• Findings of Audit and consultation process will inform the production of the CDRPs next three-year Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy and action plans 1
• To agree funding to action a comprehensive assessment of energy saving opportunities (energy audit) of Council buildings, by an independent energy consultant. 14
• To note the outcomes (and potential cost savings) of the assessment of energy saving opportunities at the Swan Centre, Berwick. 14
• To note the potential for cost savings and improved business performance management available to the Council through the implementation of effective environmental management systems e.g. energy audits and energy management. 14
• Responsibility for Car Parking Review Working Group (CPRWG) transferred from Policy (Corporate Services and Regeneration) Committee to Policy (Environment) Committee 16
• Car Parking Review Working Group subsequently resolved to discontinue having concluded that there was no further business to be transacted and that the functions of the Working Group should be passed to Policy (Environment) Committee 16
• Decision to dissolve CPRWG and transfer its functions to Policy (Environment) Committee agreed at a Meeting of that Committee on 1st September 2004. 16
• Subsequently proposed at Council on 23rd September 2004 to refer the matter back to Policy (Environment) Committee for further discussion, on the basis that there remained a series of outstanding issues to be dealt with. 16
11. UPDATING HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY AND RELATED RESEARCH 18
NOTES
BERWICK-UPON-TWEED BOROUGH COUNCIL
Council Offices, Wallace Green, Berwick-upon-Tweed, TD15 1ED
Members: S J Anderson, H Bettison, D G R Buckle, H E Elliott, G E Miller, J M F Nesbit, F I Simpson, J N Simpson, J W Stephenson,
J Waterhouse, W G R Weeks and M Young.
If you have any enquiries about items on this Agenda, please contact Judith Turnbull, Tel: (01289) 301720
AGENDA
PART 1
The Meeting will be open to the Press and Public during consideration of the items set out in Part 1 of this Agenda.
1. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in any of the items included on the Agenda for this Meeting.
Note: Any Member wishing to seek clarification as to whether it may be appropriate to declare an interest in respect of any item on this Agenda should seek the advice from the Chief Executive or Borough Solicitor at least one working day before the Meeting.
2. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF POLICY (ENVIRONMENT) HELD ON 1st SEPTEMBER 2004
To receive and endorse the Minutes of the Meeting of Policy (Environment) held on 1ST September 2004.
• Berwick Borough Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) has published its triannual Crime, Disorder and Drugs Audit Report
• Audit will be consulted upon
• Findings of Audit and consultation process will inform the production of the CDRPs next three-year Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategy and action plans
• Members invited to respond to the Audit
Purpose:
To provide Members with a copy of the CDRPs Audit Report, and to seek their views on the contents of that report.
Report:
CDRPs are required by law (Sections 5 and 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002) to carry out audits and produce crime and disorder reduction strategies every 3 years. For the first time, new legislation means that joint crime and drugs audits have to be produced.
*** The Audit Report, a copy of which is enclosed with the Agenda, has been produced by a working group comprising representatives of ‘responsible authorities’ under the 1998 Act (Borough and County Councils, Police Force, Policy Authority, Fire and Rescue Service and Primary Care Trust) led by the Community Safety Officers for Berwick and Alnwick CDRPs, Gerald Connor and Brian Routledge. This has been an excellent example of partnership working. Substantial assistance has also been provided by a research team from the University of Northumbria.
The key objectives of the audit are to:-
• Identify the extent of crime, disorder and drugs-related problems in the Borough
• Develop strategies to effectively deal with these problems
This is the third Audit Report received by Members. Although the format and legislative framework has changed in response to direction from the Government, the process remains the same.
The CDRP is responsible for :
• Being aware of the nature of crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour and the misuse of drugs in the Borough
• Identifying ways to develop and implement effective action to reduce these problems and deploy resources accordingly
• Developing and publishing a strategy that responds to the needs of the local community and sets out the findings of the audit with actions to address priority areas and targets
• Carrying out annual planning activity informed by a clear picture of where funds need to be allocated
Members are asked to read the Crime Audit Report so that they can make an informed decision as to whether the portrayal of their Ward is accurate. If the Audit Report doesn’t provide a true and realistic impression of crime, disorder and drugs activity in the Borough, then we need to know where the discrepancies are so that these can be corrected.
Members’ comments and observations must be submitted to Gerald Connor, Community Safety Officer, no later than Friday 5th November 2004.
A summary version of the Audit Report, including a detailed questionnaire, will be included in the Council newspaper to be distributed to every household in the Borough on 11th October. This also forms part of the consultation process.
The response to the consultation will be analysed by the CDRP during November and December, with the draft Strategy and Action plans due for publication in late February 2005. These will also be consulted upon and Members’ views will again be sought.
Implications:
Equal Opportunities:
All sections of the community will be given an opportunity to give their views on the findings set out in the Audit Report.
Best Value and Best Practice:
The Strategy and Action Plans which will evolve from the Audit process will be linked to a series of statutory Best Value Performance Indicators, for which data is currently collected by Northumbria Police.
The Council will also have an opportunity to set crime-related local Performance Indicators (LPIs)l.
Financial/Legal/Personnel:
The CDRP is responsible for the allocation of Home Office funds to projects targeted at priorities for crime reduction based on local intelligence.
The posts of Community Safety Officer and Community Safety Assistant are part and fully funded by grant provided by the Home Office via Government Office North East.
Recommendations:
(i) To note the report; and
(ii) To invite Members to endorse the Crime Audit Report and provide comments on the Report back to the Community Safety Officer by the deadline of 5th November 2004.
4. EXTENSION TO PRESENT TWIN BIN KERBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAMME
Authors: Ross Buchanan, Principal Environmental Health Officer Tel No: (01289) 301735, email rb@berwick-upon-tweedlgov.uk; and Kathleen McNish, Technical Officer Tel No. (01289) 301825 email: km@berwick-upon-tweed.gov.uk ,
Summary:
To advise Members of a proposed extension to the Council’s collection of waste for recycling.
Report:
Members will be aware that the Council met its recycling target of 10% for 2003/04 and in fact slightly exceeded it. This was due to the provision of blue bins to about 6,200 households in the Berwick town area. The recovery rate of materials collected in the bins is around 80% which compares favourably with the other districts in Northumberland. The government has required that this authority achieves a recycling rate of 18% by 2005/06 but due to the failure of our bid for further funding it is unlikely we will achieve that figure within that timescale.
However, Officers have recently secured 15 days of consultancy advice from the government’s ROTATE scheme. This was set up by Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to provide assistance to local authorities with the development of their recycling services. Preliminary discussions have taken place with a consultant and it is hoped that this advice will enable practical and costed options for how to progress. A report to Members will be made as soon as possible to inform the budget setting process.
It is proposed to rollout the remainder of the stock of blue bins left from the previous funding. This operation will be funded from a small allocation of money from WRAP obtained for recycling purposes. The two adjacent areas of Horncliffe and Norham have been identified as suitable as they can be integrated into existing collection rounds with the minimum of disruption and they have a suitable number of households. Approximately 500 properties are involved. It is hoped that a level of pre-publicity and information distribution similar to that used previously can be carried out using existing in-house resources.
Implications:
Local Agenda 21
Without additional funding there will only be a limited improvement of the service to a small number of properties using our remaining stock
Best Value and Best Practice:
The Council has been set a Best Value Performance indicator for kerbside collection of recyclable materials
Financial/Legal/Personnel:
Costs are within existing budgets.
Recommendation:
To agree to the extension of the recycling service to properties in Norham and Horncliffe.
5. RADON IN THE WOOLER AREA
Author: Ross Buchanan, Principal Environmental Health Officer (tel: 01289 301735)
Summary:
• To revisit the matter of Radon gas in the Wooler area and advise Members of possible courses of action.
Report:
Members will recall at the Special Policy (Environment) Committee last October that consideration of the matter of radon in the Borough be deferred and a further report be brought to this Committee.
Radon is a naturally occurring gas produced as a result of the radioactive decay elements in the rocks of the planet. Where the geology of an area contains sufficient amounts of these rocks radon may be produced in significant amounts. The gas is odourless, tasteless and colourless. Because the gas itself is radioactive it becomes a potential health risk when breathed in. Radioactive decay products of the gas are able to irradiate and damage the cells of the lungs directly. Buildings built over geology where radon gas is emitted may act to concentrate the gas within them thereby exposing people living or working in those buildings to an increased risk of developing lung cancer.
Members will recall that the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) identified Wooler and the surrounding area as a “Radon affected Area” during it’s survey of the country. A radon affected area is one in which more than 1% of properties are estimated to have indoor air concentrations of radon above the government’s action level limit of 200 Becquerels per cubic metre. The information gathered by the NRPB was confidential to the property owners and so the council does not have access to it beyond the level of postcode areas. However, the number of properties which are thought to be affected may be between 100 and 300. The Borough has significantly more radon affected properties than any of the other local authorities in Northumberland.
In 2000 DEFRA announced a programme of fully funded radon testing, publicity support, consultancy services and expert advice on health and remediation measures involving the NRPB and the Building Research Establishment. This was offered to local authorities in affected areas to enable them to raise awareness amongst those who lived or worked in such areas or were involved in dealing with property, such as, solicitors, surveyors and local builders. The programme has been extended once but now concludes on 31 March 2005.
The Radon Council is an independently funded consortium representing those specialist contractors involved in carrying out remediation measures. The Radon Council has considerable experience of this type of work. It can offer an accredited 1-day course and examination for builders and other building professionals (surveyors, building control officers, estate agents). Again this initiative is fully funded.
The Council is only one of a number of organisations responsible for promoting the health of local populations. The Director of Public Health of Northumberland Care Trust has offered assistance with any initiatives the Council may decide to undertake. However, the Care Trust has no conclusive information suggesting an increased risk of lung cancer from the Wooler area because it does not have sufficient data to work with. Figures available from the Care Trust suggest that the Borough, as a whole, has a lower rate of lung cancer than the other Northumberland authorities.
Financial/Legal/Personnel:
There is no specific legislation expressly requiring the Council to do anything about radon. However, the Council does have a general duty to protect and promote the health and well being of the Borough residents. By being aware of the results of the NRPB’s radon survey the Council must consider whether it has sufficiently discharged this duty in terms of bringing these findings to the attention of those who might be affected.
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 employers have a duty to ensure that their workplaces do not expose employees to damaging levels of radiation. This is a positive duty on employers, i.e. they have to demonstrate that they have assessed the risk and do something about it if a risk exists. No information is available about the number of workplaces which might be affected and it is not known how many employers have carried out radon surveys. The council would have a role in those premises where it enforces health and safety legislation.
Changes to the Building Regulations in 1991 required that any new buildings constructed in radon affected areas are suitably protected from radon infiltration.
Land and property searches submitted to the council now routinely ask if a property is in a radon affected area. Revisions to the questions on searches forms are likely to ask for more specific information about radon testing and remediation measures. The government has not yet decided whether to include radon testingas part of the information required in it’s proposals for home information packs
Changes to the housing legislation would mean that the new housing health and safety rating system (which will replace the current fitness standard) would identify radon as a possible health hazard to be addressed. The costs of works of remediation to reduce the concentration of radon in a property would fall upon the owner. Depending on what is required this could range from between £350 to £1,000 per property. No provision has been made for the Council to contribute towards those costs in terms of grants to private householders or to discharge it’s own responsibilities as a landlord.
There would be a requirement for Council to facilitate and co-ordinate the radon programme campaign. This would involve collaborating with the design and delivery of publicity materials for householders, employers, builders and other interested parties and arranging venues for events and exhibitions. An unknown but possibly significant amount of time would be required to deal with inquiries from the public and other persons after the “road show” had left. The resource requirements involved with this have previously led to this task being given a lower priority than other statutory duties. Within the Environmental Health and Enforcement Unit there has been no significant change in the staff available to carry out this task. However, Northumberland Primary Care Trust and the Health Protection Agency have made an undefined offer of assistance. This is also the last opportunity to take part in the DEFRA rollout programme.
Recommendation:
To consider the following options;
(i) To receive this report but carry out no further action
(ii) To carry out a limited amount of radon awareness promotion by, for example, a mail shot to properties in the Wooler area, providing information on the Council web-site, articles in local press publicising contact points for the NRPB and DEFRA.
(iii) To secure the services of the Radon Council for an initiative in the area.
(iv) To pursue discussions about collaboration with the Care Trust, and entering into partnership with DEFRA and it’s roll out programme if this can be achieved within existing resources.
6. URBAN NESTING SEAGULLS
Summary:
• To update Members on the present situation and the various controls measures available.
Report:
This report is intended to briefly set out the present situation so that Members can debate whether they consider a problem requiring action exists and what actions may be available if they do so decide. Gulls come into the town during the months of March till August to build nests, lay eggs and raise their young. The buildings of the town provide suitable nesting sites largely free from predators and with command of the area similar to their natural cliff side habitats. In occupying these sites and foraging for food the birds produce high noise levels, fouling of buildings and vehicles and occasionally attack humans to protect their fledglings. Over the years whilst the gull population grew, a strong tide of annoyance and calls for action built up amongst residents of the affected areas. The subject was last considered in detail by the Policy (Environment) Committee in September 2001. All the known methods for addressing the widely perceived problems of noise, fouling, attacks on people and possible disease spread were presented in some detail with cost estimates. The pros and cons of each method were briefly presented. A working group of officers and Members was appointed and reported back to a further Committee on the 29th January 2002. The Committee decided to adopt a policy of offering free chimney spiking plus the issue of an educative leaflet within the areas of Berwick, Tweedmouth, Spittal and East Ord. This policy has been renewed on an annual basis. It has proved to be a popular policy with demand initially outstripping the capacity of the contractor to perform the service so that a waiting list has built up. However it is thought that proofing of chimney stacks in the numbers our scheme allows has a minimal effect on population growth and only serves to cause the birds to move to other locations within the same area.
There is an impression that the population of nesting gulls is increasing however there are no up to date figures available for numbers and distribution of nesting pairs. Dr. John Coulson (formerly of Durham University) carried out the last count in 1998 when 322 breeding pairs were found and their distribution described. The Committee may like to decide whether this exercise should be repeated at a cost of roughly £1,500 plus travel for the initial colony count in May with a full report and distribution map, plus advice on the efficacy of control measures. For a further £500 Dr Coulson could revisit later in the season to see how successful the gulls breeding had been. This would be particularly relevant if any clearance or egg treatment type control methods have been used.
If the Committee decide that there is a continuing problem a number of control methods are available listed below.
Culling
A number of companies offered a culling service using trained marksmen and complying with requirements of the police and acting on the instruction of the Council. The costs of such an operation would be determined by the precise method and location of operation but it was suggested that the cost of culling 100 birds would be approximately £3,500.00.
Falconry
A number of companies offered a service using birds of prey to deter seagulls from nesting within an area that the birds of prey were flown. Discussions suggested that to be effective the birds of prey must be flown frequently during the nesting season and required the use of a number of trained birds. The use of larger birds of prey which did not actually kill the seagulls but flew hunting and stooping patterns and intimidated the gulls into not nesting appeared to be most appropriate for use in Berwick-upon-Tweed. A small minority of gulls might not be deterred and would require alternative methods of control if they were to be removed. It was suggested that the treatment should be repeated over a 5-year period between March and July. It was estimated that the annual cost of treatment in Berwick would be up to £20,000.00 in year one with the cost reducing in subsequent years as birds were deterred from returning.
Pricking and Oiling of Eggs
A number of companies offered this service where nests were visited and eggs were treated to stop them hatching, but were left in the nest with the intention that the gulls continued to brood.
This methodology does not reduce the nesting population although would reduce problems associated with young birds and fledglings including attacks on humans. There might be a long-term impact on the population, although there would be inward migration from colonies elsewhere. It was estimated that the annual cost of such a treatment would be approximately £4,000.00 for a limited area of the town centre.
Nursery Clearances
It is said that some success had been achieved in other authorities by taking a confined area of a town centre and continuously clearing nests and eggs throughout that area as fast as the birds rebuilt. After a period the birds no longer used that area but moved elsewhere. If a large enough area is cleared this way, since gulls do not like areas with no other gulls nesting this prevents re-colonisation in significant numbers for a year or two. The cost of this treatment is obviously dependent on the size of the area and number of nests. The charge for the town centre area is estimated to be £250 per person per day plus cost of a cherrypicker.
Proofing
Many companies offered a proofing service using a variety of different methods. The cost of the service depended upon the method employed and the area to be proofed, accounting for any access problems which may be encountered. In order to have a significant impact upon the population within the town most of the buildings in both the public and private sector including commercial buildings required to be proofed.
Members need to consider whether to continue with the free installation of deterrent spikes on both public and private sector property or to introduce a charge for the service. An annual budget of £5,000 is currently provided for the service and it is estimated that a possible extra £5,000 is required to deal with the remaining backlog. Demand for this service varies according to publicity of the scheme.
Discussion of Effectiveness of the Above Methods
Most of the identified methods required the co-operation and permission of property owners to ensure their effectiveness. It should not be thought that the above methods all produced an equal degree of control. Of the methods outlined only culling, falconry and nursery clearance realistically had the potential to produce a significant drop in the overall population of gulls in the urban area of Berwick.
Culling would reduce the population by the number of gulls culled, but Members were aware that removal of population pressures might produce a quick bounce-back to existing or higher levels. If this option was adopted a systematic approach working from the outside of a colony would be designed to maintain population pressures on the remaining population. The moral/ethical question of killing such large numbers of birds, plus the legal and practical problems associated with the use of firearms in the urban environment and the possibility of action by animal rights activists and negative publicity must be taken into account when considering this option. This was considered to be the cheapest of the effective methods in the short term.
Falconry might offer a high-level of control without any of the disadvantages associated with culling, but again there are significant reservations. This method had been used with a degree of success in non-urban environments such as refuse tips, airfields, and large industrial complexes. However it is thought that Berwick-upon-Tweed would be the first urban area where a falconry operation of this type and scale had been attempted. It is thus untried in this kind of situation, with no absolute guarantee on the degree of success. Indeed some falconry experts have suggested that it is unlikely to succeed in the urban environment. Should this option be considered it is suggested that the operation be carried out subject to (initially) weekly and then fortnightly review periods during the whole operational period from March-July. The effectiveness of the operation would be continuously assessed and the contract could be terminated without excessive financial penalty, if it was less effective than operators suggested.
Nursery clearance is known to work if enough manpower is used with cherrypickers, however this would be an expensive operation which is yet to be costed for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
With respect to stack proofing it is unclear what effect this has had on population size and distribution though it is clear that individual property occupiers have benefited from this policy and it does go at least some way to addressing the public’s concerns.
Seagulls in the town are viewed either as an attraction demonstrating the seaside atmosphere of Berwick, or as a nuisance causing damage and annoyance to buildings, residents and visitors. Depending upon the viewpoint of the individual the removal of gulls would either detract from or enhance the environment. In purely financial terms the damage to the environment in terms of the cost of cleaning and repairs to buildings and vehicles (whilst unquantified) seems to be greater than any benefit the gulls impart and this cost would inevitably increase with any population growth.
Implications
Financial/Legal/Personnel:
These are contained within the various options
Recommendation:
To consider the report and decide: -
a) Whether there is sufficient evidence of a problem to warrant any continuing action;
b) Whether to commission a further study of the numbers and distribution of breeding gulls;
c) Whether to continue to support the present free proofing of chimney stacks;
d) Whether to implement any other control methods either additional to or instead of the stack-proofing;
e) on appropriate budgetary provision.
7. HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT - BUSINESS PLAN 2004/05
Report Author: Helen Bury, Head of Property and Housing, Tel: (01289) 301830
Summary:
• The HRA Business Plan 2004/05 updates earlier plans carried out
• Financial forecasts are set out based on outputs from the financial model
• An updated Action Plan for 2004/05 and beyond is provided setting out all the key activities to be delivered via the Property and Housing team
• An update on housing stock options appraisal is provided
• A draft of the business plan has been sent to Government Office for the North East (GONE) for assessment against Fit for Purpose criteria.
Report:
This plan updates earlier business plans carried out since their introduction in October 2000, in line with GONE’s requirements. GONE has established a criteria for assessing local authority HRA business plans to ensure these are “Fit For Purpose” (FFP). Last years plan was judged by GONE as meeting these criteria. A draft of the business plan was sent to GONE during early August, in advance of approval by Council in order to meet their deadlines. This has been the earliest opportunity for Policy (Environment) Committee to approve the business plan due to the need for the housing stock options working group to consider this in detail in view of the implications the financial forecasts and stock condition data have for the options appraisal of the housing stock. The working group met on 4th October and a verbal update will be available at the Meeting on the outcome of its deliberations.
*** A copy of the business plan and cashflows supporting financial forecasts are enclosed with the Agenda.
The development of this year’s business plan has involved a comprehensive review of a number of areas and as such is able to provide updated information on the following:
• A review of targets and performance of HRA and related activities, along with a revised action plan for 2004/05 and beyond;
• A review of housing objectives in line with corporate strategy and vision statement for 2003 to 2013;
• A review of financial forecasts;
• An update on the housing stock options appraisal and work carried out by the stock options working group; and
• An update on tenant customer involvement in delivery of the housing service generally and more specifically with regard to the above appraisal work.
Action Plan
Altogether 11 activities have been prioritised within the action plan at Appendix One. These priorities (with details of key milestones, responsibilities and monitoring of progress arrangements) support national, regional and corporate objectives. Key activities include updating housing needs assessment and housing strategy, developing the outcomes of the stock condition survey, implementing the recommendations of the DDA audit, reviewing the Homelessness Strategy and the provision of care alarms and related services within the sheltered housing and dispersed schemes.
Financial Forecasts
The financial forecasts are based on outputs from a financial model developed by the Office of Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Whilst assumptions are made with regard to certain activities for input in the model, these are nevertheless based on recent trends, for example the level of RTB sales, rent increases, repair and maintenance costs etc.
The financial forecasts are summarised at section 3.6 of the business plan (supported within the model by cash flow statements) but are summarised below.
The forecasts have been prepared over a thirty-year period, with 2003/04 as the base year. For decent homes purposes the housing stock has been split into four asset groups (Belford, Berwick, Norham and Glendale) although the cash flow statement relates to the housing stock as a whole.
Overall the investment requirements of these asset groups, to meet the decent homes standard, are broadly similar over the period of the business plan, with current failures based in the main in Norham and Belford due to lack of adequate thermal insulation in certain properties.
The overall objective is to ensure balances within the HRA remain at £500,000.
The following assumptions have been made for the forecasts:
• Rents will increase by an average of 3%, ½% above inflation based on recent guideline rent increases. The average rent for 2004/05 is £44.36;
• Interest on balances being below 5% (½% below the base rate);
• Provision for voids at 0.45%;
• Provision for bad debts being 0.4%;
• RTB sales reducing after 6 years, during which time the number of sales per annum are projected to remain at 100 plus until the total number of homes reach approximately 1,500. At this point the majority of tenants will be in receipt of housing benefit;
• Volume of repairs declining each year but these costs are estimated at just over the level of inflation each year;
• Gradual decline with catch up repairs; and
• Rent restructuring will be manageable from a customer point of view but with other strains on the HRA as forecast (see below), there will be some squeeze on this account.
The Edinburgh and Borders property boom is reflected in the high level of sales compared with previous years and the reduction in the number of council homes becoming available for letting. A number of further observations should be made in respect of RTB sales:
1. The reduction in sales over the medium to longer-term period raises significant issues for the HRA and business planning. Once sales reduce the HRA will move into deficit. In the short term, over the next 7 to 10 years, capital receipts generated by the current level of sales will be sufficient to meet investment requirements, including decent homes;
2. The current level of sales is generating receipts of between £500,000 to £600,000 per annum. This represents a surplus based on the amount used in the HIP each year. This surplus is not excessive (approximately £120,000 per annum based on current sales) although this could be utilised for contingency purposes to meet decent homes. You will recall that as part of the CPA report and the Decent Homes diagnostic, the inspection team of the Audit Commission raised concerns about the lack of contingency to meet decent homes occurring earlier than expected;
3. As sales reduce, as forecast, our ability to meet the decent homes standard will become unmanageable. At this stage, significant savings in management costs will be required to prevent to HRA from going into deficit. The level of savings required could be by as much as 12%, with year on year efficiency savings;
4. Management costs include support services costs charged to the HRA, where the aim is to reduce these costs by at least £100,000 each year;
5. Added to this, a reduction in repairs and maintenance costs will be required by approximately £300,000 to £400,000 by year 10 of the business plan; and
6. Whilst we project a smooth delivery of the HIP (and decent homes) in the short to medium term, there will be an increasing need to focus on essential works only (for example heating systems and structural works), with limited scope for carrying out environmental and related improvements.
Overall, the following key messages are forecast:
A real risk of the HRA moving into deficit as sales reduce in the longer term unless costs overall (in real terms) are reduced significantly;
Rents are likely to increase by 3% each year, ½% above inflation based on recent guideline increases; and
There will be an increasing need to focus on essential works to the housing stock. This scenario also undermines our ability to meet housing and corporate related objectives.
The business plan should remain an important working document for forecasting future financial and stock condition information. The plan also contributes towards the development of service plans within the Environment Directorate and performance management generally.
The outcome of GONE’s assessment of the business plan should be available at the end of the calendar year.
Implications:
Best Value and Best Practice:
Overall the business plan will not only assist in directing priorities within the Environment Directorate Service Plan and delivery of property and housing services generally, but will also guide the deliberations and work of the housing stock options working group.
Recommendations
To approve the HRA Business Plan 2004/05
8. FOOD SAFETY ENFORCEMENT
Report Author: Rob Marriner, Director of Environment, Tel: (01289) 301820
Summary:
• The Food Standards Agency have undertaken an audit of food enforcement activity
• Concerns were expressed regarding levels of compliance with requirements
• An updated Action Plan was agreed following a meeting in London between the FSA and representatives from the Council
• It was agreed that regular reports would be made to this committee.
Purpose:
To advise Members of progress in achieving the agreed Improvement Plan for the Food Safety Enforcement Service.
Report:
As Members are aware the Food Standards Agency (FSA) undertook a second audit of the Food Enforcement Activity function on 28th August 2003. Following the Audit two reports were presented to Committee (see meetings dated 03/09/03 and 16/10/03) detailing resources needed to meet the requirements of the agreed Improvement Plan. It was a requirement of the plan that further progress reports would be made to this Committee.
*** The enclosure with the Agenda details the position at the end of September 2004. Due to annual leave, 8 inspections are outstanding and will be completed in the first half of October.
The Environmental Health Software system is to be installed by FLARE. Installation and training will commence at the beginning of December.
Implications:
Crime and Disorder:
An increase in inspections will result in a higher level of compliance with the law.
Financial, Legal and Personnel
As previously reported.
Recommendations:
To note the content of the report.
9. REPORT ON COMPLETED ENERGY AUDIT OF THE SWAN CENTRE, BERWICK and PROPOSAL FOR AN ENERGY AUDIT OF BERWICK BOROUGH COUNCIL
Report Author: Craig White, Environmental Health Officer, Tel No. (01289) 301828, email cw@berwick-upon-tweed.gov.uk
Summary:
• To agree funding to action a comprehensive assessment of energy saving opportunities (energy audit) of Council buildings, by an independent energy consultant.
• To note the outcomes (and potential cost savings) of the assessment of energy saving opportunities at the Swan Centre, Berwick.
• To note the potential for cost savings and improved business performance management available to the Council through the implementation of effective environmental management systems e.g. energy audits and energy management.
Report:
The UK Government Energy White Paper (2003) set an aspiration for the UK to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions by 60% and create a low carbon economy by 2050. This aspiration accepted the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on the need to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol (Climate Change) requires the UK to attain a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 12.5% on average in 2008-2012 compared to 1990 levels. In addition, the UK govt has set its own goal for CO2 emission reduction to 20% below the 1990 level by 2010. The existing UK Climate Change Program places the UK on a path to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050 through a combination of short term energy efficiency (50%) and renewables (50%) in the long term. The Energy White Paper further aspires to 20% renewable generation by 2020. The recently launched Northumberland Renewable Energy and Efficiency Strategy (NREES) identifies the contribution that the Public, Private and Voluntary sectors can make to achieving the national and regional targets.
Swan Centre – Energy Audit
This section presents a summary of the Assessment of Energy Saving Opportunities at the Swan Centre, Berwick upon Tweed. The assessment and detailed report were provided by TNEI Services and funded, at no cost to the Council or the Swan Centre, by the Action Energy program. The agreed objectives of the Assessment were to identify and prioritise up to 10 actions that could be taken to reduce energy costs and to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Of the total running costs of the Swan Centre (c£500 000), energy accounts for c£80000, (c16%) – staffing is c£300 000, maintenance c£100 000 and water £16000 (c3%). The Centre has a current annual target of 5% reduction in energy and water usage. There are approximately 200,000 visitors annually. Utility costs (including water) are c£96 000 – this represents c50p per visitor admission.
If all the prioritised measures are implemented, the aggregated savings represent a 15.9% reduction in energy consumption and a 19.4% reduction in cost (£15560), which translates into direct cost savings. This could be equated to a significant increase in visitor numbers. Emissions of CO2 would be reduced by c270 tonnes.
Given the recent and forecast increases in energy costs, attention to energy efficiency will become even more worthwhile and indeed necessary, if overall running costs are to be eliminated.
Energy Audit of Council buildings
At present the Council has no energy and efficiency strategy (or Climate Change strategy). Therefore, the Council cannot assess total CO2 emissions that result from its activities and cannot set or monitor progress towards UK CO2 reduction targets. The Council should initially perform a baseline energy audit of the Councils energy consumption and existing energy supply contracts for Council buildings. The energy audit would indicate opportunities for energy and cost savings (and CO2 emissions reductions), inform an effective energy (and carbon) management program, focus Council future energy and climate change policy and initiate the Councils environmental management system.
Implications:
Local Agenda 21:
Complies with Council obligations to BBC LA21 Strategy and BBLSP Community Action Plan (Actions 5.3 and 5.8). Promotes the efficient use of non-renewable resources, reduces carbon emissions and explores opportunities for renewable energy. Recognises the concept of environmental equity by reducing the Councils environmental impact on the local and global environment.
Best Value and Best Practice:
Effective energy management would demonstrate efficient use of financial resources.
Would demonstrate to the community the Council’s commitment to utilising energy efficiency best practice.
Financial/Legal/Personnel:
The same consultants who performed the audit of the Swan Centre could be contracted to carry out the work on the Council’s building. The cost of this is estimated to be £4,000 based on 10 days work. The proposed energy audit requires an investment of £4,000 to identify cost/energy savings, with potentially short payback for the Council, based on the example described by the Swan Centre audit. The project should be funded this year to maximise costs savings. It may be possible that a virement of funds could be identified from existing budgets although no budget has been identified at the time of writing. The project may therefore require a supplementary estimate.
Minimal staff time to assist consultant with site visits and data collection will be required.
NB: The graduate trainee has already collated a proportion of energy data to inform the audit.
Recommendation:
(i) To agree to fund the appointment of an independent energy consultant to perform a comprehensive audit of Council buildings and make an assessment of energy saving opportunities;
(ii) To make provision for and subsequently implements the audit outcomes; and
(iii) To note the potential for cost savings and improved business performance management available to the Council through the implementation of effective environmental management systems (e.g. energy audits and energy management) as evidenced from the Swan Centre audit.
• Responsibility for Car Parking Review Working Group (CPRWG) transferred from Policy (Corporate Services and Regeneration) Committee to Policy (Environment) Committee
• Car Parking Review Working Group subsequently resolved to discontinue having concluded that there was no further business to be transacted and that the functions of the Working Group should be passed to Policy (Environment) Committee
• Decision to dissolve CPRWG and transfer its functions to Policy (Environment) Committee agreed at a Meeting of that Committee on 1st September 2004.
• Subsequently proposed at Council on 23rd September 2004 to refer the matter back to Policy (Environment) Committee for further discussion, on the basis that there remained a series of outstanding issues to be dealt with.
Purpose:
To consider the recommendation from Council that Policy (Environment) Committee reconsider its decision to dissolve the Car Park Review Working Group and assume the functions of that Group.
Report:
The Car Parking Review Working Group (CPRWG) was established with the following terms of reference:
• To consider the objectives of the Council’s car parking service
• To consider the charging policy for off-street parking
• To consider potential changes to the car parking service including decriminalisation; and
• To make recommendations to Policy (Corporate Services and Regeneration) Committee as appropriate
The Review of Constitution Working Group, chaired by the Mayor, met on 7th April 2004 to consider a report on proposed amendments to the Constitution. One of those amendments included the transfer of responsibility for off-street car parking from Policy (Corporate Services and Regeneration) Committee to Policy (Environment) Committee.
The proposal, set out in a report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24th June 2004 under the heading “Responsibility for Functions: Proposed changes to Policy Committee Functions” – was approved by Council.
The CPRWG then met on 26th July 2004. The notes of the meeting record the following:
Terms of Reference
The potential future work programme for this group was considered not sufficiently significant to justify continuation of a programme of meetings.
It was suggested that the group consider its work to be completed.
Unanimously agreed that a report be presented to Policy (Environment) Committee that work was now complete and should come to a close, and urge completion of negotiations to Castlegate Car Park be accepted by Committee”.
The meeting was attended by Councillors Bowlas, GM Elliott, Murray, FI Simpson and JW Stephenson.
Following consideration of a report to the Policy (Environment) Committee Meeting held on 1st September 2004, that Committee resolved to dissolve the CPRWG and assume the former functions of the Working Group.
Following consideration of the Minutes of Policy (Environment) Committee at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23rd September 2004, it was agreed to refer this matter back to the Meeting of Policy (Environment) Committee on 13th October 2004 for further consideration.
It has been suggested that, contrary to the decision to dissolve the CPRWG as a consequence of there being no business to be transacted, there are in fact a number of key areas which need to be dealt with, including car parking arrangements as detailed below:
Seahouses:
Upgrade subject to the implementation of the new Visitor Centre plans – this involves reviewing the layout to maximise spaces in relation to the new facility.
Review of our lease agreement on the site in relation to completing agreed works as part of the lease.
Bamburgh:
Resurfacing and general upgrade.
Beadnell:
Alterations in relation to new sewage pumping station on overflow site and associated pipe work.
Castlegate – on street:
Implementation of NCC upgrade to local area
Castlegate – off street
Proposal to extend grasscrete beyond existing limit.
Railway Station
Implementation of NCC joint upgrade to this site.
Members are being asked to consider whether the CPRWG should in fact continue, and if so, whether the responsible (parent) Committee should be Policy (Environment) Committee or Policy (Corporate Services and Regeneration) Committee. Alternatively, it may be decided that the assumption of the Working Group’s former functions at Policy (Environment) Committee addresses the matter satisfactorily.
None significant at this stage.
Recommendation:
To consider whether CPRWG should continue.
11. UPDATING HOUSING NEEDS SURVEY AND RELATED RESEARCH
