{meta} 1 October 2021 - 15 October 2021

Decisions

In accordance with the constitution, the council publishes decisions taken by the City Mayor, Deputy City Mayors and Lead Members. Use the search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding decisions taken at executive meetings after 24 January 2017.

Details of previous decisions are available as follows:

Officer decisions are not subject to call-in, however during the period of five working days from the publication of a decision taken by the City Mayor, Deputy City Mayors or a Lead Member, a request to 'call-in' a decision may be made by either:

Requests for call-in are only used in exceptional circumstances and if a decision is not called-in, it becomes effective at 4pm on the fifth working day following publication.

Decisions published

30/09/2021 - Insurance for Schools. ref: 954    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Lead Member for Finance and Support Services Briefing

Made at meeting: 30/09/2021 - Lead Member for Finance and Support Services Briefing

Decision published: 15/10/2021

Effective from: 23/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council - Record of Decision

 

I, Councillor William Hinds, Lead Member for Finance and Support Services, in exercise of the powers contained within the Council Constitution, do hereby:

 

·         Require that officers encourage all maintained primary and secondary schools to continue with the current insurance SLA arrangements with the council.

·         Authorise amendment to SLA costs charged to schools so that the rates are competitive with RPA.

 

Options considered and rejected were:

 

·         To remove schools’ cover from the current insurance specification and not offer an insurance SLA, instead encouraging schools to opt in to RPA arrangements.

·         To keep schools SLA rates at current high unit costs, not competitive with RPA

·         (See financial implications)

 

Assessment of Risk - The council’s Risk and insurance Officer has scrutinised the RPA offer (see detail at 4.2) and makes the following headline observation.

 

The RPA scheme is not an insurance scheme but a mechanism through which the cost of risks will be covered by government funds.  The risk to the LA is that the scheme does not cover all claims, and these fall back to the council.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by – Not applicable

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by - Chris Hesketh

As set out in the report

 

PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by – Not applicable

 

HR IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by – Not Applicable

 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by – Not Applicable

 

OTHER DIRECTORATES CONSULTED: Not Applicable

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process - The relevant documents contain exempt or confidential information and are not available for public inspection.

Contact Officer: Chris Hesketh                                 Tel No. 0161 793 2668

 

This decision is not subject to consideration by another Lead member.

 

The appropriate scrutiny panel to call-in the decision is the Overview & Scrutiny Board.

 

 

 

Signed: Councillor Hinds                                Dated: 30 September 2021

Lead Member for Finance & Support Services

 

 

This decision was published on 15 October 2021.

 

This decision will come into force at 4.00 p.m. on 22 October 2021, unless it is called-in in accordance with the decision-making process rules.

 


30/09/2021 - Sundry Debt Write Off Quarter 2. ref: 953    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Lead Member for Finance and Support Services Briefing

Made at meeting: 30/09/2021 - Lead Member for Finance and Support Services Briefing

Decision published: 15/10/2021

Effective from: 23/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council - Record of Decision

 

I, Councillor Hinds, Lead Member for Finance and Support Services, in exercise of the powers contained within the Council Constitution, do hereby:

 

Approve the write-off of Sundry Debt to the value of £107,948.12. 

 

The Reasons are that these sundry debts, after exhaustive attempts to collect, are found to be irrecoverable for a variety of reasons e.g., liquidation, absconded, no longer trading, bankrupt, deceased, uneconomical to collect, and irrecoverable after court action etc.

 

Options considered and rejected were - Not relevant due to the nature (age and value) of these accounts. The majority of accounts relate to those proven uneconomical to collect, irrecoverable after court action, bankruptcy / liquidation.

 

Assessment of Risk - Low

 

The source of funding is the Council’s bad debt provision.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by – legal advice has been obtained on each of the individual cases where court action has been taken.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by - Chris Hesketh

There is adequate provision for the sundry debt write offs from the councils provision for bad debt. The provision is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the provision is set at an appropriate level.

 

PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by – Not applicable

 

HR IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by – Not Applicable

 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS: Supplied by – Not Applicable

 

OTHER DIRECTORATES CONSULTED: N/A

 

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process - The relevant documents contain exempt or confidential information and are not available for public inspection. The background documents would provide the identity of individuals or companies involved in the write off.

Contact Officer: Chris Hesketh                  Tel No. 0161 793 2668

 

This decision is not subject to consideration by another Lead Member.

 

The appropriate scrutiny panel to call-in the decision is the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

 

Signed: Councillor Hinds                            Dated: 30 September 2021

Lead Member for Finance & Support Services

 

FOR DEMOCRATIC SERVICES USE ONLY

 

This decision was published on 15 October 2021.

 

This decision will come into force at 4.00 p.m. on 22 October 2021, unless it is called-in in accordance with the decision-making process rules.


14/10/2021 - Additional Resources Grant (ARG) Top Up Funding. ref: 952    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Lead Member for Finance and Support Services Briefing

Made at meeting: 14/10/2021 - Lead Member for Finance and Support Services Briefing

Decision published: 14/10/2021

Effective from: 22/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council - Record of Decision

 

I, Councillor Hinds, in exercise of the powers contained within the Council Constitution do hereby approve:

 

  • The proposal to provide Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) Top Up Fundingfor those businesses that were eligible for and received either the LRSG Restart Grant, the Back to Business Shared Accommodation Grant or the Supply Chain Booster grant and who continue to be under significant restrictions between 21 June 2021 and 19 July 2021 because of the delay to the roadmap out of lockdown.

 

  • The proposal to deliver Cyber Workforce Training Support for 200 freelance and self-employed home-based businesses at no cost to the business and provide the business with a grant award of £1,000 on completion to help fund their associated expenses. 

 

  • The proposal to deliver Attack Training & Awareness in Cyber (ATAC)for 100 Salford Small or Medium Enterprises (SME) who occupy commercial premises in the city at no cost to the business. And 6 months ongoing support and a grant award for the business of £2,500 on completion of the initial training to fund their associated expenses.

 

The Reasons are:

In March 2021, Central Government announced that further ARG ‘Top Up’ funding was available to be applied for in the event that local authorities had spent their existing funding allocation. Following the decision of the GMCA that GM authorities should apply for additional ARG top up funding individually, Salford’s application for this funding was submitted on 24 May 2021. The council’s allocation of ARG Top Up funding of £1,989,653 was received on 23 June 2021.

 

Options considered and rejected were:

Not to apply for ARG Top Up Funding.

 

Assessment of Risk:

Low

 

The source of funding is:

Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) Top Up Funding.

 

Legal Advice obtained: Tony Hatton, Principal Solicitor, Tel. 0161 219 6323

Government guidance suggests there is significant flexibility and discretion around how a Council structures its grant award process, so it does not require an application from companies to award subsidies in connection with the ARG and Business Support Package schemes, but the Council must ensure that it obtains up to date information from the funded companies or organisations, e.g. through a declaration they are eligible to accept the funding, so it can be satisfied that its grant awards comply with any scheme requirements, and for state aid/subsidy control purposes.

 

The guidance also says "The Local Authority must call or write to the business, stating that by accepting the grant payment, the business confirms that they are eligible for the grant schemes. This includes where Local Authorities already have bank details for businesses and are in a position to send out funding immediately, or where the Local Authority is sending a cheque to a business". So at least some form of declaration will be required from funding recipients.

 

In other contexts, there may be a requirement to run an open competition/application process to select recipients who may be eligible for grant funding, but the guidance suggests that this is not a requirement for the ARG schemes, and Local Authorities have been given flexibility and complete discretion around grant distribution.

 

The ARG guidance also says that Local Authorities can determine how much funding to provide to businesses from the ARG funding provided, and exactly which businesses to target".  The Business Support Package guidance (which covers the LRSG(Closed)) says "it is expected Local Authorities will identify and pay all relevant businesses as soon as possible to meet business need during national lockdown restrictions."


From a procurement perspective, and by way of further information, a grant is a different type of agreement than a services contract with different implications. Services contracts are subject to the procurement rules (Public Contracts Regulations 2015), but grants are not contracts for provision of services and so are not subject to the procurement rules.

 

Under a grant agreement you are not paying for specific services/outputs/deliverables to be provided, rather a grant agreement is about giving someone a pot of money to use for their organisation's purposes and objectives, which are usually consistent with the Council’s own policies and objectives.

 

Also, the Landing (HOST) is a wholly owned Salford City Council company and as such is exempt under the PCR, should a challenge be brought for failing to engage in a competitive process in awarding and distributing the grant funding, and claiming that the award should be subject to PCR..

 

The direct appointment of the Landing to undertake projects on the Council's behalf is based on the "Teckal" exemption to public procurement rules, which has now been codifed into Reg 12 of the PCR. The rules apply where a public body is letting a contract direct to a 3rd party to undertake services/works on its behalf.

There are limited circumstances in which it is possible to obtain services from a separate entity without needing to comply with PCR, where the services are provided by an organisation which, although legally separate, is "economically dependent" on the buying authority to such an extent that it would be inappropriate to make their dealings subject to the procurement rules. The conditions to be met for the exemption to apply are that: 

     * the public body/bodies exercise control over the provider in a similar way to that which it exercises control over its own internal departments; effectively the Council must exercise “a decisive influence over both strategic objectives and significant decisions” of the Landing, in other words, the same as the relationship between the Council and one of its internal directorates;

     *more than 80% of the activities of the provider are carried out pursuant to tasks entrusted to it by the public body/bodies, therefore at least 80% of the activity of the Landing – that is, over 80% of its turnover – must be for the Council. Any contracts with other public sector bodies or private sector entities will not benefit from the Teckal exemption and it will have to tender in the ordinary way for such contracts in accordance with any applicable procurement legislation ; and

     * there is no private sector participation or financing

The Landing/the Council needs to ensure that the Council still has the power to issue directions and that the autonomy of the board does not supersede Council powers.

 

Financial Advice obtained:

The source of funding is the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) Top Up Funding.

 

Procurement Advice obtained:

N/A

 

HR Advice obtained:

N/A

 

Climate Change Advice obtained:

N/A

 

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process:

 

Contact Officer: Steven Fry, Assistant Director Digital & Customer Service          Tel. 0161 793 3641

 

This decision is not subject to consideration by another Lead Member.

 

The appropriate scrutiny panel to call-in the decision is the Overview & Scrutiny Board.

 

 

 

 

Signed: Councillor Hinds                                Dated: 14th October 2021

Lead Member for Finance & Support Services

 

 

This decision was published on 14th October 2021.

 

This decision will come into force at 4.00 p.m. on 21st October 2021, unless it is called-in in accordance with the decision-making process rules.

 


13/10/2021 - Request for Approval - Contract Extension - Provision of Enforcement Services and Request for Approval to Initiate a Competitive Tender Process for the Provision of Enforcement Services ref: 951    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Procurement Board

Made at meeting: 13/10/2021 - Procurement Board

Decision published: 13/10/2021

Effective from: 21/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council – Record of Decision

 

I, Councillor Hinds, Lead Member for Finance and Support Services and chairman of the Procurement Board, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by the Scheme of Delegation of the Council do hereby approve:

(a)    the extension of the Contract for the Provision of Enforcement Services by 1 year as detailed in the table below, and

 

(b)  the initiation of a competitive tender process for the provision of a new Enforcement Services contract with effect from the 1st April 2023.

 

Detail required

Answers

Contract Reference

S1013

Title/Description of Contracted Service/Supply/Project

Provision of Enforcement Services

Name of Contractor

NSL Services Ltd

Type of organisation

(to be supplied by Corporate Procurement)

Private Limited Company

Status of Organisation

(to be supplied by Corporate Procurement)

Non-SME

Value of Contract Extension

£977,271

Per Annum (estimated average)

Existing Contract Term

01/04/2018

to

31/03/2022

Extension Period

01/04/2022

to

31/03/2023

Contact Officer (Name & number)

Andy Devine 07717431738

Lead Service Group

Place

Funding Source

Revenue Budget

Ethical Contractor (EC): Mayor’s Employment Charter

EC: Committed to sign the Charter

EC: Accredited Living Wage Employer

 

 

The reasons are -

 

A tender process for the provision of this service was awarded to one contractor, NSL Parking Services Ltd in April 2018 for a period of three years following an OJEU tendering process.

 

When the contract was originally awarded, it was made clear that the initial term would be subject to a potential extension of two years and the option to extend for the final 12 month period within the agreement is now being properly exercised, the final period being from 01/04/2022 to 31/03/2023.

 

A benchmarking exercise has taken place to determine the implications of bringing Enforcement Services back in-house and the comparison has been made against the arrangement at Sheffield City Council who currently run their Enforcement Service in-house. As a result of this benchmarking exercise combined with the additional Operational concerns the decision to bring in-house has not been pursued.

 

Due to the uncertainty and supressed market in terms of Civil Enforcement operations during the period affected by Covid the market is only just starting to recover with the easing of lockdown restrictions. This report therefore recommends that approval be given to the final year of the contract and that authorisation be given to start the procurement exercise which will see the delivery of Enforcement Services opened out to the tender process, giving ample time to complete a robust procurement exercise.

 

Having regard to the 1 year extension, NSL have worked hard to create an environment where staff feel supported and valued by senior officers. In addition it was important that staff receive the Salford Real Living Wage and all of these factors have resulted in a marked improvement in their staff retention rates.

 

In terms of revenue the income from Penalty Charge Notices is used to fund all contractor costs. Before March 2020 the level of income being generated by parking enforcement had risen year on year. The impact of the Covid 19 pandemic had reduced the initial level of enforcement to minimal cover and staff were deployed to assist in other vital areas such as marshalling Covid test centres, and recycling centres.

 

In the previous years the revenue from enforcement covered the cost of the Enforcement contract and made a surplus which has been increasing year on year. As lockdown eases then indications from the last 3-4 months are that revenues are increasing to a level greater than pre-Covid.

 

Having regard to the Environmental Enforcement NSL have continued to provide a good standard of support to the authority. Their performance levels have remained in line with the contract requirement, and in normal times (i.e. non Covid Lockdown) the amount of littering Fixed Penalty Notices served, offset the costs for this contract element of service delivery. The communication interaction, between Salford and NSL, provides flexibility in service delivery, that enables the authority to dictate their area of deployment to meet customer and service demand, which NSL willingly agree to undertake on Salford City Council's behalf.

 

The NSL commitment to their Social Value aspirations has included –

 

·       recruiting locally with 100% of the team living within Greater Manchester of which 31% are Salford residents

·       attending local job fairs organised by Salford Council

·       ensuring their staff are paid the Salford Living Wage

·       providing training to staff including BTEC, cycle proficiency and Dementia Awareness

·       rolling out the operation of Body Cam technology. This has assisted colleagues when they are on their beats and it has been demonstrated that the presence of the equipment has helped in reducing the threat level when enforcing.

·       sponsorship locally with contributions to local groups and sponsorship of a grassroots football team

·       allowing members of their team to volunteer to help with local projects

·       supporting various Salford COVID related projects during lockdown

·       spending locally to support Salford businesses

·       ensuring they contribute to the drive in reducing their CO2 fleet emission targets

 

ASSESSMENT OF RISK:  High - as any interruption of parking enforcement, could have a severe adverse effect on traffic movement in the City.


SOURCE OF FUNDING: £888,740 for parking enforcement services to be paid from the Parking Services Revenue Budgetand £88,531 from theEnvironmental Enforcement revenue budget.


 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: Submitted by: Tony Hatton, Principal Solicitor, tel. 219 6323

When commissioning goods, services or works the Council must comply with the Public Contract Regulations 2015 (PCR) and its own Contractual Standing Orders (CSO’s) failing which the award of a contract may be subject to legal challenge. In that regard, the Enforcement Services described in the report were procured in 2018 for a 3 year period with the option to extend for up to 2 further years.   

 

It is an established principle that an existing public contract is capable of being extended (or modified providing any modification does not affect the overall nature of the contract), where the original agreement makes provision for the extension. CSO’s also set out circumstances such as these where contract extensions may be made.

 

When the contract was originally awarded, it was made clear that the initial term would be subject to a potential extension of two years, hence any risk that any extension granted could be subject to realistic challenge by an aggrieved provider, on the basis that it ought to have been put out again to tender and advertised in accordance with PCR and CSO’s, is extremely low, and the option to extend for the final 12 month period within the agreement is now being properly exercised.

 

Also in accordance with CSO’s, where provision is made within an existing contract for an extension to the term, and the value is over £150,000 approval should be made by Procurement Board.

 

Once approved the extension will commit the Council to the period outlined in the report.

 

The report also requests Procurement Board approves the initiation of a compliant, competitive tender process for the provision of Enforcement Services to be undertaken during the final extension of the current contract. Undertaking a compliant tender exercise will give some comfort to the Council in ensuring that value for money is being obtained and tested, with open competition maintained, and at the same time ensure that the risk of challenge to the appointment of a contractor is minimal and that any challenge, should it materialise, is unlikely to be successful.

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Submitted by: Janet Cross, Finance Manager 0161 793 2858.

The contract cost will be met from the Parking Services and Environmental Enforcement revenue budget.  Cost Centre D0584 5751.


PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS: Submitted by: The Corporate Procurement Team

In 2017 the Council went out to tender for the services for Parking Enforcement through the OJEU and the Northwest Portal. The original award was in April 2018 made for a period of three years with the option to extend for 24 months renewed annually.

The Council is exercising its option to extend the contract for the final 12 months to 31st March 2023, this is compliant with the Procurement Contract Regulations and the Contractual Standing Orders.


CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS:  Supplied by: Michael Hemingway, Principal Officer Climate Change Tel 0161 793 3209

NSL provide CO2 fleet emission data successfully targeting an annual 5% reduction across the business, mainly through reducing fuel consumption.  They also promote environmental sustainability by deploying 3 cyclists daily reducing CO2 emissions.


 

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:  Procurement Board report to award and approve a contract to appoint the winning contractor following a competitive tender process for the provision of Enforcement Services – presented to Procurement Board on 24th January 2018.

Procurement Board report to approve a one year extension to existing contract for the provision of Enforcement Services – to Procurement Board on 3rd March 2021.


CONTACT OFFICER:  Andy Devine                       TEL. NO. 07717431738

 

The Lead Member has been consulted and is supportive of the proposed contract.

The appropriate Scrutiny Committee to call-in the decision is the Growth & ProsperityPanel.

 

Signed:      BILL HINDS                         Dated: 13th October 2021

                    Lead Member

 

*         This decision was published on 13th October 2021

*         This decision will come in force at 4.00 p.m. on 20th October 2021 unless it is called-in in accordance with the Decision Making Process Rules.


13/10/2021 - Request for Approval - Exception to Contractual Standing Orders - Contract Award - Manufacture and Installation of RHS Brown Tourist Signs on the Motorway Network ref: 950    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Procurement Board

Made at meeting: 13/10/2021 - Procurement Board

Decision published: 13/10/2021

Effective from: 21/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council - Record of Decision

 

I Councillor Hinds, Lead Member for Finance and Support Services and chairman of the Procurement Board, in exercise of the powers contained within the Council Constitution do hereby approve:

 

An exception to Contractual Standing Orders as permitted within the City Council Constitution for the reason(s) highlighted in the table below and the award of the Contract for the manufacture and installation of RHS brown tourist signs on the motorway network as detailed in the table below:

 

Detail required

Answers

Title/Description of Contracted Service/Supply/Project

RHS brown tourist signs on the motorway network

Name of Successful Contractor

Walker Sign Erectors Ltd

Supplier Registration Number

(to be supplied by Corporate Procurement)

Type of organisation

(to be supplied by Corporate Procurement)

Private Limited Company

Status of Organisation

(to be supplied by Corporate Procurement)

SME

Contract Value (£)

£          257,534.86

Contract Duration

3 months

Contract Start Date

20/10/2021

Contract End Date

28/01/2022

Optional Extension Period 1

months

Optional Extension Period 2

months

Who will approve each Extension Period?

Choose an item.

Contact Officer (Name & number)

Lead Service Group

Choose an item.

Reason for CSO Exception: The goods / services / works are only obtainable from one provider and there is no other provider available to allow genuine competition

Tick if it applies

Reason for CSO Exception: The execution of works or the supply of goods or services is controlled by a statutory body

Tick if it applies

Reason for CSO Exception: Delivers Best Value to the Council

Tick if it applies

Reason for CSO Exception: Special education, health or social care contracts, if it is considered in the Council’s best interests and to meet the Council’s obligations under relevant legislation

Tick if it applies

Reason for CSO Exception: The execution of works or the supply of goods and services is required so urgently as not to permit compliance with the requirements of competition

Tick if it applies

Reason for CSO Exception: Security works where the publication of documents or details in the tendering process could prejudice the security of SCC and Salford residents

Tick if it applies

Reason for CSO Exception: Procurements made through, or on behalf of, any consortium, local authority, statutory or similar body, provided that tenders or quotations are invited and contracts placed in accordance with national or EU legislation.

Tick if it applies

Funding Source

Choose an item.

Ethical Contractor (EC): Mayor’s Employment Charter

 

EC: Committed to sign up to the Charter

EC: Accredited Living Wage Employer

 

The reasons are:

 

·       Walker Signs are the only provider of this service that we are aware of that have the relevant National Highways passports and Sector Scheme Approvals to be able to access and work on the motorway network;

·       Appointing Walker Signs offers best value to the council as demonstrated by a cost comparison of recent procurement of similar signs on the local highway network and by virtue of the fact that Walker Signs would very likely be the installation company if another contractor was appointed as the principal contractor; and

·       The timing of these works is urgent, with the temporary RHS directional signs needing to be removed by no later than 26 November 2021 and a tender exercise does not permit the City Council to comply with these timescales. Having no directional signs on the motorway for a period of at least two months would increase the risk of driver confusion and late lane changes, thereby increasing the risk of accidents occurring.

 

 

Options considered and rejected were:

 

An open market tender exercise was considered. However, due to the timescales that this would take and the urgency of installing these signs this option was not considered to be the best procurement route. In addition we have struggled to identify alternative contractors to undertake these works, both through an internet search and following discussions with National Highways – the only two contractors identified do not hold the relevant permits and accreditations to undertake this contract in its totality.

 

Assessment of risk:

Medium – if the permanent signs are not installed by 26 November 2021 there is a danger that without any directional signage the risk of driver confusion and late lane changes will increase, thereby increasing the risk of accidents occurring. The City Council is potentially open to legal challenge by undertaking a direct award. However, the risk of a challenge is considered to be low given the lack of competitors who are able to deliver this contract with the required National Highways Passports and Sector Scheme approvals.

 

Legal advice obtained: Yes – Tony Hatton, Principal Solicitor

 

Financial advice obtained: Yes – Alex Archer, Finance Manager

 

Procurement advice obtained: Yes – Heather Stanton, Category Manager

 

HR advice obtained: No

 

Climate change implications obtained: No

 

Documents used:

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process.

Report to Procurement Board on 13 October 2021, ‘Approval for an Exception to Contractual Standing Orders to award a contract for the manufacture and installation of RHS brown tourist signs on the motorway network.’


Contact details

Contact Officer:       Paul Gill, Senior Development Manager

Telephone number: 07595 846687

 

·       This matter is not subject to consideration by another Lead Member.

·       The appropriate Scrutiny Committee to call-in the decision is the Growth and Prosperity Scrutiny Panel

 

Signed:      BILL HINDS                         Dated: 13th October 2021

                    Lead Member

 

*         This decision was published on 13th October 2021

*         This decision will come in force at 4.00 p.m. on 20th October 2021 unless it is called-in in accordance with the Decision Making Process Rules.


11/10/2021 - DfT E-Scooter Trial in Salford - Extension ref: 949    Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

Decision Maker: Property / Regeneration Briefing

Made at meeting: 11/10/2021 - Property / Regeneration Briefing

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 19/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council - Record of Decision

 

I, Councillor Tracy Kelly, Deputy City Mayor, in exercise of the powers contained within the Salford City Council constitution do hereby:

1.    Note the success of the salford e-scooter trial to date, evidenced by high levels of use, low levels of anti-social behaviour and vandalism

2.    Note that development work is underway at a greater manchester level to understand what a longer-term e-scooter hire scheme may look like in the region beyond the current trials, subject to future legalisation of e-scooters.

3.    Approve an extension to the trial until 31 march 2022 to match the department for transport’s extended e-scooter trial period.

4.    Approve the additional phase 4 area for the e-scooter trial.

 

The Reasons are Trial zones for rental e-scooters were brought forward by the Department of Transport (DfT) in 2020 to test the concept. Salford City Council has been facilitating a pilot since October 2020, through the operator Lime Scooters.

 

The DfT have recently announced that councils that are currently operating authorised e-scooter trials can apply for an extension to 31 March 2022. This decision allows an extension to the trial to 31 March 2022 as well as the inclusion of a new area to link up Salford Royal Hospital with the existing trial areas, providing a larger area for the remainder of the trial.

 

Assessment of Risk: Low - this is an extension of the existing trial, the risk for which has been previously assessed and has not had any negative implications for Salford City Council in the first year of operation.

 

Source of funding:  Trial costs and any costs incurred by SCC are covered by the operator (Lime).

 

Legal Advice obtained: Tony Hatton, Principal Solicitor, / Richard Purcell, Principal Solicitor; And Paul Haley (Legal Highways Team) in respect of the highways and traffic advice

 

Procurement Advice Obtained: Anthony Hilton - Strategic Head of Procurement

 

Financial Advice obtained:  Natalie Birchall - Finance Officer

 

HR Advice obtained: Yes by Lime

 

Climate Change Advice obtained: Andrew Fisher –

Sustainable Travel Co-ordinator

 

 

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process:

 

  • Report to Property/Regeneration Briefing - 11 October 2021
  • Salford Rental E-Scooter Trial: Briefing Report - 28 September 2020

 

Contact Officer:  Andrew Fisher,

Sustainable Travel Co-Ordinator        Tel No 0161 779 6103

 

This decision is not subject to consideration by another Lead Member /Strategic Director

The appropriate scrutiny committee to call-in the decision is the Growth and Prosperity Scrutiny Panel.

 

Signed: Councillor Tracy Kelly

Deputy City Mayor

Date: 11 October 2021      

 

 

This decision was published on Monday 11 October 2021.

This decision will come in force at 4.00 pm on Monday 18 October 2021 unless it is called-in in accordance with the Decision-Making Process Rules.

 


11/10/2021 - AJ Bell Asset of Community Value (ACV) Application ref: 948    Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

Decision Maker: Property / Regeneration Briefing

Made at meeting: 11/10/2021 - Property / Regeneration Briefing

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 19/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council - Record of Decision

 

I, Councillor Tracy Kelly, Deputy City Mayor, in exercise of the powers contained within the Salford City Council constitution do hereby approve Application to list The A J Bell Stadium at 1 Stadium Way, Eccles, Salford as an Asset of Community Value pursuant to Part 5, Chapter 3 of the Localism Act 2011 and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 and for it to be included on the list for a period of five years.

 

The Reasons are such applications are submitted in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 and it is a statutory requirement for Salford City Council to consider them accordingly.

 

 

Assessment of Risk: Low

 

 

Source of funding:  n/a

 

Legal Advice Obtained: Azra Furheen (Senior Legal Officer)

 

Procurement Advice Obtained: Yes n/a

 

Financial Advice obtained:  Chris Mee - Strategic Finance Manager

 

HR Advice obtained: Yes n/a

 

Climate Change Advice obtained: yes n/a

 

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process:

 

  • Report submitted to Property/Regeneration Briefing on 11 October 2021
  • Localism Act 2011
  • Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012
  • Community Right to Bid: Non statutory advice note for local authorties

 

Contact Officer:  Andrew Williams,

Principal Planning Officer           Tel No 0161 779 6191

 

 

 

 

This decision is not subject to consideration by another Lead Member /Strategic Director

The appropriate scrutiny committee to call-in the decision is the Growth and Prosperity Scrutiny Panel.

 

Signed: Councillor Tracy Kelly

Deputy City Mayor

Date: 11 October 2021.     

 

 

This decision was published on Monday 11 October 2021.

This decision will come in force at 4.00 pm on Monday 18 October 2021 unless it is called-in in accordance with the Decision-Making Process Rules.

 

 


01/10/2021 - The nomination for appointment and re-appointment of Local Authority Governors ref: 947    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Lead Member for Children's and Young People's Services Briefing

Made at meeting: 01/10/2021 - Lead Member for Children's and Young People's Services Briefing

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 19/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council - Record of Decision

 

I Councillor Jim Cammell, Lead Member for Children’s and Young People’s Services, in exercise of the powers contained within the Elected City Mayor’s Register of Executive Functions delegated to Lead Members and under the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2012, do hereby:

1.    Nominate for appointment as LA Governors to the governing boards the following individuals:

  • Mr Robert McMillan – Clifton Primary School

 

2.    Nominate for re-appointment as LA Governors to the governing boards the following individuals:

  • Councillor Neil Reynolds – St Luke’s RC Primary School
  • Councillor James King – St Thomas of Canterbury RC Primary School
  • Mr Paul Burgess – St Paul’s CE Primary School, Heathside Grove
  • Mrs Anne Broomhead – St Andrew’s CE Primary School, Boothstown
  • Mr Alan Langdon – St Mary’s CofE Primary School, Cadishead
  • Mr D Fielding – Moorfield Primary School

 

3.    LA Governor Vacancies requiring nominees from the LA.

There are currently LA governor vacancies on the following governing boards:

 

The Reasons are;- Under The School Governance (Constitution)(England) Regulations 2012, although Local Authority (LA) Governors are appointed by the governing board, the LA are still required to nominate prospective candidates and have to ensure the procedures they have adopted for selecting their nominees meet the requirements of the statutory guidance ‘The constitution of governing bodies of maintained schools – statutory guidance for governing bodies of maintained schools and local authorities in England.

 

Options considered and rejected were N/A

Assessment of Risk N/A

The source of funding is N/A

Legal Advice obtained N/A

Financial Advice obtained N/A

Procurement advice obtained N/A

HR Advice obtained N/A

 

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process.

·         The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2012

·         ‘The constitution of governing bodies of maintained schools – statutory guidance for governing bodies of maintained schools and local authorities in England.

·         Nominee’s application forms (where appropriate).

Any comments and submissions by the chairs of the governing boards under consideration.

Contact Officer:  Dee Moyo  (Governor Services Officer ) Tel No 0161 778 0265

 

 

 

This decision is not subject to consideration by another Lead Member/ Director

X

 

 

 

 

The appropriate scrutiny panel to call-in the decision is the Children’s Scrutiny Panel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed:  Councillor Jim Cammell             Dated:      01.10.21                                                

            Lead Member for Children’s and Young People’s Services

 

 

FOR DEMOCRATIC SERVICES USE ONLY

 

* This decision was published on 11.10.21

* This decision will come in force at 4.00 p.m. on 18.10.21 unless it is called-in in accordance with the Decision Making Process Rules.

 

Key:

#    Insert date five days after decision notice is to be published.

 


08/10/2021 - The nomination for appointment and re-appointment of Local Authority Governors ref: 946    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Lead Member for Children's and Young People's Services Briefing

Made at meeting: 08/10/2021 - Lead Member for Children's and Young People's Services Briefing

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 19/10/2021

Decision:

Salford City Council - Record of Decision

 

I Councillor Jim Cammell, Lead Member for Children’s and Young People’s Services, in exercise of the powers contained within the Elected City Mayor’s Register of Executive Functions delegated to Lead Members and under the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2012, do hereby:

1.     Nominate for appointment as LA Governors to the governing boards the following individuals:

  • Mr Robert Owen - St Joseph the Worker RC Primary School

 

2.     Nominate for re-appointment as LA Governors to the governing boards the following individuals:

 

3.     LA Governor Vacancies requiring nominees from the LA.

There are currently LA governor vacancies on the following governing boards:

  • Summerville Primary School
  • St Luke’s CE Primary School
  • Christ The King RC Primary School
  • Holy Cross and All Saints RC Primary School

 

The Reasons are;- Under The School Governance (Constitution)(England) Regulations 2012, although Local Authority (LA) Governors are appointed by the governing board, the LA are still required to nominate prospective candidates and have to ensure the procedures they have adopted for selecting their nominees meet the requirements of the statutory guidance ‘The constitution of governing bodies of maintained schools – statutory guidance for governing bodies of maintained schools and local authorities in England.

 

Options considered and rejected were N/A

Assessment of Risk N/A

The source of funding is N/A

Legal Advice obtained N/A

Financial Advice obtained N/A

Procurement advice obtained N/A

HR Advice obtained N/A

 

The following documents have been used to assist the decision process.

·       The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2012

·       ‘The constitution of governing bodies of maintained schools – statutory guidance for governing bodies of maintained schools and local authorities in England.

·       Nominee’s application forms (where appropriate).

Any comments and submissions by the chairs of the governing boards under consideration.

Contact Officer:  Dee Moyo  (Governor Services Officer ) Tel No 0161 778 0265

 

This decision is not subject to consideration by another Lead Member / Director

The appropriate scrutiny panel to call-in the decision is the Children’s Scrutiny Panel

 

Signed:   Councillor Jim Cammell                     Dated: 08 October 2021

          Lead Member for Children’s and Young People’s Services

* This decision was published on 11th October 2021.     

* This decision will come in force at 4.00 p.m. on 18th October 2021 unless it is called-in in accordance with the Decision Making Process Rules.