Brighton & Hove City Council
Cabinet
4.30pm18 July 2024
Council Chamber, Hove Town Hall
MINUTES
|
Present: Councillor Sankey (Chair) Taylor (Deputy Chair), Burden, Daniel, Muten, Pumm, Robins and Williams |
PART ONE
21 Procedural Business
21a Declarations of interests
21.1 There were none.
21b Exclusion of the press and public
21.2 In accordance with Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (“the Act”), the Committee considered whether the public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any item of business on the grounds that it is likely in view of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during it, there would be disclosure to them of confidential information as defined in Section 100A (3) of the Act.
21.3 Resolved That the public are excluded from the meeting from items listed on Part 2 of the agenda.
22 Minutes
22.1 Resolved- That the minutes of the previous meeting be approved as the correct record.
23 Chair's Communications
23.1 The Chair provided the following Communications:
Good afternoon and welcome everyone to our July Cabinet meeting.
It’s fair to say that a lot has happened since we last met. It’s hard to believe that it was just two weeks ago that Labour swept to victory in the General Election. I’d like to start by congratulating all of our local MPs on their election and extend my congratulations to Peter Kyle on his appointment as Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology.
Our Labour administration is naturally delighted by the result and stands ready to work with Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the new Labour Government to deliver change at pace for our city and country.
The King’s Speech announced yesterday contained a raft of new legislation which sets out the first steps our Labour Government will take to rebuild Britian. We particularly welcome the announcements on house building, reform of planning laws and delivering the long-awaited ban on no-fault evictions for renters.
The launch of GB Energy will provide a much-needed boost to investment in renewable energy projects. While the English Devolution Bill will help to unlock the potential of city regions like ours and give us the powers and budget to drive change in our community.
This morning I attended a meeting at Downing Street to discuss the opportunities around this and relay our city’s priorities. Our Cabinet leads have also written to new Secretaries of State to outline the challenges and opportunities in their areas. We will continue this engagement with government over the coming months as legislation is brought forward, to ensure our city reaps the benefits of these new opportunities.
One of the absolute priorities of this Labour government is to drive economic growth following years of stagnation and falling living standards. I am very pleased that today Cabinet will agree our three-year Economic Plan which sets out our vision for economic growth in Brighton & Hove.
I was also pleased to be elected as Chair of the Greater Brighton Economic Board this week and I look forward to working across the city region to build partnerships which will help drive growth and bring new investment to our region. On Tuesday, in my new capacity as Chair, I was pleased to launch Sussex Energy; a collaboration between public and private sectors across Sussex which aims to join forces to achieve net zero status by 2040.
Today our administration is also bringing forward proposals for 67 new affordable homes in Hollingbury, Portslade and Moulsecoomb, through our New Homes for Neighbourhoods programme. We are on a mission to fix the housing crisis in our city and we are exploring every avenue possible to do so. We're buying back properties previously sold under the Right to Buy scheme at a rate of more than one a week as part of our efforts to provide people with secure and affordable housing.
Cabinet will also be considering options for the King Alfred leisure centre, following extensive consultation and options scoping over several months. We have listened to residents and today Cabinet will consider options for building a new leisure centre on the current site.
Our report today on performance, shows the areas where the council has made improvements and helps to identify areas for improvement which we need to prioritise. Our administration made clear that getting the basics right is a priority and the early results of the work we have done over the past year are beginning to show. This includes a significant reduction in complaints to CityClean or Parking services and reduction in the number of reported missed refuse & recycling collections. I am extremely proud that the report shows that our city is thriving as a visitor destination with a 14% increase in visitors compared to 2021. And there is no doubt that this is in part due to the fantastic open spaces we have to offer.
With that in mind, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our City Parks team and all of our park volunteers, on the announcement that 7 of our city’s parks have been awarded prestigious Green Flags for excellence. This is great news for our city and a reminder of how fortunate we are in this city to have access to so many excellent open spaces. Two of our parks – Stanmer and the Wild Park Rainscape – have also been shortlisted for prestigious South Downs Design awards. Congratulations to all council staff and all the partners involved in delivering such innovative and creative park projects.
24 Public Involvement
(a) Public Questions
1) King Alfred
24.1 Mary Sandell read the following question:
Given that you have provided rough costings, could you tell me what Low stack and high stack mean with regard to leisure facilities (types) and housing (quantities).
24.2 Councillor Robins provided the following reply:
As set out in the cabinet paper, the business case examined two options for constructing the sport and leisure centre on the current site. The first of these occupies 20% of the total site, and as such would need to be built over more levels to accommodate all the features of the new facility. We have referred to this version as the ‘stacked design’. The outline design work suggested one or two levels of parking below ground and three to four stories of construction above ground. So, a maximum of four stories above ground.
The second option used half the site, with surface car parking, and would require two stories of elevation to accommodate the same specification.
The paper refers only to the new sports and leisure facility. A key lesson learned from past projects is to keep the design and build of the facility separate from any residential development on the site. Any proposals for residential development on the remainder of the site will be dealt with through the planning process.
2) King Alfred
24.3 Laura King read the following question:
The King Alfred is a significant building on Hove seafront, yet nowhere in the latest report on the King Alfred does it mention heritage.
How does our council justify the demolition of one of the last remaining coastal Land Ships in the country, training 22,500 men and women for WWII naval Service, in between doing double duty as a south coast destination leisure centre, rather than the restoration and rebirth of this seafront art deco, community leisure centre asset like Saltdean Lido?
24.4 Councillor Robins provided the following reply:
The existing building has always been a purpose-built leisure centre for the local community rather than an MoD facility. We recognise that, like many buildings across the country, it had a temporary use during WW2 as a naval training facility. That’s a piece of history we are keen to remember. However, remembering that short period of the facility’s use should not prevent the city from having the modern, sports and leisure facility it deserves.
As the project moves forward, we will be looking to engage an archivist to document the history of the building and to make sure that any historic artifacts are collected and preserved. We would also look to commemorate the history of the site in a suitable way within the new facility, for example a pictorial display to show its history and the development of the site over the last century. As with other similar projects, we’ll look to involve local groups and stakeholders to agree how best that can be achieved.
3) King Alfred
24.5 Diane Montgomery read the following question:
The decision as to whether to demolish the King Alfred Centre and build a new sports centre should not be made until a Whole Life-Cycle Carbon (WLC) Emissions Assessment has been completed. This would consider the embodied carbon in the existing building; the option of retrofitting as opposed to demolition and would ensure that the project is fully consistent with the Council’s commitments to be carbon neutral by 2030.
Can the Council provide an assurance that any major decisions regarding the future of the King Alfred Centre will not be taken until a WLC Assessment has been completed and made publicly available?
24.6 Councillor Robins provided the following response:
I understand that Cllr Robinson has been in discussion with you on this topic and has provided you with responses to similar questions.
Carbon reduction is an important part of the overall case for delivering the city’s new leisure centre. However, as set out in the cabinet paper, there are other equally important factors which the council is considering, and which will inform the approach we adopt. Those factors include maximising value for money, minimising the risk to practical delivery, and improving the health of the city’s residents through increased participation in active leisure.
The cabinet paper also makes clear that the design and layout of the current building mean that a refurbishment could never bring it up to modern industry standards. Our structural engineers have investigated the building’s current condition and identified what work needs to be undertaken to address the most serious issues and keep the leisure centre open. Their assessment is that the recommended works would extend the life of the facility for around 10 years after which replacement would be required. That also means that a refurbishment could never be cost effective. This is set out in paragraphs 3.3 – 3.6.
Outline benchmarking work undertaken by architects Faulkner Brown has shown that a new facility will deliver lower whole life carbon emissions than a refurbished facility and much lower than the current facility. More detailed WLC assessment will be completed as we progress into the design stages of the project, when we will have more detailed designs on which to base those assessments.
(b) Deputations
1) King Alfred Leisure Facility
24.7 Cabinet received a deputation relating to proposals for the King Alfred leisure facility.
24.8 Councillor Robins provided the following response:
Thank you, Anne for coming along today to present your deputation.
The proposals before us today do not recommend a relocation to Benfield Valley.
I found your deputation submission and your presentation today very informative and congratulate you on all the good work yourself and other volunteers are undertaking in the community.
25 Issues Raised by Members
(b) Written Questions from Members
23.1 A copy of the questions received was circulated ahead of the meeting. Responses provided are as follows.
(1) Councillor McNair- Council Performance Update
“This drop in the percentage reflects a national trend. Locally, our current recycling sorting facility has limitations, there remains a high level of contamination of the recycling that we do collect, and this is exacerbated by our unique communal bin system. Labour values a clean city and we are working hard to get our rates up, and I’m going to run through two sets of activities, covering what we will do in the near future, and what we’re already doing
Changes in technology will allow lower-grade plastics to be recycled soon, and we plan to be ready for this in line with the new recycling requirements from the Environment Act. We’re also going to start collecting food waste. Both these changes should be happening by 2025/26”.
(2) Councillor McNair- Council Performance Update
“We’re very keen on seeing improvements in this area.
While post pandemic recovery seems like a very distant memory for many of our services, the same can’t be said for the Housing Repairs & Maintenance service, but we're working in partnership with two contractors to complete the outstanding repairs, and remodeling the existing contractor framework , all of which should be completed by the end of this year”.
(3) Councillor McNair- Council Performance Update
“Quite a few things is the short answer. A longer answer is that we've filled staff vacancies, and we have an active recovery plan in place to reduce arrears.
The impact of the Department for Work and Pensions delays in paying Universal Credit on time continues to remain a challenge for income collection. This is beyond our control but we will be keen to take this up with our new Labour Secretary of State for Work & Pensions.
Where we do have control, the Housing Income team are newly aligned with the Council’s Corporate Debt Policy on the training standard for debt collection.
And where we believe it’s necessary, we’re pursuing enforcement action through the courts. We prioritise early intervention before getting to this stage, but if any residents are unfortunate enough to receive a notice of enforcement, they have support during the notice period.
A key element of the recovery plan is the further development of the rent management system to help categorise, prioritise and automate some of the casework, this is expected to go live this Winter”.
(4) Councillor McNair- Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2024/25 Month 2 (May) and Council Productivity Plan Response
“The council’s Education, Finance and HR teams work closely with schools that are experiencing financial challenges to help them identify potential efficiencies and cost savings, including reviewing their staffing structures, buildings usage, and supplies and services costs. There is also a wealth of guidance and comparative information available to schools provided by both the council and DfE to help them review and improve their cost base. We are also utilising School Resource Management Advisors (appointed sector experts) who provide peer challenge to schools to help them identify ways to optimise the use of capital and revenue resources available to them. The learning from these reviews can help all schools.
In response to falling numbers of children in the city, there is also a wide range of work being undertaken across the school community to explore structural models of provision to improve the long-term financial sustainability of our schools while ensuring educational outcomes continue to improve. This includes possible federation of school clusters, reviewing Published Admission Numbers (PANs) and other possibilities.
Some schools have had more persistent deficits for differing reasons but the underlying issue remains falling roll numbers in most cases. This creates a year-on-year problem where, even though schools do find some savings, they find it hard to ‘keep ahead’ of the growing problem, which therefore becomes a cumulative financial challenge. This is further compounded by DSG grant settlements which government has not increased in line with inflation and, in particular, national pay awards”.
(5) Councillor Meadows- Estate Management
“The question doesn't make a lot of sense, given it refers to “the land”, but doesn’t state which site. I assume it refers to Patcham Court Farm.
The proposed development by Royal Mail will be subject to a planning application that will go to planning committee.
Costs associated with the site would be part of any transaction – and would be born by the party buying the land (not the council), and therefore considered as part of price offered”.
(6) Councillor Meadows- Estate Management
“As above, any development of this site would be subject to a planning application, which is determined by the planning committee. Protection of the aquifer would form part of the planning process that would need to ensure the aquifer is protected through mitigating drainage proposals and solutions. This is essentially why planning process exists – to determine what developments are appropriate in which areas”.
(7) Councillor Shanks- Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2024/25 Month 2 (May) and Council Productivity Plan Response
The Council did an independent review of our in house respite provision Drove Road and Tudor House for children with complex needs. The review's purpose was to explore whether we could use Tudor House as a full-time residential home to bring children and young people currently residing outside the city back home. To do this, we needed to expand the use of Drove Road to accommodate all those children and young people currently accessing Tudor House, so that no families lost their short breaks. We had also intended to expand the use of Drove Road once the full-time residents transitioned to longer term placements so that we could provide more short breaks for those families who currently don’t have access to this support.
The £504k saving would have been generated by bringing children back because it costs less for us to provide them with the support they need in-house.
However, the outcome of the report confirmed that Tudor House would not be suitable to accommodate the profile of need for the children and young people we need to bring back and Drove Road would need extensive building work to meet the legal requirements to make the building suitable for children and young people who are wheelchair dependent.
This meant we could not use Drove Road for those children and young people who may be displaced by Tudor House becoming residential home.
Therefore, we have taken the decision, to consider other sites for the full-time residential provision as per the recommendations in the report. We have now identified a suitable property that is owned by the Council and have been successful in securing capital funding from the Regional Care Co-operative capital bid programme. Work is now progressing and further information will be shared once we are in a position to do so.
(8) Councillor Sykes- King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project
“To develop the business case we engaged specialist consultants who have developed many Green-book businesses cases that have successfully secure grant funding for many local authorities. The project’s team also includes officers who have developed Green Book business cases for local authorities that have successfully secured millions of £ pounds of funding from the Town Deal, Local Growth Fund, and Housing Infrastructure Fund. I am therefore content that the approach used was rigorous, thorough, and compliant with HM Treasury requirements. Particular attention was given by the consultants to ensuring that the business case would be best oriented to securing any potential future government grant funding.
The business case includes detailed analysis of costs and the value of the social benefits (nominal and Net Present Value) which have been summarised for brevity in section 4 of the paper. To briefly respond to some of the councillor’s specific points:
Table 1 is taken from the economic case and shows the value of the costs and benefits in net present value (NPV) terms. These NPV figures have been converted from the nominal figures in the financial case by (i) stripping out background inflation, (ii) adjusting for optimism bias, and (iii) discounting for present values. The economic benefits shown in the table are made up of the social benefits and land value uplift as set out in paragraph 4.3.
The Green Book recommends an optimism bias of between 2% and 24% for standard buildings. For this business case, a value at the higher end of that range (20%) was chosen as construction contracts are not yet in place.
Quantity surveyors (Stace) were engaged during the production of the business case and provided detailed cost estimates for each delivery option on which the capital build costs a are based. The revenue estimates have been calculated based on well-framed assumptions about the future levels of use and running costs for the facility, as advised by our specialist consultants Continuum Sport and Leisure.
Tables 2 and 3 are taken from the financial case, and these therefore use nominal figures rather than the NPV values used in the economic case and in table 1.
The critical success factors of strategic fit, value for money, supplier capacity, affordability and achievability have all been considered in forming the decision on the preferred option.
The detailed business case has been shared with cabinet members but due to reasons of commercial sensitivity has not been shared more widely”.
(9) Councillor Sykes- King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project
“The paper (paragraph 9.1) indicates that the new facility will be designed to BREEAM ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ standards. Where possible, it will embody principles of Passivhaus construction. Officers have been examining best practice examples of new sports and leisure centres such as the new facilities at Spelthorne, Winchester, and the Ravelin Sports Centre at the University of Portsmouth. When we come to appoint the design team for the next stage of the project we will ensure that they understand sustainability is a key priority for us.
One of the key objectives for the new facility is to create a modern, energy efficient, sustainable leisure centre. The new facility will enable us to reduce running costs, and will reflect the council’s commitment to the climate emergency and improving environmental sustainability.
Outline benchmarking work undertaken by architects Faulkner Brown has shown that a new facility on either site will deliver lower whole life carbon emissions than a refurbished facility and much lower than the current facility. More detailed work will be done as we progress into the design stages of the project, which will include a transport plan as well as a more detailed examination of whole life carbon”.
(10) Councillor Sykes- Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2024/25 Month 2 (May) and Council Productivity Plan Response
“The increased cost may mean that reductions in other services are ultimately required, however, the council will always first explore options to improve economy and efficiency or generate funding or income to balance its budget. This comes down to priorities; the city needs a high-quality leisure centre that will serve the city for decades”.
(11) Councillor Davis- King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project
“HM Treasury guidance is clear that any Benefit Cost Ratio greater than ‘1.0’ is acceptable. With that in mind, either of the options modelled at the current site have the potential to secure grant funding.
Whilst the BCR is a key piece of information in making an investment decision, it is not the only element. Central government departments and their executive agencies take into account other salient factors in making their investment decisions, as do we.
In this case, we have highlighted a number of factors in paragraph 4.7 of the paper that were considered alongside the BCR – planning matters, legal constraints, loss of green space, and the responses to public engagement.
In awarding grant funding, government departments and their executive agencies recognise that other relevant factors mean that the option with the highest BCR does not always represent the best decision for the local community”.
(12) Councillor Shanks- Council Performance Update
“I always think it’s worth looking at national averages to gauge where we are – and nationally, the average is 92%. Currently we’re at 87% occupancy – and this is an improvement from the 82% vacancy rate we had in May. But we can do better.
We’ve looked at what has slowed down lettings in the post Covid period. The main problem has been re-enabling site reps to let plots, which was severely restricted by our interpretation of GDPR regulations. We have reviewed this and will be encouraging site reps to undertake training, allowing us to share waiting list information with them, and improving the turnaround time for the letting process. In addition, we have sped up clearance of vacant plots.
It’s hoped that within a year, this will mean we’ll reach at least the national average, if not performing much better”.
(13) Councillor Hill- An Economic Plan for Brighton & Hove
“The Economic Plan is focused on developing a new economy and adapting our approach.
To support the delivery of the city’s ambitions, an initial 12-month Action Plan has been developed that sets out measurable actions to commence our journey. This first year’s action plan is set out in Appendix 2 to the Cabinet report.
This initial programme of activities will support the development of future interventions that will be designed to support key aspects of the city’s economy, facilitating greater engagement and involvement which will help to build community wealth across the city”.
26 Matters Referred to the Executive
There were none.
27 Representations from Opposition Members
There were none.
28 King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project
29.1 Cabinet considered a report that sought approval on the preferred site to deliver the new ‘West Hub’ facility to replace the King Alfred Leisure Centre.
29.2 Councillors Sankey, Robinson, Pumm, Nann, Taylor, Muten, Daniel, Alexander and Robins contributed to the debate of the report.
29.3 Resolved-
That Cabinet:
1) Agrees that part of the existing seafront King Alfred site is the preferred site on which to take forward the development of the new sports and leisure facility to replace the existing King Alfred Leisure Centre.
2) Approves the indicative capital budget for the project of up to £47.4 million to be included in the Medium Term Capital Investment programme to be funded from a combination of capital receipts, government grants and council borrowing.
3) Approves an initial allocation of £2.7m of these resources to progress the project to planning application stage funded from council borrowing.
4) Agrees to the commencement of design work for the development of the Leisure Centre on the preferred site, to include procuring the lead architect and professional team to deliver the new facility and delegates authority to the Corporate Director to approve the procurement of the associated professional team and to progress the project to planning application stage.
5) Notes the inclusion of £1.07 million estimated ongoing revenue commitment within the Medium Term Financial Strategy to recognise the potential net financing costs of the project from 2025/26 onwards.
6) Notes that as the project progresses to key decision points further reports will be presented to cabinet in line with the timetable set out at 4.16.
29 An Economic Plan for Brighton & Hove 2024-27
23.1 Cabinet received a report that sought approval for the Economic Plan for Brighton & Hove, which strongly aligns with core outcomes 1, 2 and 3 of the Council Plan 2023-27.
23.2 Councillor Taylor, Goddard, Robins, Nann, Pumm, Alexander and Sankey contributed to the debate of the report.
23.3 Resolved-
1) Cabinet agrees to recommend to Full Council that the Economic Plan (attached as Appendix 1) is adopted as part of the delivery of the Council Plan 2023-27.
30 New Homes for Neighbourhoods
23.1. Cabinet considered a report that sought a full construction budget for a package of council-led residential schemes capable of delivering 67 new affordable homes, and approval to enter into relevant contracts subject to project costs clearing the Council’s financial hurdles.
23.2. Resolved-
That Cabinet
1) agrees an anticipated budget for the redevelopment of the former Hollingbury Library, Portslade Village Centre and Eastergate Road Former Garage site (“the schemes") in accordance with the detail set out at Part 2 of this report.
2) agrees to the progression of the development of the schemes and delegates authority to the Corporate Director of City Services to take all necessary steps to enter into the relevant contracts for the development of the schemes in accordance with the terms as set out in this report, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing & New Homes and Acting Corporate Director for Housing, Care and Wellbeing (Housing Lead).
3) agrees the appropriation of land necessary for the redevelopment of Portslade Village Centre from the General Fund to the Housing Revenue Account for the value outlined in the Part Two report.
31 Housing Supply Report: Update on potential acquisition
31.1 Cabinet received a report that presented an off plan purchase opportunity for the Council to acquire 21 homes in Nicolson Place and Vaughan Williams Way, Rottingdean. These form part of the former St Aubyns School, High Street, Rottingdean site and comprise the rented element of the affordable homes provided at this scheme. The opportunity enables the Council to meet a range of housing need by purchasing homes within a new build development that provide a mix of general needs accommodation including wheelchair accessible housing.
31.2 Councillors Taylor, Goddard, Nann, Sankey and Robins contributed to the debate of the report.
31.3 Resolved-
1) Cabinet agrees to the Council making a formal offer to purchase 21 homes at Vaughan Williams Way and Nicholson Place, Rottingdean for a sum to be negotiated up to the maximum set out in the Part 2 paper and agrees the budget required as outlined in the Part 2 paper to support this purchase.
2) Cabinet delegates authority to the Acting Corporate Director – Housing, Care and Wellbeing (Housing Lead) in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing & New Homes to take the steps necessary to agree and complete: (a) the purchase of 6 houses 15 flats on the terms set out in the Part 2 paper and (b) any other relevant ancillary legal and financial documents necessary to deliver the project and to give effect to recommendations 2.1 and 2.2.
32 Council Performance Update
23.1 Cabinet considered a report that outlined the progress made against the delivery of each of these outcomes and highlights both the areas where progress has been made and the areas where improvement is needed. It also includes a proposed set of key performance indicators (KPIs) and their targets for 2024/25, which will help focus work in particular on areas where improvements are needed.
23.2 Councillors Sankey, Williams, Pumm and Muten contributed to the debate of the report.
23.3 Resolved-
1) Cabinet notes the progress made in relation to delivering the Council Plan in 2023/24 as outlined in section 3 and with full details in appendix 1.
2) Cabinet approves the recommended Corporate KPI set and the proposed targets these KPIs for 2024/25 as detailed in section 4.
3) Cabinet notes the report in line with the requirement of Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code as detailed in section 5 and with full details in appendix 2.
33 Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2024/25: Month 2 (May) Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2024/25 Month 2 (May) and Council Productivity Plan Response
23.1 Cabinet considered a report that set out an early indication of forecast risks as at Month 2 on the council’s revenue and capital budgets for the financial year 2024/25 and the response to the Government’s Productivity Plan request.
23.2 Councillors Sankey, Burden, Goddard and Robins contributed to the debate of the report.
23.3 Resolved-
1) Cabinet notes the forecast risk position for the General Fund, which indicates a potential forecast overspend risk of £10.137m.
2) Cabinet notes the forecast outturn includes a forecast overspend risk of £1.600m on the NHS managed Section 75 services.
3) Cabinet notes the forecast overspend risk for the separate Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which is an underspend of £0.020m.
4) Cabinet notes the forecast overspend risk for the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant, which is an overspend of £0.456m.
5) Cabinet notes the forecast position on the Capital Programme which is an underspend variance of £0.339m.
6) Cabinet approves the capital budget variations and re-profiling requests set out in Appendix 5.
7) Cabinet approves the new capital schemes requested in Appendix 6.
8) Cabinet notes the Treasury Management Update as set out in Appendix 7.
9) Cabinet notes the council’s Productivity Plan response at Appendix 8.
34 Ageing Well Services
23.1 Cabinet considered a report that sought approval to commission Ageing Well Services for the city for a further six-year period (4 +2).
23.2 Councillors Galvin and Goddard contributed to the debate of the report.
23.3 Resolved-
1) Cabinet approves the procurement of Ageing Well services for a further six-years (four + two)
2) Cabinet agrees to delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Housing, Care and Wellbeing to carry out the procurement and award of a contract for a Brighton & Hove Ageing Well Service with a term of six years (four + two)
35 Estate Management
35.1 Cabinet considered a report that sought approval for the retendering of the Estate Management Service for the Commercial and Agricultural portfolios for a five year period with an option for up to a two year extension.
35.2 Resolved-
1) Cabinet agrees to the retendering of the Estate Management Services for the Commercial and Agricultural portfolios for a five year period with options for up to two year extensions.
2) Cabinet delegates authority to the Corporate Director City Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member Finance and City Regeneration to:
(a) Award the five year contracts for the Commercial and Agricultural portfolios following the recommendations of the working group evaluation panel and the results of the tendering processes; and
(b) Approve extensions of up to two years to the contracts if required dependent upon performance.
36 Corporate Water Supply
23.1 Cabinet considered a report that sought approval for a corporate contract provision of water and wastewater services to Brighton & Hove City Council’s operational portfolio from 26th October 2024.
23.2 Councillor Robinson contributed to the debate of the report.
23.3 Resolved-
1) Cabinet grants delegated authority to the Corporate Director of City Services to enter into a call off contract using the YPO (Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation) Central Purchasing Body framework (Water, Wastewater and Ancillary Services – 1181) for the Council’s water supply and wastewater services, for a maximum term of 48 months.
37 Corporate Energy Supply
37.1 Cabinet considered a report that sought delegated authority for the continuation of Brighton & Hove City Council’s (‘the Council’) electricity and gas purchasing strategy.
37.2 Councillors Robinson, Muten and Taylor contributed to the debate of the report.
37.3 Resolved-
1) Cabinet agrees to the continued use by the Council of the Crown Commercial Services Energy Procurement framework until 31st March 2029 and grants delegated authority to the Corporate Director of City Services to continue to purchase electricity, gas, and associated metering services through the Crown Commercial Services Energy Procurement framework [RM6251] until 31st March 2029 at the latest.
38 King Alfred Leisure Centre Regeneration Project (Exempt Category 3)
As per the Part One report.
39 New Homes for Neighbourhoods (Exempt Category 3)
As per the Part One report.
40 Housing Supply - Update on potential acquisition (Exempt Category 3)
As per the Part One report.
41 Estate Management (Exempt Category 3)
As per the Part One report.
42 Commercial Property Lettings
23.2. Councillor Robinson contributed to the deabte of the report.
23.3. Resolved-
1) Cabinet agrees to the completion of two commercial leases and delegates authority to the Corporate Director City Services and the Assistant Director Legal and Democratic Services in consultation with the cabinet member to approve terms and take the necessary steps to complete the transactions.
43 Commercial Property Lettings (Exempt Category 3)
As per the Part One report.
44 Part Two Proceedings
44.1 Resolved- That Cabinet agrees that the confidential items listed on the agenda remain exempt from disclosure to the press and public.
The meeting concluded at 7.00pm