Agenda and minutes

(a)        This meeting is to be webcast;

(b)        Members are reminded of the need to activate their microphones before speaking; and

(c)        the Chairman will read the following announcement:

“I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live to the Internet and will be capable of subsequent repeated viewing, with copies of the recording being made available for those that request it.

By being present at this meeting, it is likely that the recording cameras will capture your image and this will result in your image becoming part of the broadcast.

You should be aware that this may infringe your human and data protection rights. If you have any concerns then please speak to the Webcasting Officer.

Please could I also remind Members to activate their microphones before speaking.”

The Chairman reminded everyone present that the meeting would be broadcast live to the Internet, and that the Council had adopted a protocol for the webcasting of its meetings.

(Director of Governance) To declare interests in any item on this agenda.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors S Stravrou, H Kane, J M Whitehouse, T Church, S Watson, R Morgan, S Murray, J Knapman, J Philip, K Angold-Stephens, A Mitchell, G Mohindra and D Stallan declared a personal interest in item 5 of the agenda, in so far as it relates to the Local Council Tax Support payable to Town/Parish Councils as they are Town/Parish Councillors. They understood that there are no binding decisions being made by the Committee at the meeting and therefore would advise that when the decisions were due on this later in the budget cycle, they would seek a dispensation from the Standards Committee to participate.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on  13 November 2014 (previously circulated).

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2014 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-018-2014/15).

The Director of Resources presented a report on the allocation of Local Council Tax Support Grants and reductions in funding.

Following the introduction of Local Council Tax Support in 2013/14, it had been clear that in 2014/15, the amount of grant relating to local councils would no longer be separately identified and that the overall amount would be substantially reduced. The Committee decided on 19 September 2013 that the grant available to local councils would be reduced by the same percentage as the Council’s overall grant and this remained the same policy.

The Director of Finance advised that at the Local Liaison Council Committee on the 7 November 2013, it had been suggested that the amount of grant would reflect the loss of income to each body and the same methodology had been applied for 2015/16. The reduction in grant had now been confirmed as 14.2% and this had been shared with the local councils to enable them to consider their own budgets. Applying the reduction to the 2014/15 grant had given an amount of £240,442, which would be allocated amongst local councils for 2015/16. It was clear that Minsters were becoming frustrated by local councils increasing their charges and could act to prevent this happening again by extending the referendum requirements for significant increases in Band D charges.

Recommended:

(1)        That the Local Council tax Support Grant available to Town and Parish Councils be allocated inline with the reduction in their Council Tax income as set out in appendix 1, be recommended to the Cabinet for approval.

Reasons for Decision:

To agree the basis for allocating LCTS Grant and the amounts due to each Town and Parish Council.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

Members could decide to allocate the grant by reducing the amount payable to each local council by 14.2%. Alternatively, Members could decide to allocate more than the proposed amount, although this would require additional savings elsewhere in the budget to fund the local councils.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report (FPM-019-2014/15).

The Assistant Director (Housing Operations) presented a report for a supplementary estimate of £40,000 funded from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) for the engagement of Stephen Knafler QC, for successfully defending a legal challenge in the High Court against the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme’s Residency Criteria and the provision of advice given on the Council’s revised Housing Allocations Scheme.

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme came into force on 1 September 2013 and under the scheme applicants were required to meet the Local Eligibility Criteria, which involved applicants being a resident of the District for a minimum of three consecutive years subject to certain exceptions. The Allocations Scheme was referred to Stephen Knafler QC to review because of his considerable experience in housing law and was considered by him to be legal. Following this change the Council received 170 written appeals with one in particular who sought legal advice and applied for a Judicial Review. This case went onto a full Judicial Review hearing as “the matter is of some importance and significance and should be determined as soon as reasonably possible”. The Claimant was awarded Legal Aid allowing her to be represented by a QC and Junior Counsel on the basis that the matter raised issues of some public importance. Prior to the case being heard, Stephen Knafler QC expressed the view that the Council should defend the claim in order to uphold the Council’s policies and to prevent the Housing Allocations Scheme being undermined.

Following the Judicial Review in September 2014, the Judge rejected all aspects of the Claimant’s challenge and although the Judge refused Permission to Appeal, the Claimant could seek leave to Appeal to the higher Court and the Council would have to consider whether to continue to defend its position.

The Assistant Director (Housing Operations)  advised that, on 21 October 2014 the Housing Scrutiny Panel considered a review of the Housing Allocations Scheme following 12 months’ operation including the Claimant’s case and would be recommending to Cabinet that the Scheme be amended to absolutely clarify that discretion in exceptional circumstances would only apply to persons already admitted onto the Housing Register and that the Director of Communities would not have discretion to allow any  non-qualifying applicants onto the Housing Register.

The Assistant Director (Housing Operations) advised that no budget provision had been made for the unforeseen challenge and therefore asked the Committee to recommend to the Cabinet that a Supplementary Estimate be recommended to Council.

Councillor Murray questioned whether the funding should come from the General Fund rather than the HRA. The Assistant Director (Housing Operations) advised that he had taken guidance from Finance colleagues and had been advised that the source of funding should come from the HRA.

Councillor Church asked whether costs could be secured against other possible claimant’s that were privately funded. The Director of Governance advised that the Council would make any applications possible to recover costs.

Recommended:

(1)        That a Supplementary Estimate of £40,000 from the Housing Revenue Account for  the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report (FPM-020-2014/15).

The Assistant Director (Housing Operations) presented a report requesting a Supplementary Estimate in the current year to fund legal costs in the sum of  £52,000 regarding challenges to the Council’s revised Housing Allocations Scheme and from a particular Homelessness Applicant and a contingency provision of £20,000 District Development Fund (DDF), for the next three year period 2015/16 to 2017/18.

The Assistant Director (Housing Operations) advised that the Council’s revised Housing Allocations Scheme came into force on 1 September 2013, which resulted in a new approach to meeting the duty to homeless applicants and a subsequent increase in the number of legal challenges. The Council’s Legal Team appointed Counsel to advise on a number of specific legal matters and was unsuccessful in defending a challenge against

a homelessness decision on vulnerability, where the  claimant’s costs were awarded against the Council this financial year and the budget for the current year was insufficient to meet the additional expenditure. Therefore it was recommended to the Committee that a Supplementary Estimate be sought from Council for £52,000 from the DDF, which was required to meet the legal costs incurred in 2013/14 and 2014/15 and a contingency provision for any potential legal costs of £20,000 per annum from the DDF for three year period 2015/16 to 2017/18 be agreed.

The Committee expressed concerns about the contingency provision for the next three years and whether the provision would be enough. The Director of Resources advised that there was uncertainty on the amount of homelessness applicants challenging the Council’s decisions and the costs could vary each year. He suggested that the Committee review the funding position after one year.

Councillor Mohindra was concerned about the amount of costs awarded against the Council. The Assistant Director (Housing Operations) advised that he would provide him with details of the exact figures.

Recommended:

(1)        That a Supplementary Estimate of £52,000 from the District Development Fund for seeking specialist legal advise on homelessness cases and defending a homelessness case in the County Court, be recommended to Cabinet to recommend to the Council for approval;

(2)        That a contingency provision for potential legal challenges to the Housing Allocations Scheme for homelessness applicants of £20,000 per annum from the District Development Fund be made for a three year period from 2015/16 to 2017/18; and

(3)        That the budget for potential legal challenges for Housing Allocations Scheme for homelessness applicants be reviewed after one year to ensure that it was sufficient in the long term.

Reasons for Decisions:

In order to make budget provision for defending the Council’s case in the County Court in 2013/2014, and the provision of legal advice in 2014/2015, and to provide additional funding to defend the Council’s position when legal challenges are made by homeless applicants in future years. 

Options Considered and Rejected:

Not to defend legal challenges from homeless applicants, which would result in the Council conceding in all cases.

(Director of Housing) To consider the attached report (FPM-021-2014/15).

The Assistant Director Community Services reported that this Committee had requested the Council’s Community Arts Programme budget to be considered as part of the cost savings exercise for the Council’s Budget in 2015/16.

The Assistant Director Community Services advised that a previous review of the Arts Service in 2011/12 had resulted in a total savings of £35,000, which resulted in the operational budget being reduced to £24,500 per annum and to make any further reductions in this budget would result in staff redundancies. Therefore the business case proposal for Community Services was to secure a minimum of £10,000 additional funding and income from fees and charges in 2015/16 and if this was not achieved, savings could be found from discontinuing the Arts and Leisure Bursary Award Scheme. Furthermore officers would be investigating whether or not there were any potential opportunities to include elements of the Community Arts Service within the new Leisure Management Contract.

Members raised concerns about whether the Community Arts Programme provided value for money at an operational cost of £24,500 and with recharges to the service area being so high it was a concern.

Recommended:

(1)        That Community Services make additional income or savings of £10,000 in 2015/16.

Reasons for Decision:

It was not possible to reduce the Community Arts Budget further, without making forced redundancies.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

None at present.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-022-2014/15).

The Director of Resources presented the draft General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budgets for the financial year 2015/16. The budgets were presented on a directorate by directorate basis. The Financial Issues Paper which incorporated the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) was considered in July 2014 and identified £0.5 million savings target for 2015/16, following the savings from the new waste management contract. Although since then, the Cabinet had agreed to a reduced weekly rent for the North Weald Market to prevent closure and supported a growth in Economic Development team, which had increased the target to nearer £1 million. The Directorate budgets were presented to the Cabinet Committee (and Scrutiny Panel) to consider and make recommendations prior to the budget being formerly set during February 2015.

Chief Executive

The Chief Executive reported that the budget was made up of mostly recharges from services for corporate and public accountability activities, subscriptions and an Efficiency Challenge Support. The original estimate for 2014/15 had been an expenditure of £1.196 million, with a probably outturn of £1,211 million. The net increase had been attributed to increased recharges from the Directorate Policy Groups as a result of the changing responsibilities of an Assistant Director post. This included £58,000 for the Local Land and Property Gazetteer for 2015/16 and contributions from HRA of £13,000. The £150,000 DDF for the Council Transformation Programme had been re-phased for £75,000 to be spent in 2014/15 and the other half in 2015/16. The residual funding received from the Improvement East was also expected to be spent in this financial year. An increase in corporate subscriptions for £10,000 from CSB funding was for the London Stansted Cambridge Consortium, which was to promote the economic development of the District.

Members were concerned about the transformation project and how it would translate into savings. The Chief Executive advised that detailed businesses cases would be put forward when they had arisen with the suggested savings and this fund would help implement them. 

Communities Directorate

The Director of Communities reported that the total original estimate for 2014/15 had been expenditure of £3.555 million, with a probable outturn of £3.463 million for 2014/15 and £3.443 million for 2015/16, which resulted in a decrease of £112,000. The main CSB change was the recharge to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) for the Anti-Social Behaviour team. The main DDF items were slippage from 2013/14, schemes coming to an end in 2014/15 and the costs of the Safeguarding Audit being allocated to the HRA for 2014/15 and 2015/16, which were being offset by the amounts allocated to the Homeless budgets for legal challenges impending.

The Director of Housing advised that other areas highlighted were as follows;

·         Staff allocations had increased due to the increased administration of Disabled Facilities Grants Scheme, Discretionary Grants and other Private Sector Housing matters;

·         The Homelessness Advice Service had seen an increase in enquiries as a consequence of the new Housing Allocations Scheme for homelessness claimants and the legal challenges and expert advise required;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-023-2014/15).

The Directorate of Resources presented a report regarding the Council’s Corporate Risk Register.

The Corporate Risk Register had been considered by both the Risk Management Group on 1 December 2014 and Management Board on 9 December 2014. These reviews identified amendments to the Corporate Risk Register but no additional risks or scoring changes. These were as follows;

(a) Risk 1 - Local Plan

Key dates within the Action Plan had been updated to advise the target dates for Cabinet review and consultation period of the draft plan. The part implementation of the new staffing structure was advised with a target of full implementation by the end of January 2015.

(b) Risk 2 - Strategic Sites

Management Board identified an additional Vulnerability, Trigger and Consequence relating to a reliance on a key individual involved in the strategic site projects. The Effectiveness of controls/actions had also been updated for the identified sites to reflect progress to date.

(c) Risk 3 - Welfare Reform

Additional controls had been added to the Action Plan following Cabinet approval of the restructure of Benefits and Internal Audit for the implementation of the Single Fraud Investigation Service.

(d) Risk 5 - Economic Development

The key date had been updated to reflect the service reverting to Neighbourhoods Directorate on 31 March 2015.

(e) Risk 6 - Data/Information

Consolidation of Data Protection and Freedom of Information was now an existing control, having previously been a required further management action. An additional item, separation of Environmental Information Requests, had been added for consideration under required further management actions and an additional success factor had also been added.

Members were asked to consider the updated Corporate Risk Register and whether the risks listed were scored appropriately and if there were any additional risks that should be included.

Recommended:

(1)          That Risk 1 - Local Plan be updated with the Key dates and the staffing structure implementation;

(2)          That Risk 2 - Strategic Sites, toinclude the additional Key Individual vulnerability;

(3)          That Risk 3 - Welfare Reform toinclude the additional controls;

(4)          That Risk 5 - Economic Development, be updated with the key dates;

(5)          That Risk 6 - Data/Information, be  updated with the existing control, further management action and success factors;

(6)          That, including the above agreed changes, the amended Corporate Risk Register be recommended to Cabinet approval.

Reasons for Decisions:

It was essential that the Corporate Risk Register was regularly reviewed and kept up to date.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

Members may suggest new risks for inclusion or changes to the scoring of existing risks.

Resolved:

(1)       That, in accordance with Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, together with paragraphs (6) and (24) of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chairman had permitted the following item of urgent business to be considered following the publication of the agenda:

(a)              Council Budget 2015/16.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-024-2014/15).

The Director of Resources presented a report detailing the proposed Council Budget for 2015/16, which would add £30,000 to the reserves and enable the Council’s policy on the level of reserves to be maintained throughout the period of the Medium Term Financial Strategy. The budget was based on the assumption that Council tax would be frozen and that average Housing Revenue Account rents would increase by 2.2% in 2015/16.

The annual budget process commenced with the Financial Issues Paper (FIP) being presented to this Committee on 28 July 2014. The paper was prepared two months earlier than usual because of the concern over cumulative effect of reductions in public expenditure and highlighted uncertainties associated with Central government Funding, Business rates Retention, Welfare Reform, New Homes Bonus, Development Opportunities, income Streams, Waste and Leisure Contract renewals and Organisational Review. 

In setting the budget for the current year Members had anticipated using £243,000 from the General Fund reserves, which was possible as the MTFS approved in February 2014 showed a combination of net savings targets and limited use of reserves that still adhered to the policy on reserves over the medium term. The limited use of reserves in 2014/15 was not significant as the MTFS at that time was predicting the use of just over £1.7 million of reserves to support spending in the following three years.

The revised MTFS presented with the FIP took into account all the changes known at that point and highlighted the additional reductions in support grant. This projection showed a need to achieve net savings of £500,000 on both the 2015/16 and 2016/17 estimates, followed by £300,000 in 2017/18 and £200,000 in 2018/19 to keep revenue balances comfortably above the target level at the end of 2018/19. The FIP established the following budget guidelines for 2015/16: The ceiling for CSB net expenditure be no more than £13.15m including net growth/savings; the ceiling for DDF net expenditure be no more than £0.204m; and the District Council Tax to be frozen.

The Director of Resources reported that the 2013/14 financial year had seen new locally retained business rates, vastly reduced Revenue Support Grant and Local Council Tax Support (LCTS).

The annual reductions began in 2011/12 reducing by £2.66 million or 31% over three years and from 2014/15 Formula Grant had not been separately identified so a different comparison was needed. The draft figure for 2015/16 of £5.467 million was slightly higher than the figure of £5.393 million provided this time last year. Therefore three years under this new system, funding reduced by £1.815 million or by 24.9% and that over 5 years, funding had fallen by nearly 60%. The funding position in 2015/16 was £74,000 better than had been anticipated in the February 2014 MTFS. In updating the MTFS the changes had been allowed for but the lack of figures beyond 2015/16 required a larger element of educated guesswork than usual.

The reduction in Local Council Tax Support had been based on the overall reductions of 12.5% and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

The Cabinet Committee noted that there were no items of business on the agenda that necessitated the exclusion of the public and press from the meeting.