Issue - meetings

To review both savings proposals and investments for Priority 3, as set out in the MTFS, and make any recommendations for Cabinet.

The Panel considered the proposals relating to Priority 3 within the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as follows:

3.1 Charging for Green Waste - Income Generation

Stephen McDonnell, the Assistant Director of Commercial and Operations, reported that the proposal was intended to raise £750,000 per annum in income.  However, there was no guarantee that residents would opt into the scheme.  A 20% participation rate had been achieved in Brent though.  The level of income anticipated had been based on a similar rate being achieved in Haringey and was equivalent to 12,000 homes.  There was a risk that residents would put green waste in residual bins instead.  It was therefore proposed that home composting bins be offered to residents at cost price. A major communications campaign was planned to promote the change.  40% of London boroughs currently charged for collecting green waste. 

The Panel noted that there was lower demand for green recycling in the east of the borough, where people tended to have smaller gardens.  It was also intended to offer pre paid sacks to residents.  The rate of £75 per year was around the median of what London boroughs charged and worked out at just over £1 per week.  The £75 was for a green wheelie bin whilst the sacks could be paid for at customer service centres.  Collection was universal at the moment and it was arguable that those who did not use it were subsidising those who did.  Houses that had opted into the scheme would be identified by having the green bins.    

3.2; Charging for Bulky Household Waste

Mr McDonnell reported that the intention was to raise £400,000 in income through this.  It would cost £25 for four items plus £10 for every additional item.  The envisaged income was based on 11,500 collections per year.  It was not felt that it would impact significantly on recycling levels.  There was a risk that the proposals would lead to an increase in fly tipping and reduce the levels of resident satisfaction. However, experience from elsewhere had shown only minor impacts on levels of fly tipping.  There would also be an extensive communications campaign to promote the change.

Concern was expressed by the Panel that the proposal would increase the level of fly tipping, which was felt to present a high risk.   In addition, items that were fly tipped were normally removed quickly which might make paid collection of items less attractive.   In addition, it was felt that the projected increase in income of £400,000 might be difficult to achieve. 

The Panel noted there had been extensive discussion with Veolia regarding this proposal and they would be taking on the financial risks associated with this proposal.  Their perception was that the level of risk was low.  It was considered that the proposals would not make a significant difference to those people who were inclined to fly tip.  In addition, it was frequently found that when collection vehicles currently visited addresses to collect bulky items, they had not been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19

Councillor Elin Weston, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, introduced the proposals within the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) relating to Priority 1 of the Corporate Plan.  She stated that they needed to be seen within the context of the very severe cuts that there had been to local government funding since 2010.  In this period, funding had been reduced by 40%.  This had impacted considerably on the Councils ability to provide services, especially in the light of increases in demand.  The intention was nevertheless to ensure that young people were adequately safeguarded.  The proposed savings came to just below £4 million and were proportionately less than were being proposed for other areas of Council activity.  The Panel noted that the original saving proposals for 2017/18 were £4 million.  The current proposed savings were also around £4 million but were spread across two financial years. 

In answer to a question, regarding the ability to achieve the savings Jon Abbey, the Director of Children’s Services, reported that there was a degree of confidence that all of the nine savings proposals were achievable.  There was a planning process linked to each of them to ensure that they were delivered and this included assessment of risk.  Timeliness, modelling, confidence of those leading change and Equalities Impact Assessments were all considered as part of this.

Notwithstanding this, he stated that it could be difficult to be precise regarding statutory responsibilities with some areas yet to be fully determined.  However, he felt that the proposals were feasible and learning obtained from the previous MTFS had been taken into account.  A question was asked as to whether the level of funding necessary to run a service was safe.  In response, he stated that there was a need to consider this. He felt that it was in the range of £42 to £48 million and funding levels were now getting close to critical levels.  Less had been spent by relevant services each year but it was acknowledged that services for children and young people had a role in contributing to Council savings.   However, there was a need to ensure that there was still capacity to safeguard effectively.  If the budget continued to go down, careful thought would need to be given as to how services might be delivered in the future.

A question was asked about the impact of poor housing on the numbers of children entering the care system in the light of a recent report from Shelter which had made a correlation. The Cabinet Member stated that housing issues could contribute to children being taken into care but the cause was most likely to be a range of issues.  She was not aware of any specific proposals regarding housing that were likely to impact directly on children and young people.  She was nevertheless aware that benefit changes were likely to have an impact.  In answer to a question, she stated that savings had been put in year one which were felt to be possible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

To review both savings proposals and investments for Priority 4 and Priority 5 as set out in the MTFS and make any recommendations for Cabinet.

7.1    The Cabinet member for Housing, Regeneration and Planning presented the MTFS in relation to corporate priorities 4 and 5. There were three proposed reductions and investments for corporate priority 4:

·                A £213k reduction in the Tottenham Regeneration Programme which relates to a number of projects;

·                An increase in planning fees to yield £40k in 2017/18;

·                A reduction of £250k in corporate projects were accrued from a saving of transfer of service to the HDV.

7.2    There were no savings proposals for corporate priority 5 which related to local housing issues. This was a reflection of the need to extend and improve provision in all housing areas locally including temporary accommodation, new affordable homes and supported housing for vulnerable people.

7.3    Details of the Housing Revenue Account spend for 2017/18 was detailed within the MTFS, and the managing Director was working to identify areas for possible savings proposals. The HRA was under pressure however, given the requirement to reduce rents by 1% per annum for the next 3 years. The HRA Business Plan would be coming forward in February.

7.4    In respect of corporate projects for the transfer of functions to HDV, the panel sought to further clarification on the contingencies in place if these are not achieved. The panel noted that many corporate property staff are currently employed on an interim basis to facilitate transfer of this function to the HDV once operational. A small number of staffing issues remained ahead of transfer. It was noted that this proposal was red RAG rated.

7.5    The Tottenham Team spend reduction related to reduced use of consultancy staff, particularly in relation to surveyors and architects and specialist legal advice. This would now be delivered within a reduced budget.

7.6    The panel noted that Capital Spend on Alexandra Palace was significantly higher this year than last, and requested further information. It was noted that this was not within the remit of the panel but would be passed on to the main Overview & Scrutiny Committee. (Action: MB)

7.7    The panel sought clarification on the impact of the proposed Haringey Development Vehicle on the HRA. The HDV would have an impact on the HRA, but it was difficult to set out what this would be until there was greater clarity as to which sites move in to the HDV and when. It was noted that when sites do move into the HDV the income for the HRA would be reduced, but it would also reduce the liabilities for the HRA in respect of funds required to invest in the housing stock (e.g. maintenance, improvements and modernisation). While rental income that came through the vehicle would be split 50/50 with the partner in the HDV, it was noted that as development of land would generally involve some intensification of land use which would most likely increase the number of units for which rental income would be available.

7.8    Borrowing capacity through the HRA was tightly proscribed by central government, and potential for borrowing had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7