Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Avey, Clarke and Royle. 

To approve the record of the meeting held on 5 January 2017.

The record of the meeting held on 5 January 2017 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

There were none. 

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

Agenda Item 7 – Call In: Business Rate Relief

Councillor Wildey declared an interest as a member of Woodies Youth Centre

Management Committee.

Councillor Etheridge declared an interest as a member of Headway for Medway Steering Group.

Councillor Tejan declared an interest as a member of Medway Towns Sea

Cadets.

Councillor Carr, declared an interest as a Trustee of Chatham Historic Dockyard.

Councillor Murray declared an interest as a member of Rochester Grammar

School for Girls Charity.

Councillor Maple declared an interest as a Trustee of Chatham Maritime Trust who benefited from the 20% discretionary rate. He added that he felt strongly that the Cabinet had taken the wrong decision. Although he was predisposed on the policy at the moment he had been advised that did not prevent him speaking and voting. Ultimately it was for Cabinet to set the Business Rates policy. As the call-in was about reviewing the process that led to the Cabinet decision he would listen carefully to the debate and make a decision on what, if anything, to propose.

Agenda Items 11 and 12 (Medway Commercial Group Ltd First Year Quarter Report) and (Procurement Strategy).

Councillor Griffiths declared an interest as a non executive Director of MCH.

.

This report sets out activities and progress on work areas within the Housing and Community Services Portfolio, which fall within the remit of this Committee. This information is provided in relation to the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services being held to account.

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress on the area within the terms of

reference of this Committee covered by Councillor Howard Doe, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community Services, i.e.

·         Disabled adaptations to housing

·         Homelessness and housing options

·         Housing management and allocations

·         Housing strategy

·         Private sector housing

·         Housing Landlord Services (HRA)

·         Development of the Council’s housing stock

·         Adult learning

·         Libraries and Community Hubs

Councillor Doe responded to Members’ questions as follows:

Housing

A Member asked whether the Council was prepared to make further representations to the Government on allowing Councils more flexibility to build new houses. Councillor Doe replied that there was a recognition not enough was being done at a national level to facilitate new housing. The Council was expecting a response on this point from its representations as a result of the work of the Housing Task Group. Dependant on the response he was prepared to make further representations. He considered that the forced reduction of rents was an ill advised policy which would reduce funding to the Housing Revenue Account by almost £6m over a four year period. The possible risk of between £0.5-£1m grant being clawed back was not helpful in terms of planning. If this did not happen then the HRA would be in a reasonable position. If it happened at the upper end of projections then strong representations would be made. The Homes and Community Agency were discussing making make more funds available for house building, which the Council would be looking very closely at. The Council was exploring ways of how to develop more homes in a way which did not risk the authority’s finances. Discussions were also taking place with a company about system build housing opportunities.

A Member asked if the Council was prepared to review the Homebond Scheme, as after listening to complaints from constituents it appeared the scheme was no longer fit for purpose. Councillor Doe replied that he was not aware of such concerns. There was reluctance amongst some private landlords to let to tenants in receipt of housing benefit. He was willing to look at any suggestions how the scheme could be improved and asked if details could be sent to him of concerns raised with Members.

Referring to the unsuccessful bid to the Government for funding to combat homelessness, a Member asked if the Council was prepared to think about collaborating with other councils in future when making a bid. Councillor Doe did not consider that the bid failed due to a lack of cross border working although there had not yet been any formal feedback on the bid. He was happy to consider collaboration if that would improve the chances of a bid being successful. 

A Member noted the increasing likelihood of homelessness due to Universal Credit with some private landlords viewing tenants in receipt of Universal Credit as a risk. Councillor Doe agreed that Universal Credit was likely to lead to a significant increase in housing debt.

A Member asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 681.

This report sets out activities and progress on work areas within the Business Management Portfolio, which fall within the remit of this Committee. This information is provided in relation to the Portfolio Holder for Business Management being held to account.

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress on the area within the terms of

reference of this Committee covered by Councillor Rupert Turpin, Portfolio Holder for Business Management, i.e.

·         Customer Contact

·         Democracy and Governance

·         Income generation

·         Internal Audit

·         Revenue & Benefits

·         Risk Management

·         Business Management

·         Commissioning

Councillor Turpin responded to Members’ questions as follows:

Customer Contact

In response to a question about ways to improve the interpreting and translation service to compete with the private sector, Councillor Turpin felt that the service provided by the Council was reliable and professional and competition with the private sector should not be allowed to jeopardise that. The possibility of the service being delivered in an alternative way (such as via Medway Commercial Group) was being looked at.

Democracy and Governance

A Member referred to the recent report from the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) on Members’ Allowances which was considered by the Council after good work from the IRP and officers. As none of the recommendations had been agreed it was argued this had resulted in wasted time and effort and Councillor Turpin was asked if lessons had been learned. Councillor Turpin agreed that the process following the completion of the Members’ Allowances review had not gone well, largely due to difficulties in securing political agreement to the recommendations which involved some Special Responsibility Allowances increasing and some reducing. He had no plans to revisit this in the near future.

Revenues and Benefits

A Member asked how well the council tax discretionary relief fund was advertised given the low number of people applying for and receiving relief from the fund.   Councillor Turpin acknowledged the low uptake and undertook to check whether people who received a summons for council tax debt were also advised of the existence of the relief fund and, in addition, whether the customer contact team had information about the fund in order to advise members of the public accordingly.

Decision:

The Committee thanked the Portfolio Holder for Business Management for his attendance.

This report advises the Committee of a notice of call-in received from six Members of the Council of the Cabinet’s decisions 163 and 164/2017.

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding a call-in received from six Members of the Council of Cabinet’s decisions 163/2017 and 164/2017 in relation to Business Rate Relief. The Committee was requested to consider the Cabinet decisions and decide either to take no further action, refer the decisions back to Cabinet or to refer the decisions to Council for reconsideration.

Councillor Maple, the Lead Member for the call-in, explained the reasons for the call-in as outlined in paragraph 2.2 of the report. Councillor Maple referred to the special meeting of the Committee on 5 January were Members had heard from a selected group of organisations with an interest in the proposed changes. As the Federation of Small Business had not submitted evidence, there were no grounds to think that small businesses wished to see charities removed from the high street. Councillor Maple stated that, from the evidence received, 70% of organisations who had responded to the consultation had favoured Option 1.

He continued that the impacts of the Cabinet’s decision to approve Option 2 would be significant. Many affected organisations recognised the Council’s financial difficulties although he was concerned that some had asked to remain anonymous when speaking to him due to concerns about the Council’s reaction.

Councillor Maple read out a response from RSPCA Medway West who felt the loss of 20% relief would be devastating. This shop funded the veterinary clinic which provided a service to people on low incomes and removed stray cats and dogs, which benefited the Council. Many charities and voluntary sector groups affected by Cabinet’s decision provided services which would be at risk of being reduced or removed as a result of the decision with consequential negative impacts on the Council. It was also argued that the cost of achieving the £200,000 saving would be greater than the saving itself.

Councillor Maple noted that it was an option for the Committee to refer the matter to full Council and it seemed appropriate to do so given the next meeting was the budget Council meeting. Another Member supported this commenting that as Cabinet’s decision related to the 2017/18 budget. Cabinet had relied on an incomplete draft budget to make its decision and the details of the 2017/18 budget had not been made available so it was therefore difficult to judge the appropriateness of the decision. The Chief Legal Officer advised that the next meeting being the budget meeting was not sufficient grounds for referring the matter to Council. In order to refer the matter to Council the Committee would have to agree that Cabinet’s decisions were contrary to the policy framework or budget. The Chief Finance Officer advised that the decision was a matter for Cabinet and its impact on next year’s budget would be reflected in the proposals submitted to Council.  A Member queried whether it would be possible at the Budget Council meeting to change Cabinet’s decision by amending the draft budget. The Chief Legal Officer advised that the £200,000 saving resulting from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 683.

This report advises the Committee of two notices of call-in received from six Members of the Council of the Cabinet’s decisions 176–179/2017.

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding a call-in received from six Members of the Council of Cabinet’s decisions 176-179/2017 in relation to the creation of traded services for the delivery of category management services and also a staffing agency. The Committee was requested to consider the Cabinet decisions and decide either to take no further action, refer the decisions back to Cabinet or to refer the decisions to Council for reconsideration.

Councillor Maple, the Lead Member for the call-ins, explained the reasons for the call-ins as outlined in paragraph 2.2 of the report. The decisions had been called in out of concerns about the practicalities rather than an objection in principle to delivering services through an alternative service delivery model. He suggested that the decisions would have benefited from pre-decision scrutiny, which had not been possible due to timing issues. Regarding the category management decisions he questioned whether the proposals would generate the revenues projected due to doubts about whether there was sufficient business in the market. He asked whether the staff who would be transferred in both services would be part of the Local Government Pension Scheme and also where they would be physically based.

The Chief Legal Officer replied that the category management proposals had been tested for two years on a shadow basis. Time had been taken to develop the proposals and a modest assessment had been made of the initial market share. Whilst the procurement market was shrinking he felt there was still a reasonably sized market in the south east. In the short term the staff would be based in Gun Wharf but at some point alternative premises would be looked at.

The Chief People Officer added that Medway Commercial Group was a scheduled body in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) so staff transferred over would be able to retain membership. New staff employed by MCG and agency staff would not be able to opt into the LGPS.

In terms of the relationship between MCG and the Council, it was queried how the Council would deal with MCG performance issues. The Chief Legal Officer advised that the Council was the only shareholder of MCG. Responsibility would still rest with the Council and MCG would be held to account for service delivery based on the contract.

In terms of the staffing agency he asked for clarification on the following points:

·         What would be the practical arrangements when the Council engaged staff supplied by the staffing agency in terms of the Council being both client and employer?

·         What would the ratios be in respect of the Council’s charge for agency staff?

·         Would the fostering service be part of the staffing agency?

·         Would there be any areas where the staffing agency would not accept work (i.e. an organisation with whom the Council was in dispute)?

·         How could overview and scrutiny engage and have an influence on draft budget decisions in a timely manner?

The Chief People Officer advised that the MCG model meant there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 684.

This report presents the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) capital and revenue budgets for 2017/18 and provides details of proposed rent and service charge levels for 2017/18.  The report also contains the latest revised forecasts of the HRA Business Plan.

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) capital and revenue budgets for 2017/18 which also provided details of proposed rent and service charge levels for 2017/18 and the latest revised forecasts of the HRA Business Plan.

Members’ attention was drawn to the reference in the Diversity Impact Assessment (DIA) to a review of the charge levied for a licence to allow residents to cross HRA land to park in their front garden. As this review was not now being taken forward, the reference to this in the DIA which would be submitted to Cabinet would be removed.

A Member commented that service standards had noticeably improved in recent years and capital works were also better managed. He queried why there was a difference in garage rents for council tenants as opposed to other residents and suggested that if there were empty garages then the council should look to maximise rental income and not differentiate between council tenants and non tenants.

Some Members welcomed that Government’s re-think of the “pay to stay” policy and criticised the Government’s decision to impose a 1% reduction in weekly rents from 2016/17 and the next three years.

A Member queried the statement in the HRA Business Plan which suggested there had been no increase in bad debt due to the roll out of Universal Credit. Officers clarified that the previous year’s figure had been £105,000 so the current assumption of £75,000 represented a reduction. Officer undertook to clarify the wording in the Business Plan in relation to bad debt provision.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)    recommend to the Cabinet:

i)     a proposed rent decrease of 1% for the housing stock as set out in Appendix A to the report (based upon 52 collection weeks);

ii)      a rent increase of 5% for garages;

iii)    that the current policy of charging higher rent where a tenant has a taxable income per annum of £60,000 be retained and no change to the threshold;

iv)    that the service charges and increases as set out in Appendix B of the report for 2017/18 be approved;

v)      that the revenue budget for the HRA Service for 2017/18 as per Appendix C to the report be approved;

vi)      that the future provision for the repayment debt be based on annuity based payment as opposed to minimum revenue payment of 2% on the HRA opening outstanding debt;

vii)     to use remaining allowable balance of 1-4-1capital receipts (for the capital receipts received during 2017/18 from RTB sales) to be used to fund towards the 2017/18 HRA planned capital programme, and;

viii)   that members approve the revised 30 year HRA Business Plan model as attached at appendix E.

b)    note that officers will explore whether equalising garage rents for council tenants and non-council tenants would lead to an increase in  income;

c)    note that officers will clarify the wording in the HRA business plan about bad debt assumptions due to the roll out of Universal Credit. 

In May 2016, following a far reaching and extensive review the Housing (Demand, Supply and Affordability) Task Group made a number of recommendations to help manage demand and improve the supply and affordability of housing in Medway.  The Task group considered 3 key issues of enquiry and heard evidence from a number of sources and those working in the field.

This report and attached action plan (Appendix 1) summarises progress against each recommendation.

Discussion:

A Member asked if the team had sufficient capacity to deal with issues such as private tenants’ fears of revenge evictions should complaints be made. Officers replied that making sure tenants were aware of their rights could be a challenge. The tenant accreditation scheme had been successful and the team would look at how to make sure tenants received information. In response a Member suggested the Council look at bite size learning as an effective and cost effective way to get the message across.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to note the progress made against the Task

Group recommendations.

This report outlines Medway Commercial Group (MCG) Limited’s achievements and performance up to the second quarter in its first year of trading, and its plans for future growth and development.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which outlined Medway Commercial Group (MCG) Limited’s achievements and performance up to the second quarter in its first year of trading, and its plans for future growth and development.

In response to a question about targets, the Committee was advised that MCG was on target to achieve its agreed accumulated savings for the next two financial years (£254,000 in Year 2 and £406,000 in Year 3).

Noting that Norse at a national level also carried out some MCG functions, a Member asked how any conflicts of interest were being safeguarded against. The Committee were advised that there were some services MCG could provide more efficiently than Norse and vice-versa.

A Member asked about the extent to which MCG companies would trade and whether this would be limited to Kent. MCG’s CEO replied that this depended on the business and the market. There were no geographical restrictions for the delivery of tele care or CCTV.

In response to whether there were any plans for MCG to set up a joint venture with another Council, Members were advised that positive discussions had taken place with Norse at a national level.

In response to a question about subsidiary bodies and procurement, MCG’s CEO replied that there were two subsidiaries which would bid for contracts – a Teckal company to which the Council could award contracts and a non-Teckal company, which could trade with the private sector. The Chief Finance Officer added that there would then be a number of subsidiary companies to which delivery of the contracts would be sub-contracted.  A Member queried why the Cabinet report which set out details of the governance arrangements did not refer to this detail and emphasised the need for the governance arrangements to be clear. The Chief Legal Officer advised that specialist advice on the governance arrangements was being sought and would be shared with Members when possible.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to note the achievements and performance of Medway Commercial Group Limited (MCG) for the second quarter of 2016, as detailed in the report

The purpose of this report is to conclude the progress made against the procurement strategy 2013-16 and to provide an update on the progress made against the Council’s new procurement strategy 2016-21. 

Discussion:

Decision:

Members noted the progress made against the previous Procurement Strategy 2013-16 and the progress against the new strategy 2016-21.

This report presents for consideration the comments of all Overview and Scrutiny Committees on the provisional draft budget for 2017/18 proposed by Cabinet on 22 November 2016.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which set out the comments of all Overview and Scrutiny Committees on the provisional draft budget for 2017/18 proposed by Cabinet on 22 November 2016.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to forward the comments from individual Overview and Scrutiny committees, as set out in Section 3 of the report, to Cabinet on 7 February 2017, highlighting in particular the concerns of the Regeneration, Culture and Environment O&S Committee that the information provided on the draft budget contained insufficient information to enable the Committee to undertake a robust review of the capital and revenue budgets.

This report provides an update on progress towards setting the Council’s

draft capital and revenue budgets for 2017/18.  In accordance with the Constitution, Cabinet is required to develop ‘initial budget proposals’ approximately three months before finalising the budget and setting

council tax levels at the end of February 2017.

Discussion:

Members considered a report on progress towards setting the Council’s draft capital and revenue budgets for 2017/18. In accordance with the Constitution, Cabinet was required to develop ‘initial budget proposals’ approximately three months before finalising the budget and setting council tax levels at the end of February 2017.

The draft budget was based on the principles contained in the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2016/2020 approved by Cabinet in September and reflected the latest formula grant assumptions.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)        note that Cabinet has instructed officers to continue to work with Portfolio Holders in formulating robust proposals to balance the budget for 2017/18 and beyond, and;

b)        note the proposals outlined in the draft capital and revenue budgets in so far as they relate to the services within the remit of this committee.

This report sets out proposed changes to the Council Plan.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which summarised proposed changes to the Council Plan 2016/21 which included:

·         1 new programme

·         6 additional new council plan measures of success (from 38 in 2016/17 to 44 in 2017/18)

·         3 deferred council plan measures

·         7 changes to targets

Members discussed the following:

NI156 (Number of households living in temporary accommodation – a Member expressed concern that there were not any supplementary indicators supporting this target given that there were a number of factors involved in this issue.

NI154 (net additional homes provided) – a Member referred to the target of 1,000 dwellings per year and noted that this was considerably below the Local Plan Target and did not reflect the current backlog of 5-6,000 units. He commented that a much higher figure was needed which would make a difference and prevent homelessness issues. The Assistant Director – Transformation replied that the 1,000 figure related to the last objective needs assessment carried out in 2014. Further work had been undertaken following latest National Planning Guidance but that had not yet been formally adopted. This would be confirmed through the adoption of the Local Plan.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)    note the proposed changes to programmes, key measures of success and targets as summarised in Appendix A to ensure the delivery of the Plan remains focused, informative and relevant, and;

b)    ask that Cabinet consider the comments in relation to sub indicators and revising upwards the target for the number of net additional homes provided.

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding the Committee’s current work

programme.

Referring to the earlier discussion about the transfer of staff to MCG (see minute no 684), a Member referred, in connection with the possible need for the issue to be added to the work programme, to a statement in the report to Cabinet which said pension liabilities would transfer to MCG with a beneficial impact for the Council. Advice given earlier had been that liabilities would not transfer and it therefore appeared that contradictory advice had been given and there had been little clarity on this important issue when Cabinet had taken the decision. The Chief Finance Officer acknowledged the ambiguity in the advice referred to in the Cabinet report but confirmed that pensions liabilities would not transfer to MCG and confirmation of that had been received when MCG had been established.

Following advice that the call in had already been dealt with and could not be re-visited, Members agreed to ask for a briefing note on the position regarding pensions liabilities.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)            noted the current work programme (Appendix 1 to the report);

b)            agreed the changes to the current work programme, as set out in

paragraph 3 of the report;

c)            noted the work programmes of all overview and scrutiny committees

(Appendix 2 to the report).

d)            asked for a briefing note to clarify the situation in terms of where pension labilities sat following the transfer of staff from the Council to MCG.

Decision:

The press and public were excluded from the meeting during consideration of  the exempt material contained within appendices B and D to agenda item 8 (Category Management Traded Services and Staffing Traded Services) because consideration of these matters in public would disclose information falling within paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as specified in agenda item 17 (Exclusion of Press and Public) and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Committee considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.