Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chapelard, Uddin and Gray.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda. For any advice on declarations of interest, please contact the Monitoring Officer.

There were no declarations of interest made, within the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members.

Minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting dated 14 August 2017. The Chairman will move that the minutes of the previous meeting be signed as a correct record. The only issue relating to the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy. Procedure rules applicable to all meetings Part 4, section 6.

The minutes of the meetings dated 8 May and 23 August 2017 were submitted.

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Committee meetings dated 23 August 2017 be agreed.

If there are any ‘Call-in’ items, details will have been circulated to Members under separate cover.

There were no items which had been called-in under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 13.

The Chairman, Councillor Dawlings, confirmed the order of the agenda and highlighted the following points:

·        In relation to the decision taken by the Cabinet on 3 October for the appointment of consultants to Royal Victoria Place, Councillor Dawlings said he had exercised his powers as Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to waive the requirement for call-in. Councillor Dawlings said his reasons for doing so were that, to not do so, would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public’s interest.

·        The Tackling Excessive Speeds in Rural Areas Task and Finish Group was to be reconvened, with a final, agreed report to be submitted to a later meeting of the Committee.

·        A number of questions regarding the financing of the civic development had been submitted by a member of the public. The questions had been passed on to the relevant officers in the Council for a response.

·        Confidential information on the civic development had been provided to Members via a number of briefings in previous days. It was important that Members respected the confidentiality of the information when discussing items 6 and 7 on the agenda. Reports would be provided to the three cabinet advisory boards and the Cabinet in November, and Full Council in December; these meetings would provide an opportunity for public participation.

Mr Peter Wooster, a Tunbridge Wells resident, addressed the Committee expressed the following views:

·        There was a question as to whether the Council had a democratic mandate to approve the civic development and new theatre. The previous Five Year Plan had made a commitment to enhancing the existing theatre and providing investment to bring the civic complex up to current standards. No Councillor had stood for election to seek a mandate on the revised Five Year Plan.

·        There was growing evidence that the public did not support the council taking on debt and public consultation needed to be based on fact and not on artistic impressions. The costings for stages 2 and 3 of the proposals needed clarification, including the gross cost and, the actual and contingent asset sales.

·        Efficiency savings and opportunities for growth, identified within the proposals, needed to be quantified and explained to the public.

·        The committee was to make representations to ensure that there was democratic transparency during stage 3 of the proposals and to ensure that when Full Council considers the budget for a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) in December, a maximum budget be agreed.

Councillor Moore, Portfolio Holder for Civic Development Communication, provided members with a Power Point presentation which summarised the, timetable for Member and stakeholder engagement and the timeline for the stage 3 report. The Director of Finance, Policy and Development, Lee Colyer, provided further detail on the format of the stage 3 report.

Members expressed the following views:

Councillor Stewart expressed concern about the amount of confidential information that would be included in the stage 3 report and the fact that the three cabinet advisory boards and Cabinet would be only opportunity for discussion in public to be held. Councillor Stewart asked how much of the report would be redacted. Mr Colyer said that as little of the report as possible would be redacted but there were certain elements such as details of compensation payments that would remain confidential.

Councillor Woodward asked if there would be a separate briefing that looked at the future of the civic complex. Mr Colyer said there were no separate briefings planned but there was an appendix in the report that dealt with this element in particular.

Councillor Hannam asked what response outside of Tunbridge Wells had been received to the road shows. Councillor Moore advised that the road shows were not due to start until the weekend but meetings had been held with Cranbrook Parish Council who were exited at the prospect of hosting the first road show event.

Councillor Hannam went on to ask Mr Colyer how much of the information provided at the member briefing on finance would be redacted in the stage 3 report. Mr Colyer said the intention was to retain all the information provided. He added that the only element likely to be redacted would be the amount put aside for compensation.

Councillor Moore reminded the Committee of the lengthy democratic process the Council had already been through, from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC31/15

Councillor David Reilly, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance, highlighted the achievements in 2016-2017 within his portfolio, as detailed in appendix A to the report and his ambitions for 2017-18. Councillor Reilly explained his background in the financial services sector and the particular skillsets he had brought to his role as Finance and Governance Portfolio Holder. Councillor Reilly added that he was keen for members to approach him at any time should they have questions regarding his portfolio.

Members expressed the following views:

Councillor Hannam asked if, given the additional financial burden that he considered would be placed on residents in rural areas through savings identified in the Council’s Recycling/Household Waste Contract, whether those savings should be equitably spread across the borough, rather than on one, town centre project. Councillor Reilly said the Contract was at an early, scoping stage and it would be premature to speculate on the detail. Councillor Reilly added that the Council was looking more broadly at maximising its investments and at new income streams.

Councillor Hill referred to the Debt Recovery Service going live in June and asked if it dealt primarily with council tax recovery. The director of Finance, policy and Development, Lee Colyer said it was a joint Service with Swale and Maidstone Borough Councils and although it dealt with all Council income it predominantly dealt with council tax, business rates and penalty charge notices.

Councillor Stewart asked whether revenue streams had been identified that would balance the negative revenue support grant of £600,000 identified in the 2019/2020 budget forecast. Councillor Reilly said the overall gap identified in the budget was £2.2 million over a five year period and heads of service were doing work on identifying options for closing the gap. Mr Colyer said the Council’s budget deficit forecast would reduce if the following year’s budget was balanced through recurring savings or cost reductions through areas such as increased partnership working, efficiencies through the digitalisation of services. Mr Colyer said that along with council tax and fees and charges, the Council would be looking to balance the deficit in future years. Councillor Stewart asked if additional revenue streams had been identified. Mr Colyer said income from the John Street development would soon be coming on stream as well as an increase in rental income from other Council assets. Efficiencies had also been made in telephone charges through the introduction of Skype for Business. Mr Colyer said that in November, a fees and charges report would be presented which would identify and set out all the charges the Council would be able to levy on. Councillor Reilly added that the Council would be participating in the new business rates growth pilot scheme.

Councillor Dawlings asked if there was any further legislation proposed, that would allow local authorities to retain more than 50 percent of business rates growth. Mr Colyer advised that, the budget update report, due for consideration by the Cabinet, included a request for delegation for the Council to enter into the  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC32/15

The Director for Finance, Policy and Development, Lee Colyer, provided an update on the approach taken towards setting the Council’s budget. The timetable for setting the Council’s budget in 2018/19 was tabled for Members. Mr Colyer highlighted the following points:

The Council had a legal imperative to balance the budget each year and through a well rehearsed process this had been managed successfully each year.

All managers at the Council were ‘budget holders’ and as part of the ongoing process were responsible for effectively balancing their own budgets whilst looking for efficiencies, invest-to-save options and ultimately refining the council’s budget.

The Budget setting process started early, following parliament’s publication of the Spring Budget. The Council’s Budget Projection Strategy was presented to the Cabinet in August via the Finance and Governance Cabinet Advisory Board.

New government legislation throughout the year presented challenges to setting the Budget as the financial responsibility for implementing the changes lay with local authorities. The Budget Update Report set out the council’s current position and in November the Fees and Charges report would be presented independently from any budget setting report, allowing an informed view on any pricing mechanism.

The government’s 22 November Budget would have un-costed, significant implications for local government and those changes would need to be considered prior to the Draft Budget being presented in December to the Cabinet for consultation. The draft budget would also be presented to local organisations such as the Town Forum, the Parish Chairmen’s Forum and any other groups that were interested in providing comments.

All the feedback received would be appended to the final Budget report presented to the Cabinet in February, for recommendation to Full Council.

A separate work-stream was the calculation and setting of council tax. Town parish councils would be consulted with on their precepts prior to the tax-base calculation in December – the number of chargeable dwellings in the borough. Discussions would take place with the police and the fire-brigade to gain an understanding of their budget requirements. The various calculations would then be included in a comprehensive report and council tax bill. This report would also be provided to Full Council for consideration.

There were no views expressed by members of the Committee.

RESOLVED to note the update.

Councillor Woodward, Chairman of the Planning Application Process Task and Finish Group, presented the report and advised members that it was a work in progress following a number of information gathering meetings – including a meeting with local councils. Councillor Woodward said a further meeting was scheduled with the Civic Society. He added that one of the councils interviewed was concluding production of its neighbourhood plan which added another element to the discussion. Councillor Woodward further added that other local councils would be interviewed in order to get a balanced view on the subject. He went on to say that the Group had looked at the whole planning application process including pre-planning but the focus was on the process prior to recommendations being made. Councillor Woodward said one of the issues highlighted in particular was a perceived inconstancy in views and outcomes between planning officers. He added that there was a further perception that the absence of an affective Local Plan was changing the nature of planning decisions.

Members expressed the following views:

Councillor Stewart, a member of the Task and Finish Group, referred to the production of neighbourhood plans and advised that one of the outcomes she wanted to see was an indication as to the weight that would be given to those plans. Councillor Stewart was concerned that local councils would be spending money on production of the plans without knowing the level of importance placed on them across the planning process. Councillor Stewart said the expectations of local councils would need to be considered before they spent money producing the plans.

Councillor Dawlings noted the amount of work that local councils were putting in to their own local plans and hoped that the Council’s work on its Plan interfaced with them.

Councillor Mackonochie said the experience nationally, of town and parish councils producing neighbourhood plans and how they were being treated by the government, was giving inconsistent leads. Councillor Woodward said this was a piece of work that could be included in the Group’s work.

Councillor Palmer referred to Hawkhurst Parish Council’s production of a neighbourhood plan, the considerable expense and the amount of work the Parish had devoted to it, with the clear expectation that it would be taken into account as part of the Council’s planning strategy.

Councillor Hill referred to the recent changes to the notification process for planning applications and asked whether residents were registering online to receive email notifications. Councillor Woodward said that although this had not been included within the scope of the Group, he had raised the issue separately with Planning and suggested that the email service be supplemented by another digital format such as SMS. Councillor Hill also referred to the ability for planning applications to be called in for reasons based on local knowledge. Councillor Dawlings said that there hade been recent changes to the call-in process which now allowed Members the same right of call-in as the head of planning. Councillor Woodward noted that borough councillors in  ...  view the full minutes text for item OSC34/15

The Chairman, Councillor Dawlings, introduced the item which detailed the Committee’s work programme for the remainder of the municipal year. Councillor Dawlings advised that the Tackling Excessive Speeds in Rural Areas Task and Finish Group would be reconvened and the Planning Application Process Task and Finish Group would continue its work.

The Scrutiny and Performance Officer, Nick Peeters, advised members that, as previously highlighted, a review of the Tunbridge Wells Lottery would be added to the work programme with an update provided at the 9 April meeting.

Councillor Woodward referred to comments made earlier in the meeting regarding the Council’s risk management strategy. He said that, although it was a topic included in the Audit and Governance Committee’s work programme, further scrutiny should be considered. He added that there were some significant risks ahead, with a high probability and that it was something that Overview and Scrutiny members should at least have copy of.

Councillor Palmer referred to the work of the Tackling Excessive Speeds in Rural Areas Task and Finish Group and asked Members to note that there had been a recent road traffic incident in Hawkhurst with fatalities.

RESOLVED to note the updated work programme.

To consider any other items which the Chairman decides are urgent, for the reasons to be stated, in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business.

The next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will take place on 11 December 2017.

It was noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would take place on Monday 11 December 2017.