Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find
information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the
council’s decision making bodies.
Alternatively you can visit the officer and executive
member decisions page for information on officer delegated
decisions that have been taken by council officers or executive
members, or previous
officer and executive member decisions to view decisions
made before November 2016.
Show Key decisions only
Decision maker: Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Streets, Parks and Town Centres
Decision published: 11/12/2018
Effective from: 19/12/2018
Lead officer: Theresa Hodgkinson
Decision maker: Corporate Finance Manager (and S151 Officer)
Decision published: 04/12/2018
Effective from: 03/12/2018
Lead officer: Peter Hudson
Decision maker: Leader of the Council
Effective from: 29/11/2018
Lead officer: Justin Henry
Decision maker: Director Resources and Business Transformation
Decision published: 03/12/2018
Lead officer: Craig Bonar
Decision maker: Cabinet
Made at meeting: 26/11/2018 - Cabinet
Decision published: 26/11/2018
Effective from: 26/11/2018
that the recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
that the Deputy Leader (Outward Focus) attends a future meeting of
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to explain Cabinet’s
response to the committee’s recommendations and to provide a
progress report on the investments being made to Play areas
that it be noted that Cabinet had looked at the Section 106
agreement for Brand Land, but that it be noted that the agreement
could not be amended without the consent of the developer.
To consider the recommendations made by the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee following the call-in regarding the
Play Strategy for Rural Areas / Green Space Project and the topic
being referred back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for
CONSIDERED AND REASONS FOR REJECTION
The option of approving the recommendation
made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee “that the
proposed schedule of work for investing in play areas, as detailed
in the emerging Play Strategy be informed by specific needs for
investment, and that these needs be recorded, rather than
investment being determined solely on a schedule and list of
areas” was rejected in order to ensure that play areas in
rural areas received the same levels of extra funding as play areas
in other areas of the district.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Mike Joy
Effective from: 04/12/2018
that the consultation response as set out in the appendix of the
officer’s report be approved for submission to HS2, and
brought into effect from 26 November 2018.
that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation
with the Leader and Portfolio Holder, to approve any minor drafting
amendments to the consultation response.
To enable the Council to inform HS2 of the
Council’s concerns, to encourage opportunities to expand the
economic benefits of the new infrastructure and highlight the key
changes required to the proposals to mitigate the impact on the
The alternative option was not to submit
comments to HS2. This was not recommended as it would have been a
lost opportunity to put forward for consideration the
Council’s views on the impact of HS2 on the district’s
communities, environment and economy.
Lead officer: Carol Cooper-Smith
that a Welfare Reform Officer, to assist with
the wider roll out of Universal Credit and assist tenants in paying
their rent, be added to the Council’s establishment for a
fixed term of two years.
To increase the range and capacity of advice
and support offered by the Council to tenants in order to both
reduce the risks of rent arrears and also assist in the sustainment
Not to recruit - This option was not recommended due to the number
of tenants who will be directly affected by the introduction of
Universal Credit and the need to protect the Housing Revenue
Account income stream which faces significant risk due to the
direct payment of housing costs to tenants rather than the Council
Outsourcing the provision of advice - This option was not
recommended due the potential delays it may cause, the need to have
a data sharing agreement and for the potential for advice contrary
to Housing’s ‘rent first’ policy when using
Housing Revenue Account money to provide monetary advice.
Lead officer: Paul Parkinson
that the forecast variances against revised budgets for the General
Fund (underspend of £66,000), Housing Revenue Account
(underspend of £3.126m) and Capital Programme (slippage of
£9.059m), be noted
that a one-off transfer of £20,000 from the forecast
underspend on Legal and Governance services be used to contribute,
along with a number of the Nottinghamshire districts, towards legal
and financial assessment costs associated with the LGR/Unitary
that £29,000 of the forecast underspend be used to fund a
second Ashfield Big Spring Clean early in 2019.
that the new capital schemes included in the officer’s report
be recommended to Council for approval.
To report to those charged with Governance the
financial position to September 2018 and comply with the
Council’s Financial Regulations.
AND REASONS FOR REJECTION
There were no alternative options
that the full evaluation of the 2018 Big Ashfield Spring Clean, as
detailed in the officer’s report be noted.
the plans for the 2019 Big Ashfield Spring Clean, as set out in the
officer’s report be approved.
that authority be delegated to the Director of Place and
Communities and Assistant Director Neighbourhoods and Environment,
in conjunction with the Deputy Leader of the Council, Outward
Focus, to lead on the project.
to use the evaluation and lessons learned from
the Big Ashfield Spring Clean to inform the most effective way
forward for 2019 and future years.
Repeat the Big Ashfield Spring Clean campaign in its current format
– This option was not recommended as it would not take into
account the learning points from the Big Ashfield Spring Clean
Community led spring clean campaign
with free bulky waste collections – This option was not
recommended as while here is a recognition that there are pockets
of active volunteers and groups in Ashfield there is no consistent
that the officer’s report be noted.
that the further development of the Ashfield Place
Leadership programme, as detailed in the officer’s report be
REASONS FOR DECISION
To continue the work to
contribute to the Council’s Corporate Plan commitments
Enhance the identity and brand for Ashfield; so it
is cherished by those who live or work here, desirable to those who
visit, and attractive to those who bring jobs and
Raise the profile of Ashfield as a place where
people want to visit and spend their time enjoying
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REASONS FOR
The option of not doing
anything was not recommended for a number of reasons. The insight
work carried out to date in conjunction with public, private and
voluntary sector stakeholders has allowed the Council to increase
understanding of the District by creating the ‘Ashfield
Story’ and future requirements.
The ‘Ashfield Story’ will be central to the successful
delivery of the Place Leadership Programme objectives set out
within the Corporate Plan (2016-2019).
that the change from existing Constant Net Asset Value (CNAV) Money
Market Funds to Low Volatility Net Asset Value (LVNAV) Money Market
Funds be noted.
that the mid-year position in respect of the treasury activity and
performance against the prudential indicators be noted.
To inform Cabinet of the current Treasury
Management performance position and to meet the requirements of the
Council’s Financial Regulations (C.30).
There were no alternative options considered
as it is a requirement to report on Treasury Management performance
during the year in accordance with Financial Regulations.
Decision maker: Deputy Chief Executive (Resources)
Lead officer: Martin Elliott
Effective from: 27/11/2018