Agenda and minutes

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

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillors S Stavrou, J Philip, D Stallan, J M Whitehouse and A Grigg declared a personal interest in item 6 of the agenda, in so far as it related to the Local Council Tax Support payable to Town/Parish Councils as they were Town/Parish Councillors. They understood that there were no binding decisions being made by the Committee at the meeting and therefore would seek a dispensation.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 12 November 2015 (previously circulated at Cabinet on 3 December 2015).

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2015 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

(Senior Performance Improvement Officer) To consider the attached report (FPM-024-2015/16).

The Senior Performance Improvement Officer presented a report on the Data Quality Strategy for 2016/17-2018/19.

The Council was required to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions and services were exercised, whilst having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As part of the duty to secure continuous improvement, the Council must also ensure that all data and information used to plan and deliver services was accurate, valid, reliable, timely, relevant, and complete, in order to inform decision-making in respect of functions and services. The performance information was used for the assessment of the Council’s performance and the Council’s Data Quality Strategy, which set out the arrangements for ensuring that the quality of key data met the highest standards.

The revised strategy was considered by Corporate Governance Group in November 2015 and would be submitted to each of the Select Committees in respect of their monitoring role of the Council’s Key Performance Indicators in the next committee cycle.

Resolved:

(1)        That the Data Quality Strategy for 2016/17 – 2018/19 be noted.

Reasons for Decision:

The Data Quality Strategy sets out the Council’s management arrangements to secure the quality of the data used to manage its functions and services. Reliable and robust data was essential for the assessment of performance and to inform decision making.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

None. The Data Quality Strategy set out the principles for the Council’s approach to data quality, identifies data ownership, and sets out its arrangements for key performance data collection and management. Failure to secure and improve the quality of data could mean that evaluation of performance was inaccurate, opportunities for improvement lost, and might adversely affect the reputation of the authority.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-025-2015/16).

The Director of Resources presented a report on the draft General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budgets for the financial year 2016/17. The individual Directorate budgets were presented by the Directors and Chief Executive, highlighting where significant changes had occurred. The Financial Issues Paper which incorporated the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) had been considered on the 20 July 2015 and identified a savings target of £0.15 million for 2016/17. The MTFS was being updated and expected to show that savings of £0.4 million would be required in the years beyond 2016/17.

Communities Directorate

The Director of Communities reported that the Directorate was responsible for three distinct budgets which were the General Fund, the Housing General Fund and Community Safety and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

The General Fund mainly covered the Private Sector Housing and there had been a reduction of around 9% between the original estimate and the probable outturn for 2015/16, which had been a result of reduced expenditure across a number of budget heads, most notably the small reduction in staff time in the Care and Repair Service. The net expenditure in 2016/17 would also be less than the original estimate for the current year. The other main part of the Housing General Fund was Homelessness and the probable outturn for Bed and Breakfast accommodation was 4% higher than the original estimate for 2015/16, which had been mainly due to a significant increased number of households that were presenting themselves as homeless, resulting in further accommodation requirements in bed and breakfast hotels. The Director of Communities advised that single people were normally only accommodated in bed and breakfast but throughout the year, families have had to be because of Norway House and Hemnall House being full. This year the number had doubled to 21 with 6 of the households being families. The probable outturn for non-HRA rebates which related to housing benefit for bed and breakfast showed an increase of 64% compared to the original estimate.

With regards to the homelessness advice the probable outturn was higher that the original estimate for the current year because of Housing Options staff having to spend more time on homelessness work, which was mainly homelessness prevention in order to minimise the number of homeless families that would have had to be accommodated by the Council. The probable outturn for next year remained the same as this year.

Within the Community Services and Safety budget the expenditure on Voluntary Sector Support was on budget and showed a slight saving and would be the same for next year. The net expenditure for the Arts and Museum was £57,000 higher than budget because of an additional cost relating to the expansion and refurbishment of the Museum and the net expenditure of Community Health and Wellbeing had increased by £44,000 for the current year.

Housing Revenue Account

The Director of Communities reported that the types of expenditure and income that had been allocated to the HRA were governed by legislation. Therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

(Director of Resources)To consider the attached report (FPM-026-2015/16).

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

From 2014/15 the amount of grant relating to local councils would no longer be separately identified and the overall grant receivable would be substantially reduced. The Cabinet Committee had 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 was reduced and this had subsequently been re-affirmed by both this Committee and Cabinet.

At the Local Councils Liaison meeting on 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 2016/17. The reduction in the grant had now been confirmed as 16.3% and this had been shared with the local councils to enable them to consider their own budgets. Applying the reduction produced a figure of £201,249, which would then be allocated amongst local councils for 2016/17.

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 Decisions:

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

Other Options for Action:

Members could decide to allocate the grant by reducing the amount payable to each local council by 16.3%. 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 Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-027-2015/16).

The Director 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 10 December 2015 and Management Board on 16 December 2015. These reviews identified amendments to the Corporate Risk Register but no additional risks or scoring changes. The amendments were as followed;

(a)          Risk 1 Local Plan

The vulnerability had been amended to include the Government’s announcement that Local Authorities must complete their Local Plan by 2017 or face sanctions and an additional Vulnerability, Trigger and Consequence had been added to advise of the proposed changes to the New Homes Bonus regime where planning approvals granted on appeal may not qualify for bonus, which could result in lost revenue.

(b)        Risk 2 Strategic Sites

The Effectiveness of controls/actions had been amended to advise the updated position for the key sites.

(c)        Risk 3 Welfare Reform

The Key date had been amended to advise that the start date for the full implementation of universal credit was still unclear and the Action Plan item for restructure of Audit and Housing Benefit which arose from the single fraud investigation service had been removed because both Internal Audit and Housing Benefit were operating effectively.

(d)        Risk 4 Finance Income

The Vulnerability had been updated to advise that the Government would be consulting on significant changes to responsibilities and financing. District Councils were likely to suffer large reductions in grant income and New Homes Bonus.

(e)        Risk 6 Data / Information

The Existing control had been amended to advise that the updated Data Protection policy had been approved by Corporate Governance Group and was being rolled out through meta-compliance. The Required further management action had been updated to advise the new F.O.I. system was being implemented in early 2016.

(f)        Risk 7 Business Continuity

The Existing control/action had been updated following the adoption of the Corporate Plan. The Required further management action had been updated, to show the need for guidance to be issued on updating service plans.

(g)        Risk 8 Partnerships

Internal Audit had carried out an audit of Partnerships and was given a substantial assurance rating. The Existing Control had been updated to reflect this rating. The audit report recommended Directorates should identify Partnerships and Joint Working within their service areas to ensure risks were identified, managed and incorporated in the Directorate risk register as necessary, which had been added to the required further management action within the risk action plan.

(h)        Risk 9 Safeguarding

The Action Plan for the risk had been updated to reflect the progress made, which advised that the number of safeguarding issues identified had quadrupled. This had resulted in both the Safeguarding Officer and the associated part time admin post being proposed for CSB growth, which had been put in the Existing control/action and the Effectiveness of controls/actions within the risk action plan.

(i)         Risk 10 Housing Capital Finance

The risk Vulnerability had been updated to advise that the Government was introducing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

(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:

(i)            Council Budget 2016/17.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-028-2015/16).

The Director of Resources presented a report detailing the proposed Council Budget for 2016/17, that woulduse £36,000 from reserves and enable the Council’s policy on the level of reserves to be maintained throughout the period of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). The use of reserves would peak at £345,000 in 2017/18 and reduce to £3,000 in 2019/20. The budget was based on the assumption that Council Tax would not be increased and that average Housing Revenue Account rents would decrease by 1% in 2016/17.

The annual budget process commenced with the Financial Issues Paper (FIP) being presented to this Committee on 20 July 2015 and reflected concerns over the reform of financing for local authorities, highlighted the uncertainties associated with Central Government Funding, Business Rates Retention, Welfare Reform, New Homes Bonus, Development Opportunities, Income Streams, Waste and Leisure Contracts and Transformation.

In setting the budget for the current year Members had anticipated using £42,000 from the General Fund reserves, which had been possible because the MTFS approved in February 2015 showed a combination of net savings targets and limited use of reserves that adhered to the policy on reserves over the medium term. The limited use of reserves in 2015/16 was not significant as the MTFS had predicted the use of just over £0.84 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. The projection showed a need to achieve net savings of £150,000 in 2016/17 and 2017/18, followed by £350,000 in 2018/19 and 2019/20, to keep the revenue balances comfortably above the target level at the end of 2019/20. Therefore the budget guidelines for 2016/17 had been established as the following;

(i)                                            That the ceiling for CSB net expenditure be no more than £13 million  including net growth/savings;

(ii)                                           That the ceiling for DDF net expenditure be no more than £0.55 million; and

(iii)                                          That the District Council Tax would increase by 2.5%.

The Director of Resources reported that the draft figures supplied by Central Government immediately before Christmas had set out the Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA) and also introduced a new concept of Core Spending Power. Over the next four years the SFA would be reduced by £2.45 million or nearly 45% and the possibility of retaining full retention of business rates looked disappointing, only increasing by £0.28 million or 9.3% up until 2019/20.Also during this time the tariff the Council payed back to the Treasury increased by a similar percentage from £10.23 million to £11.17 million and because the retained business rates would exceed the Councils SFA in 2019/20, an additional tariff would result in a negative Revenue Support Grant of £0.28 million in 2019/20.

The overall funding reductions across the period using Core Spending Power (CSP) were much lower, with a fall of £2.05 million or 13.5% and the policy of providing additional grant to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.