on target indicators, 9 indicators within 10% of target and 8 not meeting target. 19 are unknown (these largely relate to Capita indicators which are in a base year and do not yet have targets). The main area of concern is around the delivery of affordable homes, although this is beginning to improve as Hitches Lane and Dilly lane properties become available.

Complaints Management

During the third quarter of 2010/11 63% of recorded complaints were acknowledged within 24 hours of receipt and 45% were fully responded to within our 10 day target. This is a significant drop from quarter 2 performance (81% acknowledged / 71% responded). The overall number of complaints has decreased. Much of this may be put down to the extended Christmas break and bad weather in December. Year to date performance of 74% acknowledged / 62% responded is now below that for 2009/10 (78% acknowledged / 62% responded)


5.1 There are no specific financial implications in this report

6 EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY

The areas which give rise to the greatest concern over equality and diversity relate to the lack of delivery of appropriate levels of affordable housing for the more vulnerable groups in the district.

7 LINKS TO CORPORATE PRIORITIES

The Corporate Performance Report is central to all the priorities of theCouncil and is used as a mechanism for monitoring progress towards achieving them.

Contact Details: Emma Broom 4450email: [email protected]

APPENDICESAppendix 1 Organisational DevelopmentAppendix 2 National Indicators and Local Performance IndicatorsAppendix 3 Complaints Management

PAPER EAppendix 1

Hart Organisational DevelopmentScope and progress – September 2010

Service Internal reorganisation

Transfer to Parish Council

Partnership Outsource Not startedRed

UnderwayAmber

Anticipated Completion Date

CompleteGreen

Officer Lead

Waste Collection Yes in 2011 Oct 2011 EB/JEGrounds Maintenance Basingstoke Oct 2011 EB/CWLeisure Centres Consultants

Report received

TBC EB/CW

Street Cleaning Basingstoke Oct 2011 EBProperty and Estate Services CAPITA EB/JEBuilding Control Wokingham

/Rushmoor/ Surrey Heath

April 2011 EB/DP

CCTV Internal Review April 2011 GB/CRParking Review Internal review IESE February

2011EB

Street Cleansing Review Internal review IESE EBHousing Benefit BPR Internal review IESE EBWaste BPR Joint Project with

Capita EB

Administration Review Internal/Joint Review Capita/IESE

February 2011

EB

Shared Licensing Service Basingstoke March 2011

EB

Pest Control Yes April 2011 EBReview Community Warden Provision

Internal Review April 2011 GB/CR

Review Conservation Service Internal Review April 2011 EB/DPReview Strategic Housing Provision

Internal Review March 2011 NP

PA

PE

R E

Ap

pen

dix 1

Green 57 (Met target)

Amber 9 (Within 10% of target) Black bars: at or above targetRed 8 (Not met target) Grey bars: below target

Unknown 19 (No Target or no data for quarter) (*Reversed where Best Result is low)

Communities & Partnerships; Community Safety

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11

Value Value Value Value Value Value Value

% of partner satisfaction in community safety events (by Survey)

CS3g High Value 94.88% 96.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% Green

% of specified work completed as part of Crime Reduction and Environment Week (CREW)

CS3hDue to inclement weather conditions and staff sickness, it was not possible to complete all scheduled works within the CREW event itself.

High Value 370% 93% 90% 95% 98% 100% 81% 90% Amber

No of ASB Warning Letters Sent CS1001

New Indicator in 2010/11

Data Only n/a n/a n/a n/a 54 111 62 165

% of determined ‘premises licence applications’ issued within five working days

CSL17 High Value 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Green

% of hackney carriage and private hire licences issued with 14 working days

CSL19 High Value 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Green

Community Safety

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


CCTV Public Order Incidents CS12aNew Indicator

Low Value n/a 86 79 116 n/a Unknown

CCTV Violent Crime Incidents CS12bNew Indicator


CCTV Anti-Social Behaviour Incidents CS12cNew Indicator


Corporate

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


% of High Risk Audit Recommendations Implemented

CP2

NC100810 One recommendation outstanding - revised date agreed. High Value

No data for this range

50% 64% 81% 90% 92% 95% 100% Amber

% uptime of Hart DC website CP6

Uptime Robot reports 99.89%. Google Analytics reports page load times average 1.0sec (90% faster than all sites average) High Value 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 98.0% 98% Green

Percentage of Audit Plan completed during the year

PD1

**Cumulative Indicator

High Value 63% 51% 79% 99% 28% 50% 95% 95% Green

Percentage of Audits carried out within time allocation

PD2 High Value 90.50% 83% 87% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% Green

% High risk audit recommendations not implemented, which are escalated

PD3 High Value 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Green

No. of Press Releases issued per month PO1 High Value 6.58 6.33 8 3.33 7 4 6 6 Green

Annual Target 2010/11

StatusData Profile

2010/11 Third Quarter KPI Report with Trend Charts

KPI Description KPI CodeLatest Notes

Best Result Data Profile Status

StatusData ProfileKPI Description KPI Code

New Indicator for 2010/11

KPI Description KPI Code



Latest NotesBest Result




Page 1 of 6

Customer Services (Capita)

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


Quality of Customer Service Call Handling - % score from monitoring sample

CS-KPI-1 High Value 92% 92% 95% 95% n/a Unknown

% of telephone calls answered by Contact Centre in 15 seconds (was CC3)

CS-KPI-3a High Value 80% 79% 82% 81% 80% Green

% of calls to Contact Centre answered within 30 seconds (was CC4)

CS-KPI-3b High Value 86% 88% 88% 87% 85% Green

% Garden Waste invoices sent out accurately and on time

CS-KPI-4 High Value 0% 67% 67% 100% 99% Green

% Satisfied/Very Satisfied with Capita Customer Services (Monthly Survey)

CS-SI-20aTargets have not yet been set

High Value 49% 52% 51% 63% n/a Unknown

% Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied with Capita Customer Services (Monthly Survey)

CS-SI-20bTargets have not yet been set

Low Value* 25% 19% 19% 9% n/a Unknown

% Expressing a Neutral Opinion with Capita Customer Services (Monthly Survey)

CS-SI-20cTargets have not yet been set

High Value 26% 29% 30% 27% n/a Unknown

Democratic Services

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


% of Cabinet decisions produced within two working days of meetings


% of meetings (other than Cabinet) for which a draft copy of the Minutes is produced within 3 working days of a meeting


Environmental Health

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


% of food safety inspection that should have been carried out that were carried out for high risk premises

EH1 High Value 99% 99% 100% 97% 99% 100% 100% 100% Green

% Unfit food complaints to be responded to within 1 working day.


% of Health & safety inspections that should have been carried out that were carried out for ‘high risk’ premises

EH7

NS020211 Reduction in staff capacity due to long term sickness has caused a small number of inspections to be delayed or cancelled

High Value 96% 92% 92% 83% 79% 88% 95% 100% Amber

% serious accidents responded to within 1 working day


% of infectious diseases complaints responded to within three working days


% of public health complaints responded to within 3 working days.

EH13

NS020211 Reduction in staff capacity due to long term sickness has caused a small number of inspections to be delayed or cancelled

High Value 56% 0% 100% 75% 94% 99% 98% 100% Amber

% of animal welfare inspections undertaken within the period which were due for inspection


Best Result Data Profile





Status


Data Profile Status

New Indicators for 2010/11


Data Profile StatusAnnual Target 2010/11








Page 2 of 6

Finance

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


% of invoices paid on time (old BVPI8) FI-BV8

Q3 outturn is average of October - December. Low outturn may be due to current reporting manual process rather than poor performance. New reports are being designed to address this issue.

High Value 95% 91% 92% 98% 95% 91% 78% 97% Red

Provision of budget monitoring information on time

FI-KPI-3 High Value Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Green

% of undisputed invoices received by Capita and paid promptly

FI-KPI-5 High Value 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% Green

% Satisfied/Very Satisfied with Capita Financial Service (Monthly Survey)

FI-SI-20a

Quarter data are average of monthly data. Target not set yet. High Value 31% 31% 55% 60.9% 52.4% n/a Unknown

% Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied with Capita Financial Service (Monthly Survey)

FI-SI-20b

Quarter data are average of monthly data. Target not set yet. Low Value* 22% 22% 19% 12.1% 14.6% n/a Unknown

% Expressing a Neutral Opinion with Capita Financial Service (Monthly Survey)

FI-SI-20c

Quarter data are average of monthly data. Target not set yet. High Value 47% 47% 26% 27.0% 31.0% n/a Unknown

Housing

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


Average time (in days) taken to decide whether to accept people as homeless

H1

AG 100826 Continues to be within target. Actual number of homeless decisions are low, so PI can vary considerably. 3 decisions in December

Low Value* 14 19 5 12 4 13 4 20 Green *

No of new-build affordable intermediate homes provided

H4a

NP 110110 Target now likely to be exceeded as additional Dilly Ln properties due to be delivered High Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 Red

No of new-build affordable rented homes provided

H4b

NP 110110 - In addition to the 4 homes in Hitches Lane, upto 9 homes on Dilly Ln could be occupied this year. High Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 15 Red

No of additional affordable intermediate homes provided

H4c

AG 101202 - No further mortage rescues have been agreed this quarter although a number of applications are being processed

High Value 18 7 3 4 6 3 0 10 Amber

No of additional affordable rented homes provided

H4d

AG 101202 - Sale of HCC properties progressing now that funding has been secured. High Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 Red

The average length of stay for households in Heathlands Court (Weeks)

H5

AG 1110204 - Length of time in Heathlands increasing due to a few cases remaining a long time. Officers continue to monitor the situation especially as Banding system is due to be in place March 1st 2011

Low Value* 27 26 28 21 23 30 32 30 Amber*

Preventing Homelessness - raw number of households where homelessness prevented CUMULATIVE

H7

NP 101103 Figure for quarter artificially high due to some housekeeping within the IT system, however the overall figure for the year is correct.

High Value 253 63 62 90 51 222 98 144 Green

% of private sector housing grant budgets actually spent (DFG)

H8

110120 AG- DFG spend from 1st Apr 2010 - 31st Dec 2010 was £319,270.63. Budget is £440,000 so 73% (N.B. 40% of Annual Spend is in Q4)

High Value 94% 30% 60% 94% 5% 33% 73% 100% Green

No. of ‘houses in multiple occupation’ inspected (CUMULATIVE)

H11NP 110201 2 HMOs inspected this quarter, neither required licensing and no enforcement action was necessary. High Value 14 6 3 2 12 10 2 10 Green

Number of affordable homes delivered (gross) NI 155

NP 100805 This is the summation of all activity in H4 a - d

High Value 18 7 3 4 6 3 4 80 Red

StatusAnnual Target 2010/11

Data Profile

Best Result

Status

New in Feb 2010

New in Feb 2010

KPI Code

New in Feb 2010

KPI Description Data Profile


Best Result

Latest Notes


Page 3 of 6

Human Resources

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


% accuracy in gross and net pay calculations for all payrolls

HR-KPI-1 High Value n/a 98% 99% 98% Green

% contacts for basic HR enquiries and transactions resolved at first point of contact

HR-KPI-2a High Value 97% 99% 100% 100% 80% Green

% contacts for basic Payroll enquiries and transactions resolved at first point of contact

HR-KPI-2b High Value n/a 100% 100% 60% Green

% First point of contact and payroll queries resolved within 3 working days

HR-KPI-3 High Value 97% 98% 96% 97% 95% Green

% Complex HR queries resolved within 10 working days

HR-KPI-4 High Value 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% Green

% casework information and advice provided with appropriate reference to HDC policies, procedures and timescales

HR-SI-14 High Value 90% 100% 100% 100% 95% Green

% Satisfied/Very Satisfied with Capita HR Service (Monthly Survey)

HR-SI-20a High Value 33% 47% 45.6% 34.4% n/a Unknown

% Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied with Capita HR Service (Monthly Survey)

HR-SI-20b Low Value* 18% 13% 5.9% 23.6% n/a Unknown

% Expressing a Neutral Opinion with Capita HR Service (Monthly Survey)

HR-SI-20c High Value 49% 40% 48.5% 42.1% n/a Unknown

IT Services

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


% registered controllable incidents resolved at first point of contact

IT-KPI-1 High Value 47% 61% 62% 63% 60% Green

% Priority 1 incidents fixed within 4 working hours


% Priority 2 incidents fixed within 8 working hours


% Priority 3 incidents fixed within 5 working days


% uptime of key systems IT-KPI-5 High Value 100% 100% 99% 100% 99% Green

% score for Council employee satisfaction with Capita IT support service

IT-SI-5 High Value 88% 83% 86% 87% 80% Green

% Satisfied/Very Satisfied with Capita IT Service (Monthly Survey)

IT-SI-20a High Value 53% 57% 46.6% 57.6% n/a Unknown

% Dissatisfied/Very Dissatisfied with Capita IT Service (Monthly Survey)

IT-SI-20b Low Value* 18% 25% 25.3% 12.8% n/a Unknown

% Expressing a Neutral Opinion with Capita IT Service (Monthly Survey)

IT-SI-20c High Value 17% 18% 28.1% 29.6% n/a Unknown

New indicator for 2010/11









Data Profile


Status






Data Profile StatusLatest Notes

Best Result






KPI Description


KPI CodeLatest Notes

Best Result

Page 4 of 6

Leisure & Environmental Promotion

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


Utilisation of leisure centres as a % of availability

LE3 High Value 54% 51.3% 54.9% 56.4% 53.4% 51.8% 53.3% 54.4% Amber

% good or better rating from opinion meters in Hart Leisure Centre

LE6a High Value 60% 63.9% 63.9% n/a 68%Charts only drawn for quarterly data

Amber

% good or better rating from opinion meters in Frogmore Leisure Centre

LE6b High Value 71% 69.7% 69.7% n/a 68%Charts only drawn for quarterly data

Green

% of strategic countryside sites with accredited management plan

LE9CAW021110 Odiham Common and Fleet Pond Management Plans now complete. High Value 53% 75% 100% 100% 100%

Charts only drawn for quarterly data

Green

Planning Services

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


% of Tree Preservation works applications determined within eight weeks

PL2On target but there was a big (30%) increase in workload this quarter. High Value 98% 96% 98% 100% 97% 99% 93% 90% Green

% of Building Control plans checked within 21 days of receipt

PL7Performance is down recently due to a reduction in consultancy resources. However, no inspections or decisions have been delayed.

High Value 96% 88% 99% 99% 97% 97% 92% 95% Amber

% Building Control site visits which take place on the day requested

PL8On target.

High Value 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Green

% of standard searches carried out within 5 working days

PL9Good performance but housing market slowing

High Value 96% 92% 100% 96% 99% 100% 100% 100% Green

% Planning appeals dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate

PL10This is a vastly improved position. Nine s78 and s20 appeal decisions - 7 dismissed, 2 allowed (1 pair, planning and listed), all were delegated decisions 3 s174 (Enforcement)

High Value 50% 63% 31% 60% 50% 64% 77% 70% Green

Processing of planning applications: Minor applications

NI 157b (BV109b

Top Quartile 86.46% This is an excellent performance. 60 applications were determined of which 50 (83.3%) were within 8 weeks. For the corresponding Q3 period in 2009 the comparison is 57 applications

High Value 48% 43% 51% 43% 82% 95% 83% 65% Green

Processing of planning applications: Other applications

NI 157c (BV109c)

Top Quartile 93.46% - On TargetHigh Value 88% 91% 88% 84% 91% 97% 93% 85% Green

Processing of planning applications: Major applications

NI 157a (BV109a)

Top Quartile 88.88% 75% of applications determined within 13 weeks but there were only 4 major applications determined this quarter. In the corresponding 2009/10 Q3 there were 14 applications determined

High Value 82% 88% 86% 75% 91% 60% 75% 70% Green

Data Profile

Measured Half-Yearly (in Q2)

Measured Half-Yearly (see note)

Measured Half-Yearly (see note)


Best ResultAnnual Target 2010/11

Status

CAW270810 in response to a Service Board discussion L and EP is to implement a revised customer Market Research programme which will not include the opinion meters


Best Result StatusData ProfileAnnual Target 2010/11

Page 5 of 6

Revenues and Benefits

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


% of Council Tax collected RB-BV9

CUMULATIVE

High Value 98.06% 59.5% 87.7% 98.1% 30.4% 59.2% 87.7% 98.0% Green

Percentage of Non-domestic Rates Collected RB-BV10

CUMULATIVE The deferred NNDR charges under the government scheme are excluded from the figure. High Value 98.01% 61.3% 85.5% 98.0% 34.5% 59.0% 85.1% 98.5% Green

% of benefit assessments calculated correctly (new and change in circumstances)

RB-F1 High Value 96 98 94 99 97 98 96 95 Green

% of new benefit claims decided within 14 days RB-F2 High Value 85 82 91 91 92 96 100 90 Green

% of new claims outstanding after 50 days RB-F3 Low Value* 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Green

% of council tax collected electronically (DD + Internet)

RB-F11 High Value 81.14% 81.42% 81.21% 81.14% 81.02% 81.97% 82.83% 80% Green

Time taken to process Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit new claims.

RB-F12 Low Value* 19.53 19.28 15.56 19.21 16.06 17.63 15.87 23 Green*

Time taken to process Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit changes of circumstances.

RB-F13 Low Value* 6.98 6.96 6.24 6.79 9.06 7.02 5.94 8 Green*

Time taken to process Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit new claims and change events

NI 181

National Quartiles not yet published for NI 181

Low Value* 8.7 9.3 7.4 8 9.6 8.3 7.1 14 Green*

Technical Services and Environmental Maintenance

2009/10Q2 2009/10

Q3 2009/10

Q4 2009/10

Q1 2010/11 Q2 2010/11Q3 2010/11


Amount of Green Waste collected as % of total Household Waste.

BV82b(i)This indicator is subject to seasonal variations

High Value 6.80% 7.00% 7.60% 4.01% 7.29% 6.82% 3.21% 7.00% Red

Cost of household waste collection BV86 Low Value* £54.16 £54.13 £54.11 £54.16 £51.33 £48.37 £47.09 £51.38 Green*

No of traffic management schemes implemented

T8JE021110 Qtr data is a forecast of the annual outturn

High Value 15 8 8 15 10 10 10 10 Green

Abandoned Vehicles - % removed within 24 hours of required time

T10 (BV218b)

High Value 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100% 100% 100% 100.00% Green

Number of missed household waste collections per 100,000 collections

WLI1Snow fall on Wednesday 1st December lead to suspended collections on Thursday 2nd and Friday 3rd. Collections resumed on Monday 6th december.

Low Value* 5987 33 6599 17132 153 905 10312 200 Red*

Percentage of missed bins collected within one working day of nominated day of collection

WLI2Snow in December meant that several days elapsed until normal collections restored. High Value 68.68% 100.00% 24.95% 53.33% 100% 100% 100% 82.85% Red


Best Result

Data Profile

StatusAnnual Target 2010/11

Data Profile

KPI CodeLatest Notes

StatusBest ResultAnnual Target 2010/11

KPI Description

Page 6 of 6

COMPLAINTS - 2010/11 ANALYSIS

Q1 April to June 2010 C&P Leisure

Env. Maintenance E&T

R&B & Finance Planning Housing Press Office Reg Svs

Stage Three Total Percentage

Number of Complaints 2 12 21 6 6 4 4 0 3 3 61Number Acknowledged within 24 hours 0 7 18 6 4 1 4 0 3 3 46 75%Number Responded to within 10 days 0 6 16 6 5 2 2 0 2 1 40 66%Not due 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Q2 July to September 2010 C&P Leisure





Env

Q3 October to December 2010 C&P Leisure





2010/11 Year to Date C&P Leisure





2009/10 Year to Date C&P Leisure


R&B & Finance Planning Housing Corporate* Reg Svs


Number of Complaints 4 48 200 57 10 27 6 2 12 12 379Number Acknowledged within 24 hours 4 38 142 53 8 26 2 2 10 9 295 78%Number Responded to within 10 days 0 36 125 44 6 9 2 1 5 7 235 62%

PAPER FAppendix 1

Review of Project Integra: Hart District Council’s proposed response to the Project Integra review:

Project Integra Partners have been asked to consider the report of the PI Review Team and produce a formal response. To assist in this process Partners have been invited to respond to the following questions. Additional responses to the findings and proposals in the report are also welcome.

1 Do you agree with the Review Team’s view that the JMWMS should be revised to set new ambitions for waste management in Hampshire and provide the environmental and infrastructure delivery ‘baseline’ through to 2020?

Harts response: Hart District Council agrees that there is a need to review the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy. However the Council would support the review taking a more radical approach to ensure that Hampshire authorities continue to take the lead nationally in the delivery of waste management services

2 Will your authority undertake to work energetically together with other Partners to reduce the annual whole system costs to the council tax payer of reaching the targets set in the new JMWMS?

Are there any ‘red line’ areas for your authority in this – and if so what are they.

Harts response: Hart will undertake to work energetically with other partners to reduce the whole system costs. The only redline area being that costs to Hart will need to be contained within existing budgets.

3 Do you agree with the structural and cultural changes proposed to enable Project Integra to achieve its objectives:

That transparency and openness in sharing information and responsibility for problem solving at the strategic level are essentials to achieve Project Integra’s objectives – that these should be the norm in the partnership and that Members should expect officers to work together on this basis?

Harts response: Hart agrees that it is important to promote open and transparent working relationships within the partnership.

That Veolia should remain a key partner but no longer sit on the Project Integra Strategic Board?

Harts response: Hart feels that Veolia have made a valuable contribution to the work of project Integra over the years and do not agree that they should be removed from the board.

PAPER FAppendix 1

That the role of the Policy Review and Scrutiny Committee (PRSC) be limited to the statutory minimum function?

Harts response: Hart sees no merit in reducing PRSCs role to its statutory minimum, the existence of a group who can take a dispassionate view of proposals without the baggage of day to day involvement is an asset.

That the Strategic Board should be supported by corporate directors or equivalent officers with strategy officers continuing with their current role but also taking on project implementation and cost reduction monitoring work?

Harts response: Hart agrees that the strategic board should be supported by corporate directors or equivalent officers. However, in reality as a result of workload and cut backs in staffing structures it is believed that officer presence at these meetings may often be delegated.

4 If you do not agree with these – what modified variant or alternative future do you propose for the Partnership?

Harts response: Hart does not disagree with the proposals in general as a way forward to maintain Project Integra for the next two or three years. However, if it is to regain its proper place as the leading grouping of local authorities engaged in promoting the reuse and recycling of waste, we need a review focused on the next twenty years, planning the structures and infrastructure which will be necessary to make Project Integra fit for purpose in 2015 and beyond. This is not it.

PAPER F

1



TITLE OF REPORT: PROJECT INTEGRA REVIEW

Report of: Head of Technical Services and Environmental Maintenance

Cabinet member: Councillor Stephen Parker, Environment

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To obtain member comments on the Project Integra Review Report, prior to the report being considered by Cabinet.


2.1 That members consider, comment and agree amendments to Hart District Council’s proposed response to Project Integra, as attached at Appendix 1.

3 BACKGROUND

3.1 Project Integra is a partnership of local authorities and a private waste contractor who are working together to provide an integrated solution to the management of Hampshire's waste. The partnership includes all 11 district councils in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton unitary authorities, Hampshire County Council, and the private waste contractor Veolia Environmental Services.

3.2 The Review of the partnership was part of the PI Action Plan for 2010/11. The Review was carried out by a Review Team comprising senior officers and overseen by a Review Board comprising elected members and chief executive level officers.

3.3 A copy of the Review Teams report is attached at appendix 2.

3.4 Following sign off by the Review Board the report has been presented for consideration (as opposed to endorsement / approval) to:

Project Integra Policy Review & Scrutiny Committee (PRSC) (6 January 2011);

Project Integra Strategic Board (PISB) (13 January 2011) Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Government Association (14 January

2011)

3.5 A summary of the comments made at each of the above meetings is attached at appendix 3.

3.6 Project Integra is now seeking feedback on the review recommendations before PISB considers and agree their implementation in the form of a revised action plan.

PAPER F

2

3.7 To help focus the feedback partners have been invited to respond to a number of questions. These questions together with a suggested response for Members to consider and suggest amendments to, is attached at Appendix 1.


4.1 There are no financial implications directly associated with the approval of this report. Members may, however, wish to note that one of the reviews recommendations is that all partners work together to reduce costs across the whole of the public sector waste management system.

5 MANAGEMENT OF RISK

5.1 No risks associated with this reports recommendation have been identified.

6 CONCLUSION

6.1 Over the last 15 years, Project Integra has delivered an internationally recognised collection and processing infrastructure to ensure a more sustainable approach to the management of waste in Hampshire. Hart District Council is one of the top performing authorities in this partnership with regard to both its recycling rates and service costs. However, the opportunity for further improvement within the partnership is limited without the implementation of radical changes in the way in which the partnership works.

Contact Details: John Elson / Extension 4491 / [email protected]

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Hart District Council’s response to the recommendations of the Project Integra review.Appendix 2 – Report of the Project Integra Review Team.Appendix 3 – Summary of feedback received from within the partnership.

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2006 Project Integra Constitution Project Integra Action Plan 2011 to 2016

PAPER FAppendix 1

Review of Project Integra: Hart District Council’s proposed response to the Project Integra review:

Project Integra Partners have been asked to consider the report of the PI Review Team and produce a formal response. To assist in this process Partners have been invited to respond to the following questions. Additional responses to the findings and proposals in the report are also welcome.


Harts response: Hart District Council agrees that there is a need to review the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy. However the Council would support the review taking a more radical approach to ensure that Hampshire authorities continue to take the lead nationally in the delivery of waste management services



Harts response: Hart will undertake to work energetically with other partners to reduce the whole system costs. The only redline area being that costs to Hart will need to be contained within existing budgets.


That transparency and openness in sharing information and responsibility for problem solving at the strategic level are essentials to achieve Project Integra’s objectives – that these should be the norm in the partnership and that Members should expect officers to work together on this basis?

Harts response: Hart agrees that it is important to promote open and transparent working relationships within the partnership.

That Veolia should remain a key partner but no longer sit on the Project Integra Strategic Board?

Harts response: Hart feels that Veolia have made a valuable contribution to the work of project Integra over the years and do not agree that they should be removed from the board.

PAPER FAppendix 1

That the role of the Policy Review and Scrutiny Committee (PRSC) be limited to the statutory minimum function?

Harts response: Hart sees no merit in reducing PRSCs role to its statutory minimum, the existence of a group who can take a dispassionate view of proposals without the baggage of day to day involvement is an asset.

That the Strategic Board should be supported by corporate directors or equivalent officers with strategy officers continuing with their current role but also taking on project implementation and cost reduction monitoring work?

Harts response: Hart agrees that the strategic board should be supported by corporate directors or equivalent officers. However, in reality as a result of workload and cut backs in staffing structures it is believed that officer presence at these meetings may often be delegated.


Harts response: Hart does not disagree with the proposals in general as a way forward to maintain Project Integra for the next two or three years. However, if it is to regain its proper place as the leading grouping of local authorities engaged in promoting the reuse and recycling of waste, we need a review focused on the next twenty years, planning the structures and infrastructure which will be necessary to make Project Integra fit for purpose in 2015 and beyond. This is not it.

1

Summary of Recommendations Project Integra Partners should:

1. Agree, as a matter of urgency, a replacement Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS) which sets new ambitions for waste management in Hampshire to which all of the partner authorities are committed at political level;

2. Undertake to work energetically together to reduce the annual whole system costs to the council tax payer of reaching the targets set in the new JMWMS;

3. Agree the proposed changes to the structure and culture of Project Integra to enable its objectives to be achieved.

And more specifically:

Local authorities in Hampshire should continue to support Project Integra as the mechanism to manage their responsibilities for waste collection and disposal;

Project Integra’s objectives remain valid – it is the focus and ambition of partners in achieving them that require reaffirming;

the existing Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy should be reviewed as a matter of urgency and new targets and objectives for waste management agreed. These provide the environmental and infrastructure delivery ‘baseline’.

Project Integra should focus on achieving reductions in the annual whole system costs to the council tax payer of reaching the targets set in the new JMWMS whatever they are agreed to be;

clear efficiency targets should be set and monitored at Board level, with all members taking a management responsibility for achieving whole system cost reductions;

Project Integra should develop and monitor further initiatives to tackle the impact of waste management operations on climate change;

reducing waste management costs borne by other public sector organisations should be seen as a public good which Project Integra should explore the potential of;

transparency and openness in sharing information and responsibility for problem solving should be the norm and Members should expect officers to work on this basis;

the role of the Executive Director should incorporate programme management and leading projects to deliver Project Integra objectives;

Veolia are a key partner but they should not sit on the Project Integra Strategic Board; the Board should be supported by corporate directors or equivalent officers; strategy officers should continue with their current role but also take on project

implementation and cost reduction monitoring work; the role of the Policy Review and Scrutiny Committee should be limited to the statutory

minimum function.

2

Introduction This report has been produced by the Review Team established in June 2010 to make recommendations to HIOW regarding the future of Project Integra. The initiative for the review came from Project Integra’s Strategic Board which recognised the importance of reappraising the function and structure of the partnership in the light of recent changes in local government finance and objectives. The terms of reference of the Review Team asked it to address two questions regarding the 2010 – 2015 period:

1. What is the role and purpose of Project Integra for this period? 2. Are the structures, procedures and resources of Project Integra fit for this purpose?

The Review Team was able to provide what it believes is a well reasoned answer to both these questions. The Review Team consisted of Emma Broom Hart District Council Steve Tilbury Winchester City Council John Mascall New Forest District Council Andrew Trayor Southampton City Council David Greenfield Improvement and Efficient South East - Waste Director The Team was assisted by John Redmayne the Executive Director of Project Integra. The Review Team worked to a Review Board consisting of elected Members and a Chief Executive representative. The conclusions of the Review Team are based upon background evidence from the Joint Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS), the Project Integra constitution, the Best Value Review and the Hampshire County Council Select Committee Inquiry that took place in 2005, and the Recycle of Hampshire Review from 2008. In addition, the Review Team received presentations from Hampshire County Council and Veolia, the waste disposal contractor and considered some limited evidence from other areas. The options appraisal also utilises evidence from a perceptions survey that was carried out in September/October 2010 and submissions of evidence from partners – contained in the accompanying report ‘Partnership Survey 2010’.

3

Background Project Integra was established as a waste management partnership by the then district councils and County Council in 1995 and in 2001 was constituted as a formal Joint Committee. It now has a membership of the County Council as waste disposal authority, the 11 district councils which are solely waste collection authorities and the two unitary authorities which have both responsibilities. The waste disposal contractor, Veolia, is a non-voting member of the partnership in recognition of its long term contractual relationship. In 2005 Project Integra endorsed a JMWMS for Hampshire which forms the basis of its current decision making framework. The long term vision of the strategy is that: “By 2020, Hampshire will have a world class and sustainable material resources system that maximises efficient re-use and recycling and minimises the need for disposal” Project Integra is currently structured as follows: Strategic Board An Elected Member (with Deputy) from each Partner Authority (Member to be a Cabinet/Executive Member) Representative co-opted from Veolia Environmental Services (VES) (non-voting)

meets quarterly simple majority voting 5 Year Action Plan – approved by all partners annually.

Policy Review & Scrutiny Committee

discharges overview and scrutiny functions in relation to the Board’s activities 14 Members and deputies (non-executive within their authority), one per Partner

Authority up to 3 co-opted representatives including VES.

Strategy Officers Group Lead officers to support Project Integra and provide professional delivery

officer from each authority (and deputy) meets quarterly

Supported by other officer groups in specialist areas e.g. recycling officer group. The total direct cost of Project Integra in 2010/11 is £605,000. The major cost elements are: Materials Analysis Facility £204,000 Recycle for Hampshire £200,000 Executive (including Executive Director)

£185,000

Projects £15,000 The £605,000 is met by the 14 authorities and VES. Costs amongst the authorities are apportioned pro rata on a population basis.

4

The whole Hampshire waste system for Districts, the two unitary Councils and the County Council costs approximately £104 million per annum. The Project Integra Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) sets out the financial agreement between the collection and disposal authorities in relation to the processing of the dry mixed recyclable (DMR) materials:

the collection authorities do not pay a “gate fee” to use the Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs);

the County Council does not pay recycling credits for these materials; the disposal contract requires income from the sale of recyclables to be split 50:50

between VES and the waste disposal authorities. Hampshire County Council’s share is passed to the collection authorities;

the sharing of income between the authorities is on the basis of the amounts delivered and the levels of contamination (as determined by the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF).

This provides the funding mechanism by which the cost of the DMR processing infrastructure is met and an incentive provided to the collection authorities to recycle. The Audit Commission criticised Project Integra in its 2005 review for failing to provide explicit evidence value for money. It was not part of the Review Team’s terms of reference to investigate these arrangements, but the Team suggests that they should be reviewed to ensure that they properly reward and incentivise the contribution of each collection authority towards the targets in the JMWMS and the reduction of overall cost in waste management. The establishment of Project Integra was an innovative and forward thinking response to the challenges faced in providing a coherent infrastructure for managing waste. The formal arrangements for working together enabled Hampshire County Council to secure capital investment in a waste disposal infrastructure that is now proving its worth in both environmental and financial terms. Hampshire residents benefit from a waste disposal infrastructure which sends very little waste to landfill (which would be extremely expensive) and which encourages and supports recycling initiatives. However, there has been concern within the membership of Project Integra that, after initial success, its performance as a partnership has reached a plateau. There are views that momentum has been lost and that Project Integra is no longer ‘cutting edge’. Packed inside these general expressions of concern are two alternative schools of thought which can be characterised, very generally, as follows:

That Project Integra is a “fundamental” partnership but could achieve more and is failing to drive forward improvements This school of thought views the pursuit of improved outcomes (whatever they are) in waste management as a ‘given’ of local authority activity and Project Integra as the mechanism for doing this. The problem is Project Integra’s lack of ambition and/or the lack commitment of partners to further progress That Project Integra has been a success; has achieved as much as it is likely to achieve, and could be replaced by less expensive partnership working arrangements This school of thought agrees that a very satisfactory position has been achieved in waste management and queries whether there is any further need for significant

5

further activity through Project Integra in the next few years, perhaps favouring cheaper and less formal collaboration across Hampshire..

These worries have been at large for some time. In 2005 similar questions sparked a review of Project Integra by a Hampshire County Council Select Committee. Interestingly that review sought to emphasise that Project Integra should be described as ‘a concept, club, network or co-operative but not a business in itself’. Whilst recognising that it is the individual partners in Project Integra who let and manage contracts, the Review Team would question whether this conclusion recognises the reality of the waste management process as seen by the Hampshire taxpayer. The current Review Team does agree with the suggestion in the 2005 review that there is scope for a Project Integra to encompass a wider range of waste management activities, in particular other elements of the public sector waste stream, within its structure. The Context for Waste Management from 2010 Planning and decision making in waste management over the last 15 years in particular have been driven by two imperatives. First, to divert waste away from landfill as a disposal mechanism. Second, to increase the amount of waste that is collected and recycled. A third strand of waste minimisation (i.e. working to reduce the amount of ‘stuff’ that becomes waste in the first place) has gained prominence more recently but still does not feature strongly in many plans. Various financial and legal mechanisms have and do exist to ensure that local authorities take active steps to deliver lower landfill and higher recycling rates. This has produced a crude but effective relationship between environmental performance and financial cost (‘greener is cheaper’). The Government has indicated it intends to reinforce this approach in its new waste policy document to be published early in the new year (2011). Joint working between the councils in the two tier area (and later with the two city unitaries) was recognised early on as a pre-condition for achieving successful outcomes in the waste management process. This remains the case. In particular it would be foolish to regard collection and disposal as discrete elements each to be seen as ‘someone else’s cost’ and to be run without regard for each other. This is the ‘whole system approach’ which is the recognised goal in most parts of the country. The review team is strongly of the view that the public expect waste management to be run effectively and efficiently across tiers and boundaries of local government. Project Integra has provided an excellent mechanism to achieve the vertical integration necessary to achieve this; the question is how to exploit it. Options and Impacts The original objective of Project Integra was: “to provide a long-term solution for dealing with Hampshire's household waste in an environmentally sound, cost effective and reliable way. Success in achieving this depends on joint working between all the parties in the best interests of the community at large.”1 When the individual components of this objective are analysed, the evidence suggests that Project Integra has been successful in providing a long term basis for dealing with Hampshire’s waste in an environmentally sound and reliable way. Use of landfill as a disposal mechanism (the worst environmental outcome for waste) is low. All current EU and UK requirements to

1 Project Integra Constitution

6

provide recycling opportunities to households are met and, with further efforts, achievement of the 50% recycling rate2 by the 2020 target date are considered achievable. However, there is little evidence of purposeful Project Integra work around cost reduction and Project Integra has played little direct part in the implementation of current joint working projects between partners. The October 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review demands significant savings in the operating costs of local government (either by efficiency gains or reductions in services). The Review Team suggests that a greater emphasis on the efficient use of resources (not just financial) should be the new focus of Project Integra. Joint working is also the subject of the Hampshire-wide Climate Change Vision and Strategy that is currently being developed. The purpose of the strategy is to bring together all public sector bodies to tackle climate change and achieve results. The intention is that, by working together, partners will be able to add value and scale up their responses to climate change.

The Review Team considers that this objective remains valid. The Team’s response to the question, ‘What should Project Integra be asked to achieve?’ is that it should help its members, individually and collectively, to deliver significant cost savings for Hampshire from the waste management process through real joint working on budgets, responsibilities, performance and services. The key issue must be to deliver best value for Hampshire tax players. Project Integra should also look to compliment the Hampshire-wide Climate Change Strategy to deliver responses to climate change relating both directly and indirectly to waste management in a joined up way. The message of the County Council’s 2005 scrutiny review should also be encompassed within this idea. The cost of waste management to the taxpayer includes a wider public sector (education, NHS, military and other public services) which are, at present, operating essentially as private businesses purchasing waste disposal from the market. The Review Team believes that a powerful focus on the whole cost of the waste management process and a target to drive that down will not work against but most likely support further measures to improve environmental performance. Examples include:

joint working – this will reduce costs of both service delivery and administration. There is no reason for environmental performance to reduce – indeed savings achieved could be used to introduce additional services;

waste prevention – the most environmentally beneficial approach to waste (and so the top tier of the waste management hierarchy) - may require investment in behavioural change but, if effective, will reduce costs of waste collection, processing and disposal;

recycling (third tier of the hierarchy) eg addressing areas of low performance – or increasing capture of target materials - will achieve the environmental benefits of recycling whilst reducing the costs of disposal through the energy from waste facilities and associated infrastructure;

landfill - the least desirable approach in environmental terms, is an increasingly costly option (likely to reach £100 per tonne in 2014) and so efforts to further reduce the amounts land filled are increasingly financially attractive.

2 The European target of 50% recycling rate is set in the Waste Framework Directive. The Waste Strategy for England (Defra 2007) contains the same target for the country. It is not yet clear whether this target will be ‘passed down’ to local authorities. Government is currently undertaking a review of Waste Policies; results are expected in June 2011.

7

Taking all of this into account, the Review Team suggests that the new challenge for Project Integra should be to:

Reduce the annual whole system costs of reaching the targets set out in the Joint Municipal

Waste Management Strategy by 15% ‘Whole system’ includes:

waste prevention, collection, recycling, processing and sale/disposal the whole of the public sector

Reviewing the JMWMS The role of the JMWMS in this new challenge is highly significant because it represents the baseline against which financial performance is measured. The Review Team suggests that Project Integra should update its performance and environmental targets and should clearly set out the requirements of these – for instance the provision of new infrastructure. It is for Members to reach a judgement on behalf of the people they represent as to what policies to pursue and it was not part of the Review Team’s remit to suggest what they should be. Agreeing a new JMWMS is vital but it is a one off task – which should be completed quickly. Once the new JMWMS is agreed Project Integra’s ongoing role should be to initiate and coordinate work to ensure it is delivered at the least possible cost. The suggested target of a 15% reduction is offered since it accords with the level of cost saving many authorities are pursuing individually in the light of the Government’s deficit reduction plan. A higher or lower figure might ultimately be chosen. This approach is fully consistent with what is believed likely to emerge from the Government’s review of waste management and in particular its endorsement of the accepted waste hierarchy. The Secretary of State in announcing the review in July 2010 said: “There is an economic and environmental urgency to developing the right waste strategy” This and other statements make clear the Government’s interlinking of environmental and economic objectives which can reasonably be expected to reinforce the financial benefits of environmentally sustainable waste management. Although individual and smaller groupings of authorities are looking seriously at cost reduction there is scope and opportunity for Project Integra to commission and assist with larger projects, projects across different sectors and projects that require mutual support and expertise. If Project Integra is to address this new challenge the Review Team anticipates that it will need to:

recognise that whole system costs currently include WDAs, WCAs and both service delivery and service management;

identify the waste needs of the wider public sector, currently outside of the PI network and determine weather the infrastructure and expertise of the PI network could deliver benefits to them;

ensure transparency in all financial agreements so that the inter-relationship between them is fully recognised and acted upon;

8

change its structure to ensure that strategic level decision making involves ‘director level’ officers and senior Members across the whole public sector in Hampshire;

agree that the Project Integra partners are the appropriate unit of ‘local’ in terms of ‘localism’ in waste management;

develop and monitor initiatives to tackle the effects of climate change through issues associated with waste management e.g. procurement of consumables, vehicle acquisition, routing and collection mechanisms.

Sovereignty Issues Although it is not necessarily obvious why waste collection services are a matter of such intense local political sensitivity, it is a fact that they are. The Review Team recognises that individual members of Project Integra do not wish to accept that major decisions considered to be politically sensitive are taken out of their hands (at least not without their specific agreement). Nothing in the Review Team’s report should be taken as suggesting that this should happen, Working together to reduce costs in the waste management system does not compel individual authorities to change the way they work. The Review Team accepts that the limit to what can be achieved is what Members will accept. That is not a reason for Project Integra to discuss, propose or test what Members will accept – and to go with what they will and to back off from what they will not. It should be recognised that only in the two unitary authorities is there vertical integration of the collection and disposal process – and even they do best when there is mutual aid between them and others. This means that part of the impact of decisions made by one authority may be felt by all the others. If resources were unlimited or there were no public concern about environmental standards then this would be insignificant. But that is not the case, and it is surely in the public interest to spend no more than is necessary to achieve what each authority wants to achieve and to ensure that costs are properly allocated within the system. The Government has incorporated new provisions in the Localism Bill to enable it to pass the cost of UK failure to meet statutory EU targets onto those public authorities which are responsible for that failure – which may represent a further test of the sovereignty issues in years to come. Structural Issues If it is accepted that, with the a new JMWMS in place, Project Integra should focus on cost reduction in the whole system context, the question is then to establish an improved structural and financial model to deliver this objective. The Review Team has concluded that Project Integra should continue at the level and in the form that has been established. To revert to informal relationships or relationships based simply on contractual obligations would be to travel in completely the opposite direction to recognised best practice.

Were Project Integra not to exist the collection and disposal authorities would still need to liaise through a professional officers group, similar to planning or environmental health as opposed to a formal partnership, with a paid executive and support staff. Recycle for Hampshire would be disbanded, with communications undertaken locally. The MAF plays a key role in the allocation of income and performance from the MRFs amongst the partners and so would be likely to

9

continue. The direct savings of this option would be the executive costs of £186,000. Local authorities could fund the recycle for Hampshire campaign, or utilise this funding as they see fit in their own authorities. Other financial impacts would arise from fundamental restructuring of the financial relationship between the collection and disposal authorities. This was outside of the scope of the review and is not, in any case, directly related to Project Integra. The Review Team is clear that ceasing to operate Project Integra would be a regressive move in the light of the continuing challenges in waste management and this view appears strongly supported by the majority of officers and Members who responded to the survey. In addition, dissolving Project Integra would hamper the delivery of joined up programmes such as collaborative procurement and the promotion of a low carbon public sector fleet essential to cost savings and carbon reduction across Hampshire. If the objectives of reducing whole system costs by 15% by 2015 and implementing initiatives to complement the Hampshire-wide climate change strategy are to be achieved then a number of changes do need to take place in the structure of Project Integra to assist its better operation. The changes can be grouped into two main themes; focus/culture and constitution. Focus/Culture The most fundamental change is that Project Integra must once again provide the leadership to reduce waste costs across Hampshire and all members must work together and share this new ethos. Project Integra is not a ‘club’ because it does not exist for the convenience or enjoyment of its Members but to facilitate the delivery of essential and statutory services to the public. Existing Project Integra members must be prepared to operate within this framework if savings are to be made. Joint working must be fully embraced and there must be some measure of recognition that pursuing a whole system approach (for whatever ends) will raise uncomfortable issues of sovereignty to ensure that those ends are delivered. Project Integra should have a clear cost reduction agenda with tangible targets. It does not need to prescribe the means by which these are achieved but it should not shy away from the fact that some mechanisms work towards it and some do not. All members must be equally responsible for the cost reduction agenda across the whole locale, regardless of where initiatives are actually taking place. This collaborative work will achieve carbon emissions reduction alongside cost reductions. The role of Executive Officer should change to more of a “programme manager” role, taking the agreed efficiency and carbon reduction targets and working with colleagues around the county on projects to achieve these. The Executive Officer would also be tasked with identifying and understanding costs from the wider public sector, currently outside of the Project Integra network, looking for business opportunities and partners to ascertain if the Hampshire infrastructure could assist their waste needs. Recycle for Hampshire does seem to be valued by partners, even though they themselves continue with individually funded activities. A central recycling education and promotion team should continue as part of Project Integra. There may cost savings to be made across Hampshire by consolidating funding for such activities and enabling Recycle for Hampshire to play a wider role in partnership with the voluntary sector, parish councils and others.

10

Constitution It is proposed that the Project Integra Strategic Board should continue to consist of Portfolio Holders from participating authorities. Given the new cost reduction agenda and the increasing role of Veolia in securing waste collection contracts, it seems inappropriate for the waste disposal contractor to sit on the board. They are a key partner but they should not be party to Board level discussions unless invited. Disposal and any collection contractors should instead be invited to address the board as and when required. It is also suggested that if the work to identify other public sector organisations, not currently in the Project Integra network, reached a sufficiently advanced stage and a major scale then they might also play some role in the Board. The delivery of significant cost savings will require decisions to be taken at a corporate level within participating authorities and this will require a significant amount of corporate judgement and influence at officer level. It is therefore proposed that the Board is supported by Directors, who operate at this level whilst the Strategy Officers (suitably renamed) should continue to bring forward projects, and coordinate programmes. In essence the Strategy Officers group should continue to function exactly as it does now – but it should have a truly strategic board providing it with direction. The Review Team has not looked further than the Strategy Officer level groups, for example, recycling officers, but Strategy Officers may wish to consider if further value savings can be added from merging/reducing the officer groups with are under the Project Integra umbrella. It is suggested that the role of the Review and Scrutiny Committee should be reconsidered. Whilst recognising that there is a statutory requirement for a Joint Committee to have an overview and scrutiny process, the Review Team believes this should be kept to the absolute minimum level necessary to fulfil this requirement. . The Project Integra constitution should be amended as required to reflect these new arrangements. Conclusion The Review Team has concluded that the task of managing Hampshire’s waste is an activity of such complexity and importance that it merits the Project Integra structure if the member authorities are willing to embrace the challenge of working together on the reduction of cost in achieving the targets of a new JMWMS. Project Integra Review Team 2nd December 2010 Background Documents Partnership Survey 2010 JMWMS Project I Integra Constitution HCC Enquiry 2005 Best Value Review 2005 Recycle for Hampshire Review 2008

PAPER F Appendix 3

Page 1 of 4

Report for Project Integra Partners

Title of Report Review of Project Integra – Feedback

1 Purpose

1.1 To provide feedback to partners on the discussion of the report of the Project Integra (PI) Review Team at:

Project Integra Policy Review & Scrutiny Committee (PRSC); Project Integra Strategic Board (PISB); and Hampshire & Isle of White Local Government Association (HIOW).

1.2 To seek feedback on the report from partners following consideration at Cabinet level (a set of questions is attached).

2 Background

2.1 The Review of the Partnership was part of the PI Action Plan for 2010/11. The Review was carried out by a Review Team comprising senior officers and overseen by a Review Board comprising elected members and chief executive level officers.

2.2 Following sign off by the Review Board the report has been presented for consideration (as opposed to endorsement / approval) to:

PRSC (6 January); PISB (13 January); and HIOW (14 January)

2.3 The partnership is constituted as a Joint Committee of the 14 authorities so significant matters such as this require formal consideration and response from partners individually before the Board can propose a way forward.

2.4 Once responses have been received PISB will arrange a process to draw these together and propose resulting actions in the form of a revised Action Plan. The revised Action Plan will, in turn, come back to the partners for approval.

3 Project Integra Policy Review & Scrutiny Committee (PRSC) 06.01.11

3.1 The report was introduced by Steve Tilbury. Following discussion the Committee asked for a number of comments to be passed to the PISB:

Waste management in Hampshire is a business and needs to be professionally managed and lead. Politics need to be kept out.

Integra has little profile in authorities – and there is confusion about ‘who owns PI’.

Members should act more as Trustees/Non-Executive Directors of the

PAPER FAppendix 3

Page 2 of 4

organisation rather than representing / defending individual authority positions.

Scrutiny likely to be reduced in authorities (as a result of the need to reduce costs) – will PI be adequately scrutinised if there is no PRSC? Final decision on future of PRSC is with PISB.

VES make a valuable contribution of expertise to the Committee. Most indicated they felt that VES should remain on PISB.

4 Project Integra Strategic Board (PISB) 13.01.11

4.1 The report was introduced by Steve Tilbury. A lively but positive discussion followed, with contributions from most partners. Comments included:

The JMWMS was agreed in 2006 with a commitment to review after 5 years – so we need to do this anyway. Consensus that JMWMS needs to be reviewed.

Future agenda from Government may be challenging - results of review of waste policies expected in May.

Report provides an occasion for strategic thinking and action. Goes to heart of issue – what people want, are willing to pay for and

environmental issues. PI provides a place for concerns to be addressed and for cost effectively co-operating with other authorities.

PI is essential to deliver world class, more efficient, cheaper service. Taxpayers expect that of us.

Sovereignty – difficult politically. Why is waste a political issue? Leave politics at the door. Sovereignty – all have different local restraints. Doesn’t stop us doing joint working.

Could tackle commercial waste – huge market. Put more into infrastructure and how we could capture commercial waste and at what cost. Encouraged by coalition view that we can produce energy – but need volumes and move towards a common waste system.

Costs. All have been talking to contractors/in house about reducing costs. All departments are joining up to provide services – not just waste. Happy to do partnership working but don’t want to go at pace of lowest common denominator.

Potential for a 2 speed partnership? PI useful but authorities should not be afraid of doing their own thing. Not locked into one model. Should be set up so that some cannot hold others up.

Directors (or equivalent) attending meetings alongside Members – similar to PUSH. Radical suggestion to operate at much higher level. If serious about being a strategic body then needs to happen at top level, not operational level. This would be a regressive step. All will send who they wish.

PR&SC - need to tie in with authorities’ scrutiny functions. Authorities’ own scrutiny panels have limited knowledge of what PI does. Problem is with scrutiny, not with PR&SC. Scrutiny in PI has always been weak, wait for how ambitious we decide to be.

Never found presence of VES inhibiting. Will be loss if VES not on Board, they should just leave the room if necessary.

RESOLVED1. That the comments of the Board on the Report be noted.

PAPER FAppendix 3

Page 3 of 4

2. That all partners be asked to consider the Report and develop a formal response.

3. That the Executive Director organise an Extraordinary General Meeting at a suitable time to draw the formal responses together and determine resulting actions.

5 Hampshire & Isle of White Local Government Association (HIOW) 14.01.11

5.1 The report was introduced by Steve Tilbury. Many of those present commented favourably on the report. Comments included:

East Hampshire in particular commented on the pride felt in the achievements of recycling and energy from waste and emphasised that joint working can save significant amounts of money.

The importance of taking a whole system approach. That VES are a contractor not a strategic decision maker. PUSH scrutiny meets rarely rather than paralleling the board. Joint working was strongly supported.

RESOLVEDThat member authorities be advised to consider the Project Integra report at Cabinet level.

6 Background Papers

Report of the Review TeamPartnership Survey 2010 - results

Contact details

Name John RedmaynePosition Project Integra Executive DirectorE-mail [email protected] 01730 235806 / 07833 046509

PAPER F Appendix 3

Page 4 of 4

Review of Project Integra: Proposed Questions for Project Integra Partners:

Project Integra Partners are asked to consider the report of the PI Review Team and produce a formal response. To assist this process the Partners are invited to respond to the following questions. Additional responses to the findings and proposals in the report are also welcome.

A process to draw the formal responses together and determine resulting actions will be arranged.





a) That transparency and openness in sharing information and responsibility for problem solving at the strategic level are essentials to achieve Project Integra’s objectives – that these should be the norm in the partnership and that Members should expect officers to work together on this basis?

b) That Veolia should remain a key partner but no longer sit on the Project Integra Strategic Board?

c) That the role of the Policy Review and Scrutiny Committee be limited to the statutory minimum function?

d) That the Strategic Board should be supported by corporate directors or equivalent officers with strategy officers continuing with their current role but also taking on project implementation and cost reduction monitoring work?


PAPER G

1

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY


TITLE OF REPORT: PROJECT INTEGRA ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2011- 2016

Report of: Head of Technical Services & Environmental Maintenance.

Cabinet Member: Councillor Stephen Parker, Environment

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To obtain member comments on the Project Integra Annual Action Plan 2011-2016, prior to the plan being considered by Cabinet.

1.2 To obtain member comments on the Project Integra Partner Implementation Plan, prior to this being submitted to Project Integra.

2. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That members consider and comment on the Project Integra Draft Annual Action Plan 2011-2016, as attached at Appendix 1.

2.2 That members consider and comment on the Project Integra Partner Implementation Plan, as attached at Appendix 2.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Project Integra is a partnership of local authorities and a private waste contractor who are working together to provide an integrated solution to the management of Hampshire's waste. The partnership includes all 11 district councils in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton unitary authorities, Hampshire County Council, and the private waste contractor Veolia Environmental Services.

3.2 Over the last 15 years, Project Integra has delivered an internationally recognised collection and processing infrastructure to ensure a more sustainable approach to the management of waste in Hampshire.

3.3 The purpose of the attached action plan is to:

Set out the strategic context in which Project Integra is working, at local, regional, national and international level and the links to the partnership’s own strategic objectives;

Provide a framework to assist in the delivery of Project Integra’s key strategic objectives over the next 5 years, to March 2016.

Set out the key work streams to be delivered by the partnership over the 12 months to March 2012.

PAPER G

2

3.4 This Action Plan sits alongside the Project Integra Constitution and the Hampshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS). These documents are the three core documents that underpin the Project Integra Partnership.

3.5 It should be noted that the majority of initiatives contained within the action plan have been carried forward from 2010/11. This is in anticipation of revisions to the Action Plan as a result of the current (2010) ‘fit for purpose’ review of Project Integra’s future role, structure and resourcing. The recommendations of this review are the subject of a separate report on this committee agenda. Necessary revisions to the Action Plan will be made once partners have agreed their collective response to the review teams report.

3.6 Member representatives from Hart District Council include Cllr Parker who sits on the Project Integra Management Board, and Cllr Murr who sits on the Project Integra Policy Review and Scrutiny Committee. Officers from the Council represent the Council on various officer working groups.

3.7 Hart District Council’s Partner Implementation Plan (PIP) attached at appendix 2 details how the Council is working to support the actions and ideals set out in the Project Integra Action Plan. Cabinet are not required to approve this plan before it is submitted to Project Integra.

4.0 APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT INTEGRA ANNUAL ACTION PLAN

4.1 Authorities may approve the Draft Action Plan unreservedly or may approve it subject to a reservation in respect of any particular matter over which it has concerns. Where approval is given subject to such reservation, the Partner Authority’s voting Member is not entitled to vote on the matter in question when it is subsequently considered by the Board, and any resolution of the Board on the matter in question does not bind that Partner Authority.

4.2 The Annual Action Plan was approved by the Project Integra Strategic Board on Thursday 13th January 2011.

5. POLICY IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Approval of the action plan will not require the Council to amend any of its existing policies.

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The Annual Action Plan proposes that the subscription for this Council in 2011/12 will be £21,137.90, this is unchanged from the 2010/11 subscription. Provision for payment of this subscription has been made within the 2011/12 budget for the Council’s waste collection service.

7. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS

7.1 One of the key drivers for Project Integra is a requirement to deliver significant reductions in carbon emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

PAPER G

3

have identified a number of key mitigation practices aimed at reducing carbon emissions. These include:

Incineration with energy recovery Composting of organic waste Recycling and waste minimisation

8. MANAGEMENT OF RISK

8.1 There are no serious risks in approving these documents. The controls outlined in the Project Integra Constitution ensure that the Council continues to control its own financial and contractual arrangements.

8.2 The Action Plan is derived from the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy which has already been agreed by Full Council.

8.3 If Members do not approve the draft action plan then there is a risk that the Council will reduce its influence within the Project Integra decision making process.

Contact Details: John Elson, Head of Technical Services & Environmental Maintenance.Email: [email protected] Tel: 01252 774450

APPENDICESAppendix 1 – Project Integra Action Plan 2011 to 2016Appendix 2 - Hart Partner Implementation Plan 2011 - 2016

BACKGROUND PAPERS: Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2006 Project Integra Constitution

Further Information about Project Integra is available at: www.integra.org.ukand at www.recycleforhampshire.org.uk, or from John Redmayne, Executive Director, Project Integra, c/o The Old College, College Street, Petersfield, GU31 4AG, Tel 01730 235806, E-mail: [email protected]

PAPER GAppendix 1

1

Project Integra

Action Plan

2011 - 2016

DRAFT VERSIONEndorsed for approval by PI partners by Project Integra Strategic Board 13 January 2011

PI Action Plan 2011-2016

2

Abbreviation Definition or ExplanationBVPIs Best Value Performance IndicatorsCAA Comprehensive Area AssessmentCASH Common Approach to Safety & Health (PI meeting)CPA Comprehensive Performance AssessmentCSR10 The Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review 2010EfW Energy from WasteHIOW Hampshire and Isle of Wight Local Government Association HWRC Household Waste Recycling CentreJMWMS Hampshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy

http://www.integra.org.uk/board/index.htmlLAA Local Area Agreement MAF Materials Analysis FacilityMWDF Hampshire Minerals & Waste Development FrameworkMFP Material Flow PlanningMRF Materials Recycling FacilityNIs National IndicatorsPUSH Partnership for Urban South HampshireRPI Retail Price IndexVfM Value for MoneyWCAs Waste Collection AuthoritiesWDAs Waste Disposal AuthoritiesWEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic EquipmentWRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme

Project Integra Partner Authorities:-BDBC Basingstoke & Deane Borough CouncilEHDC East Hampshire District CouncilEBC Eastleigh Borough CouncilFBC Fareham Borough CouncilGBC Gosport Borough CouncilHCC Hampshire County CouncilHWS (VES) Hampshire Waste Services (Veolia Environmental Services)HDC Hart District CouncilHBC Havant Borough CouncilNFDC New Forest District CouncilPCC Portsmouth City CouncilRBC Rushmoor Borough CouncilSCC Southampton City CouncilTVBC Test Valley Borough CouncilWCC Winchester City Council


3

Executive SummaryProject Integra has delivered a world-class waste management infrastructure allied to effective collection services to 730,000 households – resulting in the highest landfill diversion rate for any county in the UK.

The partnership has to continue to adapt and move forward in order to deliver services to the public more sustainably as well as improving performance, efficiency and effectiveness under increasing financial pressures.

There are a large number of external factors and strategic drivers that impact on and affect the work of the partnership. A comprehensive list of these and the implications they may have for Project Integra are appended to the Action Plan.

The Project Integra Action Plan sets out the strategic outcomes which the partnership aims to deliver over the next 5 years in order to meet its long term objectives within this wider context. Each strategic outcome contains a number of specific actions which the partnership will deliver over the next 12 months.

It should be noted that these are largely initiatives carried on from 20010/11. This is in anticipation of revisions to the Action Plan as a result of the current (2010) ‘fit for purpose’ review of Project Integra’s future role, structure and resourcing.. Necessary revisions will be incorporated into the Action Plan once partners have agreed their collective response to the report of the Review Team.

Although RPI (the normal basis for increases in contributions to the partnership’s budget) has increased by 4.5% the proposal is for contributions to be maintained at the same level as for 2010/11.

Strategic Outcome Key Actions

Sustainable & Ethical Recycling

Project Integra aims to deliver high level performance at an acceptable level of cost and environmental impact whilst maintaining public support and participation

Measuring and addressing Performance

Review market opportunities Recycling in Flats, HMOs &

student properties Assessment of Incentives

Eliminating Landfill

Project Integra is committed to the eventual elimination of landfill in the context of the sustainable resource management agenda, scarce local capacity and steeply rising costs

Reuse & recycling from Bulky Waste collections

Waste prevention strategy

Healthcare waste


4

Strategic Outcome Key Actions

Commercial Materials Management

Project Integra is seeking to provide or facilitate capacity to capture commercial recyclables in line with the national waste strategy and resource management agenda.

Addressing proposed changes to the Controlled Waste Regulations (CWR) (e.g. ‘Schedule 2’)

Working group of authorities with trade waste collections

Efficiencies/Value for Money

There is scope for joint working particularly in waste collection to achieve economies of scale such as optimisingrounds and pooling resources

PI officer training scheme

Opportunities for joint working

Leadership and Influence

Project Integra has been successful in influencing the national agenda, securing external funding and deliveringbehavioural change locally. The partnership must continue to invest time and resources in this key strategic outcome in support of the other elements of the Action Plan

Targeted communications on themes chosen by groups of authorities

Recycle week

Joint lobbying & responses to consultations

Maintaining Project Integra’s profile


5

Contents1 Introduction .........................................................................................62 Strategic Overview..............................................................................73 The Role of Project Integra.................................................................84 Strategic Outcomes ............................................................................95 Resources..........................................................................................126 Reporting ...........................................................................................197 Conclusion.........................................................................................20


6

1 IntroductionOver the last 15 years, the Project Integra partnership has delivered an internationally recognised waste collection and processing infrastructure to ensure a more sustainable approach to the management of waste in Hampshire could be achieved. The 2009/10 Annual Report for the partnership demonstrates the success of this – diverting 89% of waste from landfill (38% to reuse recycling and composting and 51% to energy recovery facilities).

A ‘fit for purpose’ review of Project Integra’s future role, structure and resourcing was carried out in 2010. The review report reaffirms the value of the partnership and suggests that it should make some significant amendments to its priorities and ways of working in order to reflect key priorities for the partners over the next five to ten years. The report of the Review Team will be considered by partners over the same period as this Action Plan before partners come together to agree any resulting changes (anticipated to take place through an EGM in early June 2011). It is expected that this will result in additional actions or more comprehensive changes for the partnership and that these will be incorporated into the Action Plan. This Draft Action Plan anticipates this and focuses mainly on continuation of existing activities – anticipating a revision by PISB during the year.

This Action Plan sits alongside the Project Integra Constitution and the Hampshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS), which are the three core documents that underpin the Project Integra partnership.

The purpose of this Action Plan is to: Set out the strategic context in which Project Integra is working, at

local, regional, national and international levels – and identify the links to the partnership’s own strategic objectives;

Provide a framework to assist in the delivery of Project Integra’s key strategic objectives over the next 5 years, to March 2016; and

Set out the key work streams to be delivered by the partnership over the 12 months to March 2012.


7

2 Strategic OverviewThe Project Integra partnership operates within a complex political, economic, social and environmental context. The objectives of the partnership are governed both by a multitude of external factors and local priorities. These strategic drivers are summarised below and described in more detail in Appendix 2, together with a summary of their implications for Project Integra.

The Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 sets out significant reductions in public expenditure in order to address the UK’s fiscal deficit, including expectations of reductions in the order of 25% in the Government’s support for local authorities over the period. CSR 10 puts a strong focus on achieving cost reductions through efficiencies, economies of scale and joint working in the local government sector. A key recommendation of the Project In Integra Review is to focus activities on the achievement of efficiencies within waste management in the Project Integra Partnership.

The Government is currently reviewing waste policies for England; the results are expected in June 2011. The European Waste Framework Directiveprovides the overall strategic context with increased emphasis on waste prevention and reuse and targets for member states to recycle 50% of municipal waste by 2020. The Directive’s wider definition of municipal waste is being adopted in the UK and strengthens the expectation that management of waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy should extend across businesses as well as households.

Project Integra’s Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy is underpinned by a Materials Resource approach for Hampshire. The strategyset ambitious targets and are helping to inform the revised Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan which will set the planning context for the delivery of new infrastructure across waste sectors in the county.

The need for urgent action to mitigate the effects of climate change and to increase resource efficiency is an increasingly important context for our work -requiring reductions in the carbon footprint of waste management.

These drivers establish the following strategic issues for Project Integra:

To reduce the overall costs of waste management in Hampshire; To meet recycling & waste prevention goals, public expectations and

future demand through optimising performance of existing services and infrastructure as well as further development;

To establish the extent to which commercial waste management can be supported by the partnership; and

To take into account impacts on climate change and resource efficiency when making decisions.


8

3 The Role of Project IntegraThe role of Project Integra is to provide a formal partnership approach and framework to deliver sustainable waste management in the context of a Material Resources approach in Hampshire.

In 2001 the partner authorities set up a Joint Committee (the Project Integra Management Board) in order to increase clarity, accountability and respond in a more effective and co-ordinated way to new challenges. In 2005/6, in parallel with the development of the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS), the Board became the Project Integra Strategic Board(PISB) to underline its strategic, rather than operational, role.

The objective of the Board mirrors that in the JMWMS: “to provide a long-term solution for dealing with Hampshire's household waste in an environmentally sound, cost effective and reliable way. Success in achieving this depends on joint working between all the parties in the best interests of the community at large”.

The key to Project Integra and its successes to date is the mutual support and co-operation that exists between all the partners - the delivery of sustainable management of municipal waste in Hampshire is dependent on the continuation of this close working.

The Review of Project Integra acknowledges the achievements of the partnership in the first part of the objective but highlights the relative lack of success with the ‘cost effective’ and ‘joint working’ aspects. It is expected that these will form a more significant focus of actions when this Action Plan is reviewed in light of Partners’ responses to the Review Report.

3.1 Core ValuesProject Integra has agreed the following core values:

We are a partnership founded on the principle of collaboration. This approach has served Hampshire residents well for over 10 years and continues to be essential in a complex and fast-changing environment.

We are a partnership that encourages two-way communication and where everyone has a say in what we do and how we do it.

We explain to people why we do things, particularly when difficult or counter-intuitive decisions are made.

We strive to be consistent in the messages we give to each other and to the wider community.

We want to be seen as a leading example and therefore actively seek out and promote best practice.

We aim to make objective decisions based on high quality, up to date data and we support our own research programme to assist with this.

We see, and encourage everyone else to see, the matter we deal with as material and energy resources, not rubbish, refuse or waste.

We encourage the view that dealing with these resources effectively is an issue for the whole community not just for particular organisations or individuals.


9

We recognise the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle. Above all, however, we seek to achieve the optimal use of material and energy resources through a balance of the appropriate environmental, social and economic factors.

To this end, we strive to produce and supply high quality materials for ethical and sustainable markets, where possible, in the UK.

As a partnership, we accept that these core values can be challenged and changed, but only after significant and inclusive debate. They should be seen as a framework for moving forward in a consensual manner, not a barrier to progress.

4 Strategic OutcomesProject Integra has identified five strategic outcomes which guide and focus the partnership’s activities. These are:

Sustainable and Ethical Recycling Eliminating Landfill Commercial Materials Management Efficiencies/Value for Money Leadership and Influence.

These strategic outcomes have been developed to take into account the strategic context in which Project Integra is working and specifically to:

Ensure progress towards increased recycling in a sustainable and ethical way;

Eliminate the landfilling of waste. This reflects the scarcity of municipal landfill sites in Hampshire and the need to control steeply rising costs resulting from the Landfill Tax escalator;

Focus more on dealing with commercial material alongside existing household waste;

Deliver better value for money through greater efficiencies and partnership working in the context of the challenging 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review;

Focus effort on influencing behaviour in Hampshire through communication and education and at a national level through engagement with Government and industry.

Achievement of these outcomes will also contribute to the broader strategic goals of waste prevention and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from waste management activities in Hampshire.

Key ActionsTable 1 summarises the main actions proposed for 2011/12, the resourcesrequired for implementing them and the anticipated timetable. Actions are grouped under the appropriate strategic outcome. Significant actions for future years are also identified.

As highlighted in the introduction, once agreed by all partners, additional actions to implement the outcome of the Review of Project Integra will be added.


10

Table 1: Main Actions for Project Integra 2011/12 – 2015/16Resources TimetablePI Resources Additional Resources 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Th

eme

Act

ion

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Fit for Purpose Review

ReviewChief Executive Link, Executive Director External rep

Report to PISB & HIOW Consideration by partners

EGM - agree actions

Actions following Review TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBCSustainable & Ethical Recycling

PI Glass Processing Contract (extg)

PI Glass Contract Monitoring Officer, MMG

Monitor & contract end

Final payments

PI Glass Processing Contract (New)

PI Glass Contract Managing Authority, MMG TBC

Mobilisation & Contract start

Monitoring & payments








Contamination monitoring MAF, MMG

Agree programme for 2011/12

Final figures 2010/11 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

Materials markets MMG

DMR income payments 2010/11

DMR update

DMR update

DMR update

End of news & pams contract

Flats & HMOsFlats Working Group, Recycling Officers

Landlords' event

Performance Strategy Officers

Consider new measures

IncentivesIncentives Task & Finish group Feedback

Eliminating Landfill

Waste preventionWaste prevention project board & Advisory Group

Waste prevention workshop

Add into Action Plan

Implementation

Bulky Collections Task & Finish group

Results from Task & Finish group TBC TBC TBC TBC

Healthcare waste ED, task & finish groupReview impact of protocol


11

Resources TimetablePI Resources Additional Resources 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Th

eme

Act

ion

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Commercial Materials Management

Trade waste authorities work together Working group

Response to CWR consultation

Efficiencies & Value for Money

PI Projects Fund ED, SO Core Group

PISB considers applicat'ns

Officer Training Scheme Training Working Group Ongoing Ongoing OngoingOngoing & evaluation Ongoing Ongoing

Health & Safety CASH

Abandoned Vehicles County Contract AVCC steering group Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

Contract extn / tender

Joint working

Feedback from joint contract authorities

Leadership & Influence

Themed projectsRfH, Communications Group, Authorities

Development of detailed plans TBC TBC TBC TBC

Mosaic communications RfH, Customer Insight group DCLG funds (secured)Target initiatives

Review results TBC TBC TBC

Recycle Week EventRfH, Communications Group, Authorities Agree outline

Event (June)

Schools Recycling Programme

RfH Education Outreach Workers Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

Consultation responses & Lobbying ED, Strategy Officers DEFRA - Sch2

As required

As required

As required

As required

PI profile raising ED, Communications Group Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing


12

5 ResourcesFigure 1 shows the membership of Project Integra and the resources available to the partnership. Figure 2 indicates the different groups that meet as part of Project Integra and Figure 3 demonstrates the way that these combine in the delivery of this Action Plan.

Project Integra is funded by contributions from the partner authorities. Contributions are based on population and are divided into amounts for:

the costs of the Executive function; Recycle for Hampshire; and the PI Projects Fund.

The 2011/12 budget for these is shown in Table 2. The budget increase from 2010/11 is normally based on the Retail Prices Index (RPI) for October; this was 4.5%. In view of the budget reductions being faced by al partners it has been agreed that budget contributions should be kept at the same level as the previous year (which in turn was a small reduction from 2009/10).

The budget for the year shows an anticipated deficit which will be met from balances carried forward from previous years.

The contributions for 2010/11 are shown in Table 3. For convenience the table also identifies partners’ contributions to the operational costs of the Materials Analysis Facility (MAF). Operation of the MAF is carried out by VES under contract to the WDAs, this element is also tied to RPI but have been kept at the same level as last year in the same way as the PI contributions.

The income received by partners from the sale of dry mixed recyclables in 2009/10 is shown in Table 4. Figures for 2010/11 are expected in May 2011.


13

Figure 1: Project Integra - Partners & Partnership ResourcesPROJECT INTEGRA PARTNERS

WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY WASTE COLLECTION AUTHORITIES

Portsmouth City Council Basingstoke, East Hampshire,

Hampshire County Council Eastleigh, Fareham, Gosport

Southampton City Council Hart, Havant, New Forest

Rushmoor, Test Valley, Winchester

PROJECT INTEGRA EXECUTIVE

Executive Director

John Redmayne

PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES

B&DBC EHDC EBC FBC GBC HCC HDC HBC NFDC PCC RBC SCC TVBC WCC

PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP

Communications Data management Materials Analysis Facility Financial management

PI Communications & R4H

(As part of SLA with HCC) (As part of SLA with HCC) (As part of SLA with HCC) (As part of SLA with HCC)

VEOLIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Andy Winter (Members) (0.4FTE)

Clare Lovesey (Officers) (0.6 FTE)

Meetings OfficersGlass Contract Management

Contracts Management Team (HCC)


14

Figure 2: Project Integra - Meetings

PROJECT INTEGRA MEETINGS

STRATEGIC BOARD

POLICY REVIEW & (Members) COMMUNICATIONS

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 1 Member & 1 Deputy SUB-GROUP

(Members) from each PI Partner (VES non voting) (Members)

1 Member & 1 Deputy Membership agreed by

from each PI Partner Strategic Board

(VES non voting)

STRATEGY OFFICERS STRATEGY OFFICERS GROUP

CORE GROUP (Officers)

(Officers) 1 Senior Officer from each PI Partner

Membership agreed by

Strategy Officers Group

(Officers) (Officers)

East, North, West & HSE

(Officers) (Officers) Includes contractors (Officers)

RECYCLING COMMUNICATIONS

GROUPS MARKETING GROUP OFFICERS OFFICERS GROUP(Officers)

OPERATIONS MATERIALS CASH CLEANSING


15

Figure 3: Project Integra – Delivery of Action Plan

PROJECT INTEGRA ACTION PLAN

STRATEGIC BOARDAggreement of Action Plan, review of delivery,

Strategic overview & decisionsReview of specific issues

PROJECT INTEGRA STRATEGY OFFICERS STRATEGY OFFICERS

EXECUTIVE GROUP CORE GROUP

Co-ordination & facilitation of actions Co-ordination of actions, review Each member oversees one strand

& development of recommendations for Board

PARTNERSHIP RESOURCES

B&DBC EHDC EBC FBC GBC HCC HDC HBC NFDC PCC RBC SCC TVBC WCC

PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP PIP

Recycle for Hampshire

RECYCLING

OFFICERS

Approaches

to collections

CASH

Health & Safety in waste

COMMUNICATIONS

GROUP

PI communications

CLEANSING

OFFICERS

Cleansing issues

operational matters

MARKETING GROUP

Advice on sale of materials

Overview of MAF

OPERATIONS MATERIALS

GROUPS

Co-ordination of

POLICY REVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Scrutiny of Board decisions

COMMUNICATIONS SUB-GROUP

Advice to Board on communications(Members)

Communications Data management MAF Financial management


16

Table 2: PI Budgets 2010/11 and 2011/12

Original Budget 2010/11

Estimated Outturn2010/11

Budget

2011/12PI Executive

Staff Costs 125,600 127,200 130,100 Events & Activities 6,000 5,800 5,900 Communications & Research SLA 60,000 54,400 55,500 Other 11,800 8,800 9,000Gross Expenditure 203,400 196,200 200,500

Total Income 185,100 186,100 185,600

Net Expenditure -18,300 -10,100 - 14,900

Recycle for Hampshire Staff costs 105,500 97,298 110,000 Communications resources 84,000 90,000 88,600 Website 7,500 12,650 0 Other 3,000 8,750 1,400Gross Expenditure 200,000 208,698 200,000

Total Income 200,000 200,000 200,000

Net Expenditure 0 -8,698 0

PI Projects Fund PI Projects 2009/10 15,600 15,600 15,600Gross Expenditure 15,600 10,600 15,600

Total Income 15,600 15,600 15,600

Net Expenditure 0 5,000 0


17

Table 3: Contributions from Project Integra Partners 2011/12

MAF CombinedRecycle Material Project

Project For PI Analysis IntegraFund Hampshire Funding Facility & MAF

Population Collection Disposal 89.49£ 20.54£ Total Total Total Total

Contribution per 1,000 population

Basingstoke 152,600 13,656.00 0.00 13,656.00 1,447.00 13,912.00 29,015.00 5,242.90 34,257.90 East Hampshire 109,400 9,790.00 0.00 9,790.00 1,037.00 9,973.00 20,800.00 5,242.90 26,042.90 Eastleigh 116,300 10,408.00 0.00 10,408.00 1,103.00 10,602.00 22,113.00 5,242.90 27,355.90 Fareham 108,100 9,674.00 0.00 9,674.00 1,025.00 9,855.00 20,554.00 5,242.90 25,796.90 Gosport 76,400 6,837.00 0.00 6,837.00 724.00 6,965.00 14,526.00 5,242.90 19,768.90 Hart 83,600 7,481.00 0.00 7,481.00 793.00 7,621.00 15,895.00 5,242.90 21,137.90 Havant 116,900 10,461.00 0.00 10,461.00 1,108.00 10,657.00 22,226.00 5,242.90 27,468.90 New Forest 169,500 15,169.00 0.00 15,169.00 1,607.00 15,452.00 32,228.00 5,242.90 37,470.90 Portsmouth 186,900 16,726.00 3,839.00 20,565.00 1,772.00 17,038.00 39,375.00 12,986.97 52,361.97 Rushmoor 90,900 8,135.00 0.00 8,135.00 862.00 8,287.00 17,284.00 5,242.90 22,526.90 Southampton 217,600 19,473.00 4,470.00 23,943.00 2,063.00 19,837.00 45,843.00 14,316.64 60,159.64 Test Valley 109,900 9,835.00 0.00 9,835.00 1,042.00 10,019.00 20,896.00 5,242.90 26,138.90 Winchester 107,300 9,602.00 0.00 9,602.00 1,017.00 9,782.00 20,401.00 5,242.90 25,643.90 Hampshire 1,240,800 0.00 25,486.00 25,486.00 - 50,000.00 75,486.00 51,339.88 126,825.88Veolia 4,036.00 - - 4,036.00 68,157.69 72,193.69

147,247.00 33,795.00 185,078.00 15,600.00 200,000.00 400,678.00 204,473.08 605,151.08

Project Integra

Project Integra Executive


18

Table 4: Income from Sale of Dry Mixed Recyclables 2009/101

Total Resdiue Residue Recycled FinalTonnes Rate Tonnes Tonnes Income

Basingstoke 10,017 12.31% 1,233 8,784 £254,380East Hants 8,595 9.04% 777 7,818 £226,423Eastleigh 8,649 14.87% 1,286 7,363 £213,232Fareham 8,267 11.64% 962 7,305 £211,539Gosport 5,178 17.33% 897 4,281 £123,977Hart 6,645 14.93% 992 5,653 £163,705Havant 9,079 17.53% 1,592 7,488 £216,843New Forest 11,929 14.28% 1,703 10,225 £296,125Rushmoor 5,410 13.35% 722 4,688 £135,756Test Valley 8,660 13.12% 1,136 7,524 £217,898Winchester 8,472 10.91% 924 7,548 £218,582Portsmouth 10,424 8.28% 863 9,561 £276,880Southampton 12,939 19.54% 2,528 10,411 £301,490

Total Tonnes 114,264 15,617 98,648 2,856,830£

1 Total income for 2010/11 will not be known until after the end of the financial year.


19

6 ReportingThe Board is kept updated on progress with the activities outlined in the Action Plan through updates on ongoing projects and final reports presented for information or decision as appropriate.

Financial reports are presented to the Board on a quarterly basis and at the end of the year. An Annual Return is made to the Audit Commission.

Waste management performance data and performance measures are reported to the Board on a quarterly basis and at the end of the year. Performance is measured mainly in terms of National Indicators – these are also reported to Government through Waste DataFlow.

An Annual Report for the Partnership for 2009/10 was presented to the Board in October 2010 and summarised in a presentation at the Annual Conference. A similar report will be produced for 2010/11.


20

7 ConclusionsProject Integra has been recognised as a model for partnership working to deliver more sustainable waste management. However, the partnership is working in an increasingly complex strategic context and must continue to adapt and move forward in order to deliver sustainable resource management and improve its performance, efficiency and effectiveness at a time when financial pressures are significant.

The key drivers include financial pressures from CSR 2010, the revised Waste Framework Directive, Waste Strategy 2007 and the Hampshire Materials Resources Strategy, the last three of which all set out ambitions for enhanced waste reduction, recycling and landfill avoidance and a broadening of action beyond Project Integra’s initial focus on household waste.

By setting out the strategic context in which Project Integra is working and outlining five resultant strategic outcomes:

Sustainable and ethical recycling; Eliminating landfill; Commercial materials management; Efficiencies/value for money; and Leadership and influence,

this Action Plan helps focus and direct the work of the Partnership over the next five years.

Each strategic outcome forms a work stream comprising a series of activities which the partnership will deliver during 2011-2012.

Delivery of these work streams will enable the partnership to further improve performance and efficiency; plan and develop services and infrastructure to meet the long-term objective of eliminating landfill and delivering sustainable resource management; and providing an effective approach to communications to deliver further behavioural change in Hampshire and influence wider policy making.

The report from the ‘fit for purpose’ review of Project Integra contains a number of recommendations that will have implications for the Project Integra Action Plan. This could result in the commissioning of additional actions for the partnership or a comprehensive review of the Action Plan during the year.

Further information is available from: John RedmayneExecutive DirectorProject Integrac/o The Old CollegeCollege StreetPetersfield GU31 4AGTel 01730 235806, mobile 07833 046509 E-mail: [email protected]

Appendix 1

21

Summary of Waste Collection Arrangements 2009/10

Re

sid

ua

l wa

ste

Dry

mix

ed

re

cycl

ab

les

Gla

ss

Ga

rde

n w

ast

e

Fo

od

wa

ste

Tra

de

wa

ste

Tra

de

re

cycl

ing

Contractual arrangements D

em

og

rap

hic

s

Basingstoke & DeaneW F F D Veolia 2011

East HampshireF F M F Veolia 2011

EastleighF F M W W In-house

FarehamF F F* In-house

GosportF F F Verdant 2011

HartF F M F In-house

HavantF F F In-house

New ForestW W F D D In-house

PortsmouthW F W** Veolia 2011

RushmoorW F F F Veolia 2016

SouthamptonW F F In-house

Test ValleyF F F In-house

WinchesterF F F* Serco 2011

Included in council tax – bins or boxes W – weekly Mixed

Included in council tax – sacks F - fortnightly Majority rural

Chargeable service - sacks M - monthly Majority urban

Chargeable commercial service T – on trial

Bring banks only D – with domestic

* One sack is free – additional sacks charged** Collected with residual waste

Appendix 2

22

Strategic Context

The Waste HierarchyThe waste hierarchy is a well established approach which sets out a hierarchy of preference for approaches to the management of waste. The hierarchy is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: The Waste Hierarchy

The Waste Framework DirectiveThe European Council of Ministers adopted a revised version of the 1975 Waste Framework Directive in October 2008. The aim is to encourage the prevention, reuse and recycling of waste as well as simplifying existing legislation. Key points include:

A slightly revised five-step hierarchy of waste management options, (see Figure 4). Energy recovery facilities may be either ‘other recovery’ or ‘disposal’ depending on the efficiency of the plants;

50% target for recycling waste from households by 2020; A requirement for the separate collection of at least paper, metal,

plastic and glass; A 70% target for recycling and reuse of non-hazardous construction

and demolition (C&D) waste by 2020; Member States must design and implement waste prevention

programmes, and the Commission is set to report periodically on progress concerning waste prevention.

The new Directive must be implemented through UK law; following consultations in 2009 and 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) will introduce legislation to implement the Directive 2011.

Disposal

Other Recovery

Recycling

Preparing for Reuse

Prevention

SustainabilityMost Environmental

Benefit

Appendix 2

23

Implications for Project Integra The transposition of the Waste Framework Directive into UK law sets a

50% recycling rate for the country as a whole. Apart from the overall 50% target the Government’s philosophy is to move away from setting specific targets for waste and recycling. The detailed implications of this for local authorities and the wider waste sector are yet to be determined;

The separate collection requirement is already met through the recycling services provided in Hampshire;

The waste hierarchy is the same as that used in England’s Waste Strategy; however, the Directive includes a definition of recovery such that only energy recovery facilities operating above a defined thresholdcan be classed as recovery facilities. Analysis by Veolia indicates that all three ERF plants in Hampshire normally operate above the threshold;

There is likely to be an increased focus on waste prevention nationally. This is an identified priority in the JMWMS and a waste prevention plan for the partnership is under development.

Waste Strategy for England 2007The Government’s strategic approach to waste management continues to be driven by European policy and directives. The new Government is undertaking a review of waste policies; an evidence gathering process took place in 2010 and announcements are expected in June 2011.

Household Waste Recycling ActThis Act requires English waste collection authorities to provide a collection service for at least two types of recyclable waste to all households by 31 December 2010 unless the cost of doing this would be unreasonably high or comparable alternative arrangements are available.

Implications for Project Integra The BVPI results for 2007/08 include performance against BV 91b (%

of households with doorstep collections of two or more materials). All but one of the Project Integra authorities report performance of 95% or more and four report 100%;

Although the gap from these to 100% may be small, achieving this requires concentrated work to provide services – or alternatives to ‘difficult’ properties such as flats and households in multiple occupation.

Landfill Landfill TaxThe landfill tax is charged on each tonne of material sent to landfill, a lower rate applies to inert material (e.g. rubble). The current (2010/11) rate of tax is £48 per tonne and is set to rise to £56 per tonne in April 2011. These increases will continue until the tax reaches a rate of £80 per tonne (2014 if the current escalator continues) and will continue at this level until at least 2020.

Appendix 2

24

Landfill Allowances Trading SchemeThe Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) is intended as a tool to enable the UK to meet targets set by the EU Landfill Directive for the amounts of biodegradable waste sent to landfill. Each local Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) in England has been given an allowance which allows an authority to landfill one tonne of biodegradable waste. Under the Waste and Emissions Trading (WET) Act, each WDA can trade allowances (by buying, selling or, in certain years, banking them or borrowing from future years) in order to stay within their allocation. Those failing to stay within their allocation face the possibility of incurring large fines.

Implications for Project Integra The WDAs in Project Integra have one of the lowest rates of landfill for

municipal waste in the UK as a result of the investments made in recycling and energy recovery facilities and services

HCC, PCC and SCC, as WDAs, have a surplus of landfill allowances and expect this position to continue;

The continued tax increases reinforce Project Integra's strategic priority of further reducing landfill;

The landfill tax increases make waste disposal increasingly expensive for businesses – making implementation of waste reductions and recycling schemes more financially attractive.

Climate ChangeA requirement to deliver significant reductions in carbon emissions is at the heart of the Government’s Waste Strategy for England 2007. Reductions in the use of resource use through better management of waste can also have significant cost benefits.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified a number of key mitigation practices and technologies currently commercially available, including:

Landfill methane recovery; Incineration with energy recovery; Composting/digestion of organic waste; and Recycling and waste minimisation.

The Climate Change Act 2008, sets UK targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through domestic and international action by at least 80 percent by 2050 and reduce carbon dioxide emissions 26 percent by 2020 (both against a 1990 baseline).

The public sector organisations in Hampshire have developed a partnership to tackle climate change in Hampshire with overarching collaborative actions which would enable Hampshire to achieve a step change in its efforts to reduce its Carbon footprint and to become more resilient to climate change.

Appendix 2

25

Implications for Project Integra We increasingly need to consider our activities and future options in

waste management with reference to their impact on climate change and resource efficiency.

There is a clear relationship between reducing the Hampshire’s Carbon footprint and seeking further efficiencies in the delivery of waste and resource management in Hampshire.

Reducing carbon emissions will result on significant financial savings to counteract rises in fuel and other commodity prices and the impacts of energy security.

Economic DevelopmentThere is a recognition that strategies for economic growth need to be environmentally sustainable and ensure that the principles of sustainability inform and determine the nature of key development proposals. These principles include, amongst others:

stabilisation and reduction in the use of resources net self-sufficiency in resource recycling and waste handling joint decision making on targets for resource usage and planning for

resource management infrastructure planning that takes into account necessary mitigation and adaptation

measures with regard to climate change and the continues security of resources.

Implications for Project Integra The work of the Project Integra partnership supports the objectives of

sustainable economic growth by ensuring the effective management of waste.

A Materials Resources ApproachAt the beginning of 2005 Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council, Southampton City Council and Project Integra jointly facilitated the development of a Hampshire Materials Resources approach, which through seventeen months of stakeholder dialogue resulted in the publication of ‘More from Less’, which articulates aspirations on issues related to natural resources, minerals and wastes. This material resources approach has influenced a number of strategic outcomes which stakeholders wished to see delivered and has an agreed set of strategic principles to guide and integrate key work areas:

Production of the statutory Joint Minerals and Waste Development Framework (revised Minerals and Waste Plan);

Development of plans for managing municipal waste under Project Integra.

The principles of More from Less represent an additional element to the Community Strategies in Hampshire with a focus on natural resources which complement other relevant key themes

Appendix 2

26

Dealing with construction waste more effectively and ensuring much higher levels of recycling and minimisation of waste in the commercial sector is also a key priority.

Implications for Project Integra More from Less identifies that a key issue for Project Integra is to

optimise recycling performance across the Project Integra partnership, and maximising cost efficiencies through economies of scale and joint working across waste sectors.

Hampshire Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS)The JMWMS has been produced by Project Integra with the vision that, by 2020, Hampshire will have a world class and sustainable material resources system that maximises efficient re-use and recycling and minimises the need for disposal. It has been developed in the context of the ‘More from Less’. It is also closely linked to the Minerals and Waste Plan (see below), as both have been developed in parallel, using ‘More from Less’ as a reference point and using similar sustainability objectives and appraisal techniques.The aims of the JMWMS include:

To deliver municipal waste management using a Material Resources approach;

Win the support and understanding of the wider public; Make access to recycling and related facilities a positive experience for

residents and businesses; Improve the understanding of, and contain the year on year growth in

material resources generated by household consumption; Maximise value for money by considering the system as a whole; To provide suitable and sufficient processing facilities for existing and

new material streams; Secure stable, sustainable and ethical markets for recovered materials

and products; Ensure each partner clearly understands its roles and responsibility for

delivery; and Meet statutory obligations and maintain Hampshire at the forefront of

the waste to resources agenda.

JMWMS will deliver these aims using the following preferred approach:

Collection – Kerbside collection of dry mixed recyclables, glass and textiles; promote home composting and the use of food digesters; introduce chargeable kerbside green waste collections and facilitate the provision of enhanced waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) ‘bring’ facilities at household waste recycling centres (HWRCs).

Commercial Recycling – Provide / facilitate collection and processing capacity to optimise the capture of recyclables from the commercial sector (recyclables that are similar in nature to those arising from the municipal waste stream).

Appendix 2

27

Waste Growth – MRS and Regional Waste Strategy targets – reduce growth to 1% per annum by 2010 and 0.5% pa by 2020.

Treatment of Residual – Thermal treatment (EfW) of at least 420,000 tonnes per annum with excess residual waste being sent to landfill in the short term and further treatment in the long term.

Landfill – Pre-process all household waste with residues only to landfill (and minimum organics to landfill).

Implications for Project Integra The JMWMS states that the Project Integra partners will seek to

positively contribute to the achievement of the following recycling and composting targets for all waste as set out in ‘More from Less’:

o 50% by 2010 o 55% by 2015 o 60% by 2020.

The JMWMS was adopted in April 2006 with an original commitment for a review after five years;

The Project Integra review of Collection and Processing has provided a clear steer for partner authorities on potential levels of recycling achievable over the next 5 years and the actions required to achieve further increases over that time.

Minerals and Waste PlanThe revised Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan sets out a long-term spatial vision for minerals and waste planning in Hampshire and will contain the primary policies and proposals to deliver that vision:

“By 2020, Hampshire will have a world class and sustainable material resources system that maximizes both the efficient use of primary materials and the reuse and recycling of wastes, and minimises the need for disposal.”

The overall approach is based on the ‘More from Less’ principles of improving resource efficiency by improving the sustainable design of new building, progressively slowing the pace of waste growth and maximising the recovery of value from wastes prior to landfill.

As far as possible, waste will be managed near to where it is produced and in accordance with the waste hierarchy. Value will be recovered through technically advanced re-use, recycling and composting processes, or failing that, through the recovery of energy and / or materials from the waste. The amount of waste going to landfill will be very limited in quantity and biodegradable content.

Implications for Project Integra Both the MWDF (see above) and the JMWMS are significantly based

on data and principles established in More from Less (see above), this ensures consistency between these two strategic approaches.

Appendix 2

28

Recycling MarketsThere remains continued pressure from the public in Hampshire to increase the range of materials that can be recovered for recycling. Tetrapak recycling is a good example of the difficulties that this presents in terms of ensuring that both the financial and sustainability issues are well understood by the public.

Project Integra partners benefit financially from the sale of recyclables, the value of which is dependent on changing market conditions both nationally and internationally. Although markets have recovered since the ‘crash’ in prices seen in 2008 it is prudent to expect further future fluctuations in materials prices..

Implications for Project Integra The partnership is committed to supplying high quality secondary

materials to sustainable markets. This strategy has ensured both environmental outcomes and reasonably reliable income – but partners should ensure that they are not overly reliant on income from material sales to deliver services;

The partnership will continue to monitor market activity and seek opportunities for recycling additional materials that meet its commitment to high quality recycling .

Appendix 3

29

Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs)1. Aldershot 2. Alresford3. Alton4. Andover5. Basingstoke6. Bishops Waltham7. Bordon8. Casbrook9. Eastleigh10. Efford11. Fair Oak 12. Farnborough 13. Gosport 14. Hartley Wintney 15. Havant 16. Hayling Island 17. Hedge End 18. Marchwood 19. Netley 20. Paulsgrove21. Petersfield 22. Segensworth 23. Somerley 24. Southampton25. Waterlooville 26. Winchester

Composting Sites27. Chilbolton 28. Down End 29. Little Bushy Warren

Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs)30. Portsmouth 31. Alton

Energy Recovery Facilities (ERFs)32. Chineham 33. Marchwood 34. Portsmouth

Transfer Stations35. Andover36. Basingstoke37. Farnborough38. Lymington39. Marchwood40. Netley41. Otterbourne42. Portsmouth

Landfill Site43. Blue Haze

Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) Processing*44. Blue Haze

Abandoned Vehicle Recycling Facility*45. Silverlake Garages Ltd

Glass Recycling Facility*46. Recresco Ltd

Project Integra Household Waste Recycling, Recovery and Disposal Infrastructure

Numbers refer to map of facilities December 2009* Reprocessing facilities provided by third party contractors

Appendix 3

30

PAPER GAppendix 2

1

Hart District Council

Partner Implementation Plan

Supporting

Project Integra Action Plan

2011-2016

Cllr Stephen Parker Sarah IncherEnvironment Portfolio Holder Waste & Recycling Manager

PAPER GAppendix 2

2

1 Highlights 2010/11

1.1 Key Actions Taken

Tendering of waste service – During 2010/11 Hart DC in partnership with Basingstoke and Deane BC have sought tenders for a joint waste service. These tenders are currently being evaluated with a decision on whether to implement this service being made in April 2011.

Efficiency Savings – During 2010/11 the council has introduced a number of effiency savings within its waste service which has seen the cost of the service reduced whilst maintaining recycling rates.

Kerbside Glass – The Council’s Kerbside glass service was altered to provide a 4 weekly collection service. Previously collections were made every two weeks. In addition all glass bank sites across the district, have been converted to mixed glass, which can be collected by the Kerbside Crews. This has reduced the council’s glass bring site contract costs.

Garden Waste - September 2010 saw the introduction of wheeled bins as an alternative to sacks for collection of garden waste. This has proved very popular with some new customers joining the service and some existing customers converting from sacks to bins. Additional vehicle collection days are currently being considered as a result.

1.2 Projected Performance for 2010/11

To be completed

1.3 Strategic ReviewSummary of any recent, current or planned strategic reviews of waste services.

As mentioned in section 1.1 Hart have been working with Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council for a Joint working Contract and tenders were returned in December 2010. As part of this work it is hoped that a new Waste & Recycling Contract for both authorities will commence in October 2011. As part of this work a Joint Client Team will be set up to manage the contract on behalf of both authorities.

At the same time we have been working on a Joint In House operations for Street Cleaning Services.

We are working on a project to see if targeting education and information to a specific area on recycling actually causes any reduction in contamination levels in recycling bins.

As part of the Joint Tender the Council are considering the introduction of a kerbside battery collection service for the district.

PAPER GAppendix 2

3

1.4 Sustainable & Ethical RecyclingSummary and timetable of any system changes already planned or due to be implemented.Include details of expected impacts (eg recycling rate, waste prevention, customer satisfaction etc).

Hart are always looking at ways to increase customer satisfaction and reduce the amount of waste produced and will continue to do so within the resources available.

Hart have reached and exceeded the target of 30% Recycling Rate with a recycling rate in 2009/10 of 36.08%. This is a slight drop from the 39% in 2009/10 but this was due to non collection of recycling during the snow in the early part of 2010. We are committed to maintaining this level and trying to increase the recycling levels during 2010/11.

Hart are committed to decreasing the contamination levels and will do this through working with residents.

1.5 Eliminating LandfillDetail any initiatives planned for wastes currently sent to landfill.

All waste collected by the Council is either incinerated or recycled, nothing goes directly to landfill.

1.6 Commercial Materials ManagementSummary of services offered to SMEs and any plans to introduce or extend these.

Hart currently do not offer any services to SME’s but will be reviewing this during 2010/11 especially in relation to Glass.

1.7 Efficiency & Value for MoneySummary of any steps planned towards joint working with neighbouring authorities.

Hart District Council are keen to explore joint working opportunities with other authorities. It is hoped that the proposed joint waste service with Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council will deliver improved efficiency and value for money for both authorities.

1.8 Leadership & InfluenceSummary of communication, education and behavioural change activities already planned (including activities to reduce contamination, increase capture or support changes in systems).

Hart is fully committed to Project Integra and the behavioural change campaign and will continue to work with this project into 2010.

Hart would support any increase in the type of materials that can be collected within the Kerbside Recycling Collection.

Subject to resources, during 2011/12 the council intends to work on the following initiatives with a view to increasing recycling rates across the district : -

Using MAF data we will identify poor performing rounds in terms of recycling participation and contamination, and work with residents to reduce these levels.

PAPER GAppendix 2

4

Hart will continue to promote the need to reduce contamination and highlight the success of residents in achieving and exceeding the recycling rate of 30%. This will be carried out in a number of ways including presentations to residents, groups and members along with stands at parish events, AGM’s, fairs and fetes

Crew training is continuing to identify and deal with contaminated loads, this will be supported by other officers within the waste service.

Review communications to residents including, information left on bins at time of collection, and setting up an email database to keep residents informed of disruption or changes to the waste collection service.

1.9 Other Actions

Setting up of joint client team to manage the Basingstoke and Deane and Hart waste contracts. This plan will be reviewed and updated after the joint team has been setup, to consider the implications of the joint service and the outcomes of the Project Integra review.

1

CABINET

KEY DECISIONS/ WORK PROGRAMME AND EXECUTIVE DECISIONS MADE

March 2011

Cabinet is required to publish its Key Decisions and forward work programme to inform the public of issues on which it intends to make policy or decisions. The Scrutiny Committee also notes the Programme, which is subject to regular revision. Items in italics denote changes to a previously published Plan. All items are key decision unless stated otherwise.

Report Title Ref(Note 1)

Outline/Reason for Report/Comments OriginalDue Date

RevisedDue Date

Decision Deadline

Cabinet Member(Note 2)

Service (Note 3)

Project Integra Oct 10 Review Mar 11 SP TS&EM

CCTV Sept 10 Nov 10 Mar 11 KC CX

Waste Contract Award Oct 10 Report Mar 11 SP TS&EM

Housing Strategy Oct 10 Draft for discussion Dec 10 Apr 11 CB HS

2010/11 Quarterly Budget Monitoring

Quarterly Quarterly monitoring Aug 11Nov 11Feb 12

KC CX

Treasury Management Quarterly Quarterly Monitoring Oct 11Dec 11Feb 12

KC F

2011/12 Revenue Budget, Capital Programme and Council Tax Proposals

Annual Approval Feb 12 KC F

Treasury Management Strategy Yearly Update Feb 12 KC CX

LDF Core Strategy Mar 09 Preferred option document for consultation June 10 TBD RA P&ER

Environmental Maintenance Service Enforcement Policy and Procedures

Oct 09 To comply with the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act

Dec 09 TBD SP TS&EM PA

PE

R H

2

Notes:

1 Date added to Programme2 Cabinet Members:

KC Crookes RA Appleton CB Butler CSK Kinnell SP Parker NS Singh

3 Service:CX Chief Executive CD Corporate Director P&ER Planning and Environmental RegulationCS Community Safety HS Housing and Customer Services L&EP Leisure and Environmental PromotionF Finance DS Democratic Services TS &EM Technical Services and Environmental MaintenanceSLS Shared Legal Services MO Chief Solicitor & Monitoring Officer EH Environmental Health

EXECUTIVE DECISIONS

No new Executive Decisions.

1

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME – February 2011

Issue and Description of Topic Current PositionObjectives

Date to Committee

Resources Required

Contact

Performance Information to include Revenue Budget Monitoring (Quarterly)

Committee receives quarterly highlight reports. Feb 11June 11Sept 11Nov 11

Report Performance and Innovation Officer

Flooding Notes from January meeting of Agencies Feb 11 Technical & Environmental Maintenance

Project Integra Review Feb 11 Report Technical & Environmental Maintenance

Project Integra Action Plan Feb 11 Report Corporate Director

Registered Social Housing Providers in Hart

Approved List. Feb 11 Report Housing

Waste Contract Award Report March 11 Report Corporate Director

Crime & Disorder Scrutiny March 11 Corporate Director

Medium Term Financial Strategy

Update March 11 Report S151 Officer

Progress Report on 2010/11 Service Plans

March 11 Report Corporate Director

Housing Strategy Draft for discussion March 11 Report Housing Services

Meeting with South West Trains & Network Rail

April 11Sept 11

Presentation Corporate Director

RIPA Quarterly Update April 11 July 11

Oct 11Jan 12

Report Corporate Director PA

PE

R I

2

2010/11 Performance Information – Annual Outturn

June 11 Report Performance and Innovation Officer

Housing Associations Report from Housing Services on perceived lack of service (Sentinel, Thames Valley Housing and Hyde Housing)

tba Housing Services

2012/13 Budget Nov 11Jan 12

Report Corporate Director

PA

PE

R I

PAPER J

1


DATE OF MEETING 15 FEBRUARY 2011

TITLE OF REPORT: NETWORK RAIL CONSULTATION DRAFT ROUTE UTILISATION STRATEGY (RUS)

REPORT OF: Head of Planning Services

CABINET MEMBER: Councillor Richard Appleton, Planning and Regulation

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform Overview and Scrutiny Committee of this consultation document which outlines the potential strategies Network Rail has identified for addressing the forecasted increase in future demand for passenger rail services, and set out a draft response for the Council in light of the issues outlined1.

2 Officer Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee notes the report and comments on the draft response set out.

2.2 That the agreed response be finalised by the Portfolio Holder and the Head of Service and be submitted to Network Rail through the public consultation process.

3 Context

3.1 The consultation draft RUS sets out a strategy for increasing rail capacity in the South East England railway network to 20312. Between now and 2031, there will be an increase of over 30% (1.3% pa) in the number of commuters using Network Rail services into London on weekday morning peaks. There will be significant variations between different route corridors however, dependent on the projected growth in specific areas.

3.2 On some routes the combination of existing schemes and non-committed existing strategy is forecast to be sufficient to accommodate the increasing demand. However, on some routes the RUS identifies the need for additional options, seeking to provide sufficient peak capacity into London to accommodate the forecast future demand. The South West Main Line (SWML) falls into this category.

3.3 The RUS states that SWML trains are generally already full length and no additional paths can be found elsewhere on the route for extra trains, regardless of capacity at Waterloo. A significant peak capacity gap between supply and demand may arise, with a forecast shortfall of some 7,100 passengers in the busiest peak hour, although increasing capacity on services from Salisbury and Guildford lines could reduce this

1 This RUS builds upon the Generation One RUS’s previously published by Network Rail between 2005-2010 http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4449.aspx2 It looks at all corridors into London at the same time and in a consistent way, so results are now directly comparable between routes.

PAPER J

2

to 6,100. In light of this, the RUS considers various options, which are set out in Table 1 below:

Table 1: New options for South West Main Line

Option F1 Implement 12-car SWML inner suburban operations

Not recommended since the forecast capacity gap is on outer services

Option F2 Run double-deck trains on SWML outer services

Not recommended due to insufficient evidence that the gap would be resolved. In addition the high cost of this scheme is such that there is unlikely to be a robust business case

Option F3 Run 16-car trains on SWML outer services into Waterloo

Potentially needed in the longer-term if other options cannot be identified. However, this appears to require a major new grade-separated connection from the SWML in the Clapham Junction area into Waterloo International platforms and would create significant operational difficulties with 16-car trains needing to split/join on route.

Option F4 Run four tph additional SWML outer services

Requires significant infrastructural enhancement. Further analysis is required.

3.4 Of the four options outlined, the RUS states that option 3 and option 4 have been identified as potentially worth investigating further.

3.5 Option 3 would allow for the operation of 16-car trains into Waterloo from selected mainline destinations, through the provision of a flyover at Clapham Junction, allowing Waterloo International to be used for these services. The RUS highlights that this would involve high cost and not provide increased service frequencies.

3.6 Option 4 would provide for increased service frequency through up to an increased service frequency up to an additional four trains per hour from Basingstoke or possibly elsewhere. This would require significant infrastructure alteration in the form of major works at Waterloo, Woking and Queenstown Road (Battersea). Further infrastructure interventions may be required elsewhere on the route to mitigate performance impacts. This option will require further analysis and development, including identification of whether a business case exists. Revising the pricing structure for high peak hour should be considered.

3.7 For reference, Hampshire County Council will also be responding to the consultation draft RUS as the local transport authority. All responses will be subsequently viewable on the Network Rail website.

PAPER J

3

4 Draft HDC response to Network Rail consultation draft RUS

4.1 Hart District Council notes the context that the RUS outlines with regard to the South West Main Line services that residents use at Fleet, Hook and Winchfield stations. The key points Hart District Council wishes to make are:

HDC residents are being charged extra now to fund improvements and so doing nothing is not a reasonable option

Hart agrees with the RUS statement that the South West Main Line (SWML) must be regarded as a higher priority for any major infrastructure inventions than other overcrowded routes3

In light of the current and forecasted demand for passenger rail services, the RUS clearly highlights the need to address the fact there is no currently planned increase in SWML long distance capacity up to 20314 The need to address the issue is reinforced by the draft Hampshire Local Transport Plan (LTP2) LTP3 which is predicated on a shift to public transport from car.

The RUS acknowledges that, even if all elements of the existing RUS strategy are funded, the modelling approach used forecasts that some routes will still have peak capacity problems in 2031; this includes outer services on the SWML that will have significant crowding problems inwards of Basingstoke (and Guildford) on these trains56

That options F2, F3 and F4 outlined in the RUS to resolve this issue are not underpinned by sufficiently robust supporting evidence7; for example, none of these options are supported by financial and economic analysis and appraisal

In principle, Hart agrees with the statement in the RUS that the key to solving SWML route capacity is the need to run more trains between Waterloo and the route beyond Woking8. Clearly, for Hart residents to benefit from any infrastructure investment, these trains will need to be stopping services at Hart’s three stations.

Works at Waterloo to improve passenger traverse across the concourse are badly needed. At the moment throughput is restricted or delayed by obstructions or concourse furniture such shops etc.

Flexible ticketing could increase incentives to work part time at home and so help to slow demand growth (one needs to work at least 2 days at home to make it pay not to buy an annual season)

3 RUS Executive Summary pp.12; with the exception of the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML)4 Table 5.13 – London Waterloo peak capacity – committed schemes, pp.565 Paragraph 7.3.16 Paragraph 7.3.1 3rd bullet point highlights that it should be noted that this conclusion applies regardless of what works are undertaken at London Waterloo station, since the remodelling works currently planned there are only designed to facilitate lengthening of the London suburban services 7 Paragraph 7.9.38 Paragraph 7.9.5

PAPER J

4

Costs should be available across the SWML region to enable funding through better co-ordination of the RUS with emerging local authority Local Development Frameworks (LDF’s) and the co-ordinated use of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Too many shoulder-peak and off-peak services are too short (presumably as an ATOC cost cutting measure), leading to crowding and disincentives to travel then as opposed to at peak hour

Some redistribution of capacity could be achieved by removing peak-hour stops served by the strengthened inner suburban services , most notably Surbiton. If this is not done the situation will soon occur when people travelling one stop will prevent those travelling further from boarding the service, which is not a good distribution of capacity.

4.2 Hampshire, unlike some neighbouring counties, is not currently scheduled to be served by other committed or proposed new rail services. For example, Crossrail will eventually provide new capacity at stations east of Maidenhead in Berkshire and central Sussex will be served by significantly improved services on the Brighton-Bedford Thameslink services. Additionally, the route of the proposed High Speed 2 rail link is between London and cities to the north only. Clearly, if the rail services in Hart and elsewhere in the SWML corridor are to be improved up to 2031, this must be through improvements to the existing network.

4.3 Therefore, Hart District Council would fully support Network Rail if it chose to develop the capacity of the SWML through option 3, option 4 or a combination of the two.

4.4 However, Hart District Council notes that:

In the RUS’s emerging conclusions the need to identify a robust means of increasing capacity on the SWML, which is likely to require significant additional infrastructure, is a longer-term issue requiring further analysis to identify solutions.

The final RUS is scheduled to be published in July 2011, so these issues are unlikely to be resolved by then. It would be useful if the final RUS clearly sets out an indicative timetable for identifying any solutions and undertaking them.

That both options 3 and 4 are dependent on Network Rail making significant infrastructure investment. The final RUS should therefore be supported by initial or indicative financial and economic analysis, which would provide stakeholders with a broad notion of the likely costs involved.

However, option 4, as presented, would only provide a partial solution to the forecasted shortfall in capacity9.

9 An extra 3,200 seats would be provided, approx. 52% of the capacity shortfall (6,100 seats)

PAPER J

5

If the final RUS concludes that, for whatever reason, options 3 or 4 should not be undertaken, then the document should clearly set out the reasons why in detail and outline any other potential solutions.

The implications of option 2 are not articulated in the RUS and thus no comment can be made on it without specialist rail knowledge.

4.5 Finally, Hart is committed to future partnership working with Network Rail, rail service providers, the Local Transport Authority and other relevant stakeholders to address the issues outlined in the consultation draft RUS and this response.

Contact: Robert Thain, Ext: 4459, [email protected]

O&S.19


Date and Time: Tuesday, 15 February 2011 at 7pm

Place: Committee Room 1, Civic Offices, Fleet

Present:

COUNCILLORS

Neighbour (Chairman)

Axam, Barrell, Davies, Healey, Murr, Radley JE, Southern, Wheale

In attendance: Appleton, Kennett, Parker

Officers Present:

Emma Broom Corporate DirectorJohn Elson Head of Technical Services and Environmental MaintenanceJane Abraham Housing Strategy and Development OfficerRobert Thain Senior Planning Policy Officer

83 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of 18 January 2011 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

84 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

No apologies were received.

85 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

86 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (PERSONAL AND PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL)

Cllr Davies declared he is a trustee of a charity closely associated with point to point in Aldershot.

87 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA)

None.

88 SERVICE BOARDS

Members updated the Committee on the recent Service Board meetings.

O&S.20

89 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THAMES WATER, ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AND HAMPSHIRE CC WITH MEMBERS OF HART DISTRICT COUNCIL

The minutes of the meeting of 17 January 2011 were noted. The Committee also stressed that the agreed letter to Thames Water should be sent immediately.

90 APPROVED LIST OF REGISTERED PROVIDERS OF SOCIAL HOUSING IN HART

Members were asked to support an approved list of Registered Providers of Social Housing in Hart that can deliver good quality housing and housing services in Hart.

RESOLVED

1 That an approved list of Registered Providers of Social Housing in Hart be established, consisting initially of the four providers: Sentinel Housing Association, Thames Valley Housing, Hyde Housing Association and Kingfisher Sovereign

2 That the levels of satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service for Thames Valley Housing and Kingfisher Sovereign be monitored closely over the next four quarters to ensure an improvement in satisfaction levels.

91 2010–11 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET MONITORING

Members were given the opportunity to comment on the third quarter (to 31 December 2010) budget monitoring report that was considered by Cabinet on 3 February 2011.

RESOLVED

That the contents of the budget monitoring report be noted.

92 2010-11 THIRD QUARTER PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT REPORT

Members were updated on the authority’s current performance in Organisational Development, relevant National and Local Performance Indicators (NIs, PIs) and Complaints/Compliments.

The committee asked a number of questions about various issues. With regards to CCTV, Cllr Davies alerted the Committee to the fact that a close family member worked in the CCTV business.

RESOLVED

That member’s comments be communicated to Cabinet and Service Boards where it was considered action was needed.

O&S.21

93 PROJECT INTEGRA REVIEW

Members considered Hart District Council’s response to the Project Integra Review Report, prior to the report being considered by Cabinet. The key area of discussion was around whether Veolia should remain on the PI Board, as recommended by Hart District Council’s response. Members voted 5 to 4 that the Committee would endorse Veolia remaining on the PI Board. Cllr Parker was in attendance at the meeting and agreed to amend the wording of the response to reflect the Committee discussion, although not changing the recommendation in the report, in light of the vote.

RESOLVED

That members comments and suggested amendments to Hart District Council’s proposed response to Project Integra, be forwarded to Cabinet.

94 PROJECT INTEGRA ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2011- 2016

Members were asked to consider the Project Integra Annual Action Plan 2011-2016, prior to the plan being considered by Cabinet, and the Project Integra Partner Implementation Plan, prior to this being submitted to Project Integra.

RESOLVED

That member’s comments on the Project Integra Draft Annual Action Plan 2011-2016, and Project Integra Partner Implementation Plan be communicated to Cabinet.

95 NETWORK RAIL CONSULTATION DRAFT ROUTE UTILISATION STRATEGY (RUS)

The Committee considered a draft response to the consultation document, in light of the issues outlined. The Committee discussed and noted the report.

RESOLVED

That the agreed response be finalised by the Portfolio Holder and the Head of Service and be submitted to Network Rail through the public consultation process.

96 CABINET WORK PROGRAMME

The Cabinet Work Programme was noted.

97 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME

The Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme was considered. A question was raised about an additional Overview and Scrutiny meeting for the LDF core strategy, this has been arranged for 7 June 2011.

The meeting closed at 9.40pm