Agenda and minutes

There were no Apologies for Absence.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 October 2018 be signed as a true record.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Order of Business be confirmed as printed on the Agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chief Executive, Mr Williams, declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 23 (E/18/42 – Creation of an Additional Local Authority Trading Company) as a Director of IPSERV Ltd.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Carole Jones

A review of the adopted Ipswich Local Plan 2017 is underway, in order to prepare aligned local plans with Babergh, Mid Suffolk and Suffolk Coastal District Councils.  The Council consulted the public on issues and options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review in 2017.  Since then, the comments received have been considered; work has continued to update the evidence base; and the Government has published a new National Planning Policy Framework. Taking this into account, a draft Local Plan Review setting out the Council’s Preferred Options has been prepared.

This report seeks authorisation to publish the Local Plan Review Preferred Options for public consultation under regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and in accordance with the Ipswich Statement of Community Involvement Review March 2018.  It is proposed that the public consultation would start on Wednesday 16^th January 2019 and conclude on Wednesday 13^th March 2019, running for eight weeks.  This consultation stage provides an informal opportunity for the public to comment on a full revised draft of the Local Plan.  

Like the adopted Ipswich Local Plan, the Local Plan Review will still consist of two documents:  the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Review and the Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area action Plan) DPD review.  The Local Plan Review Preferred Options include amendments to the adopted:

·         Vision and objectives;

·         Core Strategy (‘CS’) policies;

·         Development Management (‘DM’) policies; and

·         Site allocation (‘SP’) policies.

81.1.    Councillor Jones introduced the report, explaining that the purpose of the report was to gain Executive’s approval for a consultation on the draft Local Plan and permission for the signing of the Statement of Common Ground.

81.2.    In accordance with Standing Orders Part 3 Section 3 Paragraph 3.5, the following questions were asked:

Question 1 – Councillor Fisher
‘It has become apparent that many members of the public are not aware when IBC hold public consultations, and this is something we should all want to change.  Please could Executive consider all options available to publicise this, and any future consultations, to ensure public engagement is as extensive as possible?’

Councillor Jones responded to the question, saying that the Council was committed to public engagement in the planning of the town and that this commitment was set out through the Statement of Community Involvement. Councillor Jones explained that a range of measures would be used to publicise the Local Plan consultation and enable people to get involved, including social media, the local press, direct communication to those who have expressed a wish to be informed, site notices where land is affected and staffed public exhibitions.

Councillor Jones added that if Councillor Fisher had any ideas for improvements that would provide a wider awareness and encourage greater feedback, she would be happy to consider them.

81.3.    Question 2 – Councillor Holmes
‘As Suffolk County Council are likely to abandon construction of the Upper Orwell Crossings, which form a central part of transport planning under the Review, should not the Executive postpone the Review until the position is clear and appropriate alternative proposals are brought forward?’

Councillor Jones said that the Council should not postpone the consultation on the review of the Local Plan. Councillor Jones noted that the decision on the Upper Orwell Crossings was yet to be made but commented that this was mainly a matter for Suffolk County Council.

Councillor Jones said that the context for the Local Plan was constantly shifting but the Government was very clear in the National Planning Policy Framework that ‘plan making’ to support the delivery of homes should not be delayed.  Both the adopted and proposed Local Plans referred to the Wet Dock Crossing to open up access to the Island Site.  Councillor Jones confirmed that any change to the situation with the Upper Orwell Crossings could be considered at the next stage of plan preparation, based on the position at that time.

81.4.    Question 3 – Councillor Holmes
‘Will not the change to indicators for Key Objective 6, namely removing a 15% target for modal shift and replacing it with an essentially meaningless platitude to “… increase the proportion of journeys undertaken by sustainable means…” ensure car transport will overwhelmingly remain the method of travel in Ipswich until 2036 with the certainty of increased congestion and deteriorating air quality?’

Councillor Jones explained that the target set out in Chapter 11 for Objective 6 had been linked to the Travel Ipswich scheme but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Carole Jones

The draft Ipswich Town Centre and Waterfront Public Realm Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is a strategy for improving the public realm quality of the Ipswich Town Centre and Waterfront. The document provides guiding principles for use in relation to public realm improvements, public space design projects within the area.

The Executive is asked to approve the draft document for the purposes of consultation, preparatory to its adoption as an SPD. Following the consultation, and subject to any necessary revisions a final draft of the document will be referred to the Executive and Full Council for approval and adoption as a Supplementary Planning Document.   

82.1.    Councillor Jones explained that the Supplementary Planning Document set out the potential locations for works to improve the Public Realm in the Town Centre and Waterfront. The Council had committed £3 million to fund such works over 3 years from 2019/20.

82.2.    Councillor Rudkin suggested that a glossary be made available in the public consultation to enable residents to engage with the document.

It was RESOLVED:

i.             thatOption 1 (as detailed in paragraph 4.1 of the report) be approved and that the draft Ipswich Town Centre and Waterfront Public Realm Supplementary Planning Document be taken to public consultation for a period of six weeks.

Reason: To support the implementation of adopted Local Plan policies and the enhancement of the public realm of the project area.

ii.            that, up to the start of the consultation period, the Planning and Development Operations Manager be authorised to make minor changes to the wording or layout of the draft supplementary planning document in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Development, provided that the changes do not materially change the meaning of the consultation documents.

Reason: Prior to the start of the consultation period, officers may identify areas where the document could be improved in wording and layout terms without impacting on meaning. This recommendation will provide the Planning and Development Operations Manager with the ability to undertake any such changes.

iii.          that, in parallel to the SPD consultation, the Head of Development be authorised to undertake consultation on the suggested allocation of the capital programme for public realm works (i.e. in accordance with the suggestions in section 9 of the report).

Reason: To ensure the Council gets feedback on potential locations of capital spend prior to making decisions to invest funding in designing and delivering schemes.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

This report proposes the consideration of a new Housing Revenue Account Asset Management Strategy 2018-2023 and Ipswich Standard that forms part of it.  The report recommends that Executive considers the Strategy before consulting full Council.

83.1.    Councillor MacDonald introduced the report, explaining that the document set out how the Council would manage its housing stock and included a revision to the Ipswich Standard.

83.2.    In accordance with Standing Orders Part 3 Section 3 Paragraph 3.5, the following questions were asked:

Question 7 – Councillor Phillips
‘Could Executive explain the process for the ‘extensive consultation’ with Council tenants and what was the total percentage of residents that responded?’

Councillor MacDonald explained that consultation was undertaken using a number of methods, outlined below:

-       A questionnaire had been placed in the Tenants Times which asked tenants to identify their priorities for improvement to their home, their common area (if living in a block of flats) and their neighbourhoods

-       A group of tenants had contributed, with officers and the consultant, by going through the Asset Management Strategy process and proposals

-       A further working group that included tenants had helped to review the Ipswich Standard

-       The proposals had been presented to and discussed at each of the Area Housing Panels and also at a Housing Working Group meeting, which included tenant representatives.

83.3.    Question 8 – Councillor Phillips
‘What type of properties is the document referring to in the section entitled ‘The Asset Management Challenge’ when it talks of examining the ‘long term economic value and sustainability of some properties before further significant investment is made’?’

Councillor MacDonald explained that the sentence was a general acknowledgement that there may be properties which required significant investment to keep them up to the Ipswich Standard that may be more economical to consider replacing, converting or disposal. This was especially true as the changes to the Ipswich Standard meant that it was more demanding. Councillor MacDonald explained that where this type of issue arose it would need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

83.4.    Question 9 – Councillor Phillips
‘The report states 15% of properties will be surveyed externally and 10% internally each year. Could Executive confirm how many properties were surveyed in the past 12 months and do these figures mean that some properties will only be surveyed internally once every ten years?’

Councillor MacDonald confirmed that maintenance and contracts staff may only survey a property on a ten year cycle. Councillor MacDonald noted, however, that housing officers visited each property at least once every two years and would flag any areas of concern to the maintenance contracts team which would prompt action if there are concerns identified.

Councillor MacDonald reported that planned maintenance surveys had taken place on over 1100 homes last year, which was approximately 1/8th of the Council’s housing stock. In addition, for a range of other reasons, a further 950 homes were inspected. When added together these figures showed that approximately 2000 homes had been surveyed, which amounted to around 25% of the Council’s stock.

Councillor MacDonald reported that the Council was confident that the targets in the strategy would be also met in 2018/19.

It was RESOLVED:

i.             that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Martin Cook

This report gives details of the forecast outturn position for 2018/19 on:

1.            The General Fund Revenue Budget, General Balances, and the Council’s Reserves;

2.            The Housing Revenue Account; and

3.            The Shared Revenues Partnership;

4.            The Capital Programme, for this and future years, together with the resources to fund it, for the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account.

84.1.    Councillor Cook explained that there had been no significant changes to the budgetary position since the previous report. A slight underspend was again anticipated, and, if achieved, this would lead to the Council’s balances rising to £9.1 million.

84.2.    Councillor Cook noted that the report also contained a Non-Domestic Rates Financial Hardship Application, which was from a relatively large business.

84.3.    Councillor Rudkin noted that the Sports and Leisure income budget was not being achieved and commented that she hoped that the Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Committee could help with ideas to address this issue.

84.4.    In accordance with Standing Orders Part 3 Section 3 Paragraph 3.5, the following questions were asked:

Question 10 – Councillor Fisher
‘It is noted that Sports income is down by a massive £418k. Could Executive explain what measures to mitigate this have been taken and what effect these measures are likely to have?’

Councillor Cook explained that the variance in the Sports and Leisure income budget was mainly down to an increase in that budget and customers choosing to take up lower cost monthly membership schemes offering limited activities, rather than the more expensive ‘all inclusive’ membership.

Councillor Cook added that the variance also included the cost of the free iCard scheme for young people which the Council had run over the summer holidays and which hadn’t been budgeted for. Councillor Cook commented that this had been a very worthwhile scheme.

Councillor Cook explained that the Council continued to actively promote Sports and Leisure membership schemes and the wide variety of activities that can be undertaken. The Council’s service continued to compete with other local operators who are regularly offering substantial discounts to new customers, although it was well known that the Gym market in Ipswich was amongst the most saturated in the country.

Councillor Cook reported that the Council had reviewed its charges and after considering comparisons available at other similar facilities, would be implementing some changes in charges for activities for non-members.  The Council was also reviewing its membership schemes and charges and would be implementing some changes to these next year. It was anticipated that these changes would deliver £115k of additional income in a full year.

Councillor Cook commented that in any budget as large as the Council’s there would be some overspends and some underspends but that across all areas a slight underspend was predicted.

84.5.    Question 11 – Councillor Fisher
‘Will the Council continue to subsidise the Market Traders as they have been doing since they were moved from the Cornhill? If so, how long will this continue?’

Councillor Cook confirmed that Market Traders were now paying full rents and had been doing so since the first week of November, when the redeveloped Cornhill was opened.

It was RESOLVED:

i.             that the service budget performance and the future year effects be noted and that the resulting budget changes be made for the General Fund.

Reason: to facilitate effective budgetary control and forecasting.

ii.            that the Supplementary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Martin Cook

This report details the procurement process for a Unified Communications (UC) solution. This solution will replace the Council’s current back office telephony system, the contact centre telephony system and provide ‘office’ functionality in a seamless environment.

The report seeks authority for the Chief Operating Officer to enter into a contract with the preferred supplier for the provision and support of these services over a five-year period.

85.1.    Councillor Cook introduced the report, explaining that the project would integrate the Council’s telephony and computer systems. Councillor Cook explained that Microsoft had changed its charging strategy to encourage the use of Office 365, and that a result of this, the Council would soon be paying more for its existing provision than for Office 365 which provided significant additional functionality.

85.2.    Councillor Cook noted that the current telephony arrangements did not support agile working effectively and explained that by making it easier for staff to work in an agile way it was anticipated that an additional floor at Grafton House could be leased out. 

85.3.    Councillor Cook explained that the new system would require £0.5 million in one off capital expenditure as well as a revenue commitment of £334,000. Savings from the discontinuation of the existing telephony system would be £115,000.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Chief Operating Officer, in consultation with the ICT Operations Manager and the Portfolio Holder for Resources, be authorised to enter into a contract with the chosen preferred supplier, as identified in exempt Appendix 2 to the report, for the purchase of a Unified Communications and cloud-hosted Office solution to replace existing telephony, contact centre and desktop Office systems.

Reason: To enable the Council to implement a Unified Communications (UC) solution that will replace the Council’s current back office telephony system, the contact centre telephony system and provide ‘office’ functionality in a seamless environment.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Bryony Rudkin

Ipswich Borough Council’s contract for print room equipment is due for review. This report sets out the background and process utilised for tendering Ipswich Borough Council’s requirements for provision of the print room equipment.

The report details the outcome of this tender recommending contractingwith the preferred supplier for a period of three years. The contract will realise anticipated savings of around £19,950 per year (average savings over a three year period).

86.1.    Councillor Rudkin introduced the report explaining that the equipment in the Print Room needed to be replaced.

86.2.    Councillor Ellesmere noted that the proposal would deliver a saving of £19,000 which showed that the procurement process followed had been effective.

It was RESOLVED:

thatthe Corporate Support Operations Manager, in consultation with the Legal and Democratic Services Operations Manager, be authorised to enter into a contract with the preferred supplier, as identified in exempt Appendix 1, for the supply and maintenance of two Colour Production Printers, one Mono Production Printer and one Large Format Plotter, under CCS Framework RM3781 agreement for a period of three years, with the option to extend for a period up to two years.

Reason:  To meet the needs of the Council in relation to the print copying machinery and to achieve best value in relation to cost and service performance.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

This report details the work that has been carried out to procure new housing maintenance, improvements and adaptations contracts and sets out the results of the tenders received.

Executive are asked to award contracts to the most economically advantageous bids.

87.1.    Councillor MacDonald explained that this tender had been separated into 4 different lots which allowed smaller companies to bid for work more easily.

It was RESOLVED:

i.             that the Head of Housing and Community Services, in consultation with the Legal and Democratic Services Operations Manager, be authorised to enter into contracts with the suppliers identified in exempt Appendix 1 to the report, for delivery of the maintenance, improvement and adaptations contracts in accordance with this report for a 3-year term from 17^th December 2018 with an option to extend the term by up to 2 years.

Reason: The Council has a statutory obligation to maintain its housing stock. The winning tenders provide the most economically advantageous to the Council in accordance with the criteria set out in the tender documents.

ii.            that the Head of Housing and Community Services, in consultation with the Housing Portfolio Holder and the Monitoring Officer, be authorised to appoint an alternative contractor should any of the preferred contractors referred to in i. above fail to enter into contracts with the Council within a reasonable period of time; any such appointment shall be based on the most economically advantageous offer to the Council at the time.

Reason: To avoid disruption to the service provided to tenants and to ensure the Councils statutory obligation to repair are not disrupted due to contractual arrangements.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Philip Smart

This report details the recommendation to utilise the Crown Commercial Service Framework (Traffic Management Technology II), direct award option for the procurement of the design, supply and installation of the Variable Message Signs (VMS) technology across the Borough.

Executive are asked to appoint the supplier identified in exempt Appendix 1, VMS1. Executive is also requested to add a further £116,646 to the 2018/19 General Fund Capital Programme and authorise the Head of Finance and Revenues to update the Medium Term Financial Plan to reflect the revenue implications.

88.1.    Councillor Smart commented that the introduction of a Variable Message Signage system in Ipswich was long overdue, explaining that the aim of the scheme was to reduce congestion by directing drivers to car parks where spaces were available.

88.2.    Councillor Smart explained that there would be a criteria for which car parks were to be included on the signs, with car parks having to be of a certain size and not be temporary car parks. Invitations to be involved in the scheme had been issued to eligible private operators, and a number had already responded to say that they wished to be involved.

88.3.    Councillor Smart noted that the costs would reduce should higher numbers of private operators join the scheme. There would be a small revenue budget implication, but it was hoped that additional car park income would offset this. 

88.4.    In accordance with Standing Orders Part 3 Section 3 Paragraph 3.5, the following question was asked:

Question 12 – Councillor Phillips
‘It is stated that the three main reasons for introducing the VMS are to reduce air pollution, reduce traffic congestion and increase the likelihood that drivers spend time in our Town Centre, all factors that should be of utmost importance to IBC, and some factors that are statutory duties of the Council.  The proposed system will be far more beneficial to the Town if as many car parks are included as possible. What cost is being asked of the private car parks and would Executive consider waiving the costs if not enough private owners are willing to pay?’

Councillor Smart explained that the total amount of financial contribution that operators of private car parks would be required to contribute had not been finalised, as officers were currently gauging the level of interest. Councillor Smart commented that it was not anticipated that Executive would waive costs for private operators, as any such decision would have a detrimental financial impact on the Council and constitute free advertising for the Council’s competitors. Councillor Smart accepted that the system would be of greater benefit to the highway network if significant privately operated car parks were included, but noted that highways was actually a Suffolk County Council responsibility.

Councillor Ellesmere explained that it was anticipated that it was anticipated that those car parks appearing on the signs would benefit from increased trade and that it was therefore only right that operators paid a proportion of the cost.

Councillor Smart noted that the system was configurable and that further operators could be added after the signs were installed.

88.5.    Councillor Cook commented that he was pleased to see that the system would allow data to be accessed via the internet.

It was RESOLVED:

i.             that the appointment of the contractor listed as VMS1 in exempt Appendix 1 to the report be approved and that the Head of Development, in consultation with the Legal and Democratic Services Operations Manager, be authorised to enter into a contract with the recommended contractor as set  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Carole Jones

This report details the work that has been carried out to procure two new contracts for Corporate Reactive Maintenance and Corporate Planned Maintenance. These replace the old Measured Term Contract for Corporate and Operational Properties. The report sets out the results of the tenders received.

Executive are asked to approve acceptance of the most economically advantageous tenders to form two Frameworks of Approved Contractors, with contract periods which are for two years, plus an extension up to a further 2 years, subject to individual Contractors performance and meeting key performance indicators set within the Framework contract documents.

89.1.    Councillor Jones reported that it had been agreed that the existing maintenance contract would be split into two contracts, with one covering planned maintenance and another reactive maintenance. This was anticipated to deliver better value for money and a higher quality service.

It was RESOLVED:

that the acceptance of the tenders submitted by the contractors in exempt Appendix 1 and in exempt Appendix 2 be approved, and that the Head of Development, in consultation with the Legal and Democratic Services Operations Manager, be authorised to enter into a contract with the recommended contractors, as set out in the report for a contract term of two years, with an option to extend for up to 24 months.

Reason:  The tenders submitted by the recommended contractors were the most economically advantageous to the Council in accordance with the criteria set out in the tender documents.

To consider excluding the public (including the Press) from the meeting during consideration of the following items under Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as it is likely that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

It was RESOLVED:

that the public (including the Press) be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining items under Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as it was likely that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Martin Cook

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Martin Cook

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Bryony Rudkin

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Philip Smart

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Carole Jones

Portfolio Holder – Councillor David Ellesmere

Portfolio Holder – Councillor David Ellesmere