North Yorkshire Council

Executive

21 October 2025

Supported Housing Programme of Procurements

Report of the Corporate Director Health and Adult Services

This report contains an appendix which is exempt under paragraph 3, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 3; Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and it is not considered in the public interest to disclose the information 

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

i) 1.1 To inform Executive of the proposed approach to commissioning Supported Housing and approve the approach to the procurement of Extra Care and Supported Housing Solutions.

2.0      SUMMARY

2.1       This paper sets out the context around the current delivery of Extra Care Housing and how this will be leveraged into a new model (known as the Programme of Procurements or PoP) to facilitate the development of a wide range of supported accommodation solutions for working age adults and older people amongst others, which will underpin cross directorate strategies to create a new generation of accommodation which promotes independence and reduces the need for direct care services.

3.0      BACKGROUND

Extra Care and Supported Housing

HAS currently commissions Extra Care Housing through a framework which has been in place since 2015, as part of the HAS Care and Support Where I Live Strategy this approach has allowed North Yorkshire Council (NYC) to develop a programme which is nationally recognised as best practice in the field and which has brought significant benefits both in terms of cashable savings and market development.

The current framework has allowed NYC to work at scale and pace whilst drawing on a relatively small standing team who lead on all aspects of the programme.

As we look to the next generation for Supported Housing and a new delivery vehicle from October 2025 it is important to understand and evaluate the benefits of the Framework approach as well as the limitations this has imposed on the wider development of Extra Care as a concept.  To inform this the Extra Care team have undertaken a piece of engagement work with providers, partners, people living in Extra Care and HAS colleagues to gather feedback on the existing arrangements and insight into how best the programme can be taken forward.

3.1 Benefits

· The framework has created a defined and well understood ‘product’ that is Extra Care. All partners, including RPs and Funding bodies such as Homes England understand what is meant by Extra Care in North Yorkshire from both a housing and care point of view. This reduces debate and negotiation over elements such as design standards and affordability, creating a level of consistency across the commissioned estate.

· The presence of the Framework, combined with capital funding is the strongest indictor to the market of NYC’s commitment to Extra Care in the long term. Each scheme is a very significant capital investment by providers which requires costs to accrue before there is ever a guarantee that a scheme will be completed. Whilst not all planned schemes are realised, providers can have a high level of assurance that the loss of a project will not be due to a change of strategic direction by the council.

· The availability of Capital Grant where appropriate also supports the viability of schemes, which is becoming increasingly important as costs rise. The financial commitment by the council also helps with securing other funding streams such as from Homes England.

· The framework approach streamlines the commissioning of very complex projects, this means that the schemes commissioned under the framework have been delivered by a team of 1 Manager and 2 officers who also deliver ongoing support and development work with the full programme as well as relationship management of all 28 existing schemes. This is a highly efficient approach.

· Engagement with Framework providers is simplified by working with a smaller base, again this supports the delivery by a small, dedicated team who can develop strong, trusted relationships with providers which supports the ongoing management of schemes and the commissioning of new capacity.

· The current financial model requires providers to submit fixed costs bids, as the framework has largely existed through a period of low inflation (until 2022) and predictable material costs this has been effective and allowed NYC to be clear on all project costs prior to start on site.

3.2 Limitations

· The definition of Extra Care within the framework is limited to what we refer to as ‘core’ schemes – traditional Extra Care buildings of approximately 60 units, with associated bungalows and communal services. This definition has served us well but design and demand is changing and there is a need to deliver the concept of Extra Care in different ways for changing needs and more diverse communities. 

· The current Framework is an Extra Care framework and as such there is no mechanism for the commissioning of other types of supported accommodation. HAS has a wide ranging ambition to deliver supported accommodation at scale for working age adults as well as older people, a new approach needs to facilitate this ambition.

· Whilst the framework has delivered capacity, having a fixed provider base has limited the opportunity to work with new partners. During this time we have been approached by other providers about opportunities, and whilst some of these have been able to be progressed in other ways, some have been missed as we could not accommodate them within the framework.

· The approach to best value in terms of land assets owned by NYC has been that the council sells on sites as part of the tender process. Whilst this has worked well earlier in the framework, increasing land values and overall costs are stressing this model which then in turn drives higher grant requirements. A more varied approach with the option for very long term leases of sites needs to be considered.

· The structure of how Grant is secured against a legal charge on properties has been problematic throughout the framework and has required significant work to resolve. Briefly the issue relates to how RPs finance future borrowing by mortgaging existing assets and the impact legal charges can have on this process.

· Most current framework providers limit the age of people they can support in Extra Care, however we know that a broader ranges of ages and needs can be supported in Extra Care and this needs to be a priority for the new model. As well as supporting older parents moving in with working age children with Learning Disabilities or other needs.

3.3 Requirements of the new model:

The primary objective of the PoP is to deliver a broad range of supported housing solutions which will meet the needs of working age and older adults. Housing is recognised as a key enabler for people to live healthy and independent lives, as such this approach underpins a wide range of strategies objectives across HAS and other directorates.

The new approach to Supported Housing must enable the delivery of Extra Care and other models as a concept, not just as a set building type. When we think of Extra Care in it’s current form, we tend to think of buildings, whereas the experience for people using these services is as much about the sense of home, community and peace of mind as any physical aspect of a scheme.

This phase of the programme over the next 10 years aspires to replicate the first 20 years of Extra Care and as such needs to be flexible and adaptable enough to meet the needs of a new generation of people as well as reflecting changes in structural and interior design, family structures etc.

Further engagement with people using, and who may use Supported Accommodation will take place and will become a regular, ongoing feature of the programme under a branded approach to Supported Accommodation across HAS and Community Development.

The North Yorkshire model for supported accommodation will provide people with:

a) Their own front door

b) A high quality, enabling place to live

c) Care and support when they need it

3.4 Scheme Types

To facilitate this approach, the council will need to commission a broader range of supported accommodation than has been the case in the past. The PoP will also need to be responsive to emerging needs and trends in supported housing and social care more generally. The following section sets out an overview of the types of accommodation we currently aspire to deliver, however this list is far from exhaustive and will no doubt change over the lifetime of the new model.

3.4.1 ‘Core’ Extra Care

This is the traditional model of Extra Care delivered across North Yorkshire and most of the country. This typically comprises a block or blocks of approximately 60, 1 and 2 bed apartments with a mix of affordable rent, shared ownership and outright sale available. Each scheme will have communal areas such as a lounge, café / restaurant, hairdressers and may also have a local shop and other facilities on site.

On site care is delivered via 24/7 Background support for ad hoc / emergency need and through individual care packages for planned care into people’s homes.

3.4.2 Extra Care+

This model will look to support people with higher levels of need than can currently be supported within Extra Care, up to and including community nursing involvement. The schemes will retain many of the features of ‘Core’ schemes as it is important to retain the housing feel of schemes and not simply create new institutional residential or nursing capacity.

Enhanced staffing levels and specialities will be required alongside design features to accommodate more and more complex equipment and adaptations.

3.4.3 Extra Care Mini

Large schemes work well in urban areas but we know that our rural communities are disproportionately older and that for many leaving areas they have spent their lives in as they get older can have an impact on both physical and emotional wellbeing.

Smaller schemes will allow the concept of Extra Care to be delivered in different ways, possibly through the redevelopment of existing NYC assets such as sheltered housing or a part of rural exception sites. A new background and charging model will be required to account for the smaller number of units.

3.4.4 Supported Living

HAS currently has no mechanism for directly commissioning supported living accommodation, this is typically single properties or small blocks of apartments for people with Learning disabilities, autism or mental health needs. This means we are reactive to approaches made by developers and providers and not in a  position to shape a key area of the market in the way we would like.

The new model needs to allow the micro-commissioning of individual properties, either as new builds or acquisitions along with the associated care to remedy this position.

3.4.5 Village Models

At the opposite end of the spectrum to mini Extra Care is the Village model, this is a large (5 acre+) site with a range of different models set out above co-located along with support services, community and NYC spaces.

The Dementia Village approach was a first pass at this model with residential, Extra Care and Supported Living all on one site with shared resources supporting a wide range of people.

This model may require multiple providers to deliver across a single site, something which has not been attempted under the current framework so far. 

3.4.6 Co-location

The current Extra Care estate has had success in co-locating services such as the libraries at Settle, Thirsk and Stokesley and the wider community infrastructure in Bainbridge. Any new model needs to be live to opportunities for similar co-location with HAS, CYPS and Community Development services, for both customer facing and staffing needs.

3.4.7 Added Value

The inclusion of Step Up Step Down and Respite units in Extra Care has been very positive, especially in rural areas and is something we are actively looking to expand under the current programme. Any new model needs to allow for this approach to continue and expand as well as allowing for more specialist short term support within schemes which may require bespoke build standards and associated funding.

3.5  Potential Provider Base:

There are a large number of providers operating in this space, many of who we have strong ongoing relationships with and have engaged with as part of this process. We can therefore have a good degree of confidence that any future procurement will attract a reasonable provider base for the delivery of our ambition.

The York and North Yorkshire Housing Partnership comprises local RPs, many of whom already deliver Supported Housing and are keen to work with NYC in a more strategic way.

It is our preference to, as far as is possible, only work with Registered Providers (RPs) in the delivery of new Housing Stock. There is a growing sector of housing delivery fuelled by exempt rents which is delivering substandard accommodation and support at very high costs, we will manage this sector closely through the implementation phase of the Supported Housing Act. 

Current Extra Care Framework Providers:	Other organisations currently delivering affordable Extra Care in North Yorkshire:	York and North Yorkshire Housing Partnership
Engie (developer) Housing 21 (Developer, Housing and Care, over 55s only) Lovell Later Living (Developer, Housing) Places for People (Housing) Vistry (developer) Your Housing (Housing)	Abbeyfield Society (RP) Abbeyfield the Dales (RP) Anchor (RP) Broadacres (RP) Joseph Rowntree (RP) Sanctuary (RP) Thirteen (RP) Yorkshire Housing (RP) Home Group (RP) Harrogate Neighbours Housing Association	Accent Group Anchor Hanover Beyond Housing Broadacres 54 Homes North The Guinness Partnership Harrogate Housing Association Harrogate Neighbours Housing Association Home Group Housing 21 Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust Leeds Federated Muir  Places for People  Riverside  Sanctuary  South Yorkshire Housing Association  Stonewater  Thirteen Group  Together Housing  Railway Housing Association  WDH  Yorkshire Housing

4.0      Needs Analysis

4.1       A full, comprehensive needs analysis for Extra Care and Supported Living has been commissioned through Housing LIN, providing detailed information on need by accommodation type and locality.

It is clear that demand for Extra Care remains strong, there are more than 500 people on Expression of Interest lists for schemes all across the county with the highest levels of demand in Scarborough (107) and Harrogate (84), we also know that these figures under estimate the true level of demand as knowledge of waiting times limit referrals in many cases.

The research completed does show two areas where there is a potential oversupply of Extra Care Housing (ECH), however there are local factors to consider in both cases. In Ryedale, Mickle Hill provides 168 units of accommodation, however only 24 of these units are affordable. As such there remains scope for an increase in the supply of affordable units. In Hambleton, local information on demand continues to show a need for further ECH development.

Other local authorities often have considerable issues with voids in schemes which is a particular problem where the authority is liable for void costs. At present in North Yorkshire there are 5 rental voids in schemes all of which are either under offer or in a period of maintenance between tenants. Given that the North Yorkshire programme is the second largest in the country by number of units (largest by number of schemes) this is a remarkably strong position and shows both the level of demand and how well embedded Extra Care is in the system.

Harrogate will remain a key priority for both Extra Care and Supported Housing provision, at present the town only has 1 ECH. To achieve the same capacity to population ratio as we have in Scarborough we would need to add an additional 250 units of Extra Care to Harrogate. Plans are in place for an additional 2-3 schemes but as the population continues to grow and cost pressures persist elsewhere in the care market this figure will only continue to grow.

The Selby area is also significantly under-resourced with just 2 schemes. The geography of Selby with multiple close neighbouring local authorities will mean that a robust approach will need to be taken to local connections to ensure that residents of North Yorkshire see the benefits of any future development.

Beyond these areas, a more localised approach to supported housing will be needed. In particular, the deeply rural areas of the former Richmondshire and Craven districts would benefit from small scale supported developments such as extra care mini. Spatial mapping of demand shows that whilst ECH is a popular choice, people will not travel significant distances, especially from rural to urban areas to access Extra Care. We also know that housing stock in these rural areas tends to older and less adaptable as needs change. The evidence gathered shows a clear need to take extra care and other models to where people are rather than expecting people to move away from their communities.

Similarly, demand for Supported Living is high and growing all across the county. There are currently 218 supported living properties providing 822 units of accommodation. However, an additional 282 people have expressed an interest in moving into Supported Living (this is a mix of urgent moves and longer term planned moves as part of transitions or life changes).

Research commissioned on future need for LD and Autism indicates that an additional 380 units of accommodation will be required to meet demand by 2040, alongside approximately 200 units to replace existing sub-standard housing, this will equate to a 46% expansion in Supported accommodation stock over this period.

This additional capacity will be a mix of single units, shared houses and larger developments of apartments to support people in the most appropriate way in each locality.

5.0      Delivery Options

A number of options exist for future delivery of supported accommodation as follows:

5.1 Do Nothing

Whilst the current framework has allowed NYC to shape the Extra Care market, there have also been a number of schemes (Orchid House at Sowerby, The Cuttings at Harrogate, Webb Ellis Court Scarborough) which have been brought forward by providers not on the framework.

These schemes have been independently developed and funded by providers with support from the Extra Care team in an advisory capacity.

In some respects this model is attractive, requiring no capital investment or procurement from NYC, however this leads us into a place which is market led, which given the ambition to expand the programme into new areas would create problems. The team have also worked hard to ensure the NY Extra Care product is consistent and this is more challenging without a firm stake in a project.

Nationally, many local authorities deliver Extra Care in this ad hoc way. However, many speak to us as they are looking for ways to develop more focussed and defined programmes as they are struggling with delivery and ensuring appropriate care levels are maintained within schemes.

This model would result in NYC following rather than leading the market.

5.2 Reprocure an as-is framework

The current Framework has served us well and provides a model that has delivered Extra Care at scale and pace in recent years. However there are a number of weaknesses in the current approach which make this an unsuitable approach as we move forward.

As set out previously – the closed nature of the framework limits the scope of providers and the defined single specification limits innovation. In addition the fixed cost model is coming under increasing pressure as price volatility in construction has become an issue in recent years.

The framework is also restricted to those providers that are successful in being appointed at the start and no amendments or additions can be made. There may be other providers that come to light as being able to deliver suitable schemes throughout the four-year permitted term of a framework that are not able to at the time of the framework being tendered. Likewise, there may be organisations that are appointed to the framework that are not able to deliver schemes further on into the term of the framework.

5.3 Open Framework

A variation on the current approach to address the issue of a limited provider base would be to pursue an open framework with more providers. The nature of an open framework would allow us to reopen the process after a fixed period to admit new providers, however it would also require existing providers to either retain their original submission or resubmit at that point potentially creating additional work for them.  There is no guarantee that a provider appointed for first framework in the scheme would be appointed to the second framework and would be dependent on the outcome of the evaluation process once the framework is reopened.

An open framework must be reopened at least once during the period of three years beginning with the day of the award of the first framework in the scheme and each period of five years beginning with the day of award of the second framework in the scheme. Stages at which the framework will be reopened must be advertised during the procurement of the open framework.

Whilst this offers some flexibility over what we have in place now, it would not reflect the need to be agile with providers as sites and opportunities come forward, whilst this would be an improvement on the current position in some ways it would still not offer the flexibility we need to effectively deliver a programme of the planned scope. The utilisation of providers would be restricted to those accepted onto the open framework until the framework is reopened at the predefined stages as outlined in the tender documentation.

 5.4  Bespoke Procurements (Preferred Option)

This model would see over-arching governance put in place similar to the assurance that the current framework offers but would then create individual tenders on a per-scheme basis.

This model would allow for flexibility on each scheme, with an individual specification tailored to need and the local community, ensuring the best possible outcome on a case by case basis. Each scheme would be procured in accordance with the Procurement Act 2023, using either an open procedure or competitive flexible procedure. This would allow access to the widest possible provider base using standard documents that are updated to reflect specific requirements e.g. over arching quality questions, specification etc.

The key issue with this approach would be capacity, operating under a framework limits the amount of work needed for each new scheme and ensures providers are well acquainted with the process before a tender is launched. This approach would require a significant amount of documentation to be created for each tender as a result of each one being unique as well as extended procurement timescales to account for this.

5.5 Strategic Partner

A significant departure from the current model would be to appoint a strategic partner to deliver the programme. This would have the benefits of working with a single partner on a shared vision who would take on much of the delivery of the programme, leveraging significant efficiencies from having a long term plan and commitment of investment.

The challenge to this model comes from the scale and scope of what we aim to achieve. On a smaller footprint, with a more defined product  this would be a very attractive option, however when we are looking at schemes ranging from 100+ units to 6 from Whitby to Reeth then it is unrealistic to expect a single provider to be able to move at pace.

Different providers bring different strengths, large RPS such are experienced in delivering big block schemes but have no interest in smaller sites, whereas local providers are very interested in supporting rural settings but have little appetite for larger builds at this point.

5.6 In House Delivery

Delivery of Extra Care fully in house would come with significant challenges but should not be discounted.

Whilst we already have significant experience of delivering care and support services into Extra Care, the construction and housing management elements would all be new. 

Housing management of Extra Care through the HRA does happen in other areas and could feasibly be delivered through NYC Housing with their agreement.

The main issue here would be the up front capital costs of a build and the need to bring in technical expertise which we currently commission through providers. The indicative cost on a new 60 unit ECH is currently in the region of £24m, the capital required to fully deliver the planned programme in this way would be enormous. RPs typically mortgage new scheme over 30-35 years which is a realistic lifespan of the build.

An in-house model could be a useful part of the programme if leveraged in the right way, however a fully in house model faces these challenges as well as those set out under the Strategic Partner model.

5.7 Preferred Option:

Based on the analysis above, it is the preferred option to proceed with Bespoke Procurements on a case by case basis.  A Gateway 1 (in accordance with the Council’s Procurement and Contract Procedure Rules) is proposed to provide over-arching governance and assurance for the PoP to deliver a broad range of supported housing solutions, with individual procurements on a site by site basis. This approach allows for maximum flexibility whilst maintaining robust oversight and cost control.

6.0      FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1       Return on Investment

Work has been completed by HAS finance on an ROI tool which takes into account the costs associated with individuals living in Extra Care where they would otherwise be living in a residential care setting – which accounts for approximately 10-15% of people living in a scheme. Whilst there are significant local variations based on care and housing costs, a broad figure of £300,000 benefit per scheme can be used as a strong baseline for the impact of Extra Care.

This figure is seen as an indicative baseline, with broader benefits apparent from our experience of delivering Extra Care. Larger schemes allow for larger cohorts of people who would otherwise be in residential care with an 80 unit scheme projected to support 20 of this group rather than 10 supported within a 60 unit scheme.

In addition, the average domiciliary care cost for someone living in Extra Care is £100 per week lower than comparators in the community, in large part due to the environment and onsite support. When combined these figures give an indicative benefit of in excess of £1m per year for an 80 unit scheme. 

This figure generates recurrent benefits to HAS revenue budgets, but must also be seen in the context of the level of capital investment required to support each scheme as set out in the next section of this report.

6.2 Capital Costs

Core Extra Care buildings are significant capital investments and are developed with a mix of funding sources. Typically a developer or RP will contribute around 80% of total costs, 10-15% will come from Homes England grant and the Council typically contributes 5-6% of the cost in return for first let nominations.

Capital costs have naturally risen throughout the lifetime of the Extra Care programme, with the last round of completed schemes costing in the region of £12.8m. Since 2021 when the last round of schemes opened construction costs have accelerated significantly.

To avoid working form a single data point, research has been completed with other local authorities who have completed schemes in recent years which confirms significant cost increases as follows:

It is therefore clear that any future development will be significantly more expensive than previous schemes.

Historically grant levels have been around 6.25% of the overall cost (£800,000 on £12m for the last scheme). Should grant proportions remain the same this would mean a potential grant ask of £1.7m on a £22m scheme. At this rate of investment the development of 16 schemes to meet the stated need would require capital of approximately £20m over the 10 year development period.

The funding mix between the council, RPs and Homes England has been challenged in recent years as costs have increased. The new Social and Affordable Homes Programme to be delivered by Homes England will underpin the programme going forward. Whilst we are yet to see the full details of the programme, initial indications from government are promising and we aim to take full advantage of the focus on both supported and specialist as well as rural housing. 

Capital spending needs to be seen in the context of return on investment as schemes generate ongoing revenue savings as set out in Section 6.1. For example, a 60 unit scheme costing £20,000,000 to build would likely require capital investment from NYC of approximately £1,500,000. With a baseline assumption of £300,000 revenue benefit each year it would take 5 years to see a return on this investment, with likely a further 20-25 years of active life for a scheme. This assumption uses the baseline figure, where broader benefits are included the ROI period clearly falls significantly.

6.3 Land and Assets

Use of NYC assets can form a key part of the future programme, either through the use of existing NYC sites (as has been the case with the HAS EPH estate), or by leveraging work with external housing providers and securing sites under S106 agreements.

Whilst refurbishment has been off the agenda for many providers for a long time, there now appears to be increasing appetite for repurposing existing buildings, this needs to be factored into ongoing asset reviews.

Our approach to land assets also needs to be reviewed. At present we achieve best value by selling sites on at market cost, however this drives up the overall cost and very often the cost of land is in large part repaid by us in grant. If we were to move to a model of leasing sites (99 year lease are not uncommon with other authorities) we could reduce the overall cost burden of a scheme for all parties. 

Land assets shall be considered on a case by case basis as appropriate for an ECH scheme.

7.0      LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1      The proposed procurement routes for the PoP (open procedure and competitive flexible) are compliant routes to market in accordance with the Procurement Act 2023 and Procurement Regulations 2024. Any grant monies provided for any extra care housing schemes shall be assessed by legal services to ensure compliance with the Subsidy Control Act 2022.

7.2      Any sale or lease of land will need be discharged in accordance with the Council’s Property Procedure Rules.

8.0      EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

8.0       The attached Equalities Impact Assessment sets out the equalities implications of this approach., individual EIAs will be completed for each proposal.        

9.0      CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS

9.1      The attached Climate Change Impact Assessment sets out the climate change implications of this approach.          

10.0  Resources and Governance

This is clearly a very significant programme which underpins much of what HAS needs to achieve in the coming years. The Extra Care programme has sat under various governance structures but a more robust and multi-team / directorate governance structure is needed to oversee this programme and ensure delivery.

Initial proposals for site developments will be managed through the Property Board with Directorate level oversight within HAS exercised through Prevention and Service Development Leadership Team (PSDLT) and HAS Leadership Team.

Approval to proceed with individual procurements with be managed within HASLT in consultation with the Corporate Director for Resources and Executive Members for HAS and Resources. Final approval of contract and grant awards will be via the North Yorkshire Council Executive.

11.0    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Over the past 20 years North Yorkshire has become nationally recognised as a leader in the development of Extra Care Housing. In order to maintain this position it is necessary that the Council adapts and ensures that delivery remains at the forefront of innovation to ensure the best outcomes for the people we support and best value.

The proposed model will allow the experience gathered through the development of Extra Care to be rolled out to a wider group of people, allowing more residents of North Yorkshire to benefit from high quality supported housing solutions.

21.0

RECOMMENDATIONS

ii) Approve the approach to the procurement of Extra Care and Supported Housing Solutions iii) Delegate decisions to proceed with individual procurements for Extra Care and Supported Housing Solutions to the Corporate Director for Health and Adult Services in consultation with the Corporate Director for Resources, and the Executive Members for HAS and Resources.  Any decisions to award contracts and any associated grants following procurement shall be brought back to Executive for approval prior to award.

            APPENDICES:

Appendix A – Gateway 1 (Exempt)

            Appendix B – Equalities Impact Assessment

            Appendix B – Climate Change Impact Assessment

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:

Richard Webb

Corporate Director – Health and Adult Services

County Hall

Northallerton

21^st October 2025

Report Author – Mike Rudd, Head of Supported Housing

Presenter of Report – Richard Webb, Corporate Director, Health and Adult Services

Note: Members are invited to contact the author in advance of the meeting with any detailed queries or questions.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT IF ANY REPORTS / APPENDICES INCLUDE SIGNATURES THESE MUST BE REMOVED / DELETED PRIOR TO SENDING REPORTS / APPENDICES TO DEMOCRATIC SERVICES.  Appendices should include an Equality Impact Assessment and a Climate Impact Assessment where appropriate