Agenda and minutes

That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 8 February 2016 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings, and that the outstanding actions be noted.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Vivienne Lukey,  Andrew Jones and Max Schmid.

Councillor Sue Fennimore declared an other Significant  interest in item  8 (Enhancement of Alternative Provision at the Bridge and Greswell Street Sites) as a Trustee of TBAP (Bridge School) Board of Schools.

1.1.That the General Fund and HRA month 8 revenue outturn forecast, be noted.

1.2.        That all overspending departments to agree proposals/action plans for bringing spend in line with budget.

1.1       To approve the new in-house delivery model that will work in partnership with both external and internal service providers to deliver data networks, unified communications and telephony services, working collaboratively to deliver the management of steady state in the short term.

1.2       To delegate to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) approval of appropriate Section 113 and inter-authority agreements for staffing and service delivery to enable the growth of a team that would consist of shared ICT services staff employed by LBHF and RBKC providing services to both councils in line with their respective telephony strategies.

1.3       That the shared ICT services assist the HTH refurbishment programme with the transformation of key services, some during and some after the transition from HFBP.

Cabinet noted that BT Managed Services had caused the Council a lot of problems.  Officers were thanked for sorting this issue out in a timely fashion.

1.1.        That approval be given to enter into an access agreement with ESPO in order to formally utilise ESPO Framework (No 653F_15) for Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resource (MSTAR2).

1.2.        That subject to 2.1, above, the ESPO Framework (No 653F_15) for Managed Services for Temporary Agency Resource (MSTAR2) should be accessed to call off the services of a Managed Services Provider for Agency Workers.

1.3.        That the Potential Provider should be awarded a call off contract under the  ESPO Framework (No 653F_15) with effect from 1 July 2016 for a period of two years with the option of extending on 1 July 2018 for a further one year and also on 1 July 2019 for a further 1 year, providing for a maximum contract period of four years.

1.4.        That the contract award should be in relation to Lot 1, Neutral Supply Chain management for both Transactional and certain Strategic Services as detailed in the MSTAR2 Framework.

1.5.        That the Council continues with the requirement that the chosen supplier operates ‘pay between assignments’.

1.6.        That conditional to the award of contract and in accordance with terms of the MSTAR2 Core Specification for Transactional Services, the Potential Provider should be required to commit to delivery proposals that will provide target savings of up to £170,000 against anticipated MSTAR2 expenditure. Further information is provided in Section 8 of this report.

1.7.        That integral to the pricing matrix, an additional marginal management fee (0.005p per hour transacted) should be introduced to part fund a contract management resource within the Shared Human Resources Service. At current usage this would equate to £22,500 per annum to be combined with an identical recommendation in RBKC to provide combined funds of circa £39,500 per annum. Further information is provided in Section 9 of this report.

1.8.        That the appropriate Cabinet Member should be delegated with authority to exercise the option to extend the term of the contract in accordance with paragraph 1.3 above.

That approval be given for the works to be procured from Amey Community Limited to commence on 4^th April for a period of twenty-six weeks in accordance with the approved Terms and Conditions of the Shared Service - TFM contract.

Councillor Macmillan introduced Mr Seamus Oates, TBAP Multi Academy Trust, Executive Head Teacher.   He welcomed the Council’s proposal to invest a significant amount of money in the Academy which will strengthen and broaden the curriculum offer to Hammersmith and Fulham students through the redevelopment of the Finlay Street site. The Academy supports pupils with challenging behaviour who are unable to attend main stream schools.  The Academy had been twice rated as Outstanding by OFSTED. The Academy propose to have other agencies such as the police and school psychologists  co-locate within the premises.  Plans are being developed to deliver post 16 education in the future.

1.1            That the Council supports the enhancement of the curriculum offer to H&F students at the borough’s Alternative Provision Academy at the Finlay Street site run by The TBAP Multi Academy Trust (TBAP), through the redevelopment of the site

1.2            That the Council agrees to contribute £6 million from S106 contributions subject to confirmation that the balance of the funding is secured by TBAP.

1.3            Subject to the  approval of the Secretary of State, that the Council agrees to incorporate the Greswell St site in a 125 year academy lease to TBAP.

1.4            That the Cabinet agree to the appointment of LSI architects to develop the scheme to Royal Institute of British Architects Stage 7 (occupation) as outlined below and in accordance with the procurement process advice given in Part B.

1.5            That the Council delegates to the Cabinet Member for Children and Education the appointment of a construction contractor, subject to the proper procurement processes being followed, the scope being agreed and the costs being within budget.

In introducing the report, Councillor Macmillan noted that the proposals requested approval to award contracts to the existing service providers. There were no plans to close any children centres within the borough.

1.1       That the application of the Council’s Standing Orders (CSO) be waived and for Cabinet to approve the direct award contracts to the existing service providers from 1st April 2016 up to  31st March 2017 with the scope to extend up to  a further year if required.  The maximum lifetime value of each of the 12 contracts will not exceed £572,000 (see appendix 1).

1.2       That Cabinet delegates authority to the Cabinet Member for Children and Education to approve:

              i.        any further actions necessary to ensure that the Council meets its statutory duties for the provision of children’s centres and;

            ii.        any further extensions to the contracts to existing providers to run up to, but no longer, than 31st March 2018.

1.1.        That approval be given to waive Contracts Standing Orders and extend the existing contracts with current youth service providers for a further one year.

1.2.        That the Council’s Contract Standing Orders, requiring public quotes to be sought for contracts be waived.

1.3.        That specific approval be given to modify and extend the following service provision arrangements until 31^st March 2017:

a)    Provision of youth club services for North End and Fulham Broadway wards by the Brunswick Club with a contract value of £50,000.

b)    Provision of youth club services for College Park and Old Oak wards by the Harrow Club with a contract value of £50,000.

c)    Provision of youth club services for Wormholt and White City & Shepherds Bush wards by the Harrow Club with a contract value of £50,000.

d)    Provision of youth club services for Sands End ward by the Harrow Club with a contract value of £50,000.

e)    Provision of youth club services for Askew & Shepherds Bush wards by the Sulgrave Club with a contract value of £50,000.

f)     Provision of youth club services for Avonmore and Brook Green, and Addison wards by Masbro Youth Club with a contract value of £50,000.

g)    Provision of targeted holiday services by Action on Disability with a contract value of £50,000.

h)   Provision of targeted term-time services by Action on Disability with a contract value of £50,000.

i)     Provision of ‘Sport, Fitness’ and ‘Well-being’ holiday services by Let Me Play with a contract value of £49,600

j)      Provision of universal community youth holiday Art and Fashion services by Let Me Play with a contract value of £49,700

k)    Provision of universal community youth holiday Music and Performing Arts services by Let Me Play with a contract value of £49,200

l)     Provision of a school-based term-time youth club by United Church School Trust at Hurlingham and Chelsea School with a contract value of £65,000

m)  Provision of a school-based term-time youth club by Phoenix School  with a contract value of £65,000

n)   Provision of a term-time youth club with a contract value of £24,000 for children with disabilities. The service is currently under review and will be developed in partnership with key local organisations.

1.4.        That a total budget of £741,060 be allocated for commissioned youth services in 2016-17. £702,500 of this funding will be made available for the direct award to existing youth providers, whilst £38,560 will be used for the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme and the printing of the ‘Summer in the City’ brochure.

1.1.        That the Executive Director of Adult Social Care and Health in consultation with Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health, in addition to other borough specific delegates, for each  authority approve the recommendation to directly award the contracts.

1.2.        To note that each Authority’s governance procedure applies applicable to the value of contract award.

1.3.        To note that the total spend for the school nurse services, across the three boroughs, for the 12 month period from 1^st April 2016 to 31^st March 2017 is £4,584,255 pa. This figure now includes the 10% saving achieved on previous year total spend for the provision.

For Hammersmith and Fulham Council, Cabinet is requested:

1.4.        That Cabinet gives approval to award a contract for additional School Nurse services to the Central London Community Health Trust for the period 1st April 2016 to 31st March 2017 for the value of £1,728,119 pa, in accordance with Regulation 72 (1)(b)(ii) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and on the grounds that not to do so will result in a temporary loss of service and significant inconvenience to vulnerable children, young children and their educational establishments.

1.5.        Cabinet should note the potential legal implications of this direct award as reported in sections 7 and 11 of this report, to which commissioning officers recommend the Council(s) should take a balanced approach to risk.

For Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the Cabinet Member is requested:

1.6.        To approve a waiver in accordance with paragraph 2.09-2.12 (exemption/waivers of contract regulation) of the RBKC Contract Regulations to waive the requirement to seek tenders in order to allow the local authority to directly award the contract to CLCH as listed in  Appendix A, Table 1.

1.7.        To approve the direct award of the contract to CLCH as listed in Appendix A, Table 1 for the values of £1,039,092 pa, effectivefrom 1^st April 2016 to expire on 31st March 2017. 

  For Westminster City Council, the Cabinet Member is requested:                      

1.8.        The cabinet member  approve a waiver in accordance with section 2.2 of the  Westminster Procurement Code  to allow the local authority to extend  the contract to CLCH as  listed in Appendix A, Table 1.

1.9.        To approve the extension of  the contract to CLCH as listed in Appendix A, Table 1 and for the values of £1,817,044 pa  effective from 1^st April 2016 to expire on 31st March 2017.

Councillor Steve Hamilton stated that there was no clear evidence in the report supporting the fact that accidents happen above 30 mph nor was there proof that a reduction of the speed limit on North End Road will reduce accidents. He suggested that the existing policy should remain unchanged.

The Leader sought clarification whether he was proposing no change or a variable speed limit in North End Road as there was evidence that  lower speed limits in some areas were worthwhile and reduced accidents.  Councillor Hamilton repeated that the existing policy was adequate for the area.

Mr Bainbridge was asked to comment on the proposals.  He reported that the Council had introduced several 20mph zones and limits since 2001.   The police would only record speed as a factor in collisions if the vehicles were travelling at over 30mph. They do not record whether the collision would have been avoided or less severe if the speed limit have been lower.  It is generally accepted that the likelihood of a child being killed in a collision at  20mph was around 20% rising to 50% at 30mph.  He noted that 29% of the respondents opposed introducing more 20mph roads while 71% were in favour of extending 20 mph limits (either for all  Borough roads or with the exception of some roads).

The Leader noted that there was sufficient evidence in the consultation response to show that residents do not want 20 mph on all main roads. The introduction of a 20 mph speed limit cuts deaths. The Council’s policy is to support a policy that would cut the number of road accidents and deaths in the Borough.  He said that the Mayor of London and TfL supports the introduction of 20mph limits and are doing it on their own roads in town centres.

Councillor Coleman stated that he had spoken to members of the North End Action Group and many residents in the area who supported the introduction of a 20mph limit. He asked Councillor Hamilton whether the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents support for the introduction of 20mph limit to reduce the number of accidents was wrong. Councillor Hamilton responded that the limits introduced should be acceptable and reasonable.  Limits could be lowered where there was a good reason to do so.  Councillor Harcourt noted that the report evidenced that lowering the speed limit will lead to a reduction of accidents and serious injury.

The Leader concluded that there were many good reasons to extend the 20 mph speed limit.  A reduction will save lives, cut serious injuries caused by accidents to children, cyclists and other road users and improve the quality of life for many residents.  The 20mph speed limit extension was part of a strategy to reduce deaths on the Borough roads.

1.1.        That approval be given to implement 20mph speed limits on the remaining non-main roads in the borough that currently have a 30mph limit, but only on main roads as they pass through the borough’s three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 169.

1.1.        To approve the introduction of Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) where resident consultation supports this as the favoured approach for Phase 2 and 3 consultations.

1.2.        To approve a borough wide TMO that permanently restricts parking to  incorporate all areas of hard standing where no formal parking is provided to ensure that these areas can be kept clear of obstructive parking at all times.  (Example addresses listed in Appendix 1).

1.3.        To note the TMOs will be aligned as a minimum to the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) hours of operation immediately adjacent to the estates, and residents advised accordingly.

1.4.        To agree the implementation of physical controls where TMOs are not supported by residents or are not suitable.

1.5.        To give delegated authority to the Cabinet Member for Housing, and the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport & Residents Services to agree any changes to the proposed implementation schedule should this be required in response to changes to local parking stress, or to amend the list of addresses included as Appendix 1 as necessary.

1.6.        To give delegated authority to the Cabinet Member for Housing, and the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport & Residents Services to review the outcome of any further engagement work required where initially resident opinion is divided, and decide upon the options to be pursued and the timeline for implementation.

1.7.        To approve expenditure as a budget of £2.4m for the borough wide rollout of parking controls across the remaining housing sites, to be financed from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

1.8.        To approve the commencement of Phase 3 of consultation as set out at Appendix 1, to commence April 2016.

1.1.        To note Officers’ recommendation that the cover be placed with the successful tenderer, Ocaso S.A on the basis of a 5 year contract, and subject to comments of leaseholders during the second stage consultation under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended).

1.2.        That authority be delegated to the Cabinet Member for Housing in conjunction with the Joint Lead Directors for Housing to:

a)    Award the contract for the provision of building insurance to the successful tenderer for a period of 5 years, on the basis of the option preferred by majority of those leaseholders who respond to the second stage consultation and subject to due regard being taken of the outcome of the section 20 consultation as described in paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5 of this report.

b)    Approve any necessary amendments and variations to the contract in light of the consultation.

1.1.        To approve the projects and schemes identified in this report (see Appendix 1) which form the 2016/17 Housing Capital Programme to the value of £50.964 million (this envelope being considered at Budget Council on 24^th February 2016).

1.2.        To approve the budget envelope of £27.106 million for 2017/18 and £26.527 million for 2018/19 and note the funding streams identified as part of the Financial Plan for Council Homes: Housing Revenue Account Financial Strategy 2016/17. This recommendation is subject to future quarterly / annual changes to the overall Council capital programme as set out in future reports to Cabinet.

1.3.        To delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Housing, in conjunction with the Lead Directors for Housing, to issue orders for work and projects to be carried out using, where appropriate, the council’s ten year Term Partnering Contract with Mitie Property Services, approved by Cabinet 8^th April 2013 or any other suitable contracts which are put in place in the period in accordance with Contract Standing Orders and recommendation 2.4 below

1.4.        To delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Housing, in conjunction with the Lead Directors for Housing to award contracts over £100,000 and, if appropriate, exercise built-in options to extend such contracts in respect of any individual projects and schemes under the Housing Capital Programme identified in Appendix 1, in accordance with Contract Standing Order 9.4 and 9.4.1.

1.5.        To delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Housing, in conjunction with the Lead Directors for Housing, to approve future amendments to the 2016/17 programme for operational reasons where such amendments can be contained within the overall approved 2016/17 – 2018/19 budget envelope and available resources.

1.1.        To approve the amended garage licence agreement as set out at Appendix 1.

1.2.        To approve that all existing garage licences be varied as above by service of an appropriate Notice, ensuring consistency between existing and new licences.

1.3.        To amend the current garage charging policy (see Appendix 2) to:

1.3.1.   Apply the same net charge to all new private resident licencees as is applied to Council tenants and leaseholders, and their household members. New private garage licences will attract VAT at 20% on this net charge. This change will not apply to existing private residents renting a garage from us.

1.3.2.   Offer all LBHF blue badge holders irrespective of tenure, a 25% discount on the garage charge upon application.

1.3.3.   Offer all LBHF residents in receipt of a state pension irrespective of tenure, a 10% discount on the garage charge upon application.

1.3.4.   Where an LBHF has a Blue Badge and in receipt of state pension, the larger of the 2 discounts will be applied (ie 25% for the Blue Badge).

1.3.5.   Agree a fairer charging policy for double garages, introducing a 25% ‘shared amenity’ discount per licencee where a garage is shared with another licence holder, and to increase charges for new licencees to the equivalent to 2 garages where the new licencee wants exclusive use of a double garage. The proposed reduction will apply to current eligible licencees. The proposed increase will not be applied to existing sole licencees of double garages.

1.3.6.   Promote affordability and take up, reducing the requirement to pay 4 months in advance to 2 months in advance at sign up for Council tenants and leaseholders, and their household members, and then to stay at least 1 month in advance. This will apply to all licences let after September 2013, subject to the provisions in 5.3.

1.4.        To note that the change at 2.3.6 will not apply to private residents (4 months in advance payment at sign up, with the requirement to stay at least 3 months in advance will continue), nor to Council tenants and leaseholders with licences pre September 2013 (1 month requirement will continue).

1.5.        To give delegated authority for the Cabinet Member for Housing to agree alternative uses for existing garage sites where there is persistent low demand and these have been deemed unsuitable for hidden homes.

The Key Decision List was noted.

That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining items of business on the grounds that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of a person (including the authority) as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption currently outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

[The following is a public summary of the exempt information under S.100C (2) of the Local Government Act 1972. Exempt minutes exist as a separate document.]

That the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 8 February 2016 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings, and that the outstanding actions be noted.

That the recommendation contained in the exempt report be approved.

That the appendices be noted.

That the recommendation contained in the exempt report be approved.

That the appendix be noted.