Agenda item

Scrutiny of the 2020/21 Draft Budget / 5 Year Medium Term Financial Strategy (2020/21 - 2024/25)

Minutes:

The Committee received a cover report, along with a copy of the five-year draft General Fund Budget (2020-21)/Medium Term Financial Strategy (2020/21-2024/25) as considered by Cabinet on 10th December 2019. A copy of the 2020 budget saving proposals and new capital schemes, for Place were also attached to the cover report for the Panel’s consideration. The report and appendices were introduced by Frances Palopoli, Head of Corporate Financial Strategy & Monitoring and Stephen McDonnell Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods as set out in the agenda pack at pages 15 – 101. The Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Sustainability as well as the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods were also present.  The following was noted in discussion of the draft budget/MTFS and savings proposals:

a.    Officers advised that the budget had been developed with the aim of protecting frontline services and that the majority of the savings proposals put forward related to income generation.

b.    The Panel sought clarification from officers on how confident they were in achieving the savings proposed. In response, the Panel was advised that most of the savings had been assigned a RAG status of amber. The Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods advised that the service had achieved 95% of its savings from previous years.

c.    The Panel suggested that the parks budget had been cut too far, to quickly in the past as evidence by the recent issues around Green Flags and sought assurances around how confident officers were that they could continue to protect parks as a public utility, given the prevalence of concerts and some of the disruption and damage caused. In response, officers advised that they had been able to ring-fence additional funding for parks due to the increased revenue generated from major events.

d.    The Panel raised concerns about the proposed reduction of staff in the Veolia call centre and the impact on the perception of residents using the service. The Panel also set the need to consider how to engage with residents about any changes and the change in response times.

e.    The Panel suggested that in relation to increasing permit charges for the highest emitting vehicles,  this would have an undue impact on poorer residents. Furthermore, any further incentivisation of electric vehicles would only impact those who could afford them. In relation to a question on the spread of electric vehicles across the Borough, officers advised that they did not have this information. In the response the concerns raised about permit charges, officers highlighted that as although less affluent, the east of the Borough also had the greatest need from significantly poorer air quality.

f.     The Panel broadly welcomed the savings proposals in relation to selective licensing and CCTV enforcement of weight restrictions but questioned the feasibility of the income levels suggested, particularly in light of a perceived failure to adequately enforce against HGV traffic on Wightman Road, despite the presence of two CCTV cameras.

g.    The Panel questioned why the selective licensing scheme wasn’t being brought in sooner and whether there was scope to reduce the level of coverage so that it fell below the threshold needed for Secretary of State approval. In response officers advised that they had identified a 60% coverage need, particularly in the east of the Borough and so it wasn’t anticipated that approval of the Secretary of State would be  a barrier, as there was a clear need and officers were confident of receiving approval. In response to concerns about the timescales for the introduction of selective licensing, officers advised that they would like to bring it in at the earliest opportunity but there was an acknowledgement that there was a huge amount of work involved. The key factor in the proposed timescales, rather than Secretary of State approval, was the need for significant consultation work to be undertaken.

h.    In response to concerns around 1400 incidents of HGVs using Wightman Road in 2018/19 despite cameras and restrictions in place to prevent this, the Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods agreed to look into the issue and to come back to members with some further information. (Action: Stephen McDonnell).

i.      The Panel raised concerns around the proposal to lose two members of staff from the Veolia contact centre and questioned whether this was something the Council could afford to do given the income from bulky waste and green waste collections. In response officers advised that the aim was to move people online and that the saving was for 2021/22, so there was a year to implement this channel shift.

j.      In response to a question around the type of buildings in parks from which it was proposed to increase lease income, officers advised that these increases related to some inflationary increases that had been agreed in advance, such as the kiosk at Ducketts Common. There was also examples such as the building at Queens Wood, which had previously had paid no lease fees but the Council was now receiving £6k a year. 

k.    In relation to outstanding parking debt recovery, officers estimated that this was probably around £4m as of September. In relation to the debt recovery saving proposal, officers advised that this related to the hiring of three additional staff members with an expectation that they would each recover £120k of debt. The net position was a £210k saving after costs. In response to a further question, officers acknowledged that there was some link between these officers and increased recovery of parking debt. However, the introduction of the new IT platform was the main driver of increasing the parking debt recovery rate. The Panel noted that the current recovery rate was around 58% and the anticipation was that this would increase to around 70%.

l.      In response to concerns raised around the saving proposal around mail volumes and postal costs, officers advised that this was about digitalisation of mail and automated printing and posting of letters.

m.  The Panel raised concerns about the redeployment of  Amey staff and set out that this needed to be done in a compassionate and constructive manner. 

n.    The Panel emphasised the need for clear and effective engagement with the public in relation to increasing Electric Vehicle charging points, particularly in relation loss of parking spaces. The Panel also set out that there needed to be some consideration given to their location and spread across the Borough. Officers acknowledged these concerns and suggested that local businesses were also key stakeholders as many of the charging points would be outside shop fronts etcetera.

RESOLVED

 

That the Panel considered the Council’s 2020/21 Draft Budget/5-year Medium Term Financial strategy (MTFS) 2020/21-2024/25 proposals relating to its remit and made the following recommendations to Cabinet:

 

Selective Licensing and CCTV Enforcement of Weight Limits and Emissions

The Panel welcomed savings proposals PL01 and PL03 in relation to Selective Licensing and CCTV enforcement of weight limits and emissions through ANPR/DVLA check. The Panel noted the significant level of savings set out in both schemes (£239K & £642k respectively) and questioned the extent to which these net savings were achievable.

The Panel requested that further evidence of the feasibility of achieving these two net savings targets? The Panel also sought further assurance from Cabinet around the enforcement activities that would be in place to ensure compliance and, ultimately, ensure that the stated income levels were achieved?  As a specific example, the Panel commented that there were two cameras already in place at either end of Wightman Road to enforce against weight limits for vehicular traffic. However, HGVs continued to use this road regularlywith over 1400 incidents in 2018 and approximately 2,000 incidents so far in 2019. How would the Council ensure that robust enforcement would be carried out in relation to PL03, if existing enforcement activities on weight limits on Wightman Road were only partially successful?

Electric Vehicle Charging points

The Panel also broadly welcomed proposals to increase the number of Electric Vehicle charging points across the Borough (PL13). In the context of recent concerns relayed to the Panel around consultation and engagement, the Panel set out the importance of clear and effective communication with residents and local businesses. The Panel requested assurances of how the additional roll out of EV charging points would be communicated across the borough, including the impact on specific locations i.e. loss of individual parking spaces for residents and business. The Panel also requested that Cabinet provide further information on the roll-out and equitable distribution of charging points across the borough. The Panel requested to know how would this would be done, what locations were proposed and the timescales involved. Furthermore, how would all of this be communicated to residents and local businesses?

Veolia Contract Centre Efficiencies

The Panel raised concerns with saving proposal PL06 in relation to the loss of two staff members from the Veolia Contact Centre. The Panel were clear that waste, recycling and cleansing services were a key area of concern for residents and questioned the necessity and impact of making this saving. The Panel noted the mitigation that management sought to channel shift customers online but were concerned about the equalities impact of this as well as a lower level of responsiveness overall. The Panel requested that Cabinet reconsider this saving proposal in light of the potential impact on the level of service to our residents and the relatively small net saving achieved as a result.

FM Transformation

In light of the proposal for FM Transformation (PL08) and the commercial exit from the incumbent FM contract and the TUPE transfer of staff back to the Council, the Panel requested that Cabinet give consideration as to what lessons could be learnt for the future. The Panel suggested that some of the staff affected had been treated poorly by the Council and the Panel would like assurance that the organisation would ensure that adequate training and support for staff was in place for those being transferred. The Panel would also like assurances that staff coming back into the organisation would be recycled into other roles, where that service was subject to staffing reductions and that in general, redeployment of staff was done in an imaginative, compassionate and constructive manner.

Supporting documents: