Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record

These minutes were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

To confirm as a correct record

These minutes were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:

(i)            any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) and / or

(ii)           other interests arising under the Code of Conduct

in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at the meeting. Anyone with a DPI must, unless a dispensation has been granted, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the relevant item of business.  If in doubt, advice should be sought from the Monitoring Officer or her staff prior to the meeting.

Councillors declared non-pecuniary interests in agenda item 8 (Rental Grant Subsidy Applications – Minute 123) as follows:

(i)    Councillor Pursehouse, on the basis that he was the Chairman of a nature reserve organisation (Blanchman’s Farm) which:

·           was similar to the Lingfield Nature Reserves Association; and  

·           would be applying for a similar rent subsidy in near future once its current lease expired

(ii)   Councillor Bloore, on the basis that he was the Council’s representative on the Blanchman’s Farm Nature Reserve Committee

(iii)  Councillor Lockwood, on the basis that she was the Council’s representative on the Lingfield Community Wildlife Area Management Committee.  

The Chief Finance Officer responded to questions from Councillor Gillman, as attached at Appendix A.    

An analysis of forecast expenditure against the Council’s overall revenue budget of £11,351k, as at the end of June 2022 (Month 3) was presented. A £573k overspend was forecast, split between the four policy committees as follows:

·         Community Services: £200k

·         Planning Policy: £124k

·         Strategy & Resources: £244k

·         corporate items: £5k

Potential mitigations totalling £484k through the following planned contingencies were identified, namely:

·         £100k – reserve contribution held within the 2022/23 budget

·         £117k - general contingencies within the 2022/23 budget

·         £317k – set aside to meet known 2022/23 risks as part of theR2021/22 outturn, less £50k used for the £450 cost of living support proposal as referred to below.

The shortfall in property rental income could also be met from the Income Equalisation Reserve, totalling £215k, should it be deemed necessary. 

Upon reviewing the Revenues & Benefits budget, it was considered more logical for £270k of income items held within Strategy & Resources to be transferred to ‘corporate items’ as part of collection fund management.  A virement between the two budgets was recommended to that effect, bringing the Committee’s budget down to £6,222k.

The Capital Programme was forecasting £60k of slippage in the Housing General Fund.

The report also covered the following two matters:

(i)           Confirmation that the Council’s application to Government for a capital dispensation (initially to replenish General Fund Reserves and to secure flexibility for a further amount to fund the transformation programme) had been refused. This was based on the Government’s assessment of the Council’s overall financial position, including the current level of reserves and measures underway to meet the identified budget pressures.  In the meantime, sector-wide flexibility to use capital receipts to fund transformation initiatives had been extended, so plans to fund the Future Tandridge Programme were not at risk. While the Government regarded capital dispensation as a measure of last resort, a further application would be considered should funding for the Council in 2023/24 be insufficient to meet emerging risks.

(ii)          A proposal to make a one-off payment of £450 to staff on grades TC1 to TA2, given the absence of a cost of living pay increase for 2022/23. While the Council’s financial position remained extremely challenging, management recognised the impact of the cost of living crises upon staff. The payment would cost the General Fund c.£50k (funded from the surplus from the 2021/22 outturn position) and the Housing Revenue Account c.£10k. The contingencies listed above had been adjusted for this.

A wide range of views were expressed regarding the recommended £450 payment to staff referred to in (ii) above. Councillor Gillman, in light of the responses to his Standing Order 30 questions, proposed an amendment that, if such a payment was to be awarded, it should be restricted to those staff (on grades TC1 to TA2) who had not received an increment for 2022/23. This amendment was not seconded, so did not proceed to a vote. Other Members of the Committee were in favour of the original recommendation. 

Various matters were discussed regarding the £573k forecast  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

Phase 1 (mobilisation and design) of the Future Tandridge Programme (FTP) was coming to an end. The resources required to deliver the FTP’s objectives of transforming the Council’s operating model with associated revenue savings (Phase 2) now needed to be addressed.

The Committee considered a report which set out the:

·       budgetary context, in terms of the timetable to deliver the Council’s 2023/24 budget and an update on the likely financial position and scale of savings required

·       progress to date in delivering service reviews, with updates on all service areas currently in scope

·        directions of travel for becoming a ‘commissioning Council’ and for digital transformation

·        the expected resourcing plan for the delivery phase of the FTP. 

The Chief Executive reflected on the great amount of work being undertaken and referred to the FTP Member briefing on the 20^th September. He explained that subsequent Member engagement (about becoming a commissioning council and to enable scrutiny of outstanding business cases for service transformations and measures for generating required savings) would be arranged prior to the Committee’s next meeting on the 1^st December. It was acknowledged that business cases for service transformations under the purview of the Community Services and Housing Committees had already been published for the meetings originally scheduled for the 8th and 15th September respectively (both meetings had been cancelled following the passing of Her Majesty the Queen).

The Chief Finance Officer gave an update on the budget setting process for 2023/24 and explained that the scenario modelling (pessimistic / optimistic / neutral) would be refreshed. He considered that, in view of the current macro-economic situation, the savings requirement for 2023/24 were likely to increase by £0.5 million, i.e. from £1.7 million to £2.2 million.

The £500k investment required for securing the FTP’s delivery phase, including the necessary revenue budget savings, was discussed. A breakdown of how that sum would be applied was set out in Appendix F to the report. The original officer recommendation had been revised whereby the investment would be released in two phases.

Debate focused on the risks associated with the FTP (Appendix E to the report) including:

·         the role of the Audit & Scrutiny Committee in the process

·         the need for specific officers to be accountable for the management of each risk

·         the rationale for certain mitigated risk scores (some of which were challenged)

·         reference to the fact that the Programme Manager would be meeting the Chair of the Audit & Scrutiny Committee to discuss the risk management process.

Some Members questioned whether sufficient information had been presented to justify the release of the £500k investment for Phase 2. In that respect, the wider project management aspects of the FTP were discussed and challenged, including:

·     whether the £28,000 contingency for the delivery phase was sufficient

·     clarification that key project milestones were in place, although more work was due to be undertaken to complete the finer details of the project plan

·     the importance of officer accountability 

·     an explanation that, although more in depth FTP analysis and documentation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

The Committee considered applications for rental subsidies from three tenant organisations, namely the Lingfield Nature Reserves Association, Lingfield Sports Association and the Caterham & Whyteleafe Tennis Club. In all three cases, the officer recommendation was to grant renewed 100% rental subsidies, subject to the organisations entering into new lease agreements (with repair and maintenance obligations) and seeking additional funding sources.

It was explained that community organisations which operated from Council owned land / buildings were invited to submit such applications when their current leases were about to expire or at rent review. In the case of the two Lingfield organisations, their leases had not yet expired, but the organisations had approached the Council to renegotiate their leases so they could have a longer-term certainty (at least 15 years but ideally 25 years) in order to be eligible for grant funding. 

Councillor Pursehouse proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Bloore, to:

(i)      clarify that the 100% rental subsidy for the Lingfield Nature Reserves Association would apply throughout the duration of the new lease

(ii)      continue, and index link, the Council’s annual £700 contribution to the Lingfield Nature Reserves Association towards grass cutting costs (the report envisaged that this contribution would cease)

(iii)     ensure that all three organisations (and subsequent rent subsidy applicants) would not be precluded from applying for any future Council grants that may be available.

This amendment was agreed, the rationale for (ii) above being that the Lingfield Nature Reserves is a non-revenue generating organisation.         

            R E S O L V E D – that:

A.   a 100% rental grant subsidy (for the duration of the lease referred to in (i) below) be awarded to the Lingfield Nature Reserves Association, subject to the Association:

(i)    entering into a 25-year lease in order to attract grant funding;

(ii)   being fully responsible for all repair and maintenance within the demise (notwithstanding B below); and

(iii)  seeking external grant and other funding, significantly from non TDC sources, and undertaking fundraising to achieve ongoing maintenance and improvements (e.g. footpath renewals);

B.  the Council will continue to provide an annual contribution to the Lingfield Nature Reserves Association towards grass cutting costs (£700 for 2022/23 and index linked thereafter); 

C.   a rental grant subsidy of 100% be awarded to the Lingfield Sports Association, subject to the Association:

(i)    entering into a 25-year lease in order to attract grant funding;

(ii)   being fully responsible for all repair and maintenance for buildings and the grounds within the demise; and

(iii)  seeking external grant and other funding, significantly from non TDC sources, and fundraising to achieve ongoing maintenance and improvements;

D.   a rental grant subsidy of 100% be awarded to Caterham & Whyteleafe Tennis Club, subject to the Club:

(i)    entering into a 15-year lease in order to attract grant funding;

(ii)   taking full responsibility for repairs to the entire demise, including for the clubhouse, all grass cutting, litter clearance, internal fencing and court maintenance; and

(iii)  seeking external grant and other funding, significantly from non TDC sources, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

To note the minutes of the meeting held on the 9^th August 2022 and to receive an update from the Chair of the Working Group about any subsequent developments.

The minutes of the Working Group’s meeting held on the 9^th August 2022, attached at Appendix B, were presented.

The Group had intended to reconvene on the 19^th September in light of the fact that Surrey District and Borough Leaders were due to discuss the County Deal on the 16^th September. However, both meetings had been cancelled following the passing of Her Majesty the Queen. Councillor Sayer advised that, in view of those unavoidable delays, Surrey County Council had extended the deadline for receipt of District / Borough representations (with proposals for potential inclusion within a County Deal) from the 3^rd October to a date after 21st October. The exact revised deadline was yet to be confirmed.    

            R E S O L V E D – that the minutes of the Group’s meeting held on the 9^th August 2022, and the update from Councillor Sayer, be noted.