Venue: Council Chamber, Fenland Hall, County Road, March PE15 8NQ
Contact: Niall Jackson
Member Services and Governance Officer
Items
No. |
Item |
OSC30/21 |
Previous Minutes. PDF 190 KB
To confirm and sign the minutes
of the meeting of 6 December 2021.
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting of 6
December 2021 were confirmed and signed.
|
OSC31/21 |
Update on previous actions. PDF 172 KB
Members to receive an update on
the previous meeting’s Action Plan.
Minutes:
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.
|
OSC32/21 |
Draft Business Plan 2022-23 PDF 706 KB
For Overview and Scrutiny to
comment on the Draft Business Plan 2022-2023.
Minutes:
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
|
OSC33/21 |
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 PDF 538 KB
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.
Minutes:
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
|
OSC34/21 |
Review of Fees and Charges 2022/23 PDF 900 KB
To review the Council’s
Fees and Charges for 2022/23, in line with the Budget Strategy
considered by Cabinet on 8 December 2021.
Minutes:
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
|
OSC35/21 |
Future Work Programme PDF 106 KB
To consider the Draft Work
Programme for Overview & Scrutiny Panel 2021.
Minutes:
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 24th. 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.
|