Decisions

Item

6.

6.1

6.2

GREEN PAPER CONSULTATION ‘SEND REVIEW; RIGHT SUPPORT: RIGHT PLACE: RIGHT TIME’

The report provided details of Sheffield City Council’s response to the Department for Education green paper ‘SEND review: right support, right place, right time’

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Education, Children and Families Urgency Sub-Committee:-

(i)    approves the response to the Department for Education green paper ‘SEND review; right support, right place, right time’

6.3

6.3.1

6.4

6.4.1

Reasons for Decision

Contributing to the consultation will provide Sheffield City Council’s feedback to a national consultation on provision for children with SEND and how it should be managed in the future.

Alternatives Considered

None – all local authorities have been asked to provide a response to the consultation by the Department of Education.

Item No

5.

Renewal of contract with nexus multi-academy trust to deliver the medical needs education service

5.1

The report set out a proposal to commission the Medical Needs Education Service by way of a service contract with a 2-year term and a value of £2,608,860.

5.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Education, Children and Families Urgency Sub-Committee:-

(i)                  approves the commissioning of a service contract with a term of 2 years and a value of £2,608,860, for the provision of the Medical Needs Education Service.

(ii)                 notes the intention of the Council to issue a direct award of a service contract to Nexus Multi-Academy Trust subject to Officer approval by way of a separate decision report.

5.3

Reasons for Decision

5.3.1

The Council has a duty under S19 Education Act 1996 to make arrangements for the provision of suitable education for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them. Renewal of this contract will allow the Council to meet these statutory duties.

5.3.2

The proposed contract is not advised to be subject to the competition requirements under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The funding for the service will derive from the High Needs element of the Dedicated Schools Grant. As such the proposed contract is in accordance with Department for Education guidance on contracts which are not “public contracts” for the purposes of the PCR 2015.

5.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

5.4.1

The option to not renew this contract was rejected because it would leave the Local Authority unable to meet statutory duties relating to pupils with medical needs that make them unable to attend school.

8.1

The report sets out a proposal to accept funding from the Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme to be transferred to Great Places Registered Provider who will be delivering 8 units for move on accommodation for rough sleepers.

A total of £482,219 has been awarded for the proposal. This includes £399,000 grant funding for Great Places to deliver the units and £83,219 grant revenue funding to employ a Tenancy Support Worker to work full time with the tenants of the units.

8.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Finance Sub-Committee agrees to accept grant funding of £83,219, by entering into a grant agreement with Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC), as detailed and set out within this report.

8.3

Reasons for Decision

8.3.1

There is a high need for move on accommodation for rough sleepers in the city. Great Places will provide the units for the accommodation and employ the Tenancy Support workers. The responsibility for delivery will be on Great Places rather than the Council which reduces the risk.

8.3.2

The Council has a large amount of pressure for 1 bed properties which comes from a wider group than just the need from rough sleeper. This will allow the Council to use our 1 bed stock for the wider group and not tie them up for 30 years for move on.

8.3.3

By partnering with Great Places and them providing the move on accommodation for rough sleepers with lower levels of need (medium), we can diversify the offer in Sheffield whilst focusing our own efforts on to our other forms of Temporary Accommodation. This will provide a better mix of accommodation across the city and give customers more of a choice.

8.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

8.4.1

Not Accept and Transfer the funding. Without accepting and transferring the funding the support element of the programme would not be deliverable. This option was therefore discounted.

7.1

The report brings the Committee up to date with the Council’s financial position as at Month 3 2022/23.

7.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Finance Sub-Committee:-

(i) notes the Council’s challenging financial position as at the end of June 2022 (month 3); and

(ii) notes that each Policy Committee will receive detailed budget monitoring for their areas of responsibility at their meetings in September 2022 alongside the reports on their 2023/24 budget proposals requested by the Strategy and Resources Committee.

7.3

Reasons for Decision

7.3.1

Under section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, the Chief Finance Officer of an authority is required to report on the following matters:

• the robustness of the estimates made for the purposes of determining its budget requirement for the forthcoming year; and

• the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves.

7.3.2

There is also a requirement for the authority to have regard to the report of the Chief Finance Officer when making decisions on its budget requirement and level of financial reserves.

7.3.3

By the law the Council must set and deliver a balanced budget, which is a financial plan based on sound assumptions which shows how income will equal spend over the short- and medium-term. This can take into account deliverable cost savings and/or local income growth strategies as well as useable reserves. However, a budget will not be balanced where it reduces reserves to unacceptably low levels and regard must be had to any report of the Chief Finance Officer on the required level of reserves under section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, which sets obligations of adequacy on controlled reserves.

7.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

7.4.1

The Council is required to both set a balance budget and to ensure that in-year income and expenditure are balanced. No other alternatives were considered.

6.1

To consider a request from Hackney Carriage Trade Representatives for a fuel surcharge to be applied to each fare.

6.2

UNANIMOUSLY AGREED: That the Waste and Street Scene Urgency Sub-Committee:-

1.  Approve the suggested fuel surcharge to be applied to all Hackney Carriage Fares with the addition of further 2 bands to the schedule set out in the Report, as outlined below:

2.     Agreed that the Chair should write to the Department for Transport to ask that they consider amending legislation to enable Local Authorities to implement such surcharges in an easier and more efficient way.

6.3

Reasons for Decision

6.3.1

The average price of diesel in Yorkshire & Humberside has increased from 148.8 pence per litre when the fares were reviewed in January 2022 to 195.7 pence per litre in June (according to the fuel price reports published on the AA website).

6.3.2

Representatives of the Hackney Carriage trade have requested that a review of fares is considered urgently.

6.3.4

A surcharge that tracks the average price of diesel is recommended so that drivers have the certainty of being able to add a surcharge quickly as prices increase but that they can also alter when they decrease.

6.3.5

It was also recommended so that changes can be applied efficiently without the need to ask Committee for a decision each time.

6.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

6.4.1

The option of a fixed surcharge amount was considered.

6.4.2

As can be seen at Appendix B of the report, trade representatives felt that a fixed surcharge amount on each job would be appropriate.

6.4.3

Evidence from Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy shows that weekly national average fuel prices are starting to show a downturn so it was considered better to have a surcharge that reflected the current diesel prices and the second consultation showed that the trade agreed.

5.1

Each Local Area Committee has a £100,000 budget to address local priorities, identified within their respective Community Plans.  This report sets out details of the proposed spending in respect of this £100,000 during the 2022/23 financial year.  This report gives an overview of the general categories of proposed expenditure and seeks authorisation from the Central Local Area Committee to permit the Community Services Manager, in consultation with the LAC Chair, to spend monies to address identified priorities within the Community Plan.

5.2

RESOLVED: That the Central Local Area Committee:-

(i)       noted the proposed anticipated expenditure against the £100,000 budget to address local priorities in the Central LAC Community Plan in 2022/23, as detailed in the report, be noted

(ii)       to the extent that it is not covered by existing authority, authorises the Community Services Manager to make decisions on expenditure relating to the priorities set out in the report provided that:

• the decision is taken in consultation with the Local Area Committee Chair and the Committee,
• the decision may not approve expenditure on any element in excess of the anticipated limit for that element set out in the report, and
• a report detailing the delegated spending decisions taken by the Community Services Manager is presented to the next Local Area Committee meeting.

5.3

Reasons for Decision

The Central LAC is asked to note the broad allocation of funding under the priority headings identified to assist its ability to monitor its budget, and to authorise the Community Services Manager to approve expenditure above the current delegated authority in certain circumstances so that delivery of the Community Plan is not delayed.

5.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

5.4.1

5.4.2

Decisions on any expenditure above the existing authority to the Community Services Manager could be reserved to the LAC but this would delay delivery of priority actions to address specific issues identified in the Community Plan.

All decisions on expenditure to support Community Plan priorities could be delegated to officers.  However, this would restrict the LAC’s ability to monitor its delegated budget and delivery of the Community Plan.