Agenda item

Report number CEX257 by the Chief Executive.                 (Enclosure)

The Cabinet to recommend that the Council approves the following aspects of the report:

A.      The weighting, assessment and scoring of all Council services as set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.5.

B.      The resultant classification of services into priority categories as set out in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.8, with the amendment that car parks and public toilets move from Category Y up to a Category B.

C.      All targets and service standards as detailed in the table in paragraph 5, with the amendment that for car parks reference is made to the provision of a new multi-storey facility in Grantham.

DECISION:

(1)  That in accordance with the recommendation of the Cabinet, the Council approves the following aspects of report CEX235:

A.  The weighting, assessment and scoring of all Council services as set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.5.

B.  The resultant classification of services into priority categories as set out in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.8, with the amendment that car parks and public toilets move from Category Y to Category B.

C.          All targets and service standards as detailed in the table in paragraph 5, with the amendment that for car-parks reference is made to the provision of a new multi-storey facility in Grantham.

(2)  That as described in 7.3 of report CEX235, in the preparation of the budget for 2005/6 and beyond, a target of £700,000 be set for investment in priority areas, comprising £500,000 from non-priority services and £200,000 from efficiency savings. The savings in non-priority areas to be realised from the services identified in Schedule 1 of part 6 to this report.

Members had before them the Chief Executive’s covering report number CEX257 appended to which was his earlier report to the Cabinet on 12^th July (CEX235).  He explained that the Cabinet had agreed the contents of report CEX235 as a consultative draft on the completion of the prioritisation process. He highlighted a typographical error in the paper on page 5 of report CEX257 under the service item Travel Vouchers.  This should read: “Restrict eligibility to over 70 for new applicants, protecting existing recipients aged over 60.  The implementation date for this should also read from 01/01/06. 

The issues had now been fully considered at each of the Council’s six Local Area Assemblies and by each of the Development and Scrutiny Panels.  The Cabinet had accordingly proposed that the Council now approves its recommendations to effect the completion of this process.  The recommendations contained in report CEX257 were moved and seconded.

Whilst supporting the outcome of the prioritisation process and the means by which the priorities were derived, concern was expressed that if the Council did not finance services at an adequate level the expectations of the public would not be met.  The Council’s approach to concessionary travel tokens was already meagre and the present proposal raised issues about the way the Council financed its services. The point was raised that the Council should balance the cost of services with the level of Council Tax it levied.  Comments were made about the accuracy of the Chief Executive’s summarisation of the outcome of the local area assemblies in relation to support expressed for the priorities.

A member then addressed  the meeting about serious concerns he had over the proposal to make savings of £13,000 by reducing the level of archaeological services procured from Lincolnshire Heritage.  This, he stressed, was not a grant to a voluntary body but the purchase of a valuable service which not only helped to preserve important historical features of the district but also served to attract other funding for this vitally important work.  £13,000 was a relatively small sum which helped to generate benefits to the district far in excess of this monetary value.  His amendment to remove archaeological services from the list of savings in non priority areas received a seconder.

Further debate ensued on the necessity to prioritise given the insufficient central government support grant and the unpopularity of raising the Council Tax levy which, in any case, could be subject to capping.  The Leader reminded the meeting that the Council had resolved to review its priorities annually and urged members to vote against the amendment.  A vote was taken and subsequently lost.  A vote was then taken on the original motion to accept the recommendations as presented and this was carried.

[The Chairman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in that part of the discussion and amendment on Archaeological services and took no part in the voting on that motion.  His interest was by virtue of being a Director of Lincolnshire Heritage who provided the archaeological services to the Council.]