Agenda, decisions and minutes

17.1

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, City Futures which sought approval to the City Council entering into an agreement for lease to deliver a new research facility at the Sheffield Olympic Legacy Park on the terms outlined within the report.

17.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Finance and Performance Policy Committee:

-       Agrees to the disposal of land through an agreement for lease for a term of 250 years, as set out in this report.

17.3

Reasons for Decision

17.3.1

The proposed NCCHT is another exciting new development which further enhances the existing facilities in accordance with the SOLP Vision and accelerates its growth and brings a range of economic benefits for both the local community and wider city region. The results of the research which will be carried out will potentially improve the health of children locally, nationally and throughout the world.

17.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

17.4.1

The Council could decide not to enter into the proposed agreement to dispose of the site to the Trust and other development options considered. However, that would result in the multiple benefits of the NCCHT not being achieved.

18.1

18.2

18.3

The Finance and Performance Policy Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Neighbourhood Services which provided an update on the previously approved recommendation in 2017 to surrender the existing lease of the Upperthorpe Healthy Living Centre (Zest Centre) from the Upperthorpe and Netherthorpe Healthy Living Centre Trust (UNHLC) and the grant of new lease to the Netherthorpe and Upperthorpe Community Alliance (NUCA).

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Finance and Performance Policy Committee: -

1. Approves to accept the proposal to surrender of the existing head lease of the Zest Centre from the UNHLC.
2. Approves to accept the proposal to surrender of the existing underlease of the Zest Centre from the NUCA.
3. Approves the grant of a new 30-year lease to the NUCA as set out in this report.
4. Approves the termination the funding agreement dated 1st August 2002 and made between the Council and UNHLC.
5. Gives approval to set the budget (as set out in sections 1 and 4.2 of this report) as part of the annual budget setting process for a revised revenue funding amount linked to the new lease. Noting that the current Zest Business Model requests an uplift of £35,000 per annum on the sum described in this report.
6. Gives approval for the award of revenue grant funding to NUCA for the delivery of an agreed leisure services specification, subject to the completion of a subsidy control principles assessment to demonstrate, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Leisure and Libraries
7. Notes the decision of 23rd November 2021 and approval of capital investment in the Zest Centre.
8. Notes that funding of up to £2,685,044 to deliver a 5-year programme of essential lifecycle maintenance work at the Zest Centre will be transferred via a capital funding agreement to NUCA, which will be subject to approval via the Capital Programme report to Finance Committee in July 2024.

Reasons for Decision

18.3.1

It is expected that investment into improved facilities will help to retain participation and usage of the Zest Centre. Improved facilities will better meet customer expectations of a modern and welcoming leisure and entertainment offer, will contribute to the Council’s ambition to get more people more active more often and towards tackling health inequalities across the city by supporting the provision of facilities which encourage people to be active in are area where there are poorer health outcomes

18.3.2

As the Zest Centre is a strategically important site for the Council in terms of provision of water space and an important asset based on future expected population growth/ water demand to 2034, investment in the facility is required to prevent continued deterioration, reduce future liabilities and ensure the facility can continue to provide much needed water space alongside wider leisure and community facilities and services.

18.3.3

The surrender and re-grant of a lease of 30 years in length would provide improved funding leverage security, enable improved governance, strengthen security of tenure and to maximise external investment; improving both the immediate and long-term viability of the Zest Centre as a valuable community asset and inclusive leisure service provider.

18.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

18.4.1

Option 1 - do nothing In terms of the capital investment, this is not a realistic option because without investment in the Zest Centre the building will continue to deteriorate and there is a significant risk that due to this deterioration, the Zest Centre would come back to the Council as a liability. In terms of a lease, if we did nothing, the existing lease would expire in 8 years. The current lease does not provide any opportunity for NUCA to secure external funding due to limited security of tenure, so doing nothing would severely limit possibilities of further funding being secured. Without investment and the new lease, if NUCA no longer operated the Zest Centre and it returns to the Council, the likelihood of another operator taking on a lease of the property with the current liabilities is limited, so it would be a liability for the Council and would potentially close.

18.4.2

Option 2 – extend existing lease The existing lease could be extended rather than a surrender of the lease from the Upperthorpe & Netherthorpe Healthy Living Centre Trust and a grant of a new lease of the Zest Centre to NUCA. However, due to the fact that the operating arrangements and management structure have evolved since 2002, this lease arrangements continue to be complex and not fully reflect how the site is operated, which is also a barrier when approaching funders. This option does not achieve the simplified and updated governance required due to reflect the changes which have taken place over the years to the management and operation.

18.4.3

Option 3 – procure a new operator Procurement of a new operator for the Zest Centre as part of the Sport and Leisure Facility Procurement – this was not pursued due to the remaining term on the existing lease – at the time of the procurement exercise there was 10 years remaining on the lease. The lease and operation of the building are linked and therefore it was not possible to go to the market for a new operator.

18.4.4

Option 4 – approach the market for a new leaseholder It is not possible to approach the market for a new operator while the existing lease is in place without NUCA surrendering their interest in the property, which is not something they have ever indicated they wanted to do.

18.4.5

Option 5 – surrender the existing lease and grant a new lease Surrender the existing lease of the Zest Centre with UNHLC and grant a new lease NUCA, alongside investment in the Zest Centre as outlined in this report. This is the recommended option.

19.1

The Finance and Performance Policy Committee received a report of the Director of Finance and Commercial Services which provided details of the Council’s review of its Council Tax Reduction Scheme and sought approval that the scheme for 2025/26 should not be amended, excluding statutory changes that the Council was required to make. In addition, the report sought approval to maintain the Council Tax Hardship Scheme in 2025/26.

19.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Finance and Performance Policy Committee: -

-       Notes the review of the Council’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme, detailed in this report

-       Agrees that, in line with the review, the Council’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme is not revised, apart from the changes the Council is required to make by statute

-       Approves the amendments to the Council’s Council Tax Reduction Scheme to accommodate the changes the Council is required to make by statute

-       Agrees that the Council’s Council Tax Hardship Scheme continues to operate as detailed in this report

19.3

Reasons for Decision

19.3.1

Legislation requires each Billing Authority to annually consider whether to revise or replace its Council Tax Reduction Scheme. For that purpose, we have carried out a review of the Council’s scheme.

19.3.2

Following from this review, it is recommended that the CTRS remains unchanged, as whilst reducing the support offered through the scheme may help with the Council’s financial situation, this is countered by the fact that the burden will fall on vulnerable households who are experiencing financial hardship as a result of the cost-of-living crisis. It is also considered that maintaining the scheme in its current form and at the same level of support provides certainty during what are uncertain times.

19.3.3

In reaching this decision, consideration has been given to both increasing and decreasing the level of support provided under the CTRS, and to moving away from a scheme based on the previous CTB scheme. Further detail on these considerations is provided in the main body of the report.

19.3.4

Given the current financial position of the Council, the Council is not able to introduce a more generous scheme in 2025/26.

19.3.5

By maintaining the CTHS, the Council will be able to continue to offer targeted support to those in the most severe financial need including those who are least able to change their financial situation.

19.4

Alternative Options Considered

19.4.1

The Pensioner element of CTRS is prescribed by Government so cannot be changed by the Council. Consequently, the following options relate to the discretionary element of the scheme that provides support to Working Age households.

19.4.2

Changing the Cap on Liability

Sheffield replaced the Council Tax Benefit scheme in 2013 with a CTRS which was closely aligned in the way they it calculated entitlement. Most local authorities took the same approach when CTRS was introduced but some tweaked aspects of the scheme for their own purposes. For example, some authorities chose to reduce the capital limit which meant that fewer of their customers with savings would be eligible to claim CTS. Others, like Sheffield, chose to limit the amount of CTS that could be awarded by introducing a cap on a customer’s Council Tax liability. In Sheffield, support offered to working-age customers is capped at 77% of their net Council Tax liability. However, although a less generous cap would produce some savings for the Council it is highly likely that these would be offset by increased arrears, higher debt recovery administration costs and added pressure on the CTHS.

19.4.3

Introduction of a Banded Scheme

Schemes like ours, because they are based on a sophisticated means testing model, are not easily automated. This means that, although the customer can complete their claim on-line, it is not automatically processed and awarded by the IT system. Instead, an officer takes the information provided on the claim form and verifies that the details provided are correct or requests further details if required. When the officer is satisfied that everything is in order, they input the claim on the processing system where CTS is assessed and awarded. Although a Banded scheme can offer the advantages of automation, our current IT system is not designed to operate in this way, so requires bespoke amendments and workarounds to do so. Our IT supplier, Capita, is addressing this issue by developing a dedicated system for this purpose although it is not expected to be available until 2026.

19.4.4

Maintaining the Current Scheme

Maintaining the current scheme in 2025/26 continues to offer the following advantages:

a)    Maintaining the current scheme in 2025/26 continues to offer the following advantages:

b)    It will continue to spread funding for CTS equitably across all working[1]age claimants and, by applying the means test already established by CTB, ensure that those with greatest need continue to receive the greatest level of support.

c)    There will be no requirement to go out to consultation, purchase new IT systems, undertake training, amend documentation, and produce publicity material, all of which increase costs and would be required if the current scheme were to be amended.

d)    At a time when a cost-of-living crisis is placing an enormous strain on the finances of households in Sheffield, it maintains consistency of support to working age CTRS households by not subjecting them to any changes in support that an amended scheme may bring and does not add any additional cost should a transitional protection scheme be offered.

e)    Since the insourcing of the Revenues and Benefits service in 2020, the service has not enjoyed any period of stability. Insourcing, Covid, and a comprehensive restructure in 2023 and its ongoing recruitment have provided and continue to provide significant challenges. To be successful and minimise disruption to the service and its customers the implementation of a new scheme, especially a Banded scheme, needs to be fully costed, requires careful planning, a resilient and stable working environment and adequate resources.

f)      Finally, due to ongoing uncertainties about the government’s long term plans for welfare reform and the timescales for the implementation of Universal Credit, it may be prudent to wait and see how our residents will be affected before changing the way in which we decide is best to support them in paying their council tax.

19.4.5

Given the above advantages of maintaining the current scheme into 2025/26 the alternatives have been disregarded.

20.1

The Committee considered a report of the Finance Manager which provided details of proposed changes to the existing Capital Programme, as brought forward in Month 02 of 2024/25.

20.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Finance and Performance Policy Committee: -

-       That the committee approve the proposed additions and variations to the Capital Programme listed in Appendix 1

-       That the committee approve the proposed additions and variations to the Capital Programme listed in Appendix 2 subject to a successful outcome of the relevant external funding bids

-       That the committee approve the scheme slippage/reprofiles as detailed in Appendix 3

-       That the committee approve the reprofiling of the Council Housing Stock Increase Programme as detailed in Appendix 4

-       That the committee approve the acceptance of grant funding as identified in Appendix 5

-       That the committee approves the council entering into agreements to provide funding to 3rd parties as identified in Appendix 6. In respect of “Upperthorpe Healthy Living Centre,” such approval (and entry into the agreement) is to be subject to the prior completion of a subsidy control principles assessment to demonstrate, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Executive Director of Communities Parks & Leisure, that the grant award is consistent with the subsidy control principles.

20.3

Reasons for Decision

20.3.1

The proposed changes to the Capital programme will improve the services to the people of Sheffield.

20.3.2

To formally record changes to the Capital Programme and gain Member approval for changes in line with Financial Regulations and to reset the capital programme in line with latest information.

20.4

Alternative Options Considered

20.4.1

A number of alternative courses of action are considered as part of the process undertaken by Officers before decisions are recommended to Members. The recommendations made to Members represent what Officers believe to be the best options available to the Council, in line with Council priorities, given the constraints on funding and the use to which funding is put within the Revenue Budget and the Capital Programme.