Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting of 10 December 2018.

The minutes of the meeting of 10 December were confirmed and signed subject to the following comments;

1.    Councillor Booth said that in relation to his statement regarding the pension fund, he was stating a point rather than asking a question.

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

·         the Draft Medium Term Financial Strategy, Draft General Fund Budget 2019/20 and Draft Capital Programme 2019-2022 for consultation.

Members considered the Revised General Budget and Capital Programme 2018/19; Draft General Fund Budget Estimates 2019/20 and Draft Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2019/20 to 2023/24; Capital Programme 2019-200 report.

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

1.    Councillor Booth asked for further information regarding the lower than anticipated Planning Fees (page 22 of the Agenda Pack). Kamal Mehta explained that the original budget took in to account the increase in fees and also anticipated applications being submitted to the Council. Unfortunately these anticipated applications would have generated large sums for the Council however have not materialised causing a shortfall in the Planning Fees.

2.    Councillor Boden said he was disappointed with the reasoning and justification behind a potential increase in Council Tax (page 14 of the Agenda Pack) and felt the reason was inappropriate as it suggested an increase purely due to other Local Authorities doing the same. Councillor Hay said the reason was not intended in this way. Councillor Seaton agreed and said the intention was not to promote an increase in Council Tax just because other Local Authorities are doing so.

3.    Councillor Boden asked if this justification could be removed from future reports. Councillor Seaton agreed.

4.    Councillor Tierney agreed and said the reasoning and justification puts the Council in a poor light.

5.    Councillor Booth highlighted that other Local Authorities are still currently consulting on this.

6.    Councillor Boden said in relation to the £56,000 surplus anticipated from the Business Rates Levy Account (page 14 of the Agenda Pack), he is concerned that this is not included in the budget given the certainty and likelihood of this figure. Councillor Hay explained that this figure will not be confirmed until February 2019 and will be a one-off payment to the Council therefore it has not been included in the budget. Kamal Mehta confirmed that the sum has been included in the accounts however will not show as it has been earmarked to the Council’s Brexit fund. Therefore, as it comes in and goes out of the accounts it does not show in the budget.

7.    Councillor Owen said this was not clear in the figures provided to members. Mark Saunders confirmed that this information was not available when reported to Cabinet and therefore could not be included in the budget that was considered by Cabinet. As the Council are now aware of this figure, the proposal is to allocate this money to the Council’s Brexit fund.

8.    Councillor Boden thanked officers for the clarification but asked why money had not been allocated to the Brexit fund prior to this as we are now using money that we did not know we would receive. He said this suggests the Council had failed to allow for Brexit costs in the earlier budget.

9.    Councillor Booth asked if members could be made aware of updated budget information. Councillor Boden said in Local Government there are set points in which the budget is presented and circulating every  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC33/18

To review the Council’s Fees and Charges for 2019/20 in line with the Budget Strategy agreed by Cabinet on 13 December 2018.

Members considered the Review of Fees & Charges 2019/20 report.

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

1.    Councillor Booth suggested that as Ports run at a deficit, they should be subject to a higher increase in their fees and charges as they do not bring in a high level of income.

2.    Councillor Boden informed members that Councillor Mrs Bucknor had submitted the following question in relation to the Port;

‘I've been concerned for many years at the fees and charges for Wisbech Port. To encourage shipping to travel the extra few miles from Sutton Bridge, it needs to make the longer travel more attractive than Sutton Bridge who also have better facilities. The more ships that come to Wisbech, the cheaper it is to maintain from the perspective that there is a build-up of silt which has to be expensively removed and disposed of - the more ships, the less silt build-up.’

3.    Councillor Boden confirmed that the Port will be reviewed as part of the work undertaken by the Member-Led Economic Development Review Group.

4.    Councillor Tierney disagreed with the suggestion of increasing the Port’s fees and charges as it is an uncertain time for many businesses that operate on the Port. He agreed with the recommended increase contained within the report in relation to this.

5.    Councillor Seaton said in response to Councillor Mrs Bucknor, it would be very difficult to get a significant increase of ships into Wisbech due to the size of the ships and Wisbech does not have a large enough turning circle to facilitate this. He highlighted that whilst cargo has increased, shipping has decreased.

6.    Councillor Tierney said it would cost several million pounds to increase the turning circle at Wisbech Port.

7.    Councillor Booth asked why Wisbech Yacht Harbour was not subject to an increase in their fees and charges. Councillor Oliver explained that following a benchmarking review in April 2018, there were a number of significant fee increases in this area which resulted in the loss of some customers. In order to maintain competitiveness, the recommendation was not to increase these fees further.

8.    Councillor Owen asked for further information on the Process Authorisation fees listed on page 53 of the Agenda Pack. Richard Cassidy explained that these fees relate to the Pollution Prevention Control Regime which is a national regime for pollution control. It regulates activities such things as car spraying, the burning of waste oil and the crushing of aggregate. He added that these fees are fixed nationally.

9.    Councillor Boden asked why the recommendation was not to increase Commercial Waste Costs (page 56 of the Agenda Pack). Councillor Murphy explained that this is a very competitive market and the private companies offering this service do not release their prices. Following a review, the Council are now achieving a larger amount of income in this area.

10.Councillor Booth asked if the Council had undertaken benchmarking research in relation to burial ground fees (page  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC34/18

For Overview and Scrutiny to comment on the Draft Business Plan 2019-2020.

Members considered the Draft Business Plan 2019-20 report.

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

1.    Councillor Boden asked what planning was necessary for the revision of the Local Plan and the associated costs and timescales for this piece of work. Councillor Mrs Laws explained that this was a very important piece of work with an estimated cost of £600,000. This fee will include staffing costs, the production of documents and public hearings. She confirmed that colleagues at Peterborough City Council were assisting with the project and preparation has begun with a start date anticipated after the elections in May 2019. Paul Medd confirmed that a report will be presented to Cabinet and Council in February 2019 to reinforce the background information sought.

2.    Councillor Seaton clarified that the cost of £600,000 is an estimated cost and the Council have provisions in the budget for a cost of £400,000, so will need to find additional funds if it reaches this level.

3.    Councillor Tierney suggested that the report be amended to add emphasis to community safety and the prevention of anti-social behaviour. He asked that the promotion of culture and heritage should be included under the Economy section of the report. Councillor Seaton agreed to consider these points.

4.    Councillor Booth highlighted that on page 71 of the Agenda Pack, there is a bullet point missing under the Economy section.

5.    Councillor Booth said whilst there is emphasis on vulnerable members of the community, the general supporting of communities as a whole should be included. He said the report does not focus on the quality of life within Fenland and asked that emphasis be put on this. He highlighted that to attract people to Fenland there must be a viable economy and social community.

6.    Councillor Booth said the Performance Indicators contained within the report do not match up to the specific areas and may not be relevant in measuring these areas. Councillor Seaton agreed to consider these comments.

7.    Councillor Boden asked Cabinet to consider each Performance Indicator for their individual portfolios.

8.    Members asked that the comments relating to the formatting of the report and performance indicators are considered.

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 Committee.

Members asked that information is provided in relation to the Contact Centre’s call statistics. It was agreed that this action be carried forward to the next meeting.

Members asked for clarification in relation to the number of complaints received by Anglia Revenues Partnership. It was agreed that this action be carried forward to the next meeting.

To consider the Draft Work Programme for Overview & Scrutiny Panel 2018/19.

Members had asked that Clarion attend the February meeting. Anna Goodall informed members that due to availability, this was not possible and therefore they would attend the meeting on 18 March 2019 as agreed previously.