Agenda item

This report details the areas covered by the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance which fall within the remit of this Committee. These are listed each time a Cabinet Member is invited to attend any of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees to be held to account.

Discussion:

Members received an overview of progress on the area within the terms of reference of this Committee and covered by the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance as set out below:

·                    Better for Less

·                    Communications and marketing (including Bluewave Communications Partnership)

·                    Council Plan

·                    Council tax and business rates

·                    Finance

·                    Housing benefit

·                    Performance and service improvement

·                    Property

·                    Risk management

·                    Category management (previously Strategic Procurement)

The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance, Councillor Alan Jarrett, responded to Member’s questions and comments as follows:

·                    Children’s Social Care - In response to a question on the recurring impact of increases in the Children’s Social Care budget, the Portfolio Holder for Finance advised that year on year the base budget had been increased to take account of rising demand and there had also been in-year additions to the budget.  Whilst measures were in place to manage demand, such as effective gate keeping, the Portfolio Holder stated it was not clear whether or not resource levels were now sufficient. He referred to the challenges for local authorities in this important area of service provision. 

·                    Staff Pay - with reference to the projected budget gap through to 2017/18 the Portfolio Holder was asked about the impact on staff and the local economy of an ongoing assumption of a 0% pay increase for Council employees. In response the Portfolio Holder acknowledged that the management of the projected budget gap would be a challenge for the Council and stated he was acutely conscious that staff had received no pay award for four years. He stated that a 1% pay rise for staff equated to a budget pressure of £800,000. His objective was to keep people in work and to recognise the excellent job being done by many staff. He referred to his public commitment at Cabinet to endeavour to make budget provision for a pay award and/or PRP, albeit modest, but this would have to be considered in the context of the challenging financial climate.

·                    Performance Related Pay – The view was expressed that PRP can be disastrous with experience elsewhere resulting in the system being overloaded with appeals and abandoned in year three. The Portfolio Holder said he did not share that view and that he firmly supported a pay award scheme based on performance and going the extra mile.

·                    Category Management – In respect of the £3.5 million of annualised savings achieved by the team, the Portfolio Holder for Finance advised that he expected performance to continue at this level. The savings achieved in 2013/14 represented an overall 17% reduction in spend on third party contracts. The Procurement Board and Cabinet would continue to robustly monitor and oversee procurement activity through the Gateway process seeking savings at every opportunity. This included work to minimize reliance on the provision for exemptions from contract rules which was usually attributable to poor planning for contract renewals and work to review the Council’s spend on minor contracts which amounted to £10 million.

·                    Napier Primary School - The Committee was advised that the contract for the provision of additional space at the school had been commissioned by Head of Performance and Strategic Planning in the Children and Adult Services Directorate.

·                    Rochester Airport - In response to a question about the timing of expenditure of the Council’s £4.4 million contribution to the development of Rochester Airport the Portfolio holder stated there would be no draw down of the funding until after completion of the planning process. A planning application had now been received. A member asked whether the applicant would undertake public consultation as there had been no community impact assessment, making particular reference to the traffic impact likely to be generated by the Fire and Rescue Centre. The Portfolio Holder stated that planning officers would be assessing all aspects of the planning application and that he was aware the Airport Operator was keen to engage with the community. He acknowledged that traffic flows would be important in the context of the development.

·                    Robert Bean Lodge and Nelson Court – The Portfolio Holder was asked if the same levels of service provision were being provided at these facilities since outsourcing. He advised that levels of satisfaction were high among service users, their, families and staff. A view was expressed that conditions of service had worsened for staff and that the £200k capital receipt from transfer of the properties had been modest in relation to the value of the properties. The Portfolio Holder agreed the capital receipt had been modest but this had to be considered in the context of the revenue savings of £400k achieved in year 1 and a recurring £1.2 million from September 2014.

·                    Installation of Solar Panels at Corporate Sites – In response to a question regarding the timescale for achieving   potential income generation of £360,000 from the installation of the solar panels, the Portfolio Holder for Finance undertook to provide an answer to the Committee.

·                    Phase 2 for New Horizons – Following a question on progress, the Portfolio Holder for Finance advised that following the completion of Phase 1, school and education staff had seen an opportunity to utilise some spare space for the Special Educational Needs programme at an estimated additional cost of £0.75 million. This proposal was too sizeable to be dealt with as a variation to the contract so had consequently undergone the Gateway 1 process and was currently out to tender with a report expected back to Cabinet. It was hoped the work would be completed in 2015.

·                    Schools Condition Programme 2014/15 - In relation to the removal of asbestos from Academies, the Committee was advised there had been discussions between the Council and contractors regarding liability, as a consequence of which the Council agreed to pay a small amount towards asbestos removal at BORA with the contractors paying the majority of the costs. There was still an outstanding asbestos issue regarding the expansion of the New Brompton Primary and discussions were underway.  The Portfolio Holder stated that asbestos removal should be picked up and included in estimates by contractors at the survey stage and that the Council would continue to take a tough stance on this. With regard to the demolition at Temple School in preparation for the new build at Abbey Court School, the Portfolio Holder advised that he was as confident as he could be that the appropriate surveys had picked up any potential issues arising from the age of the buildings.

·                    New Community Hub, Twydall – following a question relating to when the development of the new community hub at Twydall would start, the Portfolio Holder for Finance acknowledged that the Leader had made a clear commitment to this provision at full Council and this commitment remained in place although the project would not commence until it was certain the Government would not direct the return of £2million transferred from the HRA for this and other community projects. He assured the Committee that the decision to transfer these monies from the HRA had been taken properly and that counsel’s opinion on this matter had been sought and had supported the Cabinet’s action. However the Government’s final position was awaited.

·                    Housing – the Portfolio holder asked Officers to clarify the location of properties referred to in the agenda as Cornish Manor. A member asked if Councillors could be provided with information available to members of the Asset Management Group relating to the costs of bathroom refurbishments undertaken in housing stock.

Decision:

The Committee:

(a)       noted that the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance would provide a response to the question regarding the timescale of realising the potential income generation of £360,000 from the installation of the solar panels.

(b)            thanked the Deputy Leader and the Portfolio Holder for Finance for his attendance at the meeting and the answers he had provided.