Cabinet. Tuesday, 07 November :30. Council Chamber. Civic Offices. Members of the Cabinet:

Transcription

1 Democratic Services Cabinet Tuesday, 07 November :30 Council Chamber Civic Offices Members of the Cabinet: Councillor Marland (Leader of the Council), Gifford, Gowans, Legg, Long, Middleton, O Neill (Deputy Leader) and Nolan If you have any enquires about this agenda please contact: Clerk Name: Shelagh Muir Clerk Telephone: Clerk shelagh.muir@milton-keynes.gov.uk Page 1 of 126

2 Page 2 of 126

3 Health and Safety Please take a few moments to familiarise yourself with the nearest available fire exit, indicated by the fire evacuation signs. In the event of an alarm sounding during the meeting you must evacuate the building immediately and follow all instructions provided by the fire evacuation officer who will identify him/herself should the alarm sound. You will be assisted to the nearest designated assembly point until it is safe to return to the building. Mobile Phones Please ensure that your mobile phone is switched to silent or is switched off completely during the meeting. Agenda Agendas and reports for the majority of the Council s public meetings can be accessed via the Internet at: Wi Fi access is available in the Council s meeting rooms. Users of Windows 7 and above can simply click the link to any documents you wish to see. Users of Windows XP will need to right click on the link and select open in browser. Recording of Meetings The proceedings at this meeting may be recorded for the purpose of preparing the minutes of the meeting. In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, you can film, photograph, record or use social media at any Council meetings that are open to the public. If you are reporting the proceedings, please respect other members of the public at the meeting who do not want to be filmed. You should also not conduct the reporting so that it disrupts the good order and conduct of the meeting. While you do not need permission, you can contact the Council s staff in advance of the meeting to discuss facilities for reporting the proceedings and a contact is included on the front of the agenda, or you can liaise with staff at the meeting. Guidance from the Department for Communities and local government can be viewed at the following link: 2/140812_Openness_Guide.pdf Comments, Complaints and Compliments Milton Keynes Council welcomes comments, complaints and compliments from members of the public in order to make its services as efficient and effective as possible. We would appreciate any suggestions regarding the usefulness of the paperwork for this meeting, or the conduct of the meeting you have attended. Please your comments to meetings@milton-keynes.gov.uk If you require a response please leave contact details, ideally including an address. A formal complaints / compliments form is available online at Page 3 of 126

4 CABINET PORTFOLIOS 2016/17 Portfolio Councillor Peter Marland (Leader) Councillor Hannah O Neill (Deputy Leader) Healthier and Stronger Communities Councillor Robert Middleton Resources and Innovation Councillor Liz Gifford Place Councillor Martin Gowans Public Realm Councillor Mick Legg Customer Services Councillor Nigel Long Adult Care and Housing Councillor Zoe Nolan Children and Families Page 4 of 126

5 A G E N D A 1. Apologies To receive any apologies of absence. 2. Cabinet Announcements To receive any announcements from the Leader and members of the Cabinet. 3. Minutes To approve, and the Chair to sign as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 3 October 2017 (Item 3). 4. Disclosures of Interest Councillors to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or personal interests (including other pecuniary interests) they may have in the business to be transacted, and officers to disclose any interests they may have in any contract to be considered. 5. Deputations and Petitions No requests have been received for the Cabinet to receive a deputation at this meeting. Any petitions received will be reported at the meeting. 6. Questions from Members of the Public To receive questions from residents and electors of the Borough. 7. Councillors' Items None. 8. Councillors' Questions (15 Minutes) 9(a). Councillors to ask questions of the Leader of the Council or a Cabinet Member on issues within their Portfolio. References from other Bodies Budget Scrutiny Committee - 19 September (b). To consider the recommendations in the Budget Scrutiny Committee s report on the Council s Reserves (Item 9[a]). References from other Bodies Council 20 September 2017 Petition with Reference to St Leger Drive Great Linford To receive details of a petition in connection with road safety issues, in St Ledger Drive, Great Linford, referred from the Council s meeting on 20 September Page 5 of 126

6 The aims of the petition were: Take all steps to ensure that we can safely cross St Ledger Drive to the Local Centre at all times of day by ensuring, as a matter of urgency, the following steps are taken: (a) Pedestrian crossings to the Local Centre and the main Redway to Neath Hill; (b) Enforcement of the 30 mph limit with cameras or traffic calming; and 9(c). (c) Consideration to having a 20 mph limit from Summerhayes to past the School enforced. References from other Bodies Council 20 September 2017 Petition with Reference to the Urban Capacity Study- Land in Campbell Park and Old Woughton Ward To receive details of a petition from residents in connection with land in Campbell Park and Old Woughton Ward identified in the Urban Capacity Study, referred from the Council s meeting on 20 September (d). The aims of the petition were to oppose development on two sites in Woolstone (UCS072 and UCS073), one site in Springfield (UCS074), one site in Stantonbury (UCS100) and one site in Bletchley (UCS107) which were identified in the Urban Capacity Study. References from other Bodies Council 20 September 2017 Petition with Reference to Change of Use of Part of the Co-op Shop on Grange Farm to a Funeral Parlour To receive details of a petition in connection with the change of use of part of the Co-op Shop on Grange Farm to a Funeral Parlour, referred from the Council s meeting on 20 September The aims of the petition were: 9(e). To oppose the Funeral Directors (cold storage / viewing area) in Grange Farm. References from other Bodies Council 20 September Local Authority Funding (Minute CL43) Page 6 of 126

7 3. That the Council therefore calls on: (d) on Cabinet to highlight the impact of cuts on services in Milton Keynes; (e) on Cabinet to ensure that the cuts and savings required to ensure a balanced budget are brought forward openly at the earliest opportunity for Budget Scrutiny Committee to analyse and comment on; and 9(f). (f) on Cabinet actively to promote further discussions with parishes with a view to assisting these statutory bodies to complement the Council s services where doing so would add value to their residents' well-being, particularly the vulnerable and least well off. References from other Bodies Council 18 October Urban Capacity Study That this Council: 9. calls upon the Cabinet as the Executive Arm of this Council to urgently confirm its commitment to the removal of all of these sites [namely the sites listed in resolution 11 below] from development; 9(g). 11. calls on the Cabinet to apply to register, the two sites in Woolstone (UCS072 and UCS073), one site in Springfield (UCS074), one site in Stantonbury (UCS100) and one site in Bletchley (UCS107) and the play area and buffer space of the Springfield Boulevard 1 Site (UCS075) as Village Greens under the Commons Act 2006 section 15(8). References from other Bodies Approval of Proposed Submission Version of Plan:MK 7. That the Council therefore welcomes the initiatives already outlined by the Administration and calls on Cabinet to continue to progress all avenues available to it to encourage developers, and to use Council and Milton Keynes Development Partnership land, to increase the supply of affordable housing beyond the requirements in Plan:MK. 12. That the Cabinet prioritises work to assess possible routes for both the expressway and the links between it and the existing strategic highway network, and railways in and close to Milton Keynes Borough with options given to, and input from, the Plan:MK Working Group, which advises the Cabinet Member for Place, and brings forward a desired route as quickly as possible. Page 7 of 126

8 9(h). References from other Bodies Council 18 October Street Homelessness 3. That this Council therefore: (f) Calls on the Cabinet to implement the outlined street homelessness services as quickly as possible;. A copy of the statement given to Cabinet on Tuesday 3 October by the Leader of the Council regarding the provision of services to street homeless people in Milton Keynes is attached at Item 9(h) for information (i). References from other Bodies Budget Scrutiny Committee 24 October 2017 Scrutiny of Budget Pressures To consider the Budget Scrutiny Committee s report on the work done to scrutinise the identified pressures in the draft 2018/19 budget, incorporating the findings of the Committee and presenting its recommendations. (Report to Follow) 10. Council Tax Base and Business Rate Baseline To consider Item Revisions to Capital Programme and Spend Approvals To consider Item Making the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan To consider Item MK Futures 2050 Programme Update To consider Item Disposal of Land off Brickhill Street Tilbrook To consider Item Proposed Relocation of Milton Keynes College To consider Item Procurement and Commissioning To receive the Minutes of the meetings of Procurement and Commissioning held on 14 September Copies of the Minutes are available at the following link: Link to P&C Minutes - 14 September 2017 Page 8 of 126

9 ITEM 3 Minutes of the meeting of the CABINET held on TUESDAY 3 OCTOBER 2017 at 6.30 pm Present: Officers: Councillor Marland (Chair) Councillors Gifford, Gowans, Legg, Long, Middleton, Nolan and O Neill C Mills (Chief Executive), M Bracey (Corporate Director - People), D Sharkey (Corporate Director - Place), D McLure (Interim Corporate Director - Resources), S Bridglalsingh (Service Director [Legal and Democratic Services]), B Leahy (Head of Planning), N Sainsbury (Head of Place-making), J Cheston (Development Plans Team Leader), P Hammond (Area Manager [MK Land and Tariff]), M Moore (Senior Planning Officer), A Turner (Senior Planning Officer), J Wellstead (Senior Planning Officer), J Williamson (Senior Planning Officer), A Hayden (Planning Officer), P Creighton (Project Officer) and S Muir (Committee Manager). Also Present: Councillors R Bradburn, Ferrans, A Geary, D Hopkins, McDonald, Miles, C Williams, P Williams and 13 members of the public. C57 ANNOUNCEMENTS (1.) Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) Councillor Achievement Award: Technology and Digital Award. Councillor Marland (Leader of the Council) congratulated Councillor Legg (Cabinet member for Customer Services) on being nominated for the Local Government Information Unit s Councillor Achievement Award for Technology and Digital. (2) Three Way Telecommunications Agreement Councillor Marland announced that the Council had recently signed an agreement with the Chinese city of Yinchuan and the Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE at a major international conference in Yinchuan, one of China s leading smart cities. The agreement committed the partners to work together on smart city projects that would be implemented by ZTE in the partner cities. Councillor Marland also announced that the UK Embassy in Beijing also sent representatives to support the event at which the Council was represented and where Milton Keynes was able to showcase initiatives and was also shortlisted for a global city leadership award. 3 October 2017 Page 9 of 126

10 Councillor Marland further announced that the ZTE Corporation was a multi $billion global leader in telecommunications and information technology. The first initiative to be established locally with ZTE was the CityLabs project with the Open University and Milton Keynes Council. ZTE were investing close to 1m to provide technical support for digital businesses in Milton Keynes and the region. It was anticipated that the Yinchuan agreement would create new and additional projects beyond CityLabs with early discussions focusing on the potential for 5G technology trials in Milton Keynes and Yinchuan. (3) Provision of Emergency Accommodation for Street Homeless Councillor Marland (Leader of the Council) indicated that over the past months the Council had made significant progress in establishing services and provision for rough sleepers in Milton Keynes. Premises had been secured and funding provided for a One Stop Shop. The Winter Night Shelter was working to provide emergency accommodation all year round and extra beds in winter. Councillor Marland announced that in connection with this, the Council had secured a temporary site, subject to planning permission being granted, for The Bus Shelter MK and was working to improve the MK Homelessness Partnership. Councillor Marland further announced that at the Budget Scrutiny Committee meeting on 4 October 2017 it was anticipated that a review of the pressures facing the 2018/19 budget would be started. He was pleased to state that as part of those pressures the Cabinet would be proposing to commit funding in the 2018/19 budget towards: expanding the Outreach Worker service to enable more work to be done identifying and supporting those sleeping rough; and funding for the ongoing costs of the One Stop Shop based at the Old Bus Station. However, despite 46 new emergency accommodation beds for street homeless people being provided by partners this winter, the progress to ensure enough emergency provision for rough sleepers in Milton Keynes had not been as would have been liked and Councillor Marland therefore announced that following discussions with officer colleagues, one-off resources would be used to fund at least 30 emergency placements over the coming winter and the Corporate Director - Place had been asked to bring forward this proposal for decision as quickly as possible. The Rough Sleeping Strategy consultation and the budget process would be used to determine if funding for the additional emergency beds should be included as part of the Council s permanent base budget. 3 October 2017 Page 10 of 126

11 Councillor Marland also indicated that the Cabinet believed that providing nearly at least 80 emergency placements and an expanded outreach service would help the Council move substantially towards its goal that all those who had a genuine housing need from Milton Keynes, and wished to take it, would be able to be offered a safe place to sleep at night. Furthermore Councillor Marland announced that he had requested that: the Council work with the MK Clinical Commissioning Group and partners to bring forward plans for a support service for those rough sleepers with a mental illness, drug or alcohol issue. We would then request funding for this service from Central Government in the first instance, given the Council s difficult budget position; the Council develop plans, both as an employer and facilitator with businesses, to provide offers of training or employment to people sleeping rough; and C58 the Council investigate ways to enable people to donate funds to those groups that help homeless people in the knowledge that the cash would be used for the good of the homeless rather than to give cash to those individuals begging on the street. Councillor Marland continued that the current consultation on the draft Rough Sleepers Strategy would continue and stressed the importance to establish the policy to guide the work of the Council. However, it was clear that despite the ongoing consultation, more urgent action was required for this winter in advance of the strategy being adopted. He hoped this announcement would encourage further responses which would feed into the work the Council was undertaking to establish a future baseline for services. MINUTES RESOLVED - That the minutes of the meeting of the 12 September 2017 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record, subject to the fourth paragraph of Minute C40 (Page 8) being amended to read on this matter the Cabinet heard from Councillor A Francis (New Bradwell Parish Council) and clause (g) at Minute C52 being amended to read that should a new strategic employment area be developed at Brogborough near junction 13 of the M, the feasibility of linking that site to the rail network be investigated. 3 October 2017 Page 11 of 126

12 C59 C60 C61 3 October 2017 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST No disclosures of interest were received. COUNCILLORS QUESTIONS (a) (b) Question from Councillor C Williams to Councillor Gifford (Cabinet member for Place). Councillor C Williams asked Councillor Gifford if in her opinion, a contract should have been awarded by an officer colleague to a leisure services provider when that supplier had been criticised for its levels of service and was being investigated by the Council s Audit Committee. Councillor Marland (Leader of the Council) responded on behalf of Councillor Gifford and stated that the subject was part of a current audit and therefore it was not appropriate to comment. Question from Councillor C Williams to Councillor Marland (Leader of the Council). Councillor C Williams asked Councillor Marland how the Call In of Officer Decisions was applied under the Council s Constitution with reference to a specific Officer Decision. Councillor Marland indicated that in accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules 16 (a), the power of Call In could only be applied to Key Decisions made by an Officer with Delegated Authority from the Cabinet. Councillor C Williams asked, as a supplementary question, that as Councillors were not able to Call In Officer Decisions that were not Key Decisions, if the Council s Constitution could be amended to include such a mechanism. Councillor Marland indicated that the Council s Constitution was quite clear and there were no plans to amend it. MENTAL HEALTH FOR THE HOMELESS TASK AND FINISH GROUP The Cabinet received the report of the Mental Health for the Homeless Task and Finish Group which was presented by Councillor P Williams, Chair of the Task and Finish Group. Councillor P Williams thanked the Task and Finish Group and the contributors to the Group for their work and stated that the Group had been set up by the Scrutiny Management Committee at the request of the Housing and Community and Health and Adult Social Care Committees. The group had established the clear link between the issues of mental health and homelessness. Councillor P Williams indicated that the links between lack of housing and mental health were also clear and the difficulties faced in both these areas presented new and complex problems. He Page 12 of 126

13 explained that poor mental health could be a contributory factor when someone became homeless, while becoming homeless would often exacerbate a person s existing mental health problems and vulnerability. Councillor Long, the responsible Cabinet member for Adult Care and Housing also thanked the Task and Finish Group for its work and indicated that the implications of the complex range of health issues on homeless people was clear and therefore the report should be forwarded to the Health and Wellbeing Board. Councillor Long also undertook to ensure that progress on the issues highlighted in the report were reviewed and reported to the Cabinet regularly. RESOLVED: 1. The report be noted and progress on the issues highlighted be reviewed and reported to the Cabinet regularly. 2. That the report be forwarded to the Health and Wellbeing Board for consideration. C62 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE - 14 SEPTEMBER 2017: MENTAL HEALTH FOR THE HOMELESS TASK AND FINISH GROUP AND REGENERATIONMK - FULLERS SLADE STOCK CONDITION SURVEY The Cabinet considered recommendations from the meeting of the Housing and Community Committee held on 14 September 2017 which were presented by Councillor C Williams, Chair of Housing and Community Committee. Councillor C Williams thanked those who had contributed to the report of the Mental Health for the Homeless Task and Finish Group and indicated that as much as possible should be done to help homeless people who were the most vulnerable in society. With reference to the regeneration at Fullers Slade, Councillor C Williams indicated his immense disappointment that the Stock Condition Survey had not been carried out. The survey was required to be completed in order to analyse the work to be done, the resources required to complete it and to assist in the consultation work being carried out with residents. Councillor C Williams also indicated that the Housing and Community Committee was scheduled to carry out a site visit to Fullers Slade on Friday 6 October 2017, and he expected that the lack of availability of the Stock Condition Survey would be a major issue with residents. Councillor Long, the responsible Cabinet member for Adult Care and Housing indicated that he had requested that a copy of the Stock Condition Survey be released and acknowledged resident s and councillor s frustration that it was not yet available. 3 October 2017 Page 13 of 126

14 Councillor Long also indicated that building relationships with residents took time, was based on trust and that full disclosure of all the information must be available to support this. The lessons learned from the regeneration of Fullers Slade would be used to inform the Regeneration:MK project management of future areas to be regenerated in Milton Keynes. The Cabinet also heard from Councillor Ferrans and a member of the public who also voiced their disappointment about the lack of availability of the Stock Condition Survey. RESOLVED: That the referral and response be noted. C63 FORECAST OF OUTTURN FOR GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND CAPITAL BUDGET OUTTURN, HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT (HRA) AND DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT FOR THE PERIOD AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2017 The Cabinet considered the forecast of outturn for the General Fund Revenue and Capital Budget, the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and the Dedicated Schools Grant as at 30 September 2017 which was introduced by Councillor Middleton, the responsible Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation. It was reported that the: General Fund Revenue Account was reporting a forecast overspend of 6.912m (a decrease of 1.962m from the reported position as at 30 June 2017) before the planned application of 3.266m of demand-led reserves and 2.308m of unplanned other reserves, which had resulted in an overall overspend forecast of 1.338m. Capital Programme was reporting a forecast outturn spend of m against a spend approval of m, with forecast re-phasing of 9.999m, which had resulted in an overall overspend forecast of 3.525m. Housing Revenue Account was forecasting a deficit of 0.267m. Dedicated Schools Grant budget was set with an estimated deficit carry forward into 2018/19 of 0.264m, the forecast position as at 30 September 2017 was a deficit carry forward of 0.331m. Councillor Middleton indicated that the position with the overspends had slightly improved although they were still at ( 1.338m). The main areas contributing to this were the demand led areas of Housing, Adult Social Care and Children s Social Care which were largely the result of the housing crisis and the reduced support from Government. Councillor Middleton quoted examples that had contributed towards the overspends such as the increase in the numbers of Looked After 3 October 2017 Page 14 of 126

15 Children from 232 in-house fostering placements compared to the 200 budgeted for, and the delayed budget reductions for day services in Adult Social Care. Councillor Middleton also indicated that the Scrutiny Management Committee was due to undertake a review on Parking Income which was 0.700m below budget. However, he added that some improvements had been recorded such as the increase in housing adoptions in the Western Flank development area and salary underspends due to in year vacancies. Councillor Middleton also indicated that one-off resources would be used to offset risks although it was recognised this was unsustainable and added to the challenging financial situation the Council faced. RESOLVED 1. That the General Fund Revenue Account forecast of outturn of 1.338m overspend, after the use of 3.266m of demand led reserves and 2.308m of unplanned other reserves, and the mitigating management actions to minimise the overspend be noted. 2. That the use of one-off resources to offset risks and higher than expected levels of demand, be noted. 3. That the forecast outturn deficit on the Housing Revenue Account of 0.267m be noted. 4. That the Dedicated Schools Grant forecast deficit of 0.331m be noted. 5. That the forecast outturn spend on the Capital Programme of m and re-phasing of 9.999m into 2018/19 be noted. C64 CAPITAL PROGRAMME REVISIONS AND SPEND APPROVALS The Cabinet considered the Capital Programme Revisions and Spend Approvals Report which was introduced by Councillor Middleton, the responsible Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation. It was reported that the changes outlined in this report resulted in a revised Capital Programme for 2017/18 of m. Spend approvals at m had been given to enable individual projects in the programme to commence or continue. It was also reported that the Council was responsible for the management of the Milton Keynes Tariff, which forward funded infrastructure in the expansion areas. Should the recommendations included in the report be approved, the impact would be a revised Tariff Programme for 2017/18 of 40.72m; with the total spend approval for these contributions at 16.81m. 3 October 2017 Page 15 of 126

16 Councillor Middleton, the responsible Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation, indicated that the Cabinet was continuing to invest in a variety of schemes across the borough, and highlighted the following community and other schemes submitted for inclusion in the 2017/18 Capital Programme: Improvements at Monkston Community Centre & Sports Pavilion Pitch Roof Upgrade funded from a S106 Contribution. Highways Corridor Improvements to the A509, funded from a Department of Transport Challenge Fund Grant. C65 Whitehouse Secondary School 0.800m in 2017/18 rather than 2018/19, to design the new school building and associated external areas. RESOLVED 1. That the additions to resource allocation and spend approval for the 2017/18 capital programme be approved. 2. That the amendments to resource allocation and spend approvals for the 2017/18 capital programme be approved. 3. That the overall funding position for the 2017/18 capital programme be noted. 4. That the amendments to resource allocation and spend approvals for the 2017/18 tariff programme be approved. 5. That the current position of the 2017/18 tariff programme be noted. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SUBMISSION VERSION OF PLAN:MK The Cabinet considered the Proposed Submission Version of Plan:MK which had been developed in consultation with Councillors, Parish and Town Councils, stakeholders and residents. It was reported that if the Cabinet agreed to recommend the plan and it was adopted, then there would be a 6 week consultation period following which it would be submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). It was noted that Plan:MK, if adopted by the Council, would be the new local development plan for Milton Keynes Borough until It would set out a vision and development strategy for the future of the Borough, and include development management policies and site allocations for all sizes and types of development to help deliver that vision. Plan:MK would replace the existing Core Strategy (adopted in 2013) and the saved policies from the Local Plan (adopted in 2005). 3 October 2017 Page 16 of 126

17 It was also reported that a 15-year period for the Plan would be consistent with national planning policy which stated that local plans should be drawn up over an appropriate timescale, should take account of longer term requirements and should be kept up to date. It was anticipated that the Plan would need to be reviewed prior to the end of the 15 year period in order to be able to respond to a number of emerging strategies and infrastructure developments, notably the MK Futures 2050 work, progress on East-West Rail and the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford growth corridor. Councillor Gifford, the Cabinet member for Place, introduced the report and listed the changes which had been made to the Plan compared with the previous Preferred Options draft. This included the removal of the 1,000-homes target for the rural areas of the Borough, the incorporation of a small windfall allowance over the Plan period which were sites that had come forward unexpectedly through planning applications and had not been identified in neighbourhood plans. The Plan also included a buffer in the housing land supply of approximately 5.8% within the housing numbers. Councillor Gifford also indicated that there was a strategic reserve site to the east of the MI that could come forward before 2031 if Government funding was for infrastructure was obtained. Timing was important as Plan:MK was required to be in place to inform planning applications and there was need to work towards the housing numbers that had been identified. Councillor Gifford added that the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, would be authorised to make any necessary minor amendments to Plan:MK and its supporting documents following the public consultation. Councillor Marland noted the written submissions from Councillor D Hopkins and developers requesting that the timetable for delivering Plan:MK be delayed. Councillor Marland also offered his apologies to Councillors A Geary and D Hopkins as they had not been given the opportunity to speak. In response to submissions, Councillor Marland indicated that to wait for the outcome of the National Infrastructure Commission s recommendations for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Growth Corridor, which was due to report to Government in Autumn 2017, would delay the Plan:MK unduly as there was no guarantee that the Government would report in the Autumn. The MKFutures 2050 project, whilst linked to Plan:MK, was not a statutory requirement and therefore carried no weight in planning terms. Councillor Marland also clarified that with regard to affordable housing provisions, unlike the local authority use of the phrase social and affordable, within a planning context this phrase referred to specific legal definitions about viability and deliverability and these needed to be clear in the Plan:MK. 3 October 2017 Page 17 of 126

18 C66 Councillor Long indicated his support for Plan:MK and commented that work should be started on Supplementary Planning Guidance for Affordable Housing and a Housing Strategy that was consistent with the Plan:MK and that the plans for private sector rented schemes mentioned in the revised Plan:MK, needed strengthening. The Cabinet also heard from Councillor Ferrans during consideration of the item. RESOLVED 1. That the Proposed Submission version of Plan:MK be recommended to Council and published for six weeks consultation and then submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). 2. That the Head of Planning be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, to make any necessary minor amendments to Plan:MK and its supporting documents following the consultation. 3. That the Head of Planning, be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place, to suggest any necessary modifications to Plan:MK during the examination process to secure its soundness, in accordance with the findings of the Planning Inspector and subject to any necessary public consultation. MAKING THE CASTLETHORPE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN The Cabinet considered recommending that the Council make the Castlethorpe Neighbourhood Plan, which was introduced by Councillor Gifford, the Cabinet member for Place. Councillor Gifford indicated that, following the referendum held on 21 September 2017, residents of Castlethorpe had returned a majority Yes to the question asked whether those voting wanted Milton Keynes Council to use the neighbourhood plan when deciding planning applications in the neighbourhood area. Councillor Gifford also clarified that as part of the referendum process, there was an addendum added to the Council website highlighting the errors in the referendum version of the Castlethorpe Neighbourhood Plan with reference to the inclusion of Gobbey s Field. Councillor Gifford also indicated that if the Council agreed the Neighbourhood Plan, notification of the decision would be sent to the Castlethorpe Parish Council and published by this Council. The Cabinet also heard from Councillor A Geary during consideration of the item. 3 October 2017 Page 18 of 126

19 C67 3 October 2017 RESOLVED - 1. That the Council be recommended to make the Castlethorpe Neighbourhood Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 38(A)(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act That, subject to the Council s agreement to the making of the Neighbourhood Plan: (a) the decision document and the Castlethorpe Neighbourhood Plan be published on the Council s website and in other manners, to bring them to the attention of people who lived, worked or carried out business in the neighbourhood area; and (b) the decision document and details on how to view the plan be sent to the qualifying body (Castlethorpe Parish Council) and any person who asked to be notified of the decision. MAKING THE SHERINGTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN The Cabinet considered recommending that the Council make the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan, which was introduced by Councillor Gifford, the Cabinet member for Place. Councillor Gifford indicated that, following the referendum held on 21 September 2017, residents of Sherington had returned a majority Yes to the question asked whether those voting wanted Milton Keynes Council to use the neighbourhood plan when deciding planning applications in the neighbourhood area. Councillor Gifford also indicated that if the Council agreed, notification of the decision would be sent to the Sherington Parish Council and published by this Council. RESOLVED - 1. That the Council be recommended to make the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 38(A)(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act That, subject to the Council s agreement to the making of the Neighbourhood Plan: (a) the decision document and the Sherington Neighbourhood Plan be published on the Council s website and in other manners, to bring them to the attention of people who lived, worked or carried out business in the neighbourhood area; and (b) the decision document and details on how to view the plan be sent to the qualifying body (Sherington Parish Council) and any person who asked to be notified of the decision. Page 19 of 126

20 C68 APPRENTICESHIPS AT MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL - DIRECTION OF TRAVEL The Cabinet considered the Council s proposed future approach to Apprenticeships in response to the Apprenticeship Levy legislation and the Council motion agreed on 21 June 2017 (Minute CL24 refers) that was introduced by Councillor Middleton (Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation). It was reported that the Apprenticeship Levy came into force on 6 April 2017 and affected all employers with a payroll value of over 3m. The Council would be required to pay a Levy of 0.5% of the monthly payroll to the Government. Funds from the Levy would then be made available to the Council that could then be used to train apprentices. Monies could not be used to fund apprentices salaries. It was also reported that the Government had also set a target for 2.3% of the workforce to be apprentices. Although this was nonstatutory, the Council would be monitored, challenged and expected to demonstrate it was working towards achieving the target. Councillor Middleton indicated that currently the Council employed 12 apprentices, who were managed within individual services. There were five in Children s Services, two each in Adult Social Care and Health and LGSS IT and one each in the Chief Executive s office, Housing and Public Realm. As the apprentices were recruited before the new legislation, the Council was not eligible for draw down from Levy funds. Current apprenticeship frameworks were delivered by the Council s small in-house training function within the People Directorate and all Council service areas were encouraged to develop apprenticeship schemes. Councillor Middleton also indicated that a framework was required to progress apprenticeships for Looked After Children and that the employment of apprentices by the Council s partners, such as the Milton Keynes Development Partnership and Local Government Shared Services (LGSS), should be encouraged. RESOLVED - 1. That the proposed direction of travel for apprenticeships be noted. 2. That all Council services be encouraged to embrace the opportunity to develop apprenticeship schemes that support a loyal and diverse local workforce; as well as fully exploit the opportunities presented through the new Apprenticeship Levy, this would include: (a) Enhanced skills and knowledge for the existing workforce; (b) Attraction of a greater number of young people who live in the borough of Milton Keynes; including schools leavers and graduates; 3 October 2017 Page 20 of 126

21 (c) (d) (e) Working with the Council s capital development contractors to attract local apprenticeships in construction roles; Developing opportunities for our looked after children; and That the Council redoubled its efforts to promote apprenticeships through ongoing outreach and stakeholder engagement activities, including opening dialogue with partnership bodies Milton Keynes Development Partnership, Your MK, and LGSS - to discuss how apprenticeships can be promoted in their businesses. C69 DEVELOPING THE MK COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY FRAMEWORK The Cabinet considered a report about developing the Council s Infrastructure Delivery that was introduced by Councillor Middleton (Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation). It was reported that the Council was faced with a significant and ongoing challenge in delivering an extensive range of infrastructure, capital projects and schemes with a severely reduced financial and staffing capacity. Moreover, notwithstanding the Council s, reduced capacity, growth and delivery expectations remained resolutely high. Additionally, expectations of housing delivery were considerable and the Council was facing a growing risk of not meeting its annual housing delivery targets. It was suggested that in order to assist the prioritisation of schemes, the development of an Infrastructure Framework would allow the Council to evaluate the relative merits of infrastructure projects to inform a disciplined and consistent prioritisation and decision making process. It was also reported that if the Council did not address the prioritisation of schemes it would be left without a robust prioritisation process for infrastructure projects, which it was anticipated would result in accepting an ongoing risk that limited resources might not be deployed to optimum effect. Councillor Middleton indicated that the development of an infrastructure prioritisation approach centred on increasing the pace and quantum of housing delivery and increased the likelihood of meeting both housing need in the Borough and, thereby, reducing the risk of Department of Communities and Local Government intervention. Councillor Middleton also indicated that it was expected that the proposed policy would help mitigate the growing risk of not meeting the annual housing targets and would support bids to local and national funding programmes. 3 October 2017 Page 21 of 126

22 In response to a suggestion from Councillor A Geary that Developers shall be strongly requested to assist the Council in meeting housing targets, Councillor Marland (Leader of the Council) indicated that Councillor A Geary s ideas and views would be welcome and should be forwarded to him. RESOLVED: That a Framework be developed for infrastructure prioritisation based on a methodology focused on the delivery of housing numbers, be approved. C70 3 October 2017 PROPOSED HOUSING AND REGENERATION RESTUCTURE The Cabinet considered the proposals to restructure the Housing and Regeneration Service which was introduced by Councillor Long, the Cabinet member for Adult Care and Housing. It was reported that the Council s Housing and Regeneration Service was facing increasing pressures as a result of the increasing demand for Council services and the Government s ongoing deficit reduction programme and welfare reform initiatives which were are having a significant impact both on the public and the Council s ability to respond. It was also reported that Homelessness in Milton Keynes had increased significantly in recent years. At 31 March 2010 the number of people living in temporary accommodation in the borough was 84 and by the end of March 2017 this number had risen to 754 which was an increase of 798%. Over this same time, house prices had risen by 40%, private sector rents by 20% and the delivery of new affordable housing had fallen short of target by 1,382 in the seven years between April 2010 and March This was having a significant, detrimental impact on the Council s finances, which was currently projecting an in year overspend on the provision of temporary accommodation alone of circa. 1.4m. Additionally, it was anticipated that the new Homelessness Reduction Act, which was expected to be in force from 1 April 2018, would increase the support that councils were required to provide to those that were homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councillor Long indicated that in response to these pressures and challenges it was proposed that the Council s Housing Service be restructured to strengthen the strategic leadership role and to successfully deliver day to day customer care. It was also anticipated that the restructure would add to the previously reported savings in temporary accommodation for homeless people and reduce costs. Councillor Long also indicated that the proposed restructure was required to be in place by 1 April 2018 to prepare for the impact of the new Homelessness Reduction Act. The cost of the restructure of 200k could be met from the Invest to Save Reserve in 2017/18. This would result in an addition to the base revenue budget of 871k Page 22 of 126

23 from year 2018/19 to be split over two years of 7521k in year 2018/19 and 120k in year 2019/20. The Cabinet noted that the Council would be making representations to Government over the ongoing low levels of funding. RESOLVED: 1. That the background and reasons for the proposed restructure of the Housing and Regeneration Service be noted and that the Corporate Director Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Adult Care and Housing, makes representation to Government over ongoing funding which is too low. 2. That it be recommended to Council that funding for the proposed increases to the Housing Staffing establishment of 200k from the Invest to Save reserve in 2017/18 (one-off funding) and an addition to the base revenue budget of 871k from 2018/19 split over 2 financial years: 751,000 IN 2018/19; and 120,000 in 2019/20 3. That the additional General Fund revenue investment of 200,000 in 2017/18 from Council Reserves, be approved, to enable the restructure to commence being implemented before 1 April 2018 in order to prepare for the impact of the Homelessness Reduction Act. 4. That it be noted that the restructure would be cost neutral on the Housing Revenue Account. C71 5. That it be noted that the restructure will be implemented in line with the Council s Restructure, Redundancy and Redeployment Policy. PROCUREMENT AND COMMISSIONING RESOLVED - That the Minutes of the meeting of Procurement and Commissioning held on 15 June 2017 be received. THE CHAIR CLOSED THE MEETING AT 07:38 PM 3 October 2017 Page 23 of 126

24 Page 24 of 126

25 ITEM 9(a) Budget Scrutiny Planning Group Council Reserves Report September 2017 Author: Councillor R Bradburn (Chair) Present: Councillors R Bradburn, P Geary, M Burke Officers: S Richardson (Service Director for Finance and Resources) and E Richardson (Overview and Scrutiny Officer) At its meeting on 23 March 2017, the Budget Scrutiny Committee asked the Planning Group to review the Council's Reserves. The Planning Group has now held two meetings to consider the issue of reserves and, although a little later than planned due to circumstances beyond anyone's control, here is the report on the Planning Group s work. THE PREMISE It will be known to many elected members that some of their colleagues had raised questions as to the rising level of reserves held by the Council over the last few years. To that end this report hopefully will inform and bring clarity to the process of holding reserves. With the report are attached two annexes supplied by the Service Director of Finance and Resources: Annex A - Council Reserves Background Paper and Additional Information Annex B Financial Reserves Policy Annex C List of Reserves and Forecast Balances Annex D Reserves Risk Assessment Final Budget Annex E Last 3 Years Reserve Balances It was noted during discussions that there were reserves which had not been called upon in the last 3 years. The papers provided by the Service Director showed that there was nearly 2 million held in the reserves which was no longer required for the original purposes for which it had been set aside. It was also noted that there was an element of duplication of headings for reserves, such as the corporate building reserve and the Dilapidation Fund for Saxon Court, which, although once leased by the Council was now owned, thus creating a need to consolidate some reserves. THE RESERVES There were 3 major groups of reserve fund held by the Council: 1. Housing Revenue Account (HRA) this was a ring-fenced reserve which could only be used for the benefit of council tenants. The high level of this reserve reflected the fact that investment in the Council s housing stock had been held back pending completion of the Stock Condition Survey which was expected to be completed shortly. The level of the reserve Page 25 of 126 1

26 would be brought into perspective when the survey is presented and thus be in context. 2. Schools Reserves these were third party funds held by the Council. Legally, this was not the Council s money and the Council had no call on these funds, although there was a requirement for the Council to account for them on its balance sheet. It is unfortunate that a local authority can have no call on what is nearly 10m in Reserves but can still be liable for the funding of a deficit when a school becomes an Academy as in the case recently of Stantonbury, but it appears there is no ability to access these Reserves. 3. General Fund Reserves Within the General Fund there were three main demand led reserves, all of which had been under a significant amount of pressure in recent years: Children s Social Care; Adult Social Care; Homelessness. In a detailed discussion of the General Fund Reserve, it was noted that: The General Fund Working Balance required a minimum agreed risk threshold (there was no statutory guidance on what this should be it was up to individual local authorities to decide their own level) ideally with a buffer above it. If the reserve was used then this was likely to result in a future pressure to top the reserve back up. Therefore, a buffer provided a degree of flexibility over how soon this might need to be done should the fund be used; Not all reserves held in the General Fund were applied in the same way. Some were held as risk management reserves whilst others, such as the Local Government Reorganisation Reserve, were held to manage the Council s financing strategy of liabilities to smooth budget pressures; It was not always clear whether uncommitted reserves were still necessary and available for allocation elsewhere or whether they needed to be retained just in case. Currently there was 1.9m of uncommitted reserves which provided some flexibility in the account; The projected 2017/18 overspend would be absorbed from current reserves. The Group considered whether the regular use of reserves covered a poor budget setting process and if budget holders were getting the demand pressures on their services right. The Group queried whether overspends were arising because existing budgets were being trimmed too tightly or because too many unforeseen circumstances were cropping up. It was suggested that a culture change was needed to make it harder for budget holders to dip into reserves if the overspend was due to poor budget planning; The possibility of having just one General Fund working balance, with a breakdown of sub-headings below it, was considered. Any budget holder needing support from the reserves should have to make a full and detailed case as to why they needed to call on the reserves; The New Homes Bonus (NHB) currently received by the Council was revenue income, but once received was being used to support the Capital Programme. Page 26 of 126 2

27 However, depending on future circumstances, this approach could change and the NHB be allocated to the Revenue Account; A housekeeping exercise was needed to tidy up the presentation of the information on reserves so that the detail was clear and the reasons for holding any particular reserve could be justified. The Planning Group, in the first meeting on the 25 August 2017, asked some useful questions which were discussed in detail at the second meeting when additional information had been provided by the Service Director for Finance and Resources, noting that: MKBE Ltd stood for Milton Keynes Business Enterprise, which was a company wholly owned by the Council. It had ceased operating and the Council was now in the process of closing the company with Companies House. The balance listed in this reserve was the final balance of the company when it ceased trading and had been transferred back to the Council as spare funds; The projected figures in the 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2019/20 budgets for the Redundancy and Reorganisation Reserve were top-up figures; the reserve was currently 1.9m. Although there were no commitments against it for 2017/18 there were significant restructuring plans to be confirmed from the partnership with LGSS which would require future funding. The balance on this reserve and future contributions would be reviewed as part of the annual budget process to ensure that the Council can meet future obligations; The Saxon Court Dilapidation Reserve was established as part of the previous leasing agreement for Saxon Court, to cover the cost of any reinstatement works that would need to be done on the cessation of the lease. Although the Council had since bought Saxon Court, the reserve had been retained to cover essential building projects within Saxon Court. However, there was now a case for rationalising this reserve with the general Corporate Property Reserve, which covered all the other buildings owned by the Council; This needed to be part of a wider ranging asset plan review of what was in base budgets for property maintenance and whether this was sufficient to cover anticipated repairs and maintenance; The Severe Weather Reserve covered unbudgeted, exceptional spend on highways maintenance. In recent years the agreed budget had been regularly exceeded and the fund used. Additional contributions had also been made to help maintain the reserve balance. The projected balance assumed that this level of expenditure would continue, although no further contributions would be made into the reserve. The issue was now being assessed as a budget pressure for 2018/19; The One-Off Expenditure Reserve held one-off pressure funding approved as part of the budget setting process and was currently approximately 8.7m. The balance was made up of unspent balances being carried forward as part of the year end approval of the Outturn Report. Any unspent balances were reviewed individually each year as part of the budget setting process to ensure that they were still required; There were some one-off expenditure reserves which ran over multiple financial years and where there were known commitments, these were added into the forecasted balance. At present, there were uncommitted balances amounting to Page 27 of 126 3

28 1.819m which would also be reviewed as part the budget setting process to ensure that they were still valid; Budget Roll-overs related to in-year underspends which had approval to be carried forward. They were reviewed as part of the budget setting process and any spare resources transferred out from the reserve; The Local Government Reorganisation Reserve was a means of accounting for an historic debt (from Buckinghamshire County Council when Milton Keynes became a unitary authority in 1997). Although the loans had been repaid, there was still an annual Minimum Revenue Provision charge made to the Income and Expenditure Account each year funded by this reserve. This would continue for another 3 years to service these costs, after which the reserve would be closed. RECOMMENDATIONS After the two meetings, it was helpful that some of the recommendations put forward by members of the Budget Scrutiny Committee Planning Group were in accord with opinion of the Service Director, particularly the rationalisation of the names of reserves. 1. That a review and rationalisation of reserves seems to be prudent and the Budget Scrutiny Committee will be asked to endorse this. 2. That Cabinet is asked to work with the Council s senior officers to achieve this and progress reviewed as part of the January (savings) Challenge meetings. 3. That a review of the Council s reserves is held on a regular basis and that where appropriate, reserves have a time limiting marker. 4. That assurance be sought from budget holders that underspends are being managed correctly. The Budget Scrutiny Committee needs confidence that budget holders are utilising the figures for the best management of their departments. 5. That forecast budget pressures are as realistic as possible and that budget holders resist the temptation to trim budgets to such an extent that the use of reserves is inevitable. 6. The Council needed to understand how risk worked, review its position on risk and agree a limit on its appetite for risk. 7. That a review of the HRA reserves is deferred until such time as the anticipated Stock Condition Survey has been received from YourMK. (There may need to be further discussion as to whether the most appropriate body to do this is the Budget Scrutiny Committee or the Housing and Community Committee). 8. That the naming convention for reserves be simplified and applied consistently so that the information can be easily understood by non-finance specialists. 9. That the different types of reserves, eg ear-marked, third party etc be listed together, rather than dotted about the list. 10. That the Service Director: Finance and Resources be requested to clarify the precise legal position in relation to reserves held by schools and whether local authorities have a right to call on these reserves or the power to compel schools to spend the money for the benefit of their pupils. Page 28 of 126 4

29 CONCLUDING REMARKS I hope the above report and the attached annexes will be of assistance to the Budget Scrutiny Committee members and I ask that you endorse the report and agree the recommendations. Hopefully a more informative rationale will be in place to assist the understanding of the Reserves process in the future. I would particularly like to thank Councillors Peter Geary and Margaret Burke for the difficult questions raised and challenges to information provided. Also a big thank you to the new Service Director of Finance and Resources, Steve Richardson, who helped to achieve a suitable outcome in producing this report and of course Elizabeth Richardson for her support, note taking suggestions and organising the meeting process. I think the myth that Reserves can be the panacea to a local authority s finance problems, though not fully blown away, is put into perspective, particularly when demand-led expenditure on the homeless and looked after children spirals beyond any forecast amount. I commend this report to the Committee. Cllr Robin Bradburn Chair, Budget Scrutiny Committee 11 September 2017 Page 29 of 126 5

30 Page 30 of 126

31 ANNEX A Budget Scrutiny Planning Group Information 25 August 2017 Council Reserves Background Papers Purpose This paper pulls together the key issues and supporting documents that were requested at the Budget Scrutiny Planning Group briefing (BSPG) on 28 June At the Briefing the following areas were identified within scope of the review: 1. Difference between managed risks and reserves. 2. Different types of reserves. 3. Why reserves are held and have been built up over time. 4. Methodology for setting the level of reserves. 5. What is the best approach, i.e. to have one large reserve covering everything, or lots of smaller reserves to cover off individual risks? 6. Transparency of reserves. 7. What are the trends over the past few years? 1. Difference Between Managed Risks and Reserves The Council has an approved Risk Management Strategy which defines risk as: A risk is an uncertain event or set of events which, should it occur, will have an effect on the achievement of objectives. Risks can be both positive and negative. The Strategy goes on to identify risk categories which should be considered by the Council. Assets Economic & Financial Environmental Growth Health & Safety Information Legal & Regulatory Managerial Partnerships Political Reputational Social Technological These risk categories help to inform the approach to identifying how risks should be identified but also mitigated. A key part of the Council s approach to mitigating the impact of these risks is to set aside specific reserves to meet the potential financial impact of one of more risks materialising. 2. Different Types of Reserves There are two main types of reserves that local authorities hold: Unearmarked also referred to as General Reserves. These reserves are not held for any specific purpose and can be used to cover exceptional expenditure or income shortfalls to help support the overall delivery of the budget (revenue and Page 31 of 126

32 capital). The main reserves falling under this category are the working balances for the General Fund (GF) and Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Both of these reserves are statutory reserves and a local authority is required to hold a working balance for both of these revenue accounts. Whilst it is primarily the responsibility of the local authority and its chief financial officer to maintain a sound financial position, external auditors will confirm that there are no material uncertainties about going concern. Even where, as part of their wider role, auditors have to report on an authority s financial position, it is not their responsibility to prescribe the optimum or minimum level of reserves for individual authorities or authorities in general. There is no specific set minimum threshold that a local authority must meet. CIPFA have in the past provided guidance based through Local Authority Accounting Panel (LAAP) Bulletins on setting minimum thresholds: The finance director may choose to express advice on the level of balances in cash and/or as percentage of budget (to aid understanding) so long as that advice is tailored to the circumstances of the authority for that particular year. The advice should be set in the context of the authority s medium term financial plan and should not focus exclusively on short-term considerations. Advice should be given on the adequacy of reserves over the lifetime of the medium term financial plan. Earmarked these reserves are set up to meet specific policy objectives and help deliver the overall budget strategy of the Council. A local authority can set up as many or as few of these reserves as it prudently needs to. Ring Fencing When setting up and managing reserves, the Council must also have regard to statutory provisions. The main issue that we must have due regard to is ring fencing which places specific restrictions on using resources which have been generated from a particular source. The main principle that must be followed is to ensure that resources generated from the following funds are not transferred outside of these funds: Housing Revenue Account income received from HRA assets can only be used to fund services that benefit tenants and must not be used to meet other services that the Council provides as part of its general fund. General Fund - income received from all services and non HRA assets must be used to meet general service expenditure, except for that which falls within the landlord function (HRA). Dedicated Schools Funds this grant funding received from central government cannot be used to meet expenditure which would be incurred within either the General Fund or HRA. 3. Why Reserves Are Held and Have Been Built Up Over Time Reserves are set up to hold funding (revenue or capital) which is not required to be spent in year, but is either needed to meet a specific spending commitment in a future year or to help manage and mitigate financial risks. Page 32 of 126

33 The Council currently holds a large number of earmarked reserves which have been created at different times for different reasons. The rationale for holding these reserves falls under the following main objectives: To manage known financial risks; To enable the Council to invest in services to generate future savings as part of its budget strategy (invest to save business cases); To manage one off expenditure which has allowed the Council to make ongoing revenue reductions. To build up funding to support the delivery of large projects such as capital programme schemes. To manage known timing differences between the receipts of funding and the profile of expenditure. To hold ring-fenced balances for example, specific grants, trusts, schools the Housing Revenue Account. The Council has a Reserves Policy which is published as part of the Financial Sustainability Plan each February. A copy of the current policy is attached at Annex B. 4. Setting the Level of Reserves Sections 32 and 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 require local authorities to have regard to the level of reserves needed to meeting estimated future expenditure when calculating the budget requirement. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 has a legal responsibility as part of the budget setting process to report formally on the adequacy of proposed reserves when setting a budget requirement and to ensure that there are key protocols for their establishment and use. The CFO recommends a minimum level of reserves for both the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account each year. These reserves are not ringfenced but are specifically held to manage unplanned expenditure or shortfalls against income in year. The minimum level at which these two reserves are set must take account of the nature of the risks to which the Authority is exposed. The Council s auditors will consider the level at which working balances are set in considering their opinion in relation to the Going Concern Concept and Value for Money Judgement. If in their view, the minimum balance or actual balances are considered to be too low, then this will be raised with those charged with governance which in Milton Keynes is the Audit Committee. There is no requirement for the auditors to specify any specific level. Earmarked Reserves With the exception of the above reserves, the Council is not legally required to maintain any other reserves. However, it may choose to do so as part of its financial planning and budget strategy. In reality all councils hold other earmarked reserves for a variety of different purposes. The Council holds a significant number of earmarked reserves which have been created at different times. A full breakdown of these is set out at Annex B. No specific minimum balance has been specified against any individual against Page 33 of 126

34 Forecast Balance 31/3/2021 Forecast Balance 31/3/2020 Forecast Balance 31/3/2019 Forecast Balance 31/3/2018 Balance 1/4/2017 earmarked reserve, although the balances are reviewed annually as part of the budget setting process. These are summarised in table 1.0 overleaf: Table 1.0 Overall Revenue Reserves Summary as at 23 August 2017 Type of Reserve General Fund GF Working Balance 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 Specific Risk Reserves* 11,759 8,327 8,121 8,121 8,021 Delivering the Budget Strategy 30,063 21,178 19,812 18,591 16,483 Third Party and Cashflow Reserves 4,526 3,534 3,534 3,534 3,534 (Restricted Use) Other Earmarked Reserves 4,224 3,951 4,358 4,938 4,938 Capital Programme 26,718 9,062 4,211 3,595 3,595 Debt Financing 11,034 11,808 11,776 11,192 10,749 Trading Total GF Reserves 96,031 65,217 59,119 57,228 54,577 Housing Revenue Account HRA Working Balance 6,236 5,903 5,903 5,903 5,903 Delivery the HRA Business Plan 8,075 8,124 8,998 9,872 10,746 Capital Programme 58,317 43,299 48,187 52,401 57,394 Total HRA Reserves 72,628 57,326 63,088 68,176 74,043 Schools 9,570 9,570 9,570 9,570 9,570 Total Revenue Reserves 178, , , , ,193 Specific Risk Reserves form part of the overall calculation of the GF working balance. 5. Approach at MKC to General Fund Working Balance In recent years, the Council has maintained separate risk reserves for specific demand issues from the General fund (GF) working balance. It should be noted that these specific risk reserves are in effect part of the General Fund Working Balance. This was intended to provide an increased focus around demand management issues. Over the past couple of years these reserves have been regularly used to help meet recurring demand pressures. This has been due to a combination forecasting and demand management Moving forward, the intention is to consolidate the demand management risk reserves into the GF working balance and place much greater focus on improving budget forecasting and demand management across the Council. As resources continue to reduce less reliance will need to be placed on reserves to meet demand pressures. The last published risk assessment for setting the GF working balance is attached at Annex D. Page 34 of 126

35 6. Transparency of Reserves The Council publishes as part of its budget setting process a Reserves Policy which is approved by Council each year. This includes details of the risk assessment that has been carried out by the Chief Finance Officer to explain how the minimum working balance and risk reserves have been arrived at. The Council s scheme of delegation provides the Chief Finance Officer with the authority to use reserves (within their defined purpose) as necessary to support the delivery of the Council s overall budget strategy. The actual reserves position is reported annually through the Statement of Accounts and more regularly through the budget monitoring reports to Cabinet on a quarterly basis. 7. What are the Trends Over the Past Few Years For information, a summary of the balances held at the end of each of the previous 3 financial years has been provided at Annex E. 8. Delivering the Budget Medium Term Financial Strategy The Council needs to address a projected budget gap of circa 40m between 2018/19 through to 2021/22. The Council has already implemented, or is in the process of implementing budget reductions and additional income worth 130m since In 2016/17 the Council overspent against its base budget and needed to use reserves to keep this at circa 3m. In 2017/18 there is anticipated to be an over spend of circa 2m - 3m at period 5, reflecting higher than budgeted demand pressures. This projected overspend is after using nearly 3m from risk reserves. Whilst the Council currently has sufficient reserves to meet its current obligations and assessed risks based on the 2017/18 budget, the Council continues to face significant financial risks over the medium term, including: Delivery of planned savings and income growth which has been approved as part of the existing budget plans. Identification and implementation of circa 40m of new budget reductions and income proposals against a backdrop of reducing capacity. The Council will also need to identify significant new funds to invest in service changes and assets to support the necessary changes. Uncertainty over government policy and the amount of funding beyond 2019/20, including New Homes Bonus from 2018/19. Business Rates reset which is due in 2020 and its potential impact on the amount of retained business rates income. Significant demand pressures in relation to homelessness, looked after children and adults social services as a result of demographic, economic and social pressures over which the Council has no real control. Delivery of the planned savings and additional income from the new Residual Waste Treatment Facility are still uncertain in terms of timing and quantum. Page 35 of 126

36 9. Observations on Reserves Reserves are currently forecasted to reduce from 178m to 138m between 2017/18 and 2021/22. General Fund reserves will reduce to circa 55m by 2021/22 based on existing plans and assuming that the Council is able to fully balance its projected baseline budget deficit of nearly 40m. This does not take account of the additional one-off costs (currently unknown) that might be incurred in supporting delivery of these budget reductions and income growth measures. The forecasted position on reserves is based on the assessment of risk at February 2017 and this will change over the medium term in light of changes to government policy, wider economic and social factors and local circumstances. 10. Recommendation That the Budget Scrutiny Committee notes the position on financial reserves for the Council. Steve Richardson Director of Financial Services 25 August 2017 Page 36 of 126

37 Budget Scrutiny Planning Group Supplementary Information 1 September 2017 Council Reserves Additional Information Purpose This paper sets out the additional information requested at the previous meeting of this group on the 25 August MKBE Reserve MKBE Ltd was a wholly owned company of MKC, set up for trading. This company has ceased operating (we are going through the process of closing the company with Companies House); the balance on this reserve is the final reserve balance of the company when it ceased trading, which has transferred back to the Council. These are spare funds. 2. Redundancy and Reorganisation Reserve In setting the 2017/18 budget, the Council approved a one-off pressure for redundancy costs and pensions strain costs for a 3 year period between 2017/18 and 2019/20. These one-off contributions are taken to the reserve and held to meet restructuring costs. Budget Contribution to Reserve 2017/18 600, /19 750, /20 750,000 Currently only one-off pressures in 2017/18 have been funded within the overall budget. The projection on the reserves schedule reflects these contributions being credited to the reserve fund each year in line with the approved budget. There are no current commitments against this fund. However, there are still significant restructuring plans to be confirmed from the partnership with LGSS which will require future funding. The balance on this reserve and future contributions will therefore need to be reviewed as part of the annual budget process to ensure that the Council can meet future obligations. 3. Saxon Court Dilapidation This reserve was established in 2009/10 in recognition of the Council s commitment that on relinquishment of its lease it would return the Saxon Court premises to the standard of the building at the commencement of the lease, or pay an agreed equivalent cash sum to the landlord. Since that time the Freehold on the building has been purchased but the reserve has been retained to fund essential building projects within Saxon Court. Page 37 of 126

38 4. Severe Weather Reserve This fund is held to meet unbudgeted exceptional spend on highways maintenance. In recent years the budget has been exceeded and the fund has been used. Additional contributions have also been made to help maintain the reserve balance. The projected future balance assumes that the level of expenditure will continue but no further contributions will be made into the reserve. This issue is currently being assessed as a budget pressure for 2018/ One Off Expenditure Reserve This reserve holds approved one off pressure funding which has been approved as part of the budget process. The balance is made up of unspent balances which are carried forward as part of the year end approval of the outturn report. These are reviewed each year and any unspent balances which are still required have to be reapproved each year. Most of the one-offs should be spent in the year, there are exceptions that run over multiple financial years and where there are known commitments these are added into the forecasted balance. The reserve does include an uncommitted balance of 1.819m which is being held to meet one off items which are still anticipated to be required in a future year. These uncommitted balances will need to be reviewed individually as part of the budget setting process to ensure that they remain valid. 6. Budget Roll Overs This is similar to the one off expenditure reserve only the balances held relate to in year underspends where it has been agreed that these can be carried forward. These will be fully reviewed as part of the budget setting process and any spare resources transferred out from this reserve. 7. Local Government Reorganisation Reserve This fund was set up to finance the costs of amortisation of the inherited loans from local government reorganisation with BCC. The loans have actually been repaid an there is now an annual Minimum Revenue Provision charge made to the Income and Expenditure Account each year which is funded through this reserve. This reserve will be fully utilised over the next 3 years to service these costs and then closed. Steve Richardson Service Director Finance and Resources 1 September 2017 Page 38 of 126

39 ANNEX B FINANCIAL RESERVES POLICY Purpose Milton Keynes Council is required to maintain adequate financial reserves to meet the needs of the organisation. This policy sets out the how reserves will be managed and the principles behind their use. Regulatory Context Sections 32 and 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 require local authorities to have regard to the level of reserves needed for meeting estimated future expenditure when calculating the budget requirement. There is no specified minimum level of reserves that an authority should hold and Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 requires the Chief Financial Officer (Section 151 Officer) to report formally on the adequacy of proposed reserves when setting a budget requirement and to ensure that there are key protocols for their establishment and use. This Policy sets out the framework for the use and management of useable reserves, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting in the United Kingdom: A Statement of Recommended Practice (CIPFA/LASAAC) and agreed accounting policies. Reserves held by schools and the Housing Revenue Account are ring-fenced and managed separately in line with government guidelines. Types of Reserves Useable reserves can be categorised in two ways: General Fund Balances which are a contingency to cushion the impact of unexpected events or emergencies and Earmarked Reserves which are built up to meet known or predicted liabilities. Earmarked reserves are usually created and held for one of the five main reasons below: Known responsibilities or liabilities these include amounts held in trust for particular assets and clear potential liabilities such as the Milton Keynes Tariff, where we had a strategy to manage the potential risk as part of the asset transfer or risks linked to the Residual Waste Treatment Facility, where we may have been exposed to substantial liabilities. Budget strategy the Budget agrees to one-off expenditure every year, this is held in a reserve to ensure it is only spent on the specific item agreed. There are also a few items where we have used one-off funding to reduce the impact on the ongoing revenue budget, for example, the Infrastructure Cash-flow Reserve which meets the prudential borrowing requirements for Highways Infrastructure at peak times, to reduce the Budget commitment and the Local Government Debt Reserve, where one-off funding was agreed as part of the Budget to deliver a revenue saving. Carry forward of underspend where specific liabilities remain but they are not formal commitments in accounting terms we use a budget rollovers reserve to Page 39 of 126

40 carry forward funding to offset liabilities. These are reviewed and challenged each year to ensure they are justifiable items. Insurance reserve to meet the estimate of future claims to enable the Council to meet the excesses not covered by insurance. Ring-fenced Funding some income can only be used for specific purposes, reserves are used to hold balances until they can be committed to ensure resources are not lost, for example S106 developer contributions, where funding is held in reserve until committed to an eligible project. Other earmarked reserves will be set up from time to time to meet known or predicted liabilities, for example future predicted demand or demography pressures and risks arising from a reduction in Business Rates. Whilst earmarked reserves are set against a specific purpose, general balances are funds which do not have any restrictions as to their use. Such reserves can be used to smooth the impact of significant pressures across years, offset the budget requirement in year, and to mitigate the risks of unexpected events or emergencies. Managing Reserves We recognise the need to hold and maintain reserves but we also recognise that by choosing to hold or increase reserves, the Council is allocating resources away from other potential uses and as such, there is an opportunity cost of holding balances as reserves. For this reason it is important to set out clearly, and regularly review, the framework through which such reserves are managed. The management of financial reserves is a key tool of the Council s overall financial strategy, which has two key objectives: achieving stable and sustainable budgets throughout the Medium Term; and ensuring resources are effectively focussed on priorities. Underpinning the achievement of these objectives is the recognition of the need to manage risk. This could be the increased risks of volatility in planning assumptions as we continue to go through uncertain economic times, or the risks to Government funding as a result of significant future funding reviews. Or it could be that the business seeks to take greater business risks through innovative service delivery to achieve difficult savings targets. The greater the risks, the greater the reserves the Council are likely to need to hold to mitigate against this. It is the appreciation of such risks that is the basis for the Chief Finance Officer s statutory requirement to determine the adequacy of reserves as part of the Budget process. Quantifying the Reserves Requirement We set a minimum prudent level for the General Fund Balance each year as part of the Budget process. This decision requires account to be taken of the strategic, operational and financial risks facing the Authority. As a guide to the adequacy of general fund balances, previous guidance is that these should be around 5% of net operating expenditure. Notwithstanding this, the Chief Finance Officer will need to consider many factors in determining the precise level of reserves, many of which involve an assessment of the risk of assumptions included in the budget and MTFP, together with the Council s financial standing and management. The key factors are set out in the table below: Page 40 of 126

41 Budget assumptions General cash flow requirements Financial standing and management The outlook for inflation and interest rates. The potential range of costs of demand-led services. Income risks Delivery complexity of Budget savings and current in-year financial performance The financial risks inherent in any significant new funding partnerships, major outsourcing arrangements. The availability of other funds to deal with major contingencies and the adequacy of provisions. The overall financial standing of the Council (level of borrowing, debt outstanding, etc) The Council s capacity to manage inyear budget pressures, including a view of specific reserves to help manage this risk. A view on the volatility of income and other specific reserves which would help to manage this risk. A view of the risks to delivering future budget requirements and the level of variability in the remaining part of the year for the current budget. The Council s virement and end of year procedures in relation to budget under/overspends. The adequacy of the Council s insurance arrangements to cover major unforeseen risks. An objective evaluation of these factors will be undertaken each year to determine a prudent level of general reserves cover based on an assessment of the above factors. However, the final level of reserves is ultimately subject to the Chief Finance Officer s judgment, taking all relevant factors into consideration. Building Reserves Should the Chief Finance Officer consider the level of General Fund Balances requires increasing, this will be achieved as part of the budget setting process, establishing an allocation from the annual budget to achieve the desired level of balances. Contributions to (or from) will be reviewed annually. This will be additional to any amounts needed to replenish reserves that have been consumed in the previous year. Earmarked reserves will be established on a needs basis, in line with planned or anticipated requirements, and will be approved as part of the Budget process or the in year Budget Monitoring reporting to Cabinet. Use of Reserves Reserves can only be used once, and so should not be used to finance recurring planned spending for example they would not be used to balance the budget. This is one of our key Financial Principles. Where the Council has used the value for money reserve for investment purposes to generate savings, these would also generally be paid back in three years, although there may be times when greater flexibility is given. Page 41 of 126

42 The use of reserves is included as part of the Budget process for Council approval or in the Budget Management Report for Cabinet approval. The creation of earmarked reserves will be subject to Cabinet approval, but once this Cabinet level approval has been given, draw-downs against the reserve, will then be subject to the approval of the Chief Finance Officer to ensure the criteria for the use of the reserve has been met. Page 42 of 126

43 Summary of All Reserves and Projected Balances to 2020/21 Annex C Reserve Name Main Classification Sub Category Balance 2017/18 Forecast position 31/03/2018 Forecast position 31/03/2019 Forecast position 31/03/2020 Forecast position 31/03/2021 Committed in future years Uncommitted - Not Available Uncommitted - Spare General Fund Working Balance GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -7,000,000-7,000,000-7,000,000-7,000,000-7,000, ,000,000 0 Adult Social Care Demand Led Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -2,884,000-1,738,000-1,738,000-1,738,000-1,738, ,738,000 0 Benefit Subsidy Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -1,059, , , , , ,930 0 Children's Demand Led Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -458, , , , , , Homelessness Demand Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -129, ,341-16,600-16,600-16, ,600 0 Legal Fees Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -1,501,215-1,501,215-1,501,215-1,501,215-1,501, ,501,215 0 Money Market Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -400, , , , , ,000 0 Severe weather GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -212, , , , Waste Project Risk Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty Waste Cashflow Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -5,114,055-3,558,828-3,558,828-3,558,828-3,558,828 3,558, Insurance Provision Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty -2,130,039-2,130,039-2,130,039-2,130,039-2,130, ,130,039 0 LGR Debt Delivering the Budget Strategy GF- EARMARKED -7,078,000-6,018,000-4,058,000-2,098, Ordinary Residency LD Services Delivering the Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty -225, , , , , ,000 0 Overpayments and Welfare Reform Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty -835, , , , , ,135 0 Value for Money Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy GF- EARMARKED -3,155,947-3,155,947-3,155,947-3,155,947-3,155, ,155,947 0 Budget Rollovers Delivering the Budget Strategy GF- EARMARKED -2,350, , , , ,500 16, , ,000 One-Off Expenditure Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy GF- EARMARKED -8,709,561-2,462,426-2,386,606-2,425,982-2,465, ,071 1,819,270 28,017 Pay and Reward Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy GF - Restructuring Costs -589, , , , , ,456 0 Redundancy & Reorganisation reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy GF - Restructuring Costs -1,442,942-2,042,942-2,792,942-3,542,942-3,542, ,542,942 0 Strategic Restructuring Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy GF - Restructuring Costs -15,780-15,780-15,780-15,780-15, ,780 0 DCTR Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty -637, , , , , ,123 0 LCTS & Welfare Delivering the Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty -402, , , , , ,752 0 Bradwell Abbey Delivering the Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -313, Building Assets Renewals Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -986, , , , , ,675 0 CEC Property Maintenance Delivering the Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -52,501-30, Corporate Property Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -500, , , , , ,000 0 Revenue Financing Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -12, Saxon Court Dilapidation Reserve Delivering the Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -627, , , , , ,122 0 Ouse Valley Link Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -6,235-6,235-6,235-6,235-6, ,235 0 Parking Facilities Commuted Lump Sums Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -7,216-7,216-7,216-7,216-7, ,216 0 Planning Gain Reserve (S106) Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -866, , , , , ,688 0 SALIX Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -250, , , , , , Better Care Fund Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -655, , , , , ,422 0 Education Service Grant Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -172, , , , , ,858 0 NHS Support Grant Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -65, NNDR - funding volatility reserve Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -934, , , , , ,938 0 Public Health Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -878, , , , , ,504 0 LGSS Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -688, , , , , , Access MK and EDRMS Project GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF- EARMARKED -11, Page 43 of 126 CCTV GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty -54, ANNEX C

44 Summary of All Reserves and Projected Balances to 2020/21 Annex C Reserve Name Main Classification Sub Category Balance 2017/18 Forecast position 31/03/2018 Forecast position 31/03/2019 Forecast position 31/03/2020 Forecast position 31/03/2021 Committed in future years Uncommitted - Not Available Uncommitted - Spare Channel Shift GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty -250, CPO 5 Waterside, Peartree GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF- EARMARKED -5,574-5,574-5,574-5,574-5, ,574 Economic Development Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF- EARMARKED -193,982-69, Events Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF- EARMARKED -451, , Gambling Support Services Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF- EARMARKED -64, IT Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty -80,000-80,000-80,000-80,000-80, ,000 MKBE Recharge GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty -85,918-85,918-85,918-85,918-85, ,918 MKSP Reserves GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty -1,487,020-1,487,020-1,487,020-1,487,020-1,487, ,487,020 One-off costs of the HCA transfer GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES TARIFF - CONTINGENCY -330, , , , , ,000 0 Tariff Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES TARIFF - CONTINGENCY -1,209,864-1,789,864-2,369,864-2,949,864-2,949,864 2,949, Capital Reserve - GF GF - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -11,736,577-1,705, , , , , Feasibility Work for Education Capital Programme GF - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -275, , , , , ,502 0 New Homes Bonus GF - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -14,705,960-7,080,886-3,829,560-3,213,560-3,213,560 3,213, Infrastructure Reserve DEBT FINANCING PROVISION DEBT FINANCING PROVISION -11,034,153-11,808,928-11,776,041-11,192,227-10,749,330 10,749, Building Control TRADING Managing Risk and Uncertainty -43,553-43,553-43,553-43,553-43, ,553 0 Parking Reserve TRADING Managing Risk and Uncertainty -663, , , , , ,559 0 HRA Working Balance HRA WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -6,236,000-5,903,000-5,903,000-5,903,000-5,903, ,903,000 0 Block Improvements/Regeneration reserve HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -1,940,341-1,138,466-1,162,591-1,186,716-1,210,841 1,210, Debt Refinancing Reserve HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -573, , , , , ,000 0 HRA Asset Investment and Improvement Reserve HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -2,200,213-2,200,213-2,200,213-2,200,213-2,200, ,200,213 0 Impairment Reserve HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -1,172,619-1,422,619-1,672,619-1,922,619-2,172, ,172,619 0 Lakes Estates Regeneration Project HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -189, , , , , ,787 0 Major Project Costs HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -2,000,000-2,500,000-3,000,000-3,500,000-4,000, ,000,000 0 Capital Reserve - HRA HRA - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -38,918,367-23,899,266-28,787,216-33,002,166-37,997, ,997,116 0 Major Repairs Reserve HRA - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -19,399,278-19,399,278-19,399,278-19,399,278-19,399, ,399,278 0 Schools Balances SCHOOLS SCHOOLS -9,570,000-9,570,000-9,570,000-9,570,000-9,570,000 9,570, Grand Total -178,231, ,113, ,777, ,975, ,193,364 32,718, ,535,474 1,939,529 Page 44 of 126

45 RISK ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL BALANCE 2017/18 - AS AT FEBRUARY 2017 ANNEX D AREA OF RISK CONTROLLABLE BUDGET/MAX EXPOSURE Max Exposure ASSESSED RISK LEVEL FACTOR VALUE MINIMUM PRUDENT RESERVE ASSUMPTIONS 1 Global Economy Inflation on General Supplies & Services Expenditure 71,400, % Medium 50.00% 714,000 General budget inflation assumption is 0%, CPI is estimated to be 2% in 2017/18 Total 714,000 2 Budget Pressures/New Responsibilities On-going 2017/18 Demography Pressures 7,200, % Medium 20.00% 1,440,000 On-going 2017/18 General Service Pressures 3,000, % Low 10.00% 300,000 On-going 2017/18 Legislative Pressures 500, % Low 10.00% 50,000 One-off 2017/18 Pressures 6,300, % Low 5.00% 315,000 Housing Bill - Additional homelessness duty 500,000 Total 2,605,000 3 Efficiency Savings/Productivity Gains Risk Reviewed 2017/18 Budget Reductions - Red 800, % High 50.00% 400,000 Risk Reviewed 2017/18 Income Generation - Red 1,400, % High 50.00% 700,000 Assessment based on the risk of a high growth population area. Specifically around increases in demand for Housing, increase in care costs due to the ageing population, increasing length of stay in residential care (nationally estimated to increase by 2.5% each year), the increased needs of younger adults with learning disabilities due to medical advances and changes in legislation that increases the financial risk for local authorities. National issues of increasing pressure around looked after children still remain. Upon reviewing the pressures, there is good understanding behind pressure proposals, which supports a low risk of further expenditure required. However, demand continues to increase and the last month has seen above average increases in demand for Children's social care and temporary accommodation. These are still areas of high risk for the Council. Current Bill passing through Parliament unopposed but no clarification of responsibilities or information as yet on potential risk exposure Risk Reviewed 2017/18 Budget Reductions - Amber 4,500, % Med 30.00% 1,350,000 Risk Reviewed 2017/18 Income Generation - Amber 3,000, % Med 30.00% 900,000 Risk assessment of each individual saving proposal based on previous experience of delivery rate. Risk Reviewed 2017/18 Budget Reductions - Green 6,500, % Low 5.00% 325,000 Risk Reviewed 2017/18 Income Generation - Green 2,900, % Low 5.00% 145,000 Risk of a reduction in the amount of General Fund overheads that can be funded by the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) over the planned Budget assumptions 1,600, % Med 30.00% 48,000 As the Council reduces in size, the amount of overheads that can be charged to the HRA also reduce, although the budget assumes a reduced General Fund contribution to the HRA, there is still a risk that the revised budget is too high. Total 3,868,000 4 Availability of Other Funds Business Rates Funding 12,000, % Medium 30.00% 3,600,000 - Growth Assumption - Appeals - Other Total 3,600,000 5 Emergency Planning Bellwin threshold Absolute 580,000 Other Disaster Recovery Absolute 600,000 ICT Disaster Recovery Absolute 800,000 Snow Days 40,000 per Day 7 280,000 Total 2,260,000 6 Income Authorities can lose up to 7.5% of their business rate funding ( 12m) before a safety net applies. The amount of Business Rate income that the Council can retain each year is subject to a number of significant risks including Business Rate appeals and bad debts. Since the retained business system was introduced in 2013/14 this has been a volatile and complex source of income. Income from Fees and Charges (less new MTFP savings for Charges to Users) 53,200, % Medium 20.00% 212,800 Continuing Health Contributions & Specific grants not confirmed 26,500, % Medium 20.00% 530,000 Public health grant reductions - reductions in contractual spend required 1,800, % Medium 20.00% 360,000 Benefits subsidy which can't be reclaimed 97,557, % Medium 5.00% 390,228 Total 1,493,028 Page 45 of 126 General risk on the collection of fees and charges due to the continuing weak economic outlook and on-going Welfare Reforms which could reduce the general publics ability to pay for additional council run services. Grant income which is not yet confirmed could be subject to change and health care income which may vary with individual clients Public health grants are anticipated to continue to reduce by around 2.5% per annum over the medium term. It is assumed that these expenditure reductions will need to be found to offset the reduced income. There is an element of benefits subsidy which cannot be reclaimed, relating to temporary accommodation. If demand increases elements of the subsidy may not be recovered. ANNEX D

46 AREA OF RISK CONTROLLABLE BUDGET/MAX EXPOSURE Max Exposure ASSESSED RISK LEVEL FACTOR VALUE MINIMUM PRUDENT RESERVE ASSUMPTIONS 7 Other Insurance Claims 5,000, % Medium 10.00% 250,000 Insurance claims may require additional contributions, above the known level of outstanding claims School deficits on academy conversion 400,000 Potential risk of further costs from academy conversion Recycling Waste Treatment Facility (RWTF) potential additional costs if unlikely to be delivered by back stop date Low 300,000 Potential legal costs if RWTF seems unlikley to be delivered. National living wage - Adult Social Care 1,400, % Medium 10.00% 140,000 Potential additional demand from other providers Change Capacity 250,000 Additional capacity is required to manage and implement changes Total 1,340,000 Risk Assessed General Balance Requirement 15,880,028 Risk Mitigations; Earmarked Reserves: - Housing Demand Led Reserve 1,500,000 - Social Care Demand Led Reserve (Adults & Childrens) 2,600,000 - Home to School Reserve 400,000 - Business Rates Reserve 1,200,000 - Waste cashflow reserve 200,000 - Implementation of Budget Reserve 3,000,000 Residual General Fund Balance at 31/03/2017 6,980,028 Page 46 of 126

47 Summary of all Reserves - Last 3 Years Balances Annex E Reserve Name Main Classification Sub Category Balance at 31/03/2015 Balance at 31/03/2016 Balance at 31/03/2017 General Fund Balance GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -8,877,000-7,000,000-7,000,000 Adult Social Care Demand Led Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -634,000-2,334,000-2,884,000 Children's demand led reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -374, ,000 Homelessness Demand Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -613, ,741 Legal Fees Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -974,949-1,274,949-1,501,215 Money Market Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -400, , ,000 Severe weather GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -200, , ,233 Waste Cashflow Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -1,500,000-2,000,000-5,114,055 Waste Project Risk Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -977,954-1,449,479 0 Benefit Subsidy Reserve GENERAL FUND WORKING BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -810,461-1,086,228-1,059,930 CEC Property Maintenance Delivering out Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -81,000-84,351-52,501 Corporate Property Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -500, , ,000 DCTR Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty 0-637, ,123 LCTS & Welfare Delivering out Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty -2,564, , ,752 LGR Debt Delivering out Budget Strategy GF - EARMARKED -2,750,000-4,914,000-7,078,000 Ordinary Residency LD Services Delivering out Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty -23, , ,000 Overpayments and Welfare Reform Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty 234, , ,135 Pay and Reward Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy GF - RESTRUCTURING -450, , ,456 Redundancy & Reorganisation reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy GF - RESTRUCTURING -1,283,280-1,342,087-1,442,943 Strategic Restructuring Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy GF - RESTRUCTURING -15,780-15,780-15,780 Value for Money Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy GF - EARMARKED -1,122,081-1,793,833-3,155,947 Saxon Court Dilapidation Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -808, , ,122 Budget Rollovers Delivering out Budget Strategy GF - EARMARKED -2,791,891-3,136,082-2,350,086 Insurance Provision Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy Managing Risk and Uncertainty -1,024, ,372-2,130,039 Revenue Financing Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -269, ,076-12,182 Bradwell Abbey Delivering out Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -313, , ,106 Building Assets Renewals Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy PROPERTY RESERVE -671, , ,675 One-Off Expenditure Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy GF - EARMARKED -2,967,204-6,891,674-8,709,561 Page 47 of 126 One-off funding Reserve Delivering out Budget Strategy Delivering out Budget Strategy -7,384,308-5,200,038 0 ANNEX E

48 Summary of all Reserves - Last 3 Years Balances Annex E Reserve Name Main Classification Sub Category Balance at 31/03/2015 Balance at 31/03/2016 Balance at 31/03/2017 Better Care Fund Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE 0-75, ,422 Education Service Grant Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -302, , ,858 NHS Support Grant Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -161,545-65,444-65,444 NNDR - funding volatility reserve Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -2,482,094-7,231, ,938 Ouse Valley Link Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -6,985-6,235-6,235 Parking Facilities Commuted Lump Sums Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -7,216-7,216-7,216 Public Health Funds restricted (Not available) CASHFLOW RESERVE -1,243, , ,013 SALIX Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -250, , ,000 Planning Gain Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY -1,994,515-1,490, ,688 LGSS Reserve Funds restricted (Not available) 3RD PARTY ,984 Access MK and EDRMS Project GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF - EARMARKED -11,915-11,915-11,915 CCTV GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty -152, ,260-54,090 Channel Shift GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty 0-250, ,000 CPO 5 Waterside, Peartree GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF - EARMARKED -5,574-5,574-5,574 Economic Development Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF - EARMARKED -389, , ,982 Events Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF - EARMARKED -434, , ,578 Gambling Support Services Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF - EARMARKED -9,972-34,113-64,113 IT Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES GF - EARMARKED -80,000-80,000-80,000 MKBE Recharge GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty 0-88,205-85,918 MKSP Reserves GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES Managing Risk and Uncertainty 0 0-1,487,020 One-off costs of the HCA transfer GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES TARIFF - CONTINGENCY -330, , ,000 Tariff Reserve GF - OTHER EARMARKED RESERVES TARIFF - CONTINGENCY -2,280,600-2,860,600-1,209,864 Capital Reserve - GF GF - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -1,803,559-7,828,807-11,736,807 Feasibility Work for Education Capital Programme GF - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -85, , ,502 New Homes Bonus GF - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -13,389,862-13,042,607-14,705,960 Infrastructure Reserve DEBT FINANCING PROVISION DEBT FINANCING PROVISION -3,598,189-6,384,153-11,034,153 HRA Balance HRA BALANCE Managing Risk and Uncertainty -4,569,000-5,478,000-6,236,000 Building Control TRADING Managing Risk and Uncertainty -43,553-43,553-43,553 Parking Reserve TRADING Page 48 Managing of 126Risk and Uncertainty -1,160,197-1,022, ,559

49 Summary of all Reserves - Last 3 Years Balances Annex E Reserve Name Main Classification Sub Category Balance at 31/03/2015 Balance at 31/03/2016 Balance at 31/03/2017 Block Improvements/Regeneration reserve HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -3,488,000-1,635,904-1,940,341 Debt Refinancing Reserve HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -373, , ,000 Lakes Estates Regeneration Project HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan 0-420, ,787 HRA Asset Investment and Improvement Reserve HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan 0-2,200,213-2,200,213 Impairment Reserve HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -672, ,619-1,172,619 Major Project Costs HRA - EARMARKED Delivery of the HRA Business Plan -1,000,000-1,500,000-2,000,000 Capital Reserve - HRA HRA - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -12,262,441-30,903,889-38,917,889 Major Repairs Reserve HRA - CAPITAL PROGRAMME Delivering the Capital Programme -18,199,192-15,679,516-19,399,278 Schools Balance SCHOOLS BALANCE Schools Reserve -10,276,000-11,632,000-9,570,000 Total Reserves -121,209, ,538, ,231,095 Page 49 of 126

50 Page 50 of 126

51 REFERENCES FROM OTHER BODIES: COUNCIL 18 OCTOBER 2017 STREET HOMELESSNESS STATEMENT TO CABINET ON 3 OCTOBER 2017 PROVISION OF EMERGENCY ACCOMMODATION FOR STREET HOMELESS At the Cabinet meeting held on Tuesday 12 September, Cabinet approved a draft Roughsleeper Strategy for consultation. ITEM 9(h) The strategy aims to ensure that we have the right medium and long term policies in place to ensure we help people who have found themselves sleeping on the street, work with partners to provide help and support, and tackle increasing levels of antisocial behaviour reported by members of the public. We have consistently stated that tackling all homelessness, including roughsleeping, is a priority for MK Council and the Labour Administration. Levels of roughsleeping and other forms of homelessness continue to place a huge strain on our resources as a local authority at a time of huge financial pressure and central government cuts. Later in the Cabinet meeting we will discuss a re-structure of the Housing Department and extra resources to deal with extra responsibilities being placed on MK Council and to improve our housing service, including faster referrals and decision making which if agreed, will help to manage our housing duties better and provide a better service. Over the past months we have made significant progress in establishing services and provision for roughsleepers in Milton Keynes. We have secured premises and provided funding for a One Stop Shop, the Winter Night Shelter is working to provide emergency accommodation all year round and extra beds in winter and I m pleased to announce we have secured a temporary site, subject to planning, for The Bus Shelter MK. We are also working to improve the MK Homelessness Partnership. Tomorrow evening the Budget Scrutiny Committee will start to review the pressures facing the 2018/19 budget. I am pleased to state that as part of those pressures we will be proposing to commit funding in the 2018/19 budget towards: Expanding the Outreach Worker service to enable more work to be done identifying and supporting those sleeping rough. Funding for the ongoing costs of the One Stop Shop based at the Old Bus Station. However we are well aware that despite 46 new emergency accommodation beds for street homeless people being provided by partners this winter, the progress to ensure enough emergency provision for roughsleepers in Milton Keynes has not been as we would have liked. I am today announcing after discussions with officers: We will use one-off resources to fund at least 30 emergency placements over the coming winter. I have asked the Corporate Director of Place to bring forward this proposal for decision as quickly as possible. We will use the Roughsleeping Strategy consultation and the budget process to determine if we should include this as part of our permanent base budget. Page 51 of 126

52 We believe that providing nearly at least 80 emergency placements and an expanded outreach service will help us move substantially towards our goal that all those who have a genuine housing need from Milton Keynes, and wish to take it, will be able to be offered a safe place to sleep at night. Furthermore I have requested: That MK Council work with the MK Clinical Commissioning Group and partners to bring forward plans for a support service for those roughsleepers with a mental illness, drug or alcohol issue. We will then request funding for this service from Central Government in the first instance given our difficult budget position. That MK Council develop plans, both as an employer and facilitator with businesses, to provide offers of training or employment to people sleeping rough. That MK Council investigate ways to offer an alternative to cash begging to enable people to donate funds to those that help homeless people in the knowledge it will be used for the reason given. The current consultation on the draft Roughsleepers Strategy will continue and it is very important to establish the policy this council works towards, however it is clear that until that consultation has taken place and we have a clear strategy for the future, more urgent action was required for this winter. I hope this announcement will be able to add to the responses and feed into the work we do moving forward as a baseline for services. It is anticipated that the additional homelessness services will be in operation this winter including 30 additional bed spaces, an expansion of the rough sleeper outreach service, the launch of the one-stop shop and bus shelter facilities, and a publicity campaign to raise awareness and for people to be able to donate to local homelessness charities (ChangeMK) Page 52 of 126

53 Wards Affected: All Wards COUNCIL TAX BASE AND BUSINESS RATE BASELINE 2018/19 Responsible Cabinet Member: ITEM 10 CABINET 7 NOVEMBER 2017 Councillor Middleton Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation Report Sponsor: Don McLure, Interim Corporate Director Resources Tel: Author and Contact: Steve Richardson, Service Director Finance and Resources Tel: Executive Summary 2018/19 Council Tax Base 2018/19 The report sets out; the main assumptions used in calculating the Council Tax Base for 2018/19; confirms the level of funding the Council will pay to town and parish councils for Local Council Tax Reduction and how this funding will be distributed. It also sets out proposed amendments to the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme, to retain administrative simplicity and to reflect legislative changes to the Prescribed Council Tax Reduction Regulations and other related welfare benefit changes. Business Rates Baseline 2018/19 The Local Government Finance Act 2012, requires billing authorities to make calculations, and supply information on their anticipated collectable business rate income for the following year. The legislation also introduced a new local government funding model, which has been operational since April This allows for a proportion of a local authority s estimated business rate income to be retained, as part of its Government funding. The retained funding is made up of two elements; the Business Rates Funding Baseline and a proportion of additional income which relates to the growth achieved in the financial year. The report outlines the key financial assumptions and risks to the Council in estimating future business rate income. The setting of the Business Rates Baseline is delegated to the Council s Section 151 Officer to enable a timely forecast. 7 November Recommendations 1.1 That the 2018/19 Tax Base be set at 82, Band D equivalent properties. 1.2 That the provision for uncollectable amounts of Council Tax for 2018/19 be set at 1.6% producing an expected Page 53 collection of 126 rate of 98.4%.

54 1.3 That the proposed 2018/19 funding contribution to parish and town councils of 530,000, as set out in section 5 of this report be noted and recommended to Council for approval as part of the final Budget in February That the distribution methodology to be used to allocate funding from Milton Keynes Council to parish and town councils as set out in Annex D be approved. 1.5 That the Cabinet recommends to Council that the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme, as adopted by the Council on 11 January 2017, be continued for 2018/19, with amendments that reflect changes to related benefits and to the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements) Regulations; retaining the delegation to the Corporate Director of Resources to make technical legislative changes. 1.6 That the Council s current estimate of the 2018/19 Business Rates Baseline be noted, retaining the delegation to the Corporate Director of Resources to finalise this Baseline, based on the latest data for submission to Department for Communities and Local Government in January Council Tax Base Setting 2018/ This section of the report sets out the main assumptions used in calculating the Council Tax Base for 2018/19, the level of Council funding to be distributed to parish and town councils in 2018/19 to offset a proportion of their financial loss as a result of Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme (LCTRS), and the funding distribution between the individual parishes and town councils. 2.2 In accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and related Statutory Instruments, the Council is obliged to set its Council Tax Base for the forthcoming financial year by 31 January Since April 2013, under the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme (LCTRS) rather than qualifying council taxpayers receiving a benefit to offset their Council Tax bills, eligible residents in receipt of low incomes now receive a discount. The impact of this change reduces the Tax Base for the Council and all precepting authorities. 2.4 Part of the potential loss created by this Tax Base reduction is offset by Government funding, which forms part of the Council s Revenue Support Grant (RSG) as well as an amount of funding intended to partially offset the impact of the Tax Base reduction for town and parish councils. 2.5 In January 2017, the Council approved the LCTRS for 2017/18. Schedule 4 of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 requires, for each financial year, that each billing authority must consider whether to revise its scheme or to replace it with another scheme. The authority must make any revision to its scheme, or any replacement scheme, no later than 31 January in the financial year preceding that for which the revision or replacement scheme is to have effect. 7 November 2017 Page 54 of 126

55 2.6 This report recommends continuing with the current LCTRS for 2018/19. This would mean the maximum level of Council Tax support for working age claimants would be maintained at 80%. The only changes that would be made are to incorporate legislative amendments to the Prescribed Scheme in respect of Council Tax Reduction and to other related benefits, where certain changes need to be replicated in the LCTRS to retain administrative simplicity and to maintain the status quo in respect of the cost of the Scheme. 2.7 A change to the Working Age Scheme was adopted in January 2014 which allows for the Working Age Scheme to be amended in line with changes to the amounts used in the Prescribed Scheme and the Housing Benefit Regulations, as well as amendments to provide parity with changes made to associated legislation. The approval of these changes has been delegated to the Corporate Director of Resources. 2.8 Any other revisions to the scheme can only be made following consultation with any major precepting authority and such other persons as the authority considers are likely to have an interest in the scheme. 2.9 The changes to the Tax Base as a result of the LCTRS are calculated, based on this recommended policy The setting of a realistic and prudent collection rate for Council Tax is another essential component of the Council s overall budget strategy. If the collection rate set is over-optimistic, this may result in a deficit on the collection fund at the end of 2018/19, which would result in an in-year overspend and a budget correction in the 2019/20 Budget The process and key assumptions to set the Tax Base for 2018/19 are as follows; The calculation of the Tax Base for precepting purposes is based on the number of properties, the council tax banding of the properties as at 11 September 2017 and the discounts applicable on 2 October The properties and discounts are then adjusted for estimated new builds and demolitions within the 2017/18 and 2018/19 financial years, taking into consideration the anticipated timing of the new builds and demolitions. A review of historic LCTRS claimant trends, in conjunction with an assessment of future risks to inform the 2018/19 projection, which reduces the Tax Base accordingly. An estimate is then made for non-collection which reduces the Tax Base further. This is informed by current income collection levels and the anticipated future risks to collection as a result of the economic landscape and national Government policies such as Universal Credit and the wider Welfare Reforms Milton Keynes is a high growth area and the Council Tax Base is therefore expected to grow by 940 Band D equivalent properties within 2018/19 based on our future estimates. 7 November 2017 Page 55 of 126

56 2.13 The amount of Local Council Tax Reductions was lower than anticipated in 2017/18, mainly as a result of a higher than anticipated increase in claimants moving into employment; therefore the LCTRS Band D equivalent property forecast for 2018/19 will be reduced to 9,686 from the 2017/18 forecast of 9,818. This assumes the local economy will continue to improve, meaning fewer people will be entitled to discounts In implementing the LCTRS, we invest in a discretionary fund currently set at 150k to help those council tax payers affected by the change; created and promoted easier ways to pay and worked extensively with the individuals who were affected by the change. As a result, collection rates are better than initially predicted, helping to maintain the overall collection rate at 98.4% Based on prior year and current in-year collection performance in 2017/18; the estimated Council Tax collection rate applied to the Tax Base should remain at 98.4%. This collection rate is still considered to be a prudent estimate and is informed by the potential adverse effect to income collection levels as a result of the introduction and roll out of Universal Credit in Milton Keynes and the Government s wider Welfare Reform agenda All these assumptions result in a proposed Tax Base of 82, Band D equivalents, which would result in Council Tax income of 110.2m for Milton Keynes Council (based on a 1.99% Council Tax increase and a 3% adult social care precept, which is the current planning assumption) The Tax Base calculation (set out at annex A) must be approved by no later than 31 January 2018; but an earlier decision supports key partners in making decisions on their Budget. Annexes B and C analyse the figures at parish level in terms of Band D equivalents and numbers of properties respectively The following table summarises the position: Table 1: Council Tax Base 2018/19 Band D equivalents Total of Band D Equivalents 92, Provision for Valuation Changes 1, Net Impact of Local Council Tax Reductions (9,686.30) Provision for Non Collection (1.6%) (1,125.09) Total Band D equivalent properties 82, Funding for Parishes 3.1 The introduction of the LCTRS reduces the Tax Base, and therefore the Council Tax income collected by individual precepting bodies. However, Central Government funding to major preceptors offsets a significant proportion of the impact for this change, although this is reducing each year. 7 November 2017 Page 56 of 126

57 3.2 Additional Government funding, as part of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) is also provided to major precepting authorities on behalf of town and parish councils to offset a proportion of their reduced Tax Base as a result of the scheme. From April 2013 this grant has formed part of the Council s RSG. 3.3 The RSG is a non ring-fenced source of funding that the Council receives from the Government for the provision of statutory functions and local service provision. Over the medium term it is expected that RSG will continue to reduce year on year and will eventually be phased out. 3.4 In the period 2013/14 to 2018/19 Milton Keynes s RSG has reduced from 61m to 11.5m, a reduction of 81%, correspondingly the Council has resolved to reduce the proportion of funding passed to parishes over this same period by 32%, from 0.776m to 0.530m. 3.5 The Council Plan sets out the commitment to maintain support to parishes for 2018/19 at the same level as 2017/18 therefore the funding for parish and town councils will remain at 530k for 2018/ The provisional funding allocations to parish and town councils are illustrated in annex D. 4. Setting the Business Rates Baseline 2018/ This section of the report sets out the main assumptions which have informed the estimation of the 2018/19 Business Rate Baseline and how the anticipated Business Rates Baseline informs the overall Council s 2018/19 Budget. 4.2 The Local Government Finance Act 2012 gave local authorities the power to retain a proportion of funds obtained from business rates in their area. 4.3 The changes under the Localisation of Business Rates mean that from April 2013 local authorities retain a share of the income they collect from business rates as funding to meet the cost of service provision. 4.4 The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) guidance indicates that each billing authority should formally set a Business Rate Baseline each year. This baseline will be the authority s estimate of the business rates it forecasts to collect in the following financial year, offset by any reductions such as reliefs and estimated cost of successful rateable value appeals. 4.5 The calculation of the Council s 2018/19 Business Rate Baseline must be formally approved, and then be submitted to DCLG through a statutory return by 31 January This report includes the latest set of Business Rates forecasts, based on the best information available at the present time; however to ensure the Council has the ability to forecast any changes to the estimated Business Rate yield from the date of this report, up to the end of January; the Cabinet agreed in December 2014 that the final decision on setting the annual Business Rates Baseline is delegated to the Council s S151 Officer. 7 November 2017 Page 57 of 126

58 /18 is the first year that business rates will have been revalued since the Local Government finance system changed. At the same time DCLG have introduced a new rateable value appeal system, called Check, Challenge and Appeal. This new system is still bedding in and has introduced a significant amount of uncertainty into setting the business rates baseline for 2018/ The Milton Keynes Council s estimated business rate income for 2018/19 is 157m and is calculated as follows: The total gross business rate yield which is the rateable value of properties within Milton Keynes, multiplied by the non-domestic rating multiplier. Deductions are then made for estimated mandatory and discretionary reliefs and exemptions, based on local intelligence. Deductions are also made for estimated losses in collection, based on historical trends and local intelligence and to meet the costs of collection. The calculation for the cost of collection deduction is prescribed by Government. Deductions also made for the estimated impact of changes to rateable values through successful appeals, which may not be determined for a number of years. Finally an adjustment is made to reflect local intelligence on the estimated impact of anticipated future changes to business activity for the year hence. This has been based on known changes and experience of recent business rate growth. 4.9 The current retention of business rates methodology is complex. 50% of business rates collected by a billing authority is paid to Central Government, with the remaining 50% being held locally. The local element is known as the retained business rates, of which, we are required to pay 1% of the total business rate yield to Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority The retained business rates are then reduced by a Tariff and a Levy on business rate growth. The tariff payment is made to Central Government in order to fund other authorities where their business rates are disproportionately low. The Tariff and Levy means that the Council is estimated to retain 49.1m of the 157m of business rates forecast (31.3%) to be collected in 2018/ The retained business rates, along with the Revenue Support Grant, together equates to our total Government funding The retained business rates is made up of a Baseline Funding level which reflects the Government estimate of funding for the Council, and an allowance for growth This allowance for growth is based on the actual business rates collected, compared to the Government s estimate of the amount we will collect, less the levy applied to this growth. It results in a 0.30p return, for every 1 growth of business rates collected by the Council. Page 58 of November 2017

59 4.14 Each year, the Business Rates Funding level, Tariffs and Top-ups are uplifted for inflation Central Government have put measures in place to support local enterprise through the provision of business rate discounts, reliefs and an inflation cap. This has the impact of reducing the overall business rate yield and the cost is reimbursed to local authorities through a Section 31 grant. The Council is anticipating to receive 2.4m of Section 31 grant in 2018/19 to offset the resulting loss of business rate income The anticipated 2018/19 Business Rate Baseline for the Council is 157m, of this value 49.1m is estimated to be retained by the Council as Government funding, which includes 2.4m of business rate reimbursements through a Section 31 grant. We also retain 100% of all Business Rates income relating to renewable energy assessments built post 1 April The Council s estimated retained funding is made up of 44.6m which is the estimated Baseline Funding level for Milton Keynes (central government is yet to confirm this amount for 2018/19), and 4.5m of forecast business rate growth above the baseline, which includes the financial benefit of growth including a number of commercial developments in Magna Park and Eagle Farm Table 2 shows the forecast 2018/19 Business Rate Baseline distributed through DCLG s funding model. Table 2: Business Rates Baseline Distribution 2018/19 Anticipated Business Rate Distribution Value ( m) Milton Keynes Council Business Rate Baseline (total business rates collected after deductions) (157.3) 50% Central share paid to Government % share paid to Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire Authority. 1.6 Deductions for Tariff paid to Central Government 28.1 Deduction for Levy paid to Central Government 2.3 Section 31 grant receivable (2.4) Renewable energy (100% retained) (0.2) Milton Keynes Council forecast retained Business Rates Funding (49.1) 7 November 2017 Page 59 of 126

60 5 Risks 5.1 The existing scheme has now been in operation for four full financial years. During this time, we have experienced a number of issues which highlight the risks in this funding regime. The major risks are as follows: There have been issues with delays to properties being entered onto the Valuation List by the Government s Valuation Officer, which has impacted on the timing of receipts..this makes accurate income forecasts difficult to predict. Successful rateable value appeals have caused a major uncertainty in the system nationally; this is particularly evident in Milton Keynes. We currently have just under 1,000 appeals outstanding and current forecasts indicate around 400 will be resolved by the Valuation Office in the current year. Again, this makes it difficult to determine income levels in year and the underlying baseline level of income, as appeals are often backdated for several years. In addition, the Valuation Office has experienced substantial issues with the new Check, Challenge and Appeal system. Ratepayers are currently having difficulty in accessing the system. A methodology for informing Local Authorities of the potential cost of any potential reduction has not yet been developed by the Valuation Office. Again, this makes it difficult to determine income levels in year and the underlying baseline level of income. There have also been a number of successful appeals addressed at a national level, so a ruling is given which impacts on our local income potentially without us being aware that the case is being considered. The Council works closely with the Valuation Office to understand where these risks may apply in future years. Over the last four years, the economy in Milton Keynes has continued to grow, but there is a risk that if the economy starts to decline income would fall. The safety net operates to protect against losses of more than 7.5% from the Business Rates Baseline. Based on current projected income for 2017/18, we could lose 11m of income, before we would receive any support from Government. This change in funding reflects a very different level of risk for local authorities compared to the previous fixed grant regime. 6 The Future Outlook for Business Rates Retention 6.1 The Government had been working with local authorities on changes to Business Rates Retention with effect from 2020/21, However, this has been put on hold, although work is still continuing to update the needs formula underlying the current Business Rates Retention Scheme. It is understood that the work on this may recommence in the near future. 6.2 The main principle is that local government as a whole will retain 100% of all business rates collected and will take on additional roles and responsibilities to offset the additional funding that would be generated. This however, does not mean that each local authority will keep all the income retained locally. Page 60 of November 2017

61 There may still be a system of redistribution and some top-slicing to enable a safety net function to operate. It is too early to determine what the likely impact of these changes will mean for Milton Keynes. 6.3 At a national level, the Government has revalued business properties from 1 April 2017 which has resulted in some properties paying more in business rates and some less in Business Rates than they had prior to the revaluation. 6.4 As with previous Business Rates revaluations it is expected that a significant percentage of ratepayers (both winners and losers) will appeal their Business Rates. This will be a potential cost to MKC which could take over 5 years to materilse. This has been idenfitied as a risk to MKC and is a cost through the provision for appeals. 6.5 When the Government introduced the Business Rates Retention Scheme it signalled that it would adjust each authority s tariff or top up tariff in our case) following a revaluation to ensure that retained income would the same after revaluation as before. This adjustment to the tariff for Milton Keynes has been reflected in the baseline calculation in Table 2. 7 Annexes Annex A - Calculation of Council Tax Base 2018/19. Annex B - Council Tax Base 2018/19 by Parish and Town Council. Annex C - Council Tax Base before Discounts and Exemptions. Annex D - Parish and Town Council Funding Allocations. 8 Implications 8.1 Policy None 8.2 Resources and Risk No Capital Yes Revenue No Accommodation No IT Yes Medium Term Plan No Asset Management 8.3 Legal Local Government Finance Act 1992, Local Government Finance Act 2003 Local Government Finance Act 2012, Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations November 2017 Page 61 of 126

62 8.4 Other Implications No Equalities/ Diversity Yes Sustainability No Human Rights No E-Government Yes Stakeholders No Crime and Disorder No Carbon Management Background Papers: DCLG Council Tax Base 1 Form DCLG National Non Domestic Rate 1 Form Page 62 of November 2017

63 Annex A CALCULATION OF 2018/19 COUNCIL TAX BASE 2017/18 Property 2018/19 Number % Category Number % of of Properties Properties Notes 71, % Not entitled to Discounts 72, % 35, % Entitled to 25% Discount 35, % % Entitled to 50% Discount % 107, % 108, % 1, % Exemptions/demolished 1, % 108, % Total Properties 110, % 1 No of Properties as Band D Equivalents No of Properties as Band D Equivalents 91, Total above as Band D Equivalents 92, , Provision for Valuation Change 1, (1,111.82) Provision for Non Collection (1,125.09) 4 91, Total Band D equivalent properties 92, (9,817.64) Impact of Council Tax Reductions (9,686.30) 81, , Notes: 1 Numbers of properties are as at 12 September 2016 and 11 September 2017 respectively. 2 Tax Base advised to DCLG per CTB1 return. [Band D equivalents of properties at 12 September 2016 and 11 September 2017, adjusted for discounts as at 3 October 2016 and 2 October 2017 respectively]. 3 4 The provision for valuation change is for the period from October 2017 to 31 March The provision for non collection is assumed at 1.6% for 2018/19. Page 63 of 126 ANNEX A

64 Page 64 of 126

65 MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL TAX BASE /19 - LOCAL TAX BASES (INCLUDING DISCOUNTS AND EXEMPTIONS) - PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS Annex B BAND A BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND TOTAL OTHER PROVN FOR NET IMPACT NET LOCAL AREAS DISABLED A B C D E F G H BAND D TAX BASE NON-COLLN TAX BASE OF TAX BASE EQUIVALENTS CHANGES COUNCIL TAX INCLUDING SECOND HOMES ADJUSTMENT RELIEF BEFORE LCTRS SCHEME REDUCTIONS WITH LCTRS SCHEME ABBEY HILL , (18.78) 1, (104.57) 1, ASTWOOD & HARDMEAD (1.62) (3.81) BLETCHLEY & FENNY STRATFORD , , , , (69.91) 5, (1,049.01) 4, BOW BRICKHILL (3.34) (14.21) BRADWELL , , (37.60) 3, (421.32) 2, BROUGHTON & MILTON KEYNES VILLAGE , , (64.15) 5, (298.68) 4, CALVERTON (1.18) (0.39) CAMPBELL PARK , , , (55.41) 4, (687.59) 3, CASTLETHORPE (5.65) (27.57) CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES , (22.07) 1, (139.65) 1, CHICHELEY (0.54) (5.67) CLIFTON REYNES & NEWTON BLOSSOMVILLE (2.55) (7.64) COLD BRAYFIELD (0.51) (4.84) EMBERTON (3.59) (14.81) FAIRFIELDS (4.48) (12.34) GAYHURST (0.95) (0.31) GREAT LINFORD , , , , (84.67) 6, (820.76) 6, HANSLOPE , (12.13) (56.77) HAVERSHAM/LITTLE LINFORD (4.10) (14.23) KENTS HILL, MONKSTON & BRINKLOW , (33.04) 2, (181.28) 2, LATHBURY (0.71) (0.24) LAVENDON (6.88) (26.50) LITTLE BRICKHILL (2.23) (11.06) LOUGHTON & GREAT HOLM , (29.07) 2, (153.23) 2, MOULSOE (1.85) (13.36) NEW BRADWELL , (12.39) 1, (146.00) NEWPORT PAGNELL , , , , (66.36) 5, (344.37) 5, NORTH CRAWLEY (4.31) (13.54) OLD WOUGHTON (5.39) (19.93) OLNEY , (32.72) 2, (154.21) 2, RAVENSTONE (1.53) (5.50) SHENLEY BROOK END , , , , , , (112.93) 9, (743.64) 8, SHENLEY CHURCH END , , (60.15) 4, (404.56) 4, SHERINGTON (5.37) (23.61) SIMPSON (7.44) (64.77) STANTONBURY , (42.33) 3, (422.60) 3, STOKE GOLDINGTON (3.35) (18.18) STONY STRATFORD , , (33.99) 2, (296.94) 2, TYRINGHAM & FILGRAVE (1.35) (4.00) WALTON , , (55.65) 4, (352.62) 4, WARRINGTON (0.21) (0.07) WAVENDON (5.66) (20.43) WEST BLETCHLEY , , , , (93.18) 7, (895.30) 6, WESTON UNDERWOOD (1.53) (2.18) WHITEHOUSE (3.86) (6.00) WOBURN SANDS , (16.85) 1, (75.19) 1, WOLVERTON , , (51.12) 4, (616.74) 3, WOUGHTON , , , (40.41) 3, (986.08) 2, TOTAL BY BILLING AREA , , , , , , , , , (1,125.09) 92, (9,686.30) 82, Page 65 of 126 ANNEX B

66 Page 66 of 126

67 MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL TAX BASE - LOCAL TAX BASES BEFORE DISCOUNTS AND EXEMPTIONS ANNEX C LOCAL AREAS BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND BAND TOTAL A B C D E F G H PROPERTIES ABBEY HILL ,832 ASTWOOD & HARMEAD BLETCHLEY & FENNY STRATFORD 2,960 1,996 1, ,902 BOW BRICKHILL BRADWELL 443 1, ,915 Broughton & Milton Keynes Village 436 1,357 1, ,394 CALVERTON CAMPBELL PARK 956 2,216 1, ,792 CASTLETHORPE CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES ,399 CHICHELEY CLIFTON REYNES & NEWTON BLOSSOMVILL COLD BRAYFIELD EMBERTON FAIRFIELDS GAYHURST GREAT LINFORD 1,147 3,169 1,742 1, ,542 HANSLOPE ,037 HAVERSHAM/LITTLE LINFORD KENTS HILL, MONKSTON & BRINKLOW ,114 LATHBURY LAVENDON LITTLE BRICKHILL LOUGHTON ,502 MOULSOE NEW BRADWELL ,443 NEWPORT PAGNELL 433 1,852 2,065 1, ,499 NORTH CRAWLEY OLD WOUGHTON OLNEY ,847 RAVENSTONE SHENLEY BROOK END 764 2,383 2,665 1,530 1, ,243 SHENLEY CHURCH END 442 1,336 1, ,459 SHERINGTON SIMPSON STANTONBURY 1,002 1, ,472 STOKE GOLDINGTON STONY STRATFORD , ,465 TYRINGHAM & FILGRAVE WALTON 507 1,297 1, ,122 WARRINGTON WAVENDON WEST BLETCHLEY 1,117 2,499 3,723 1, ,543 WESTON UNDERWOOD WHITEHOUSE WOBURN SANDS ,515 WOLVERTON 1,012 3,123 1, ,833 WOUGHTON 2,792 1, ,219 Total by Billing area 16,751 31,542 28,252 13,816 11,107 5,648 2, ,086 Page 67 of 126

68 Page 68 of 126

69 2018/19 Parish and Town Council Tax Base and Provisional Funding Allocations ANNEX D Parish Total Tax Base pre LCTRS Total Band D equivalents LCTRS Tax Base Tax Base including LCTRS Loss of Tax Base (net of technical reforms) Band D Band D equivalents equivalents Estimated Precept Estimated precept pre LCTRS post LCTRS (with 2017/18 band D) (2017/18 band D) Loss of precept income 2018/19 Grant Allocation 530, Loss of income after grant Percentage Loss % ABBEY HILL 1, , , , , , , % ASTWOOD and HARDMEAD , , , % BLETCHLEY & FENNY STRATFORD 5, , , , , , , , , % BOW BRICKHILL , , , % BRADWELL 3, , , , , , , , % BROUGHTON and MILTON KEYNES 5, , , , , , , % CALVERTON % CAMPBELL PARK 4, , , , , , , , % CASTLETHORPE , , , , , % CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES 1, , , , , , , , % CHICHELEY % CLIFTON REYNES and NEWTON BLOSSOMVILLE , , , % COLD BRAYFIELD % EMBERTON , , , % FAIRFIELDS % GAYHURST , , , % GREAT LINFORD 6, , , , , , , , % HANSLOPE , , , , , % HAVERSHAM cum LITTLE LINFORD , , , % KENTS HILL, MONKSTON & BRINKLOW 2, , , , , , , , % LATHBURY , , , % LAVENDON , , , , , % LITTLE BRICKHILL , , , % LOUGHTON & GREAT HOLM 2, , , , , , , % MOULSOE , , , % NEW BRADWELL 1, , , , , , , % NEWPORT PAGNELL 5, , , , , , , , % NORTH CRAWLEY , , , % OLD WOUGHTON , , , % OLNEY 2, , , , , , , % RAVENSTONE , , , % SHENLEY BROOK END 9, , , , , , , , % SHENLEY CHURCH END 4, , , , , , , , % SHERINGTON , , , , , % SIMPSON , , , , , , % STANTONBURY 3, , , , , , , , % STOKE GOLDINGTON , , , % STONY STRATFORD 2, , , , , , , , % TYRINGHAM & FILGRAVE , , % WALTON 4, , , , , , , , % WARRINGTON % WAVENDON , , , % WEST BLETCHLEY 7, , , , , , , , % WESTON UNDERWOOD , , , % WHITEHOUSE % WOBURN SANDS 1, , , , , , , % WOLVERTON 4, , , , , , , , % WOUGHTON 3, , , , , , , , % TOTAL 92, ,755,264 82, , ,755,264 6,790, , , , Page 69 of 126 ANNEX D

70 Page 70 of 126

71 Wards Affected: All Wards ITEM 11 CABINET 7 NOVEMBER 2017 REVISIONS TO CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND SPEND APPROVALS Responsible Cabinet Member: Councillor Middleton - Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation Report Sponsor: Author and contact: Don McLure, Interim Corporate Director Resources Tel: Anna Rulton, Strategic Finance Business Partner Tel: Executive Summary: Before spending on any scheme can begin within the Capital Programme, project documentation has to be updated and appraised through a formal review process to ensure projects will deliver required outcomes, are fully funded and provide value for money for the Council. This review point is the spend approval stage, where following officer scrutiny, Cabinet approval is requested to allow spending against allocated resources for individual projects. Once spend approval has been agreed, any changes to either the funding or spending of resources need to be reported to Cabinet for approval in line with the Council s Constitution. This report requests spend approval for schemes in the 2017/18 Capital Programme and makes amendments to existing schemes. The proposed changes are summarised in tables 1 and 2 of Annex A. The changes outlined in this report result in a revised Capital Programme for 2017/18 of m. Against this programme, m of spend approval has been given to enable individual projects to commence or continue. The Council is responsible for the management of the Milton Keynes Tariff, which is a forward funding mechanism to deliver infrastructure in the expansion areas of the borough. Should the recommendations included in this report be approved, the impact will be a revised Tariff Programme for 2017/18 of 40.72m; with the total spend approval for these contributions at 17.61m. 1. Recommendations 1.1 That the additions and amendments to resource allocation and spend approval for the 2017/18 Capital Programme be approved. 1.2 That the overall funding position for the 2017/18 Capital Programme be noted. 1.3 That the amendments to resource allocation and spend approvals for the 2017/18 Tariff Programme be approved. 1.4 That the current position of the 2017/18 Tariff Programme be noted. 7 November 2017 Page 71 of 126

72 2. Amendments to the Capital Programme 2.1 There are a number of schemes that were not included in the original 2017/18 capital programme but have now completed the officer review process. Cabinet approval for resource allocation and spend approval is now sought to include a new capital project (summarised in Annex B) in the 2017/18 capital programme. 2.2 The new scheme submitted for inclusion in the 2017/18 capital programme is shown below: Fenny Stratford Public Open Space (resource allocation and spend approval of 0.109m in 2017/18) to provide a new towpath and complete play area improvements at Saffron Gardens. This project is funded from a S106 contribution. 2.3 Approval is sought to amend the resource allocation and spend approval for existing projects previously allocated resources within the 2017/18 capital programme, as detailed in Annex B. The significant changes are: Spend approval request for Haversham Village School of 0.712m in 2017/18, following revised cash flow forecast, this expansion project is scheduled to complete June To enable this request funding is being brought forward from 2018/19 there is no overall change to project resource allocation. This is funded from a single capital pot grant. Reduction in resource allocation and spend approval request for Shenley Wood New Primary 2 Form of Entry of 0.354m in 2017/18, the project has completed funding will be reallocated in the 2018/19 capital programme. This is funded from a single capital pot grant. Spend approval request for Future Working Programme of 1.375m in 2017/18, following revised cash flow forecast. To enable this request funding is being brought forward from 2018/19 there is no overall change to project resource allocation. This is funded from a New Homes Bonus Grant Spend approval request for Whitehouse Health Facility of 0.800m in 2017/18, to purchase land for the new health facility. This is funded from a Tariff contribution. Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Capital Programme realignment The original 2017/18 HRA capital programme of m was approved prior to the receipt of stock condition surveys. The new programme has been built based on what is deliverable in 2017/18 and the recommendations of stock condition surveys. The overall reduction in resource allocation of 4.486m in 2017/18 will be reallocated in the 2018/19 HRA capital programme. 7 November 2017 In addition spend approval of 9.964m is requested for the revised programme, as detailed in Annex B: Page 72 of 126

73 o Bathrooms 0.115m o Electrics/Wiring 1.126m o Kitchens 1.414m o External/Structural Works 1.287m o Boiler & Heating Distribution 1.882m o Roofing 2.731m o Voids 1.409m 2.4 The most significant requests for change to the phasing of resource allocation and spend approval for existing projects in the 2017/18 Capital Programme, as set out in Annex B is: Monkston & Brinklow V11 Improvements, resource allocation of 2.650m and spend approval of 0.100m is being re-phased to 2018/19 preliminary design is now being developed, construction to commence in 2018/19. Crownhill - Loughton Improvements, resource allocation of 2.300m is being re-phased to 2018/19 project is pending the Multi Modal Transport Model, construction to commence in 2018/19. CMK Multi Storey Car Park, resource allocation of 9.623m and spend approval of 0.505m is being re-phased to 2018/19 due to change in procurement approach to open tender. Whitehouse Health Facility, resource allocation of 2.400m is being re-phased to 2018/19 land purchase for new site is anticipated late autumn, construction to commence in 2018/19. Go Ultra Low - Infrastructure, resource allocation and spend approval of 3.516m is being re-phased to 2018/19 EV Hub in advanced planning state, rephasing for long term programme. Go Ultra Low - Vehicles, resource allocation and spend approval of 2.227m is being re-phased to 2018/19 rephasing as project has 5 year life. 2.5 Summary of proposed revisions to the capital programme for 2017/18 is shown in Annex A, Table 1. These revisions are set out in detail in Annex B. 2.6 Project managers have a monthly opportunity to demonstrate to the Capital Programme Review Panel (Corporate Director Resources is the chairman of this Panel and is supported by colleagues from Finance and the Portfolio Office, and a representative of the Corporate Leadership Team) that the project is well controlled and managed, and that funding is confirmed as available. While some projects have been through this process and are requesting spend approval, there are a number of schemes not yet ready to start or where the Capital Programme Review Panel has requested further work / assurance before the scheme can be brought to Councillors. Page 73 of November 2017

74 2.7 The revised 2017/18 capital programme by project is available on the Council website at Table 2 in Annex A shows the revised funding position for the 2017/18 capital programme. 3. Spend Approvals Across Multiple Years 3.1 Some major capital schemes require spend approval for more than the current financial year. In approving spend approval for the project resources are effectively being committed for the future. This is usually for major schemes which could not be completed in a single financial year, or where the most effective timing of a project crosses financial years e.g. opening a school in September. 3.2 There are currently thirty four projects with spend approval phased across multiple years. These projects are fully funded with all of their funding having been confirmed as available within 2017/18. A summary of these projects along with the phasing of the spend approvals is shown in Annex A, Table 3 and detailed in Annex C. 4. Tariff Programme 4.1 The 15 February 2017 report to Full Council outlined the resource allocation for the 2017/18 Tariff schemes. 4.2 Approval is sought to amend the resource allocation and spend approval for existing projects previously allocated resources within the 2017/18 tariff programme (summarised in Annex B). The significant request is: Spend approval request for Whitehouse Health Facility of 0.800m in 2017/18, to purchase land for the new health facility. 5. Annexes to this Report ANNEX A ANNEX B ANNEX C 6. Implications 6.1 Policy Summary of changes to the Capital Programme and Financing Detailed list of changes to the 2017/18 Capital Programme and the 2017/18 Tariff Programme Detailed list of projects with Multiple Years Spend Approval The recommendations of this report are consistent with the Council s Medium Term Financial Plan. 6.2 Resources and Risk Capital implications are fully considered throughout the report. Revenue implications may arise from capital schemes in respect of: a) Borrowing to fund capital expenditure (principal and interest), b) Running costs associated with capital schemes, and c) Efficiency savings (e.g. reduced maintenance costs). 7 November 2017 Page 74 of 126

75 These are built into the Council s debt financing and other revenue budgets as appropriate through the Medium Term Planning process. Y Capital Y Revenue N Accommodation Y IT Y Medium Term Plan N Asset Management 6.3 Carbon and Energy Management All capital schemes consider Carbon and Energy Management implications at the capital appraisal stage before they are added to the capital programme. There are no further implications as a result of this report. 6.4 Legal Legal implications may arise in relation to specific capital schemes. In particular a capital scheme may be needed to meet a specific legal requirement. These implications are addressed in the individual project appraisals. There are no significant legal implications arising as a result of this report. 6.5 Other Implications There are no other implications arising as a result of this report. N Equalities/Diversity Y Sustainability N Human Rights N E-Government N Stakeholders N Crime and Disorder Background Papers: Officer Working Papers, report to all Members Previous reports to both Cabinet and Council as mentioned within the body of the report Page 75 of November 2017

76 Page 76 of 126

77 ANNEX A SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME AND FINANCING 2017/18 Table 1: Summary of Proposed Revisions to Capital Programme for 2017/18 Directorate 2017/18 Capital Programme as agreed 03 October 2017 Cabinet Resource Allocation Spend Approval Spend Approval not yet Requested m m m New Projects Amendments to Existing Project (2.420) (15.320) Re-phasing (27.542) (9.899) (17.643) Revised Capital Programme after Adjustments The detailed list of the proposed revisions to Capital Programme for 2017/18 summarised in Table 1 above are identified in Annex B. Table 2: Financing of the 2017/18 Capital Programme Funding Type 2017/18 Capital Programme Capital Receipts Major Repairs Reserve Single Capital Pot - Grants Prudential Borrowing Government Grants S Planning Gain / Tariff Other Third Party Contributions Parking Income GF Revenue Contributions HRA Revenue Contributions New Homes Bonus Total m Page 77 of 126

78 Table 3: Spend Approvals Across Multiple Years from 2017/18 Scheme Adult Social Care & Health Children & Families Housing & Regeneration Housing Housing & Regeneration Non-Housing Growth, Economy & Culture Total Resource Allocation Prior Year Spend Approval 2017/ / /20 Onwards Total m m m m m Public Realm Resources Strategy Total Multiple Years Spend Approval Page 78 of 126

79 Detailed list of changes to the 2017/18 Capital Programme Annex B Scheme Resource Allocation 2017/18 Spend Approval 2017/18 Spend Approval not Requested 2017/ /18 Capital Programme as agreed at the 03 October Cabinet 309,627, ,875,389 72,751,696 Amendments to Resource Allocation and Spend Approval for New Projects Public Realm Fenny Stratford Public Open Space 109, ,000 0 Total Amendments to Resource Allocation and Spend Approval for New Projects 109, ,000 0 Amendments to Resource Allocation and Spend Approval for Existing Projects Children & Families Bradville Village School Boiler Replacement 25,000 25,000 0 Moorlands School Boiler Replacement 45,000 45,000 0 Capital Maintenance Programme (70,000) 0 (70,000) Haversham Village School 712, ,000 0 St Mary & St Giles CE Junior School 52,000 52,000 0 Oakgrove Primary 18,000 18,000 0 Shenley Wood New Primary 2 FOE (354,011) (354,011) 0 Housing & Regeneration - Housing Bathrooms (435,000) 115,000 (550,000) Electrics/Wiring 576,000 1,126,000 (550,000) Kitchens (236,000) 1,414,000 (1,650,000) External/Structural Works (7,363,500) 1,286,500 (8,650,000) Boiler & Heating Distribution 382,000 1,882,000 (1,500,000) Communal Heating (1,000,000) 0 (1,000,000) Contingency (550,000) 0 (550,000) Roofing 2,731,000 2,731,000 0 Voids - Bathrooms 7,548 7,548 0 Voids - Doors 26,475 26,475 0 Voids - Kitchens 95,893 95,893 0 Voids - Structure 1,208,438 1,208,438 0 Voids - Windows 7,663 7,663 0 Voids - Wiring 62,983 62,983 0 Growth, Economy & Culture Self Service Kiosks in Libraries (100,000) (100,000) 0 Westcroft Meeting Place 100, ,000 0 New MK Museum 264, ,000 0 Public Realm Loughton Footbridge 23Bridge&Path Rebuil 12,000 12,000 0 Swan River Bridge Upgrading and Strength 34,760 34,760 0 Hardmead Bridge Upgrading and Strengthen 8,000 8,000 0 Olney Bridge and North Bridge Refurbishm 72,459 72,459 0 H4 Lodge Lake Bridge Upgrade (2,760) (2,760) 0 Footbridge Refurbishments (12,000) (12,000) 0 Linford Station Railway, Gt Linford Upgd (112,459) (112,459) 0 Resources Future Work Programme 1,375,000 1,375,000 0 Whitehouse Health Facility 0 800,000 (800,000) Total Amendments to Resource Allocation and Spend Approval for Existing Projects (2,419,511) 12,900,489 (15,320,000) Page 79 of 126

80 Scheme Resource Allocation 2017/18 Spend Approval 2017/18 Spend Approval not Requested 2017/18 Rephasing of Resource Allocation and Spend Approval to 2018/19 Adult Social Care & Health Service Redesign (75,176) (25,000) (50,176) Children & Families Orchard Academy Expansion (304,263) (304,263) 0 Bletchley Secondary Expansion (320,000) (50,000) (270,000) Housing & Regeneration - Housing Disabled Facilities Grant (322,185) (322,185) 0 Coltsfoot New Council Houses (252,177) (252,177) 0 Germander New Council Houses (272,778) (272,778) 0 Growth, Economy & Culture BDUK - Phase 2 (370,000) 0 (370,000) Westcroft Meeting Place (414,202) (414,202) 0 Central Milton Keynes Library (116,118) (116,118) 0 Shenley Leisure Centre - New Sports Hall (368,036) (368,036) 0 Bradwell Abbey Improvements Programme (211,465) (211,465) 0 Public Realm H10 Canal Bridge Upgrading (293,083) (190,000) (103,083) H3 Canal Bridge, Bolbeck Park Strengthen (80,000) (20,000) (60,000) Monkston & Brinklow V11 Improvements (2,650,000) (100,000) (2,550,000) Crownhill-Loughton Improvements (2,300,000) 0 (2,300,000) V4 Crossings (208,276) 0 (208,276) CMK Multi Storey Car Park (9,623,007) (505,007) (9,118,000) Provision of Additnl Cemetery Facilities (37,133) (37,133) 0 Resources VDI Replacement (114,000) 0 (114,000) PC's & Laptops Replacement (100,000) 0 (100,000) ICT Asset Funding Programme (20,000) (20,000) 0 Brooklands Health Facility (726,648) (726,648) 0 Whitehouse Health Facility (2,400,000) 0 (2,400,000) Rivers Re-roofing (98,127) (98,127) 0 Strategy Go Ultra Low - Infrastructure (3,515,673) (3,515,673) 0 Go Ultra Low - Vehicles (2,226,625) (2,226,625) 0 Go Ultra Low - Experience Centre (123,830) (123,830) 0 Total Rephasing of Resource Allocation and Spend Approval to 2018/19 (27,542,802) (9,899,266) (17,643,536) Revised Capital Programme after Adjustments 279,773, ,985,612 39,788,160 Detailed list of changes to the 2017/18 Tariff Programme Scheme Resource Allocation 2017/18 Spend Approval 2017/18 Spend Approval not Requested 2017/ /18 Tariff Programme as agreed at the 03 October Cabinet 40,717,398 16,811,864 23,955,534 Amendments to Resource Allocation and Spend Approval for Existing Projects Whitehouse Health Centre 0 800,000 (800,000) Total Amendments to Resource Allocation and Spend Approval for Existing Projects 0 800,000 (800,000) Revised Tariff Programme after Adjustments 40,717,398 17,611,864 23,155,534 Page 80 of 126

81 Detailed list of projects with Multiple Years Spend Approval within the 2017/18 Capital Programme Annex C Scheme Total Spend Approval Resource 2019/20 Allocation Prior Years 2017/ /19 Total Onwards Adult Social Care & Health Development of Infrastructure 100,000 78, , ,000 Autism 18,500 14, , ,500 Telecare 170, ,914 15,000 11, ,462 Service Redesign 131,005 35,566 20,263 25, ,829 Total Adult Social Care & Health 419, ,870 35,263 61, ,792 Children & Families Haversham Village School 2,351,734 73,238 1,872, , ,351,734 Orchard Academy Expansion 2,851, ,026 1,991, , ,851,043 Eagle Farm Primary School 9,135, , ,239 5,545,000 2,921,000 9,135,896 Bletchley Secondary Expansion 6,411, , ,000 Total Children & Families 20,749, ,920 4,043,489 6,755,263 2,921,000 14,388,672 Housing & Regeneration - Housing Disabled Facilities Grant 2,873,495 1,486,752 1,064, , ,873,495 Coltsfoot New Council Houses 1,808,439 82, ,254 1,472, ,808,439 Franklin Croft New Council Houses 1,890, , , , ,890,095 Kellen Drive New Council Houses 1,400, , , , ,400,758 St Georges New Council Houses 1,350, , , , ,350,166 Germander New Council Houses 689,959 47, , , ,959 Total Housing & Regeneration - Housing 10,012,912 2,088,738 4,040,770 3,883, ,012,912 Growth, Economy & Culture Milton Keynes Local Broadband Plan 2,400,000 1,229, ,170, ,400,000 Westcroft Meeting Place 1,457,801 77, , , ,457,801 Central Milton Keynes Library 502,197 29, , , ,197 Open Libraries Solutions 250, , , ,000 Shenley Leisure Centre - New Sports Hall 408,036 40, , ,036 Bradwell Abbey Improvements Programme 733, , , , ,473 MK Gallery - Expansion 2,089, ,053 1,431, , ,089,763 Total Growth, Economy & Culture 7,841,271 1,808,568 3,104,764 2,927, ,841,271 Public Realm Swan River Bridge Upgrading and Strength 341, ,678 34, , ,438 H10 Canal Bridge Upgrading 685,000 11,917 10, , ,917 Monkston & Brinklow V11 Improvements 3,500, , , , ,000 CMK Multi Storey Car Park 10,168,000 26, , , ,050,000 Provision of Additnl Cemetery Facilities 130,000 7,868 80,000 42, ,000 Total Public Realm 14,824, ,735 1,283, , ,683,355 Resources Future Work Programme 6,473, ,095 5,244, , ,473,598 ICT Asset Funding Programme 730, , ,705 20, ,700 Software - Microsoft 1,253, , , , ,882 1,180,000 Brooklands Health Facility 10,100,000 2,333,713 5,189,639 2,576, ,100,000 Rivers Re-roofing 330,000 8, ,259 98, ,000 Total Resources 18,887,407 3,715,063 11,060,770 3,547, ,882 18,814,298 Strategy Go Ultra Low - Infrastructure 4,518,945 3,272 1,000,000 3,515, ,518,945 Go Ultra Low - Vehicles 3,926, ,050 1,074,950 2,226, ,926,625 Go Ultra Low - Experience Centre 554, ,600 30, , ,430 Total Resources 9,000,000 1,028,922 2,104,950 5,866, ,000,000 Total Multiple Years Spend Approval 81,735,205 9,995,816 25,673,485 23,999,116 3,411,882 63,080,299 Page 81 of 126

82 Page 82 of 126

83 Wards Affected: Woughton ITEM 12 CABINET 7 NOVEMBER 2017 MAKING THE WOUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Responsible Cabinet Member: Report Sponsor: Councillor Gifford, Cabinet Member for Place Brett Leahy, Head of Development Management, Planning & Transport, Tel: Author and contact: Jon Wellstead, Senior Planning Officer, Tel: Executive Summary: The report seeks Cabinet s agreement to recommend to Council that it makes (brings into legal force) the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan following the referendum held on 19 th October The referendum returned a majority Yes to the question asked whether those voting wanted Milton Keynes Council to use the neighbourhood plan when deciding planning applications in the neighbourhood area. Given the Yes vote, the report seeks Cabinet s agreement to make minor modifications to the neighbourhood plan and to recommend to Council that it makes (brings into legal force) the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan. 1. Recommendation(s) That the modifications to the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan set out at Annex A be approved That the Council be recommended to make the modified Woughton Neighbourhood Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 38(A)(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act That, subject to the Council s agreement to the making of the Neighbourhood Plan: (a) (b) the decision document (Annex B) setting out the results of the referendum and the Council s decision to make the plan, and a copy of the made Woughton Neighbourhood Plan (Annex C) be published on the Council s website and in other means, to bring them to the attention of people who live, work or carry out business in the neighbourhood area; and the decision document and details on how to view the plan be sent to the qualifying body (Woughton Parish Council) and any person who asked to be notified of the decision. 1.4 That Woughton Community Council be congratulated on the successful outcome of the referendum. Page 83 of November 2017

84 2. Issues The Woughton Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to the Council for examination and was subsequently publicised for a six-week period, ending on 10 April All comments received were then passed to the Examiner, Mr Andrew Ashcroft, who submitted his report on the Plan in June 2017, stating that the plan met relevant basic conditions and requirements, subject to modifications, and should proceed to referendum. On 21 July 2017, the Service Director for Growth, Economy and Culture made the decision to accept the Examiner s report and the modifications that the examiner had recommended be made to the Neighbourhood Plan in order to ensure its compliance with the basic conditions. It was also agreed that the Plan, as modified, should proceed to a referendum of those residents eligible to vote within the neighbourhood plan area (being the Parish Council area) of Woughton. Under the requirements of the Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012 (as amended), the Council is obliged to hold a referendum on a neighbourhood plan within 56 days of issuing its decision on the Examiner s report and modifications. With this in mind, and having sought the views of the Community Council as to a suitable date, the referendum on the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan was therefore scheduled for 19 October 2017 to keep within the 56-day time limit. In the event of a Yes vote, the Council is obliged under the relevant legislation 1 to pass a resolution within eight weeks of the day after the referendum to make the neighbourhood plan (i.e. by 14 December). As the referendum period for the Neighbourhood Plan was starting, the Council was made aware that due to an administrative error, a representation from the Canal and River Trust to the submitted Woughton Neighbourhood Plan had not been forwarded to the Neighbourhood Plan Examiner. The representation was valid having been received within the 6-week publicity period for the submitted Neighbourhood Plan and Section 17 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 refers to documents being forwarded to the examiner as soon as possible. Consequently the representation was forwarded to the examiner at the earliest opportunity following the discovery of this error. The examiner, Mr Andrew Ashcroft, considered the representation and has recommended a number of changes to the supporting text of the Neighbourhood Plan. These are set out in the table at Annex A. The additional changes affect the supporting text rather than the policies, and are not considered to be material to the Neighbourhood Plan, but, rather, are being made to improve its clarity. Woughton Community Council is aware of the issue and with the Examiner s revised recommendations and is in agreement with the proposal to include the 1 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) and Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Regulations 2016 and section 38(A)(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Page 84 of November 2017

85 additional modifications on the basis that they do not strike at the heart of the plan. An updated and final version of the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan is available at Annex C and it is this version that Full Council are being asked to make a part of the Development Plan for the Woughton area The referendum took place on 19 th October, The official result is that, 1140 ballot papers were issued, 988 residents voted Yes and 147 voted No with 6 ballot papers rejected. The turnout for the referendum was 13.44%. Once a neighbourhood plan has successfully passed all the stages of preparation, including an Examination and Referendum, it is made by the local planning authority and forms part of that authority s Development Plan, meaning that it will be a material consideration when deciding development proposals within the area covered by the Plan. As with any planning decision, there is a risk of legal challenge and in this case there is a specific risk that the Canal and River Trust could legally challenge the plan as a result of the late referral of their representations to the Examiner. It is however considered that the risk of a successful challenge has been mitigated by the actions that the Council took as soon as it was made aware that the Trust s representations had not been passed to the Examiner. As a result of the action taken by the Council, the Canal and River Trust s representations have still been considered by the Examiner and Recommendation 1.1 of this Cabinet report is that the plan is modified in line with his recommendations before it is made by Full Council. 3. Options 3.1 As the Plan received a Yes vote in the referendum, the Council is obliged to proceed to make the Plan as outlined above. Therefore, there are no options available other than for Cabinet to recommend to the Council to make the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan, and for Council to implement that recommendation, so that the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan becomes part of the Milton Keynes Development Plan. The only exception to this is where the Council considers the plan would breach, or otherwise be incompatible with, any EU obligation or any of the convention Rights. That is not the case here. 4. Implications 4.1 Policy 7 November 2017 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that Neighbourhood Plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan. Neighbourhood Plans should reflect these policies, and neighbourhoods should plan positively to support them. Neighbourhood Plans and Development Orders should not promote less development than is set out in the Local Plan, or undermine its strategic policies. In Milton Keynes, the strategic policies are set out in the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan and Core Strategy. Once a Neighbourhood Plan has successfully passed all of the stages of preparation, including an examination and referendum, it is made by the local planning authority and forms part of the authority s Development Plan, Page 85 of 126

86 meaning it will be a material consideration when considering development proposals in the Neighbourhood Plan area. In terms of the planning policy hierarchy, a Neighbourhood Plan, once adopted, carries more weight than a Supplementary Planning Document. The Neighbourhood Planning (General) and Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which came into force on 1 October 2016, require local planning authorities to make a plan that has been supported at referendum within eight weeks of the day after the referendum. A decision to make the Plan by Council on 22 November 2017 will meet that timescale. 4.2 Resources and Risk Further duties and deadlines for decisions have been imposed through the Neighbourhood Planning (General) and Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Regulations 2016, as a result of the 2016 Housing and Planning Act. The Localism Act 2011 and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 ( the 2012 Regulations ) placed new duties on local planning authorities in relation to Neighbourhood Planning. These new duties have considerable implications for Council resources. In recognition of the additional burdens that these new duties place on local planning authorities, DCLG now makes extra burden funding of 20,000 available to local authorities, which can be claimed once a date for a referendum has been set following a successful examination. This is a reduction of 10,000 per plan from that which has been available in previous years. Publicity and officer support costs associated with making Neighbourhood Plans is met within the Development Plans budget and staff resources to implement the Plan come from the existing staff within the Development Plans and Development Management teams. An internal audit of the Neighbourhood Plans service carried out in 2015 has shown that that the additional costs incurred delivering the service were only just covered by the extra burdens funding. N Capital Y Revenue N Accommodation N IT N Medium Term Plan N Asset Management 4.3 Carbon and Energy Management The proposal does not impact on carbon and energy management. 4.4 Legal 7 November 2017 Neighbourhood planning is part of the Government s initiative to empower local communities to take forward planning proposals at a local level, as outlined in Section 116 of the Localism Act, The Act and the subsequent regulations confer specific functions on local planning authorities in relation to neighbourhood planning and lay down the steps that must be followed in relation to Neighbourhood Planning. Page 86 of 126

87 The Woughton Neighbourhood Plan has been consulted on and subjected to a referendum in accordance with the 2012 Regulations (as amended). As with any planning decision, there is a risk of legal challenge to the plan and/or judicial review of the Council s decision to proceed with the referendum and the making of the Plan. Risk has been managed by ensuring that the relevant regulations are followed and that the Council s decision making process is clear and transparent. As explained in paragraph 2.9 above, there is a specific risk of a potential legal challenge from the Canal and River Trust as a result of an administrative error. The Council considers that, once it became aware of error, it took all possible steps to mitigate the error. Once a Neighbourhood Plan is made it becomes part of the statutory Development Plan against which the Local Planning Authority is obliged to consider proposals for development. In accordance with Section 61E(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, as modified by the Localism Act 2011, the Council must, as soon as possible after deciding to make a neighbourhood development plan: (a) publish on the website and in such other manner as is likely to bring the Plan to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area: (i) (ii) the decision document, details of where and when the decision document may be inspected; (b) send a copy of the decision document to: (i) (ii) the qualifying body and any person who asked to be notified of the decision. 4.5 Other Implications 7 November 2017 The Woughton Neighbourhood Plan has been tested against and found to meet a number of basic conditions. Two of the basic conditions are the requirements for the plans to: Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development Not breach and otherwise be compatible with EU obligations (including Human Rights, the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive) The Examiner s report has confirmed that the Plan meets those Basic Conditions and officers are satisfied that there are no conflicts with these aspects. The consultations on the draft plan carried out by the Community Council and then the publicity on the submitted plan carried out by Milton Keynes Council Page 87 of 126

88 have helped to raise awareness of its preparation and have allowed community engagement and participation in the process.. N Equalities/Diversity Y Sustainability Y Human Rights N E-Government N Stakeholders N Crime and Disorder Annex A Annex B Annex C Additional modifications to the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan Decision document for making the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan Final version of the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan ( Background Papers: The Localism Act 2011 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 The Housing and Planning Act 2016 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) and Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Regulations November 2017 Page 88 of 126

89 MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL WOUGHTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Decision Statement 20th October 2017 ANNEX A 1 Summary 1.1 Following a referendum of all residents eligible to vote within the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan area, Milton Keynes Council will make the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan part of the Milton Keynes Council Development Plan. 2 Background 2.1 Woughton Community Council, as the qualifying body, successfully applied for its area to be designated a Neighbourhood Area, under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations (2012), which came into force on 6 April Following the submission of a draft of the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan to the Council, the plan was publicised and comments were invited from the public and stakeholders. The consultation period closed on 10 th April, All comments received were then passed to the Examiner, Mr Andrew Ashcroft, who submitted his report on the Plan in June, 2017 which stated that the plan met relevant basic conditions and requirements, subject to modifications, and should proceed to referendum. 2.3 The Woughton Neighbourhood Plan was modified in line with the Examiners recommendations and a Neighbourhood Planning Referendum was held on 19 th October The turnout in the referendum was 13.44% and 988 of the votes cast were in favour and 147 against the plan. 3 Decision 3.1 The Council makes the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan part of the Milton Keynes Council Development Plan. In doing so, the Council is of the opinion that the Plan is compatible with all relevant European Union obligations, as incorporated into UK law, and is legally compliant. 3.2 The Council agrees to this decision statement and the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan being published on the Milton Keynes Council website and in other ways to bring them to the attention of people who live, work or carry out business in the neighbourhood area. The decision statement and details of how to view the plan will be sent to the qualifying body and any person who asked to be notified of the decision. Page 89 of 126

90 Page 90 of 126

91 ANNEX B Woughton Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Purpose: This Annex to the Cabinet report sets out some minor changes to the supporting text of two polices in the published referendum version of the Woughton Neighbourhood Plan. Background: It was recently been brought to the attention of Milton Keynes Council that, due to an administrative error, a representation from the Canal and River Trust to the submitted Woughton Neighbourhood Plan had not been forwarded to the Neighbourhood Plan Examiner. Section 16 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 sets out the duty on the local planning authority for publicising the plan and at S16 (v) the date by which representations must be received, 6 weeks from the date of publication of the plan proposal. Given that the representation from the Canal and River Trust was received within the 6 week period, it was received in compliance with the Regulations. Section 17 refers to documents being forwarded to the examiner as soon as possible. Consequently the representation was forwarded to the examiner at the earliest opportunity following the discovery of this error. The examiner, Mr Andrew Ashcroft, has considered the representation and has recommended a number of changes to the supporting text of the Neighbourhood Plan. These are set out in the following table. These additional changes affect the supporting text rather than the policies, and are not considered to be material to the Neighbourhood Plan, but, rather, are being made to improve its clarity. Policy Paragraph Changes (shown in blue) WN In 3.22 final sentence delete on Insert the following additional supporting text at the end of paragraph 3.22: The designation of sections of the Grand Union Canal as local green space reflect its very distinctive nature within the environment of the Plan area. It is a significant part of its built heritage. The canal and its footpaths offer extensive opportunity for recreation and accessibility both to local residents and to visitors in canal and house boats. The designation of the area as LGS is not intended to hinder the normal operational requirements of the Canal and River Trust in general, and the provision of mooring facilities, recreation facilities and general maintenance work in particular. Page 91 of 126

92 Policy Paragraph Changes (shown in blue) WN18 In the first part of the policy replace at Netherfield. Policies Map with as set out in Appendix A.18 WN Include the following additional supporting text at the end of 3.65: The canal marina in Peartree Bridge contains a range of different uses. Some are of an operational nature and are only available to boaters using the facility in a commercial fashion. Other uses (the public house, take away and the laundry) are available both to boaters and the wider community. For clarification, this policy relates only to the public facilities within the building. Appendix A.18 In Appendix A.18 replace the existing entry on the canal/marina with Marina, Peartree Bridge Page 92 of 126

93 Wards Affected: All ITEM 13 CABINET DECISION 7 NOVEMBER 2017 MK FUTURES 2050 PROGRAMME UPDATE Responsible Cabinet Member: Report Sponsor: Authors and contacts: Councillor Marland, Leader of the Council Carole Mills, Chief Executive Fiona Robinson, MK Futures 2050 Programme Manager, Tel: Geoff Snelson, Director of Strategy and Futures, Tel: Executive Summary: This report updates Cabinet on the progress made with the projects that form the MK Futures 2050 Programme since the last programme update reported to Cabinet on 4 April Recommendation(s) 1.1 That the progress to date in delivering the Six Big Projects forming the MK Futures 2050 Programme be noted. 2. Issues 2.1 The MK Futures 2050 Programme was established to manage the delivery of the vision and Six Big Projects recommended by the MK Futures 2050 Commission in their report Making a Great City Greater, which was unanimously supported by Council at its meeting on 20 July In October 2016, Cabinet approved the initial plan for the MK Futures 2050 Programme and agreed that regular six-monthly progress updates should be provided. The first update was reported to Cabinet on 4 April The Annex to this report provides an update on each of the individual MK Futures projects plus the overall programme governance arrangements and stakeholder engagement. The ambitious time horizon of the MK Futures 2050 Programme means that delivery against near term project milestones is balanced with a focus on creating the mechanisms to deliver the longer-term elements of the future vision. This balance varies across the projects. 2.4 Positive progress has been made across the programme with the highlight being the creation of a Business and Development Plan for the new university, MK:U. This has enabled us to initiate a procurement process to secure a lead higher education partner. 2.5 Work continues on the programme of background evidence studies to support the creation of the Strategy for The Council continues to be proactive in engaging with the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), including the completion of a First-Last Mile Strategy that shows how the city can optimise mobility in the context of strengthened Page 93 of 126 East-West transport links. Positive 7 November 2017

94 progress has also been made in developing stronger regional working mechanisms with neighbouring authorities. 2.6 Since the last update, the scope for the Learning 2050 project has been refined. This will involve working with schools, the College and other partners, to increase the focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) in the curriculum and ways of learning, so students are better prepared for the future of work and to access MK:U. It will also help increase our attractiveness to knowledge-intensive businesses. 2.7 A series of events and milestones within the Creative and Cultured City project have been achieved over the last reporting period, the highlight being the submission of the initial European Capital of Culture bid on 27 October. The CityFest week in June (in partnership with the Academy of Urbanism and International New Towns Institute) and further MK50 related events have been used to establish further the themes and concepts defined within MK Futures Community Action: MK (CA:MK) continue to support stakeholder engagement for the MK Futures programme. Two Community Connectors meetings have now taken place, helping to engage citizens and communities who would not usually get involved in such projects. 3. Options 3.1 This report is provided for information, as a regular update on the progress of the MK Futures 2050 Programme so no alternative options are considered. 4. Implications 4.1 Policy The MK Futures 2050 Commission Report was unanimously supported by the Council in July Whilst that report is not a statement of formal Council policy, the Programme framework agreed by Cabinet on 11 October 2016 included the MK Futures 2050 Commission vision and six big projects. The Programme will create new Council policy through the Strategy for 2050 and informing Plan:MK and future iterations of the Local Plan. 4.2 Resources and Risk The October 2016 Cabinet report set out the resource and budget requirements to deliver the near-term outputs of the MK Futures 2050 Programme. At this stage in the process these resources, including the total budget of 345k over two years is still considered to be adequate and spend is forecast to remain within budget. Additional funding has also been secured through Section 106 to support the MK:U project. N Capital N Revenue N Accommodation N IT N Medium Term Plan N Asset Management 7 November 2017 Page 94 of 126

95 4.3 Carbon and Energy Management 4.4 Legal Some of the products delivered by the MK Futures 2050 Programme will include policies relating to sustainability and carbon and energy management, but the decision recommended by this report has no direct impact. The projects within the MK Futures 2050 Programme are not governed by statutory regulations or guidance. Should any legal issues be identified through the development of any of the projects, legal advice will be sought on a case-by-case basis. 4.5 Other Implications As set out in the Annex, stakeholder engagement across the Programme is being hosted by Community Action: MK ensuring it is independently led and thereby impartial. One of the Council s principles for engagement on the MK Futures 2050 Programme is that it should be wide-ranging and open to everyone with special attention paid to encouraging new contributors that reflect diversity and youth, and local community groups including parish and town councils. Engagement will also make full use of innovative approaches and social media to help share messages more widely. Y Equalities/Diversity N Sustainability N Human Rights N E-Government Y Stakeholders N Crime and Disorder Background Papers: Annex: Milton Keynes Futures 2050 Commission Report Making a Great City Greater, July Cabinet Report MK Futures 2050 Progress Report, October 2016 March 2017 Annex MK Futures 2050 Progress Report, April October 2017 Page 95 of November 2017

96 Page 96 of 126

97 MK FUTURES 2050 PROGRAMME UPDATE April October 2017 ANNEX Project One Growth and Strategy Bundle The Growth and Strategy bundle brings together work on the MK Futures 2050 Commission s (the Commission s) recommendations to build the economic potential of the city as the Hub of the Cambridge Milton Keynes Oxford Corridor with the preparation of a long-term, non-statutory Strategy for Strategy for 2050 The Strategy for 2050 is intended to build on the work of the Commission. It sets out a framework of policies to deliver the long-term vision of the future identified in Making a Great City Greater that will help inform future iterations of the Local Plan and other strategies and policy documents. It will include policies to support the delivery of the other MK Futures 2050 projects, and help to identify and strengthen the interlinks between them. The scope of the Strategy for 2050 will be wider than a planning policy document, taking a more holistic approach to the future development of the city that doesn t just have a spatial focus. It will, however, be sensitive to the emerging Plan:MK by focussing on the post-2031 period. A gap analysis has been undertaken of the extensive research programme undertaken for the Commission process (including the 17 Commission Working Papers available online at the evidence base for Plan:MK and other resources. Reflecting where additional research would be needed to inform the policy approaches to be explored in the Strategy for 2050, several studies have been commissioned: Scale and Directions of Growth future directions of growth for MK and the potential for development along the East-West corridor Innovative Mobility Roadmap the implementation of smart, shared, sustainable mobility in MK. This study is also part of the work on Project Four, and aligns with the Mobility Strategy. Future Communities and Meeting Housing Need how can the design and development of neighbourhoods be more attractive, accessible, sustainable and healthy. Building on a Culture of Innovation the potential to be more proactive in sustainability and design building in particular on the legacy of MK as a pioneer in sustainability policy. Future of Employment and Workforce Structure implications of the future of employment and MK's future workforce structure. The outputs of these studies have not yet been finalised. Work has involved internal workshop discussions. The studies will be available as background research to support the Strategy for 2050 as part of future engagement on draft policies. With the submission of Plan:MK in March 2018 and examination hearings now anticipated for later in Summer/early Autumn 2018, it is proposed that formal consultation on a draft Strategy for 2050 should not begin before late This will Page 97 of 126

98 help ensure a clear separation between the engagement processes and reduce the potential for confusion. Meanwhile, work continues to ensure that the content of Plan:MK does not preclude or disable future opportunities or policy approaches anticipated in the Strategy for It is proposed that informal engagement with relevant stakeholders on emerging policies will also take place as part of the development of the draft Strategy. Hub of the Cambridge Milton Keynes Oxford Corridor The Council continues to be proactive in engaging with the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) as it conducts its review of the potential of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes- Oxford corridor. MKC has submitted the proposal requested by the NIC on First and Last Mile transport solutions, including how it is planning to optimise future mobility in the context of strengthened East-West transport links - the A421 Expressway and East West Rail. We have also engaged in workshops with the NIC on housing delivery and on MK s future ambitions for growth and development. Through the Fast Growth Cities network, a workshop on utilities provision and housing delivery was held with officials from central government, OFGEM, Distribution Network Operators, Local Enterprise Partnerships and local authorities across the Cambridge Milton Keynes Oxford Corridor. Work is underway with neighbouring authorities to develop stronger regional working mechanisms and it is hoped that formal agreement to progress these will be in place by the end of the year. Governance: to manage the Growth and Strategy Bundle, a monthly meeting takes place to enable coordination between the project streams and with Plan:MK, which involves officers from the MK Futures 2050, Plan:MK, Development Management, Infrastructure Coordination and Corporate Policy teams. Project Two MK:U, A New University for Milton Keynes The recommendation to establish a new technology-focussed university in Central Milton Keynes was a flagship project in Making a Great City Greater. The project is interlinked with the other MK Futures projects, recognising the opportunities that a resident undergraduate population could bring to MK, ranging from creating a highly skilled workforce to meet the future demands of knowledge intensive businesses creating a diverse and independent cultural and leisure offer. Following approaches to all local Higher Education (HE) providers, Cranfield University was asked to prepare a Business and Development Plan for the MK:U proposition, which was completed in June This included engagement with a wide range of local businesses, schools, students, local HE institutions and other partners, and considered governance and funding options, innovative forms of structuring teaching and the sorts of subjects that the university could specialise in, reflecting the knowledge-intensive industries in the area. The Business and Development Plan demonstrates that the MK:U proposition is viable and initial Page 98 of 126

99 discussions with the development industry indicate that it would be financially attractive to prospective investors. The MKDP (Milton Keynes Development Partnership) Board have demonstrated support for the use of Block B4 in CMK as the site for the university, subject to an acceptable transactional structure being agreed. The use of Block B4 for the university is also supported by a proposed allocation in the emerging Draft Plan:MK. Following approval from the Procurement and Commissioning Committee on 14 September 2017, an OJEU compliant Invitation to Tender (ITT) process was initiated to select a lead Higher Education (HE) institution to partner with MKC on the development of MK:U. The opportunity has been advertised to an international audience in the Times Higher Education journal. The deadline for responses from bidders is early January 2018, and following review of submissions and interviews with an evaluation panel, Cabinet will be asked to approve the selection of a preferred bidder in April A partnership agreement with the preferred HE partner would then commit them to taking forward the next stage in the project - more detailed feasibility and development work over an 18 month period. Governance - regular internal project team meetings with representation from the MK Futures 2050 team, Legal, Procurement, Planning, Finance, MKDP, Property and Place teams are held monthly. Project Three Learning 2050 Following extended discussions on the potential focus of the project, a scope has now been agreed which has support from the School Improvement Team and aligns well with other components of the MK Futures 2050 programme. The Commission identified that education would be a key determinant of the future success and competitiveness of the city and ensuring that the local workforce has the skills necessary to be able to meet the needs of knowledge-intensive businesses. To that end, the Learning 2050 project will explore how MK s schools and college can give a greater focus to STEM subjects; science, technology, engineering and maths. This includes both what is taught as part of the curriculum and how it s taught - how opportunities to engage with business can be harnessed and demonstrating how STEM subjects are essential in some high-profile industries. The project s core objectives are to help students be able to access future employment opportunities by developing transferable skills and knowledge; for students to be able to access higher education at MK:U with its emphasis on STEMrelated subjects; and to have a highly-skilled workforce in the city creating an environment that is attractive to knowledge-intensive business sector employers. A group of headteachers, governors and other education partners will participate in a workshop on 22 November 2017 to develop a more detailed scope for this project and consider how they can work together to make a sustainable change in how the MK education system approaches STEM. Page 99 of 126

100 Governance: The small existing project team will be expanded and formalised as appropriate following the workshop, and will report monthly to the MK Futures programme Executive Coordinating Group alongside the other projects. Project Four Smart, Shared, Sustainable Mobility Project Four is successfully coordinating progress on MKC s new Mobility Strategy (a review of the Local Transport Plan) with the mobility elements of the Strategy for 2050 plus engagement with the NIC on First/Last Mile transport strategy. The Mobility Strategy is being prepared by consultants AECOM, with engagement on a draft taking place later in The final Mobility Strategy is due to be approved by Cabinet in March 2018, and will be available as a supporting document for the submission of Plan:MK for examination. The Innovative Mobility Roadmap being prepared as a joint evidence study for this project and the Strategy for 2050 will shortly be completed. Its findings are being fed into the Mobility Strategy as it takes a longer-term view of the sorts of interventions and policies that might be needed to support future transport innovation. The work on the First-Last Mile Strategy submitted to the NIC was co-ordinated with related work by Oxford and Cambridge and includes a shared focus on developing innovative mass transit solutions. The three cities are requesting that Government funds a development programme for the new vehicle technology being proposed. The Go Ultra Low Carbon programme is making good progress. The new Electric Vehicle Experience Centre in the Centre:MK ( was launched on 22 July Delivery of the extended electric charging infrastructure is underway including design work on rapid charging HUBS where vehicles can be fully charged in around 30 minutes. In addition to a previously reported grant of 175,000 from DfT to provide sensors for real time monitoring of traffic and parking, our programme partner, Vivacity Labs, has secured a total of 3m in funding, including a 1.7m grant from Innovate UK. This is funding the current roll out of 2,500 sensors to provide monitoring at all major junction points across the MK urban area and across some 13,000 city centre car parking spaces. Vivacity Labs creates sensors with in-built machine-learning that can identify individual road users and manage traffic. A deployment on this scale is the first of its kind in the UK and its scale and the nature of the technology also makes it internationally significant. The UK Autodrive autonomous mobility project remains on track. The fleet of 40 driverless PODs is in production and a trial public transport service is on track to start in June An operator has been selected for the POD service and work is underway the regulations to create a route. Further funding has been secured to enhance the capability of the PODS and retain the service in MK until mid This includes incorporating into the PODs an increased Swarm machine learning (Artificial Intelligence) component across the fleet. MKC has also convened a consortium of partners to create a bid for a further autonomous mobility programme. Page 100 of 126

101 Project Five Renaissance: CMK Renaissance:CMK represents a programme of projects that aims to create an even stronger and more successful city centre that is fit for the challenges of the mid-21st century. Through investment in new employment, residential, retail and leisure opportunities, drawing on the benefits that could be created by a new city centre university, and (re)developing vacant or underused buildings and land, Renaissance:CMK will help to create a prosperous city centre and capitalise on our position on the Cambridge-MK-Oxford corridor. A set of key principles, based on drivers for change, emergent thinking and potential directions are currently being produced as an initial phase of the project. These Renaissance:CMK principles will describe the key outcomes required from future development proposals for CMK and will act as a guide for investors and developers about what MKC and its stakeholders expect from the Renaissance of CMK. It is expected that the principles will be collated into a Prospectus for CMK which will serve as a marketing tool and provide clarity about the types and form of development needed and the opportunities that exist. The next step is to agree the draft principles at the next Renaissance:CMK Programme Board and then engage with key stakeholders in order to further develop, refine and agree how the principles should be framed within the Prospectus to bring the most benefit. To this end it is anticipated that a Stakeholder Workshop will be held in late November or early December 2017 and that the Prospectus will be finalised in early The initial projects helping to deliver Renaissance:CMK s outcomes and build momentum for the programme as a whole are now being developed and outline business cases produced. These include the redesign of the Midsummer Boulevard East area south of The Centre:MK and the development of a Gateway to MK in the Station Square area. Other projects include the proposed Hotel LaTour development, the development of additional private rented sector housing at the Wyevale site (D4.4) and the Stirling development at blocklet B3.3N. Governance: to ensure that all these projects are effectively coordinated and controlled a revised programme structure is also being developed. This will build on the existing regular board meetings which include representatives from Place, MK Futures, Planning, Infrastructure, MKDP, Economic Development and Urban Design. Project Six the Creative and Cultured City Project Six recognises the significant economic role that culture plays, proposing that more is done to establish MK as a place known by visitors, workers and residents for its distinctive culture whether for art, heritage, sports, creativity, innovation, business and community. The Creative and Cultured City project helps to bring together related cultural opportunities, including the preparation of MK s bid to be European Capital of Culture (ECoC) in 2023, building on the momentum of the MK50, the 50th birthday celebrations and ongoing review of cultural policy and strategy so it s fit for purpose. Page 101 of 126

102 As part of a two-year, 300k programme to enhance MK as a visitor destination, specifically to cultural venues, we have approval to install e-car charge stations at up to ten cultural sites, commissioned three artists to create vinyl artworks for part of the electric car fleet and included cultural venues in the revised redways and canal/ towpath maps. The ECoC bid has been completed, with an 80-page proposal submitted on 27 October. Shortlisting will be announced on 30 November when a panel of 10 representatives present to the Capital of Culture jury in London. The 50th birthday programme has been a huge success in terms of city profile and audience engagement. High profile events this quarter included a visit from HRH Prince William and a documentary aired on BBC4 called Milton Keynes and Me. MK s first Festival of History in Campbell Park attracted 10,000 people and Art in the Park; a festival celebrating diversity which also attracted 10,000 people. Internationally acclaimed artist Steven Turner took residency for six weeks in a wooden floating egg on the canal. The Exbury Egg project engaged 8,000 MK citizens in conversations and workshops about place-making, nature and the environment, sustainability and the arts. This work has informed the development the future strategy for Oakridge Park and its new citizens. Following the first MK50 international conference seminar in January 2017, the Academy of Urbanism (AoU) and International New Towns Institute (INTI) joined forces in June with MKC, Centre:MK, MK Gallery, David Lock Associates and other partners to deliver an international three day conference and tour event to over 200 delegates, looking at the past, present and future for new towns across Europe. This was part of a wider MK CityFest public programme which saw another additional 400 attendees for the varied programme of events in and around the auditorium, and several thousand viewing the MK50 exhibition on its week-long return to Middleton Hall. Discussions with the partners on how an International Festival of Creative Urban Living in 2019 could be developed from this successful experiment has started. A city-centre celebration as part of MK50 and City Club called Feast of Fire took place on 21 October a major free outdoor pyrotechnics event along Midsummer Boulevard. The international conference season will end with the EU Europe For Citizens funded Migration, Identity and Culture City Lab Different by Design to be held in CMK on November and the Independent Street Artists Network Outdoor Arts Conference in MK in November Governance - the Creative and Cultured City projects are managed through existing arrangements, including direction of the ECoC steering group. Programme-Wide The October 2016 Cabinet report proposed a governance structure to maintain oversight, ownership and management of the MK Futures 2050 Programme. This structure continues to operate effective, with regular meetings taking place in accordance with the proposed arrangements. This includes monthly updates to the Page 102 of 126

103 Programme Sponsors (Leader of the Council and CEO); a monthly Executive Coordinating Group (in effect the MK Futures 2050 Programme Board); regular meetings of the individual project managers/leads; and project team meetings for the individual projects, generally on a monthly basis. The programme management arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the Portfolio Office and Integrated Assurance Group. Quarterly programme highlight reports are also provided through the Corporate Project Dashboard. Stakeholder Engagement In order for stakeholder engagement on the MK Futures programme to remain independent, MKC has agreed to work with Community Action: MK (CA:MK). CA:MK currently host and manage the MK Futures Community Connectors group which includes a range of stakeholders from a wide range of backgrounds, including many communities that do not normally get involved in similar projects. Connectors were recruited through a social media campaign which asked for community leaders to volunteer to be part of the group. The second Connectors meeting took place on 10 October 2017, with a focus on the Mobility Strategy project. The individual projects will also undertake stakeholder engagement at key points in their development. This has included, for example, the engagement with local employers, schools, students and other partners during the preparation of the MK:U Business and Development Plan. Page 103 of 126

104 Programme Highlight Report MK Futures 2050 Programme April October 2017 Programme Name MK Futures 2050 Reporting period From: Programme Pete Marland April 2017 Sponsors Carole Mills Programme Lead Geoff Snelson To: Programme Manager Fiona Robinson October 2017 RAG status Green Green/Amber Red/Amber Red Explanation All key criteria (Time, Cost, Scope and Benefits) will be achieved without further intervention One of the key criteria cannot be delivered without further intervention Two of the key criteria cannot be delivered without further intervention Three, or all four of the key criteria cannot be delivered without further intervention Project Name 1. Growth and Strategy Bundle 2. MK:U, a new university for Milton Keynes 3. Learning 2050 Green/ Amber Project Project RAG Assessment Comments RAG status Green Strategy for Background studies being finalised. - Series of policy workshops to develop emerging policy approaches - Re-profiled preparation process to avoid potential conflict with Plan:MK examination hearings Hub of the Corridor - Work underway to develop stronger regional working mechanisms - Submission on First/Last Mile transport issues to NIC, plus opportunities to speed up housing delivery and the city s growth ambitions. - Awaiting final NIC report in November. Green - Business and Development Plan for MK:U completed and published in June Procurement and Commissioning Committee on 14 September 2018 approved OJEU compliant procurement process to secure a lead Higher Education partner. Start of Invitation to Tender process w/c 16 October 2017; deadline for bids in January Workshop on 22 November with head teachers and governors who have previously shown Page 104 of 126

105 4. Smart, Shared, Sustainable Mobility 5. Renaissance CMK 6. The Creative and Cultured City interest in the Learning 2050 project. - Project will consider how to focus education in MK on STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and maths). Change from Amber/ Red as the potential to progress this project has now been agreed and we have a positive agenda for moving it forward Green - Mobility Strategy being prepared by consultants AECOM, with engagement on a draft taking place later in The Innovative Mobility Roadmap being prepared as a joint evidence study for this project and the Strategy for 2050 on track. - First-Last Mile Strategy submitted to the NIC (and co-ordinated with related work by Oxford and Cambridge, and including a shared focus on developing innovative mass transit solutions). - The Go Ultra Low Carbon programme is making good progress. The new Electric Vehicle Experience Centre launched on 22 July Council s programme partner Vivacity Labs, has secured a total of 3 million in funding to roll out 2,500 sensors to provide monitoring at all major junction points across MK s urban area and some 13,000 city centre car parking spaces. - UK Autodrive autonomous mobility project remains on track. The fleet of 40 driverless PODs is in production and a trial public transport service is on track to commence June MKC has also convened a consortium of partners to create a bid for a further autonomous mobility programme. Green - A set of key principles, based on drivers for change, emergent thinking and potential directions is being produced, to be refined through engagement with stakeholders and subsequent inclusion within a Prospectus to serve as a marketing tool for CMK. - Initial projects to deliver the R:CMK outcomes have been identified, including redesign of Midsummer Boulevard East, the development of a Gateway to MK at Station Square, and the Hotel La Tour proposal. Green - Initial bid to become European Capital of Culture submitted - Successful MK50 birthday programme in terms of city profile and audience engagement. - MK50 international conference series including Page 105 of 126

106 7. Programmewide engagement Overall MK Futures 2050 Programme sessions with Academy of Urbanism and International New Towns Institute, as part of MK CityFest programme. Discussions started with partners on how an International Festival of Creative Urban Living in 2019 could be developed from this successful initial prototype. Green - Community Action: MK (CA:MK) hosting MK Futures Connectors as a stakeholder engagement group, with regular meetings. - First meetings held in April and October CA:MK will also manage social media for the MK Futures programme, and an annual city meeting. - MK Futures 2050 programme also discussed at City Fest in June Green - Programme management arrangements continue to work effectively, including regular Programme Sponsor briefings, meetings of the Executive Coordinating Group and regular Programme Highlight Reports. - Overall programme is on track, with linkages between individual projects being recognised and strengthened through regular discussions of key officers including a monthly Project Leads meeting. - Progress with structuring Project 3: Learning 2050 has addressed a previous weakness in the delivery of the programme. Page 106 of 126

107 WARDS AFFECTED: Danesborough & Walton ITEM 14 CABINET 7 NOVEMBER 2017 DISPOSAL OF LAND OFF BRICKHILL STREET, TILBROOK Responsible Cabinet Member: Councillor Middleton (Cabinet member for Resources and Innovation) Report Sponsor: Author and contact: Duncan Sharkey (Corporate Director Place) Ed Palmieri (Interim Head of Property & FM) Tel: Executive Summary: To give approval to dispose of the freehold interest of 4.54 acres (1.838 ha) of Council land in Tilbrook adjoining Brickhill Street to enable Red Bull Racing / Technology to create a secure campus incorporating the Red Bull Racing estate which will enable the team to operate more effectively and expand. The disposal will be for Best Consideration in accordance with s.123 of the Local Government Act The creation of the Technology Campus will support the economic ambitions of the Council, as articulated in the Council Plan and Economic Development Strategy , through the creation of approximately 100 highly skilled jobs, the continued development of the high performance technology sector and the wider economic benefits that will arise as a result. 1. Recommendation(s) 1.1 That the freehold interest in 4.54 acres (1.838 ha) of land (the Land) approximately edged red on the plan at Annex A be disposed of to Red Bull Racing / Red Bull Technology Ltd, subject to planning consent, for the creation of a Technology Campus. 1.2 That the Council dispose of the Land subject to planning consent based on the Heads of Terms at Annex B. 1.3 That the Council also dispose of the small section of Bradbourne Drive that is to be stopped up as part of the creation of the Technology Campus, by way of either a freehold or leasehold disposal, to the purchaser of the Land in accordance with s.23 of the Local Government Act That the acting Head of Property & Facilities Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Resources and Innovation and the Corporate Director of Place, be authorised to agree variations to the terms of disposal outlined in this report as reasonably necessary to secure the Council s objectives of disposing of the Land so as to facilitate the development of the Technology Campus for Red Bull Racing. 7 November 2017 Page 107 of 126

108 2. Issues 2.1 Red Bull Racing (RBR) have approached the Council to purchase the Land to create a Technology Campus utilising their existing Tilbrook site which will become a renowned hub for knowledge and engineering in the field of motor sport. 2.2 RBR is a prominent and internationally recognised performance motorsport team that has been based in Milton Keynes since its formation in Prior to this the headquarters in Tilbrook was home to Jaguar Racing and Stewart Grand Prix. The area has therefore been associated with Formula 1 for over 20 years. 2.3 The success and growth of RBR and the associated Red Bull Technology has led to a number of developments in recent years. This includes the acquisition by RBR of a number of other buildings along Bradbourne Drive which has resulted in the part of the Tilbrook industrial estate being in the ownership of RBR. 2.4 These land acquisitions along with the Council Land will enable the development of the Technology Campus subject to planning consent. 2.5 In December 2014 the main RBR building was subject to a break-in; thieves ram-raided the main entrance and stole a number of trophies. Security has since been a key concern for RBR. 2.6 The continued growth in operations alongside the enhanced focus on security has led RBR to consider ways of consolidating their presence within Tilbrook. It is very uncommon for Formula 1 teams to occupy premises where the public can freely access the organisation s premises which is the case with the current arrangements for RBR at Tilbrook. Of the current F1 teams, six are based in the UK, and Red Bull is the only team not to have a secure site. 2.7 There are other Campus style estates for large employers in Milton Keynes. such as the Open University and the distribution centre at Magna Park. 2.8 The development of the campus will enable RBR to address security concerns in line with other Formula 1 teams and will result in economic benefits for Milton Keynes as RBR will continue to expand its operations at Tilbrook into other areas. High Performance Technology is a priority sector in Milton Keynes and RBR is a key player in this. The development of the campus will support the ongoing growth of RBR and the sector, and will lead to the creation of over 100 new, highly skilled, jobs. The impact of high technology sectors on local economies is widely reported and this proposal can be expected to generate wider, multiplier effects across the Milton Keynes economy, through greater local expenditure by new employees and resultant job creation within other sectors and through local supply chains. 2.9 Recently RBR announced with Aston Martin the pair will produce the Aston Martin Valkyrie hypercar, with the expanded technical partnership taking concrete form in the shape of a new Advanced Performance Centre being established at the RBR campus creating more than 100 jobs. This will house Aston Martin s design and engineering personnel responsible for future sports cars from the two companies. The new centre will allow a closer working relationship between the two leading brands in their respective fields which will see the adoption of both F1 and road car technology. Page 108 of November 2017

109 2.10 The RBR campus includes a small section of Bradbourne Drive to be stopped up with a gate house at each end, public realm improvements, additional parking of 100 public spaces replacing the smaller existing free car park just slightly south. This will improve vehicle and pedestrian access and security arrangements. To the west there will be a new access road off the Tilbrook Roundabout proceeding north through the Land joining the existing junction with the V10 Brickhill Street which will be retained as an exit escape lane only Pedestrian access will be improved by Redways retained and extended where appropriate. This is directly in accordance with Policy WNP15 of the Walton Neighbourhood Plan, which states that proposals delivering certain key links (including new pedestrian access to Tilbrook) will be supported The Local Plan shows the Land is allocated as a Transport Corridor, as does the Walton Neighbourhood Plan. The Land is in two Council titles both of which are subject to leases to the Parks Trust (PT) for 999 years from 31 st March The disposal of the land for commercial development is not covered under the terms of the PT leases and therefore the Council has sought agreement from the PT as the leasehold owner. The PT are supportive of the Land disposal to RBR subject to a 50/50 share of the price for the Land which has been determined by independent valuation to be M. RBR have agreed this valuation The disposal (freehold or leasehold) to RBR of the small section of Bradbourne Drive to be stopped up will be made in accordance with s.123 of the Local Government Act 1972 and this will be agreed with RBR There are clawback provisions in favour of the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) in both Council titles and user restrictions to landscape area or highway. It is the Council s view the Technology Campus use falls within this although a discussion is yet to be had with the HCA on this point. The Council is to seek independent legal advice on the matter. The PT have agreed that the share of the Land price will be after any lawfully due clawback entitlement to the HCA has been accounted for The heads of terms for the disposal provide for the Council to receive best consideration for the value of the Land as required by s.123 of the Local Government Act (LGA) Should RBR subsequently change the use of the Land for a more valuable use by developing it, the Council is protected by a clawback provision which will enable the Council to receive full payment for any resulting increase in land value, as determined by an independent valuation in accordance with s.123 of the LGA The PT will also be entitled to a share of any such uplift in value after any HCA clawback entitlement RBR have publicly consulted on their proposals for the Technology Campus. 3. Options 3.1 There are 3 options: (a) 7 November 2017 Not to dispose. This Option would not deliver the financial and economy benefits to Milton Keynes and is contrary to both Policy and Strategy as set out in section 3.2 and is therefore not recommended. Page 109 of 126

110 (b) (c) 3.2 Policy 7 November 2017 To dispose on the above terms. This option is recommended as it is supported by Policy and Strategy. To dispose by way of a lease to RBR. This option is not recommended as RBR require the freehold interest in the Land. Implications Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy this aims to deliver economic prosperity and identifies the development of knowledge related businesses as a key project. The disposal of the Land and the development of the Technology Campus, assuming planning consent is forthcoming, will facilitate the delivery of RBR s knowledge based business. Policy WNP13 of the Walton Neighbourhood Plan supports the RBR proposed land use - applications that deliver increased levels of parking in several locations (including Tilbrook employment area) will be supported. The creation of 100 spaces is part of the Technology Campus and will be for free public access. Policy WNP15 of the Walton Neighbourhood Plan - this supports proposals delivering certain key links which includes new pedestrian access. The Technology Campus will improve public access by retaining and extending Redways where appropriate. The Council Plan - a key priority is continuing to support the local economy and disposing of the Land as set out in this report facilitates the opportunity for RBR to grow and expand and is in line with this priority. General policies in the Local Plan support economic development and growth. In this location, specific policies need to be tested and RBR are in discussion with the Council Planning team on this. The Economic Development Strategy is based upon a vision of strong inclusive economic growth that benefits businesses and residents and sustains the city s reputation as a prosperous, innovative and culturally vibrant place. The enterprise priority in the strategy emphasises the importance of supporting businesses to succeed and fulfil their growth aspirations, with emphasis also placed upon knowledge intensive businesses, and skills. The development of the Technology Campus will support the growth of RBR and the high performance technology sector, and will lead to the direct creation of a number of highly skilled jobs as well as wider positive employment and economic impacts. 3.3 Resources and Risk Financial Sustainability Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy July 2017 this talks about properties being identified for sale or for redevelopment to generate capital receipts and this disposal achieves that. The value of the land has been independently assessed to ensure the Council has complied with s.123 of the Local Government Act 1972 in making a lawful disposal for Best Consideration. The receipt is M. Any increase in Page 110 of 126

111 value of the Land after disposal will be captured by the inclusion of a 100% clawback provision in the disposal contract. Y Capital N Revenue N Accommodation N IT Y Medium Term Plan Y Asset Management 3.4 Carbon and Energy Management 3.5 Legal There are no known carbon and energy management implications associated with the proposed disposal. The Council is required under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to dispose of its estate or interest in any land, for not less than the best price reasonably obtainable. The title has been reviewed: There are clawback provisions for the benefit of the HCA in the 2 Council freehold titles. There are also user restrictions on the land to landscape area or highway in both titles. The liability for any clawback due to the HCA needs to be considered and advice is being sought on this as well as a discussion with the HCA. The land is subject to 2 Transport Corridor leases to the Parks Trust both for 999 years from 31 st March The land use is restricted to landscape area in both leases. The part of Bradbourne Drive that is to be stopped up is Highway Land. This could lawfully be stopped up by the Council under section 116 of the Highways Act This would be an application to the Magistrates Court and the Council would need to show that the Highway Land in question is either unnecessary, or can be diverted so as to make it nearer or more commodious to the public. 3.6 Other Implications N Equalities/Diversity N Sustainability N Human Rights N E-Government Y Stakeholders N Crime and Disorder Background Papers: Annexes: None Annex A Site plan Annex B Heads of Terms Page 111 of November 2017

112 Page 112 of 126

113 ANNEX A 20 m 100 ft Crown copyright and database rights [2017] OS [ ] Redbull site - OS with red line Scale: 1:2000 Printed on: 18/10/2017 at 11:22 AM Page 113 of 126 Astun Technology Ltd

114 Page 114 of 126

115 HEADS OF TERMS FOR THE SALE OF ANNEX B LAND OFF BRICKHILL STREET, TILBROOK, MILTON KEYNES SUBJECT TO CONTRACT AND COUNCIL APPROVAL The Land Land off Brickhill Street, Tilbrook as indicated edged green on the attached plan extract Vendor Milton Keynes Council Vendor s Solicitor TBC Purchaser Red Bull Technology Ltd Purchaser s Solicitor Felicity Lindsay Partner T +44 (0) M +44 (0) Felicity.Lindsay@gowlingwlg.com Gowling WLG (UK) LLP 4 More London Riverside, London, SE1 2AU, United Kingdom Site Area The total site extends to approx ha (4.54 acres) Tenure Agreement for the sale of the Council s Freehold interest in the Land subject to a conditional agreement and planning consent for a new campus layout for Red Bull Technology as broadly indicated on the attached pre-application planning submission. The conditional Agreement is for an Agreement for Lease leading to a Building Lease for 3 years with transfer of the Freehold interest on practical completion of Approved Scheme. Page 115 of 126

116 Purchase Price (See Note below) Deposit Vacant possession The purchase price under the contract is 1,076,500 (one million, seventy six thousand, five hundred pounds) payable on signing the Building Lease less the deposit. 1 payable on transfer of the Freehold interest. (NB the Purchaser needs to commit the bulk of the Purchase Price by 31 Dec 2017 which may have a bearing on treatment of the deposit) A minimum of 10% of the Purchase Price payable on signing the Agreement for Lease and refundable to the Purchaser in the event planning consent for the Approved Scheme is refused. Deposit to be held in escrow. Will be given by the Vendor Approved Scheme The Purchaser to undertake to build in accordance with the Approved Scheme comprising: a new campus entrance and layout with alterations to the highway as broadly shown on the pre-application submission, including a minimum of 100 new car spaces, landscaping, new West and East gate houses in Bradbourne Drive. Approved Scheme approval / minor variations Drawings, layout plans, the landscaping layout and scheme, building specifications, programme of works and specifications relating to the Approved Scheme to be approved by the Vendor as land owner (consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) and signed on behalf of the Purchaser (and Tenant) Minor variations / modifications to the Approved Scheme allowed subject to the Lessor s consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Claw back The Land is subject to claw back provisions as follows - in the event planning consent is received for a different scheme (the new planning consented scheme ) to the Approved Scheme and that use of the Land is higher in value than X then the uplift in the value of the Land equal to Y minus X is payable by the Purchaser (or subsequent owner of the Land) to the Vendor, where: X = 1,076,500 (one million, seventy six thousand, five hundred pounds) and Y = the value of the Land assuming the new planning consented scheme. Page 116 of 126

117 S106 Timing - Planning The principle is agreed that the Purchaser (Tenant) is entering into this agreement in the full knowledge that s106 obligations may be required of the Purchaser (Tenant). The Purchaser to submit a detailed planning application within 3 months of signing the Agreement for Lease. The Purchaser to submit any reserved matters application within 3 months following approval or deemed approval. The Purchaser will have the right but not an obligation to appeal a refusal / unacceptable conditions. Following receipt of an implementable, satisfactory consent, the Purchaser will, within 9 months, commence construction and complete the Approved Scheme in accordance with the approved planning consent within 27 months thereafter (subject to force majeure provisions). Costs Timing - Contract The Purchaser to bear the reasonable legal costs incurred in documenting this transaction (this is to be agreed). The required date for signing the Agreement for Lease is Nov / Dec 2017 (subject to Council approval). Signing of the Building Lease to be conditional upon the receipt of a satisfactory detailed planning consent for the Approved Scheme. The Building Lease to be signed within 1 month of a satisfactory detailed planning consent for the Approved Scheme. Conditions Subject to: Council Approval Contract Planning consent for the Approved Scheme Highway agreement for stopping up Bradbourne Drive Note The Land is in two Council titles both of which are subject to leases to the Parks Trust (PT) for 999 years from 31st March The disposal of the Land for commercial development is not covered under the terms of the PT leases and therefore the Council has sought agreement from the PT as the leasehold owner. The PT are supportive of the Land disposal to the Purchaser subject to a 50/50 share of the price for the Land after any clawback liability to the Homes & Communities agency is accounted for. Page 117 of 126

118 Page 118 of 126

119 Wards Affected: All ITEM 15 CABINET 7 NOVEMBER 2017 PROPOSED RELOCATION OF MILTON KEYNES COLLEGE Responsible Cabinet Member: Councillor Marland Leader of the Council Report Sponsor: Author and contact: Duncan Sharkey, Corporate Director Place Pam Gosal, Head of Economy and Culture, Tel: Executive Summary: Purpose To confirm the Council s support for the relocation of Milton Keynes College to a single city centre location. Background Milton Keynes College is looking to dispose of its existing sites in Bletchley and Chaffron Way and relocate to a single campus in CMK. This will reduce the annual running costs of the College significantly, will provide an improved learning environment for learners and will enhance the accessibility of the College. Milton Keynes College has a fundamental role to play in supporting the skills and economic ambitions of the Council. A new campus in CMK will support the work of the Renaissance CMK project and, with the proposals for MK:U, will afford an opportunity to align further and higher education within the city. The additional footfall (c 12,000 students and 750 staff) and expenditure generated by the presence of students and College employees will have a positive impact on CMK s retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The resultant increase in apprenticeships and higher skills provision will deliver significant GVA for Milton Keynes, estimated to be at least 75m per annum. Furthermore, through locating the College in close proximity to a high concentration of the city s businesses, there are significant opportunities to improve the linkages between further education and business. This will enhance the employability skills of students and help ensure that the curriculum and courses offered meet the skills requirements of businesses. Disposing of the College s current campuses at Chaffron Way and Bletchley will enable housing development of around 500 dwellings. 1. Recommendation(s) 1.1 That support for the relocation of Milton Keynes College to a single city centre location be confirmed. 2. Issues 2.1 Currently Milton Keynes College is located on two main campuses, in Bletchley and Chaffron Way. The College offers a range of courses to over 6,000 enrolled students, including 16 to 19 study programmes, adult learning and apprenticeships. Page 119 of November 2017

120 2.2 In 2016/2017, the College was part of the Area Based Review of Post 16 provision in the SEMLEP area. The Reviews sought to identify recommendations to ensure the financial stability and efficient running of colleges and the availability of provision that meets local employer needs. The Review recommended Milton Keynes College remains as a standalone college and acknowledged its ambition for a single city centre campus. 2.3 The College has identified four main advantages to a single campus: reduce running costs to help deliver financial sustainability; deliver an improved learning environment, accelerating pedagogic innovation to improve quality; provide better choice for students with increased access, to widen participation, from all areas of Milton Keynes; contribute to the strategic vision for Central MK Renaissance CMK The Council recognises the fundamental role that Milton Keynes College plays in improving the skills of local residents and in supporting the continued economic growth of the city, and teams including Economic Development and Community Learning, work closely with the College. The Economic Development Strategy and Skills Strategy include reference to the College, with the College represented on the Skills and Economic Growth Board which oversees delivery of both strategies. 2.5 The relocation of the College to the city centre can be expected to generate a number of economic benefits for CMK. The presence of students and College employees will generate increased footfall and expenditure. The College engages c 3,000 students aged 16 18, most of whom attend the campus up to 4 days each week. Around 9,000 adults attend less frequently, including during the evening. Approximately 750 members of staff would be based at the central campus, generating increased footfall and increased parking revenue of c 380k. CMK has seen a decline in footfall over recent years, so a chance to reverse this would be welcomed 2. Increased footfall and expenditure would be positive for existing businesses and may stimulate both the growth of existing businesses and the opening of new. A student population may stimulate a range of new business opportunities, particularly around the evening economy. 2.6 The College plans to increase the volume of apprenticeships and higher level qualifications in particular. The central location will improve access and it is anticipated that year on year growth will expand apprenticeship provision by 200 new starts per year, 100 directly funded higher education students and 100 study programme students. 26 of GVA is achieved for every 1 spent on apprenticeships and 21 of GVA for every 1 invested in classroom based learning. Total additional GVA from this growth will be at least 75m. 2.7 There are many examples of towns and cities where a new college campus has been, or is expected to be, the catalyst for regeneration 3. A new college 7 November Area Based Review Milton Keynes College Options 2 Retail and leisure footfall for Central Milton Keynes was -3.26% year on year in April, from 2,922,474 (2016) to 2,827,841 (2017). This data is based on figures from centre:mk, intu Milton Keynes and Xscape only. MKCCM 3 For example, Glasgow, Nottingham, St Helens Page 120 of 126

121 campus would represent a significant investment within CMK, would improve the appearance of that part of the city and could act as a stimulus for further investment. Centre for Cities (2014) identified the relocation of colleges and universities to city centres as an intervention that politicians and policymakers should consider for creating strong city centre economies as it brings more people into the city centre, increasing footfall and attractiveness to businesses and boosting the vitality of the city centre 4. Furthermore, this would align with the Renaissance CMK project and the aims of the Amazing CMK BID. 2.8 Relocation of the College would offer an excellent opportunity to align further and higher education. MK:U will provide a fantastic environment for higher education learning within CMK. The opportunity to offer further education provision in a similarly high quality environment, which aligns with and prepares learners for potential progression to MK:U, should not be missed. Together, MK:U and a centrally located college can offer an exemplary learning environment and experience, contributing significantly to the role and reputation of Milton Keynes within the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Growth Corridor. 2.9 Locating the College closer to a significant concentration of businesses offers an opportunity to enhance the linkages between education and business. Improved visibility and an attractive, professional looking campus should enhance levels of interest from businesses. The ease of access of a city centre location should also encourage more businesses to work with the College, thus improving the employability skills of students, enabling businesses to recruit employees with the necessary skills, and supporting wider economic growth Accessibility is extremely important. BIS (2013) found learners choice of provider was primarily determined by the location of the provider (mentioned by 44% of learners) 5 The Government s Social Exclusion Unit (2003) found 6% of year olds had turned down training or further education opportunities due to problems with transport and emphasised the importance of transport when trying to improve participation and achievement, and of ensuring that schools, colleges and evening classes are located in accessible locations CMK benefits from excellent bus and rail connectivity. By relocating the College to the city centre, its accessibility for individuals from across Milton Keynes, and the wider sub-region, is enhanced. In its report to the Area Based Review Committee, the College highlighted the issue of accessibility and its impact: Students typically choose from the range of courses on offer at the campus to which they can most conveniently travel and a journey that requires more than one bus trip is a barrier to many prospective learners. This affects the Chaffron Way campus in particular. The heat map of current travel to learn patterns (Annex) illustrates the extent to which students choose to study at the campus closest to them rather than choose from the full range of vocational courses By improving its accessibility, the College will become a viable option for more students at post-16. Those who may not have been able to consider courses at 7 November Delivering change: Putting city centres at the heart of the local economy. Louise McGough, Elli Thomas, Centre for Cities, 11 December BIS Research Paper Number 104 The Impact of Further Education Learning, January Making the Connections:Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. Report by the Social Exclusion Unit February Page of 126

122 the College before due to the inconvenience or cost of travel may now be able to do so. This widens the breadth of opportunities available to individuals from across Milton Keynes. Ensuring access to education is essential to securing inclusive economic growth. Similarly, the wider leisure, retail and hospitality options available may increase the attractiveness of the College as a place to study, both for local students and for those from further afield The College intends to dispose of its assets at Chaffron Way and Bletchley to raise funds for the development. This will release additional land for housing and could result in an estimated 500 new dwellings. Detailed work has been undertaken with colleagues from the Council s planning team and outline schemes have been developed for parts of the Chaffron Way and Bletchley sites. Initial plans have been based on Council expectations of 30% affordable housing Currently Milton Keynes College pays approximately 135,000 per annum in business rates across the two campuses. Until a final site has been agreed, it is not possible to say how the business rates on a single CMK campus would compare. However, there are other financial benefits to the Council that can be expected to arise from the relocation, namely the increased council tax receipts and New Homes Bonus arising from the proposed residential development and section 106 contributions. 3. Options 3.1 Support the relocation of Milton Keynes College to a city centre campus. 3.2 Encourage Milton Keynes College to remain at its existing campuses. The College have estimated investment of approximately 10m would be required to bring the Chaffron Way campus up to standard. Relocation to a single site would result in savings of approximately 450,000 per annum. Such savings are essential to securing the College s financial stability and to meeting the needs and expectations of students and businesses. The vision for the CMK campus, as discussed with planning officers, also includes the provision of dwellings on the top of the building. The economic benefits of increased footfall, additional GVA and additional housing would be lost if Milton Keynes College did not relocate to CMK. 3.3 Encourage an alternative use of any site identified for Milton Keynes College. An alternative commercial use may generate employment opportunities, footfall and expenditure, but its wider, longer term and inclusive benefits will be fewer. The College will support inclusive economic growth through the education and upskilling of local residents, improving access to further education and better employment, driving business growth and encouraging inward investment. This option could also weaken the relationship between the Council and College. Similarly, the footprint of the new campus will be significantly smaller than the footprint of existing sites and would be unlikely to provide sufficient space for a housing scheme on the scale possible on the College s existing campuses. 3.4 Support city centre provision by a different educational institution. To work with a different provider would require the development of new working relationships, which would take time, and would jeopardise existing strong and effective relationships and joint working with Milton Keynes College. Milton Keynes is a Page 122 of November 2017

123 high growth area but there is no evidence of sufficient demand to accommodate another further education provider and the risk is that this would dilute, rather than add to, the offer. The College has demonstrated significant improvement, rated good in its Spring 2017 Ofsted inspection. Its quality, profile and reputation are improving and, particularly around apprenticeships, the College is engaging with numerous businesses and is continuing to grow this engagement and delivery. This should be supported and encouraged, not jeopardised. 4. Implications 4.1 Policy The Council Plan City of Opportunity aim emphasises the importance of innovation, employment and skills. Relocation of the College to CMK supports this by enhancing opportunities to educate and upskill local residents, improving their prospects of better employment. The greater links that will arise with businesses will support improvements to productivity, innovation and business growth. The Council Plan includes a commitment to investigate ways to support MK College in its plans to improve standards and expand its apprenticeship offer. Relocation to a single city campus will help achieve this. Skills is one of the four priorities of the Economic Development Strategy , with reference made to the College and its role in supporting learning, apprenticeships and progression. The Strategy includes reference to Renaissance CMK and the relocation of the College to CMK would align with, and add further value, to this project. Milton Keynes College is a key partner in the delivery of activities under the Skills Strategy, particularly around apprenticeships, workforce development and widening access to the labour market. The College supports delivery of the Milton Keynes Futures 2050 projects. In improving the learning offer and widening access to this, the College supports Learning 2050 and MK:U. By investing in CMK, the College will enhance Renaissance CMK. It could also be argued the dynamics of a student population within CMK, and some of the courses offered by the College, will enhance and offer further stimulus for, the Creative and Cultured City project. Draft Plan:MK includes reference to support the development of MK College and to accommodating the site requirements of the College within CMK under a wider commitment to helping CMK maintain and develop its position as a regional centre and a driver of the local economy. Policy CC8 in the draft also states The development and expansion of Milton Keynes Universities and the Borough s Further Education Colleges will be supported. 7 November 2017 Page 123 of 126

124 4.2 Resources and Risk No financial commitments have been agreed between the Council and Milton Keynes College. Capital Revenue Accommodation IT Medium Term Plan Asset Management 4.3 Carbon and Energy Management 4.4 Legal It is to be expected that a new build campus will have high regard to energy efficiency, environmental and sustainability standards. Making the commitment in the recommendation does not trigger any legal issues. If the relocation requires the Council to make further decisions, they will be brought forward in accordance with the appropriate legal and governance requirements. 4.5 Other Implications A city centre campus will increase the accessibility of Milton Keynes College, particularly for those for whom the cost or difficulties of travel, may have restricted access to college courses previously. As more residents are able to access education, there should be a positive impact on inclusive economic growth. Similarly, the cost savings that will result from the move, coupled with the increased demand that can be expected, will enhance the long term sustainability of the College. Y Equalities/Diversity Y Sustainability Human Rights E-Government Stakeholders Crime and Disorder Background Papers: South East Midlands Area Review Final Report, August Annex Heat Map Page 124 of November 2017

125 ANNEX Heat Maps Bletchley Chaffron Way Page 125 of November 2017