Venue: Concorde Room, Council Offices, Farnborough
Contact: Panel Administrator: Lauren Harvey Email: email@example.com Tel: 01252398827
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12th November, 2015 (copy attached).
The Minutes of the meeting held on 12th November, 2016 were approved and signed by the Chairman.
The Panel to receive an overview of the Land Charges function from the Legal Services Manager, Diane Milton and the Land Charges Manager, David Caldwell.
The Panel had invited Diane
Milton (Legal Services Manager) and David Caldwell (Local Land Charges Manager)
to the meeting to provide an overview of the Local Land Charges function.
Members noted the definition of Land Charges “obligations, restrictions or
prohibition on a parcel of land that were binding on successive owners”.
Members had also been provided with a list of the
legislation that covered Local Land Charges and a glossary of jargon that could
be referred back to.
The Local Land Charges (LLC)
register had been made up of twelve parts and was now
an electronic database. This had enabled an automatic search facility that
included spatial extent, along with unique property reference numbers (UPRN),
which allowed all Council systems to communicate without officer intervention.
The Local Land Charges System
environment was described to Members and was split
into three areas: back office, front office and market. It was
noted that the front office’s Official Local Land Charges Search was in
direct competition with personal search companies.
The Panel was informed of the
different search forms used; LLC1 and CON29(R) and CON29(O).
The LLC1 had been the official certificate of search and it was noted that it
had been a statutory request for a local authority to search the LLC register
for entries affecting a property and to provide a schedule of registrations and
a certificate signed by the ‘proper officer’ stating how many LLC registrations
had affected the land. The CON29(R) Required Enquiries form was a non-statutory
form that had consisted of an agreed set of questions, which had
been created by the Law Society, to be answered by local authorities.
The CON29(O) Optional Enquiries form covered a number
of areas including public paths and byways, advertisements and parks and
countryside. It was heard that the LLC team had worked
with a number of other Council departments during the process of preparing
The Panel was shown search fees
that were charged by neighbouring authorities, these
ranged between £90 – £171.50 as search fees were unregulated and were set by
each local authority on a cost recovery basis. It was heard
that the annual net should be placed in the LLC reserve so that over a period
of three consecutive financial years the total income from charges and
recharges should not exceed the total costs of granting access to property
records. Members were shown a graph of the LLC income
between 2005 – 2014. It highlighted the competition between personal search companies as there had been a drop in income when these
companies had started to carry out searches. However, it was
noted that the Council’s income had started to increase again.
The Panel was advised that regulations had enabled authorities to charge a fee for personal searches of the LLC Register. However, this had been revoked in August, 2010 as the regulations had been found to be incompatible with the Environmental Information Regulations, 2004. This had resulted in a number of legal actions taking place that ... view the full minutes text for item 14.
The Head of Democratic and Customer Services, Andrew Colver, will provide the Panel with an overview of the Mayoral costs.
The Head of Democratic and
Customer Services, Andrew Colver, was invited to the
Panel to provide the background to the Mayoralty arrangement and an overview of
the change in costs over the years. Members were reminded
that the Mayor acted as the Queen’s representative in the Borough and the
mayoralty had been part of civic life in Rushmoor for 42 years. The primary
duties of the Mayor were listed, these included
attending functions and religious services and undertaking official openings
and presentations in the Borough and chairing Council meetings. The Panel was informed that the Mayoralty was well supported within
the community and the demand for the Mayor’s attendance had continued to be
high, with the Mayor attending over 300 events per year.
advised that the Mayor’s main adviser was the Chief Executive with
further support from his Executive Assistant and the Democratic Support Team.
The Mayor was also supported by the Deputy Mayor, who
deputised for the Mayor at some events. This gave Deputy Mayors a chance
to experience the Mayoralty before their Mayoral year.
The Mayoral allowance was used to cover expenses of the role. The Mayor also
received a £1,000 allowance for chairing Council meetings. It was noted that
this had been a part of the recent review by the Remuneration Panel of the
Members Allowances Scheme and the report was expected in the following few
The Panel was
reminded that as part of a service costs review in 2010/11 there had
been a restructure of the Mayoral support. It had been seen
as important to ensure that the Mayoralty should ‘fit for purpose’.
The Panel was informed of the
current staffing arrangements, which were provided
directly through Democratic and Customer Services and divided between two
staff. Their roles had included administrative work, i.e. the Mayor’s diary,
organising specific events and dealing with the finances. The Macebearer had
important ceremonial and security roles to carry out. This post was under
review following the retirement of the post holder and this support had a
potential to be provided from staff within the Council but in most occasions the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were expected to drive
themselves to events and engagements.
The Panel noted that the Council
supported four fundraising events each year, and also
organised civic events, e.g. Remembrance Sunday. It was heard
that these events took substantial resources to put on but supported the
Mayor’s chosen charities.
provided with some comparative cost data that had been obtained from
other similar authorities, which had shown only a few differences between the
The Panel was
informed that a Mayoral Protocol was in the process of being prepared and
aimed to outline the Mayor’s roles and responsibilities, what the Council would
provide and working and financial arrangements. It was noted
that the protocol would provide clarity and guidance and would be included in
the induction process for the Mayor elect.
It was concluded that the Mayor had played a large part in ... view the full minutes text for item 15.
To receive an update from Corporate Director, Ian Harrison, who has been invited to the meeting to provide the Panel with a cost benefit analysis of Systems Thinking.
The Panel welcomed Corporate
Director, Ian Harrison, and two members of the Systems Thinking Team, Lorraine
Murray and Jo Cohen, who had been invited to the
meeting to provide a cost-benefit analysis of systems thinking.
Members were reminded
of the purpose and ultimate aim of systems thinking. It was
noted that the team had carried out a number of service reviews and had
provided coaching support to some managers that had enabled them to support
other systems thinking reviews and processes.
The Panel was
informed of the current staff structure, which consisted of two
permanent FTEs and one seconded part-time FTE as well as allocated time from a
Corporate Director. The 2015/16 budget totalled £163,920
which was re-charged across the Council using a combined method of
actual assignments and general headcount. Members were guided through an
indicative cost analysis of the service, this analysis showed a notional daily
rate of £255 compared to consultant day-rates for improvement work of £500-
£1,400. It was noted that Vanguard had cost the
Council £1,000 per day for an assignment and £1,400 per day on a call-off basis
It was noted
that Rushmoor’s systems thinking reviews had had a number of positive outcomes
with many improvements in service areas. Rushmoor had also had visits from
other local authorities and businesses. Reviews had also made a large amount of
savings across different service areas, for example, £100-120,000 per annum in
Benefits; these savings had been achieved through
staffing adjustments but had been recurrent and sustainable.
The Panel was given examples of
reviews that had been carried out in Personnel, Channel Shift and Parking.
Members heard that the future
options for the Systems Thinking team were to have an on-going commitment to
the delivery of the 8-Point Plan, supporting the Organisational Development
(OD) Programme and to provide general coaching and support
and development to all staff at all levels. There had also been an option for
potential developments in the voluntary sector and other bodies supported by
concluded that systems thinking had been in Rushmoor for over ten years
and had made significant sustainable service improvements during that time. The
Council’s own internal team had been established for
over five years and this team had been integral to the delivery of elements of
both the 8-Point Plan and OD Programme.
The Panel NOTED the presentation.
To note the Panel’s work programme for the 2015/16 Municipal Year (copy attached).
The Panel NOTED the current Work Programme and AGREED to hold a workshop at the beginning of the next Municipal Year to create a programme of work for 2016/17.