Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from the Chairman, Councillor Stephen Mansbridge.

In accordance with the revised local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must notparticipate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, the councillor must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

There were no disclosable pecuniary interests declared at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Executive held on 6 January 2015.

The Executive approved the minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2015 as a correct record.  As the person presiding at the meeting, the vice-chairman signed the minutes.

The Executive considered a report on The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which introduced new provisions and powers relating to anti-social behaviour with effect from 20 October 2014. 

The Act had brought in measures that aimed to:

·         focus the response to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims;

·         empower communities to get involved in tackling anti-social behaviour;

·         ensure that professionals had access to fast, effective powers to protect the public; and

·         speed up the eviction of the most anti-social tenants.

The provisions in the Act had consolidated 19 existing anti-social behaviour powers into six more flexible powers.  Two new measures, the community trigger and community remedy, had been introduced to help focus the response to such behaviour on the needs of victims. 

In considering this matter, the Executive acknowledged the very informative training session for councillors on the new provisions for dealing with anti-social behaviour held in November 2014 and felt that it should be repeated for the new Council after the May elections.

The Executive

RESOLVED: 

(1)       That the Executive Head of Housing and Health and Executive Head of Environment be authorised to exercise the Council’s functions and enforcement powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, including: 

(i)     securing civil injunctions;

(ii)    issuing closure notices and securing closure orders;

(iii)   issuing community protection notices;

(iv)   implementing public space protection orders; and

(v)    appointing authorised officers.

(2)       That the Managing Director be authorised to extend a closure notice to 48 hours.

Reason for Decision:

To enable the implementation of measures and use of powers contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

(The webcast showing the debate on this matter may be viewed here, timed at 00:02:05)

Councillors noted that The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA) gave county councils and unitary authorities the new statutory role of Lead Local Flood Authorities, which had new responsibilities for leading in local flood risk management.  At district and borough council level, Guildford Borough Council had a general duty under the Land Drainage Act 1991 (LDA), as well as the FWMA, to work in partnership with other risk management authorities, such as Surrey County Council (SCC) and the Environment Agency (EA).  The production of a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) formed a key part of flood risk management in many locations.

The Executive considered a report on the proposed Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the Borough.  A SWMP was a process by which organisations, could understand flooding from surface water (not river) better, and identify methods to manage flood risk. The outputs from a SWMP were long-term plans about how to manage surface water in areas at risk.  Following discussions between SCC’s and the Borough Council’s engineers, Halcrow Group Ltd. had been engaged to develop a SWMP initially for the eastern side of the borough and subsequently for Ash in the west, a different river catchment area.  Together, these plans were referred to as the SWMP.

Following the floods over the Christmas and New Year period 2013-14, officers had embarked on a public feedback exercise, which provided new information, or had confirmed the findings of the SWMP.  A copy of the SWMP Action Plan was attached as Appendix 1 to the report and an indicative initial programme of implementation included as Appendix 2.

This programme would be developed by the project board as the work progressed.

The recommendations included proposals for future capital flood protection schemes, enhancements to current maintenance programmes, improvements to the collection and recording of flood incident data, further engagement with local residents, and developing flood risk management links with spatial planning.

The report had set out the recommendations in greater detail and had provided commentary on the issues relating to “hotspot” locations identified in the Action Plan. The capital bid for funding had been included in the General Fund capital programme (2015-16 to 2019-20) report, as seen by Corporate Improvement Scrutiny Committee on 8 January 2014, was also attached as Appendix 3 to the report. 

The report had also discussed funding and ongoing management of this multi-agency project and had described the legal framework surrounding flood risk management initiatives.

The Executive, having noted the detailed comments of the Customer and Community Scrutiny Committee, which had considered this report at its meeting on 13January 2015,

RESOLVED:

(1)       That the Surface Water Management Plan and Action Plan be endorsed.

(2)     That the SWMP Project Board continues to oversee the management of the project with key partners.

(3)     That the Executive Head of Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Transport Infrastructure and Environment and the Executive Head of Governance, to enter such contracts as are necessary to progress the Action Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX84

The Executive considered the Parking Business Plan for 2015-16, which for the first time was a combined report covering off-street car parking, on-street parking and Park and Ride. The parking service operated Guildford Borough Council’s Car Parks and managed on-street parking on behalf of Surrey County Council.  Guildford Borough and Surrey County Councils jointly provided the park and ride service. The decisions relating to each area of service had to be agreed by the particular committee responsible, but by providing a joint business plan all parties could comment on all areas of the service.  This would ensure that the services and the policies they follow were co-ordinated.

The Parking Business Plan for 2015-16 had been presented to the Guildford Local Committee on 26 November and all the recommendations marked for its decision were agreed.  The Customer and Community Scrutiny Committee considered the Parking Business Plan at its meeting on 13 January 2015, and its detailed comments were included in the Supplementary Information sheets circulated at the Executive meeting. 

The Parking Business Plan provided detailed information on the service and had recommended the creation of a parking strategy.  Other recommendations had sought to improve the efficiency of the service and influence parking behaviour by providing better signage, by increasing some charges and by reviewing the car park positions and design.

Having considered the report, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)    That a Task Group be established to develop a Parking Strategy which sets a framework for parking operations to support key strategic plans including the Local Plan, Town Centre Master Plan and Local Transport Plan.

(2)     That we continue to examine the potential to develop Millbrook Car Park and also work with our colleagues in Development to explore ways of changing existing car parks, or developing new ones, based on the “drive to, not through” principle.

(3)     That all interested parties discuss changes to the direction road signage, particularly where this will improve motorists’ ability to park in the first convenient car park,

(4)     That, with effect from 1 April 2015:

(a)  the following tariff adjustments be approved:

(i)    Farnham Road Multi-Storey Car Park from 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Saturday from 90p per hour to £1.00 per hour with a maximum daily charge of £8.

(ii)   York Road Multi-Storey Car Park from 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday from 90p per hour to £1.00 per hour with a maximum daily charge of £8;

(iii)  Guildford Park Car Park from £4.50 per day on Monday to Friday to £5.00 per day;

(iv)  Shalford Park Car Park from £2.80 per day on Monday to Friday to £3.20 per day;

(v)  Walnut Tree Close Car Park from £3 per day on Monday to Friday to £3.20 per day.

(b)  the charge for season tickets in York Road and Farnham Road Multi-Storey Car Parks be increased by 5%

(c)  the rental charges for garages managed by the Parking Service be increased by 5%

(d)  the charge for contract parking be increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX85

Prior to the formal consideration of this item, Mrs Jenny Teagle (Chairperson of Access Group, Guildford) addressed the Executive in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rule 3 (f).  Mrs Teagle welcomed the revised design of the proposed lift, which would provide a link to all levels within the Civic Suite.

The Executive considered a report on the latest position regarding the Millmead Refurbishment Project including the proposed detailed design and the current position regarding the budget and programme.

Councillors noted that since the last report on this matter to the 29 May 2014 meeting of the Executive, officers had conducted a procurement exercise to appoint an architect led design team, prepared concept designs and had agreed them with service managers.  The design team was now working closely with officers and the internal project team to prepare the detailed design and a specification for the scheme, ready for tendering for a contractor to commence the works in the summer of 2015.

Consultation and engagement with councillors, staff and key stakeholders through specific project groups had built upon the earlier agreement for the broad principles of the scheme outlined in the design brief attached as Appendix 1 to the report.  Through this consultation and engagement, the proposed scheme had responded to the needs of customers, councillors and staff.  This would enable residents to participate more effectively in the democratic process. 

Having considered the detailed designs and the budgetary implications, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)     That the proposed design for the refurbishment work to the civic suite, main reception and multi-use space, as set out in the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(2)     That the project, as presented, be progressed.

(3)     That the project be progressed promptly to tender stage for the chosen option set out in paragraph (2) above to enable officers to let a contract for the work within the agreed project budget.

The Executive further

RECOMMEND:

That the Council approves a capital supplementary estimate of £1.307 million (net increase to Council of £735,000), to be funded partly by: 

·         transfer £235,000 from the DDA provisional capital programme scheme and add to this project in the approved capital programme

·         the revenue contribution to capital of £103,000 in respect of the items listed in paragraph 4.4 of the report submitted to the Executive

·         an allocation of £202,500 from the invest to save reserve.  £52,500 for the refurbishment and re-design of the multi-use space and £150,000 for the refurbishment of the reception area

·         the transfer of £31,500 from the IT renewals budget

Reasons for Decision/Recommendation:

To facilitate the detailed design and appointment of a contractor for the Millmead refurbishment project.

(The webcast showing the debate on this matter may be viewed here, timed at 00:22:32)

The Executive considered a report on a proposed new Asset Strategy and an updated Asset Management Framework as part of the Council’s strategic management of its property estate.  The Executive was invited to review both documents and approve the strategy and framework as relevant, robust and transparent statements on the way the Council managed, reviewed, challenged and reported on the performance of its property estate.

Both the strategy and the framework were an essential part of the Council’s Corporate Plan, specifically the “Our Council” theme to improve the way we work.  The vision for the property estate was to own, occupy or use properties that empower the Council to perform excellently in the delivery of its services and Corporate Plan themes on behalf of the borough’s residents, businesses and visitors.

The strategy stated how the Council’s properties supported the delivery of the Corporate Plan and included an action plan and programme for delivering the strategy and the strategic priority of ensuring that the Council’s property is fit for purpose, plus new performance criteria to monitor how the estate was performing.

The framework had updated the previous Asset Management Framework approved by the Executive in October 2010, and had set out the policies for managing and reviewing properties efficiently and strategically.

Both documents covered the period up to March 2016 in line with the Corporate Plan timeframe and, read together, they provided a complete overview of why the Council owned, occupied and used its properties and how the Council ensured that it gets the best from its estate.  The strategy and framework specifically excluded Council dwellings as these were covered separately in the HRA Business Plan.

Having noted that the Corporate Improvement Scrutiny Committee had indicated its support for the strategy and framework at its meeting on 8 January 2015, the Executive 

RESOLVED: That the new Asset Strategy and the updated Asset Management Framework, as set out respectively in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved along with the proposed arrangements and action plan.

Reasons for Decision:

To ensure the Council has a clear and robust statement and process for owning, occupying, and using its properties and to ensure the efficient and strategic management of the Council’s property estate.

(The webcast showing the debate on this matter may be viewed here, timed at 00:46:24)

The Executive considered a report which detailed the new capital proposals for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20. Twenty-nine new bids had been put forward, with a net cost in the period to the Council of £88.36 million.  The Council had a current underlying need to borrow for the general fund capital programme of £60.85 million, which would increase to £149.21 million, should these proposals be approved by Council for inclusion in the programme.

Each bid had been evaluated using the prioritisation criteria set out in Appendix 3 to the report, by extended Corporate Management Team (CMT).  The Finance Scrutiny Group (FSG) had also reviewed the bids.

Officers had requested that a number of bids (numbered 1 to 11 in the schedule of new bids set out in Appendix 1) be approved straight away, without the need for a further Executive report, and these requests had been supported by both CMT and the FSG. 

The key areas of growth included were:

·         Clay Lane link road

·         Spectrum roof

·         Acquisition and development of new burial grounds

·         Town centre development

The report also includes the Council’s Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) policy and some of the Council’s Prudential Indicators.  Officers had proposed the following additions to the MRP policy:

·         Where expenditure on schemes are pending receipt of an alternative source of finance (for example capital receipts), MRP would not be charged.

·         The MRP guidance recommended a life of 50 years for freehold land.  However, officers felt that as land often had an infinite economic life, charging MRP over 75 years was more realistic whilst maintaining prudency.  If the Council purchased land for development purposes, it would also be prudent to apply an estimated life of 75 years which was at least as great as it would be if a new building was placed on it.  Similarly, new buildings or similar structures would have an estimated life of 75 years.

·         Where loans were made to other bodies for their capital expenditure, no MRP would be charged.  However, the capital receipts generated by the annual repayments on those loans would be put aside to reduce the Capital Financing Requirement.

·         For investments in shares classed as capital expenditure, the Council would apply a 100-year life.

Having considered the report, the Executive

RECOMMEND:

(1)      That the General Fund capital estimates, as shown in Appendix 5 to the report submitted to the Executive (current approved and provisional schemes), as amended to include the new capital proposals set out in Appendix 1 to the report,Appendix 7 (s106 funded schemes), Appendix 8 (schemes funded from reserves) and Appendix 10 (general fund housing schemes), be approved.

(2)      That the MRP policy be approved from 2014-15.

(3)      That the Prudential Indicators and limits for 2015-16 to 2018-19, as detailed in the report submitted to the Executive, be approved

The Executive further

RESOLVED:

Subject to Council approving the budget on 11 February 2015,

(1)       That the new capital proposals listed as items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX88

The Executiveconsidered a report covering the operation of the Council’s Treasury Management function for 2015-16, incorporating the following key reporting requirements:

·         The Treasury Management Strategy for 2014-15 in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management.

·         The investment strategy, in accordance with Government investment guidance.

·         The reporting of the main Prudential Indicators for 2015-16 to 2017-18 in accordance with the requirements of the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities.

The Executive noted that the strategy had taken into account the impact of the Council’s revenue budget and capital programme on the balance sheet position, the current and projected treasury position, the Investment Strategy and Prudential Indicators and the outlook for interest rates.

The Council had an underlying need to borrow for capital expenditure.  For the current capital programme, this was £60.85 million for 2014-15 to 2019-20, excluding the new bids put forward as part of the General Fund capital programme referred to in minute EX88 above.  The net cost of the capital bids was £88.36 million, taking the revised underlying need to borrow to £149.21 million.

The Council had defined its minimum credit rating as a high quality investment for specified investments as A- for a counterparty and AA- for a sovereign.

The Executive noted that the key changes from the 2014-15 approved strategy were as follows:

·         increased diversification in the portfolio by introducing more secured investment types

·         setting different limits for banks for secured and non-secured investments:

o   reduction in the maximum limit for non-secured investments from £8 million in the current strategy to £6 million for 2015-16

o   introduction of a £10 million limit for secured investments

·         setting longer duration limits for secured bank investments

·         introduction of a non-specified investment category for investments in wholly owned subsidiaries, should one be established.

·         inclusion of £20 million in the liability benchmark as the minimum liquidity

Having considered the report, the Executive

RECOMMEND:

That the Treasury Management Strategy for 2015-16 contained within Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive be approved, specifically:

a)    the investment strategy contained in section 4; and

b)    the treasury prudential indicators and limits for 2015-16 to 2017-18

Reasons for Recommendation:

To enable the Council to set the Budget Requirement, Council Tax and Prudential Indicators for the 2015-16 financial year, and to agree the treasury management strategy.

(The webcast showing the debate on this matter may be viewed here, timed at 00:58:58)

The Executive considered a report setting out the 2015-16 draft budget for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The updated HRA Business Plan, approved by the Executive on 25 November 2014, had set the framework for the proposed budget outlined in the report

The report includes detailed HRA revenue budgets for 2015-16, a ten-year revenue budget projection and the Housing Investment Capital Programme. These were based on the assumptions set out in the approved business plan.

The ten-year projection had indicated that the revenue account was consistently able to generate around £11 million per annum in contributions for future capital investment, in either the existing stock or the provision of new units.  The ten-year budget projection reflected the current Business Plan, attaching a lower priority to the repayment of debt principal inherited as part of the self-financing HRA settlement. 

The report had proposed that weekly rents for council dwellings be increased by 2.2% and that a local rent convergence scheme be implemented. Agreement was also sought to a capital investment programme totalling £12.5 million. The report also included details of the various fees and charges proposed for other HRA services.

Having considered the report, the Executive

RECOMMEND:

(1)      That the HRA revenue budget, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report submitted to the Executive, be approved.

(2)      That the rent of Council owned dwellings be increased by 2.2% with effect from 6 April 2015, to be adjusted so as to comply with the local rent convergence policy by applying locally specified caps and limits.

(3)      That the fees and charges for HRA services specified in Appendix 2 to the report be approved.

(4)      That the Housing Investment Programme set out in Appendix 5 to the report (current approved and provisional schemes), be approved.

The Executive further

RESOLVED:

Subject to Council approving the budget on 11 February 2015:

(1)       That the projects forming the HRA major repair and improvement programme set out in Appendix 3 to the report be approved.

(2)       That the new capital proposals in respect of the new build schemes at Willow Way (NB01), various garage sites (NB02) and The Homestead (NB03) set out in Appendix 4 to the report be added to the Housing Investment approved programme, and that the Executive Head of Housing and Healthbe authorised to implement the schemes.

(3)       That the transfer of £1.9 million in respect of the Slyfield Green scheme (Corporation Club) from the provisional Housing Investment capital programme to the approved capital programme be approved, and that the site be appropriated to the HRA from the General Fund.

(4)       That a capital supplementary estimate of £250,000 be approved in respect of the Slyfield Green scheme to enable the new build scheme to be progressed.

(5)       That the equity share repurchase and cash incentive schemes in Appendix 5 to the report be approved.

(6)       That the Executive Head of Housing and Health be authorised in respect of the approved schemes set out in Appendices 3, 4  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX90

The Executive considered a report outlining the proposed budget for 2015-16, which included a Council Tax requirement of £8,356,540 (excluding parish precepts) and a proposed Council Tax increase of 1.9% (£2.84 per year), resulting in a band D charge of £152.42.  Subject to the actions outlined in paragraphs 10.3 to 10.7 to the report, the Executive noted that the Council would achieve a balanced budget.  The proposed increase in Council Tax was below inflation, as measured by RPI(X), despite a cut in Government Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA) of 15%.  It was anticipated that, subject to confirmation of the very latest RPI (X) inflation figure, the actual increase in Council Tax proposed at the Council meeting on 11 February 2015 might be slightly lower than 1.9%.

The budget included previously reported additional investment in Council services of £1.7 million to meet corporate plan priorities.  The principal areas of additional investment in services included in the budget related to:-

·         Investment in waste and recycling services

·         Investment to support improvement in customer services

·         Continued investment in the family support programme

·         Further infrastructure modelling and consultation relating to the Local Plan

·         Investment in upgrading facilities at Woodbridge Road sports ground

·         Investment in parks

To help finance the investment in services and balance the budget, the report had identified efficiency savings of £932,000 and additional income of £1 million. 

The report included, as Appendix 1, the Chief Finance Officer’s (CFO) report, which provided information about the strategic context within which the budget had been prepared, the medium term financial plan, the robustness of the estimates, adequacy of reserves and budget risks. 

The CFO report had outlined that, since 2010-11, the Council had achieved a total of £6million efficiency savings and £3.6million in additional income.  In addition to the savings and additional income for 2015-16, the medium term financial plan included further savings and additional income totalling £2.4million to be achieved in the period leading up to 2018-19.  However, the medium term financial position presented the Council with a significant challenge due to continuing reductions in government grant, increasing demand for the Council’s services, unavoidable operating cost increases and an increasing capital programme.

The projected outturn for 2014-15, based on eight months’ actual expenditure and income, was £738,110 less than the original budget for 2014-15.  The Executive would determine the treatment of the final balance in June 2015.  Any ongoing variances between actual expenditure and budget identified in 2014-15 had been taken into account when preparing the budget for 2015-16.

The report also included as Appendix 4 a list of fees and charges for approval as part of the budget.  The target increase in fees and charges given to service managers had been 4%, subject to market conditions.

The Executive

RECOMMEND:

(1)    That the Council Tax requirement (excluding parish precepts) for 2015-16 be set at £8,356,540

(2)    That the Band D Council Tax for 2015-16 (excluding parish precepts) be set at £152.42, an increase of 1.9%.

(3)    That the proposed fees and charges for 2015-16 relating  ...  view the full minutes text for item EX91

In accordance with Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the Council published notice of intention to hold this meeting in private to consider Item 14 below (Planning Services Fundamental Review) on 22 December 2014.  The notice included a statement setting out the reasons for the matter to be dealt with in private and inviting anyone wishing to make representations in relation to holding the meeting in private for this purpose to do so by 9 January 2015.  No representations were received.  The reason for considering this matter in private is the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, which is information relating to any individual.

The Executive is therefore asked to consider passing the following resolution:

"That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.”

The Executive

RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and Regulation 5 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

The Executive considered a report on the outcome of the recent fundamental service review (FSR) of the Council’s planning service. The FSR had been conducted in order to ensure that the planning service was fit for the future to enable it to manage increasingly complex planning applications, support corporate priorities, ensure resilience within the Building Control function, and to meet statutory obligations as a local planning authority. 

The FSR had consolidated previous review recommendations and ongoing initiatives in one place providing a cohesive review of the entire service that had challenged the way it operated, its cultural ethos and service delivery.  This had led to the development of a service improvement Implementation Plan, which was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

The Executive agreed that the Planning Service and staff delivered a highly professional service to the local community. The FSR focused on customer service, leadership, efficiency and effectiveness.

The review had recommended the need for a restructure to support the proposed new model of managing demand through a new shared business support function.  This redesign of work flow linked with the Council’s Customer Service Improvement strategy, with the enhanced management of telephone and face to face enquiries, enabled by improved IT capability.

As part of the Fundamental Service Review, officers were seeking to introduce a new service to planning agents and members of the public for householder planning advice. The service would involve a 45 minute meeting with agreed notes of the meeting passed to the client at the end of the meeting.  Officers had proposed that it would be appropriate to charge a fee of £50 inclusive of VAT per meeting, with effect from 1 April 2015.

Having noted the comments of the Corporate Improvement Scrutiny Committee in relation to the FSR, the Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the Executive endorses the outcomes of the Planning Services fundamental service review and approves the implementation plan.

(2)    That the Executive agrees:

(i)      that the Corporate Improvement Scrutiny Committee be designated to monitor progress against the implementation plan arising from the Fundamental Services Review;

(ii)     thatthere should be councillor representation on the implementation review board appointed to ensure the delivery of the outcomes of the Fundamental Services Review;

(iii)    that careful consideration needs to be given to any decision on the future of the Head of Planning Services post; and

(iv)   that further consideration be given to the preferred option arising from the Building Control Options Appraisal and, in particular, the respective merits of Option 2 (Shared Service) and Option 3 (Local Authority Trading Company).

(3)  That the proposed new service to planning agents and members of the public for householder planning advice, as described on the Supplementary Information sheet circulated at the meeting, be approved.

Reason for Decision:

To secure the delivery of value for money and improved customer service.