Meeting documents

None, all members of the committee were present.

Councillor Mrs B Nathan declared a personal interest in Item 5 (Cabinet Member Update ? Finance & Resources) (min. no.28 refers) and in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Elected Members she remained in the meeting and was able to take part in the discussion and vote thereon.

That the minutes of the meetings held on 10 November 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.

The committee considered the list of matters arising from the last and earlier meetings. It was agreed to remove all the matters from the list, with the exception of the following:

23/06/15 ? Performance, Budget and Risk monitoring report ? year end 2014/15 (April 2014 ? March 2015) ? min. no.5 (3, 6, & 7)
22/09/15 - Cabinet Member Update ? Housing & Healthy Communities ? min. no.13 (3)
10/11/15 - Cabinet Member Update ? Corporate Support ? min. no.27 (2(a) & (c))
10/11/15 - Performance, Budget and Risk monitoring report ? mid-year 2015/16 (April 2015 ? September 2015) ? min. no.28 (5)

The chairman welcomed Councillor Bennett (Cabinet member for Finance & Resources) to the meeting. Councillor Bennett commented as whilst the council was using the figures for 2015/16 and was now working on the figures for the next financial year 2016/17 but had yet to receive its settlement figure.

It was appreciated the Cabinet member was new to the role and it was wondered what vision/priorities he might have taking the council forward. Councillor Bennett commented that every council service needed to be funded. However, as indicated the council was waiting to hear next month how much funding it would receive for next year. The council had been lobbying for a longer settlement period to enable greater stability and longer term plans when planning visions/projects. He did not want the council to simply make cuts to address financial challenges but look at income generation and pro-actively look at different ways of working and delivering services. The Cabinet member indicated that in the future there would be difficult decisions to be made and he wanted all members of the council to be aware and have more information on the council?s financial position. He touched on the council?s healthy level of reserves and that these would be looked at with a view to using them better (including still needed, enough or too much). Moving forward this could lead to the development of a new investment strategy with maybe a slightly different approach to the use of reserves. The council?s stable financial position enable a degree of flexibility.

In respect of the Cabinet member meeting with the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the My Neighbourhoods in respect of Section 106 monies, he indicated that the offer had been made and he awaited a response. He added regarding an enquiry about Section106 and developing a grants policy, Councillor Bennett stated that as such requests were so rare the use of resources to create a policy could not be justified. Any requests would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Remaining on the topic of Section 106 monies, the Cabinet member commented that this had recently dominated conversation. However, he had welcomed the question put to him at the last meeting of the Council. As this had raised the profile and councillors? understanding. In respect of projects by the My Neighbourhoods, these looked at numerous funding streams and could include the use of Section 106 monies.

Councillor Bennett re-assured the committee that Section 106 monies would not be used to support the county council?s underwriting of City Deal. The monies held by the borough council were for specific purposes and some could not be linked together. In deed approximately ?1.8m of the approximate total ?3.4m Section 106 monies held by this borough council had to be used in connection with housing.

In relation to the projected budget gap in future years and wondering what opportunities might be available to the council, Councillor Bennett commented that the council had an excellent property portfolio and maybe there was a better way to invest than simply through the bank. The council currently provided a lot of non-statutory services and nothing was ruled out from being examined/reviewed. The sharing of services had worked well but that could only go so far. The council needed to use its assets better. The council had previously made savings but that could only go so far, but change was not always negative. The council would look at a number of strands to increase income and improve the council?s outlook in the future.

Continuing with the projected budget gap in 2017/18 (?1.2m out of an overall revenue budget of ?9m), it was wondered at what point the council might not be viable. The Cabinet member stated he was raising awareness and the council?s financial position was nowhere near being in non-viable. The council could not and would not put off looking at the projected budget gap. In forthcoming weeks it was anticipated that the government would announce changes to the system of business rates. Following which there would be local authority losers and winners and as yet the council just did not know.

Looking at the Annual Audit Letter 2014/15 there was a question around the apparent difference in the original and actual audit fees. Also relating to the external auditors, it was confirmed that Grant Thornton did not carry out any work for the council other than that associated with the audit.

The committee enquired about the reference in the report under challenges on page 6, to exploring the feasibility of different delivery models. The Cabinet member indicated that this had not been finalised but could include a further look at shared services arrangements. There were some non-specific topics in the council?s business transformation programme. It would look at service areas not directly affecting residents or that were non-statutory and if a services was also provided by the private sector should they continue to be provided by the council. The council had for a few years now, not automatically replaced staff when they left. The post/structure was assessed and might result in the service area/delivery re-structured rather than the post filled.

Emergency Planning was within the Finance and Resources portfolio and it was wondered if Councillor Bennett received updates on the plan and whether it had been revised following the recent Storm Desmond. Councillor Bennett confirmed he received updates, but not as yet regarding the outcomes of this storm as it was so recent. The council awaited revised advice/guidance from the Environment Agency. In respect of South Ribble, Walton-le-Dale had been on alert but fortunately there had not been any flooding. He offered to inform the committee in due course.

The Cabinet member responding to enquiries about the council?s Strategic Asset Review indicated that the review would report back in April. The review was in five stages with the Civic Centre the first to be looked at. It wold provide a platform on which to make decisions. In respect of the empty office space in the Civic Centre, whilst there was an apparent shortage in the borough, this building lent itself to be occupied by another public sector partner/body. The council needed the evidence from this first stage of the review before deciding the way forward.

Councillor Bennett added that it was always more difficult to let upper floors of a building and especially in council offices. Should the council remain in the Civic Centre building? The council needed to look at what it required. The council had a good property portfolio, should this be expanded, did it fit with the Corporate Plan? He offered to provide more information as soon as possible, which might be an interim report. In the next few weeks Councillor Bennett was to meet the consultants undertaking the review.

In respect of the investment property portfolio occupancy at 96% with increased income of ?54,000, Councillor Bennett clarified that this related to industrial units and not the Civic Centre etc but confirmed that all types of property were in the asset review.

The committee referred to the proposed Housing Strategy and whilst appreciating the council needed funding in place, where would this come from? The Cabinet member referred to the earlier comments around Section 106 monies (around ?3m) and that more than ?1m of this was linked to housing. There was also around ?1m from right to buy capital receipts. The City Deal was anticipated bring forward housing development in the borough and as part of this project millions of pounds had already been committed. It was waiting for the council to have the right strategy/policy in place.

It was felt that not all councillors understood local government/council finance and how/where to access funding. As a result there was a serious need to educate councillors. Councillor Bennett suggested the easiest method would be through Member Learning Hour session(s). Maybe hold a few sessions such as, between the publication of the papers for budget Cabinet and the meeting, one around the funding of My Neighbourhood Plans and another after the meeting of budget Cabinet but before the meeting of the council.

Referring to involving residents, the committee was informed that local government consulted continually and councillors were elected to spend council funds based on their manifesto. Councillor Bennett always encouraged money saving ideas.

In respect of the reference on page 6 to the bullet point maintaining energy efficiency performance, the Cabinet member commented that the biggest example was the council?s replacement of the windows (with upvc double glazed units) at the Civic Centre. The council continually looked at energy efficiency and if it was replacing the roof it would look at installing solar panels.

Regarding scrutiny?s help, the Cabinet member indicated that there were a few topics which could be first put to the committee, such as the review of assets.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the committee thanks the Cabinet member for Finance & Resources for his attendance and comprehensive responses to the committee;
2. the committee looks forward to a report to the Governance Committee on Section 106 monies in the new year;
3. the committee looks forward to the Cabinet member convening as soon as possible the meeting to brief the My Neighbourhood Chairmen and Vice-chairmen on Section 106;
4. the committee welcomes the offer to check the council?s external audit fee with Grant Thornton;
5. the committee looks forward to the Cabinet member providing re-assurance that the council?s emergency planning arrangements are robust, particularly regarding flooding and storms;
6. the committee welcomes the strategic asset review and appreciates the Cabinet member?s offer to present the outcome of the review to the scrutiny committee; and
7. the committee commends the proposal to explain and train members on the council?s finances and their respective roles.

The council annually reviewed/refreshed its Corporate Plan to identify any issues that might help it achieve its vision and priorities. The committee was asked to consider what those key issues were, and what it would like to see included in the corporate plan, medium term financial strategy and risk register for 2016/17.

The committee had initially looked at and updated last year?s submission. This was circulated at the meeting as its draft reply for 2016/17. The committee discussed the response and agreed to amend under general comments the point relating to the combined authority for Lancashire by removing ?to explore? and insert ?on?. It also agreed to amend the third point under Strong South Ribble with the addition of the words ?and implementation and monitoring of the new Housing Strategy and increasing the number of affordable houses?.

In respect of the combined authority it was wondered if it was possible to include a recommendation for targets to be SMART if the action was outside this council?s control. It was still felt appropriate for the committee to make such a recommendation.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the committee?s submission be as circulated with the above amendments and appended to these minutes.

a) Verbal update on Lancashire County Council's Health Scrutiny Committee ?
Councillor Mrs Blow had attended the recent meeting on behalf of the chairman. She indicated that Healthwatch Lancashire had attended and given a presentation around its increased work with the public and hospitals. The meeting had also discussed the proposed closure of Calderstones Hospital (on which 100 complaints had been received). The meeting had been webcast and could be viewed on the county council?s website. As previously agreed a copy of the minutes of the meeting would be circulated.
b) Member feedback on meeting and training attended on behalf of the committee ? Councillor Mrs Ball reported that along with the chairman, she had attended a South Ribble Partnership Community, Faith & Voluntary Sector Event which had included issues faced by the voluntary sector. It had been a good day for networking with speakers from Baxi and St Catherine?s Hospice.
c) Scrutiny Work Programme
- Update on the Health Steering Group
Councillor Mrs B Nathan (chairman) reported this group had met twice. In January it was to meet Healthwatch Lancashire and would then go on to meet the clinical commissioning group for south ribble
- Update on the Highways Task Group
Councillor Mrs Ball (chairman) confirmed that the date of the first meeting was now agreed (21 January 2016) and she hoped the group would now get to work quickly on issues for residents
d) Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Plans ? the committee noted the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee Forward Plans.