Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting of 6 December 2021.

The minutes of the meeting of 6 December 2021 were confirmed and signed.

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

Members considered the update on previous actions and made the following comments:

• Councillor Mason informed the panel that all actions were now up to date.
• Councillor Miscandlon noted the update on the item concerning apprenticeships and confirmed that the CPCA discussions were still ongoing, and that Councillor Seaton was being updated.
• Councillor Booth thanked Councillor Seaton for the update on apprenticeships but noted that the question was to Councillor Benney who had given the original presentation. He stated that there was clearly still confusion about which portfolio holders were responsible for what areas. 
• Councillor Booth also noted that the watching brief regarding preschools had now been sufficiently resolved and could be removed from list. He requested that the panel remind Cambridge County Council that not all preschools are businesses and that and some are charities.
• Councillor Mason clarified the position of Nick Harding within his Fenland District Council role. He informed the panel that Nick was now exclusively employed by Fenland District Council but that his contract was not necessarily full time.

For Overview and Scrutiny to comment on the Draft Business Plan 2022-2023.

Members considered the Draft Business Plan 2022-23 presented by Councillor Boden.

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

• Councillor Mason commended the Council for the Future initiative. He noted that every portfolio holder had a set of tasks but that these tasks should be based around SMART targets. He noted that the tasks should be time-bound and that regular updates should be given regarding key performance indicators (KPI’s) which are monitored and recorded. Councillor Boden explained that KPI’s were monitored and recorded but not deemed necessary to come before Councillors. He noted that the KPI’s that are reported to members are the ones which provide the most value to Councillors in judging how the Council was performing. He explained that setting targets can be very difficult and can be hard to hit when matters that are out of the portfolio holders control affect their work. Councillor Boden informed the Council that they had slimmed down the number of KPI’s reported as they were previously drowning in numbers. He explained that the thought behind this was one of quality over quantity to allow Councillors to focus on the key areas rather than taking an overly wide view and missing the key points due to too much information. He said that if the panel wanted to make changes, they would want to look at a one in one out policy of changing which KPI’s are reported. He noted that the KPI’s were not meant to be performance indicators for the portfolio holders themselves but for the work of the Council. He ensured that they do set their own targets and that the portfolio holders work to these themselves but that there was not a direct line of accountability. He stated that they did not want to return to a bureaucratic system as this would use up valuable officer time, but he would be happy to hear any suggestions for change. Councillor Mason acknowledged Councillor Boden’s points and reiterated that being more specific and measurable is advantageous as it prevents tasks from taking too long.
• Councillor Booth noted that the current KPI’s did not reflect the actual priorities of the Council and noted that the priorities and KPI’s do not always relate. He noted that some of the priorities are difficult to measure and hard to show when they have been delivered. He suggested that the Panel set up a Task and Finish Group to relook at this. Councillor Boden agreed with Councillor Booth’s points around the difficulty of accurately measuring some priorities and supported the idea of setting up a Task and Finish Group to review the current system.
• Councillor Miscandlon supported Councillor Masons earlier point about introducing timescales and noted that portfolio holders are free to ask other Councillors for assistance if needed. He also supported the idea of setting up a Task and Finish group. Paul noted that KPI’s are helpful way of performance managing the Council’s key Business Plan objectives. It is important that KPI’s don’t  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC32/21

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

·         the Draft Medium Term Financial Strategy, Draft General Fund Budget 2022/23 and Draft Capital Programme 2022-2025 for consultation.

Councillor Mason informed the panel that there was a change to the agenda item orders with agenda item 7 - Revised General Fund Budget and Capital Programme 2021/22; Draft General Fund Budget Estimates 2022/23 and Draft Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2022/23 to 2026/27; Capital Programme 2022 – 2025 being moved before agenda item 6 - Draft Business Plan 2022-23.

Members considered the Revised General Fund Budget and Capital Programme 2021/22; Draft General Fund Budget Estimates 2022/23 and Draft Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2022/23 to 2026/27; Capital Programme 2022 - 2025 presented by Councillor Boden.

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

• Councillor Mason thanked Councillor Boden for his presentation and noted that the Fenland Future programme was due for review at the March meeting. He asked if Mark Saunders had any further comments to make. Mark Saunders supported the points that Councillor Boden had made.
• Councillor Yeulett asked whether there will be more clarity between the relationship with Fenland Future before the Council meeting. Councillor Boden informed the panel that there would be an update before the Council meeting detailing more of the relationship between the Council and Fenland Future and how it will affect Fenland District Council’s budget figures across the coming year and in the future. He apologised that the business plan had not been completed for Fenland Future and that it had not been incorporated in the figures but that this would be rectified in the coming weeks.
• Councillor Yeulett questioned whether the Fenland Future arrangement would feed into the budget for the following years and help reduce the deficit over the coming years. Councillor Boden confirmed this stating that there would be a continuous flow of income from Fenland Future to help support the continuation of services provided by the Council. He explained that Fenland Future would initially focus on land development which is already owned by the Council but that this was not necessarily the long-term direction of Fenland Future.
• Councillor Booth noted that the long-term financial forecasting of Fenland Future had not been included in the report and asked when it would be included as it would affect the Council’s priorities. Councillor Boden explained that it had not been added yet as the figures would have been a guess at this point. Councillor Booth disagreed with this as all future forecasting required an element of educated guessing. Councillor Boden informed the panel that there was no requirement for the figures to be included until the budget is taken to Council.
• Councillor Wicks asked whether when the figures from Fenland Future are added into the budget calculations, they would be accompanied by a note of what the assumptions are and what the impact would be. Councillor Boden assured him that the impact of the Fenland Future figures would be clear due to their size and that it will be clearly set out as to what the assumptions are over the next 5 years. He noted that the business plan would  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC33/21

To review the Council’s Fees and Charges for 2022/23, in line with the Budget Strategy considered by Cabinet on 8 December 2021.

Members considered the Review of Fees and Charges 2022/23 presented by Councillor Boden:

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

• Councillor Yeulett welcomed the zero percent increase on the fees and charges for market stalls stating that there had been good performance at March market place. He questioned whether administering some of the fees incurred more in admin costs than they brought in. Councillor Boden noted that in some cases fees are required simply to regulate something even if it does incur more in administration than in profit. Mark Saunders explained that all the fees that are set by the Council are designed to include the cost of the admin as well. He noted that in situations where the fee is regulated by other parties it can be harder to incorporate the cost of administration.
• Councillor Cornwell asked regarding the Council’s physical expenditure such as with burials, how often they look at the true cost and compare the rate to what they are providing to check the validity of the fees. Mark Saunders explained that the fees are reviewed every year. He noted that some areas, such as burials, are more difficult to recover the full cost on due to the sensitivities of the subject and that this area had been increased at the same rate of inflation over the past few years in order to keep up with the costs of the service to Fenland District Council.
• Councillor Cornwell asked for clarification that the fee charges are actually meeting the costs incurred in the vast majority of cases. Mark Saunders confirmed that this was the Council’s aim and that in certain areas they actively attempt to increase the market share however, in sensitive areas they take the opposite approach.
• Councillor Booth asked why the stall fees were left at a zero percent increase as it was previously found that the income was not covering the price of running them. He noted that there had been a struggle to increase the number of stalls at the markets and asked how viable they were going forward. Councillor Boden noted that he would take all comments on board and asked for clarification on whether Councillor Booth was suggesting an increase in fees to recover more money, decrease to attract more stalls, or to keep it at zero percent. Councillor Booth suggested that the fee should be kept at a zero percent increase but that the Council should renew their attempts to attract more market stalls.  
• Councillor Booth questioned the thinking behind holding the fees for the fairs at a zero percent increase stating that attendance had begun to return to normal following the Covid-19 pandemic. Mark Saunders explained that the feeling was that the fairs had experienced a difficult 18 months and had not received any business support as other business had during the pandemic. Due to this, and wanting to keep the fairs coming to Fenland, it was decided that a zero percent increase was rational. 
• Councillor Booth  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC34/21

To consider the Draft Work Programme for Overview & Scrutiny Panel 2021.

Members considered the Future Work Programme:

• Councillor Mason noted a change to the future work programme with the Enforcement Review due to come forward in February. Amy Brown informed the panel that it was requested for the report to come to a later meeting as the report was still in the stages of being finalised. She also confirmed that the Wisbech Rail item would be presented at the February meeting.
• Councillor Miscandlon noted that the Wisbech Rail item was also being discussed at the CPCA and requested that details of that meeting be incorporated into the report.
• There was a discussion about whether the final budget report would be presented to the Panel before it went to Cabinet and Council on February 24^th. Amy Brown informed the panel that she would enquire as to whether it would be possible for the panel to scrutinise the finalised budget report before it was received by Cabinet and Council.
• Councillor Booth asked whether officers could relook at the possibility of producing a rolling 12-month forward plan.