Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on the 19^th May 2020 were agreed.

The Chairman advised that, in respect of Minute 11 /Resolution B, the Recovery Working Group will not, after all, be convened. The intended purpose of the Working Group had, instead, been fulfilled by Group Leader meetings.

COUNCIL DECISION

(subject to ratification by Council)

The Committee considered a report on the outturn position for 2019/20 of the General Fund, Housing Revenue Account and the Capital Programme.

The report provided an overview of the Outturn for 2019/20, rather than a detailed analysis of the accounts which would be presented to the committee at a later date. The external audit of the Council’s 2019/20 accounts would commence in August. 

The provisional revenue outturn position for the General Fund was a net overspend of £1,990,857 (key variances shown at Appendix A). Measures had been introduced to control expenditure on temporary staff and contractors. The overspend would be financed from General Fund reserves, which would be reduce from £5,660,000 to £2,669,000. 

Regarding the Housing Revenue Account, the transfer to reserves in 2019/20 would be  £795,320 (compared to a budgeted transfer of £1,320,597 - key variances shown at Appendix B). 

The 2019/20 General Fund capital programme budget of £71,930,520 was underspent by £38,194,942. The HRA capital programme budget of £10,377,900 was underspent by £2,252,015. These underspends were mostly due to slippage totalling £39,456,748, i.e. expenditure on individual schemes which, whilst unspent during 2019/20, was still necessary to complete the schemes (Appendix C refers). Approval was therefore sought for the £39,456,748 to be carried forward and added to the capital programme budget for future years.

During the debate, Members commented on the way in which the Council’s accounts were presented, including the need for greater clarity and transparency. In connection with this, it was clarified that the “planning enforcement underspend of £36,644” only related to non-salaries expenditure and that the inclusion of salary costs of staff working on planning enforcement represented an overspend of £322,438.

R E C O M M E N D E D  – that:

A.        that the draft financial position of the Council’s outturn for 2019/20 be noted; and

B.        the Capital Programme be increased by £38,139,248 in 2020/21 and £1,317,500 in 2021/22 to reflect the slippage of capital underspend from the 2019/20 financial year (total slippage of £39,456,748).

COMMITTEE DECISIONS

(Under powers delegated to the Committee)

The Committee considered progress against its KPIs for the fourth quarter of 2019/20, together with the associated risk analysis.

Debate focused on the (amber) risk entitled “failure to remain financially sustainable”, including concerns that the likelihood score was now probably higher than 2 and that the control / mitigation comments did not reflect the urgency of the situation.  Officers advised that the risk analysis within the report reflected the position at the end of March 2020 and that the format and content of the corporate risk register was under review.

Officers responded to comments about the Council’s IT systems and website (Risks 4 and 13)  in the context of the Council’s engagement with partners and residents during the Covid-19 emergency. The implications of a possible local government reorganisation throughout Surrey in light of the forthcoming Recovery and Devolution White Paper were also discussed.   

Members appreciated that risk registers should be live documents and felt that, in future, the risk register presented should reflect the current position.     

R E S O L V E D – that performance against the Committee’s KPIs for the fourth quarter of 2019/20, together with the associated risk analysis, be noted.

In respect of the minutes of this meeting (attached at Appendix D) the Chairman advised that the actions under the property investment item had not been undertaken and were pending the outcome of the Government consultation on the lending terms of the Public Works Loan Board.

R E S O L V E D – that, subject to acknowledgement that the actions under the property investment item have not been undertaken in view of the Government consultation on the lending terms of the Public Works Loan Board, the minutes of the meeting held on the 21^st May 2020, attached at Appendix D (now including the footnote regarding the property investment item) be noted.

A report was presented regarding the Council’s latest financial position in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.

A year end General Fund overspend of £2,576,727 was now forecast, based on a ‘realistic’ scenario. This reflected latest assumptions on the impact of Covid-19 and was less than the £3,878,461 overspend projection at the end of April 2020. The most significant factor in this revised forecast was that the more stringent social distancing rules were no longer anticipated for the waste collection service, resulting in a £833,300 cost reduction. However, the adverse forecast variance regarding income from property investments had increased by £197,000 to £497,000.

General Fund reserves would have to be reduced to £1,092,000 to fund the projected overspend, although the Medium Term Financial Strategy would seek to replenish reserves in future years by adding £500,000 to the base budget per annum.

The Housing Revenue Account was projected to be overspent by £87,000 at the year end, assuming that rent collection would reduce and an increased transfer to the bad debts provision will be required. This position had improved from the £154,000 overspend forecast in April as savings had been identified within the programme of planned repairs and maintenance

The capital budget for the whole Council totalled £81,972,800 and was forecast to be underspent by £69,222,000 in 2020-21. The most significant variance concerned the Property Development Fund as the Council was now reconsidering its investment strategy while the results of a government consultation into PWLB borrowing are awaited. Capital expenditure on the council house building programme and the upkeep of the housing stock had been particularly affected by Covid-19 following the suspension of works. 

Along with other billing authorities, the under collections of council tax and business rates presented cash flow challenges. Tandridge only retained a small proportion of the income, with the majority being paid to preceptors. Surrey County Council had indicated a willingness to allow precepts to be flexed and was engaging in a data gathering exercise with Boroughs and Districts to assess the financial impact. For Tandridge, cash flow modelling indicated that forward council tax receipts would mitigate the impact of the shortfall in business rate receipts until the end of the year.

The report also referred to:

·                the Council’s income streams being adversely affected by the crisis

·                the efforts of the Local Government Association and the District Council Network to alert the Government to the financial emergency facing Local Authorities

·                Government support initiatives for businesses, including a business rates holiday and three business support grants schemes for which funding had been provided for the Council to administer and allocate (Small Business Grants Fund, Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grant Fund, and a Discretionary Fund for Tandridge);

·                regarding the first two funds referred to above, £19,214,000 had provided by the Government for the Council to administer and, to date, £17,380,000 had been allocated to 1,394 businesses (82% of those estimated to be eligible);

·                regarding the Discretionary Fund referred to above, grants had been allocated following consultation with a Member advisory  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

A report was submitted to update Members on progress with key recovery workstreams underway throughout the Council and to seek endorsement of a Corporate Improvement Plan.

The report included reference to the intention to establish a longer term senior management structure; measures to control the recruitment agency/ temporary staff and to improve governance; additional capacity commissioned from the Local Government Association (LGA); an external review of the Council’s governance by the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS); collaborative working among the leaders of the three main political groups; the successful implementation of new refuse collection arrangements; the launch of a residents’ survey; and actions to raise staff morale.

The report confirmed that other actions were being progressed, including the recruitment of a new Chief Finance Officer; a workforce review to find an affordable longer-term staffing solution for delivering ‘business as usual’ services; engagement with stakeholders to inform the development of a strategic plan; engagement withStaff Conference to support the development of a refreshed set of values and behaviours as the first part of a culture change programme; stabilisation and transformation of the planning service; and a financial recovery plan. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon the Council’s operations was also highlighted.

A proposed improvement plan had been developed to identify actions and to enable the Committee to monitor the delivery against assigned timescales. The plan also included workstreams that would:

·                     enable the Council to assure itself that key statutory responsibilities were met

·                     address particular service improvement challenges

·                     take into account the Council’s position post COVID and the “new normal”

·                     enable and progress partnership working

·                     facilitate external challenge and support through a Corporate Peer Challenge.

Capacity for a Programme Management Officer would be identified for this and other non ‘business as usual’ activities.  Work was underway to identify how to free up and develop existing resources to undertake this role as part of the new staffing structure. An officer-level Corporate Improvement Programme Board would also be created to oversee the plan’s implementation and ensure appropriate risk management. 

During the debate, Members emphasised the critical need for financial recovery to underpin the plan. The implications of emerging local government reorganisation proposals were also discussed, together with the extent to which the Council should aspire to deliver non-statutory services in response to residents’ needs. 

A report was submitted to update Members on progress with key recovery workstreams underway throughout the Council and to seek endorsement of a Corporate Improvement Plan.

The report included reference to the intention to establish a longer term senior management structure; measures to control the recruitment agency/ temporary staff and to improve governance; additional capacity commissioned from the Local Government Association (LGA); an external review of the Council’s governance by the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS); collaborative working among the leaders of the three main political groups; the successful implementation of new refuse collection arrangements; the launch of a residents’ survey; and actions to raise staff morale.

The report confirmed that other actions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

A report was submitted to enable the Committee to consider proposed amendments to the Constitution in response to recent issues raised at, and arising from, Group Leader meetings. The suggested changes concerned the rights of political groups to appoint their Members to pre-allocated seats on Committees and Sub-Committees; enabling those asking questions under Standing Order 29 (1.2) to also ask a supplementary question; and to change Officer / Member consultation arrangements given that Tandridge is now a ‘no overall control’ Council.

The merits of amending recommendations C and D, to avoid reliance on officers having to make changes every time political balance changes, were discussed. Councillor Bourne, seconded by Councillor Botten, proposed that the recommendations should be approved as per the report but that the scope for making further amendments to future proof the Officer / Member consultation arrangements throughout the Constitution (to retain the objectives of recommendations C and D but without the need for further revisions to reflect changes in political control) be reconsidered by the Committee later in the year.

Arising from discussion about the proposed changes to Standing Order 29 (1.2), the Head of Legal agreed to consider a suggestion for a further future amendment to clarify the way in which supplementary questions may be answered.

R E C O M M E N D E D  – that

A.         Standing Orders 13, 20 and 21 be amended in accordance with Appendix F to clarify the rights of political groups to appoint, and subsequently change, their Members on pre-allocated seats on Committees and Sub-Committees;

B.         Standing Order 29 (1.2) be amended in accordance with Appendix G to allow a Councillor, or a person resident, working or studying in the District, to ask a supplementary question at a Council or Committee meeting arising from the answer to their original question;

C.      subject to the Council remaining in a state of no overall control (i.e. where no single political group has an absolute majority of seats),  throughout Financial Regulations, the Scheme of Delegation and the Planning Protocol (parts C, E and F of the Constitution), all references to officers having to consult specific Members of the Administration (listed at Appendix H) be deleted and replaced with a requirement that  such consultations take place with the Leaders, or their nominated representatives, of political groups comprising ten or more Councillors;

D.      should a single political group gain an absolute majority of seats on the Council, the Chief Executive, in accordance with the power granted by Standing Order 46 (2), be authorised to rescind the constitutional amendments in C above and replace them with a requirement for officers to consult solely with the Leader of the Council or his/her nominated representative; and

E.      the scope for making further amendments to future proof the Officer / Member consultation arrangements throughout the Constitution (to retain the objectives of recommendations C and D above but without the need for further revisions to reflect changes in political control) be reconsidered by the Committee later  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

The Committee agreed that webcasting be terminated for this item as it would otherwise involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (“Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information”).

A £360,000 award from Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds to Surrey County Council for the purposes of a road safety scheme near Burstow Primary School in Smallfield (Wheelers Lane and Redehall Road junction) was proposed. Details of the proposed scheme were presented.

For background purposes, the report explained the CIL regime whereby charges (arising from the planning process) were collected in order to help fund infrastructure requirements. Five priorities for CIL spending priorities had previously been identified by the Council as follows:

·                increasing capacity in education;

·                increasing capacity in health;

·                flood alleviation;

·                regeneration; and

·                highways improvements.

Upon introducing the item, Officers advised of an amendment to the report arising from discussion with Members prior to the meeting. This concerned the fourth and final caveat to the proposed award for the road safety scheme which Officers wished to change as follows: 

“(iv)   should costs increase, the Highways Authority would be required to reapply should they seek any additional contributions from CIL funds  while the scheme is being delivered, the Highway Authority would be expected to cover them, but if the Highway Authority believes that the only way this could be done was through CIL, a new CIL application for the additional funds would need to be submitted for the committee’s consideration in the knowledge that the outcome of such a bid could not be guaranteed.”

Discussion on the merits of the bid ensued.

Officers confirmed the intention to review the criteria and process for future CIL allocations. Member seminars on this subject would be arranged accordingly. 

R E S O L V E D – that an award of £360,000 of Community Infrastructure Levy funds be made to Surrey County Council as the relevant Highway Authority to undertake road safety improvements near Burstow Primary School in Smallfield subject to:

(i)         the Highway Authority incurring the costs upfront and is reimbursed using the CIL award

(ii)           the funds to be provided at the appropriate stage as set out in paragraph 5.1. of the report (i.e. “ … to allow the Highway Authority to incur the costs up front and be reimbursed for the works on satisfactory delivery”)

(iii)         the funds being spent within 2 years of this committee date for the works described in this report.

(iv)         should costs increase while the scheme is being delivered, the Highway Authority would be expected to cover them, but if the Highway Authority believes that the only way this could be done was through CIL, a new CIL application for the additional funds would need to be submitted for the committee’s consideration in the knowledge that the outcome of the bid could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Committee was invited to nominate Members to serve on these two bodies.

R E C O M M E N D E D  – that

A.         Councillor Connolly be nominated to fill the vacant trustee position on the board of the Le Personne Benevolent Trust; and

B.         Councillor Lockwood be nominated to serve on the Gatwick Airport Noise Executive Board.

COMMITTEE DECISIONS

(Under powers delegated to the Committee)

The Committee was informed about Chief Officer Sub-Committee meetings that had taken place since the beginning of the 2019/20 Municipal Year.

The Committee agreed to terminate public access to the meeting to enable Members to discuss the matter. The reason for this was that such discussion was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information defined in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (information relating to individuals) and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. 

            R E S O L V E D – that the report be noted.