Resource Implications. The Council makes a financial contribution of £451,308 to the Education Achievement Service (EAS) to ensure effective delivery of the statutory school improvement functions of Challenge, Monitor, Support and Intervention on behalf of the Council to all schools within Monmouthshire.
Resource Implications. All four partners are contributing their own resources to the programme in terms of staff time, administrative and technical support, language courses and promotional activities. Additional implementation costs include programme launch and annual conferences (including travel, accommodation and subsistence expenses for participating staff and students), visits to research centres, insurance, expenses for external examiners, tuition and administrative fees charged by the consortium partners. These costs will be met through the fee income and the annual lump sum (50.000 Euros) paid to the consortium.
Resource Implications the operational arrangements of this agreement will be contained within the existing resource limits of both agencies.
Resource Implications. 5.1 It is proposed that the money currently used for the Play Therapist, which is £41,330 be used to fund this post.
5.2 A Job Description and Person Specification has been developed and subsequently been Job Evaluated. This post has been evaluated as Band H (SCP33-37). The top of this band is £40,910 including on costs.
Resource Implications. 2.1 The addition of this property to MLS’s Managed property portfolio will mean that that the Council can discharge its homeless duty and importantly prevent homelessness to a household by providing settled (permanent) accommodation in the private rented sector. MLS will act as the ‘agent’ for the landlord, collecting rent and co-ordinating repairs, but the landlord will retain legal responsibility for the property including meeting property related costs.
2.2 The property will be managed on behalf of the landlord by one of the Options Teams Accommodation Officers.
2.3 The alternative for the household identified would be B&B at the below average annual cost: Weekly Rental 490.00 Weekly DWP Rate 95.77 Total Rental 25,480.00 25,480.00 Maintenance 1,200.00 1,200.00 DWP Income -4,980.04 -4,980.04 2.4 Households who approach MCC as homeless or at risk of homelessness receive an affordability assessment to establish a realistic rental budget. The Council has identified households that are in a position to rent this property.
2.5 The priority will continue to be to allocate this property intended for homeless use to households currently residing in B & B, or prevent going into B&B, thereby reducing the use of B & B. Housing need factors will also need to be taken into consideration on a property-by-property basis, such as the immediate needs of homeless households (for example, serious health/medical conditions or safeguarding issues) needing temporary accommodation and type, size and location of the accommodation available.
Resource Implications. Annual support costs - £7,575 (currently found within the Limes Centre cost centre) Replacement MUGA - £55,000 Proposed MUGA replacement costs, estimated by Mitie £88,000. The current agreement stipulates EFDC contribute in a ratio of 1.6 of the costs to ECC’s 1.0. This ratio equates to a cost of £55,000 to EFDC to replace ECC Limes Farm Junior School MUGA (playground) None specific. Report sets out potential legal implications. The community will still have access to the Limes Centre facility and the recreation space within the estate. The current use of the MUGA whilst open to the community ranges from football, to cycling, drinking, dog walking and skateboarding. Discussions have taken place with Xxxx Councillors, Officers, Limes Farm School Head teacher & local residents Joint Use of Playing Fields & Playground – Chigwell Urban District Council.
Resource Implications. 7.1 Monmouthshire has an annual capital allocation for planned maintenance, which has been agreed as £1,929,277 for 18/19. The framework will be used to support the delivery of these works as well as reactive works which are funded through revenue.
Resource Implications. 1.1 On 11 January 2006 Members resolved to grant outline planning permission to demolish the large, detached house known as Tarn Bank, Braystones and to construct six new dwellings on the site subject to conditions and subject to the applicant entering into an agreement with the Council under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring that:
i) the dwellings erected shall only be occupied by members of the local community as defined in the Xxxxxxxx Local Plan 2001-2016. The definition of locality shall be restricted to the Parishes of Lowside Quarter, St John’s Beckermet and St Bridget’s Beckermet, and ii) the dwellings erected shall only be sold or let within the definition of affordability provided by the Xxxxxxxx Local Plan 2001-2016.
1.2 A copy of the signed agreement dated 8 September 2006 is attached to this report.
1.3 A copy of the Planning Officer’s report to the Planning Panel meeting on 11 January 2006 is also attached. It can be seen that the resolution to finally approve the application followed an earlier resolution that Members were minded to refuse the application and that the Parish Council maintained their strong objection to demolition of Tarn Bank on the grounds that:-
1. this is a substantial house that could be converted into 3 dwellings if extended on one end
2. there is a lack of statement of local need.
1.4 In eventually granting approval subject to a Section 106 agreement Members endorsed the Planning Officer’s conclusion that “On balance, this site is considered to represent the most appropriate means of delivering affordable local needs housing in Braystones. The housing development would serve local housing needs at least for the duration of the Xxxxxxxx Local Plan 2001- 2016”.
1.5 The fact that it took almost 8 months from the Planning Panel’s resolution to grant planning permission to the agreement being signed reflected the degree of scrutiny on the part of the applicant’s solicitor, particularly in relation to the affordability element of the agreement.
1.6 Via his solicitor, the applicant has now formally requested that the agreement be varied by deleting clause 2 of the Third Schedule relating to affordability. A copy of the letter of request dated 19 June 2007 is also attached to this report. I would draw Members’ attention in particular to the fifth paragraph under the heading “Planning History” which states that:- “Following the Council’s resolution to grant planning permission the...
Resource Implications. 2.1 The estimated net cost in taking on this property is listed in the below tables :- Property 2 Beech Crest Total No. of Beds 4 Lease Term (Years) 3 Weekly Rental 276.92 Weekly DWP Rate 166.16 Total Rental 14,400.00 14,400.00 Total Voids 1,329.28 1,329.28 Total Arrears 1,329.28 1,329.28 Maintenance 1,200.00 1,200.00 Service Charge DWP Income -8,640.32 -8,640.32 Weekly Rental 770.00 Weekly DWP Rate 95.77 Total Rental 40,040.00 40,040.00 Maintenance 1,200.00 1,200.00 DWP Income -4,980.04 -4,980.04 2.2 The lease of this property will have the following impact on the Council’s temporary accommodation base:- • The household identified for this property will have to vacate their current private accommodation in the New Year. They have been working with MCC under a prevention duty. Due to the size of the household the family would otherwise be accommodated in B&B due to a shortage of four bed properties. • Though this acquisition would not facilitate a reduction in B&B use directly, it would save an estimated £29,041.72 by preventing a placement of a large family into B&B.
2.3 The priority will continue to be to allocate this property intended for homeless use to households currently residing in B & B, thereby reducing the use of B & B. The property will typically and wherever possible, be offered to applicants who have been residing in B & B the longest, but other housing need factors will also need to be taken into consideration on a property by property basis, such as the immediate needs of other homeless households (for example, serious health/medical conditions or safeguarding issues) needing temporary accommodation and type, size and location of the accommodation available. Homeless households normally will be able to remain in the accommodation until permanent social housing becomes available and a successful bid has been accepted.
2.5 The adoption of this recommendation will not produce a core budget saving, but it will help reduce the current pressure the authority. faces with the cost of Homelessness provision. The uplift in accommodation base will cost £7,218.24 but saves a cost of £29,041.72 when compared with having to accommodate in B&B due to a lack of alternative options.
2.6 In addition, the adoption of the recommendation might not result in a permanent reduction in the use of B & B due to the following: • a possible suppressed and hidden homeless need that is believed to exist in the County, which cannot be evidenced, • because of a current nu...
Resource Implications. MCC Structural Engineers have assessed the condition of the structure and have made account of repairs that are required and have in addition obtained quotations to of which include: 18no hardwood Parapet posts to be replaced 90no hardwood Infill posts to be replaced 38no hardwood infill panels to be replaced All hardwood decking boards to be replaced with a non-slip type for the full span of the bridge.The whole structure is then to have a preservative treatment applied to it. There are no reserve implications arising from this report as the highlighted work costing a total of £35950.00 will be met from funds already received by the Council through s.106 for maintenance of the development and associated infrastructure.
