REPORT TO CABINET 19 July 2002

testyechinoidΔιαχείριση

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

99 εμφανίσεις

Sppdca
-
1807



REPORT TO CABINET


19 July 2002



TITLE OF REPORT:


Corporate Asset Management Plan


REPORT OF:

Jerry Barford, Group Director, Development And Enterprise



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


This report presents the Corporate Asset Management Plan (attached at Appendix
2), which has to be submitted to Government Office Northeast (GO
-
NE) by 31 July
2002.


The first asset management plan was submitted to GO
-
NE in July 2001. It received
a

‘poor’ assessment. This assessment, along with that of the capital strategy and
other service plans, contributed to the level of funding that the Council received
in respect of the 5% discretionary element of the 2002/03 Single Capital Pot.


Cabinet is a
sked to agree the content of the July 2002 Corporate Asset
Management Plan and recommend that Council accepts this as a key policy
document. It is also seeks authorisation for the Chief Executive, in consultation
with the Leader of the Council, to make an
y final amendments to the plan and
associated documents that may be necessary prior to submission to GO
-
NE by the
due deadline.


Policy Context


1.

The submission of an asset management plan is a mandatory requirement.
The asset management plan aligns with th
e Council’s policy for managing
resources. A key action for 2002/03 is to optimise the use of the Council’s
physical assets by developing the asset management plan and capital
strategy.


Consultation


2.

The asset management plan supports the aims and objec
tives of the
community strategy, which has been developed in full consultation with
local residents. The Council has consulted internally in order to develop the
plan.


Implications


3.

The draft Local Government Bill builds on the proposals set out in the Wh
ite
Paper
, Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services.
This announced
incentives relating to the proportion of funding being provided through the
Single Capital Pot (and thus not ring
-
fenced) for Councils classed as good.
Sppdca
-
1807

In addition, a ‘good’ corpo
rate asset management plan assessment in 2002
will mean not having to re
-
submit it to GO
-
NE in 2003, although the Council
will still be expected to maintain the asset management plan. It is also
clear that the assessment of the revised strategy will form
part of the score
in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.


The Strategic Director, Finance and ICT confirms that, whilst there are no
financial implications arising immediately from this report, future capital
resources will be dependent upon how the
Council’s overall performance,
including that of its corporate asset management plan, is assessed.


Recommendations


4.

Cabinet is asked to :
-


(i)

agree the content of the July 2002 Corporate Asset Management Plan.


(ii)

recommend to Council that the Corporate Asset
Management Plan, attached
at Appendix 2, be approved as a key policy document and submitted to GO
-
NE by 31July 2002.


(ii)

authorise the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the
Council, to make any final amendments to the Strategy and assoc
iated
documents that may be necessary.



For the following reasons :
-


(i)

to maximise resources available to the Council via the discretionary element
of the single capital pot;


(ii)

to comply with a mandatory deadline set by Government.
















CONTACT:



Lesley Pringle, ext 3490

PLAN REF
:


Sppdca
-
1807











APPENDIX 1


Background


1

The asset management plan was submitted to GO
-
NE in July 2001. It received a
‘poor’ assessment because, in the opinion of GO
-
NE assessors, it
failed to meet
two of the ten primary
requirements. GO
-
NE also indicated that the plan fulfilled
55% of the secondary requirements.


2

Part 1 and Part 2 guidance was issued by the DTLR in April and May 2002. The
majority of the guidance remains the same as that issued for the dry run in 2001
an
d last year’s first live round. However, some changes have been made in
relation to the primary and secondary requirements. A number of the secondary
requirements are now primary ones with a stronger emphasis on output and
outcomes.


3

As before the plan m
ust satisfy all primary requirements to secure a satisfactory
assessment, and 75% of the secondary requirements to achieve a ‘good’
assessment.


4

As expected, incentives relating to the proportion of funding being provided
through the single capital pot (an
d thus not ring
-
fenced) were announced for
Councils assessed as good. A ‘good’ corporate asset management plan
assessment in 2002 will mean not having to re
-
submit the asset management
plan in 2003. However, Councils will be still expected to maintain the

asset
management plan in accordance with any requirements or guidance.


5

The assessment that the July 2002 submission receives will also contribute to the
Council’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment score.


Proposal


6

As far as the detailed strategy is c
oncerned, the form of the plan has been totally
rewritten in order to address those issues found lacking in the earlier submission,
updated as necessary, and to comply with Government guidance.


Consultation


7

The asset management plan supports the aims and

objectives of the community
strategy, which has been developed in full consultation with local residents. The
Council has consulted internally since Cabinet was last informed of the main
changes to DTLR guidance in May 2002, in order to develop the asset
management plan further.


Alternative Options


8

The submission of an asset management plan is a mandatory requirement. There
is no alternative option to pursue.


Sppdca
-
1807

Implications of Recommended Option


Equal Opportunities Implications



9

Nil


Crime and Disorder

Implications


10

Nil


Environmental Implications


11

Nil


Human Rights Implications


12

Nil


Ward Implications


13

All wards are potentially affected



Background Information


14

The following background papers have been used in preparing this report :
-


Single Capi
tal Pot Guidance 2002 : Parts 1 and 2


DTLR