CITY BOARD 29
January 2001
(6.00pm
–8.58pm)
PRESENT: Councillors
Howarth (Chair), Bagnall, Currie, Durrant, Harrison, Nimmo-Smith, Reed, C.
Rosenstiel, Slatter, Talbot, Taylor. [Councillor Douglas attended as Alternate
Member for the Conservative Group].
FOR ADOPTION BY THE
COUNCIL
01
/A/1 GENERAL FUND REVENUE BUDGETS
2000/2001 (REVISED),
2001/2002 (ORIGINAL) & CAPITAL PLAN
The
Board considered the recommendations to be made to the Council on the revenue
budget, the level of Council Tax for 2001/2002 and the Capital Plan position,
based on a report of the Director of Finance which included the revised
provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for 2001/2002 announced on 15
December 2000. It was expected that
details of the Council’s final Settlement would be provided on 31 January and,
although the implications were not expected to be significant, members were
advised that there would be an written update provided for the Council meeting
on 15 February. The Director of Finance’s report highlighted that the
settlement was significantly better than anticipated and a revised approach to
determining the Council’s overall financial strategy was therefore outlined for
determination by the Board.
The Director of
Finance referred to the amendment circulated (interleaved with these minutes)
to the Board the previous Friday which updated the overall position concerning
committee requests to reconsider base budget items following the decisions
taken at Community Development &
Leisure Committee on 25 January and DSMB on 23 January (table 8, page 16 of the
Budget report also refers). The Board
also noted that the City Services’ print press and paperless cab had been
included in the capital plan for approval (appendix J), with the project
appraisals having been approved earlier in the agenda (see 01/a/07).
The Chair proposed
amendments to the Budget relating to the recommendations in 2.2 b,c & g;
2.2 d; and 2.3 a. The amendment is
attached to these minutes. The Chair
stated that the amendment proposed that all reinstatements requested from
committees would be accepted. The Chair also advised the Board that in response
to points made during the budget planning process a Priority Policy Fund bid
for ‘ Additional Work with Children and Young People’ of £40,000 would be
added.
The Chair stated that
it would be unwise to assume that the higher than anticipated level of
Government Settlement would continue in future years and that the Council had
budgeted for increases in spending on the environment and basic services by
also making over £1 million in savings.
Referring to the proposed 1% reduction in Council Tax, the Chair stated
that the Liberal Democrat Group had undertaken to reduce the level of Council
Tax if it could within the context of the planned spending commitments on
policy priorities. Having almost
completed the budget process, the Chair stated that it was intended to improve
the way in which the Council consulted on its budget proposals in future years
and resources had been included in the budget for this.
Councillor Bagnall
stated that the Labour Group would reserve its position for the Council meeting on 15 February. However, she did state that the Labour Group
did not agree with the proposed reduction in Council Tax which she felt would
be at the expense of services.
Councillor Douglas
stated that the Conservative Group would reserve its position on the proposals
for the Council meeting.
The Chair put the
Liberal Democrat amendment to the vote which was carried by 7 votes to 0.
In conclusion, the
Chair (on behalf of the Board) thanked the Director of Finance and his staff
for their work in producing the budget reports.
Subsequent to City Board - The final Local Government Finance
Settlement for 2001/2002 was announced on 31 January 2001. The change, compared to the revised
provisional announcement of 15 December 2000, is a reduction in SSA and RSG of
£24,778. As the degree of change since
15 December does not have a material effect on the Council’s financial position
as agreed at City Board on 29 January 2001, it is proposed that the resultant
shortfall in total external support is met from additional use of
reserves. Overall this gives the
Council a Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) of £14,059,374, which is an increase
of 6.7% on 2000/2001. Also, since 2000/01, the
overall levels of external support (RSG and Business Rates allocation)
for 2001/2002 has increased by £681,441 (or 6.8%).
A briefing paper
showing the effects of the final announcement will be despatched as part of a
separate information bulletin, together with allocations of approved bids from
specific funds to the relevant
committees, and the effects have been incorporated in the following.
Council is recommended
(by 7 votes to 4)
in relation to
the General Fund
(1) to
approve the overall revised budget of £19,942,920 for 2000/01;
(2) to
approve the following revenue budgets of committees and sub-committees for
2001/2002, incorporating the Priority Policy Fund (PPF), Priority Development
Programme (PDP) Exit Fund and revenue development bids, savings and review of
charges approved by committees and the Board:
|
|
2001/02 £ |
City Board
|
2,501,880 |
|
Community
Development & Leisure |
9,237,940 |
|
Environment |
5,135,210 |
|
Housing & Health
(General Fund) |
2,586,700 |
|
Property &
Administration |
113,770 |
|
|
19,575,500 |
|
|
|
|
Asset Management
Revenue Account |
(5,488,620) |
|
Minimum Revenue
Provision |
(869,910) |
|
Contribution to
Capital Spending |
1,600,000 |
|
Employee National
Insurance |
(74,150) |
|
Single Status/Job
Evaluation |
123,940 |
|
JNC salary review |
135,120 |
|
New IT contract
savings |
(115,840) |
|
Contributions to
Technology
Investment Fund |
155,000 |
|
Spending Requirement |
15,041,040 |
|
|
|
|
Spending Limit |
14,872,740 |
|
|
|
|
Contribution from
Reserves |
168,300 |
(3) that
the total level of net General Fund spending in 2001/2002 be £15,041,040 with a contribution from
Reserves of £168,300.
(4) that
it be noted that at its meeting on 7th December 2000 the Council
calculated the amount of 35,707 as its Council Tax Base for the year 2001/2002
in accordance with regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of
Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992 made under Section 33(5) of the Local
Government Finance Act 1992;
(5) that the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2001/2002 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:
(a)
£78,967,510 being the
aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for items set out in
Section 32(2)(a) to (e) of the Act [the Council's gross expenditure
including a contribution to Reserves for 2001/2002]
(b)
£64,094,770 being the
aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in
Section 32(3)(a) to (c) of the Act [gross income]
(c)
£14,872,740 being the amount
by which the aggregate at (a) exceeds the aggregate at (b) above, calculated by
the Council in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget
requirement for the year [net expenditure]
(d)
£10,802,150 being the aggregate of the sums which the
Council estimates will be payable for the year into its general fund in respect
of redistributed non-domestic rates and revenue support grant, reduced by the
amount of any sum which the Council estimates will be transferred from its
General Fund to its Collection Fund in accordance with section 97(4) of the
Local Government Finance Act 1998 [Council Tax Deficit] and increased by
the amount of any sum which the Council estimates will be transferred from its
Collection Fund to its General Fund pursuant to the Collection Fund (Community Charges) Directions under Section
98 (4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 [Community Charge surplus].
(e)
£114.00 being
the amount at (c) above less the amount at (d) above, all divided by the amount
at (4) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 33(1) of
the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year.
(f)
|
BAND |
£ |
|
A
|
76.00 |
|
B |
88.67 |
|
C |
101.33 |
|
D |
114.00 |
|
E
|
139.33 |
|
F |
164.67 |
|
G |
190.00 |
|
H |
228.00 |
being
the amounts given by multiplying the amount at (e) above by the number which,
in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to
dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in
that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D,
calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the
amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of
dwellings listed in different valuation bands [Council Tax relating to the
City Council's expenditure].
(6) that
it be noted that at its meeting on 14 February the Cambridgeshire Police
Authority is likely to approve, and at
its meeting on 13 February Cambridgeshire County Council is likely to approve,
the following amounts in precepts to be issued to the City Council for the year
2001/2002, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act
1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:
|
BAND |
County Council £ |
Police Authority £ |
|
A |
445.38 |
45.36 |
|
B |
519.61 |
52.92 |
|
C |
593.84 |
60.48 |
|
D |
668.07 |
68.04 |
|
E |
816.53 |
83.16 |
|
F |
964.99 |
98.28 |
|
G |
1,113.45 |
113.40 |
|
H |
1,336.14 |
136.08 |
(7) that,
having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 5(f) and 6
above, and subject to the County Council and Police Authority setting their
precepts at the levels given in 6 above, the Council, in accordance with
Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the
following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2001/2002 for each
of the categories of dwellings shown below:
|
BAND |
£ |
|
A |
566.74 |
|
B |
661.20 |
|
C |
755.65 |
|
D |
850.11 |
|
E |
1,039.02 |
|
F |
1,227.94 |
|
G |
1,416.85 |
|
H |
1,700.22 |
The figures given may
be subject to minor rounding adjustments and any necessary changes will be
circulated at the meeting of the Council.
(8) that
all necessary steps be taken to collect and recover the Council Tax;
(9) that
Appendix L of the report of the Director of Finance be noted and, for the
purpose of Section 45 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Council
make the following determinations for the financial year 2001/2002:
(a) overall
borrowing limit: £55,000,000
(b) short
term borrowing limit: £40,000,000
(c) limit
on the proportion of interest payable at variable rates: 75%.
(10)
Also in
Appendix M, Council approve the lending list additions and deletions.
in relation to
the Capital Plan (by 7 votes to 4)
(11)
To include the bids in the attached appendix for
funding within the Capital Plan and Housing Investment Programme and agree to
re-phase the Capital Plan to take account of these bids.
01/A/02 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 – NEW
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
(see also
minute 01/a/18)
The Board considered a report which sought confirmation on
what form of Executive arrangement the Council should adopt taking into account
the first stage of public consultation.
(The full report is appended to these minutes.) The Board also noted a tabled reference
from the Periodic Electoral Review & Local Government Act Sub-Committee
which had considered the report at its meeting on 24 January (also attached). The Sub-Committee recommended to the Board
the Leader and Cabinet model as the Council’s preferred option. The Chair stated that the Leader and Cabinet
model was the preferred option of the Liberal Democrat Group. Councillor
Douglas (for the Conservative Group) supported this view. Councillors Bagnall, Reed and Durrant spoke
against the recommendation proposed by the Sub-Committee.
The Board agreed that as the matter of which model should be
adopted would be decided by the Council at its meeting on 15 February, the
debate should take place at that meeting.
Accordingly,
Council is recommended – (by 8 votes to 3)
That the Leader and Cabinet be the Council’s preferred
option for the new executive arrangements.
CITY BOARD 29
January 2001
(6.00pm
–8.58pm)
PRESENT: Councillors
Howarth (Chair), Bagnall, Currie, Durrant, Harrison, Nimmo-Smith, Reed, C.
Rosenstiel, Slatter, Talbot, Taylor. [Councillor Douglas attended as Alternate
Member for the Conservative Group].
FOR INFORMATION OF THE COUNCIL
01/a/03 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on
27 November 2000 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
01/a/04 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
An apology for absence was
received from Councillor Stuart.
01/a/05 DECLARATIONS OF
INTEREST
The following
Councillors declared non-pecuniary (Code of Conduct) interests:
Councillor Talbot (01/A/01) as his
son was an employee of the Council in leisure services.
Councillors Rosenstiel and Taylor
(01/a/07) as director of a print company and working for Cambridge University
Press respectively.
Councillor Reed
(01/a/13) being employed by an organisation which advises on the subject of
domestic violence.
Councillor
Rosenstiel (01/a/21) as his elder daughter was a Sea Cadet and the organisation
used the premises in question.
01/a/06 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
No questions from the public.
01/a/07 PROJECT
APPRAISALS: CITY SERVICES – PRINT PRESS & ‘PAPERLESS CAB’
Print press – the
Director of City Services introduced the report by informing the Board that
purchasing a new print press made sound business and commercial sense. The Direct Services Management Board (DSMB)
had approved the project at its meeting on 23 January.
Paperless cab – The
Board was advised that the DSMB would receive details on how the project would
develop (and to Board if required). In
response to a question from Councillor Douglas, the Director of City Services
stated that any savings accrued by the implementation of this system would be
identified once a detailed appraisal was undertaken. This information would be shared with the DSMB (and Board).
Resolved
To approve the project
appraisals for the print press and paperless cab.
Action by: Director of City Services
01/a/08 CITY SERVICES BUSINESS PLAN 2001/02
The Business Plan had been considered and
approved by the Direct Services Management Board on 23 January.
The Director of City Services, in
introducing the report, advised the Board that
a projected surplus of £250,000 would be realised in 2000/01, due to
another good performance from the construction division (particularly PVCu
windows). The work in City Services was
to change considerably in 2001/02 due to the policies of the Liberal Democrat
administration and the service would therefore become more ‘centre stage.’ The Chair agreed that City Services was
crucial to the organisation and the aims of the Liberal Democrat
administration.
In response to questions from Councillor
Douglas concerning the future of PVCu window construction and City Services’
occupation at the Mill Road site, the Director of City Services stated that
PVCu window orders were finite and
beyond the next five years was difficult to determine. With regard to the Mill Road site, the
Director of Environment & Planning confirmed that it was ‘zoned’ for
housing and the 30% rule for social housing would apply (were it ever to be
made available). The Director of City
Services stated that operationally it was sensible to keep the service located
within a central location.
Resolved
To approve the Business Plan.
Action by: Director of City Services
01/a/09 GENERAL FUND REVENUE BUDGETS
2000/2001
(REVISED), 2001/2002 (ORIGINAL) & CAPITAL PLAN
(See also 01/A/01)
Resolved
(by 7 votes to 4) in relation
to City Board budgets -
a)
To approve the
revised budget for 2000/01 (paragraph 3.2 in report refers).
b)
To approve the
base budget for 2001/02 (paragraph 3.2 in the report refers).
Action by: Director of Finance
01/a/10 YOUR VOICE YOUR CHOICE 2001/02
Resolved
i) To
agree to fund the bid for local area based information on planning applications
contained in Appendix A.
ii)
To agree that
the manager of the project funded will be accountable for the project directly
rather than being monitored by a separate ‘fund manager’ (as applies to PDP’s
which are available to other organisations).
iii)
To request a
review of the Your Voice, Your Choice Programme to feed into the Medium Term
Forecast process in July 2001.
Action
by: Head of Strategy & Partnerships
01/a/11 SAFER CITY GRANTS
Referring to the application for
improvements to the outside areas of Cockerell Road flats, Councillor Bagnall
stated that there may be a need for a more strategic city-wide approach to
assist residents as it was not a matter particular to these flats. Other members concurred as they had
knowledge of such schemes which had been, or were to be, proposed. The Board agreed that officers should
consider this matter further.
Councillor Durrant requested that the
unidentified funding required by Romsey Mill for its project be granted from
the underspend in the Safer City Grant budget. The Board agreed to this
proposal and amended the recommendation accordingly.
Referring to the Tackling Domestic Violence
application, Councillor Reed asked whether the Council had policies as an
employer to deal with the effects of domestic violence. The Head of Personnel stated that under the Council’s Terms and
Conditions there were a range of measures which would be appropriate to these
circumstances.
Resolved:
i)
To approve the
allocation of capital grant in the sum of £13,520 for an Employment Foundation
Scheme project to improve security in the outside storage areas belonging to
the Cockerell Road flats and decrease fear of crime in this area.
ii)
To approve the
allocation of capital grant in the sum of £12,500 for the refurbishment of
Romsey Mill’s youth work venue.
iii)
To approve the
allocation of revenue grant in the sum of £6,000 for three years beginning
2001/02 for the joint-funding of a countywide post to tackle domestic violence.
Action
by: Head of Strategy & Partnerships
01/a/12 BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE
PLAN: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND TARGETS 2000/01 AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
MONITORING REPORT
During discussion on the Council’s target
for the Commission of Racial Equality ‘Standard for Local Government’, the Head
of Strategy & Partnerships stated that the Council could show examples of
good practice under the Standard but overall the approach was not consistent
which explained the target set. In connection
with the subject, the Chair stated that discussions would need to take place regarding how the £10,000 for the
Priority Policy Fund ‘promoting engagement with ethnic minorities’ should be
allocated.
Resolved
i)
To confirm the
inclusion in the March 2001 Best Value Performance Plan of the Best Value
Performance Indicators (BVPI’s), Audit Commission Performance Indicators
(ACPI’s) and Local Performance Indicators (LPI’s) as set out in Appendix A.
ii)
To agree the
targets set against indicators for the year 2001/02.
iii)
To approve the
Service Improvement Plans for 2001/2002, contained in Appendix C.
Action
by: Head of Strategy & Partnerships
01/a/13 BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE PLAN: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND
TARGETS 2000/01 AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENT
PLAN MONITORING REPORT (PERSONNEL)
i)
agree the inclusion in the March 2001 Best Value
Performance Plan of the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI’s) as set out
in Appendix A.
ii)
To agree the targets set against indicators for the
year 2001/02.
Action by: Head of Personnel / Head of
Strategy and Partnerships
01/a/14 CAMBRIDGE’S
DRAFT BEST VALUE PEFORMANCE PLAN
With
reference to the Council’s programme for Best Value Reviews, the Chair tabled
an amendment as follows:
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
The
Chair stated that the combined Children and Youth/Community Development review
would be a ‘major’ review. As some of
the Revenue Services (Benefits) Best Value Indicators had placed it in the
bottom 25% of district councils it was important to bring forward the Best
Value Review.
Councillor
Bagnall was concerned that the Strategic Development review which contained
Housing Development had been put back to 2002/03 and made a standard
review. The Director of Community
Services advised the Board that Housing Strategy and the HIP should be included
in the Housing Enabling BVR (a major review) in 2003/04, with Housing
Development remaining under the broader
theme of Strategic Development. This
was agreed.
The
Director of Environment and Planning advised the Board that the scheduling of
the Strategic Development BV Review in 2002/03 would assist in ensuring
appropriate processes were in place for the work subsequently undertaken during
the production of the Local Plan.
Councillor
Reed was concerned about putting back by one year the Children and Youth BV
Review and the amalgamation of it with Community Development.
Councillor Douglas said that he welcomed the more business
like approach and the views of the Audit Commission. He was however concerned that the interests of the Council Tax
payer were paramount and that the members had an important role in ensuring
this.
The
Chief Executive stated that it was acknowledged that current member involvement
in the Best Value process was unsatisfactory.
The Council’s approach to Best Value Reviews had been on the whole too
onerous and too detailed. A revised approach would be reported to members in
the near future. However, any change to
the approach taken would need agreement with the Best Value Inspectorate and
the Council’s auditors.
The
Liberal Democrat amendment was carried by 7 votes to 0.
Resolved
i) To approve the overall
structure and content of the Best Value Performance Plan and delegate to the
Chief Executive the final content, format and production of the Plan, in
consultation with Group Leaders.
ii) (by 7 votes to 0) To approve
the amended programme of Best Value Fundamental Service Reviews for inclusion
in this year’s Best Value Performance Plan (as detailed above and including
Housing Strategy in the BVR Housing Enabling 2003/4).
iii) To agree the Performance
Indicators and targets across all services as set out by each service committee
in the draft Best Value performance Plan.
Action
by: Head of Strategy & Partnerships
01/a/15 BEST VALUE REVIEW:
INTERNAL AUDIT – FINAL REPORT
Resolved
i)
To agree the
recommendation contained in section 2 of the Executive Summary to the report.
Action
by: Director of Finance
01/a/16 BEST VALUE REVIEW:
ARCHITECTS AND BUILDING SERVICES – FINAL REPORT
Resolved
i)
To agree the
Best Value Review for Building Services (including the method of future service
delivery recommended in 4.6.3 of the review).
ii)
To note the
Best Value Review for Architectural Services as the Project Team’s report and conclusions
and accepts the recommendations in 4.63 (except points 3, 4, 5 and 7 in the
Action Plan at Appendix 9, which should not be pursued whilst the future of the
service is unresolved) as an immediate and (possibly) interim way forward for
this service.
iii)
To ask
officers to undertake further work on the future viability of the service and
the implications, pros and cons, costs/ benefits and possible ways of
externalising it and to report back in March or July.
Action by: Director of Central Services
01/a/17 A COMMUNITY STRATEGY
FOR CAMBRIDGE
Councillor Durrant suggested that the
development of this Strategy would be an opportunity to promote discussions
with other local authorities in the Cambridge sub-region. The Chair stated that it would be appropriate
to see where there may be common ground with neighbouring local authorities,
but it would not be advisable to work on the basis that there could be any
formal joint view or Strategy.
Referring to the recommendations, the Board
agreed that the changes to local authorities’ powers (in paragraph 3. 9 and
3.10 of the report) were to be welcomed although it was regrettable that
restrictions on raising finance remained (3.11). The Board agreed that the way forward should be based on the
detail in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the report (the idea of kiosk based consultation
was welcomed by the Chair).
Resolved
i)
To
pass the above comments to the Department for Transport Environment and the
Regions in response to the consultation paper; “Power to Promote or Improve
Economic, Social or Environmental Well-Being – Draft Guidance to Local
Authorities”.
ii)
To
develop a specific city-wide community strategy and to develop appropriate
levels of consultation with other local authorities whilst doing so.
iii)
That
the Head of strategy and Partnerships be requested to organise an initial
meeting with local partners to agreed a joint way forward based on the
proposals contained within paragraphs 6 to 8 of the report.
Action by: Head of Strategy & Partnerships
01/a/18 THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 – NEW POLITICAL MANAGEMENT
(see also
01/A/02)
Councillor Bagnall stated that
the Labour Group’s agreement to the next stage of consultation should be taken
on the understanding that its view was that the Council should adopt the Mayor/Cabinet
model.
The Chair stated that the
information contained within appendix 2 (listing the possible roles and
responsibilities) and the decisions of the Sub-Committee were interim decisions
on the basis that further development of the options for Council, the executive
and scrutiny would be required in the ensuing months.
Resolved
i)
That
Stage 2 consultation take account of the views detailed in the reference from
the Periodic Electoral Review & Local Government Act Sub-Committee (which
is appended to the City Board adoption minute).
ii)
That
the approach for Stage 2 consultation as detailed in the report be agreed.
Action by: Chief Executive & Director of Central Services
01/a/19 CLIENT / CONTRACTOR
ARRANGEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
The Board agreed that it would be advisable
to change the names used of ‘client’ and ‘contractor’ to reflect the changes in
legislation and the Council’s approach
to the changed responsibilities.
Resolved
To endorse the approach to client /
contractor arrangements described on the agenda page and note that the detailed
arrangements will be considered by Environment Committee on 6 March.
To change ‘client’ and ‘contractor’ to more
appropriate names for the reasons described above.
Action by:
Director of Environment and Planning
01/a/20 EXCLUSION
OF PRESS & PUBLIC
Resolved
The Board agreed to exclude members of the
public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would
be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by
paragraphs 7 and 9 of Part 1, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
01/a/21 THE SITE OF
TS GANGES
The Board noted that the recommendations had
been endorsed by the Property & Administration Sub-Committee at its meeting
on 16 January.
Councillor Reed stated that she had not been
consulted as a ward councillor. In
discussing the report, it was expected that the section 106 agreement would
include reference to wider community use and the Head of Property and Building
Services would investigate whether any further provision securing this use
could be included in the negotiated property deal.
Resolved
i)
To lease the
site off Cheddars Lane, referred to in Clause 3.6, to the Trustees of Training Ship Ganges on the terms contained in
Clause 4.
ii)
To waive the
conditions in the 1976 conveyance restricting use and sale of TS Ganges’
existing site in exchange for a proportion of the development value realized
from resale.
Action by: Head of Property and Building
Services
The meeting ended at 8.58pm
Chair
G:cmttee/mins/
010129a%.doc