appendix 8 ... scc cabinet report 05.12.07

8/7/2019 Appendix 8 ... SCC Cabinet Report 05.12.07

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/appendix-8-scc-cabinet-report-051207 1/151

This information can be made available on request in other languages.If you require this, please telephone 0191 553 1042.

Y:\Committee\Cabinet\Agenda\05.12.07.doc

THE CABINET

AGENDA

Meeting to be held in the Council Chamber onWednesday, 7th December, 2005 at 2.00 p.m.

Part I

ITEM PAGE

1. Minutes of the Meeting of the Cabinet held on 9th November, 2005, Part I

(Copy herewith).

1

2. Receipt of Declarations of Interest (if any)

3. Apologies for Absence

4. Report of the Meeting of the PersonnelCommittee, Part I held on 24th November, 2005

(Copy herewith).

17

5. *

Local Enterprise Growth Initiative

Report of the Chief Executive (copy herewith).

23

6. Stadium Park-SheepfoldsRegional Entertainments Complex:Casino Development

Joint report of the Chief Executive and the Director ofCommunity and Cultural Services (copy herewith).

29




7. Decriminalised Parking

(a) Overview

Report of the Chief Executive.

(b) Decriminalised Parking Enforcement

Joint report of the Director of Developmentand Regeneration and the City Solicitor.

(c) Financial and Associated Legal Issues

Joint report of the City Treasurer and the CitySolicitor.

(Copies to follow).

8. Annual Efficiency Statement 2005/2006 and MidYear Review

Joint report of the Chief Executive and the CityTreasurer (copy herewith).

35

9. Replacement of Specialist Vehicles used in theWaste and Street Cleaning Services

Report of the Director of Community and CulturalServices (copy herewith).

49

10. Replacement of Specialist Grass Cutting andHorticultural Machinery


53

11. Great Women’s Run


57

12. City of Sunderland Local DevelopmentFramework – Annual Monitoring Report

Report of the Director of Development andRegeneration (copy herewith).

65

N.B. Members are requested to bring theircopy of the Annual Monitoring Reportwhich has been circulated separately.




13. Proposed Neighbourhood Renewal Assessments(NRA) – Back on the Map


73

14. Consultation on Building Schools for the Future(BSF) – Proposals for Sunderland Academies andSecondary School Rolls

Report of the Director of Children’s Services (copyherewith).

83

15. Annual Performance Assessment Of SunderlandCity Council's Education and Children's SocialCare Services 2005

Report of the Director of Children’s Services (copyherewith).

111

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985

The reports contained in Part II of the Agenda are not for publicationas the Cabinet is considered likely to exclude the public duringconsideration thereof as they contain information relating toparticular applicants to become employees of the Authority,

particular employees of the Authority, the financial or businessaffairs of particular persons, terms proposed in the course ofnegotiations for a contract for the supply of goods or services or toconsultations in connection with labour relations matters arisingbetween the Authority and employees of the Authority (LocalGovernment Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part I, Paragraphs 1, 7, 9 and11).

Part II

16. Minutes of the Meeting of the Cabinet held on 9th November, 2005, Part II

(Copy herewith).

123

17. Report of the Meeting of the PersonnelCommittee, Part II held on 24th November, 2005

(Copy herewith).

(For approval of the recommendations on executivefunctions and to note the remaining decisions).

127




18. *

Land at Grindon, Sunderland


135

19. *

Single Status Issues

Joint report of the Assistant Chief Executive(Organisation Development), the City Treasurer andthe City Solicitor (copy to follow).

Denotes Key Decision.

* Denotes Rule 15 Notice issues – item which is a key decision which isnot included in the Forward Plan.

R.C. RAYNER,City Solicitor.

Civic Centre,

SUNDERLAND.

29th November, 2005.



CABINET MEETING – 7th DECEMBER 2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET – PART I

Title of Report:

LOCAL ENTERPRISE GROWTH INITIATIVE

Author(s):CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Purpose of Report:To advise Cabinet of this government initiative and to propose that the CityCouncil submits a competitive bid on behalf of the Partnership.

Description of Decision:Cabinet is requested to agree that the City Council and its partners in theEconomic Prosperity Group submit a bid within the timescales outlined below.

Is the decision consistent with the Budget/Policy Framework? *Yes/No If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/Policy FrameworkSuggested reason(s) for Decision:

Given the timescale for first round bids Cabinet is requested to delegateresponsibility to the Chief Executive in conjunction with the Economic ProsperityThematic Partnership for making a submission by 9th December.

Alternative options to be considered and recommended to be rejected:There is no viable option given the timescales for bidding.

Is this a “Key Decision” as defined inthe Constitution? Yes/No

Is it included in the Forward Plan?Yes/No

Relevant Review Committee:Policy and Co-ordination



CABINET 7th DECEMBER 2005

LOCAL ENTERPRISE GROWTH INITATIVE

REPORT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To advise Cabinet of this government initiative and to propose that theCity Council submits a competitive bid on behalf of the City ofSunderland Partnership, as required.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DECISION

2.2 Cabinet is requested to agree that the City Council and its partners inthe Economic Prosperity Group submit a bid within the timescales

outlined below.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) was announced in theBudget earlier this year. Local Authority areas with NRF wards areeligible to bid in a competitive process for funds under the LEGIscheme to stimulate economic activity through enterprise developmentin deprived areas.

3.2 Nationally LEGI will be worth £50 million in 2006-07, £100 million in2007-8 and £150 million per year by 2008-09. In total only 30 localauthorities out of 91 eligible will receive funding, 10 in each of the nextthree years.Individual local authority areas that are successful in applying for LEGIsupport should expect to receive anything between £2million and£10million depending on the ‘critical mass’ of resources required indifferent areas. The funding will be available over a significant period oftime, anything from 5 to 10 years to support their proposals forenterprise development.

3.3 The national level aim of LEGI is:“To release the productivity and economic potential of our mostdeprived local areas and their inhabitants through enterprise andinvestment – thereby boosting local incomes and employmentopportunities”

This aim is supported by three national-level outcomes: To increase total entrepreneurial activity among the population

in deprived local areas;



To support the sustainable growth – and reduce the failure rate – of locally-owned business in deprived areas; and

To attract appropriate investment and franchising and deprivedareas, making use of local labour resources.

It should be noted that the LEGI bid is required to link to the Enterprise

and Economic Development block of the Local Area Agreement, whichwas submitted in outline to Government Office on 30th September2005.The outcome of the LEGI bid will be known around February/March of2006, at which stage a further report will be submitted to Cabinet.

3.4 Government is quite clear that Local Authorities will lead on submittingbids but that local partners, including the RDA, voluntary and privatesectors, are heavily involved in the process. An innovative partnershipbased approach is the model most likely to be successful.

3.5 Whilst national high-level guidance has been received more detailedguidance is still awaited. Government has set a timetable for firstround bids, which need to be submitted to Government Office NorthEast by the 9th December 2005.

4. CURRENT POSITION

4.1 To assist Local Authorities to develop their bids £100,000 has beenprovided to each eligible area.

4.2 The Economic Prosperity Group of the CoSP has discussed ideas for

LEGI over the past few weeks and, following a tender process, the CityCouncil has now appointed KPMG to assist the process and to developa fully costed bid for submission in December.

4.3 Council officers have also attended events organised by GovernmentOffice, ONE North East and the ODPM to gather more intelligence toinform our bid.

4.4 Whilst it is not possible to outline the detail of Sunderland’s bid at thetime of writing LEGI proposals will have to follow six key principles:

Effective targeting (to ensure people living in deprived areasbenefit);

Effective solutions (to address the fundamental barriers togrowth, including crime);

Significant commitment (of resources over the long term); Strong local and regional partnerships (with business and the

wider community);



Integration (with broader regeneration efforts and businesssupport initiatives); and

Evaluation and evidence building (to inform continuousimprovement and the development of future policy).

5 REASON FOR DECISION

5.1 Given the tight timescale for first round bids Cabinet is requested todelegate responsibility to the Chief Executive in conjunction with theEconomic Prosperity Group of the CoSP for making a submission by9th December and receive a further report following the outcome of thebid process.

6. ALTERNATIVE OPTION

6.1 There is no viable option given the timescale for bidding.

7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The cost of the consultancy work being undertaken by KPMG is to befunded from the £100,000 pump priming money from ODPM. Thereare therefore no further financial implications for the City Council at thistime.



CABINET MEETING – 7TH DECEMBER 2005


Title of Report:

Stadium Park - Sheepfolds Casino DevelopmentRegional Entertainments Complex

Author(s):Chief Executive

Purpose of Report:The purpose of this report is to seek Cabinet’s endorsement of Stadium Park -Sheepfolds as the optimum location for a large casino in the North East.

Description of Decision:Cabinet is recommended to:

i) endorse the submission of Stadium Park - Sheepfolds as the optimumlocation for a large casino in the North East to the Casino Advisory Panel;the submission to be made jointly with Sunderland arc.

ii) authorise officers to communicate to those parties that will influence thedetermination of the locations of the casinos the case for locating a largecasino in Sunderland and;

iii) delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the City Treasurerand the Leader of the Council, the appointment of consultants should itbe necessary to seek specialist advice and assistance in preparing thecase for a large casino in Sunderland.

Is the decision consistent with the Budget/Policy Framework? Yes

If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/Policy FrameworkSuggested reason(s) for Decision:To promote Sunderland as the optimum location for a large casino in the NorthEast.

Alternative options to be considered and recommended to be rejected:The alternative option is not to promote Sunderland as a location for a largecasino; however, this option is not recommended as it would frustrate the CityCouncil’s and Sunderland arc’s efforts to secure a step change in theregeneration of the City.

Is this a “Key Decision” as defined inthe Constitution? No

Is it included in the Forward Plan?No

Relevant Review Committee:

Policy and Co-ordination



CABINET 7 DECEMBER 2005

STADIUM PARK – SHEEPFOLDS:REGIONAL ENTERTAINMENTS COMPLEX:CASINO DEVELOPMENT

Report of the Chief Executive

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Cabinet’s endorsement of Stadium Park -Sheepfolds as the optimum location for a large casino in the North East.

2.0 Description of Decision

2.1 Cabinet is recommended to:

i) endorse the submission of Stadium Park-Sheepfolds as the optimumlocation for a large casino in the North East to the Casino AdvisoryPanel; the submission to be made jointly with Sunderland arc.

ii) authorise officers to communicate to those parties that will influencethe determination of the locations of the casinos the case for locating alarge casino in Sunderland and;

iii) delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the City Treasurer

and the Leader of the Council, the appointment of consultants should itbe necessary to seek specialist advice and assistance in preparing thecase for a large casino in Sunderland.

3.0 Background

3.1 The casino market in England is about to change from one with a largenumber of small operators, mostly providing a straightforward table andmachine gambling service, to one with several comparatively large casinosoffering a wide range of gaming products and associated entertainment. Thecatalyst for this change is the 2005 Gambling Act which comes fully into force

in 2007.

3.2 The Government has indicated that 17 new casinos will be licensed in GreatBritain under the new legislation: 1 Regional Casino; 8 Large Casinos and 8Small Casinos. The distribution of the casinos will be determined by theDepartment of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) advised by the independentCasino Advisory Panel (CAP). In its consideration of the suitability of areasfor locating casinos the CAP is required to take note of the conclusions ofregional planning bodies (The North East Assembly) as to desirable locations.



3.3 Local Authorities in the designated areas will be responsible for local planningmatters and premises licensing. The responsibility for regulating theoperation of the casinos will rest with the Gambling Commission, which is anindependent regulator formally established in October 2005. The coreobjectives of the Commission relate to probity and honesty, and in particular

to keeping out crime, ensuring that gambling is conducted fairly and openlyand to protect children and vulnerable adults.

3.4 The criteria which the CAP will use to advise on the distribution of casinos hasnot been determined, however, from Government statements it is clear thatthe contribution a casino will make to regeneration will be a key factor. It islikely that there will be only one large casino in the North East, and theindications are that it will be located in the metropolitan areas of eitherTyneside, Wearside or Teeside.

3.5 The Casino Advisory Panel has recently invited Local Authorities to register

their interest in securing a casino. Formal proposals are to be submitted bythe end of March 2006 with the announcement of the successful authoritiesexpected in December 2006.

4.0 The Case for Sunderland

4.1 The strategic case for locating a large casino in Sunderland is very strong. Itfits well with the emerging regional strategic context as set by the RegionalSpatial Strategy, the Regional Economic Strategy and the Regional TourismStrategy.

4.2 The development of a large casino at Stadium Park-Sheepfolds complies withthe Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which identifies Stadium Parkas an appropriate location for assembly and leisure uses, subject to thedevelopment not threatening the viability and vitality of the City Centre (PolicyNA3). The UDP Alteration No 2 identifies Stadium Park as a suitable locationfor major regional developments (Policy EC6A) and large footprint leisurerelated uses that cannot be accommodated in the City Centre (PolicyNA3A.1). Sheepfolds is also identified as a location suitable for majorregional developments, and mixed-use development which can includeassembly and leisure uses and hotels (Policy NA3A.2).

4.3 The qualitative case for developing a large casino at Stadium Park-Sheepfolds is also very strong. It would have a catalytic effect on thedevelopment of the City’s tourism offer and contribute to extending the City’seconomic prosperity by raising Sunderland’s regional and national profile.



4.4 Against the key criteria of regeneration a large casino at Stadium Park -

Sheepfolds also scores highly. While it is difficult to accurately determine thescale of contribution, preliminary analysis indicates that a large high qualitycasino and hotel could generate up to 1,500 jobs and contribute nearly £50

millions annually to the local economy.

4.5 It is recognised that the development of a large casino in Sunderland couldhave an adverse impact on people affected by a compulsive gamblingdisorder. In order to ensure that this impact was minimised the casinooperator would be required to put in place measures to protect children andpotentially vulnerable adults.

5.0 Financial Considerations

5.1 The submission of Stadium Park-Sheepfolds as the optimum location for a

large casino has no immediate financial implications for the City Council,however, in order to progress the submission and subsequently to identify apreferred operator it may be necessary to seek the advice and assistance ofexpert consultants. The arrangements for procuring an operator will be thesubject of a further report.

6.0 Reason for Decision

6.1 To promote Sunderland as the optimum location for a large casino in theNorth East.

7.0 Alternative Options

7.1 The alternative option is not to promote Sunderland as a location for a largecasino; however, this option is not recommended as it would frustrate the CityCouncil’s and Sunderland arc’s efforts to secure a step change in theregeneration of the City.

8.0 Consultations

8.1 The case for promoting Sunderland as the optimum location for a large casinoin the North East has been jointly prepared by the City Council andSunderland arc. As Stadium Park-Sheepfolds is the preferred locationSunderland Football Club has been consulted and has indicated its supportfor the proposal. The Regional Development Agency, One North East, hasalso been consulted as the main landowner in Stadium Park-Sheepfolds

8.2 The City Solicitor, the City Treasurer, the Director of Community and CulturalServices and the Director of Development and Regeneration have also beenconsulted and their comments incorporated into the body of the report.



9.0 Background Papers

9.1 Various Government publications and letter from Casino Advisory Panel dated11 November 2005 inviting the City Council to indicate its willingness to shareits preliminary plans with the CPA.



THCABINET MEETING – 7 DECEMBER

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET – PART 1

Title of Report:

DECRIMINALISED PARKING ENFORCEMENT

a) - OVERVIEW

Authors (s):

Chief Executive

Purpose of Report:The report updates Members on the position in respect of the DecriminalisedParking Enforcement regime in the City.

The report also overviews two other reports:

- the joint report of the Director of Development & Regeneration and CitySolicitor (report b)

- the joint report of the City Treasurer and City Solicitor (report c)

Description of Decision:

Cabinet is recommended to:

i) note this report and the fact that there will be a further reportsubmitted to Cabinet once the Post-Implementation Review iscompleted;

ii) request the Chief Executive to commission an independent review ofthe DPE regime, such report to be commissioned as soon as all theremedial action identified as deemed necessary by management hasbeen satisfactorily addressed.

Is the decision consistent with the Budget/Policy Framework?Yes

If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/Policy Framework

Suggested reason(s) for Decision:

To update Members on certain issues identified with the DPE regime and remedialaction taken to date and proposed for the future.

Alternative options to be considered and recommended to be rejected:

None

Is this a “Key Decision” as defined in

the Constitution? No

Relevant Review Committee

Policy & Co-ordinationIs it included in the Forward Plan?

No Environmental & Planning




DECRIMINALISED PARKING ENFORCEMENT

a) - OVERVIEW

Report of the Chief Executive

1. Purpose of the Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update Members on the position in respect of theDecriminalised Parking Enforcement Regime (DPE), in the City.

1.2 This report also acts as an overview to two other reports included under this item:

a) the joint report of the Director of Development and Regeneration and theCity Solicitor updating Cabinet on those areas of error and discrepancy inrelation to the DPE regime identified to date and the remedial action taken

b) the joint report of the City Treasurer and City Solicitor in relation to theFinancial and Associated Legal Issues.

2. Description of Decision

2.1 Cabinet is recommended to:

i) note this report and the fact that there will be a further report submitted toCabinet once the Post-Implementation Review is completed;

ii) instruct the Chief Executive to commission an independent review of theDPE regime, such report to be commissioned as soon as all the identifiedremedial action as necessary by management has been satisfactorilyaddressed.

3. Background

3.1 DPE was introduced in Sunderland in February 2003. The scheme relates tocontraventions of Traffic Regulations Orders (TRO’s) in respect of restrictions onwaiting, loading/unloading and parking places in designated areas. PenaltyCharge Notices (PCN’s) are issued where these TRO’s are contravened.

3.2 Prior to the introduction of the DPE scheme a large number of individual TRO'swere in existence which prescribed the parking restrictions which could beenforced. Enforcement responsibility largely fell to the Police with the Councilhaving enforcement powers in relation to off street car parks.



3.3 The Council, in common with other Councils, has sought to use Consolidation

Orders as a more manageable framework than retaining a large number ofindividual TRO’s. Consolidation Orders bring together individual TRO’s into asingle order.

3.4 In the lead-in to the implementation of the DPE Scheme in Sunderland, fiveConsolidation Orders were made and introduced on 15th January 2003:

- the City of Sunderland (South Sunderland Area) (Waiting andLoading and Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2003

- the City of Sunderland (North Sunderland Area) (Waiting andLoading and Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2003

- the City of Sunderland (West Sunderland Area) (Waiting andLoading and Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2003

- the City of Sunderland (Houghton & Hetton Area) (Waiting andLoading and Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2003

- the City of Sunderland (Washington Area) (Waiting and Loadingand Parking Places) (Consolidation) Order 2003

These Orders were produced for the Council by the Oscar Faber Group (nowFaber Maunsell), specialist consultants retained to assist the Council in preparingfor the implementation of the DPE regime.

National Car Parks (NCP) were appointed by the Council to enforce on streetand off street parking regulations and undertake processing of Penalty ChargeNotices and manage certain items of car park and associated equipment.

3.5 My understanding of the introduction of the DPE regime is that it was complex,and involved for Sunderland, several hundred TRO’s, steps taken to consolidatethem as set out above, as well as the practical, technical and operationalelements of lines and signs and orders being accurate and valid at severalhundred places throughout the City.

3.6 As the scheme is very complex, both the Post Implementation Review and theremedial work undertaken have necessarily been very resource intensive andlengthy. In addition, in relation to the Post Implementation Review it is essentialthat the Council's employment responsibilities and duties are properlysafeguarded. As such this report and the reports that follow under this agendaitem must not anticipate the Post Implementation Review's findings or be seen asany opportunity to conduct any part of that Review.

4. The situation as at August 2005

4.1 A number of representations had been made over the administration of the DPEregime and until August 2005 these had been generally dealt with on a routinebasis.



4.2 In mid August 2005, the Council’s Press Office received an enquiry related to

Penalty Charge Notices and an allegation from a member of the public that thesehad been wrongfully issued to people who had parked in Taxi Ranks. The querywas relayed by the Press Office to the City Solicitor and thence to the Director of

Development and Regeneration, the City Treasurer and myself. Whilstpreliminary enquiries were being undertaken, a potential issue was highlighted inrelation to on street parking charges and it was decided to take Counsel’s adviceon the matter concerned.

4.3 On 24th August 2005, after consultation with me, the Director of Developmentand Regeneration and City Solicitor commissioned a Post ImplementationReview of the DPE Scheme to assess:

- the arrangements that were put in place to implement the DPEScheme and

- the subsequent management and operational arrangements withinthe Council and with the successful contractor, National Car Parks(NCP).

4.4 In view of the complexity of the regime and also the specialist legal expertiserequired, instructions were issued to Counsel for advice relating to a number ofaspects of the regime in place at that time. Counsel’s advice is referred to in the

joint report of the Director of Development and Regeneration and City Solicitor.

4.5 Although the advice has confirmed that we have some problems with thescheme, it is important to emphasise that leading Counsel's advice is that there isno basis to the claims that the decriminalized parking regime established inSunderland is unlawful. His advice, however, has led to extensive overhauling ofthe operational (lines, signs and orders) aspects of the scheme. It has alsonecessitated undertaking to make refunds to the value of just over £34,000where Penalty Charge Notices have been inappropriately issued in taxi ranksand for blue badge holders parking in loading bays.

4.6 The amount collected from PCN’s wrongfully issued amounts to 0.6% of the totalincome from the DPE regime to the end of 2004/2005.

5. Action taken since August 2005

5.1 As a consequence of the issues arising from the management review of theregime and also in response to Counsel’s opinion, a significant amount of workhas been done to address any errors and discrepancies identified. Based onCounsel’s advice and our own judgment where PCN’s have been issued whichhave subsequently turned out to be wrongfully issued, rigorous steps have beentaken to reimburse all monies paid in connection with those notices.



5.2 The operational and remedial action taken since the middle of August 2005 todate is summarised in the accompanying report by the Director of Developmentand Regeneration and the City Solicitor.

6. Financial and Associated Legal Issues

6.1 The Council and the District Auditor have been notified of an objection to theCouncil’s Statement of Accounts for 2004/05. The objection is from aSunderland resident and is in respect of income from the DPE regime.

6.2 The objection and the associated financial and legal issues are the subject of theaccompanying report from the City Treasurer and City Solicitor

7. The Post Implementation Review

7.1 As indicated above, the Post Implementation Review exercise has been lengthyand is still not completed. Although there are some issues emerging in terms ofaction not taken or taken too late (see Para 4.2.3 in the joint report of Director ofDevelopment and Regeneration and City Solicitor at item b) ) it is imperative thatthese are fully evaluated and properly validated before a comprehensive reportcan be produced which provides the necessary certainty to move forward.

7.2 Where issues have been identified that officers have been able to act upon,action has been taken. Thus, for example, action has been taken in respect ofrepayments and also in respect of various physical and other errors as indicatedin the accompanying report of the Director of Development and Regenerationand City Solicitor.

7.3 In addition, in view of the seriousness of the issues and the potential reputationand risk issues for the Council, I have taken action to ensure that absolutepriority has been given to action to rectify errors and omissions and to repaymonies received in respect of wrongfully issued PCN’s.

8. Next Steps

8.1 There are a number of steps still to be taken in respect of the DPE regime.Firstly, all the updated and revised Orders have been published and anyobjections will be considered at the meeting of Planning and HighwaysCommittee on 22nd December 2005.

Secondly, remedial work is still ongoing in respect of lines and signs andadditional actions may still be necessary if any further errors and discrepanciesare identified.

Thirdly, efforts continue to get as close as possible to achieve 100% repaymentof monies wrongfully received.



Finally, the Post Implementation Review has yet to be completed. It is expectedthis work will be completed in January. At that stage it will be possible todetermine what further action is required.

8.2 After that it is suggested that an independent review be undertaken of the whole

regime.

9. Conclusion

9.1 A number of errors have been found with the DPE regime in Sunderland. It isalready clear that actions required to remedy physical errors and orders were nottaken at the appropriate time and, in some instances, no action was taken at all.The Review will ascertain why and will highlight steps to ensure that this situationcannot recur. The actions taken to date to remedy these are summarised in theaccompanying report of the Director of Development and Regeneration and CitySolicitor. The regime has been confirmed by leading Counsel as not beingunlawful but a number of improvements, amendments and clarifications havebeen made to make the regime more robust. The accompanying reports set outmore information in terms of the action taken to date.

10. Reason for the Decision

10.1 To update Members on certain issues identified with the DPE regime andremedial action taken to date and proposed for the future.

11. Alternative Options

11.1 None.

12. List of Background Papers

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement Briefing Note from Director of Development& Regeneration, City Solicitor and City Treasurer.



CABINET MEETING – 7 DECEMBER 2005


Title of Report:DECRIMINALISED PARKING ENFORCEMENT: B) REMEDIAL ACTION

Author(s):Report of the Director of Development and Regeneration and City Solicitor

Purpose of Report:The purpose of this report is to summarise the recent actions taken to regulariseand rationalise the Council’s arrangements in respect of Decriminalised ParkingEnforcement (DPE).

Description of Decision:Cabinet is requested to note the progress made and endorse the actions taken todate.


If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/Policy FrameworkSuggested reason(s) for Decision:The decision is in order for Cabinet to be informed of progress in resolving theproblems relating to DPE.

Alternative options to be considered and recommended to be rejected:None are submitted for consideration

Is this a “Key Decision” asdefined in the Constitution?

No


Relevant Review Committee:Policy and Co-ordination

Environmental and Planning




DECRIMINALISED PARKING ENFORCEMENT: B) REMEDIAL ACTION

Report of the Director of Development and Regeneration and the City

Solicitor


1.1 The purpose of this report is to summarise the recent actions taken toregularise and rationalise the Council’s arrangements in respect ofDecriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE).


2.1 Cabinet is requested to note the progress made and endorse the

actions taken to date.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Members are aware of challenges to the validity of the Council’s DPEregime and the Controlled Parking Zone in the City Centre.

3.2 This report deals with the actions taken since August of this year toaddress errors or discrepancies in relation to the DPE regime and inparticular the Traffic Regulation Orders and on-street signing (roadmarkings and traffic signs). It summarises some key points ofchallenge and the consequences of investigations made into them.The report should be considered in conjunction with other reportsdescribing the broader context and financial and associated legalconsiderations.

3.3 It is expected by the Department for Transport (DfT) that Councilsproposing to decriminalise the parking arrangements within theirboundaries would review their Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).Typically, and in Sunderland’s case, this involves making consolidationorders. A consolidation order revokes existing separate orders and

re-enacts them in one order without a change of substance.

3.4 After competitive tendering in February 2000 the Director ofEnvironment commissioned the Oscar Faber Group Ltd, now FaberMaunsell, to produce 5 consolidation orders covering the whole of theCity and to report on what else would be necessary to ensure that all ofthe arrangements for enforcement were in place, and that the signingof the highway accurately reflected the TROs in existence. Thisincluded undertaking an exercise to identify any discrepancies betweenTROs and signing and resulted in the production of an ExceptionsReport. The five consolidation orders were made in January 2003.



3.5 On 14 March 2001 Cabinet authorised the Director of Environment to

progress the introduction of DPE, subject to a satisfactory businesscase. The Oscar Faber Group was appointed in August 2001, againafter competitive tendering.

3.6 Approval to proceed with DPE was given at the Cabinet meeting heldon 14 November 2001 aiming for an implementation date of October2002.

3.7 The consultant recommended a “client/contractor” split for themanagement and operation of decriminalised parking enforcement inthe City and the Cabinet approved that the enforcement function beoutsourced.

3.8 After competitive tendering, the enforcement contractor, NCP Limited,

was appointed in November 2002 inter alia to enforce on-street and off-street parking regulations and undertake processing of Penalty ChargeNotices (PCNs).

3.9 A formal application to take on the powers associated with DPE wassubmitted to the DfT on 30 April 2002. The Secretary of Statesubsequently made the Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area andSpecial Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002 on 21December 2002, which introduced the DPE regime on 3 February2003.

3.10 In August of this year due to a press enquiry regarding parking in taxiranks, the Director of Development and Regeneration and City Solicitorinvestigated the matter concerning such ranks and following thisarrangements were made to instigate refunds to motorists who hadincorrectly received PCNs in these circumstances.

3.11 Further investigations into the DPE regime were made resulting in:

• After consultation with the Chief Executive, the Director ofDevelopment and Regeneration and City Solicitor

commissioning a post implementation review.• The establishment of a project plan and team to correct the

deficiencies in the signing and TROs.

• Obtaining Counsel’s advice on a range of issues due to thecomplexity of the law in this area.

4. CURRENT POSITION

4.1 The legality of the scheme

4.1.1 A report containing Counsel’s advice on the legal position will be

considered in Part II of the agenda.



4.1.2 In relation to challenges to the validity of the Controlled Parking Zone

(CPZ) in Sunderland City Centre and the decriminalised parkingenforcement regime, in summary Counsel has advised there is nobasis for the following claims:

a. That there is a requirement for a specific Order declaring thecreation of the CPZ;

b. That the CPZ is unlawful;

c. That the decriminalised parking enforcement regime establishedin Sunderland is unlawful.

d. That the decriminalised parking enforcement regime should besuspended.

Further that unless or until a successful legal challenge is made to theSpecial/ Permitted Parking Order made by the Secretary of State theCouncil must assume that the decriminalised regime is lawful. There isno power available to the Council to “suspend” the regime.

4.2 Deficiencies Identified and Actions Taken

4.2.1 PCNs issued for parking in taxi ranks

Taxi ranks in Sunderland have been created under the LocalGovernment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Parking in thesetaxi ranks is illegal, but not enforceable under the DPE regime (it hasnot been decriminalised).

As stated in paragraph 3.10, prompt action has been taken to refundthose motorists who had been issued with a PCN since the date ofimplementation of DPE.

The total number of PCNs identified for refund is 791. As at 25November 2005 93% of the refunds due have been made. All but one

motorist has been traced. Efforts continue to achieve 100% refunds.The matter has been advertised in the local press, two letters havebeen sent, and telephone calls have also been made to this end.

4.2.2 PCNs issued to Blue Badge Holders Parking in Loading Bays

The DfT Blue Badge scheme guidelines advise against this form ofparking. Many Councils continue to enforce against this activity.However Counsel’s advice is that Blue Badge Holders may park inloading bays, if they comply with the exemption under regulation 8 ofthe Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemption for Disabled Persons)

(England) Regulations 2000. Refunds to those Blue Badge Holders



who have been issued with a PCN since the date of implementation ofDPE are therefore being made.

199 PCNs have been identified for refund. As at 25 November 200576% of the refunds due have been paid. Three of the Blue Badge

Holders cannot be traced. Efforts continue to be made to achieve100% of refunds. Again the matter has been advertised in the localpress, two letters have been sent, and telephone calls are being madeto this end.

4.2.3 The Exceptions Report

Paragraph 3.4 refers to the production of an Exceptions Report as partof the Consultant’s commission to produce new Consolidation Ordersin the run up to implementing DPE. Essentially, this report provides (i)schedules of physical errors where the signing on-street does not

appear to reconcile accurately to the related TRO and (ii) a scheduleof locations for which no TRO had been located to support the signingwhich existed on-street. The report also highlighted otherdiscrepancies which had been corrected by the consultant. Althoughsome remedial work had been done prior to and after the DPEimplementation date, many irregularities have remained unresolved.Much work has been undertaken since August of this year to resolvethese irregularities and, in part, through undertaking this exercise, anumber of other discrepancies, not included in the Exceptions Reporthave been identified. The work done since August is summarisedbelow:

a) Physical ErrorsA survey of the signing existing within the 5 areas included inthe Consolidation Orders and which make up the entiregeographical area of the City has been undertaken. Whereinconsistencies between the TROs and signing have beenidentified, it is proposed that they are resolved either throughamendment to the TROs (through Amendment Orders) orcorrections to the signing on street. A programme of works toaddress anomalies in signing and its legibility has been

instigated and is due to be completed by 9 December 2005. Itmust be emphasised however that laying road markings andother site operations is weather dependent and that dateremains subject to review in this regard.

b) Locations for which no TRO has been located.Where a TRO has not been physically located to supportexisting signing, the necessary provisions have been made inthe proposed Amendment Orders.

c) The Making of New Orders

It is proposed that all of the Orders required to resolve the



discrepancies in the current scheme be introduced throughAmendment Orders to the Consolidation Orders for the 5 areasof the City, namely Sunderland North, Sunderland West,Sunderland South, Washington and Houghton and Hetton. TheDraft Orders are currently subject to public consultation and are

now on statutory deposit. It is proposed to report on anyobjections to these Orders at the Planning and HighwaysCommittee in December.

4.2.4 The Implication of the Exceptions Report and other Discrepancies

It is apparent that whilst the Council’s parking regime includesrestrictions which are flawed at some locations due to inconsistency inand between signing and TROs, there is no basis for not enforcing themany restrictions where they are compliant, and indeed the Councilhas a duty to ensure that the scheme works properly. Wherever

inconsistencies have been identified a judgement is necessary todetermine whether or not PCNs have been issued inappropriately andrepayments are required. Counsel has given advice for a range ofscenarios and it is clear that some further repayments should be madeand attempts to contact those who are known to be affected arenecessary. Officers are investigating the details of every case in whicha refund may be appropriate and motorists will be contacted direct tomake repayments following a procedure similar to that outlinedpreviously.

4.2.5 Repayments

The position on repayments in general is that where there is no TRO inforce – a repayment must be made. If there is an element of doubt or ifa motorist is arguing that there is inconsistency between signing andthe regulations or the order then the Council would generally beentitled to rely on the appeal process to determine whether the PCNwas correctly issued. Action has and will continue to be taken torefund monies to motorists where appropriate and possible, includingany situation where the signing was so obviously inadequate that amotorist could not have failed to have been misled.

4.2.6 The City of Sunderland (On Street Parking Places) Order 1993

This order provides the regulatory framework for parking in on streetparking bays. There is some ambiguity in the 2003 ConsolidationOrder as to how it has dealt with the charging provisions in respect ofthe On Street parking.

In order to address this Counsel has advised that to put the matterbeyond doubt a new order should be made.



In the interim having regard to Counsel’s advice it is consideredreasonable for the Council to continue to rely on the existingprovisions.

A new draft Order was published for consultation on 19 November2005 and any objections will be reported to the Planning and HighwaysCommittee in December 2005.

4.2.7 The City of Sunderland (Off Street Parking Places) Order 1994

This order provides the regulatory framework for parking in theCouncil’s off street surface and multi-storey car parks.

Counsel has advised that although the City of Sunderland (PermittedParking Area and Special Parking Area) (Traffic Order Amendments)

Order 2003 “the 2003 Order” appears to have been effective to bringthis Order into line with the DPE regime he advised that a new order bemade which specifically incorporates new parking provisions.

A new draft order was published for consultation on 12 November 2005and any objections will be reported to the Planning and HighwaysCommittee in December 2005.

4.2.8 The 2003 Order

The purpose of the 2003 order was to insert provisions which state that(a) where a vehicle is left in contravention with any provision in theOrder, a penalty charge shall be payable and (b) that the provisions ofS66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 are to be incorporated into variousTROs.

Our review has revealed that not all the relevant TROs were includedin the 2003 Order. There are also concerns about the generality of thewording of the Order as it purports to amend all other TROs.

Accordingly, a further Order is being drafted to address these issues.

4.3 The Role of NCP and Faber Maunsell

4.3.1 The Council has used the services of Faber Maunsell throughcommissions in relation to the preparation of Consolidation Orders andto assist the Council to introduce a decriminalised parking scheme inthe City.

4.3.2 NCP were appointed by the Council to, among other matters, enforceon and off street parking restrictions.

4.3.3 It will be necessary to consider the responsibilities of theseorganisations in due course.



5. CONCLUSION

5.1 Counsel has advised that there is no basis for the claim that theDecriminalised Parking Enforcement regime established in Sunderland

is unlawful.

5.2 However, there are deficiencies within the present Scheme and theseare being addressed by promoting new Orders and correcting physicalerrors and discrepancies as described in the report.

5.3 Action has been and will continue to be taken to refund monies tomotorists where appropriate and possible.

6. NEXT STEPS

6.1 Efforts to date have concentrated on remedying the discrepancies inthe DPE regime.

6.2 It is recognised that the need to undertake this work has in part arisenfrom failures in systems and procedures within the service areasconcerned. Pending the outcome of the post implementation review itis intended to introduce revised arrangements which will be reviewedfurther when the full findings are available.

7. REASONS FOR DECISION

7.1 The decision is in order for Cabinet to be informed of progress inresolving the problems relating to DPE.

8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

8.1 None are submitted for consideration.

9. BACKGROUND PAPERS

9.1 Exceptions Report 2001

All Consolidation Orders




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET- PART I

Title of Report:

Decriminalised Parking Enforcementc) Financial and Associated Legal Issues

Author(s):

City Treasurer and City Solicitor

Purpose of Report:

This report sets out the financial and associated legal issues associated withchanges made to the Council's Statement of Accounts and the fact that anobjection has been made to the Council's Statement of Accounts for 2004/2005.


Cabinet is requested to endorse the actions taken to date both in relation to theStatement of Accounts for 2004/2005 and the proposed action for addressingany further errors or discrepancies within the Decriminalised ParkingEnforcement Regime which are confirmed, including the taking of remedial action

and the refunding of motorists where deemed appropriate and necessary, inaccordance with legal advice received.


If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/Policy FrameworkSuggested reason(s) for Decision:

To inform the Cabinet of changes made to the Statement of Accounts for2004/2005 since they were approved, subject to audit, and provide theopportunity for Cabinet to endorse the action taken and proposed in light of the

legal advice received.


There are no alternative options recommended.

Is this a “Key Decision” asdefined in the Constitution? No






Cabinet 7th December 2005

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement

c) Financial and Associated Legal Issues

Report of the City Treasurer and City Solicitor

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. This report sets out the financial and associated legal issues associated withchanges made to the Council's Statement of Accounts and the fact that anobjection has been made to the Council's Statement of Accounts for2004/2005.


2.1 Cabinet is requested to endorse the actions taken to date both in relation tothe Statement of Accounts for 2004/2005 and the proposed action foraddressing any further errors or discrepancies within the DecriminalisedParking Enforcement (DPE) Regime which are confirmed, including the takingof remedial action and the refunding of motorists where deemed appropriateand necessary, in accordance with legal advice received.

3. Background

3.1 Set out at item b) of this agenda item are details of those items of error anddiscrepancy within the DPE Regime and actions taken to regularise andrationalise the Council's arrangements in respect of the DPE Regime.

3.2 During August, 2005, the City Solicitor and Director of Development andRegeneration became aware that enforcement was taking place for parking intaxi ranks and immediately drew the attention of this fact to the City Treasureras they considered that the enforcement may not carry the backing of law.This was subsequently confirmed by leading Counsel.

3.3 With regard to Disabled Blue Badge Holders, in light of differing views from a

number of parties as to their right or otherwise to park in loading bays,Counsel's opinion was sought in September 2005. Counsel concluded thatthere is an exemption for Disabled Blue Badge Holders and that thosemotorists fulfilling the terms of the exemption should not have been issuedwith Penalty Charge Notices.

3.4 In light of Counsel's advice, an exercise is in hand to identify all thosemotorists wrongfully charged in order to refund to them the monies paid overto the Council. Progress made to date in refunding relevant motorists is setout at item b) of this agenda item.



3.5 Given the complexities of the DPE Regime and the need to ensure that the

Council's arrangements are free from error or discrepancy, Counsel's opinionhas continued to be taken on specific aspects of the Regime as appropriate.The Council has given an undertaking to take necessary remedial action and

refund monies to motorists where appropriate and possible.



4. Statement of Accounts 2004/2005

Amendments to the Statement of Accounts 2004/2005

4.1 In order to ensure that the Statement of Accounts for 2004/2005 present fairlythe financial position of the Council, appropriate amendments were made tothe Statement of Accounts 2004/2005 as follows:

Creditor's Provision for Refunds.

4.2 An adjustment was made to the accounts to recognise within the accountsthat funding was needed to enable refunds to be made to the motoristsidentified as having been incorrectly issued with Penalty Charge Notices. Theadjustment created a creditor of just over £34,000.

Post Balance Sheet Event

4.3 A Post Balance Sheet Event was included in the Notes to the ConsolidatedBalance Sheet which stated that the Council has sought legal advice inrelation to certain aspects of its DPE Regime and that legal advice hadconfirmed that the Council has issued Penalty Charge Notices incorrectly inrelation to certain circumstances in the financial years 2002/2003, 2003/2004,and 2004/2005. It went on to state that the Council has undertaken to put inplace appropriate remedial action and has already begun to refund all of theincome relating to those Penalty Charge Notices incorrectly issued in thosethree years and that the Accounts had been amended accordingly.

Contingent Liability

4.4 A Contingent Liability Note was also included in the Notes to the ConsolidatedBalance Sheet which highlighted, that since the accounts had been preparedand approved, a number of potential inaccuracies and errors had beenidentified in relation to the Council's DPE Regime and that the Council wastaking legal advice in relation to these potential errors and discrepancies andwhere errors or discrepancies were confirmed the Council would undertake totake necessary remedial action and refund monies to motorists where

appropriate and possible.



5. Objection to the Statement of Accounts 2004/2005

5.1 On 25th October, 2005, the District Auditor received an objection to theStatement of Accounts 2004/2005. The objection refers to an alleged item of

unlawful income in relation to income derived from Penalty Charge Noticesissued by the Council and its agents National Car Parks under the DPERegime for the Council's 2004/2005 accounts.

5.2 The District Auditor accepted that the objection was valid in part and hasasked for the City Treasurer's comments in relation to the informationreceived. This response is in the process of being finalised. Once the DistrictAuditor has received a response he will decide whether he is in a position todetermine the objection or whether he will need to make further enquiries.

5.3 The Council will incur additional charges from the Audit Commission for the

work that they undertake in considering the objection. It is not possible toindicate what those additional charges may amount to at this stage. Thematter will be kept under review and further reports made in due course.Funding for meeting the costs of the District Auditor for considering theobjection will be met from General Contingencies.

5.4 Set out in the report at b) of this agenda item are references to Counsel'sadvice in relation to the DPE Regime. Counsel is clear in relation to thechallenges made to the validity of the DPE Regime generally that "unless oruntil a successful legal challenge is made to the Special / Permitted ParkingOrder made by the Secretary of State the Council must assume that thedecriminalised regime is lawful. There is no power available to "suspend" theregime." Notwithstanding this advice, the outcome of the objection cannot beprejudged.

5.5 When the Accounts Committee considered the Statement of Accounts2004/2005 for approval at it's meeting on the 28th October, 2005, it wasadvised of the objection to the Statement of Accounts which had beenreceived and took legal advice in relation to the issue which is the subject ofthe objection. The District Auditor had advised in his report that:

-

an objection had been received;- that he was satisfied that the draft financial statements had been amended

appropriately to reflect the amount collected unlawfully in the periods tothe 31st March, 2005;

- that the sum involved had not been assessed as material;- that the work carried out by the Council to date (28th October, 2005) had

also identified a degree of uncertainty in relation to other aspects of theDPE Scheme and that although there was a significant degree ofuncertainty on the likelihood and value of any reimbursement by theCouncil the value had not been assessed as material;



- - that the Council had amended its accounts in accordance with the

requirements of Financial Reporting Standard 12 which deals withProvisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets and that he wassatisfied that this was an appropriate accounting treatment.

Finally the District Auditor stated that he proposed to issue an unqualifiedaudit opinion but that he could not formally conclude the audit and issue anaudit certificate until consideration of the objection had been concluded.

The Accounts Committee, after considering the District Auditor's report andlegal advice received, approved the Statement of Accounts 2004/2005.

6. Review and Regularisation of the DPE Regime

6.1 The other reports under this Agenda Item highlight the steps being taken to

regularise the Council's DPE Regime. In summary, arrangements have beenput in place to identify and remedy errors and discrepancies within the DPERegime as quickly as possible. Officers are clear as to their responsibilitiesand appropriate management and monitoring mechanisms are in place toensure appropriate remedial action is taken. Once the Post ImplementationReview has been completed any areas of weakness in the internal controlarrangements highlighted will be addressed. Monitoring will take place untilthe internal control weaknesses have been addressed.

7. Next Steps

7.1 The outcome of the objection will be reported to the Accounts Committee,Cabinet and relevant Review Committees in due course. Further reports toCabinet on financial and associated legal Issues will be made as necessary.

8. Reason for the Decision

8.1 To inform the Cabinet of changes made to the Statement of Accounts for2004/2005 since they were approved, subject to audit, and provide theopportunity for Cabinet to endorse the action taken and proposed in light ofthe legal advice received.


9.1 There are no alternative options recommended.

10. Background Papers

10.1 Report to Accounts Committee of 28th October, 2005 (Public Part Only).




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET- PART I

Title of Report:

Annual Efficiency Statement 2005/2006 – Mid Year Review

Author(s):

Chief Executive and City Treasurer

Purpose of Report:

To report details the Mid Year Review of the 2005-2006 Forward Looking AnnualEfficiency Statement submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.


Cabinet is recommended to endorse the Mid Year Review Annual EfficiencyStatement submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Is the decision consistent with the Budget/Policy Framework? Yes.


To enable appropriate action to be taken by the Council to ensure theGovernment's Efficiency Review is implemented.


No alternative options are proposed.

Is this a “Key Decision” asdefined in the Constitution?No






Cabinet 7th December, 2005

Annual Efficiency Statement 2005/2006 – Mid Year Review

Report of the Chief Executive and City Treasurer

1. Introduction

1.1 This report advises Members of the Mid Year Review of the 2005/2006Forward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement submitted to the Office of theDeputy Prime Minister.


2.1 Cabinet is requested to endorse the Mid Year Review Annual EfficiencyStatement submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

3. Background

3.1 In August 2003 Sir Peter Gershon was asked to undertake a review of publicsector efficiency. The Gershon Report on the Review of Public SectorEfficiency was reported alongside the 2004 Spending Review in July 2004. TheReport identified, what it considered, were auditable and transparent efficiencygains available throughout the public sector. The results arising from theGershon Review led to the government setting a target for efficiency gains inthe public sector of 2.5% per annum for each of the three years covered by theSpending Review. The total amount of efficiency gains envisaged by Gershonfor the public sector over the three years amounts to £21bn.

3.2 The government is clear that efficiency gains must not be delivered at theexpense of quality of service delivery. Service cuts will not count as efficiencygains. Efficiencies are defined as:

Cashable

• reducing inputs (money, assets, etc.) for the same outputs;

• reducing prices (procurement, labour costs etc.) for the same outputs;

It is a requirement that identified cashable gains must be a minimum 50% ofthe ODPM target i.e. 1.25%.

Non Cashable• getting greater outputs or improved quality (extra service productivity

etc.) for the same inputs;

• getting proportionately more outputs or improved quality in exchange foran increase in resources.



3.3 All authorities are to achieve a minimum 2.5% efficiency gain year on year i.e.:

2005/2006 2.5% efficiency gain when compared to 2004/2005;

2006/2007 5% efficiency gain when compared to 2004/2005;

2007/2008 7.5% efficiency gain when compared to 2004/2005.

3.4 The target efficiency gain for the City of Sunderland Council for 2005/2006 is£6.840m (2005/2006 price base) using the ODPM assessment of Councilexpenditure (excluding schools) in 2004/2005.

3.5 Whilst no there is no recognition of the starting position of each local authoritythe government has allowed local authorities to count 2004/2005 efficiencygains towards meeting future years targets providing there is a clear audit trailand they will remain throughout the period of the Spending Review (2005/2006to 2007/2008). The ODPM have confirmed that when looking at achievementof the 2005/2006 target (and future years) they will take the cumulative positionof 2004/2005 ongoing efficiency gains plus 2005/2006 new efficiency gains.

3.6 The 'Use of Resources' element of the Comprehensive PerformanceAssessment (CPA) includes an assessment of the Annual EfficiencyStatement. There are no sanctions planned for local authorities that either don'tcomply or don't succeed in achieving the target for the efficiency savings.However, the strong link with CPA and its importance in determining the 'Valuefor Money' judgement of the CPA provides a strong incentive.

3.7 It is clear from the CPA guidance on the Use of Resources block thatAuthorities which are to gain the highest rankings need to demonstrateefficiency savings above the 2.5% minimum target set by government. Ourefficiency target for 2005/2006 was set with this in mind.

3.8 Annual Efficiency Statement

Each Local Authority is required to publish an Annual Efficiency Statement.The Statement is in two parts as follows:

3.8.1 Forward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement

The Forward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement for 2005/2006 was required

to be submitted to the ODPM by 15th April, 2005. This was reportedretrospectively to Cabinet in June 2005.

At that time it was reported to Cabinet that the Council had set itself a target of3.5% for 2005/2006 (equating to £9.512million efficiency gains) i.e. exceedingthe Government target of 2.5%. The forecast 3.5% efficiency gain was split -1.50% for cashable savings and 2.00% for non - cashable savings.



3.8.2 Backward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement

The Backward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement for 2004/2005 wassubmitted to the ODPM on 29th July 2005 and reported to Cabinet on 27th July2005. This identified efficiency gains achieved in 2004/2005 of 2.07%(£5.536million) of the Government baseline comprising 0.74% cashable

savings and 1.33% non - cashable savings.

3.8.3 Annual Efficiency Statement Mid Year Review

All Single Tier and County Councils that do not have 'Excellent' Status arerequired to submit a mid year update on the progress they have made towardsachieving the targets set out in their Forward Looking Annual EfficiencyStatement. Districts and 'Excellent' Councils were also invited to submit a MidYear Review which was due for submission to the ODPM by 17 th November2005 and was submitted by that date.

4. Monitoring and Mid Year Review of Annual Efficiency Statement2005/2006

4.1 Monitoring of achievement of this Council’s targets is incorporated in theroutine financial and performance-monitoring framework at Directorate level.All identified initiatives have a nominated lead officer who is accountable forensuring successful implementation and ongoing monitoring andmeasurement. These monitoring arrangements have been utilised to compile aMid Year Review for submission to the ODPM.

4.2 As part of the preparation of the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AnnualEfficiency Statement it was recognised that some initiatives included in the

2005/2006 Forward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement could reasonably beattributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 Forward Looking Annual EfficiencyStatement has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer of these initiativesto the 2004/2005 Backward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement, but also toincorporate new efficiency initiatives which have been identified. The Mid YearReview position for submission to the ODPM has been compiled takingaccount of these issues.

4.3 As previously stated the ODPM has confirmed that when looking atachievement of the 2005/2006 target they will take the cumulative position of2004/2005 ongoing efficiency gains plus 2005/2006 new efficiency gains.

4.4 Attached at Appendix A is the Annual Efficiency Statement Mid Year Reviewfor this Council submitted to the ODPM on 17th November. This now includes atarget efficiency of 2.5% or £6.840million (of which 50% is cashable) for2005/2006. When combined with the 2004/2005 efficiencies identified, theCouncil would cumulatively achieve £12.376million equating to approximately4.5% of the ODPM target i.e. exceeding both the Government target of 2.5%and our own initial target of 3.5%.



4.5 Cabinet is asked to endorse the Annual Efficiency Statement Mid Year Reviewsubmitted to the ODPM.

5. Future Years Targets

As part of the Budget Planning Framework for 2006/2007 work is beingundertaken to identify efficiencies both for consideration as part of setting the

2006/2007 Revenue Budget and also for inclusion within the 2006/2007 AnnualEfficiency Statement and beyond, to ensure achievement of our efficiency targets.

As well as Directorate specific initiatives, it is anticipated that a number of theCouncil’s strategic crosscutting projects will realise further efficiencies over themedium-term through our strategic change programme both in terms of cashable andnon-cashable savings.

A further report will be submitted to Cabinet in due course setting out the Councilsproposed Forward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement for 2006/2007.

Appendix B sets out the strategic cross cutting projects which are either currentlybeing progressed with the objective of achieving transformational change toimprove services for customers and which it is envisaged will realiseefficiencies in the medium term. Monitoring progress on these projects is to bealigned within the monitoring mechanisms of the general efficiency agenda.

In addition Review Committees have identified and are progressing a range ofpolicy reviews and receive reports of Strategic Performance ImprovementReviews and Best Value Reviews across the Council. It is proposed that thateach Review Committee consider the scope to improve efficiency of thespecific area under review as part of their work.

6 Reasons for Decision

6.1 To enable appropriate action to be taken by the Council to ensure theGovernment's Efficiency Review is implemented.


7.1 No alternative options are proposed.

Background Papers:Government Guidance: Delivering Efficiency in Local Services (1)

Delivering Efficiency in Local Services (2)Efficiency Technical note for Local GovernmentGuide to Completing the 2005/6 Mid-Year Update



APPENDIX A

Annual Efficiency Statement - Mid-Year Update

Local authoritySunderland City Council

General or Overarching CommentsGeneral overview of position:

Sunderland City Council has an efficiency strategy which involves settingchallenging targets at Council and Directorate level coupled with a range ofcross cutting actions designed to ensure services our citizens need aredelivered in the most cost effective way. This allowed us to establish an initial2005/2006 Forward Looking Annual Efficiency Statement (AES) beyond our2.5% target.

Our initial 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES submission identified targetefficiency savings of 3.5% or £9.512million. As part of our 2004/2005 BackwardLooking AES submission we identified 2.07% or £5.536million of efficiencies.

As part of the preparation of the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it wasrecognised that some initiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward LookingAES could reasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 ForwardLooking AES has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer of theseinitiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES, but also to incorporate,new efficiency initiatives which have been identified. The Forward Looking AEShas been updated throughout the year to reflect these new initiatives.

The Forward Looking AES mid year update now includes a target efficiency of2.5% or £6.840million. When combined with the 2004/2005 efficienciesidentified, the Council will cumulatively have achieved £12.376million equatingto approximately 4.5% of the ODPM target i.e. exceeding both the Governmenttarget of 2.5% and our own initial target of 3.5%.

In addition we are confident that we will be able to realise further strategiccrosscutting efficiencies over the medium-term through our strategic changeprogramme both in terms of cashable and non-cashable savings.

Monitoring Arrangements:

Monitoring of achievement of targets is incorporated in the routine financial andperformance-monitoring framework of the Council both at a Corporate andDirectorate level. All identified initiatives have a nominated lead officer who isaccountable for ensuring successful implementation and ongoing monitoringand measurement.



Key actions taken so far during 2005/2006:

Actions taken so far during the year have depended upon the nature of eachindividual programme, project or initiative but broadly we have:

Gained improvements to productive time through absence management,workforce planning and reviewing and implementing revised business

procedures;· Implemented general cost efficiencies by enforcing good house keeping;· Implemented the Council's Corporate Procurement Strategy which ensuresalternative methods of service delivery or contract are considered andimplemented where costs can be reduced or outputs maintained for the samecost;· Implemented numerous strategic and operational reviews many of which haveand will continue to realise efficiencies in future years;· Ensured the efficiency potential offered by the use of ICT and e government isintegral to our strategic developments and from which we will begin to realiseefficiencies in future years.

In addition in terms of embedding the efficiency agenda further into theCouncil’s decision making process the following key actions have beenimplemented:

· Formalisation by Cabinet of the Council’s approach to Driving Improvement inServices and Value for Money to ensure clear understanding throughout theCouncil of how it acts to achieve value for money;· Implementation of more rigorous assessment of comparative financial data,benchmarking and performance indicators to indicate areas requiringinvestigation and action;· The need for baselines and clear intended outcomes are a requirement for alldevelopment proposals so as to inform the decision making process. These arethe subject of rigorous performance measurement and management during andpost implementation.



EstimatedefficienciesachievedApr 05 -Sept 05(inclusive)

Forecast2005/06efficiencies

...ofwhichcashable

2004/05annualefficiencygain

2004/05...ofwhichcashable

Forecastcumulativeefficiency

...ofwhichcashable

270,000 400,000 350,000 1,003,585 319,706 1,403,585 669,706

Adult socialservices

Explanation of Major Differences: As part of the preparation of the2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it was recognised that someinitiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES couldreasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 Forward Lookingforecast has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer of theseinitiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES, but alsoincorporates new efficiency initiatives which have been identified.

The cumulative achievement in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 is forecast toexceed our original Forward Looking AES target for 2005/2006. 1,105,000 1,706,000 416,000 473,003 232,549 2,179,003 648,549

Children'sservices


The cumulative achievement in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 is forecast toexceed our original Forward Looking AES target for 2005/2006. 110,000 240,000 181,000 48,167 25,296 288,167 206,296

Culture andsport

Explanation of Major Differences: As part of the preparation of the

2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it was recognised that someinitiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES couldreasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 Forward Lookingforecast has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer of theseinitiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES, but alsoincorporates new efficiency initiatives which have been identified.

Although the level of cashable gains has reduced in this service sectorthis has been compensated for by increases in other service sectors.



395,000 660,000 660,000 476,187 106,210 1,136,187 766,210

Environmentalservices

Explanation of Major Differences: As part of the preparation of the2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it was recognised that someinitiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES couldreasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 ForwardLooking forecast has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer ofthese initiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES, but also

incorporates new efficiency initiatives which have been identified.

In addition as part of the ongoing monitoring and review of all ourefficiency initiatives we have undertaken a re-assessment of thebasis and methodology of calculations. This has resulted in areduction in anticipated efficiency gains in respect of some initiativesin this service sector. Although the level of gains has reduced in thisservice sector this has been compensated for by increases in otherservice sectors both in total and in cashable terms. 585,000 944,000 444,000 473,697 77,826 1,417,697 521,826

Local transport

(highways) Explanation of Major Differences: It is forecast the Forward LookingAES target for 2005/2006 will be exceeded both in year and on acumulative basis. This is due to incorporating new efficiencyinitiatives which have been identified. 105,000 190,000 143,000 309,500 309,500 499,500 452,500

Local transport(non-highways)

Explanation of Major Differences: It is forecast the Forward LookingAES target for 2005/2006 will be exceeded both in year and on acumulative basis. This is due to incorporating new efficiencyinitiatives which have been identified. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LA social

housing(capex) Explanation of Major Differences:

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LA social

housing (other) Explanation of Major Differences:315,000 561,000 174,000 205,376 160,815 766,376 334,815

Non-schooleducationalservices

Explanation of Major Differences: As part of the preparation of the2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it was recognised that someinitiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES couldreasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 ForwardLooking forecast has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer ofthese initiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES, but alsoincorporates new efficiency initiatives which have been identified.

The cumulative achievement in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 is forecastto exceed our original Forward Looking AES target for 2005/2006.



190,000 388,000 305,000 373,536 0 761,536 305,000

Supportingpeople

Explanation of Major Differences: As part of the preparation of the2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it was recognised that someinitiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES couldreasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 ForwardLooking forecast has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer ofthese initiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES, but also


The cumulative achievement in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 is forecast toexceed our original Forward Looking AES target for 2005/2006. 55,000 91,000 30,000 0 0 91,000 30,000

Homelessness Explanation of Major Differences: This service sector is forecast tomarginally exceed the Forward Looking AES target for 2005/2006.

Other cross-cutting efficiencies not covered above 345,000 890,000 472,000 1,441,231 382,333 2,331,231 854,333

Corporateservices

Explanation of Major Differences: As part of the preparation of the2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it was recognised that some

initiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES couldreasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 ForwardLooking forecast has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer ofthese initiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES, but alsoincorporates new efficiency initiatives which have been identified.


Procurement

Explanation of Major Differences: As part of the preparation of the2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it was recognised that someinitiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES could

reasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 ForwardLooking forecast has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer ofthese initiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES.

The cumulative achievement in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 is forecast tomarginally exceed our original Forward Looking AES target for2005/2006. 340,000 505,000 0 0 0 505,000 0

Productivetime Explanation of Major Differences: This service sector is forecast to

marginally exceed the Forward Looking AES target for 2005/2006.



5,000 15,000 10,000 253,033 50,033 268,033 60,033

Transactions

Explanation of Major Differences: As part of the preparation of the2004/2005 Backward Looking AES it was recognised that someinitiatives included in the 2005/2006 Forward Looking AES couldreasonably be attributed to 2004/2005. The 2005/2006 Forward Lookingforecast has therefore been refined to reflect the transfer of theseinitiatives to the 2004/2005 Backward Looking AES, but also



Miscellaneousefficiencies


The cumulative achievement in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 is forecast toexceed our original Forward Looking AES target for 2005/2006.

Total 3,930,000 6,840,000 3,420,000 5,536,061 1,979,530 12,376,061 5,399,530



Appendix B

Strategic Cross Cutting Reviews

Review Lead Officer(s)

Human Resources and PayrollFunctions

City Treasurer / Corporate Head ofPersonnel

Flexible Working Arrangements Corporate Head of PersonnelHarmonisation of Conditions of Services Corporate Head of PersonnelFleet Management Corporate Procurement ManagerE Commerce - including E Procurement City TreasurerStrategic Property Review Head of Strategic Change ProgrammeICT Ancilliary Equipment Corporate Head of ICT / Head of

Strategic Change ProgrammeVoice and Data Project Corporate Head of ICT

Whilst the above table records the Lead Officers many of the Reviews rely on fullengagement and participation from Directorates which is in place.





Title of Report:

REPLACEMENT OF SPECIALIST VEHICLES USED IN THE WASTE ANDSTREET CLEANING SERVICES

Author(s):DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL SERVICES

Purpose of Report:

To seek Cabinet’s approval to the procurement of up to 19 specialist vehicles foruse in refuse collection and street cleaning services.


Cabinet is recommended to approve the procurement of up to 19 specialistvehicles for use in waste and street cleaning services to replace the equivalentnumber of vehicles as part of the Planned Replacement Programme.

Is the decision consistent with the Budget/Policy Framework? *Yes/No


i) To enable the Council to meet its statutory responsibilities as WasteCollection and Disposal Authority, Litter Authority and Highways Authority.

ii) In accordance with the Constitution, Cabinet approval is required to theprinciple of letting a contract exceeding £250,000 in value.


No alternative options are offered for consideration.


Yes


Environmental and Planning

Is it included in the Forward Plan?Yes




REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL SERVICES

REPLACEMENT OF SPECIALIST VEHICLES USED IN THE WASTE AND

STREET CLEANING SERVICES

1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 To seek Cabinet’s approval to the procurement of up to 19 specialistvehicles for use in the waste and street cleaning services.


2.1 Cabinet is recommended to approve the procurement of up to 19specialist vehicles for use in waste and street cleaning services to

replace the equivalent number of vehicles as part of the PlannedReplacement Programme.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Community and Cultural Service’s Street Care Division has a rolling,Planned Replacement Programme with specialist vehicles beingreplaced 5 or 7 years from the date of acquisition, depending upontype, as they become uneconomic to maintain.

3.2 Suppliers are appointed to provide specialist waste and cleansingvehicles in accordance with the Council’s operating requirements.

3.3 The vehicles are required to enable the Council to meet its statutoryresponsibilities as Waste Collection and Disposal Authority, LitterAuthority and Highways Authority.

3.3 Up to 19 vehicles are due to be replaced under this programme during2005/ 2006.

4. CURRENT POSITION

4.1 The total value of the contract is estimated to be approximately £1.6million and the annual revenue financing costs over the operational lifeof the vehicles is estimated to be £325,000.

4.2 The value of the contract is above the threshold where the EuropeanUnion procurement regulations apply and consequently a noticeseeking tenders has been published in the Official Journal of EuropeanUnion (OJEU) and in the Contract Journal.



4.3 Due to the diversity of the vehicles required, it is recognised that morethan one supplier will be necessary to achieve sufficient comparators todemonstrate ‘Best Value’. The Open Tender process is determined tobe the most appropriate procurement strategy, as this provides scopeto explore a number of vehicle options from the widest range of

suppliers.

4.4 It is recommended that each type of vehicle is indicated as a ‘lot’ duringthe tender process and that tenders are sought for one or a number oflots from potential contractors. Tenderers will be required to accuratelyprice each vehicle they intend to provide, with each type of vehiclebeing submitted as a separate lot to ensure appropriate costcomparisons can be made.

4.5 The method of financing the acquisition will be determined upon receiptof tenders by the City Treasurer following appraisal and may take the

form of an Operating or Finance lease or a loan. Provision for therevenue costs, including financing costs has been made within theapproved Community and Cultural Services cash limited budget.

4.6 Each lot will be awarded on the basis that it represents the mosteconomically advantageous option to the Council. A schedule ofprocurement costs along with vehicle reliability, vehicle suitability anddelivery times will provide the basis on which the tenders will beevaluated.

5. REASON FOR DECISION

5.1 To enable the Council to meet its statutory responsibilities as WasteCollection and Disposal Authority, Litter Authority and HighwaysAuthority.

5.2 In accordance with the Constitution Cabinet approval is required to theprinciple of letting a contract exceeding £250,000 in value.

6. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

6.1 No alternative options are offered for consideration.

7. RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS

7.1 The views of the City Treasurer and City Solicitor have been soughtand have been taken into account in the preparation of this report.


None.





Title of Report:

REPLACEMENT OF SPECIALIST GRASS CUTTING AND HORTICULTURALMACHINERY

Author(s):

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL SERVICES

Purpose of Report:

To seek Cabinet’s approval to the procurement of up to 68 specialist grasscutting and horticultural machines.


Cabinet is recommended to approve the procurement of up to 68 specialist grasscutting and horticultural machines to replace the equivalent number of machinescurrently on the Council’s Planned Replacement Programme

.

Is the decision consistent with the Budget/Policy Framework? *Yes/No If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/Policy FrameworkSuggested reason(s) for Decision:

i) To enable the Council’s Environmental Services to meet its obligations inrespect of service specifications and service level agreements for allaspects of horticultural work.

ii) In accordance with the Constitution, Cabinet approval is required to theprinciple of letting a contract exceeding £250,000 in value.

Alternative options to be considered and recommended to be rejected:No alternative options are offered for consideration.


Yes

Relevant Review Committee:Environmental and PlanningCulture and Leisure Services





REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL SERVICES

REPLACEMENT OF SPECIALIST GRASS CUTTING AND

HORTICULTURAL MACHINERY

1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 To seek Cabinet’s approval to the procurement of up to 68 specialistgrass cutting and horticultural machines.


2.1 Cabinet is recommended to approve the procurement of up to 68

specialist grass cutting and horticultural machines to replace theequivalent number of specialised machines currently on the Council’sPlanned Replacement Programme.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Community and Cultural Services Street Care Division has a rollingPlanned Replacement Programme with specialist grass cutting andhorticultural machines being replaced after 5 years from the date ofacquisition as the equipment becomes uneconomic to maintain.

3.2 Suppliers are appointed to provide specialist grass cutting andhorticultural machinery in accordance with the Council’s operatingrequirements.

3.3 The specialist grass cutting and horticultural machines are required toenable Environmental Services to meet its service obligations inrespect of all aspects of horticultural work.

3.4 Up to 68 specialist grass cutting and horticultural machines are due tobe replaced under this programme during 2005/2006.

4. CURRENT POSITION

4.1 The total value of the contract is estimated to be approximately£645,000 and the annual revenue financing cost over the 5 year term isestimated at £130,000

4.2 The value of the contract is above the threshold where the EuropeanUnion procurement regulations apply and consequently a noticeseeking tenders has been published in the Official Journal of EuropeanUnion (OJEU) and in the Contract Journal.



4.3 Due to the diversity of the grass cutting and horticultural machineryrequired, it is recognised that more than one supplier will be necessaryto achieve sufficient comparators to demonstrate ‘Best Value’. TheOpen Tender process is determined to be the most appropriateprocurement strategy, as this provides scope to explore a number of

machinery options from the widest range of suppliers.

4.4 It is recommended that each type of equipment is indicated as a ‘lot’during the tender process and that tenders are sought for one or anumber of lots from potential contractors. Tenderers will be required toaccurately price the grass cutting and horticultural machines theyintend to provide, with each type of equipment being submitted as aseparate lot to ensure appropriate cost comparisons can be made.

4.5 The method of financing the acquisition will be determined upon receiptof tenders by the City Treasurer following appraisal and may take theform of an Operating or Finance lease or a loan. Provision for thefinancing costs is included within the existing approved cash limitedbudget of the Community and Cultural Services Directorate.

4.6 Each lot will be awarded on the basis that it represents the mosteconomically advantageous option to the Council. A schedule ofprocurement costs along with equipment reliability, machine suitabilityand delivery times will provide the basis on which the tenders will beevaluated.

5. REASON FOR DECISION

5.1 To enable the Council’s Environmental Services to meet its obligationsin respect of service specifications and service level agreements for allaspects of horticultural work.

5.2 In accordance with the Constitution, Cabinet approval is required to theprinciple of letting a contract exceeding £250,000 in value.


6.1 No alternative options are offered for consideration.

7. RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS

7.1 The views of the City Treasurer and City Solicitor have been soughtand have been taken into account in the preparation of this report.


None.



CABINET MEETING - 7 DECEMBER 2005


Title of Report:

GREAT WOMEN’S RUN

Author(s):

DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL SERVICES

Purpose of Report:

To inform Members of recent discussions with the sports marketing agency NovaInternational and a proposal to stage the ‘Great Women’s Run’ within the City ofSunderland in June 2006.


Cabinet are invited to note the content of the report and to authorise Officers toenter into contractual negotiations with Nova International with a view to the Cityhosting the event in 2006.

Is the decision consistent with the Budget/Policy Framework? *Yes

If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/Policy FrameworkSuggested reason(s) for Decision:Proposal will address a range of strategic priorities identified in the SunderlandStrategy

Alternative options to be considered and recommended to be rejected:There are no alternative options proposed


No

Relevant Review Committee:Culture and Leisure





GREAT WOMEN’S RUN

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL

SERVICES

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform members of recent discussionswith the sports marketing agency Nova International and a proposal tostage the ‘Great Women’s Run’ within the City of Sunderland in June2006.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE DECISION

2.1 Cabinet is invited to note the contents of the report and to authoriseOfficers to enter into contractual negotiations with Nova Internationalwith a view to the City hosting the event in 2006.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 Nova International is a sports marketing agency specialising in theorganisation of mass participation sporting events for television. Theirportfolio includes some of the biggest events in the UK, the mostfamous of which is the BUPA sponsored Great North Run, which isfirmly established as the worlds biggest half marathon, with 50,000entrants participating each year.

3.2 Based in Newcastle upon Tyne and headed by Olympic medallistBrendan Foster, Nova International have established themselves as amarket leader in the world of sports marketing and event organisationover the past 15 years.

3.3 Nova’s portfolio of events continues to expand, both domestically in theUK and internationally, with recent events taking place in Ireland andEthiopia.

3.4 The company is currently in the planning stages of establishing a‘Great Women’s Run’ in the UK which would become an annual eventfrom 2006.

3.5 Preliminary discussions have taken place with Nova, including sitevisits to the City, with a view to exploring the potential of hosting theevent at Seaburn and Roker with a predominantly seafront orientatedcourse over a distance of 10,000 metres.



4.0 EVENT DESCRIPTION

4.1 The proposed route would be designed and agreed after fullconsultation between Nova International, relevant officers of the CityCouncil and emergency services representatives.

4.2 The route would be designed to have maximum impact for the Cityfrom the perspective of a TV audience, with initial proposals includinglocations such as Roker and Seaburn seafront, Roker Park , low levelpromenade areas and Roker Pier. Potential future growth of the eventwould be a factor in the course design.

4.3 It is envisaged that a ‘Junior Great Coastal Run’ would be staged as apre-curser to the main event which would utilise elements of the maincourse over a shorter distance.

5.0 PARTICIPANTS

5.1 The target field for year one of the event would be 5,000. Nova willendeavour to secure a field which includes Olympic and Europeanmedallists supported by strong domestic participation from the homenations.

6.0 MEDIA COVERAGE

6.1 Nova have agreed television coverage for the Great Women’s Run asfollows:

i) The host broadcaster on UK terrestrial television will beChannel Five

ii) Overseas broadcasts in the following countries andchannels:

• Super Sport – African Continent and Indian OceanIslands

• Fox Sports – Australia and New Zealand

• ESPN Star – China

• Star Sports Asia – Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia,Korea, Philippians. India, Pakistan, Taiwan and HongKong.

• IEC Sport – Dubai, Middle East, Portugal and Sweden.

6.2 In addition Nova will negotiate for broadcast distribution as follows:

• TV3 Ireland

• Canalplus France, Spain

• ZDF Germany

• Italia Sky Sport Italy

• Transworld Sport Global



7.0 EVENT FUNDING

7.1 To maximise the income to deliver a successful event, Nova will seekpartnership funding from the following sources:

i) Commercial Sponsorship - Naming rightsii) Great Run support sponsors - Official Suppliersiii) Entry Fee - Participantsiv) Location Sponsorship - City of Sunderland

7.2 The City of Sunderland is requested to contribute a sponsorship fee of£100,000 to assist with an event budget in the region of £350,000which is required to deliver an event of the calibre of the Great NorthRun.

In addition the City would need to supply a number of other services asfollows:

• Road Closures

• Administration and Changing Marquees

• Hospitality

• Security

• Barriers

• Toilets

• Manpower for course set up

• Cleaning operation• Marketing, PR and Branding

The provisional cost element for this aspect of the event delivery is anadditional £50,000. However, this figure has been identified as amaximum amount and may decrease after more detailed investigation.

7.3 The costs can be met from the Capital Programme Provision for'Inward Investment Events’ (CC90059).

8.0 PROJECTED OUTPUTS

8.1 In the report to Policy and Co-Ordination Review Committee in April2005 entitled ‘Inward Investment – Events’, it was agreed that in orderto ensure appropriate value for money is obtained from any eventinvestment made, a series of criteria and output measurements wouldbe applied as follows:

• Increased footfall levels in the City by attracting additionalvisitors from outside the City and also outside the region.

•

Increased spend per head in the City to support the tourisminfrastructure particularly in the short break market.



• Intention to make repeat visits to the City.

• Promotion of the City’s image, particularly through terrestrialtelevision coverage.

• Increased tourism profile for the City by attracting substantialmedia interest and coverage.

• Sustainability of the investment by proving the City to be anappropriate and viable venue for major events and activities.

These criteria will complement and enhance the City’s image aspromoted via the Image Strategy encouraging more people tolive,work in and visit Sunderland.

8.2 Nova calculate a spectator attendance of 2.5 people per raceparticipant based on previous events of a similar nature.

Including participation in the junior event, attendance for participantsand spectators is therefore calculated at 21,000.

8.3 Using previous research completed for events both in the City and theregion, the spend per day based on an average from residents, daytrips and over night stays, is around £17 per person.

It is also estimated that 15% of the total attendance will stay for morethan one night which would include staying with friends, family or inhotels and guest houses.

Total spend is therefore estimated to be circa £420,000.

8.4 Channel 5 will provide sixty minutes of TV coverage for the GreatWomen’s Run. Nova have indicated that the UK audience will be in theregion of 225,000 adult viewers giving a terrestrial media value of£145,000.

8.5 In terms of overseas broadcast coverage, the value of this element willbe clarified as part of the contract negotiation.

8.6 TV coverage will greatly enhance the profile and image of the Citydirectly to a national audience, particularly given that the event will beheld at the seafront location of Roker and Seaburn at the height of thesummer season. This is exemplified by the Radio One Big Weekendevent held at Herrington Country Park last May. The event wasextremely successful and resulted in considerable enhancement of theCity’s profile on a national scale.



In addition to this the City, in partnership with Nova, will engage in anextensive regional PR campaign utilising all of the usual media outlets.

9.0 EVENT DEVELOPMENT

9.1 Following the event and in conjunction with Nova, a comprehensiveevent debrief and assessment will be conducted. A main objective ofthis assessment process will be to determine if projected outputs wereachieved.

A further report will then be submitted to Cabinet detailing the findingsof the event assessment. Accordingly the report will recommend futureactions with regard to the potential for continued support anddevelopment of the event in association with Nova International.

10.0 REASON FOR THE DECISION

10.1 Inward investment will bring many benefits in terms of addressing arange of strategic priorities as identified in the Sunderland Strategyincluding creating a prosperous city, extending cultural opportunities,developing an attractive city, creating inclusive communities etc.

10.2 The Great Women’s Run as proposed would clearly achieve theseaims in addition to :-

• Increasing footfall levels in the City

•

Increasing spend per head in the City• Increasing the tourism profile of the City

11.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

There are no alternative options proposed

12.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

12.1 Members are requested to refer to the previous committee reports:

• Cabinet Report – Capital Programme 2005/06 includingPrudential indicators and Treasury Management Strategy – 16February 2005

• Policy and Coordination Review Committee – CapitalProgramme 2005/06 – Inward Investment – Events – 28 April2005



CABINET – 7TH DECEMBER 2005


Title of Report:

CITY OF SUNDERLAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK:ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT

Author:Director of Development and Regeneration

Purpose of Report:This report seeks approval of the Council’s first Local Development FrameworkAnnual Monitoring Report. It outlines changes to the Local Development Schemeand seeks approval for submitting the Annual Monitoring Report to the Secretary ofState.

Description of Decision:Cabinet is requested to:

i) Agree the Annual Monitoring Report;ii) Agree the proposed alterations to the Local Development Schemeiii) Authorise officers to make appropriate arrangements for submitting the

Annual Monitoring Report to the Secretary of State (via Government Officefor the North East)

Is the decision consistent with the Budget/ Policy Framework? No [this is an

amendment to an existing policy]

If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/ Policy FrameworkSuggested reason(s) for Decision:To comply with the statutory requirement to prepare an Annual Monitoring Reportand submit it to the Secretary of State.

Alternative options to be considered and recommended to be rejected:The City Council has a statutory duty to monitor the Local Development Frameworkand prepare an Annual Monitoring Report; consequently no alternative options canbe recommended.

Is this a “Key Decision” as definedin the Constitution? Yes

Relevant Review Committee:Environmental and Planning


Planning and Highways Committee




CITY OF SUNDERLAND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK:ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND REGENERATION

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 This report seeks approval of the Council’s first Local DevelopmentFramework Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). It outlines changes to the LocalDevelopment Scheme and seeks approval for submitting the AMR to thesecretary of State.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DECISION

2.1 Cabinet is requested to:i) Agree the Annual Monitoring Report;ii) Agree the proposed alterations to the Local Development Scheme;iii) Authorise officers to make appropriate arrangements for submitting the

Annual Monitoring Report to the Secretary of State (via GovernmentOffice for the North East)

3.0 BACKGROUND AND CURRENT POSITION

3.1 Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the City Council isrequired to prepare a Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF willreplace the current Unitary Development Plan which was adopted in 1998. Asstatutory development plan for the City the LDF will be the starting point in theconsideration of planning applications for the development or use of land.

3.2 As part of the LDF the City Council is required to prepare an annual report toassess:-

The implementation of its Local Development Scheme (LDS) which setsout the overall timetable for the preparation of the various components ofthe LDF;

The extent to which policies in local development documents are beingachieved

3.3 This report – the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) – forms part of the LDF andmust be submitted to the Secretary of State by 31st December each year. Inmeeting this target the AMR will qualify for Planning Delivery Grant. The firstAMR will cover the period from 1st April 2004 to 31st October 2005 to take inthe commencement of the new Planning Act. Subsequent AMR’s will reviewthe period 1st April to 31st March.



3.4 In preparing the AMR the Council must undertake five key monitoring tasks:-

Review actual progress in terms of local development documentpreparation against the timetable and milestones set out in the LocalDevelopment Scheme;

Assess the extent to which policies in Local Development Documents arebeing implemented;

Where policies are not being implemented, explain why and to set outwhat steps are being taken to ensure that the policy is implemented; orwhether the policy is to be amended or replaced;

Identify the significant effects of implementing policies in localdevelopment documents and whether they are as intended;

Set out whether policies are to be amended or replaced

3.5 The AMR is attached to this report.

4.0 PROGRESS ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS

4.1 The current LDS (March 2005) addresses the preparation of four developmentplan documents and identifies key “milestones” in document preparation. Thetimetabling of each of these documents has required amendment over thecourse of preparation (further detail is included in Appendix 1). The mainamendments involve:-

Statement of Community Involvement – submission to the Secretary ofState will now take place in November 2005;

UDP Alteration No. 2 – There has been a slight delay in placing the

Alteration on “redeposit” due to the need to incorporate the route of theSunderland Strategic Transport Corridor and the findings of theSustainability Appraisal;

Core Strategy – The programme has been refined to allow for the “Issuesand Options” consultation. This will commence in late November 2005and will assist in identifying a preferred Option which will itself be thesubject of consultation before submission in October 2006;

Housing Allocations – the Interim Strategy for Housing Land wasapproved by Cabinet in November 2004 and has since been revised. Thiswill now be “dismantled” and taken forward as a formal Housing AllocationDevelopment Plan Document.

4.2 The above changes to the programme take account of the requirements tomeet committees and full Council. The programme beyond March 2006 mayrequire further adjustments to take account of committee dates when theyemerge.

4.3 Government Guidance (PPS12) indicates that Development Plan Documentswill take some three years from commencement to Adoption. The LDSprogramme was prepared on the basis of emerging guidance on DPDpreparation and the new planning system is still in its infancy; several other

Councils have encountered difficulties in bringing forward DPD’s according totheir LDS programmes.



4.4 Once a DPD has reached the “Submission” stage the Council is unable to

shorten the timetable to adoption; Government guidance indicates that“submission” to final Adoption will take one year. It should be noted thatagreement with the Planning Inspectorate is still awaited on the proposed

programme and it could therefore be subject to further change.

4.5 The LDS has also been rolled forward and includes details of the emergingArea Action Plan for Hetton Downs. The detailed programme for this will bedeveloped in 2006 and included in the next AMR. The LDS also proposesthat a DPD detailing remaining land allocations, including those foremployment sites and public open space, will be programmed to start aftersubmission of the Core Strategy DPD in mid-2007.

4.6 Full detail on document preparation is included in the AMR.

5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 There is a requirement for the AMR to monitor the performance of policies toestablish whether they are effective in achieving their aims and objectives. Asthere are no DPDs adopted yet, the first AMR relates wholly to the “saved”UDP. However as the UDP contains 194 strategic policies and 221 areaproposals it has not been practical to monitor every individual policy for thepurposes of this year’s AMR. It is considered that for the first AMR the mostappropriate approach is to focus on key “groups” of policies relating tohousing provision and employment land.

6.0 POLICY MONITORING

6.1 The new planning system emphasises the importance of evidence-basedpolicy making. To assist in monitoring the effectiveness of policies a series ofCore Output Indicators have been established by the Office of the DeputyPrime Minister (ODPM). These relate to:- Business Development - including amount of floorspace developed for

employment by type and amount of employment land lost to residentialdevelopment;

Housing – including percentage of new and converted dwellings on

previously developed land; Transport - including percentage of new residential development within 30

minutes public transport time of a GP, hospital, primary and secondaryschool, employment and a major health centre;

Local services - i.e. retail, office and leisure development;

Minerals - production of primary land won aggregates and secondary/ recycled aggregates;

Waste - amount of municipal waste arising;

Flood protection and water quality - number of planning permissionsgranted contrary to the advice of the Environment Agency on either flood

defence grounds or water quality;



Biodiversity - change in areas and populations of biodiversity importance;

Renewable Energy - renewable energy capacity installed by type

6.2 Information relating to these indicators has been collected and incorporated inthe AMR. In addition the Guidance suggests the inclusion of local – or

“contextual” – indicators. These consider the effects of policies not coveredby the core output indicators on the local area and are to be identified by theCity Council. Taken together these indicators will ensure a robustassessment of policy implementation.

6.3 These “contextual” indicators will be included in subsequent AMR’s asDevelopment Plan Documents are prepared. Suitable indicators will beinvestigated as the Core strategy is developed over the next year and will beincluded in the AMR for December 2006.

7.0 NEXT STEPS

7.1 Subject to Council approval the AMR will be submitted to the Secretary ofState (via Government Office for the North East). The revised LDS will beforwarded by GONE to the Planning Inspectorate which will assess theproposed programme for the purposes of amending the Service LevelAgreement with the City Council.

8.0 REASON FOR DECISION

8.1 To comply with the statutory requirement to prepare an Annual Monitoring

Report and submit it to the Secretary of State.

9.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

9.1 The City Council has a statutory duty to monitor the Local DevelopmentFramework and prepare an Annual Monitoring Report; consequently noalternative options can be recommended.

10.0 RELEVANT CONSULTATIONS/ CONSIDERATIONS

a) Financial Implications – Outside of the costs associated with document

production and printing there are no direct costs arising from the AnnualMonitoring Report. The main costs will arise from the Examinations of thevarious documents which are scheduled for summer 2006 (SCI and AlterationNo. 2) and autumn 2007 (Core Strategy and Housing Allocation). These areincluded in the Development and Regeneration Medium Term Financial Plansubmission and will be met from the departmental budget.

b) Legal Implications – The Issues and Options Report has been prepared inaccordance with the appropriate Planning Regulations. The City Solicitor hasbeen consulted and his views incorporated into the body of this report.



c) Policy Implications - The Annual Monitoring Report will provide an importantmeasure of how the policies in the LDF are performing in terms of both theirimplementation and effectiveness.

11.0 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Schedule of proposed changes to LDS

12.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

City of Sunderland Local Development Scheme March 2005LDF Monitoring: A Good Practice Guide ODPM March 2005Companion Guide to PPS12 ODPM November 2004PPS12: Local Development Frameworks ODPM September 2004Correspondence on file P1S held in the Development and RegenerationDirectorate

Contact Officer: Barry Luccock (0191) 553 1577

[email protected]



APPENDIX 1 - SCHEDULE OF CHANGES TO LDS PROGRAMME

Document Title Role andContent

Comment Dates for Pre-submissionConsultation

(LDS March ’05)

Participation onPreferred Options

& Proposals

(LDS March ’05)

Statement ofCommunity

Involvement

Sets outstandards and

approach toinvolving thecommunity andstakeholders inthe production ofthe LDF andplanningapplications

Submission has been put back toallow for consideration of

consultation responses and reportingback to Cabinet and Council.

The programme has been extendedto allow for reporting back by theInspector following the Examination.

July – August 2005

(Feb – June 2005)

N/A

UDP AlterationNo. 2 (CentralSunderland)

Sets out theplanningframework for theCentral

Sunderland areaand land useproposals formajor sites

The Alteration has been broughtforward under “transitionalarrangements” and therefore has notrequired milestones to be set

N/A N/A

Core Strategy Sets out thespatial vision,spatial objectivesand strategy forthe developmentof the City anddevelopmentcontrol policies

The original LDS programme did notallow sufficient time for thepreparation of the Issues andOptions report and subsequent publicconsultation.

The programme reflects the PolicySection commitments regardingmajor planning inquiries and the PLI

into Alteration No. 2.

December 2005 – January 2006

(Jan – Dec 2005)

October - November2006

(Jan – March 2006)

HousingAllocations

Identifies housingsites for period to2021 and providesa framework fordeterminingdevelopmentproposals

The programme for the Housing DPDwill run in parallel with the CoreStrategy and has therefore beenadjusted accordingly.

February - March2006

(April – June 2006)

October -November2006

(July – August 2006)





Title of Report:PROPOSED NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL ASSESSMENT (NRA): BACK ONTHE MAP, HENDON.

Author(s)Director of Development and Regeneration

Purpose of Report:The purpose of this report is to request Cabinet’s agreement to the Councilprocuring and entering into a contract with an external consultant for a NRA to beundertaken.


Cabinet is invited to a) agree that the Council enters into a contract for a NRA tobe undertaken in Central Hendon subject to the costs being met by the New Dealfor Communities funding and b) authorise the Director of Development andRegeneration to procure a suitable consultant to undertake the NRA to determinethe most appropriate course of action for the Central Hendon Area.


If not, Council approval is required to change the Budget/Policy Framework Suggested reason(s) for DecisionUndertaking the NRA will provide the Council and its partners with theopportunity to develop an appropriate course of action and robust housing policyfor central Hendon set in the context of the wider area and will provide the basisfor the development of a comprehensive area renewal and regeneration plan forthe Back on the Map area.


There are no recommended alternative courses of action. Without the NRA theCouncil and its partners will not be able to demonstrate that the guidance todetermine the appropriate course of action has been followed and thus a robusthousing policy framework could not be developed for the Back on the Map area.This is a key element of the Council’s Private Housing Strategy and BOTM’sDelivery Plan. Action on housing is essential if overall regeneration of the area isto be achieved.

Is this a “Key Decision” as defined inthe constitution? No


Is it included in the Forward Plan?

No

Regeneration and CommunityReview Committee




REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND REGENERATION

PROPOSED NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL ASSESSMENT (NRA): BACK

ON THE MAP, HENDON

1.0 Purpose of the Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to request Cabinet’s agreement to theCouncil procuring and entering into a contract with an externalconsultant for a NRA to be undertaken.

2.0 Description of the Decision

2.1 Cabinet is invited to a) agree that the Council enters into a contract for

a NRA to be undertaken in Central Hendon subject to the costs beingmet by the New Deal for Communities funding and b) authorise theDirector of Development and Regeneration to procure a suitableconsultant to undertake the NRA to determine the most appropriatecourse of action for the Central Hendon Area.

3.0 Background

3.1 Cabinet will be aware that the Hendon and East End area ofSunderland was successful in gaining New Deal for Communitiesstatus approximately 5 years ago. The organisation responsible foroverseeing the funds to support this, Back on the Map (BOTM) haswithin it management and delivery structure a number of “ThemeTeams”.

3.2 These teams are provided with specific budgets to provide for deliveryof key actions and measures derived from aims and objectives set outin strategic documents such as the BOTM Housing Strategy

3.3 Following discussions between the Government Office of the NorthEast and BOTM regarding progression of the Housing and

Environment themes, a ‘Housing and Environment SolutionsWorkshop’ was held on the 8th September 2005. The aim of the daywas to bring stakeholders and partners together to discuss, developand provide a way forward to tackle the issues highlighted in thestrategic documents. This meeting was attended by appropriate seniormanagers and officers of the Council from various Directorates. Theday consisted of several workshops, where discussions andagreements were around potential short-term and long-term projects.

3.4 One of the key outcomes of the workshop day was the consensus byattendees of the need to procure and undertake a Neighbourhood

Renewal Assessment (NRA) in the central area of Hendon. Theworkshops identified a number of relevant factors including a significant



degree of housing decline and market failure, high levels ofabandonment and empty properties, unfitness and disrepair and poormanagement standards, particularly in the private rented sector.

3.5 Cabinet may recall the findings of the citywide Private Sector House

Condition Survey, previously reported, that the then Central Ward,which included the East End area was found to have a level ofunfitness in its housing stock of 11.6% and that the Hendon Ward wasfound to have a level of unfitness of 8.7% of its stock, the city-wideaverage being 3.2%. The housing stress exhibited in this area isexacerbated by the symptoms of crime and disorder, anti-socialbehaviour, poor quality environment, fly tipping and graffiti.

3.6 The NRA will provide the Council, BOTM and partners with an analysiswhich will lead to recommendations for the most appropriate course ofaction for intervention in respect to the decline of the older housing

areas of central Hendon. The exercise will provide a structured,objective vehicle for engagement with the local community. Full andthorough consultation with all interested parties, stakeholders andresidents is a fundamental feature of a NRA.

3.7 A NRA will be of considerable value to the Council, BOTM and thelocal community in forming the basis for development of a widerneighbourhood renewal strategy to secure a sustainable and attractivearea where people will remain and to which others will be attracted.

4.0 The NRA Process: Its Design and Description.

4.1 The NRA process consists of a series of logical steps to provide athorough and systematic appraisal technique for considering alternativecourses of action to deal with an area of housing in decline. Thisapproach is consistent with housing renewal advice issued by theOffice of the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with such areas within thecontext of an area-based strategy.

4.2 Officers within the Development and Regeneration Directorate havegained a sound knowledge and understanding of the process and are

experienced in delivering the actions derived from the NRA.

4.3 The key benefits to the Council of undertaking a NRA are that:

• It will provide an objective assessment of the context tounderstand the socio-economic and environmental factorsinfluencing the area.

• It will ensure that investment decisions are taken into accountbased on an in-depth knowledge of the local neighbourhood.



• It will provide a transparent framework for communicating theprocess of investment decisions with all residents and otherstakeholders.

• It will ensure that policy is evidence-based.

• It should encourage greater integration between housingactivities and other activities.

4.4 The NRA will be based on the following principles:

• It will set the neighbourhood based assessment within a widerstrategic context for example, the supply and demand ofhousing locally and regionally, and within the context of theCommunity Strategy priorities.

• It is designed to help both the Council and BOTM to draw aboundary around a cohesive neighbourhood not just in terms ofthe physical environment but also in terms of how residentsdefine and perceive their area.

• It will encourage housing renewal partnerships to think broadlyabout possible alternative courses of action for neighbourhoodrenewal and sustainability, taking account of both public andprivate sector cost implications and the need to plan the wayforward and assist the attraction of necessary funds toimplement the preferred options generated from the NRAprocess.

• It will help housing renewal partnerships to consider the long-term future of an area by developing alternative optionpackages, a mix of interventions and the cost consequences ofthese.

• It will encourage the consideration of the most appropriate useof all land within the area with a view to stimulating overallregeneration.

• It will encourage the community and other stakeholders tobecome involved at an early stage in the process – helping todefine the problems of the area and not just being consulted onsolutions.

• It will help build up commitment by all concerned to securing theimplementation of the chosen strategy.

• The NRA will also make explicit the costs that will be incurred bythe selected options.



4.5 The main steps in delivering an NRA are as outlined in the attachedflow chart at Appendix 1.

4.6 It is envisaged that the NRA will include an area within the central areaof Hendon covering approximately 1000 homes from Peel Street to the

north, Villette Street to the south, Toward Road to the west and SuffolkStreet to the east. Noble Street, Ridley Terrace, Tower Street andMainsforth Terrace located on the eastern boundary will also beincluded. (A map of the proposed NRA area is attached at Appendix 2).

5.0 Partnership Working

5.1 Over recent years the Council has successfully delivered NRAs acrossthe City and has experience of the tendering process and procurementof suitable consultants. It is envisaged that a steering group will beestablished for the purposes of the project which will include

representatives from BOTM, the Council and all other main, relevantstakeholders, e.g. English Partnerships and the Government Office forthe North East.

5.2 In order that both the Council and BOTM are clear and share anunderstanding of the purpose of the project, arrangements will beconfirmed in writing to BOTM, upon Cabinet approval to proceed.

6.0 Financial Implications

6.1 Based on other NRAs that have been implemented elsewhere in theCity it is estimated that the cost of undertaking the NRA will be in theregion of £100,000.

6.2 At its meeting on the 1 November 2005 the Management Board ofBack on the Map approved the allocation of £100,000 to undertake theNRA. All costs will be met from resources made available from BOTMbudgets.

7.0 Consultations

7.1 The City Solicitor and City Treasurer have been consulted and theircomments are included within this report

8.0 Reason for the Decision

8.1 Undertaking the NRA will provide the Council and its partners with theopportunity to develop an appropriate course of action and robusthousing policy for central Hendon set in the context of the wider areaand will provide the basis for the development of a comprehensive arearenewal and regeneration plan for the Back on the Map area.



9.0 Alternative Options Considered

9.1 There are no recommended alternative courses of action. Without theNRA the Council and its partners will not be able to demonstrate thatthe guidance to determine the appropriate course of action has been

followed and thus a robust housing policy framework could not bedeveloped for the Back on the Map area.

9.2 This is a key element of the Council’s Private Housing Strategy andBOTM’s Delivery Plan. Action on housing is essential if overallregeneration of the area is to be achieved.

10.0 Background Papers

Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment – Guidance Manual 2004, Officeof the Deputy Prime Minister.



Appendix 1Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment Process

Step 1Understanding the wider Context

Step 2Deciding on an Area Approach andIdentifying the Area/Neighbourhood REFINEMENT

Step 3

Selecting the Team andStakeholder Involvement

Step 4 Setting Aim, Defining Objectives

And Drawing the Boundary

Step 6Option Generation and

Option SelectionStep 5

Step 7Option Development

InformationGathering

Test against

Objectives

Step 8Option Appraisal and Selection

of Preferred Package

REVIEW Step 9Dissemination and Implementation

Step 10Monitoring and Evaluation



Form A



Title of Report:CONSULTATION ON BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE (BSF)PROPOSALS FOR SUNDERLAND ACADEMIES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLROLLS

Author(s):DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Purpose of Report:This report details the outcomes of the recent city-wide consultation on Building Schoolsfor the Future, Sunderland Academies and falling rolls. The report also details somenext steps in terms of taking the programme forward.


To confirm that the consultation carried out on BSF/Academies has been robust,thorough and comprehensive and to note the outcomes;To approve the approach proposed as next steps outlined at 6.1 – 7.2 of the report



Approval of the recommendations will enable the BSF/ Academies programme toproceed to the next stage


To allow the BSF/ Academies programme to proceed to the next stage and to achievedelivery of the first schools in the programme by September 2008 there are noalternatives to the report.

Is this a “Key Decision” as defined inthe Constitution? Yes


CHILDREN’S SERVICESIs it included in the Forward Plan?

Yes



CABINET 7TH DECEMBER 2005

CONSULTATION ON BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE (BSF)PROPOSALS FOR SUNDERLAND ACADEMIES AND SECONDARYSCHOOL ROLLS

Report of the Director of Children’s Services


1.1 This report details the outcomes of the recent city-wide consultation onproposals for Building Schools for the Future, Sunderland Academiesand falling rolls in the secondary sector. The report also details somenext steps in terms of taking the programme forward.


To confirm that the consultation carried out on BSF/ Academies has beenrobust, open and comprehensive and to note the outcomes;

To approve the approach proposed as next steps outlined at 6.1 – 7.2 ofthis report.

3. BACKGROUND

Cabinet agreed at its 27 July meeting to the approach proposed to

establishing academies in Sunderland as part of the BSF programme basedupon an alternative model and principles. The ‘Sunderland Model ofAcademies’ is described in detail in the 27 July report as is the ‘affordabilitygap’ which is a major issue for the Council and secondary schools if the BSFprogramme is largely delivered through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI).The position on falling rolls – a projected 20% reduction in the number ofsecondary school aged pupils between now and 2015 was also described asthe context for decision making about secondary school provision for thefuture It was also agreed that a consultation exercise exploring these threeissues, in particular on the approach to establishing academies in Sunderlandbe undertaken and a further detailed report be submitted for consideration ata future date.

Following the Cabinet meeting, the decision taken around consultationwas the subject of a call-in by the Education Review Committee. Anextraordinary meeting of the Committee was held on 10 August 2005 at whichEducation Officers were present to amplify the details of the consultationprocess and to take questions from members. The reason for calling in thedecision was to consider whether the process would be sufficiently robust,open and comprehensive to allow full and proper consultation. The ReviewCommittee concluded that it was satisfied and the process would be robust

(specifically the use of the tried and tested two stage consultation process)



and made suggestions to improve the scope of the consultation processwhich were subsequently used in the consultation.

The approach and scope of the consultation was set out in a further reportto Cabinet in September 2005. This gave details of the range of consultees

that the consultation would involve and the process that the consultationwould follow. The consultation document for the first stage of the consultationwas appended to that report and is, with the second stage consultationbooklet, attached at Annex 1.

The process of consultation on school organisation in Sunderland involvesa two stage process prior to statutory consultation on firm proposals. This isunusual and over above the amount of consultation recommended by theDepartment for Education and Skills (DfES) in guidance on consultation onschool organisation proposals. In this case, the first stage of consultationfocused upon explaining the ideas and principles behind Sunderland’s

involvement in BSF and the development of the ‘Sunderland model’ ofacademies and the second stage focused on the four ‘replacement’ schools tobe delivered through the BSF Wave 1 programme.

4. FIRST STAGE OF THE CONSULTATION

4.1 The first stage of consultation began on 5 September and concludedon 23 September 2005. Meetings were held first with members of allpolitical groups across three separate events and with local membersof Parliament in the four constituencies that cover the city ofSunderland. There then followed a series of meetings in each of the18 secondary schools with secondary School Councils, Headteachersand all staff, governing bodies and open meetings with members of thepublic and parents. The same series of meetings were held in BarbaraPriestman Special School and Quarry View Primary School because oftheir involvement in the proposals. All parents of pupils in Sunderlandschools (including nursery, primary, secondary, special schools andsecondaries) were invited to the open meetings by letter which wasfollowed up with a copy of the consultation document. Nursery,primary and special school staff and governors were invited to attendeither open meetings at their local secondary school or to separate

meetings organised for this purpose. In total, more than 110 of theabove school based meetings were held. There were also meetingswith the Diocesan authorities, City of Sunderland College, the LocalLearning and Skills Council, Connexions, teaching and non-teachingunions and the Youth Parliament.

It is estimated that approximately 541 people attended these meetingsin the first stage of consultation. All meetings were minuted and areavailable in Members Group rooms prior to the Cabinet meeting.

4.2 The consultation document was circulated widely with a distribution of

approximately 30,000 and was available electronically on the Council’swebsite and on the BSF website. It was made available in large format



and in other languages with a small number of consultees requestingthis service. Written responses are available in Members Grouprooms prior to the Cabinet meeting.

4.3 As detailed above the first stage of the consultation sought views from

a wide stakeholder base on the involvement of Sunderland in Wave 1of BSF and ideas and principles behind the ‘Sunderland Model’ ofacademies. The key questions posed were as follows:

• Whether the Council should proceed with the BSF programme;

• Whether the BSF programme should be linked with academies;

• Whether, if Sunderland should have academies, these should beunder the government model of academies or as ‘Sunderlandmodel’ academies;

• Whether reorganisation proposals should be brought forward inSunderland North (as a result of falling rolls in that area).

4.4 In direct response to these questions (set out in consultationdocumentation) the Council received 821 responses, with 523 of thesecoming from pupils at one of the schools involved in BSF Wave 1. Insummary these are as follows:

• A large majority of respondents were in favour of proceeding withthe BSF programme;

• A large majority of respondents were not in favour of academiesbeing linked to the BSF programme with a significant number who

were in favour;• If academies were to be linked to the BSF programme the majority

of respondents were in favour of the ‘Sunderland Model’ with asignificant number still preferring no link;

• The majority of respondents (excluding pupils) were in favour ofreorganisation in Sunderland North but a number were not.

4.5 The minutes of Stage I meetings bear out these findings.

5. STAGE TWO OF THE CONSULTATION

Stage Two of the consultation was held between 3 October and 21October 2005 and repeated in full the series of meetings anddocumentation described for Stage One. In addition, to reach the residentsof Sunderland who may not have children or who may not have children inSunderland schools, a four page supplement in the Sunderland Echo (5th October edition) described the consultation background and issues andprovided an opportunity to respond. This brought a small number of furtherresponses but overall the responses in Stage Two were fewer than StageOne with 213 responses received from a similar city-wide distribution.Approximately 180 people attended public meetings in the second stage ofconsultation. Although the impact of BSF ‘affordability’ and academieswere fully explained in Stage One it is felt that where schools andcommunities were not directly involved in Wave 1 of BSF, the engagement



in the process was markedly reduced in the second stage. Minutes of themeetings held in Stage Two and full written responses to the consultationare available in Members Group rooms prior to the Cabinet Meeting.

The questions posed in Stage Two were directly focused on the three

geographic areas of BSF Wave I and sought views upon whetherreplacement schools in those areas should be funded and built through theBSF programme or as ‘Sunderland Model’ academies. Proposals at thisstage were fixed upon the replacement of Washington School, PennywellSchool (involving Barbara Priestman Special School and Quarry ViewPrimary School), Castle View School and Hylton Red House School:

• The consultation question about Washington School soughtagreement that the replacement school should be built under BSF;The steady improvement in performance at Washington School – 53% of pupils achieved GCSE 5 A*-C in 2005 examinations –

discounts academy provision as a way forward for this school. That the school would not be considered as an academy emerged and then developed as an outcome of Stage One consultation. It was felt that the only option to put forward in Stage Two was that this school be delivered under BSF;

• The consultation question about Pennywell all-age school withspecialist facilities (to include Barbara Priestman Special Schooland Quarry View Primary School) was whether this school shouldbe built under BSF or as a ‘Sunderland Academy’. Pennywell has also seen an improvement in GCSE results this year

with, provisionally, 32% of pupils in 2005 achieving 5 A*-C’s. This is a remarkable improvement, although not yet embedded. The issue was whether the new all-through school should be replaced through BSF or as a ‘Sunderland’ Academy.

• The position in Sunderland North, as signposted in the first stage ofconsultation was (and remains) more complex with a range ofoptions which included the retention of two smaller schools, closureof Hylton Red House, amalgamation of Hylton Red House andCastle View and stage of consultation was the ‘federation’ of thetwo schools under BSF or as a ‘Sunderland’ academy.

It was felt that the federation option best answered the concerns of the first stage consultation and also addressed the educational and social needs of both areas. The federation may also facilitate improvement in performance which for Hylton Red House is provisionally at 18 % 5 A*-C and Castle View is provisionally at 32% 5 A* - C in 2005.

In summary the outcomes of Stage Two of the consultation are as follows:

• A large majority of respondents agreed that the replacement of

Washington School should be delivered under BSF;



• A majority of respondents were in favour of the replacement ofPennywell School with an all age school being rebuilt under BSFwith a number in favour of the rebuild as a ‘Sunderland’ academy.There was significant opposition in written responses and atmeetings to the inclusion of Barbara Priestman School in the new

Pennywell School proposals; parents of children at BarbaraPriestman School were very strongly opposed to the proposal;

• In Sunderland North a majority of respondents were in favour of thereplacement of Hylton Red House and Castle View Schools beingrebuilt under BSF with a number in favour of these being rebuilt as‘Sunderland’ academies.

6. NEXT STEPS

There is now some urgency around the rebuilding of Washington School,

given that Usworth School is planned to close in September 2007.Education Officers are working closely with the Headteachers andGovernors of both schools to ensure that effective transfer arrangementsfor pupils are in place leading up to occupation of the new building but it isimportant to ensure that there is no further slippage to the timescale. Sincethere is no proposal for a ‘Sunderland Academy’ at Washington the plansfor the new school under BSF and for refurbishments planned under BSFfor Biddick or St Robert of Newminster (RC) Schools, it should be possibleto negotiate with DfES and Partnership for Schools (PfS) over release ofBSF funding but it is likely that any agreement to this will require a revisedBSF Strategic Business Case (SBC) submission that describes BSF and

academies proposals in the round.

The proposal for Pennywell school site has been revised following theoutcomes of consultation and further discussion with the DfES. It is nowproposed that Quarry View Primary School and Pennywell School beamalgamated to form the all age 4-16 School. Barbara Priestman Schoolwill not be taken forward as part of these proposals and an alternativesolution for the replacement of Barbara Priestman’s specialist facilities willbe developed in the second wave of the BSF programme. This will be thesubject of a further report to Cabinet. The suitability of the new 4-16School as a ‘Sunderland Academy’ will be the subject of an independent

evaluation to be jointly funded by Sunderland City Council and the DfES.



The proposal for Hylton Red House and Castle View Schools remains themost complex. Although the federation proposal was generally supportedand agreed with governors of Hylton Red House, Castle View Schoolgovernors have not agreed at this stage to the federation as a way forward.Federation must be formally proposed by the governing bodies of both

schools and so further discussion and consideration of next steps inSunderland North must now take place. Further consultation withstakeholders in the area on refined proposals will take place as quickly aspossible to ensure the BSF programme and timetable remains on track.

A further report will be brought to Cabinet on the position in SunderlandNorth.

Once the position has been resolved and agreed, academy proposalsfor Sunderland North will also be subject to the same independentevaluation.

7. TIMESCALE

The timing of this consultation has been crucial to recovering the lostground already brought about by (albeit) necessary discussion withschools, partners and DfES around the ‘affordability gap’ and academies.The original timescale envisaged in the BSF Strategic Business Case – todeliver the new Washington School by September 2007 – has already

slipped by 12 months to September 2008 – and it is clearly important thatthere should be no further slippage to the programme. The timetabledescribed in consultation, that statutory notices should be published inNovember with Expressions of Interest to DfES shortly after has nowpassed largely as a result of continued discussions around BarbaraPriestman School and the position in Sunderland North.

A number of issues must be resolved and actions taken to enable the firstschools within the programme to be delivered by September 2008:

• Proposals for Sunderland North to be firmly established as a matter

of urgency;• Jointly commissioned independent evaluation of academy

proposals to be carried out immediately following above;

• Statutory proposals for any organisational change (i.e. the closureand amalgamation of Pennywell and Quarry View Primary Schoolsand any organisational change in Sunderland North) to bepublished January 2006;

• Sign off of revised Strategic Business Case (SBC) by end ofJanuary 2006 to enable programme for the replacement ofWashington School and the refurbishment of Biddick and St Robertof Newminster RC School to be carried forward under BSF.



This report to Cabinet is the first stage in meeting the revised timescaleset out above.

8. REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Approval of the recommendations set out at 2.1 and 2.2 of this report willenable the BSF/ Academies programme to proceed to the next stage.


To allow the BSF/ Academies programme to proceed to the next stageand to achieve the delivery of the first schools in the programme bySeptember 2008 there are no alternatives to this report.

10. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

10.1 The cost of carrying out consultation was £15,000 and has beenfunded from Education Capital receipts set aside to implement the BSFprogramme.


Cabinet Agenda 27 July 2005Cabinet Agenda 14 September 2005

Minutes of consultation meetings and consultation responses

12. ANNEXES

Annex 1 Stage 1 and 2 consultation documents



Their education - our future

Have your say on the future of secondary school education in Sunderland.

You will be helping to shape the future for generations to come.

Second stage consultation on Proposals for Building Schools for the Future,the Sunderland Academies Model and Secondary School Places

October 2005

S e c o n d

S t a g e C o

n s u l t

a t i o n



Dear Consultee

Last month we launched a major consultation exercise to decide the future of secondary education in

Sunderland. The education of our young people affects us all and we were keen to consult as widely as

possible on the many exciting opportunities available in order to provide the best possible secondary

education for young people now and in the future.

As a parent, or member of the schools community in Sunderland, you may already have taken part in the first

stage of our consultation.

We would like to thank those of you who took part. In this leaflet we set out some key points about the

feedback received. The first stage of consultation was about seeking your views on some general principles.

This feedback has been taken into account and we are now at the second stage of the consultation where wehave specific proposals for you to consider.

While the proposals are only about the schools in the first phase of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF)

programme it is possible that what happens now will affect the next phase of BSF which includes the rest of

our secondary schools. It is therefore very important that we consult as widely as possible and that everyone

is able to give us their view. Even if we haven’t heard from you already, your response in this second stage will

help to shape the final proposals we make following this consultation.

You can give your views now either by writing, completing the form at the back of this leaflet or by attending

one of the many public meetings. You can email us at [email protected] or you can contact

us by phone on 0191 553 1452. You can be sure that every response will be considered and taken into

account.

Details of the meetings and how to respond are at the back of this leaflet. You will find more information on

our website at www.sunderland-bsf.org.uk which includes the leaflet from the first stage.

Education Directorate Portfolio Holder Acting Director of Education



Outcomes of Stage One of the Consultation

In the first phase consultation there were four questions and this is a summary of the responses to date:

We explained that Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is the Government’s programme to rebuild or

modernise all the nation’s secondary schools and that Sunderland is in Wave 1 of the programme. We

explained that ‘new’ schools would be built through Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

1. We asked whether the Council should proceed with the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.

A large majority of respondents answered Yes to this question.

We explained the key features of the Government’s model of academies and also our proposal for a

Sunderland model of Academies.

2. We asked whether we should link the academies programme with Building Schools for the Future (BSF).

A large number of respondents answered that BSF should not link to the academies programme, althoughthere was support from a number of respondents.

3. We asked, if academies were to be built in Sunderland, whether respondents preferred the Government’s

proposal or the Sunderland model.

The majority of respondents preferred the Sunderland Academy Model over the ‘Government’ proposal.

In the first stage of consultation we explained that the city’s secondary school population would fall

by about 20% between now and 2015 and that Sunderland North was facing some of the biggest

reductions in numbers.

4. We asked whether we should go ahead with reorganisation in Sunderland North.

Approximately half of respondents answered that we should go ahead with reorganisation in

Sunderland North.

Second Stage Consultation Proposals

Washington

When Usworth School closes in July 2007 there will be four remaining schools in Washington – Biddick, Oxclose,St Robert of Newminster RC and Washington. Proposals for Biddick, Oxclose and St Robert of Newminster RC are

straightforward because they involve refurbishment of the existing schools.

Our proposal is that Washington School would be rebuilt under BSF, not as an Academy. Attainment in the

school has significantly improved therefore a government academy will not be imposed and it would not be

appropriate to develop a Sunderland Academy. The new school is currently scheduled to open in September

2008. Council officers are already working with the Headteachers and Governors of Washington and Usworth

Schools to ensure effective transfer arrangements are in place leading up to the occupation of the new building.

The response form at the end of this leaflet will ask you whether you agree or disagree that the newWashington School should be rebuilt under BSF rather than as an academy.



Pennywell, Quarry View Primary and Barbara Priestman Schools

Our proposal for Pennywell, Quarry View Primary and Barbara Priestman Schools develops the proposal

outlined in the first stage for an all age (4-16) inclusive school on the Pennywell site. In this proposal the

above three existing schools would be closed and a new all age school will be built with the appropriate

specialist facilities to match the needs of Barbara Priestman School. There has been more support for

amalgamating the three schools than there was for the first stage proposal, which would have seen Pennywell

and Quarry View Schools come together with Barbara Priestman as a separate school on the same site. The

new school is scheduled to be ready in 2008.

Sunderland North

The proposals involve Castle View and Hylton Red House Schools. Following the responses received during

the first stage of consultation we have removed three options.

We have removed the option to keep the three schools as they are because the projected numbers at Hylton

Red House will not guarantee the school’s viability for the future. We have removed the option to

amalgamate Hylton Red House with Castle View as one school because there is no alternative site available in

Sunderland North for the new school. We have also removed the option to close Hylton Red House School

because we believe there is an educational and social need to retain a school in that area of the City. Our

options for consultation in the second phase are:

Option 1

Hylton Red House and Castle View Schools would be rebuilt as new 11-16 schools but would have a sharedgovernance and management structure (called a Federation). Both new schools would be built under BSF

Private Finance Initiative.

Option 2

Hylton Red House and Castle View Schools would be rebuilt as new 11-16 schools but would have a shared

governance and management structure (called a Federation). Both new schools would be built as Sunderland

academies.

BSF Phase 2 Proposals of Building Schools for the Future

These schools are in Phase 2 of the programme and rebuilding will not begin until 2012. We will be carrying

out a similar consultation programme nearer to this time.

Farringdon School Hetton School

Houghton Kepier School Monkwearmouth School

Southmoor School St Aidan’s RC SchoolSt Anthony’’s RC School Thornhill School

Venerable Bede CE School

The response form at the end of this leaflet will ask you to select one of the above options.

Question 4 of the response form is for parents, schools and residents in Sunderland North only.

The response form at the end of this leaflet seeks your views on whether the new all-age schoolwith appropriate specialist facilities should be built under BSF or as a Sunderland academy.



Sunderland City CouncilConsultation on Proposals for Building Schools for the Future, the Sunderland Academies Model andSecondary School Places.

In this stage of the consultation we would like to have your views on the issues set out in this leaflet. This isNOT a vote on options, but we will use your responses to shape our final proposals and recommendations wemake to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the School Organisation Committee.

Q1. Are you responding to this consultation as a:

Parent/Carer (please cross out one)

Primary … Which school?

Secondary … Which school?

Please tick if you are:

Governors … Which school?

School staff … Which school?

Resident

Other

Your postcode (optional):

Q2. Do you agree that the new school for Washington should be built under BSF?

Agree Disagree Don’t know

Q3. Which programme do you think the all age school with specialist facilities at Pennywell should be built under?

BSF Academies Don’t know

Q4. Please select one of the following options regarding reorganisation in Sunderland North.N.B. This question is for parents, schools and residents of Sunderland North.

Option 1 - Hylton Red House and Castle View Schools to be rebuilt as 11-16 new schools on bothsites with a shared governance and management structure (called a Federation). Both schoolswould be built under BSF Private Finance Initiative

Option 2 - Hylton Red House and Castle View Schools to be rebuilt as 11-16 new schools on bothsites with a shared governance and management structure (called a Federation). Both schoolswould be built as Sunderland academies

Q5. Do you have any comments (please continue on separate sheet if necessary):

Please return to: BSF Secondary School Review, Education Directorate, FREEPOST, Civic Centre,Sunderland, SR1 1BR or fax to 0191 553 1436



How to respond to this consultation

You can respond to this consultation in a number of ways:

• Complete the detachable sheet at the end of this leaflet and return it to BSF Secondary School Review,

Education Directorate, FREEPOST, Civic Centre, Sunderland, SR1 1BR. No postage stamp is needed and

further copies of this leaflet are available by calling (0191) 553 1452.

• Contact the BSF Team direct, by phone on (0191) 553 1452 or (0191) 553 1349, by fax on 553 1436 or

by e-mail to [email protected]

• Download the consultation document from the website www.sunderland.gov.uk and post or fax your

response to us

• Attend any of the public meetings below.

Second Stage Consultation Public Meetings

All meetings start at 6.45 pm.

Wednesday 5 October Hetton School

Houghton Kepier School

Thursday 6 October Thornhill School

Southmoor School

Monday 10 October Farringdon SchoolSandhill View School

Tuesday 11 October Pennywell School

Venerable Bede School

Wednesday 12 October Quarry View Primary

Barbara Priestman School

Thursday 13 October Castle View School

Monkwearmouth School

Monday 17 October Hylton Red House School *

St Aidan’s/St Anthony’s RC Schools *

(meeting to be held at St Aidan’s)

Tuesday 18 October Washington School *

Usworth School *

Wednesday 19 October Biddick School *

St Robert of Newminster RC School *

Thursday 20 October Oxclose School *

The closing date for consultation responses is 21 October 2005. For meetings held at schools marked

with an asterisk *, responses will be accepted up until 28 October 2005.

ed11480



Their education - our futureSecondary school education in Sunderland is changing.

Please read this booklet and take the chance to have your say.

You will be helping to shape the future for generations to come.

Consultation on Proposals for Building Schools for the Future,

Secondary School Places and the Sunderland Academies Model

September 2005



Dear Parent or Carer

Consultation on Proposals for Building Schools for the Future, Secondary School Places and

the Sunderland Academies Model.

Secondary school education is changing. In Sunderland, there are many exciting opportunities

ahead which present unprecedented opportunities to provide the best possible secondaryeducation for all our young people now and in the future.

Sunderland City Council is now at a stage where decisions need to be taken on a complex range

of issues. The education of our young people affects us all, so it is very important that we consult

as widely as possible to ensure that all matters are considered.

This booklet is part of the first stage of a consultation process being undertaken across the whole

of the city. You can give your views now, in writing, by attending one of many public meetings or

by completing the form at the back of the booklet. Or you can contact us by phone on 0191 553

1452. You can be assured that every response will be considered and taken into account.

The proposals we are consulting on are about the schools in the first phase of the Building

Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.

Other secondary schools may not be directly affected by the issues in this consultation, but it is

possible that what happens now will affect the next phase of BSF which includes all our other

secondary schools. It is therefore very important that everyone gives their view.

Please read this booklet, come along to the public meetings, contact us and let us know what you

think. Details of the meetings and how to respond are on page five. You will also find more

information on the website at www.sunderland-bsf.org.uk.

Thank you for taking the time to be part of this vital consultation.

Yours sincerely

Education Portfolio Holder Acting Director of Education



What are the issues?

There are three key issues relevant to this consultation:

• The Building Schools for the Future programme (known as BSF)

• The Government’s proposals for academies and the proposed ‘Sunderland Model’ for academies

• Future pupil numbers in Sunderland

Building Schools for the Future (BSF)

Sunderland City Council is one of ten councils in ‘Wave 1’ – the first phase - of the Government’s

programme to rebuild and improve the nation’s secondary schools. Known as BSF, this

programme will provide funding to completely rebuild or modernise all secondary schools in

England over the next 10 to 15 years and schools in Sunderland’s Wave 1 programme will be

amongst the first of these with funding of approximately £95 million.

The schools in Wave 1 are:

• Biddick School

• Oxclose School

• St Robert of Newminster RC School

• Washington School

• Castle View School• Hylton Red House School

• Pennywell School

• Sandhill View School

The proposals for Pennywell are for an all-age (4-16 years) school and a special school on the

Pennywell Campus. Therefore we have included Barbara Priestman School and Quarry View

Primary School in Wave 1. All other secondary schools in Sunderland will be rebuilt or

modernised in a later phase of BSF with a further estimated £130 million in funding.

One outstanding issue for the city council is how the BSF Wave 1 buildings will be paid for. The

£95 million will be made up of a small amount of grant assistance, for which there is no cost to

the council, and a larger amount in Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits. Because the majority

of the schemes will be paid for with PFI credits there is a year-on-year cost of up to £3m which

will need to be found from the budgets available to all secondary schools, for the life of the PFI

contract, which is normally 25 years.



The Government’s proposals for academies and the ‘Sunderland Model’

Government’s proposals for academiesThe Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has asked us to consider its academies

programme as part of our development of BSF. The creation of 200 academies in England by

2010 is a well-publicised Government target.

Academies are part of the Government’s proposals to improve performance where there are

concerns about pupil attainment. A proportion of the building costs - £2 million - is provided by

sponsors which are usually businesses, charities or other organisations that then have the right to

places on the academy’s governing body. These academies are run independently.

We have a number of concerns about the way in which academies have operated in other areas.

These concerns are:

• Admission policies

• Policies on exclusions and hard to place pupils

• The provision of 14-19 education

• Partnership working with the city council and all other schools

There are no failing secondary schools in Sunderland. However, we have approached discussions

with DfES and potential sponsors from a position of seeking to add value to the quality of

education and learning opportunities in the city. We have developed and negotiated a model

which would work for Sunderland – not one with impositions from DfES or any sponsor.

Our fundamental concern is to ensure that any academies in the city adhere to the ‘partnership

of schools’ ethos we have collectively developed over recent years.

The Sunderland model for academiesIt is important to the whole education community that all secondary schools in Sunderland share

that vision of equal access for pupils of all abilities and genuine partnership and collaboration

between schools.

Key principles of the ‘Sunderland Model’ of academies

• Admissions policies will be the same as for schools maintained by the council. We will ensure

that sufficient places are available in the city’s schools overall, and that one school doesn’t

grow at the expense of another. This will provide stability for parents and help us to plan

school places.

• Academies will be fully accessible to pupils with special educational needs and will support

policies for increased inclusion in all mainstream schools.

• All secondary schools, including academies, will work together on exclusion policies and

practice to maintain the low levels of exclusion we have in Sunderland.



• Academies will be a key part of our strategy for joint sixth form centres which operate in

partnership with the three Roman Catholic secondary school sixth forms and the City of

Sunderland College.

• Academies will work in collaboration and partnership with the council, other schools and the

City of Sunderland College.

So that we can be sure that these key principles are met we also propose that the city councilidentifies the potential sponsor and then jointly sponsors the development of one or more

Sunderland academies. Our model is unique in that the city council would provide half the £2

million required as a contribution to the cost of building each academy and would have places on

the academy’s governing body or bodies.

Another unique feature of the Sunderland Model is the establishment of a new Education

Leadership Board. Its advisory remit will be to oversee and retain an overview of all education

provision in the city, including academies, and to provide a constructive challenge role to the

continuous improvement of the quality and effectiveness of education. The membership will

include business people from the city and a representative from each academy together with

Headteacher and Governor representatives from nursery, special and primary schools.

Aside from the sponsorship element to build an academy, the funding comes directly from the

DfES. There are no additional year-on-year costs as there are with schools provided by PFI.

We are not suggesting that we should build a new academy or academies, but asking

whether an existing school or more than one existing school in Wave 1 of BSF should berebuilt under the academy programme.

Future pupil numbers in SunderlandThe numbers of school-aged children in Sunderland continues to fall and is projected to reduce in

secondary schools by around 20% between now and 2015. In planning new schools for

Sunderland the effect of these reductions must be taken into account. This means as well as

considering whether to have academies and how many to have, the consultation must look at the

future size of schools and whether there should be fewer schools in particular areas.



Areas affected by Wave 1 of Building Schools for the Future

Washington

The reorganisation of secondary schools in Washington was agreed in late 2003 and Usworth

School will close in July 2007. The size of the four remaining schools – St Robert of Newminster

RC School, Biddick, Oxclose and Washington – has been set as part of that reorganisation

although we will monitor pupil numbers as we move through the BSF programme. Investment at

Oxclose and in vocational facilities at Biddick is underway through BSF ‘Quick Wins’ (funding that

the council was awarded early as part of BSF). The plan is for further refurbishment of Biddick and

St Robert of Newminster RC schools under the main BSF programme. As part of the 2003

reorganisation it was agreed that Washington School should be rebuilt.

We are seeking your views on the proposals to rebuild this as a new school under BSF or as an

academy.

Sunderland West

Two schools in the west of Sunderland are in Wave 1 of the BSF programme – Sandhill View and

Pennywell Secondary Schools. Sandhill View was built in 2002 as a PFI school and there will be

investment in the facilities to provide a vocational centre for construction skills. There are concerns

about pupil numbers at Pennywell and whether it will be viable in the future as a separate 11-16

School. The proposals address this issue and propose a new all age school (4-16 years) for Pennywell

with a planned amalgamation of the secondary school with Quarry View Primary School. Barbara

Priestman Special School will also be rebuilt on the same campus.

We are seeking your views on whether the new all-age school should be built under BSF or

as an academy.

Sunderland North

Hylton Red House and Castle View Schools are the two schools in Wave 1 of BSF. There are

concerns about pupil number projections generally in the North of Sunderland and in particular

for Hylton Red House School. There are a number of possible options which will be part of the

second stage of this consultation. These include:

• reducing the size of both schools

• reducing the size of both with the smaller Hylton Red House becoming an academy.

• closing Hylton Red House School

• amalgamating Hylton Red House with Castle View School as a new school under BSF or

as an academy

• joint management and governance of the two schools on their separate sites (this is called a

Federated School).

All of these issues will be discussed in more detail at the meetings.



What will happen next?

This stage of consultation will continue until 23 September 2005 when we will consider all

responses and put forward our proposals to a second stage of consultation

This second stage of meetings will begin on 3 October 2005 and will continue until 21 October

2005, when you will again be able to respond to further detailed proposals.

The details of the dates and venues for the second stage of consultation will be publicised nearer

the time.

A report to the council’s Cabinet will then be produced detailing the outcomes of the

consultation.

The Cabinet will meet in November 2005 to agree the final proposal, but this is not the final

decision. After a statutory period for formal representations the School Organisation Committee,

(a Committee independent of Sunderland City Council, which makes decisions on all school

organisation issues), will make the final decision in January 2006.

How to give us your views

You can respond to this consultation in a number of ways:

• Complete the detachable sheet at the end of this leaflet and return it to this address:

BSF Secondary School Review, Education Directorate, FREEPOST, Civic Centre, Sunderland, SR1 1BR

No postage stamp is needed. Further copies of this leaflet are available by calling (0191) 553 1452

• Call the BSF Team direct, by phone on (0191) 553 1452 or (0191) 553 1349, by fax on 553

1436 or by e-mail to: [email protected].

• Go online to complete the form at www.sunderland-bsf.org.uk.

• Attend the public meetings – details overleaf.



Public Meetings

All the meetings start at 6.45 pm.

Wednesday 7 September Hetton School

Houghton Kepier School

Thursday 8 September Thornhill School

Southmoor School

Monday 12 September Sandhill View School

Tuesday 13 September Pennywell School

Venerable Bede CE School

Wednesday 14 September Quarry View Primary School

Barbara Priestman School

Thursday 15 September Castle View School

Monkwearmouth School

Friday 16 September Farringdon School*

Monday 19 September Hylton Red House School *St Aidan’s RC /St Anthony’s RC Schools *

Tuesday 20 September Washington School *

Usworth School *

Wednesday 21 September Biddick School *

Thursday 22 September St Robert of Newminster RC School *

Oxclose School *

The closing date for consultation responses is 23 September 2005.

For meetings held at schools marked with an asterisk *, responses will be accepted up until

30 September 2005.

Further information on Sunderland’s Building Schools for the Future programme is available on

www.sunderland-bsf.org.uk.



Please complete, detach and return

Sunderland City CouncilConsultation on Proposals for Building Schools for the Future,the Sunderland Academies Model and Secondary School Places.

In this first stage of consultation we would like to have your views on the issues set out in this

booklet. This is NOT a vote on options, but we will use your responses to shape the second stage

of consultation and, ultimately, the recommendations we make to the Department for Education

& Skills (DfES) and the School Organisation Committee on how we move forward on these issues.

Q1. Are you responding to this consultation as a:

Parent/Carer (Please cross out one)

Primary...Which school?

Secondary...Which school?

Please tick if you are

Governor … Which school?

School Staff ... Which school?

Resident

Other

Your postcode please:

Q2. In principle, do you agree or not agree that to provide the best quality secondary school

education the council should proceed with the Building Schools for the Future programme?

Agree Disagree Don’t Know

Comments

✁



Q3. In principle, would you be in favour or not of linking the Building Schools for the Future

programme with academies?


Q4. If academies were to be built in Sunderland would you be in favour of:

The Government’s proposals for academies as described on page 4

The ‘Sunderland Model’ of academies as described on page 4

Neither

Either

Don’t know

Comments

Q5. Are you in favour or not of re-organisation in Sunderland North?

This question refers to the fact that pupil numbers are falling across Sunderland and in

particular the position in Sunderland North (Castle View and Hylton Red House Schools)

described on page 6.


Comments

We will be consulting further on this last question in Stage 2 of the consultation

beginning 3rd October.



Q6. Do you have any further comments?

Please return by 23 September 2005 or 30 September 2005 to:BSF Secondary School Review, Education Directorate,

FREEPOST, Civic Centre, Sunderland, SR1 1BR or fax to 0191 553 1436

✁



CABINET MEETING – 7TH DECEMBER, 2005


Title of Report:

Annual Performance Assessment of Sunderland City Council’s Education andChildren’s Social Care Services 2005

Author(s)

Director of Children’s Services

Purpose of Report:

To inform members of the Annual Performance Assessment (APA) process, the

outcomes and judgements of the first assessment.


Members are asked to note the information, outcomes of the process and arerecommended to require the Director of Children’s Services to take forward theintegration process with due regard to the speed of change and also to thesecurity of service provision.



The decision is necessary to ensure progress is maintained both in terms ofintegrating children’s services, but also to ensure full readiness for the Joint AreaReview (JAR) in 2007.


As this is a statutorily required process there are no alternative options.

Is this a “Key Decision” as definedin the Constitution? No


Children’s ServicesIs it included in the Forward Plan?

No




ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF SUNDERLAND CITYCOUNCIL’S EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE SERVICES2005

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To inform members of the Annual Performance Assessment (APA)process, the outcomes and judgements of the first assessment.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DECISION

2.1 Members are asked to note the information and outcomes of the

process.

2.2 Members are recommended to require the Director of Children’sServices to take forward the integration process with due regard tospeed of change and also to the security of service provision.

3 BACKGROUND

3.1 The process of bringing together Children’s Social Care Service andthe Education Directorate has been developing over the last 15months. In Sunderland other partners, notably Health and the YouthOffending Service are also closely involved in the integration ofprovision.

3.2 Each local authority (LA) is required to conduct a rigorous self-assessment which leads to an annual performance assessment (APA)involving Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspections(CSCI).

3.3 The newly appointed Director of Children’s Services took up her poston 1 November 2005.

3.4 The Authority will conduct the APA annually. This will lead to a JointArea Review (JAR) in the period January – May 2007.

4 CURRENT POSITION

4.1 The APA process took place in Sunderland in June – July 2005. Thisinvolved analysis of data, desk work, inspection visits and challengesessions with officers from the Council’s Services and the HealthService.

4.2 The APA report has now been received and this report letter isattached as Appendix 1.



4.3 In overall terms the judgement is favourable and the Council, with otherpartners is well placed to take forward the work on developingintegrated children’s services provision.

5 REASONS FOR THE DECISION

5.1 The decision is necessary to ensure progress is maintained both interms of integrating children’s services but also to ensure full readinessfor the Joint Area Review in 2007.

6 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

6.1 This is a statutory process, therefore there are no alternative options.

7 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no additional financial implications from the APA report.

8 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – The APA report letter 2005.

9 BACKGROUND PAPERS

None.



27 October 2005

T 08456 404045 Alexandra HouseEmail [email protected] 33 Kingsway

London WC2B 6SE

Mr Terry Walsh - Acting Director of EducationGlenys Jones - Director of Social Services

Sunderland City Council

Dear Colleague

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL’S

EDUCATION AND CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE SERVICES 2005

This letter summarises the findings of the meeting held on 20 July 2005 to assess theperformance of the education and social care services within your authority. We aregrateful for the information which you provided to support this process and for the timemade available by yourself and your colleagues to discuss relevant issues.

Being healthy

The authority shows good performance against this outcome. School inspection reportsshow that there are good levels of participation in sport. The authority has established a

very effective federation based on three hub specialist sports schools and the Cultureand Community Services Directorate, whose work is having a positive impact acrossthe city. There is increasing access to a widening range of sporting and outdooractivities and support and remission schemes are ensuring access for children andyoung people from lower income groups. The authority has also established specifictargets for increased participation of pupils from black and minority ethnic groups insuch activities. Some 38 schools have been awarded Healthy Schools status andanother 80 are working on the programme. A particularly imaginative element of thiswork is the involvement of children and young people in designing school dining roomsand developing new menus. Further initiatives to promote healthy lifestyles include theWear Healthy Nursery programme, the Drug Education Road Show and the obesity

screening programme.

All schools are supported with developing their sex education policies and the authorityprovides a structured programme of awareness-raising and support for parents. Thereis a multi-disciplinary teenage pregnancy team working towards locally set targets.However, despite the good partnership work in this area, teenage pregnancy rates arehigh and continue to rise.



The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), with a growing social work contribution, provides a good service. Young people referred via the Youth OffendingTeam (YOT), both for acute and non-acute interventions, receive a timely service from

CAMHS. The health of looked after children is promoted and monitored carefully andhas been so for some time.

Staying safe

The authority’s contribution to help children and young people to stay safe is good.Schools’ efforts to promote pupils’ care, welfare, health and safety were judged, ininspections, as good or very good and all schools had child protection procedures inplace. A recent Ofsted local authority inspection found that schools clearly understoodtheir role in child protection and received good support and training in this area. Allschools were making efforts to address bullying. Patterns of racist incidents in schools

are monitored although the causes of the incidents were felt not to be sufficientlyinterrogated. There was progress in increasing involvement with the Sikh community insome particular schools but that was not reflected in wider representation on governingbodies.

Within the social care setting, the authority also performed well. Children looked aftercontinue to enjoy a high degree of stability in their placements and many have beensuccessfully placed for adoption. The establishment of a dedicated permanency teamhas contributed to this outcome and there are also high numbers of children placed infoster care as well as adoption placements. The child protection system is wellmanaged: all children on the child protection register (CPR) are reviewed on time and

have an allocated qualified social worker. There is evidence of strong partnershipworking and the local safeguarding children board is now established. However, thenumber of looked after children remains high. The authority is aware of this and isexamining the reasons, including the possible impact of preventative services onreferral rates and subsequent intervention. The authority is also attempting to addressthe issue through its placement strategy.

Enjoying and achieving

The contribution of the authority towards this outcome is by and large satisfactoryalthough there are examples of good performance. There is a considerable degree ofvariability in the standards achieved by pupils across primary and secondary schools.

Early years provision is good. All three year olds have access to a place andinspections of care providers and nurseries have found them to be good or very good.Standards in Key Stages 1 and 2 are in line with averages nationally and for similarauthorities and rates of improvement above average. In Key Stage 3, however,standards are below the national average but in line with similar authorities. The rate ofimprovement is below or well below both averages. In Key Stage 4, the proportion ofpupils gaining five or more A* to C grades at general certificate of secondary education(GCSE) or its equivalent is below the national average, but in line with similar

authorities. Rates of improvement are in line with the national average and above thatfor similar authorities. The value added to pupils’ performance between Key Stages 1and 2 is slightly above average and rising. Thereafter, however, it declines, so that the



value added from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4 is below average. Therefore, too manypupils do not fulfil their early potential.

Authorised absences are falling but not quickly enough, so that performance continuesto be worse than average. Unauthorised absences present a more positive picture, withprimary schools performing better than average and secondary schools being in linewith the national average. Despite this, there is an upward trend in unauthorisedabsences in both phases. At primary level, exclusion rates are average while atsecondary school they are better than that. More pupils than average are educatedoutside school but the rate of their reintegration is satisfactory.

Outcomes for vulnerable children and young people are better than national indicatorsand reflect the impact of the authority’s priorities. The proportion of care leavers withfive A* to G grades at GCSE is good and there has been an improvement in the

numbers gaining one A* to G. The attendance of looked after children has improvedand is now at an acceptable level. Provision for pupils with special educational needshas shown notable improvements over the last two years and was judged highlysatisfactory in the recent Ofsted report.

The authority provides a considerable range of recreational and voluntary learningprovision, particularly in the areas of arts, sports and music.

Making a positive contribution

Performance is good against this outcome. Section 122 inspections of nurseries show

that among full-day, sessional day-care and multiple day-care providers, the personaland social education that children receive is generally good or very good. Inspectionsof schools also show that pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development isnever less than good. The work of schools to ensure that children and young peopleenjoyed freedom from bullying, racism and other forms of harassment was similarly judged as never less than good. All children with special educational needs havetransition plans in to education and all vulnerable children, where a risk is highlighted,have transition plans for Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3. The Behaviour and EducationSupport Team has been judged as excellent by HMI inspection.



There is a range of initiatives, particularly in the area of youth offending which arehaving a measurable positive impact on diverting young people away from crime andthe YOT performs very well against Youth Justice Board performance requirements.The restorative justice system in place has a national reputation. However, in terms ofreducing re-offending, the target of 5% education has not been met. The number oflooked after children receiving convictions and final warnings has worsened. Theauthority recognises the need to find more effective ways of addressing this.

There are a number of consultation groups in place for young people and a particularone for looked after children, called 4um. The proportion of looked after childrencommunicating their views to looked after reviews is high and there is a system of exitinterviews in place for looked after children moving placement.

Achieving economic well-being

Outcomes under this heading are generally good. They are better for education than forsocial care services.

The authority has conducted a fundamental review of its 14 to 19 provision and thesuccess of this is reflected in the recent Ofsted inspection of the local authority whichrated provision in this area as highly satisfactory. However, that report identified theneed to consolidate the work done to date and called for more progress in the 14 to 16curriculum strand. Although collaborative joint school-college sixth forms were wellestablished, three secondary schools had still not agreed their overall strategy in thisarea.

The take-up of vocational courses among young people has recently increasedby 59%. The participation rate in 2004 was 84.49%, just below the target of 85%.Exclusions have been reduced and pupils’ results in vocational courses are steadilyimproving. The average point scores for pupils entered for general certificate ofeducation, vocational education, advanced level and advanced subsidiaryexaminations are in line with national average and above that for similar authorities.

All disabled young people aged 14 and over have a transition plan. The Pupils FirstProject is successfully leading to extended work placements for Key Stage 4 pupils anda residential unit for young parents has been established to give them access to work.

Various agencies are working together to ensure that specialist early years assessmentprovision for profound special educational needs is made available at one point to givefurther support to parents. Despite the progress made, however, the proportion of 16 to18 year olds who are not in education, employment or training is too high.



Within the social care arena, every care leaver has a personal adviser. However, thereare fewer care leavers in education, employment or training than in other comparativeauthorities and the numbers in suitable accommodation is below the council’s owntarget. With regard to children with disabilities, there are fewer receiving services thanamong comparative councils, although this may be a result of universal services beingmore accessible, as the authority believes. The take up of direct payments is very lowamong this group, particularly set against the huge increase in take up among adults.Children and young people would also benefit from a more active approach to theimplementation rather than the evaluation of person-centred planning.

SUMMARY

Strengths Areas for improvement

Being healthy :

• health promotion initiatives in schools

• health of children looked after.

Being healthy :

• teenage pregnancy.

Staying safe :

• stability of placements for childrenlooked after

• adoption of children looked after

• well managed child protection system

• support and training for child protectionin schools.

Staying safe :

• high numbers of children lookedafter.

Enjoying and achieving:

• rate of improvement at Key Stages 1and 2

Enjoying and achieving:

• attainment at KS3

• value added from:• value added from Key Stage 1 to Key

Stage 2 Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4 Key Stage 3 to Key Stage 4• permanent exclusion rates in secondary

schools • further reduction in authorisedabsences at both primary andsecondary level.

• educational attainment of childrenlooked after.

Making a positive contribution: Making a positive contribution:

• restorative justice system • rate of convictions and finalwarnings for children looked after • opportunities for gathering views of

children and young people.



Achieving economic well-being: Achieving economic well-being:

• extensive range of vocational coursesand support to disengaged youngpeople

• young people not in education,employment or training.

•

accommodation for care leavers• all disabled young people have atransition plan

• take up of direct payments amongchildren with disabilities.

• development of specialist early yearsassessment provision, for children withprofound needs, located at one point.

Service management

The council’s reputation for the robustness of its service management and financialmanagement is reflected in the fact that it retained its excellent comprehensive

performance assessment status last year and was judged to be continuing to performat a high level. The Audit Commission judged their overall capacity to ensure futureprogress as remaining high. There is a five year financial strategy in place to supportthe Children’s Placement Strategy. The council has well-established multi-agencypartnerships and the system of Modernisation and Reform Groups (MaRGs) provideplanning links across health, social care and education. There is a shadow Children’sTrust board in place and a joint commissioning executive group. The project team,leading on the development of the Children’s Trust is funded until March 2006.

At the time of the annual performance assessment meeting, the post of Director ofChildren’s Services was unfilled, although the authority was about to begin its

selection process within the following week. The authority recognised in itsself-assessment that difficulties in recruiting some staff puts pressure on the capacityof the workforce in certain areas of social care.

Areas for exploration in the joint area review

Being healthy

Healthy lifestyles are promoted for children and young people:

• teenage pregnancy.

Staying Safe

Children and young people are provided with a safe environment:

• numbers of children looked after.



Enjoying and Achieving

Children and young people are enabled and encouraged to attend and enjoy school and to achieve highly:

• performance at Key Stage 3.

Making a positive contribution

Action is taken to prevent offending and to reduce re-offending by children and young people:

• convictions and final warnings among looked after children.

ACHIEVING ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

Children and young people who are looked after are helped to achieve economic well- being:

Children and young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities are helped to achieve economic well being:

• outcomes for care leavers

• outcomes for children with disabilities.

Final judgements

Please see your final annual performance assessment judgements attached at the endof this letter.

Yours sincerely

Flo HadleyDivisional ManagerOffice for Standards in Education

Jonathan PhillipsDirector – Quality, Performance and MethodsCommission for Social Care Inspection



APA final judgements 2005: Sunderland City Council

Areas for judgement Final judgements1

The contribution of the local authority’s social care services inmaintaining and improving outcomes for children and young people

3

The contribution of local authority’s education services in maintaining andimproving outcomes for children and young people.

3

The contribution of the local authority’s children’s services in maintainingand improving outcomes for children and young people.

3

The council’s overall capacity to improve its services for children and young people3