Agenda item

To consider and provide comments on the draft MTFS savings proposals for Place.

The Panel received a report which provided an update on the Council’s 2021/22 Draft Budget / 5-year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2021/22 – 2025/26 as well as the budget saving proposals within the Place priority. The report was introduced by Dee Ball, Finance Business Partner as set out in the agenda pack at pages 23-197. The Panel noted that the net budget expenditure within the Place priority was £31.43m. This was made up of total expenditure of £84.8m and £53.41m

in income. There was a projected overall variance for Place in 2020-21 of £13.713m, the driver of which was Covid. The most notable impacts of Covid on Place were a reduction in parking and highways income of £11.39m and a loss of £1.3m income from major events not taking place.

The following was noted in discussion of the report:

1. The Panel noted concerns in relation to undelivered savings within the MTFS and questioned the extent to which areas of growth were being used to offset these. The Panel requested further clarity be provided on the exact figure for the current budget gap, as it was commented that there seemed to be a number of different figures referred to in the report.
2. The Panel sought clarity around where in the Place budget the overall savings were coming from. The Panel also requested further information in relation to the budget allocated to help people who had lost their jobs due to Covid. In particular, the Panel were keen to know what impact this had and how many people would this affect. (Action: Dee Ball/Clerk).
3. The Panel agreed to put a recommendation forward to Cabinet around the retention of the Neighbourhood Watch Coordinator and Parks Link Officer post. The Chair also agreed that he would raise this matter separately with the Leader due to the strength of feeling on this issue and concerns that the post holder was due to be made redundant within weeks.(Action: Chair).
4. Cllr Mark Blake commented that the reduction in funding for the above post was a budget decision made two years ago with a reduction in the council’s contribution from 100%, to 50% this year and then to 25% for next year, so was not part of this year’s MTFS. Cllr Blake highlighted that any resolution would relate to a reversal of previous decisions and, from his perspective, he would like to see the Metropolitan Police making some kind of contribution.
5. In relation to saving PL20/17 on garden waste service, the Panel sought assurances around how feasible it was to expect increased year on year growth in subscriptions from a smaller pool of potential customers. In response, the Cabinet Member set out that the savings were anticipated as a result of increased marketing of the service and from potentially increasing take up with a reduction in the cost.
6. The Panel also sought assurance about saving PL20/15 and what this involved. In response, the Panel was advised that this saving related to rationalising the fleet of vehicles used by the service and would be achieved through increased mechanisation of street sweeping resulting in less vehicles being required, as well as some savings relating to contract management.
7. In relation to savings PL20/28 & PL20/29, The Panel raised concerns about the impact on businesses from introducing Sunday car parking charges, who were already struggling because of Covid, and requested assurance that the cost to local businesses would not outweigh the additional revenue received.
8. The Committee noted concerns around a lack of funding for the principal road network from TfL (capital 302) and the fact that the report highlighted that if the Council had to fund this again going forward, this would have an impact of other services. The Panel were particularly concerned around the need to protect funding for cycling and walking schemes and requested additional assurance from Cabinet on this.
9. In relation to saving PL20/20, Fuel Savings from Electrical Vehicles, the Panel requested further assurance around whether additional savings could be generated through additional investment in this area.
10. The Panel questioned whether additional revenue could be generated in relation to moving traffic enforcement as £350k did not seem a lot. In relation to a question about cameras needing to be prioritised for ASB and fly-tipping, officers advised that there had been significant investment into CCTV cameras and a new control room and that a paper had been taken to Cabinet on this. Cllr Hakata agreed that he would follow up on this with the relevant Cabinet Member outside of the meeting.
11. In relation to the disposal of Keston Road, the Panel expressed concerns with any attempt sell off this site to a developer as land was the Council’s most valuable asset and that if the depot was no longer necessary then the Council should be building houses on this site. Officers advised that the Keston Road site was largely a series of portacabins that were nearing the end of their functionality and that investment in parks depots was better spent on alternative sites.
12. The Panel noted concerns with the year-on-year allocation of capital funding for parks asset management (311) over the 5 year period of the MTFS being a flat figure of £300k. The Panel advised that funding levels for this area had been subject to significant cuts over the last ten years and that they would like to see additional investment to offset this.
13. In relation to Finsbury Park (322), the Panel wanted assurance that the proposed package of funding for Finsbury Park explicitly included funding for the Changing Places scheme.
14. In relation to the capital budget allocation for Alexandra Palace maintenance (447), the Panel sought further information around what this funding was for. Officers advised that capital funding was not able to be used to cover shortfalls in revenue budgets such as staffing costs. 

RESOLVED

That the Panel considered and provided recommendations to Overview and

Scrutiny Committee (OSC), on the 2021/22 Draft Budget/MTFS 2021/22-

2025/26 and proposals relating to the Scrutiny Panel’s remit.