Agenda item - Recommendations from the Cabinet - 2nd November 2016

Agenda item

Recommendations from the Cabinet - 2nd November 2016

To consider the recommendations from the meeting of the Cabinet held on 2nd November 2016:

 

·         Worcestershire Regulatory Services Board – WRS Enforcement Policy;

·         Medium Term Financial Plan 2017/2018 – 2020/2021Budget Assumptions;

·         Council Tax Support Scheme 2017/2018;

·         The Council Plan;

·         ICT Infrastructure Resource;

·         Development Management Shared Services Business Case

 

(the associated reports for these recommendations are included at the back of the Council Agenda)

Minutes:

Worcestershire Regulatory Services Board – Enforcement Policy

 

The recommendation from Cabinet was proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor P. J. Whittaker.

 

RESOLVED that subject to the minor amendment detailed in WRS minute 15/16, the Worcestershire Regulatory Services Enforcement Policy be adopted.

 

Medium Term Financial Plan 2017/18 – 2020/21 – Budget Assumptions

 

The recommendation from Cabinet was proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor C. B. Taylor.

 

In proposing the recommendation Councillor Denaro referred to the proposed budget parameters which were set out on page 69 of the agenda pack and which would be incorporated into the budget process.

 

During the discussion there was mention of the lack of reference to the Council’s Efficiency Plan within the report. There was some concern expressed regarding the proposal to set price inflation at 0% in view of the current economic climate and Members also wished to see a Capital Review undertaken as soon as possible.

 

As an amendment it was proposed by Councillor C. A. Hotham and seconded by Councillor S. R. Colella that the recommendation from the Cabinet  also include a requirement that the Medium Term Financial Plan be extended to cover the next four years. The amendment was accepted by the proposer and seconder.

 

RESOLVED

(a)       that the revenue assumptions as detailed in paragraph 3.4 of the Cabinet report (relating to increase in Council tax; pay award; funding the pension liability; price inflation; utilities inflation and discretionary fees and charges) be incorporated into the budget setting process; and

(b)       that the medium term Financial Plan be set for a four year period up to the financial year 2020/2021.

 

Council Tax Support Scheme 2017/2018

 

The recommendations from Cabinet were proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor C. B. Taylor.

 

In proposing the recommendations Councillor Denaro referred to the intention to simplify the administrative process in respect of the Council Tax Support Scheme (CTSS). The proposed changes would not impact on current claims but on new claims and on re-assessed claims. The Scheme was locally funded and  it was important that the scheme was kept in line with the Housing Benefit  Scheme in order to simplify the administration and enable claims to be dealt with in tandem. Officers would continue to work with residents suffering hardship to provide additional support and financial advice. The simplification of the consultation process would still enable the public and partner organisations to give their views and would enable the Authority to react more easily to changes in Government guidance. 

 

Some Members were concerned that the Scheme was not helping those in the most need. There was some concern that the impact of the changes on Benefit claimants could not at present be analysed accurately. It was also queried whether a hardship fund of £25,000 was sufficient and whether there was enough flexibility in this.

 

Councillor Denaro recognised the limited  information available at present, but stressed the changes would not impact on current claimants. It was anticipated that the new Benefits and Council Tax System would enable better feedback to be provided in future.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)      that the Council Tax Support Scheme be implemented as amended, namely :

 

(i)         that the backdating of Council Tax support be reduced in line with the changes in Housing Benefit announced by Central Government;

(ii)        that claims be processed based on information provided by the Department of Work and Pensions without the need for further information;

(iii)       the removal of the Family Premium on claims made from 1st April 2017 to bring Bromsgrove District Council’s Council Tax Support Scheme in line with the changes in Housing Benefit announced by Central Government;

 

(b)       that future “uprating” of some of the figures be approved to take account of  other national changes in benefits and allowances;

 

(c)        that authority be delegated to the Head of Customer Access and Financial Support to carry out statutory consultation on future draft CTSS in accordance with the legislative guidelines, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder; and

 

(d)       that the continuation of the Hardship Scheme be approved.

 

 

The Council Plan

 

The recommendation from Cabinet was proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor C. B. Taylor.

 

In proposing the recommendation Councillor Denaro referred to the unfavourable financial settlement received by the Authority and to the possibility that in 2019/20 there would be a “negative grant” payment to the Government of £750,000. In addition there was limited clarity at present regarding the Business Rates Localisation Framework.

 

Councillor Denaro stressed that the Council Plan had been developed on the basis of  the requirement to understand what services residents need and want the Council to provide and that Economic Development and Income Generation were the prime drivers in order to achieve financial stability. It would be important to review all Council owned assets with a view to maximising income. If necessary land or other assets should be purchased to support Council priorities such as Business Units to enable local businesses to expand. In order to improve wages growth, it was important that Bromsgrove was not a dormitory town and that the Town Centre and other Local Centres across the District be supported. This was underway through the work of the Centres Manager.

 

Councillor Denaro reported that it was intended to retain the 6 Strategic Purposes as previously agreed but that their supporting aims had been reviewed to ensure they followed the new priorities. There would be a need for officers and Members to work as a team and reviews would be undertaken to revise priorities as work progressed.

 

Councillor Denaro referred to the following key areas which he was proposing would be areas for focus:

 

·         Financial Stability;

·         Economic Development

·         Urban and Rural balance (particularly for housing needs);

·         Delivery through Partnerships and Joint Ventures;

·         Quality services for residents with affordable charges;

·         Working with Worcestershire County Council to reduce congestion in the Town Centre and other Centres   

 

Councillor Denaro acknowledged that the Council Plan could not cover every eventuality over the next 4 years, but would be a guide and would be updated as necessary. Some aspects would require a change in mind sets in order for the Authority to move forward.

 

During discussion on the recommendation some Members expressed views that the Council Plan document was at present confusing and imprecise. There was some concern that the priority areas which Councillor Denaro had raised did not feature significantly within the currently proposed Council Plan.

 

Councillor Denaro indicated whilst he supported the Plan he was in agreement with the inclusion of additional key areas and the amendment of the Plan to reflect these.

 

Arising form the debate it was generally agreed that consideration of the Council Plan be deferred to enable further consideration. 

 

RESOLVED  That consideration of the Council Pan be deferred.

 

 

ICT Infrastructure Resource

 

The recommendation from Cabinet was proposed by Councillor G. N. Denaro and seconded by Councillor C. B. Taylor.

 

In proposing the recommendation Councillor Denaro made a slight amendment to clarify that any decision to award a contract would be considered by both Cabinet and Council.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)       that authority be delegated to the Head of transformation and organisational Development to undertake a tendering process to identify a potential supplier to undertake the ICT infrastructure functions; and

(b)       that a decision on any proposed contract be subject to a further report  to Cabinet and Council containing details of the proposals and their impact on the service and budget. 

 

 

Development Management Shared Services Business Case 

 

The recommendation from Cabinet was proposed by Councillor C. B. Taylor and seconded by Councillor G. N. Denaro.

 

In proposing the recommendation Councillor Taylor drew attention to the Executive Summary within the Business Case. The proposal would consolidate existing working arrangements and had been recommended for approval by the Shared Services Board after detailed consideration.  Councillor Taylor in particular referred to:

 

·         the additional cost of £25,000 which would be more than offset by additional fees;

·         that the costs would be split 67% BDC to 33% RBC to reflect the additional applications at BDC and each Council would keep their own fees;

·         that there would be two managers;

·         the reasons for the staffing costs increase which were set out on page 134 of the agenda pack

 

During the debate a number of concerns were raised including:

 

·         the current proposal was that this Council would host the service and  meet two thirds of the costs of it, but the majority of staff would be working from Redditch;

·         it was difficult to make a true comparison of staff costs from the table on page 134 of the agenda as there was insufficient evidence included;

·         each Council would have a manager with the main role of managing a Planning Committee but Bromsgrove would be paying two thirds of the cost and would be losing part of their existing staff resource;

·         it was suggested that the existing informal shared service arrangements had not proved to be wholly successful;

·         there was an inconsistency between the costs shown within the Business Case and the Council Plan;

·         costs of redundancy were queried together with the pension scheme liability. 

 

Councillor Taylor referred to the improvements in working practices which had resulted in reductions in the time taken in dealing with applications. Efficiencies had been achieved through working as a shared service. The main thrust of the proposal was not just about finances but also involved being able to deal efficiently with larger applications which would involve both managers. 

 

Some Members were concerned that there was a lack of clarity regarding in particular the true costs of the proposals and the cost around the TUPE transfer of staff.

 

With the agreement of the Chairman the meeting was adjourned from 8.20pm to 8.40pm to enable  discussions to take place.

 

Following the resumption of the meeting it was proposed by Councillor L. C. R. Mallett and seconded by Councillor M. Thompson and

 

RESOLVED that  the item be deferred to enable cross party discussions to be held on financial risk and cost apportionment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: