Agenda and minutes

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

There were no declarations of interest pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 17 March 2016.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2016 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Chairman advised the Cabinet Committee that the MP for Batley and Spen, Jo Cox had been tragically killed in her constituency.

Members noted that Councillors and Staff, which could come into contact with the public, should be more vigilant. Councillor C Whitbread asked that the safety of people dealing with the public should be included within the consideration of the Transformation project and new reception area.

Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, requires that the permission of the Chairman be obtained, after prior notice to the Chief Executive, before urgent business not specified in the agenda (including a supplementary agenda of which the statutory period of notice has been given) may be transacted.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That, as agreed by the Leader of the Council and 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 following items of urgent business be considered following publication of the agenda:

(a)          4(a) Provisional Revenue Outturn 2015/16. 

This item would be discussed after item 8 Provisional Capital Outturn 2015/16.

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report (FPM-001-2016/17).

The Director of Resources presented a report on the outturn performance for the Key Performance Indicators adopted for 2015/16.

The Director of Resources advised that 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, a range of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) relevant to the Council’s service priorities and key objectives were adopted each year and the performance was reviewed on a quarterly basis.

A range of thirty-six Key Performance Indicators (KPI) had been adopted for 2015/16 in March 2015 and the KPIs were important to the improvement of the Council’s services, comprised a combination of former statutory indicators and locally determined performance measures. The aim of the KPIs was to direct improvement towards services, the national priorities and local challenges arising from the social, economic and environmental context of the District.Progress in respect to all of the KPIs was reviewed by Management Board and Overview and Scrutiny at the conclusion of each quarter and service Directors reviewed the KPI performance with the relevant Portfolio Holder(s) on an on-going basis throughout the year. The Select Committees were each responsible for the review of quarterly performance against specific KPIs within their areas of responsibility.

The position with regard to the achievement of target performance for the KPIs at the end of the year (31 March 2016) was as follows:

(a)          27 (75%) indicators achieved the cumulative end of year target;

(b)          9 (25%) indicators had not achieve the cumulative end of year target; and

(c)          1 (3%) of those KPIs had performed within the agreed tolerance for the indicator.

The outturn performance against the indicator set for 2015/16 had been slightly better than last year when 26 (72%) of the 36 indicators achieved the target.

The Director of Resources advised that KPI RES001, Sickness Absence had not achieved the year-end target but had improved by a day compared to the previous year.

Councillor G Mohindra advised that he was concerned about the KPI GOV007, Appeals – officers, which required improvement.

RESOLVED:

(1)          That the Committee noted the Quarter 4 performance for the Key Performance Indicators adopted for 2015/16.

Reasons for Decision:

The KPIs provided an opportunity for the Council to focus attention on how specific areas for improvement would be addressed, and how opportunities would be exploited and better outcomes delivered. It was important that relevant performance management processes were in place to review and monitor performance against the key objectives, to ensure their continued achievability and relevance, and to identify proposals for appropriate corrective action in areas of slippage or under performance.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

No other options were appropriate in this respect. Failure to review and monitor performance could mean that opportunities for improvement were lost and might of had a negative implications for judgements made about the progress of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-002-2016/17).

The Director of Resources presented a report on 3 Invest to Save Proposals for capital works at North Weald Airfield for a vehicle compound extension, the Civic Office main reception structural survey for the Customer Contact project and software prototype and evaluation for project management. 

The Director of Resources advised that in setting the budget for 2015/16, the Council had decided that because the balance on the General Fund Reserve had exceeded the minimum requirement and further savings were required, £0.5 million would be transferred from the General Fund Reserve into an Invest to Save earmarked reserve. This would be then used to finance schemes that would reduce the Continuing Services Budget (CSB) in future years. There was nearly £200,000 available for additional schemes after the budget had been approved in 2016/17

The accommodation review and the replacement of NEPP for off street car parking enforcement had already been put forward and these three business cases which included;

1.            Capital works at North Weald Airfield which involved extending a vehicle compound for approximately £12,000, would gain a rental income of £4,000 per annum and result in a three year payback. It was possible that further income could arise from leasing some spare office accommodation to the same company;

2.            A structural survey of the current main reception area for approximately £15,000, which was a necessary complementary piece of work for the accommodation review and would inform the discussion around potential re-configuration of and alternative uses for the site; and

3.            A programme management system for prototype activities, which sought funding of £6,000, which would ensure that inconsistent project management would not occur and the improved efficiency and effectiveness would save the Council time and money.

Councillor Bassett raised concerns over the length of leases with regards to the future Master Plan for the Council’s estates and this impacting on future developments. The Director of Resources advised that this could be taken into account with break clauses, although he would make sure that the Estates Department were advised.

The Cabinet Committee asked that they were updated on the progress of Invest to Save projects on a 6 monthly basis from when they were approved at Cabinet.  

RECOMMENDED:

(1)        That the proposal to invest in the North Weald Airfield 240 compound extension, Civic Office Main Reception – Structural Survey Customer Contact Project and Software prototype and evaluation (Establishment of Programme and Project Management be recommended to Cabinet;

RESOLVED:

(2)        That Members were updated on the progress and financial outcomes of the Invest to Schemes that were approved by Cabinet after 6 months.

Reasons for Decisions:

To seek Member approval for Invest to Save proposals before implementation.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

Members may decide not to support the proposals and suggest additional or alternative uses for the Invest to Save Fund.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-003-2016/17).

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 26 May 2016 and Management Board on 1 June 2016. These reviews identified minor amendments to the Corporate Risk Register which included the following;

(a)        Risk 1 Local Plan

The key date had been updated to advise of the intended July 2016 Cabinet report.

(b)        Risk 2 Strategic Sites

The Effectiveness of controls/actions had been amended to include the updated position for the key sites, with work progressing well at the Winston Churchill site, progress on the St. Johns site being delayed by Essex County Council and three tenders being received and assessed for the Retail Park at the Langston Road site. The completion of the site was now anticipated in the summer of 2017 and completion of the Oakwood Hill was expected in June 2016.

(c)        Risk 6 Data / Information

The Effectiveness of Control had been amended to advise that there had been no data losses within 2016/17.

RESOLVED:

1.            That the Key Date within the Action Plan for Risk 1 be updated;

2.            That the Effectiveness of controls/actions for Risk 2 be updated;

3.            That the Effectiveness of control/actions for Risk 6 be updated;

RECOMMENDED:

4.            That the amended Corporate Risk Register be recommended to Cabinet for 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.

(Director of Resources) To consider the attached report (FPM-004-2016/17).

The Assistant Director (Accountancy) advised the Cabinet Committee that the report set out the Council’s capital programme for 2015/16, in terms of expenditure and financing, and compared the provisional outturn figures with the revised estimates. The revised estimates which were based on the Capital Programme represented those adopted by the Council on 18 February 2016.

The Council’s total investment on capital schemes and capital funded schemes in 2015/16 was £37,298,000 compared to a revised estimate of £49,917,000 and represented an underspend of 25%. The largest underspends were experienced on General Fund projects, in particular on the planned developments at St John’s Road, the Langston Road Retail Park and the Oakwood Hill Depot.

The Director of Resources advised that the funds available to finance capital programmes were applied in line with any restrictions avoid the potential loss of funds. Another element of capital receipts known as ‘attributable’ or ‘allowable’ debt could be used to fund either General Fund or HRA expenditure in any proportion..

The previous decision to use 30% for housebuilding had been decided by the Housebuilding Cabinet Committee, although the Cabinet may not have had the opportunity to fully consider other options at that time and the latest 30 year plan suggested £869,000 would be available for replacement housing schemes. An alternative approach would be to take 30% of the assumed debt figure of £1,218,950 as a basis for ascertaining the amount to be used for housebuilding and this would make £366,000 available.

Currently, none of these resources had been applied to the housebuilding programme as 1-4-1 capital receipts, capital grants and private contributions were applied in the first instance and they had been sufficient to cover all costs to date. Hence a change to the alternative approach was recommended to liberate additional capital resources of £503,000 to be invested in General Fund schemes.

The use of capital receipts to finance expenditure was £2,672,000 higher than estimated and the year-end balance on the Capital Receipts Reserve had fallen to £3,790,000 as at 31 March 2016.  All of this balance had been set aside for the Council’s housebuilding programme. Due to all the capital receipts currently available to fund General Fund schemes, being fully utilised, internal borrowing had been made available from the HRA. In total, the General Fund had borrowed around £4,000,000 from the HRA and would be required to pay interest on the sum for the duration of the loan. The internal borrowing had been made on a temporary basis only and future borrowing requirements would continue to be monitored closely.

In summary, the Cabinet Committee were requested to recommend to Cabinet the approval of the budget overspends, savings, carry forwards and brought forwards. There was one General Fund budget saving of £7,000 on Revenue Expenditure financed from Capital under Statute and two areas where spending was higher than estimated totaling £160,000 on the HRA, which were proposed to be brought forward from 2016/17. The carry forwards requested total £9,227,000 on the General Fund; £3,698,000 on the HRA  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(Director of Finance) To consider the attached report (FPM-005-2016/17).

The Assistant Director Accountancy provided an overall summary of the revenue outturn for the financial year 2015/16.

The net expenditure for 2015/16 totalled £16.204 million, which was £2,856,000 (21.5%) above the original estimate and £435,000 (3%) above the revised. The large movement between Original and Revised was due to including some revenue funding of capital expenditure which had reduced the General Fund balance down to £7.3 million from £9.3 million. It had been felt sensible to use some of the balance because in recent years there had been Central Government criticism of Local Authorities holding “excessive” reserves. There were improvements in the funding position as this had shown an increase of £879,000 when compared to the original position and £88,000 compared to the revised position, which had been due to the inclusion of additional business rates Section 31 income. The in year deficit on the business rates collection fund was approximately £27,000 and the main factor which had created this had been the provision to cover future rating appeals.

The Continuing Services Budget (CSB) expenditure was £283,000 below the original estimate and £407,000 higher than the revised. Variances had arisen on both the opening CSB and the in year figures. The opening CSB was £369,000 higher than the revised estimate and the in year figures £38,000 higher than the revised estimate. When measured against the Original Budget, salaries were underspent by £465,000 and the actual salary spending for the authority in total including agency costs was £20.802 million compared against an original estimate of £21.267 million. When comparing to the Revised Estimate there was an underspend of £302,000, half of which fell on the General Fund, though £72,000 of this was actually DDF or Building Control savings rather than CSB.

There was an additional amount of £215,000 added to the General Fund Bad & Doubtful debts provision as a number of uncollectable debts had been written off and Housing Benefit Overpayment debts outstanding at the year end had increased significantly from £2,382,000 to £2,723,000. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) capital expenditure was underspent by some £3.5 million and this increased the interest payable to the HRA, contributing to an overall net reduction of £190,000 to the Genral Fund.

The main other movement between the Original estimate and the Revised and Actual position was that the decision to Fund Capital Expenditure of £3 million from the General Fund balance.

The original in year CSB savings figure of £573,000 became an in year savings figure of £634,000, which was primarily due to additional Development Control fee income of £55,000 and a couple of other more minor items with the in year savings falling short by £38,000. The two main areas were Non-HRA Rent Rebates £40,000 and the Waste Management Contract £18,000 and there were a number of minor items that offset these.

The net District Development Fund (DDF) expenditure was expected to be £1,129,000 in the original estimate and £949,000 in the revised estimate and actually showed net income of £143,000. This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.