To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor D. Meredith.

To approve the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 25^th July 2023.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 25^th July 2023 be approved as a correct record.

Members are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary, personal or personal and prejudicial interests they may have and the nature of those interests relating to items on this agenda and/or indicate if S106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.   

There were no declarations of interest.

To determine whether there are any additional items of business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chair decides should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent items of business.

To determine any items on the agenda, if any, where the press and public are to be excluded from the meeting.

Resolved

1.    That with regard to agenda Item No. 12 – Appendix 1, School SEN Hubs Expansion and Primary Mainstream Update, Cabinet Members had considered the information and agreed that it was not necessary to discuss the detail of the exempt information provided.

2.    That agenda Item No. 13 - Asylum and Refugee Resettlement – Asylum Dispersal Grant Spend Plan be considered following the exclusion of the press and public.

To consider a report of the Leader of the Council / Director of Neighbourhoods.

Consideration was given to a report of the Leader of the Council / Director of Neighbourhoods which presented the draft Borough Plan and Council Plan. 

Resolved

That Full Council be recommended to approve the Borough Plan and Council Plan, as set out in the report.

Reason for recommendation

The Borough Plan provided the long term vision and priorities for Rochdale over the next ten years.  The Council Plan replaced the current Corporate Plan and outlined the direction of travel for the Council over the next five years.

Alternatives considered

Not to endorse the Borough Plan or Council Plan – this was not recommended, as it was best practice for a council to have plans in place to support its strategic objectives and operational delivery.

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate

/ Director of Corporate Services.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate / Director of Corporate Services that set out the Council’s forecast 2023/24 Financial Position at the end of June 2023.

In response to concerns raised regarding a potential in-year pressure of £0.165m at Q1 in the Economy directorate, the Director of Economy reported that this was a result of the delayed purchase of Partnership House. It was explained that discussions with a potential purchaser were currently being undertaken, however, a completion date had not yet been confirmed. A further update would be provided at Q2.

Cabinet welcomed the report and commended Finance officers for their excellent work to ensure the Council had a robust financial position.

Resolved

1.    That the forecast 2023/24 financial positions for Revenue, Capital, and the Collection Fund as at the end of June 2023, as detailed in section 5 of the report, be noted.

2.    That Cabinet noted the £6,752k forecast overspend reported by the Children’s Directorate, and that a recovery plan was being developed that would be presented alongside the Q2 Finance Update report.

3.    That the return of the Council’s allocation of the Waste Levy reserve from Greater Manchester Combined Authority, as detailed in paragraph 5.4 of the report, be noted.

4.    That the Budget Pressure requests detailed in section 5.5 of the report, be approved.

5.    That the net Capital budget changes of £1,122k, as detailed in section 5.8.1 of the report, be noted.

6.    That the Capital re-phasing of £80,044k into future years, as detailed in section 5.8 and Appendix B (2) of the report, be noted.

7.    That the request to switch budgets within Economy and Neighbourhoods directorates as detailed in section 5.8.3 of the report, be approved.

8.    That the Property Growth Fund update set out in section 5.10 of the report, be noted.

9.    That the Treasury Management update for Quarter 1 set out in section 5.11 and Appendix C of the report, be noted.

Reason for recommendation

To update Cabinet Members on the financial position of the Council – as effective budget management was critical to ensuring financial resources were spent in line with the budget and were targeted towards the Council’s priorities.

Alternatives considered

Not to inform Cabinet of the Council’s financial position. This option was not recommended.  The Council complied with CIPFA’s Financial Management Code and its standards to ensure: management of financial resources in the short, medium and long term; management of financial resilience to meet unforeseen demands on services; and management of unexpected shocks within financial circumstances.

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and

Environment / Director of Neighbourhoods.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment / Director of Neighbourhoods that sought agreement to proceed with proposals to establish five Football Foundation playzones across the borough.

Resolved

1.    That the submission of the full application for five playzones across the borough be supported.

2.    That the Director of Corporate Services in consultation with the Head of Legal and the Cabinet Member for Climate Change & the Environment be delegated authority to negotiate and execute the relevant legal agreements necessary to affect the decision relating to the funding and to ensure delivery of the project in accordance with the Council’s constitution.

3.    That it be agreed to utilise the maximum of £200K (inc contingencies) S106 developer contributions to fund the Council’s contribution of 25% of the total project cost.

Reason for recommendation

To ensure delivery of the Built Facilities Strategy and the Local Football Facilities Plan. The Football Foundation was funding 75% of the upgrades or a brand new facility on the five selected current kick pitches sites. All the sites were coming to end of life expectancy and the cost to de-commission each site was estimated at £15,000 - £20,000.

Alternatives considered

The consultation process had considered the other kick pitch sites within the borough. Four of the five sites selected came out of the consultation process. The Middleton site was still under public consultation and would be decided by the outcome of the process and discussion with ward Members, once the consultation had concluded. Bowlee had been considered as the Middleton site but had received negative feedback during the consultancy process from some user groups, due to unsafe access through dark pathways to the site.

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment / Director of Economy.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment / Director of Neighbourhoods that provided a summary of the key findings of the Techno/Economic feasibility study, undertaken by AECOM on behalf of the Council, regarding the potential to develop a Rochdale Town Centre Heat Network.

The Climate Change and Sustainability Project Manager advised Cabinet of an error in paragraph 3.4 of the report, and explained that the figures ‘£16,500 - £20,625’ provided in the last sentence should be amended to ‘£33,000 - £41,250’.

Cabinet Members welcomed the report and highlighted the significant environmental and economic benefits of the proposed scheme.

Resolved

1.    That a further application in September 2023 to the Heat Networks Delivery Unit (HNDU) of the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) for funding to progress the project to the next stage of Detailed Project Development (DPD) be approved.

2.    That subject to a 50% contribution towards the match funding from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the expenditure required to match fund the DPD stage of £33,000 to £41,250 depending upon the size of the scheme be approved.

3.    That engagement be continued with United Utilities to organise the monitoring of flow rates and temperatures in the sewer to determine the potential heat available.

4.    That discussions be continued with key potential customers/stakeholders, particularly those involved in potential building developments to determine how these buildings would be heated and ascertain interest in a potential District Heat Network (DHN) connection.

Reason for recommendation

The development of a heat network had many benefits: sources of heat that delivered higher levels of efficiency and/or a lower carbon intensity; lower capital/operating costs to building operators; a single approach to heat decarbonisation for the town centre; access to capital funding through the Green Heat Networks Fund (GHNF); reduced impact on the electrical network; a resilient technology that could be adapted over time; and implementation and maintenance become the responsibility of a specialist energy supply company.

Alternatives considered

Not to progress with the Town Centre Heat Network project development. This option was not recommended – as this would mean that the potential of a District Heat Network (DHN) in Rochdale Town Centre would be unknown and the Council would be unable to progress a scheme that would contribute to its wider climate change mitigation targets. It would also mean that the resource already spent on the project would be lost.

The Council had already implemented measures under the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) for individual buildings within the proposed core network (Rochdale Leisure Centre, No 1 Riverside and Rochdale Town Hall) to install Air Sourced Heat Pumps (ASHP), but these were for individual buildings only and would not deliver wider decarbonisation benefits to other buildings within the proposed DHN.

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education / Director of Children’s Services.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Education / Director of Children’s Services that outlined the development of a series of Special School hubs and sought approval of capital spend to provide accommodation.

Resolved

1.    That spending of £6 million which included £3 million allocated from the Department for Education (DfE) High Needs Capital funding, and £3 million allocated from the DfE Basic Need funding, as detailed in Appendix 1 of the report, be approved.

2.    That an informal consultation with Schools (Head teachers and Governing Boards) to seek partnerships to open further SEN hubs be approved.

3.    That the Director for Children’s Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and Assistant Director Legal & Governance be authorised to invite and evaluate tenders for the projects set out in the report and to enter into the appropriate contracts and incidental and ancillary documentation.

4.    That the Council’s Section 151 Officer be authorised to allocate and vire funding to Children’s Services to support the School SEN Hubs Expansion programme.

Reason for recommendation

As of 2021 DfE data, Rochdale had less than 1.5% of its SEN pupils in SEN hubs in mainstream schools. This compared to an England average of 6.5% and North-west region average of 5.3%.

Both the total number of pupils in schools and the percentage of SEN pupils with Education and Health Care Plans, EHCPs, had risen. In 2022/23 Rochdale had 4.7% of its pupils with EHCPs, compared to a rate of 4.3% across England. 

As a consequence of rising numbers of pupils with EHCPs, mainstream schools in Rochdale had had rising numbers of children with complex SEN needs for some years. Rochdale also had rising numbers of pupils that were taking up SEN places in the expensive independent SEN sector. The SEN budget had a rising deficit and the rising number of pupils in the independent sector was a growing percentage of this deficit.

The aim of the SEN hub project was to increase the number of pupils in specialist places within the borough. In hubs, attached to mainstream schools, pupils would be able to share some elements of mainstream school and be part of their community, while accessing specialist places with supporting SEN therapies such as speech and language therapy.

Alternatives considered

Not to support the proposed School SEN Hubs Expansion.  This option was not recommended – as every child with an Education and Health Care Plan had a bespoke plan that aimed to deliver the best education outcomes for that child. As part of that process the local authority was required to meet the needs of the child through providing the most appropriate education placement. The current system saw many of these children being placed in educational settings out of borough in independent settings. While these placements aimed to meet the immediate need, they did not meet the social need of families to bring their children up with good links to their local communities.

Cabinet Members had considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

To consider that the press and public be excluded from the remaining part of the meeting pursuant to Section 100(A)4 of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that discussions may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.

Resolved That, in accordance with the provisions under Section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business.

Reason for the Decision Should the press and public remain during consideration of the items, there may be a disclosure of information that was deemed to be exempt under Part 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

To consider a report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing / Director of Neighbourhoods.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing / Director of Neighbourhoods that sought agreement to establish an Asylum and Refugee Resettlement service, and to build capacity in the system by utilising the Home Office Asylum Dispersal Grant.

Resolved

That the recommendations as set out in the exempt report be approved.

Reason for recommendation

To enable the Council to build a stronger partnership and targeted offer for those whom have sought asylum.  The proposal would support community integration and contribute to a ‘whole system’ approach.

Alternatives considered

Not to establish an Asylum and Refugee Resettlement service – this option was not recommended, because to not create a service would put the Council at risk of failing to meet its statutory duties.

Not to use the Home Office Asylum Dispersal Grant to create a new support service – this option was not recommended, as this would result in an increase in homelessness presentation to the Council.