ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 None for the purpose of this report.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 Other options such as extending the existing S75 Agreement or not renewing the S75 Agreement are not feasible options as would lead us to be non-compliant.
4.2 An alternative approach to developing a separate S75 agreement for each individual joint service has been considered but there is joint agreement that this approach is not efficient, time and resource heavy and would lead to repetition across the various S75’s.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. To request that WNC include NNC as a named contracting authority capable of accessing the proposed framework agreement being set-up by WNC. • To not have a framework agreement for the supply of AT equipment. Neither of those options are recommended. The first option may constrain future NNC service development and flexibility. The second option, having no framework agreement, will lead to the service not being able to provide services to the vulnerable people of North Northamptonshire.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 A number of options were considered about the most appropriate partnership arrangements prior to the production of the Section 75 Agreement. The consensus was that a Section 75 Agreement was the most suitable arrangement.
4.2 NHS England guidance requires the pooling of the Better Care Fund to be via a Section 75 Agreement.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 Due to the newly proposed JBP scheme (as shown on the current planning application - 19/01416/HYA - submitted by settle), the existing DA is no longer considered fit-for- purpose. As a result, the option of leaving it in place without review has been discounted.
4.2 Termination of the current DA was considered, however until the necessity for (and potential content of) a new DA has been fully assessed, this is not recommended.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 None at this stage.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 Not to indemnify officers and members, which leaves them at risk of personally being responsible for awards of damages/compensation and payment of costs as a consequence of their carrying out their duties on behalf of FDC. While FDC does have insurance, as detailed above, there is no guarantee (as far as the FFL directors are concerned) that FDC will seek to call on the insurance policy or that the insurers will always make payment. It is in FDC’s interests to ensure that potential FFL directors are not deterred from acting out of concern for their own personal liability.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 One alternative was considered – to wait for the outcome of the Bus Strategy and then conduct individual tenders for each route. The Framework option recommended gives much more flexibility to let and relet bus routes quickly and efficiently in the future.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 4.1 The alternative would be to withdraw from the Berkshire partnership and to tender for a Bracknell Forest service. 5 SUPPORTING INFORMATION
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED. 5.1 Employing staff directly into FFL is a future consideration.
