Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting of 11 November 2019.

The minutes of the meeting of 11 November 2019 were confirmed and signed, subject to the following comments;

1.    Councillor Cornwell highlighted an error in relation to the declaration of interest he made (OSC26/19). The declaration should read; ‘Councillor Cornwell declared an interest by virtue of the fact that his son is an employee of Freedom Leisure and took no part in the discussion for this agenda item.’

Members to receive an update on the previous meeting’s Action Plan.

Members were provided with an update on the status of actions raised at previous meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

To update Overview and Scrutiny on performance of the Council's Revenues and Benefits service, since it became part of ARP on 1 April 2014.

Members considered the Anglia Revenues Partnership (ARP) Update report presented by Paul Corney.

Paul Corney informed members that ARP currently have no intention of increasing the number of partners and this would only be considered in the future if there was a strong business case to support this.

He explained that whilst initially the introduction of Universal Credit (UC) had increased processing times, this has now improved significantly. He added that the introduction of UC had allowed additional resource to be allocated to the processing of Council Tax and this approach has been extremely successful. He confirmed that all partners are in a strong position and have generated significant savings since joining ARP.

Peter Catchpole agreed and informed members that ARP and the Council are currently working on a major project to improve the ‘customer journey’ and enhance the service further. He explained that the project will explore improvements to the online services available to customers and drive efficiency in this process.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

1.    Councillor Hay referenced 2.13 of the report and asked what discussions have taken place between the Council and Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) in relation to their withdrawal of funding for the fraud initiative. Councillor Mrs French explained that discussions are ongoing with CCC and the Council will be continuing recovery work whilst working to produce a business case to present to CCC. She confirmed that members will be updated accordingly.

2.    Councillor Hay stated that the figures provided in relation to ‘Single Person Discount Fraud’ shown in 3.7 of the report, are confusing and asked for further clarification on this. Paul Corney explained that if ARP apply a Single Person Discount and then, through fraud work, identify that this needs removing, the charges are automatically charged from that point and they are billed for that period. He explained that ARP do not seek any future savings and only claim for that financial year. He confirmed that if a person was to apply for a future discount, these are reconsidered by the team too.

3.    Councillor Cornwell referenced 1.3 of the report and highlighted that the area covered by ARP is one of the more rural areas within this national list. He asked if ARP is in danger of growing ‘too big too quickly’ and losing their local focus. Councillor Mrs French explained that the ARP Joint Committee agrees with this view and as a result, no further partners have joined since 2015. She stated that the emphasis has been on service delivery being improved and offering partnerships in specific areas where there will be no impact on delivery, such as Enforcement, where ARP (and all the partner councils) can gain resilience.

4.    Councillor Yeulett referenced 1.9 of the report and asked if all partners benefit from the ARP Enforcement Agency Service. Jo Andrews confirmed that this service is available to all partner authorities and in addition, South Norfolk Council and Norwich City Council. She explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC30/19

For Overview and Scrutiny to comment on the Draft Business Plan 2020-21.

Members considered the Draft Business Plan 2020-21 presented by Councillor Boden.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

1.    Councillor Yeulett asked a question on behalf of Councillor Booth. He stated that the metrics of the Business Plan do not align with the priorities set therefore this makes it difficult to ensure the plan has been delivered. In particular, additional metrics are required in relation to; health and wellbeing, recycling rates and how these can be improved, how the Council successfully measures the promotion of culture and heritage, community safety, regeneration and inward investment (currently this only shows the number of planning applications) and the delivery of infrastructure (no milestones are given to measure against the projects discussed). Councillor Boden thanked Councillor Booth for his question and agreed that it is very important that these objectives can be successfully measured. He explained that in many cases there are no direct measures that can be quantified and welcomed member’s suggestions on this matter. He explained that the Council only have marginal control of certain outcomes for example; health and wellbeing are largely influenced by other organisations. He added that the Business Plan is concise in nature as it is a public document that shows performance data. He confirmed that recycling rates are contained within the report. In relation to infrastructure, he is open to alternative metrics available to measure the delivery of these projects.

2.    Councillor Yeulett asked how the Council measure the public’s quality of life and satisfaction with the district. He suggested the Overview and Scrutiny Panel could assist with investigating this further. Councillor Boden said whilst this would be useful, the Council have only a marginal impact on the health and wellbeing of residents, as much of the work is outside of the Council’s functions.

3.    Councillor Cornwell stated that the Business Plan only focuses on Council services in relation to the ‘Environment’ priority and asked that further focus is put on the wider aspect of the environment. For example the effects of air pollution, tree planting etc. which will in turn improve the health and wellbeing of residents. Councillor Boden said whilst this is a useful comment, the principle of the Business Plan is to show the Council’s direct impact on the environment and how it can directly effect this. He explained that individual Service Plans concentrate of the finer details of the wider impact on the environment. In relation to air quality, the Council do have a responsibility for the monitoring of air quality and whilst they can advise and lobby for further improvement, the impact we have on this is once again limited. Councillor Miss Hoy added that the air quality in the district is one of the best in the Country and the Council have legislative powers in place to monitor this, for example the implementation of Air Quality Management Zones. She informed members that there were previously three Air Quality Management Zones within the district however these are in process  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC31/19

To consider and make any appropriate recommendations to Cabinet on:-

·         The Draft Medium Term Financial Strategy, Draft General Fund Budget 2020/21 and Draft Capital Programme 2020-2023 for consultation.

Members considered the Revised General Fund Budget and Capital Programme 2019/20; Draft General Fund Budget Estimates 2020/21 and Draft Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2020/21 to 2024/2; Capital Programme 2020-2023 report, presented by Councillor Boden.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

1.    Councillor Yeulett asked a question on behalf of Councillor Booth. He stated that the MTFS shows an increase to the Net Service Expenditure to 2024/25 of £1.448m. He highlighted that page 58 of the agenda pack states that there is a 0% general inflation rate for this period and asked what the increases represent. He added that if the Council are to be more ‘business like’ in how they run, the Council should work to not automatically increase budgets each year and absorb increases such as pay rises and pension contributions within the budget setting process. He stated that this would assist in helping the Council find the savings required. Councillor Boden disagreed with the some of the points raised in Councillor Booth’s question and said focus should not be on the increase in net service expenditure but instead on the gross service and corporate expenditure. He drew member’s attention to page 57 of the agenda pack and highlighted that the forecast spend for coming years shows a lower spend. He explained that the MTFS shows less expenditure for coming years however each year’s expenditure is boosted by the spending of unaccounted for government grants. These cannot be budgeted for however they are shown as an increase in expenditure. Councillor Boden explained that the primary reason for increases are due to salary increases and their related costs and these must be reflected in the MTFS as they are a known change.

2.    Councillor Yeulett asked for confirmation that the Fair Funding Review will consider the income generated by Councils from car parking charges and as the Council currently does not charge for parking, if this could have a detrimental impact on the Council’s future funding level. Councillor Boden explained that the consultation proposals so far indicate that income generated by Councils through ‘fees and charges’ will be a factor in the resources element of the review however it is not possible to forecast at this time the overall impact this will have on the Council.

3.    Councillor Yeulett asked what impact changes to the New Homes Bonus (NHB) could have on the Council. Councillor Boden explained that the NHB is a significant resource for authorities nationally and the new housing incentive proposals will be subject to intense scrutiny. Until these are exemplified, it is not possible to forecast the impact on the Council. He explained that the Council currently receives ‘Legacy Payments’ and will continue to receive these however the amounts under the new incentive scheme are unknown. He added that the MTFS prudently shows a reduction in these over the next four years.

4.    Councillor Yeulett asked if consideration would need to be given to increasing Council Tax as a result of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC32/19

To review the Council’s Fees and Charges for 2020/21, in line with the Budget Strategy being considered by Cabinet on 9 January 2020.

Members considered the Review of Fees and Charges 2020/21 report presented by Councillor Boden.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

1.    Councillor Miscandlon asked if consultations are carried out with service users in relation to increases in fees and charges. For example, do we consult with tenants of business premises? Councillor Boden confirmed that the Council do not consult tenants when revising rents, fees and charges. The nature of 'fee setting' for the Business Premises Estate is subject to many external factors, including local market activity. The Council operates the Business Premises Estate to provide start-up employment space, but needs to do so on a sustainable financial footing. It would therefore not be appropriate to apply a simple inflationary increase to rents, fees & charges. Most factors affecting rental levels are beyond the control of the Council and will include: comparable market rents the supply and demand of premises within a given area or the age and suitability of the property to perform its function, etc. The business centre rents are largely all inclusive, so increases or decreases in utility charges also need to be included in the rent setting process.

2.    Councillor Yeulett asked a question on behalf of Councillor Booth. He stated that the fees and charges relating to the Port do not reference the results of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel’s Economic Development Review which determined that the maintenance and capital costs of the Port are generally the cause of the service not being cost neutral. He asked officers to confirm if these costs will be included in the charging structure for the Port. Councillor Boden said it was incorrect to state that the maintenance and capital costs are the sole cause of the Port not running at a profit but explained that the Council are not commercially able to levy further charges to the Port and the service is not run as a commercial business.

3.    Mark Saunders explained that the Port at Wisbech is in direct competition with both Ports at Boston and Kings Lynn and therefore the Council must remain competitive with its fees and charges. He explained that the Council cannot increase the charges to the level required and only aim to recover the statutory costs. He confirmed that as the Statutory Port Authority, closure of the Port would require authority from Central Government and therefore there will always be a deficit on the Port accounts.

4.    Councillor Boden added that depreciation costs are included for accounting purposes only.

5.    Councillor Hay stated that the report infers that cemetery and burial costs have risen purely because other Local Authorities have increased their charges. Councillor Boden clarified that the Council currently charge less than neighbouring authorities. He explained that the charges allow a balanced budget but the Council do not seek to make a profit in this service area. Councillor Hay stated that the report could be amended to reflect this.

6.    Councillor Skoulding reported a complaint he had received from a  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC33/19

Councillor Boden informed members that following a recent decision made by Cabinet, it had been necessary to remove the call-in power due to an urgent deadline that had to be met.

He explained that there is a provision contained within the Constitution to allow urgent decisions to be made removing the power for the Overview and Scrutiny Panel to call-in this decision. Exercising this power must be agreed by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel.

He informed members that a decision had been made by Cabinet in relation to a bid for funding concerning the March Future High Street Fund (CAB11/19). The application deadline for the bid is Wednesday 15 January 2020 and therefore given the timescale, it was not practical to allow a call-in period for this item. He confirmed that the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel had agreed to allow this due to the urgency of the application deadline.

To consider the Draft Work Programme for Overview & Scrutiny Panel 2019/20.

Members agreed the Future Work Programme subject to the following comments;

1.    Members proposed that the meeting scheduled to take place on Monday 10 February 2020 commence at an earlier time of 1.30pm subject to the availability of external guests.

2.    Councillor Cornwell proposed that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel initiate a review in to ARP and set up a review group to undertake this work. It was agreed that the review would take place over a period of three months and consist of three members with two substitutes. Members asked that an initial meeting is arranged with members of the review group, substitutes and officers for February 2020 to decide the scope and objectives of the review. The review group will consist of the following members;

·         Councillor Cornwell

·         Councillor Hay

·         Councillor Mason

·         Councillor Skoulding (substitute)

·         Councillor Wicks (substitute)

Izzi Hurst agreed to arrange this.