surrey heath house division: borough secretary’s please...

AGENDA\EXECUTIVE\29JULY03

Surrey Heath Borough Council

Surrey Heath HouseKnoll RoadCamberley

Surrey GU15 3HDTelephone: (01276) 707100Facsimile: (01276) 707177

DX: 32722 CamberleyWeb Site: www.surreyheath.gov.uk

Directorate:

Division:

Please ask for:

Direct Tel:

E-Mail:

Chief Executive

Borough Secretary’s

Mrs Jane Sherman

01276 707336

[email protected]

18th July 2003

To: The Members of the EXECUTIVE(Councillors Miss Gibson, Leader of the Council, Bell, Bush, Mrs Chapman,Hawkins, King and Mrs Pearce)

Dear Councillor

A meeting of the EXECUTIVE will be held at Surrey Heath House on Tuesday 29th July2003 at 6.00pm. The agenda will be as set out below.

Yours sincerely

BARRY R CATCHPOLE

Chief Executive

AGENDA

PART I

Page No

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -

2. MINUTES 1

To confirm and sign the non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on8th July 2003 (copy circulated in the Council Book), and 15th July 2003(copy herewith).

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -

Members are invited to declare any interests (personal and prejudicial)they may have with respect to matters which are to be considered atthis meeting. Members who consider they may have an interest areinvited to consult the Borough Secretary and Solicitor or theCommittee Administrator prior to the meeting.


Page No

4. BLACKWATER VALLEY VISITOR CENTRE 3

5. COMMUNITY TRANSPORT VEHICLE REPLACEMENTPROGRAMME

12

6. SELECT LIST OF CONTRACTORS FOR BUILDING ANDASSOCIATED WORKS (CONTRACT 676)

16

7. COMMUNITY FUND SCHEME - APPLICATIONS FORGRANTS FROM £2,000 TO £25,000

19

8. DRAFT FINAL ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS- 2002/03

23

9. REVIEW OF RESERVES AND PROVISIONS 51

10. FINANCIAL STRATEGY AND BUDGET GUIDELINES -2004/05

81

11. LEGAL SERVICES BEST VALUE REVIEW - IMPROVEMENTPLAN

91

12. LICENSING ACT 2003 - CALL-IN 99

13. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC 101

PART II(exempt)

14. MINUTES 103

To confirm and sign the exempt minutes of the meeting held on8th July 2003 (copy circulated in the Council Book), and 15th July2003.

15. SURREY HEATH HOUSE RATING APPEAL -SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE

104

16. HOUSING NEEDS TEAM - STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS 107

17. GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS IN SURREY HEATH 109

18. LAND WEST OF PARK STREET, CAMBERLEY - APPROVALAS LANDOWNER OF SCHEME CONTENT

117

19. MAIN SQUARE, CAMBERLEY - LEASE REVIEW 146


Page No

20. REVIEW OF EXEMPT ITEMS -

To review those items or parts thereof which can be released asinformation available to the public.

AGENDA\EXECUTIVE\29JULY03 1

ITEM 2

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THEEXECUTIVE held at Surrey HeathHouse, Camberley on 15th July 2003

+ Cllr Moira Gibson - Chairman

+ Cllr Ian Bell - Cllr Edward Hawkins+ Cllr Keith Bush + Cllr Terry King+ Cllr Mrs Vivienne Chapman + Cllr Mrs Pat Pearce

+ Present- Apologies for absence presented

In attendance

Councillors Jill Axtell, Judith Trow and David Whitcroft

PART I(public)

036/E REVIEW OF EXEMPT ITEMS

The Executive reviewed those reports which had been considered at the meeting,following the exclusion of members of the press and public, as they involved thelikely disclosure of exempt information and made decisions upon what information (ifany) relating to those reports, or the decisions taken thereon, could be regarded asavailable to the public.

037/E EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

In accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the publicwas excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the ground thatthey involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphsof Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act as set out below:

Minute Paragraph

036/E 9038/E 9

The following is a summary of a matter considered in Part II of the agenda, theminute of which it is considered should remain confidential at the present time.

038/E LORRAINE ROAD AND CORDWALLES ROAD, CAMBERLEY - SALE OFLAND

The Executive resolved that the offer from the Peerless Housing Group for thepurchase of land at Lorraine Road/Cordwalles Road, Camberley be accepted and the


Director of Environmental and Commercial Services be authorised to determine thewording of the contract and transfer.

CHAIRMAN


ITEM 4

Portfolio: LeisureBLACKWATER VALLEY VISITOR CENTRE

Ward(s) Affected: St MichaelsWatchettsFrimley

Purpose

To review the provision for a replacement Blackwater Valley Visitor Centre and toreconsider the payment of an invoice from Hampshire County Council.

Background

1. At its meeting on 26"' November 2002, the Executive considered a report concerningcriteria for projects to benefit from the capital receipts earmarked for BlackwaterValley works and whether or not the payment of an invoice from Hampshire CountyCouncil (HCC) should be made.

2. At that time, the Council had already earmarked £90,000 from its receipts for theBlackwater Valley (balance of money from capital receipts from J. Sainsbury plc andfrom payment in lieu of rent from the previous visitor centre at Frimley BridgesBusiness Park) with the remaining £202,845 identified for a variety of environmentalimprovement works within the Blackwater Valley corridor and areas contiguous to it.The Executive also considered payment of an invoice from HCC dated June 2001 for£21,020 (plus VAT) for a feasibility study and design work in relation to the proposedvisitor centre at Hawley Meadows.

Current Situation

3. Since that meeting, the Blackwater Valley Joint Authorities Group has investigatedthe prospects of a Visitor Centre for the Blackwater Valley Countryside andRecreational Management Service and concluded that, without committed fundingfrom all relevant authorities, the project was unlikely to proceed. The Director ofPlanning and Community Services has met the Blackwater Valley Project Officerto discuss what the Service has in mind in lieu of the Visitor Centre proposal. It isclear that the Service proposes a variety of environmental improvements within theA30/M3 corridor compartment of the Blackwater Valley totalling £204,700 (seeAnnex A). The officers indicated that it was not likely that this Council wouldfund the full extent of these works given its previous decision only to identify£90,000 for the Visitor Centre, or such other projects as the Blackwater ValleyService may wish to promote. The Blackwater Valley Project Officer was asked toidentify, from the list of improvement works, those which were the most importantin terns of public accessibility to the Valley and which might be funded


from the £90,000 allocation, should it be made available for this purpose. An oralreport will be made at the meeting.

4. Notwithstanding the decision of the Executive not to pay the invoice fromHampshire County Council (a letter to this effect was sent to the CountyTreasurer), that Council is continuing to press for payment of the invoice.

Proposal

5. It is considered that the invoice from Hampshire County Council should not bepaid in view of the understanding that that Council would provide design relatedservices as its contribution to the visitor centre project. There is no record of theinvoice having been received by the Council until recently and, given the passageof time and change in circumstances since the matter was first considered by theCouncil in June 1999, the invoice has not been paid. If, however, the Councilchose to pay the invoice, it is suggested this could be borne out of the £90,000allocated for the new Visitor Centre.

6. It is proposed that the £90,000 previously identified for the Visitor Centre projectbe earmarked for the purposes of public access improvements to the A30/M3compartment of the Blackwater Valley, which includes land within Surrey HeathBorough.

Resource Implications

7. The £90,000 previously identified for the Visitor Centre Project should continue tobe made available for Blackwater Valley environmental improvement purposes.Provision is already made within the Corporate Capital Programme.

Recommendation

8. The Executive is advised to RESOLVE that:

a) £90,000 previously identified for the new Blackwater Valley Visitor Centrebe allocated for public access improvements within the A30/M3compartment of the Blackwater Valley corridor;

b) the Director of Planning and Community Services be authorised to releasethe earmarked monies in accordance with a scheme of works to be agreedby the Director of Planning and Community Services, followingconsultation with the Leisure Portfolio Holder; and

c) the invoice from Hampshire County Council dated June 2001 for feasibilitystudy and design work on the abortive visitor centre at Hawley Meadows benot paid.

Background Papers: Relevant correspondence planning file Best Value/3.4

Contact: John Silvester 01276 707214


e-mail: [email protected]

David Sanger 01276 707374e-mail: [email protected]


ANNEX A ANNEX A

Blackwater Valley Countryside Partnership

Alternative proposals for the Sainsbury’s Money

1. Introduction

1.1 Hawley Meadows is the ideal location to benefit from the money held bySurrey Heath Borough Council originating from Sainsbury’s plc. The site itselfalready makes a significant contribution to the landscape, green space andbiodiversity of Surrey Heath; and as part of the Blackwater Valley Path itcontributes to the wider Blackwater Valley recreation and access strategy.

1.2 The work proposed will greatly improve the access to the site; increasingaccess points and creating a multi-user footpath suitable for walkers, cyclistsand wheelchair users, and so complete another important link in thedevelopment of the Blackwater Valley Path. It will also enhance thebiodiversity and facilitate the management of the site. The work will enableSurrey Heath BC to meet many of the targets it set itself in the recentlypublished Leisure & Cultural Strategy.

1.3 The site is on the ‘doorstep’ of the Sainsbury’s store and so makes a veryclose and easy connection between the development and the mitigation workcarried out, so meeting the criteria on location agreed between Sainsbury’sand Surrey Heath BC.

2. Background

2.1 In Sept 2002 Surrey Heath Borough Council informed the Blackwater ValleyCountryside Partnership that they still held £222,845 of the Sainsbury’s plcmoney and that Sainsbury’s required their money to be spent on schemes”within or with a physical connection to the Blackwater Valley”. SHBC hadcommitted £90,000 of this towards the proposed Blackwater Valley visitorcentre.

2.2 In light of the decision not to proceed with the visitor centre, Surrey Heath BChas requested alternative suggestions for the Sainsbury’s money.

2.3 In previous discussions Surrey Heath Borough Council has made it clear thatonly schemes close to the Sainsbury’s store would be appropriate and thatthe search area should be restricted to the section of the valley that isbounded at its southern end by the M3 and at the northern end by the A30.

2.4 The following proposals consist of a series of distinct elements that could becarried out separately, but together are considered to form an integratedproject that will have maximum benefit to users of the Blackwater Valley, byimproving its access and landscape.



3. Aims of project

3.1 To improve the accessibility of the Blackwater Valley long distance footpathbetween the M3 and A30 for pedestrians, cyclists and the disabled.

3.2 To enhance the biodiversity, landscape and public enjoyment of theBlackwater Valley within Surrey Heath.

Hawley Meadows is a substantial green space in an urbanised area.However, at present use of the site by the public is constrained by pooraccess from the Car Park and by the surface of the ‘Blackwater ValleyPath’ which is only suitable for pedestrians for much of the year. Thisproject aims to improve the accessibility of the Blackwater Valley Pathso that it is suitable for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled users.

This will be done by:

• Surface improvements, upgrading this pedestrian only section ofpath to multi-user and all-weather standard.

• Constructing a new bridge over the River Blackwater so linking thepath to the car park at Hawley Meadows, creating opportunities forcircular walks around the site from the already substantial and, atpresent under-used, car park.

• Replacing steps on existing bridges with ramps to provide accessfor disabled users and cyclists

Hawley Meadows also contributes significantly to the landscape andbiodiversity of Surrey Heath. The project aims to enhance thebiodiversity of the area, contribute to biodiversity targets and increasepublic knowledge and understanding of the value and importance ofthe site.

This will be done by:

• Providing interpretation material

• Improving the landscape and wildlife seen from the path to increasepublic enjoyment of the site and implement biodiversity targetscontained within the emerging Loddon Biodiversity Strategy.



4. Need

4.1 Access

4.1.1 Public access to the majority of this flood plain meadow land is limited in wetconditions. In winter the path is difficult to use even by able bodied walkers,impossible for the disabled user or cyclists.

4.1.2 The proposal would create off road access routes for cyclists and the disableduser.

4.1.3 Currently Hawley Meadows is the only non surfaced section of the BlackwaterValley Path between Aldershot and Sandhurst. This project will thus fill in themissing link, creating a continuous well surfaced multi-user path.

4.1.4 No interpretation or other signage currently exists on site, provision of suchwill improve public enjoyment of the site and appreciation of their immediateenvironment.

4.2 Environmental

4.2.1 The draft Loddon Catchment Biodiversity Strategy recommends increasingthe quantity and quality of flood plain grazing, Hawley Meadow is one of thefew sites in the Valley where this can be achieved.

4.2.2 The southern part of Hawley Meadow is classed as a Site of NatureConservation Interest in local plans due to its meadow land flora and thisvalue is increasing as a result of the current management practices includingcattle grazing, tree planting and wildflower seeding.

4.2.3 Much conservation has been carried out on site with the regular input ofvolunteers individuals and groups. The proposals will further communityinvolvement through habitat creation & ongoing management.

4.2.4 The public access proposals will not be detrimental to the important grasslandflora. Improved vehicular access onto site will aid management.

5. Blackwater Valley Context

5.1 The proposals will make a major step towards carrying out the policies for theValley as set out in the Blackwater Valley Strategy 2000-2005. Relevantpolicies include

Policy 21 Access for walking will be improved wherever possible.



Policy 32 Ways of making popular sections of the Blackwater ValleyPath suitable for multi-use will be pursued

5.2 Most of the specific aims for this part of the Valley have been included into theproposed scheme, namely:

5.6a Provide a bridge over the river from the car park at Hawley Meadows

5.6b Continue to implement ecological enhancements at Hawley Meadows

5.6d Provide access to this area…..for all sectors of the community linking,Frimley Business Park with Shepherd Meadows.

6. Surrey Heath Borough Council policies

6.1 The proposal will be major step towards implementing the Borough CouncilsLocal Plan policies. Policy RE4 Blackwater Valley Strategic Gap commits thecouncil to actively seek improvements to the Valley. The policy includes“Within the Strategic Gap the Council will promote the enhancement of thelandscape and nature conservation, and seek to improve public access foroutdoor sport and recreation.”

6.2 The Borough Council have recently published A leisure and culturalstrategy for Surrey Heath 2003-2008. The proposals will help meet four ofthe six cross cutting themes in this strategy, these being

• healthy living• access for all• community involvement• sustainable environment

6.2.1 The proposals will help Surrey Heath Borough Council implement a number ofspecific action points from the leisure and cultural strategy. In a number ofcases the BVCP is specially mentioned as an organisation to implement thepolicy, these are marked (BVCP action below)

1.16 Encourage greater use of walking as a leisure pursuit.

1.17 Encourage extension of cycle paths especially links to key sites.

2.16 Continue to provide specialist resources to interpret and provideeducation on the Heathland and other protected habitat (BVCP action).

3.3 Encourage access for all including the disabled.



4.1 Support local policies for the protection and improvement of the greenenvironment, the countryside & recreational open space.

4.3 Maintain support to projects & organisations protecting theEnvironment and developing interest though marketing & education.(BVCP action).

4.4 Support initiatives to reduce motor vehicle traffic. Link key sites andresidential/work areas with cycle routes & public transport. Encouragewalking.



7. Details & costing

7.1 Proposals are listed below with costs estimated based on recent workselsewhere in the Blackwater Valley. Each proposal will achieve improvementsto the site on its own but the overall value of a combined scheme would besubstantially greater.

Item Cost ReasoningRaised footpath (300m@£50/lm)

£15,000 Over wettest areas

Flood compensation £10,000 To offset raised footpathconstruction, will includehabitat creation.

Footpath surfacing (1800m@£40/lm)

£72,000

Ramped access and widening ofexisting bridges.

£25,000 This bridge is currently theonly block to multi –use indry weather

New bridge from car park £30,000 To improve public access tothe site

Interpretation board in car park,site entrance signs.

£7,000

Stock fencing 600m (£15/lm) £9,000 To protect path & its users, &benefit conservationmanagement

Annual maintenance for 10years@ £1000 pa.

£10,000

Estimated total £178,000Contingency @ 15% £26,700Total budget £204,700

JS BaileyBlackwater Valley Countryside Partnership13 June 2003


ITEM 5

Portfolio: CommunityCOMMUNITY TRANSPORT VEHICLEREPLACEMENT PROGRAMME

Ward(s) Affected: All

Purpose

To consider the replacement of a Community Transport vehicle in the 2003/04financial year.

Background

1. In April 1995, the Council approved a phased replacement vehicle business plan(minute 0793 refers). The plan favoured a planned programme of vehiclereplacement and demonstrated that replacement vehicles with warranty cover anddiesel power reduced the operating costs of the service.

Current Position

2 The current Community Transport mini-bus fleet comprises four Leyland Daf 400mini-buses, the capacity of which is ten passengers per vehicle, one Ford Transit witha carrying capacity of sixteen and one Renault Kangoo with a carrying capacity offour passengers.

Options

3. One option proposed is that the Leyland Daf vehicle P252 BPE registered in October1996 be replaced with a new vehicle of similar capacity subject to tender.

4. The second and preferred option proposed is to purchase an Iveco Minibus which hasbeen used as a demonstration vehicle by Euromotive Kent Ltd. The vehicle has beenoffered for sale at £32,000 and is fully converted to the specification required.Climate control is included in this price valued at approximately £3,700. This offerhas been unsolicited. The purchase price of the vehicle if new would be £42,000.

5. The usual warranty period of three years for the base vehicle will apply from date ofregistration on 02/04/02. The conversion will carry one years warranty. Experienceto date has shown that few claims have been made against the conversion warranty ofvehicles.

6. Whilst this vehicle would have a slightly shorter warranty than a new vehicle, theseating capacity of fifteen seats is greater than would be gained by replacing theLeyland Daf vehicle for one of a similar size and seating capacity of ten.

7. Less officer time would be utilised as the tender process would not have toundertaken, and it is proposed that under the provisions of Standing Order 42(7) acontract be let without inviting competitive tenders.


8. Assuming that, by the time of the Executive meeting, this vehicle is still available, tosatisfy the Council that the offer price is competitive based on the specificationoffered, a market testing exercise could be undertaken to ensure that this vehicleoffers best value for money.

9 This vehicle would then form part of the five year vehicle replacement programme.

Resources Implications

10 A provision of £32,000 is made within the Repairs and Renewals Fund to provide thereplacement vehicle.

11 The Leyland Daf vehicle P252 BPE to be replaced is valued at an estimated £2,000.This vehicle will be auctioned and the proceeds will be credited to the Repairs andRenewals Fund

12. Attached at Annex A is the Capital Appraisal form, setting out the costs associatedwith the replacement programme.

Recommendation

13 The Executive is advised to RESOLVE that:

a) in accordance with Standing Order 42(7) an Iveco Minibus be purchased fromEuromotive Kent Ltd, at an estimated price of £32,000, to replace the LeylandDaf Community transport vehicle; and

b) the purchase cost be included in the Corporate Capital Programme 2003/04and funded from the Council’s Repairs and Renewals Fund.

Background Papers: Community Transport Service Vehicle Replacement BusinessPlan - March 1995Community Transport/Shopmobility Best Value Review ReportJanuary 2000

Contact: Ms E Russell 01276 707656e-mail: [email protected]


CAPITAL PROJECTS - FINANCIAL APPRAISALCAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Outturn Prices 2003 PricesActual to

31.03.2003Probable2003/04

Estimate2004/2005

Estimate2005/2006

Estimate2006/2007

LaterYears

TotalExpenditure

EXPENDITURE £ £ £ £ £ £ £Site Acquisition

Payment to Contractors

Furniture & Fittings

Equipment 2,000 2,000

Vehicles X 1 30,000 30,000GrantsDesign Fees/SupervisionOther (specify)

32,000 32,000INCOMEGovernment GrantsContributions 2,000

2,000 32,000Provision tooutturn pricesTOTAL CAPITALEXPENDITURE

30,000 32,000

REVENUE CONSEQUENCES OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

EXPENDITURE 2003/2004£’000

2004/2005£’000

2005/2006£’000

2006/2007£’000

Full Year£’000

EmployeesRunning ExpensesAsset ChargesTotal ExpenditureINCOMEFees & ChargesGovernment GrantsOther (specify)Total IncomeNETEXPENDITURE

Nil


CAPITAL PROJECTS APPRAISAL FORM

Committee: EXECUTIVE Project Officer: E. RUSSELL

Project Title: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTREPLACEMENT VEHICLE

Priority CategoryBid Order: I,B&C

Description: Of the project and its effect on the service for the public.SEE REPORT

Justification: Why this project, in this form, now? What assumptions underline the projectsachievements?SEE REPORT

Corporate Policy:

Corporate Strategy –Current Corporate Strategy

Approved BVPP –Best Value – to continuereplacement

Asset Management PlanN/A

Programme: Full programme in chronological order:SEE REPORT

Resources: Specialist input required from other Services eg Information SystemDivision/Consultants.

Type of Staff RequiredN/A

Man/WeeksN/A

Rate/WeekN/A

Discussed with COconcernedN/A

Service Director’s comments:Proposal in line with Replacement Policy

Resource implications:

Yet to be approved Already approved

Director of Financial Services comments:The 2003/2004 Repair and Renewal Fund Commercial vehicles included £32,000 to fund thereplacement of P252 BPE


ITEM 6

Portfolio: CorporateSELECT LIST OF CONTRACTORS FORBUILDING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS(CONTRACT 676) Ward(s) Affected: n/a

Purpose

To agree the Council’s select list of contractors for Building and Associated Worksfrom which tenders will be sought on a project by project basis.

Current Position

1. Advertisements for firms interested in being included in the Council’s select list ofcontractors for building and associated works were placed in The Official Journal ofthe European Communities (OJEC), Contrax Weekly, Government Opportunities,local press and on the Council’s web-site during February/March 2003.

2. Applications were invited from suitably experienced companies on the basis thattenders would be sought for required works over a 3 year period for:

a) new buildings (without design)b) alterations and renovations, including specialist accessibility worksc) maintenance and repairs, including emergency repairs

3. The value of work to be undertaken is undetermined. However, as a guide,approximately £1m has been awarded to firms on the former select list, on the abovescope of work, during the past 3 years.

4. Thirty-two expressions of interest were received and financial appraisals andtechnical references have been undertaken. A shortlist of twenty three companies hasbeen drawn up with the assistance of the Council’s appointed building consultants,having regard to technical criteria and the Council’s needs based on a number oftrades and disciplines.

Select List

5. Annex A lists the companies recommended for inclusion on the select list from whichcompetitive tenders will be sought on a project by project basis. Each company hasbeen assessed for works up to a particular value per contract which may be awardedannually. The financial categories are as below:

a. £50,000 or less

b. £100,000 or less

c. £250,000 or less


Proposal

6. It is proposed the select list of companies to be invited to tender for building andassociated works comprise those companies detailed at Annex A, for a period of 3years from August 2003.

Options

7. The Executive has the option of agreeing a Select List which saves the requirement toplace advertisements inviting submissions of interest in respect of each contractestimated to cost in excess of £8,000 (thereby reducing costs and the associated timedelay before tenders are sought) or requiring that each contract is individuallyadvertised.

Resources Implications

8. The Council has budget provision for building and associated works within theapproved planned property maintenance and other budgets as well as in the approvedcapital programme.

Recommendation

9. The Executive is advised to RESOLVE that

a) the select list for building and associated works comprise of those companieslisted at Annex A; and

b) the select list apply for a period of 3 years from August 2003.

Background Papers: CX File - 06/02/0065

Contact: Andrew Smith 01276 707407e-mail: [email protected]


ANNEX A ANNEX A

SELECT LIST OF BUILDING CONTRACTORS (CONTRACT 676)

Interests: (a) = New Build (b) = Alterations (c) = Maintenance/Repairs

InterestName Location

(a) (b) (c)CONTRACT WORK VALUED AT £50,000 OR LESS :

B A Snashall Farnham

J Shepherd Contractors Ltd Basingstoke

Paul McCabe Builders Farnham

CONTRACT WORK VALUED AT £100,000 OR LESS :

AMJ Design & Construction Ltd Camberley

Abacus Design & Build Camberley

B C Wickes & Son Ltd Farnham

Berridge Electrical Services Ltd Camberley

Kernshaws Camberley

Knowles Bros Developments Isleworth, Middlesex

Leonard Oakley Contractors Ltd Walton on Thames

M W Facility Management Ltd Mytchett

R Smith Contractors Guildford

CONTRACT WORK VALUED AT £250,000 OR LESS :

Alec W Brade Farnborough

A J Sibthorpe & Co Ltd Ilford, Essex

Bowditch & Ford Ltd Farnborough

Disabled Facilities Farnborough

H N Edwards & Partners Limited Basingstoke

Malone Roofing (Newbury) Ltd Newbury, Berks

Mitie Property Services Ltd Yateley

R Durtnell & Sons Limited Farnborough

Rokbuild Limited Reading

Spring Grove Prop Maint plc Hounslow, Middlesex

T H Kenyon & Sons plc Bishop’s Stortford, Herts

Thomas Sinden Construction Kingsway, London


ITEM 7

Portfolio: PolicyCOMMUNITY FUND SCHEME -APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS FROM £2,000TO £25,000 Ward(s) Affected: All

Purpose

To consider the ‘third round’ of Community Fund applications for grants valuedbetween £2,000 and £25,000.

Current Position

1. An initial allocation of £200,000 has been set aside in the Community Fund for grantapplications “for larger projects in the local community up to a maximum of £25,000per application.” The Executive, has to date, approved grants up to a total value of£81,395.

2. The closing date for the ‘third round’ of applications was 30th June 2003. Oneapplication has been received as follows:

Amount of Grant Requested

Application 158 - Camberley Rifle & Pistol Club £25,000

This grant application is detailed in Annex A, attached.

3. No specific purposes have been set for the Community Fund, other than thecommunity at large, or a section of it, must benefit from the project being grant aided.The grant scheme provides that, in assessing grant applications, the Executive “willhave regard to the amount to funding being raised/sought from other sources, thescope of the project and the wider benefit to the community over time”. Grants areavailable for up to 50% of the project cost. Grants are not available for ongoingrunning costs or day to day repairs and maintenance.

4. A consideration in determining the amount of grant is the extent to which any grant“levers in” match funding from other sources.

Options

5. The Executive has the options of either:

a) approving the grant for the full amount requested or a lesser sum (withpayment subject to such terms and conditions as maybe determined by theAssistant Chief Executive after consultation with the Policy Portfolio Holder),

b) deferring consideration of the application, or


c) refusing the application.

Proposal

6. The Executive is invited to consider the grant application as detailed in Annex A.The Leisure Development Officer feels the application is worth supporting, providedthe Club seeks to increase its membership to previous levels and works with theCouncil to make the facility available to local schools. However, it is considered thata grant of £15,000 would be appropriate in this instance, given current membershiplevels.


7. An initial allocation of £200,000 has been set aside in the Community Fund Schemefor grants up to £25,000. Of this, grants totalling £81,395 have been approved;leaving a balance of £118,605 for future grants. There are two grant applications,previously reported to the Executive, currently awaiting further information.

Recommendations

8. The Executive is advised to RESOLVE that Application 158 in respect of the re-modelling of the Camberley Rifle and Pistol Club premises in Bagshot, be approvedin the reduced sum of £15,000, subject to such terms and conditions as maybedetermined by the Assistant Chief Executive after consultation with the PolicyPortfolio Holder.

Background Papers: Grant application details

Contact: Richard Collins 01276 707411e-mail: [email protected]

Jayne Boitoult 01276 707464e-mail: [email protected]


ANNEX A ANNEX A

SUMMARY OF APPLICATION TO COMMUNITY FUND

APPLICATION NO: 158

APPLICANT: Camberley Rifle & Pistol Club

ENDORSING COUNCILLOR:Mr John FaulknerPROJECT BRIEF:. To re-model the rifle club located in Bagshot

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:The Camberley Rifle and Pistol Club is based in Gloucester Gardens, Bagshot. It wasformed 100 years ago, during which time, has achieved a number of notable awards.Currently, two junior ladies members came 2nd and 3rd in the GB Air Rifle Championships.Also two men are currently members of the Junior GB Shooting squad and regularly take partin overseas tours shooting at an international level. The Club has 50 members at present,(prior to the banning of hand guns in 1997 there were 108 members).

Membership Profile:

Male FemaleAdult 33 7Junior 7 3

Member age range between 12 to 70 and 90% of the membership is from Surrey Heath.PROJECT PROFILE: (Level of Return & Cost)The total project cost is £56,095.00 and comprises of demolishing part of the existing clubbuilding, extending the vacated Kingdom Hall to replace the changing/meeting room and re-building the air rifle/pistol range with special lighting and heating. The club room, smallkitchen, changing meeting room and air rifle range are currently located in the section of theexisting building that is to be demolished.

Demolition of part of the existing building must be carried out so as to achieve theredevelopment of the whole site, in accordance with the planning consent. The remainder ofthe site will be developed and improved by another party, not associated with the rifle club.GRANT APPLIED FOR:£25,000BENEFIT TO COMMUNITY:The Management Committee estimate that a further 25 plus, new members could be attractedto the Club if this proposal is supported.

The Club has sought to encourage and increase membership over recent years. The drop ofmembership was mainly due to uncertainties as to the Club’s future as a result of an evictionnotice served by the offshore developer in 1998. The Club has now secured the freehold ofthe land concerned and there is no reason why the Club’s membership should notsignificantly grow.TIMESCALE AND PROJECT DURATION:


Completion of the project will take up to 6 months.OTHER FUNDING SOURCES:The Club will be applying for a loan from Surrey Playing Fields Association for up to£25,000, which is conditional on receiving a grant from the Council.REVENUE COST IMPLICATIONS ON THE COUNCIL:NoneCDO RECOMMENDATION:The Leisure Development Officer fully supports the application. The Club is veryenthusiastic in all aspects of community sports development and try to become involvedwhere ever possible. It is felt this project needs to be supported as it is part of the“performance aspect of the sports development continuum” in the borough. There are notmany facilities in Surrey Heath that provide/support international sports people. The Clubhas a very active junior section and the redevelopment of the Club’s facilities will enable theclub to continue to support the “grassroots” aspect of the sport.PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS:None


ITEM 8

Portfolio: ResourcesDRAFT FINAL ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIALSTATEMENTS - 2002/03


Purpose

To consider the current position on the Council’s 2002/03 Draft Final Accounts andFinancial Statements and the recommendations of the Policy and Resources SelectCommittee thereon.

Background

1. The Policy and Resources Select Committee considered, on 2nd July 2003, a report onthe 2002/03 Draft Final Accounts and Financial Statements.

2. The Select Committee noted the recommendations in the report for consideration bythe Executive. However, the Committee had set up a Budget Process Working Groupto examine the overall budget process in more detail and Members agreed that thisreport should be the subject of in-depth consideration by that Working Group (theCommittee report is attached at Appendix A).

3. It was not considered that above review should hinder the progress of the report, butrather that, in the event of any significant issues being raised by the Working Group,these would be reported to the Executive, through the Select Committee, at theearliest possible opportunity.

Financial Statements

4. The Financial Statements, certified by the Director of Financial Services, werecirculated to all Members as a separate document, prior to the Policy and ResourcesSelect Committee meeting on 2nd July 2003, with a request that these be retained. Thestatements are published subject to external audit. Any material balance sheetchanges, made because of the external audit, will be reported to the Executive, andthe adjusted audited Statements will be published and distributed to all Members.

Options

5. Regulation 10 of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 (SI 533) requires that theCouncil’s Statement of Accounts shall be approved by a resolution of a Committee orotherwise by a resolution of the Council. The Statement of Accounts shall then besigned by the person presiding at the meeting at which approval has been given. For2003, this is required by 30th September and as a result there are no options toconsider. The Accounts will be subject to external audit.



6. The final account position will have an impact on the budget position for 2003/04.

Recommendation

7. The Executive is advised to RESOLVE that

a) the 2002/03 Draft Final Accounts and Financial Statements be approved,subject to external audit; and

b) subject to a) above being approved, the Chairman of this meeting beauthorised to sign the Statement of Accounts at the meeting.

Background Papers: 2002/03 Close of Account Working Papers

Contact: Chris Dunning 01276 707257e-mail: [email protected]


APPENDIX A APPENDIX A

Portfolio: ResourcesDRAFT FINAL ACCOUNTS AND FINANCIALSTATEMENTS - 2002/03


Purpose

To report on the 2002/03 Draft Final Accounts and Financial Statements.

Background

1. Draft Final Accounts - this report compares the Council’s original budget to the draftfinal accounts.

2. Financial Statements - the statement of accounts, or other accounting statement asappropriate, can be approved by a committee or the full council, after the“Responsible Financial Officer (RFO)” has first signed and dated the statement ofaccounts. This must take place by 30th September.

3. The financial statements certified by the Director of Financial Services (RFO) havebeen circulated to Members as a separate document. The statements are publishedsubject to external audit. Any material balance sheet changes made because of theexternal audit will be reported to the Executive, and the adjusted audited statementswill be published and distributed to all Members.

4. Members are asked to keep their copy of the Financial Statements.

Current Position

5. The General Fund Revenue Account position compared with the Original Budget isshown at Annex A to this report.

6. Table One shows the 2002/03 original Provision for Services compared with the draftfinal account.

Table One £’000Original Provision for Services 11,020Draft final accounts 10,615

Favourable Variation 405 (F)

Information about variations greater than £10,000 from the original estimate areattached as:

a) Holding Accounts - Annexes B 1 and 2b) Portfolios – Annexes C 1 to 7


Two Corporate Budget Monitoring exercises were carried out in the financial year atmonth three and month nine. The results were reported to this Select Committee.Monitoring statement of approved supplementary estimates were included in theMembers bulletin following each Council cycle.

7. Table Two shows how the £405,000 variation in the Provision for Services cameabout:

Table Two Favourable AdverseVariation Variation

£’000 £’000Portfolios – adding to the General Fund WorkingBalance

186

Portfolios – met from Reserves and Provisions 228Operational Management costs 219Unbudgeted year-end adjustments 230Roundings 2TOTALS 630 230

NET FAVOURABLE VARIATION 405

8. Table Three reconciles the net movement of £366,000 in the General Fund WorkingBalance (see penultimate line of Annex A) :

Table ThreeVariation GFWB

£’000 £’000Estimated GFWB as at 1st April 2002 3,191 CREstimated transfer in the year 649 DRExternal Audit adjustment to balance 18 CR

Provision for Services 405 CRInvestment Interest 51 CRNet increase in approved expenditure funded fromReserves

191 CR

Increase in Bad Debt Provision 52 DRPlanned transfer £330,000 from the PropertyMaintenance Fund not needed.

330 DR

GFWB as at 31st March 2003 2,825 CR

9. The Original estimate did not anticipate the Secretary of State allowing a furthercapitalisation of £1.725m superannuation back funding repayment to the SCCSuperannuation Fund. Resulting in a favourable impact caused by a reduction in therevenue contributions.

10. Further points to note are:


a) end of year accounting adjustments were £34,000 Favourable;

b) the rating revaluation of Surrey Heath House resulted in a Non-Domestic Rateprior year adjustment of £146,000.

c) payment of interest on a Charge on Property - £50,000

d) asset rentals within the Revenue Account were £1.908m above the originalestimate. These book transfers to the Capital Financing Reserve do not affectthe Council’s cash position. The two main reasons for the change were:

i) the completing of depreciation charges on operational buildings nowrequired by the Best Value Accounting Code of Practice, the net effectof disposals, acquisitions and the revaluation of fixed assets during theyear and

ii) the writing out of deferred charges of £1.725m.

Interest on Balances

11. Interest on Balances totalled £1.639m.

12. The average interest rate on invested balances was estimated at 5% for 2002/03. Theaverage interest rate achieved was 5.42%. The increase of £51,000 interest to theGeneral Fund is attributable to:

i) delaying the repayment of £1.725m to the SCC Superannuation Fund.

ii) the 0.42% increase in the average interest rate achieved .

Transfers to the Reserves and Provisions

13. The following transfers from or to the reserves have been made under Councilpolicies:

a) additional spending approved in the year to be met from Reserves andProvisions was £262,000;

b) the planned transfer of £330,000 from the Property Maintenance Fund was notactioned as all PPM expenditure was capitalised in the year.

c) an extra transfer of £52,000 from the General Fund Working Balance (GFWB)to the Provision for Bad Debts.

General Fund Working Balance (GFWB)

14. In February 2002 Members approved the 2002/03 Council Tax assuming a decreaseof £649,000 in the GFWB. Then the GFWB was estimated to be £3.191m at31st March 2002. The external auditors’ adjustment to the 2001/02 Housing and


Council Tax Benefit Final Claims resulted in the GFWB as at 31st March 2002 being£18,000 higher than expected at £3.209m.

15. The 2002/03 GFWB at 31st March 2003 was estimated to be £2.542m. The GFWBclosing balance at 31st March 2003 is £2.825m, £384,000 or 15% higher thanoriginally estimated.


16. The final account position will have an impact on the budget position for 2003/04.

Financial Statements

17. The 2002/03 Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom,Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) includes new guidance on theapplication of Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 17 – Local Government PensionScheme ‘Accounting for Retirement Benefits’.

18. The information needed by the Council can only be supplied by the SCC PensionFund administrators. At the date of this report this information is outstanding.Therefore the Council’s Consolidated Revenue Account and Consolidated BalanceSheet do not reflect compliance with FRS 17.

Recommendation

19. The Select Committee is advised to RESOLVE to recommend to the Executive the2002/03 Draft final accounts and Financial Statements be approved subject to externalaudit.

Attachments: Annexes A, B and C

Background Papers: 2002/03 Close of Account Working Papers

Originator: Financial Management Division

Contact: Chris Dunning 01276 707257e-mail: [email protected]


ANNEX A ANNEX A

GENERAL FUND REVENUE ACCOUNTORIGINAL BUDGET 2002/03

2002/03 2002/03Status: Ledger report dated 09/06/2003 ORIGINAL ACTUAL CHANGE

£'000 £'000 £'000PORTFOLIO'S

Community 4,343,740 4,348,160 4,420Corporate 1,341,910 1,382,940 41,030Development Services & Asset Management 1,456,900 1,256,750 -200,150Environment 1,336,930 1,464,320 127,390Leisure 1,752,160 1,685,600 -66,560Policy 437,090 589,270 152,180Resources 3,655,330 5,170,770 1,515,440

NET COST OF SERVICES 14,324,060 15,897,810 1,573,750

Prior Year & Other Adjustments (net) -229,990 -229,990less: Staff Vacancy Margin -159,300 0 159,300less: Internal asset charges -3,144,320 -5,052,200 -1,907,880

PROVISION FOR SERVICES 11,020,440 10,615,620 -404,820

Interest on Capital & Revenue Balances 1,588,000 1,638,820 50,820

Commutation of Improvement Grant Adjustment 183,810 183,810 0

General Transfer from Reserves 260,000 260,000 0Transfer from Car Parks Reserve 36,590 32,800 -3,790Transfer from CCT Reserve 4,430 5,660 1,230Transfer from Community Fund 33,000 36,130 3,130Transfer from Community Organisations Fund 25,000 25,000 0Transfer from Community Fund 2002 0 38,480 38,480Transfer from Crime & Disorder Fund 0 21,030 21,030Transfer from Crime & Disorder Government Funding 0 163,650 163,650Transfer from Housing Reserve 3,000 3,000 0Transfer from Insurance Fund 13,800 38,440 24,640Transfer from Interest Equalisation Account 215,000 164,180 -50,820Transfer from Leisure Initiatives Fund 7,930 1,000 -6,930Transfer from Property Maintenance Fund 330,000 0 -330,000

Sub Total Transfer from Funds 928,750 789,370 -139,380

Transfer to Bad Debt Provision 0 -51,700 -51,700Transfer to Property Maintenance Fund -306,000 -306,000 0Transfer to Repair and Renewal Fund -430,000 -430,000 0Transfer to Capital Fund -12,070 -12,070 0Transfer to Community Fund -680,000 -680,000 0

Sub Total Transfer to Funds -1,428,070 -1,479,770 -51,700

Transfer to (-) or from Working Balance 649,110 384,550 -264,560

FINANCING ADJUSTMENTS 1,921,600 1,516,780 -404,820

ESTIMATED NET EXPENDITURE 9,098,840 9,098,840 0

GENERAL EXPENSES 8,953,740 8,953,740 0SPECIAL EXPENSES 145,100 145,100 0

TRANSFER 9,098,840 9,098,840 0

WORKING BALANCE:brought forward 3,190,980 3,209,080 18,100transfer in year -649,110 -384,550 264,560carried forward 2,541,870 2,824,530 282,660


ANNEX B

SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCILVariance Analysis - Comparing the Original Budget 2002/03 to the Draft Final Account 2002/03

Variances > £10,000

Corporate Portfolio

B.Bk Line Description Original Final Var. Reason for Variance Structural Div.Pg.Ref Ref. Budget Account Impact in Head

£ £ £ 2003/044.7.9 1 Theatre – Wages 37,580 76,250 38,670A Reflects increased activity. Supplementary Estimate

of £24,000 approved by Council (minute 99/E) on17th September 2002

Taken into Account GB

4.7.9 6 Theatre – Repairs 24,070 37,880 13,810A Statutory and Licensing requirements plusadditional maintenance.

To be Reviewed GB

4.7.9 10 Theatre – artistesfees

170,490 217,630 47,140A Reflects increased activity. Supplementary Estimateof £16,000 approved by Council (minute 99/E) on17th September 2002

Taken intoAccount

GB

4.7.9 21 Theatre – BarCatering Income

-91,800 -81,050 10,750A Additional entertainment income did not result inanticipated Bar income as most growth was inchildren’s activities.

To be Reviewed GB

4.7.9 23 Theatre –Entertainment Inc

-215,000 -317,010 102,010F Significant additional income with associated costsin Wages and Artistes Fees. SupplementaryEstimate of £45,000 approved by Council (minute99/E) on 17th September 2002

Taken intoAccount

GB

4.7.11 61 Town Centre -Rates

27,490 39,930 12,440A Generally lower Occupancy in Town Centre. CM



£ £ £ 2003/044.7.11 69 Town Centre –

Rent Income-157,390 -126,570 30,820A Generally lower Occupancy in Town Centre. No CM

Variations <£9,999

463,850 469,690 5,840A

ManagementCosts

792,920 783,410 9,510F

Asset Rentals 289,700 282,780 6,920F

Net PortfolioExpenditure

1,341,910 1,382,940 41,030A This committee £41,030 adverse variation.

( F ) Favourable = Increased income or reduced expenditure for the Council( A ) Adverse = Reduced income or increased expenditure for the Council


ANNEX B1



Resources Portfolio – Employee Expenses


£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/043.7.17 H1-7 Direct Salary

Costs7,823 7,976 153 (A) In year approvals of £80,000, the use of agency

staff to cover for vacant posts and overtime inexcess of budget meant the vacancy margin targetwas not achieved by £153,000.

Being reviewed.A supplementaryestimate may berequired during2003/04

CPO

H8 Superannuation(Back Funding)

150 86 64 (F) Monthly instalment’s paid to SCC ceased inJanuary 2003 following the capital repayment of£1.725m.

Budget adjusted. HoS&R

3.7.19 H14 Car Allowances 68 55 13 (F) Claims by officers varies depending on activity Budget adjusted. CPO

H16 Advertising 87 68 19 (F) Expenditure dictated by recruitment requirements No change tobudget in 2003/04

CPO

H21 Relocation 20 8 12 (F) Expenditure dictated by recruitment requirements Budget adjusted. CPOH22 Corporate

Training49 67 18 (A) Management Training – being funded from under-

spend on Advertising/Post Entry trainingSupplementaryestimate in2003/04

CPO

H23 P.E.Training 22 11 11 (F) Combination of factors: requirement over-states/failure of staff to join courses/staff drop outof courses

No change tobudget in 2003/04

CPO



£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/04H30 Health Care 77 62 15 (F) Refund on premium following a reduction in the

number of claims.Awaitingnotification of2003/04 impact

CPO

Variations <£9,999

150 138 12 (F)

Asset Rentals 198 273 75 (A)Net PortfolioExpenditure

8,644 8,744 100 (A) This Portfolio has a £100,000 adverse variation.



ANNEX B2



Resources Portfolio – Internal Holding Accounts


£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/043.7.21 H38 M&E Plant Mtce 38 60 22 (A) Expenditure of £24,420 met from the Insurance

Reserve FundACEx

H41 Non DomesticRates

421 265 156 (F) Reduction in Surrey Heath House RV following asuccessful appeal to the Inland Revenue.

Budget adjusted. ACEx

H44 Repairs 10 20 10 (A) ACExH49 Mobile

Telephones26 14 12 (F) ACEx

H57-65

Supplies &Services

226 212 14 (F) ACEx

H70-75

InsurancePremiums

169 192 23 (A) Supplementary Estimate of £25,300 approved byCouncil (minute 137 E) on 18th December 2002.

Budget adjusted. HoFM

Variations <£9,999

1,239 1,177 62 (F)

Asset Rentals 170 170 0Net PortfolioExpenditure

2,299 2,110 189 (F) This Portfolio has a £189,000 favourable variation.



ANNEX C1



Community Portfolio


£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.4.5 12 Gypsy Sites - Repairs and

Maintenance27 61 34 (A) Additional expenditure

reimbursable by SCC for capitalworks (Refer to Line 21 below).

None ACEx

4.4.5 21 Gypsy Sites -Reimbursement by SCC

-2 -46 44 (F) Additional funding by SCC tocover increased maintenanceworks (Refer to Line 12 above).

None ACEx

4.4.13 60 Recycling - DepotServices

4 53 49 (A) Garden waste services were notincluded in the original budget.They were a refuse collectionfunction, but the service wastransferred to recycling from2002/03.

None CEHO



£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.4.13 67 Recycling - Collection

Schemes84 145 61 (A) An increase of £47,700 had been

allowed for in the revisedestimate, but the expenditurewas higher because the schemepays on a tonnage basis. Asmore material is recycled thecollection costs increase and theincome from the sale ofmaterials and recycling creditsincreases (Refer to Line 80below). Garden WasteCollection is now also includedin this figure.

None. Althoughthe budget andincome willincrease eachyear. Thecontract pays onthe basis oftonnage collected.Recycling creditsand income seekto offset extracosts.

CEHO

4.4.13 69 Recycling - EmptyingContracts

93 77 16 (F) A reduction of £11,050 wasforecast during the revisedestimate. The expenditure waseven lower because a new long-term contract for glass recyclinghas eliminated most of theexpenditure from this source.This saving however is nowbeing used to support theconsideration for theestablishment of a part time postof Environmental Health Officeron Grade SH6, at 20 hours perweek.

The budgets havebeen relocated tothe new works.DEFRA bidreports refer.

CEHO



£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.4.13 76 Recycling - Sale of Paper -41 -58 17 (F) An increase in income of £8,750

was allowed for in the revisedestimate. The income washigher still because in the shortterm the value of paper is veryhigh. Currently Aylesford arepaying way above the contractedvalue.

None. Evidenceof a long termincrease in priceswould be needed.

CEHO

4.4.13 77 Recycling - Sale of GardenWaste Sacks

0 -25 25 (F) Garden waste services were notincluded in the original budget.They were a refuse collectionfunction, but the service wastransferred to recycling from2002/03.

None CEHO

4.4.13 79 Recycling - LandfillCredits income

-82 0 82 (A) Separate lines for LandfillCredits and Recycling Creditshave been merged during2002/03.

None CEHO

4.4.13 80 Recycling - RecyclingCredits income

-129 -245 116 (F) This has merged with LandfillCredits and £19,570 additionalincome was allowed for.However the out-turn exceededthis because the overall tonnagewas higher than expected. Alsothe County has relented on itspolicy of not paying credits oncertain materials.

Yes. But whilstrecycling creditsincrease withtonnage so do ourcosts. Refer toLine 67 above.

CEHO



£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.4.15 82 Refuse Collection - Depot

Services62 18 44 (F) Garden Waste Services were

included in the original budget,though the service wastransferred to Recycling in2002/03.

None CEHO

4.4.15 91 Refuse Collection -Domestic Sack Collection

771 752 19 (F) A reduction in spend of £11,870was forecast during the RevisedEstimate. The expenditure islower still however due to thesystem whereby the contractor ispaid on the basis of a cost perdwelling. When the speed ofoccupancy in new developmentis delayed there are savings inthat year.

None CEHO

4.4.15 93 Refuse Collection -Special Garden / WasteCollection

31 18 13 (F) A reduction in expenditure of£14,890 was forecast during theRevised Estimate (£24,780garden waste which wastransferred to Recycling in2002/03, plus £9,890 growth).This budget now only includesspecial collections, whichcontinue to increase (Refer toLine 104).

None. Thespecialcollections’expenditure andincome willcontinue toincrease. A smallprofit is made.

CEHO



£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.4.15 102 Refuse Collection -

Garden Waste Sacksincome

-22 0 22 (A) Garden Waste Services wereincluded in the original budget,though the service wastransferred to Recycling in2002/03.

None CEHO

4.4.15 104 Refuse Collection -Special Collectionsincome

-9 -25 16 (F) An increase in income from thissource of £11,380 was forecastat the Revised Estimate. Theadditional income however isdue to extra demands upon thisservice (Refer to Line 93).

The increasedincome andexpenditure willbe reflected innext year’sbudgets.

CEHO

4.4.19 119 Street Cleansing -Programmed StreetSweeping

493 504 11 (A) This budget is now very tight.

Small additional works in anumber of areas haveaccumulated in this increase.

None. CEHO

4.4.21 143 Community Services -Parking Permits for theVoluntary Sector

99 86 13 (F) The lower out-turn was due tothe reduction in the number ofpermits required because therewere significantly lessvolunteers supporting the Mealson Wheels Service.

This will have animpact on the2003/04 originalbudget. This willbe reported at theCorporate BudgetMonitoring stage.

HoCS



£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.4.21 147 Community Services -

Community Alarm income-96 -81 15 (A) The increased charges for

2002/03 resulted in a number ofusers cancelling the service andsubsequent potential usersfinding the charges too high.A reduction in income of£12,000 was forecast at theRevised Estimates.


HoCS

4.4.23 150 Community Transport –Vehicle OperatingExpenses

10 21 11 (A) The variation is due tounforeseen expensive vehiclerepairs in the last three monthsof the year. Included in thefigure is £1,240 set up costs forthe new mini buses that shouldhave been funded from capital.


HoCS

4.4.31 230 Homelessness - B & B /TemporaryAccommodation Costs

257 204 53 (F) A saving of £25,000 wasforecast as part of the RevisedEstimates. The additionalsaving is due to fewerplacements than expected,however the income is adverselyaffected as well (Refer to Line237 below).

None HoI&H



£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.4.31 237 Homelessness - Bed and

Breakfast Charges-100 -62 38 (A) A reduction in income of

£10,000 was forecast in theRevised Estimates. However theincome is even lower thanexpected due to fewerplacements (Refer to Line 230above).

None HoI&H

4.4.33 239 Housing Strategy andDevelopment - HousingNeeds Survey

0 36 36 (A) A £40,000 SupplementaryEstimate was approved during2002/03 for the Housing NeedsSurvey (Minute Ref. 0680 FullCouncil 24/04/02)

None HoI&H

Variations < £9,999 396 431 35 (A)Management Costs 2,114 2,058 56 (F)Asset Rentals 384 426 42 (A)

Net Portfolio Expenditure 4,344 4,348 4 (A) This Portfolio has a £3,500adverse variation.



ANNEX C2



Corporate Portfolio


£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.7.9 1 Theatre – Wages 38 76 38 (A) Reflects increased activity. Supplementary Estimate

of £24,000 approved by Council (minute 99/E) on17th September 2002

Taken into Account GM

4.7.9 6 Theatre – Repairs 24 38 14 (A) Statutory and Licensing requirements plusadditional maintenance.

To be Reviewed GM

4.7.9 10 Theatre – artistesfees

170 218 48 (A) Reflects increased activity. Supplementary Estimateof £16,000 approved by Council (minute 99/E) on17th September 2002

Taken intoAccount

GM

4.7.9 21 Theatre – BarCatering Income

-92 -81 11 (A) Additional entertainment income did not result inanticipated Bar income as most growth was inchildren’s activities.

To be Reviewed GM

4.7.9 23 Theatre –Entertainment Inc

-215 -318 103 (F) Significant additional income with associated costsin Wages and Artistes Fees. SupplementaryEstimate of £45,000 approved by Council (minute99/E) on 17th September 2002

Taken intoAccount

GM

4.7.11 61 Town Centre -Rates

27 40 13 (A) Generally lower Occupancy in Town Centre. BSol/HoBC



£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.7.11 69 Town Centre –

Rent Income-157 -127 30 (A) Generally lower Occupancy in Town Centre. No BSol/

HoBCVariations <£9,999

464 471 7 (A)

ManagementCosts

793 783 10 (F)

Asset Rentals 290 283 7 (F)





ANNEX C3SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Variance Analysis - Comparing the Original Budget 2002/03 to the Draft Final Account 2002/03Variances > £10,000

Development Services & Asset Management Portfolio


£,000 £’000 £’000 2003/043.3.3 10 Building Control

– Fee Income-322 -351 29 (F) Reflects increased activity. Taken into Account HoBC

3.3.7 9 CLM - PPM 330 96 234 (F) No PPM revenue work undertaken – all workcapitalised at the year end

To be Reviewed BSol/HoBC

3.3.7 12 CLM - Rents -596 -675 79 (F) Reflects increased activity. To be Reviewed BSol/HoBC

3.3.11 R2 DC – Consultants 34 109 75 (A) Supplementary Estimate of £38,490 approved byCouncil (minute 210/E) on 26th February 2003

CPO(DC)

R5 DC – Fee Income -325 -307 18 (A) Supplementary Estimate of £21,220 approved byCouncil (minute 210/E) on 26th February 2003

CPO(DC)

Variations <£9,999

115 126 11 (A)

ManagementCosts

1,687 1,665 22( F)

Asset Rentals 534 594 60 (A)


1,457 1,257 200 (F) This Portfolio has a £200,000 Favourable variation.



ANNEX C4



Environment Portfolio


£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/043.4.13 19 Plan,Pol& Con 32 20 12 (F) Delay in progressing Local Plan None HoPP

&C3.4.15 23 Grass Cutting 172 197 25 (A) CLSO3.4.17 32/3 Parking Services -

Income-2,295 -2,013 282 (A) Supplementary Estimate of £288,000 approved by

Council (minute 115/E) on 23rd October 2002Supplementary Estimate of £25,000 approved byCouncil (minute 210/E) on 26th February 2003

PSM

3.4.27 22 Vehicle Licensing– income

-66 -77 11 (F) More licences issued. Budget adjusted. BSol

Variations <£9,999

1,116 1,061 55 (F)

ManagementCosts

1,800 1,700 100 (F)

Asset Rentals 578 576 2 (F)





ANNEX C5SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL

Variance Analysis - Comparing the Original Budget 2002/03 to the Draft Final Account 2002/03Variances > £10,000

LEISURE Portfolio


£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/044.3.13 73 Repairs &

maintenance52 71 19 (A) This is mainly due to cost of building maintenance

works required for H& S or security(Supplementary Estimate £17,000 Sita Grantworks–Council 062E 23 Oct 2002)

CLSO

4.3.13 83 Contract payments 590 578 12 (F) Due to uncertainty with new contractor leading toslightly less spend than usual.

CLSO

4.3.13 88 Grant income -2 -25 23 (F) We have received a number of one off grants thisyear that amount to some £9,000(Supplementary Estimate £17,000 Sita Grant –Council 062E 23 Oct 2002)

CLSO

4.3.13 102 Misc. income -2 -25 23 (F) Income has been much higher with various incomefrom people in return for work or memorials Thefunfair raised £4,000

CLSO

Variations <£9,999

-49 -35 14 (A)

Management Costs 745 688 57 (F)Asset Rentals 418 434 16 (A)Net PortfolioExpenditure

1,752 1,686 66 (F) This Portfolio has a £66,000 favourable variation.



ANNEX C6



Policy Portfolio


£’000 £’000 £’000 2003/04

4.1.3 2Community Fund(New Scheme)

- 30 30 (A) Funded from the Community Fund 2002 ACEx

4.1.37

Community Safety 9 190 181 (A) £184,680 funded from earmarked revenuereserves.

ACEx

4.1.5 17 Consultants 11 27 16 (A) Supplementary Estimate to Council 14/05/03 NIL DoFS

4.1.518 Contingency 18 - 18 (F)

Budget and Actual allocated out to individualprogramme areas.

NIL CEO

Variations <£9,999 91 87 4 (F)

Management Costs 308 255 53 (F)Asset Rentals - - -

Net PortfolioExpenditure 437 589 152 (A) This Portfolio has a £152,000 adverse variation.



ANNEX C7



Resources Portfolio


£000 £000 £000 2003/044.6.3 1 Corporate Man-

Audit Fee75 88 13 Estimate did not allow for the auditing of Grant

Claims, This has been rectified for 2003/04Budget increasedby £18,000

DoFS

4.6.3 4 Corporate Man –Backfunding

150 86 -64 Monthly contributions made until repaymentmade in Feb 03

None DoFS

4.6.9 11 Council Tax –Printing andStationery

12 22 10 Some in-house printing has been moved to anexternal printer so it was charged to revenue.Consideration to be given to moving the budget

HoS&R

4.6.9 16 Council Tax –Summons Costs

-63 -98 -35 Volume greater than anticipated HoS&R

4.6.13 29 Housing Benefit –Council TaxBenefit

1,280 1,473 193 Level of claims greater than anticipated HoS&R

4.6.13 30 Housing Benefit –DiscretionaryBenefits

32 0 -32 The payment run cannot differentiate the typesof payee so we cannot identify the figure untilthe year end subsidy report is completed. Thetotal has been allocated to Rent Allowances

HoS&R

4.6.13 31 Housing Benefit –Rent Allowances

5,950 6,319 369 Level of claims greater than anticipated HoS&R

4.6.13 35 Housing Benefit –Admin Grant

-107 -138 -31 Includes £21,080 Transitional Funding forSAFE Scheme, which was not budgeted for.

HoS&R



£000 £000 £000 2003/044.6.13 36 Housing Benefit –

Benefit Grant-1,192 -1,426 -234 Level of claims greater than anticipated, so

higher level of grant receivedHoS&R

4.6.13 38 Housing Benefits– Prevention ofFraud (Old WBSScheme)

-30 0 30 Scheme Closed HoS&R

4.6.13 39 Housing Benefits– RentAllowancesSubsidy

-5,540 -5,969 -429 Level of claims greater than anticipated, sohigher level of grant received

HoS&R

4.6.13 40 Housing Benefits- WIBS

-21 -45 -24 More overpayments identified than anticipated,so higher rewards received

HoS&R

4.6.13 42 Housing Benefits- Recoveries

-150 -81 69 Only shows recoveries made through Debtors,total recoveries £180 for year but this areclaimed through other means e.g deduction inon-going benefits

HoS&R

4.6.21 72 LLC – SCCCharges

88 62 -26 Number of searches not as great as estimated HoS&R

4.6.21 78 LLC – Fees -412 -440 -28 Increase in Search Fees and Personal Searchesbeing requested

BSol

Variations <£9,999

318 332 14

ManagementCosts

3,265 3,261 -4

Asset Rentals Nil 1,725 1,725 Deferred charge regarding the repayment of£1,725m Superannuation (Back Funding)Minute 023/E refers, Council 17 July 2002



£000 £000 £000 2003/04Net PortfolioExpenditure

3,655 5,171 1,516 This Portfolio has a £1,516,000 adversevariation.


surrey heath house division: borough secretary’s please...

Documents