Agenda item

The Panel considered and commented on the Council’s 2022/23 Draft Budget / 5-year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2022/23 – 2026/27 proposals relating to the Place priority of the Borough Plan. The papers were introduced by John O’Keefe – Head of Finance (Capital, Place & Regen), as set out in the agenda pack at pages 19-94 of the agenda pack. Along with a cover report the budget papers included the following appendices:

• Appendix A – Key lines of enquiry for budget setting
• Appendix B – 2022/23 Draft Budget & 2021/26 Medium Term Financial Strategy Report (presented to Cabinet 8^th December 2020)
• Appendix C – 2022/23 New Revenue Budget Proposals
• Appendix D - 2022/23 New Capital Budget Proposals
• Appendix E – Proposed 2022/23-2026/27 Capital Programme
• Appendix F – Previously agreed MTFS savings. 

The Panel were advised that there were no new savings proposals put forward in the budget for 2022/23 and that the budget included around £11.8m of growth proposals. There was, therefore, an opportunity for the Council to have some time and space to assess its existing savings programme. There was also a refresh of the Borough Plan underway.

The following arose as part of the discussion of the Draft Budget & 2021/26 Medium Term Financial Strategy:

a.    The Panel sought assurances around the impact of pre-agreed savings that had not been met, particularly given the impact of Covid, on the overall budget picture. In response, officers advised that the papers included a savings tracker, which was RAG rated. The Panel were advised that the extent to which these savings had not been achieved had already been factored into the 2022/23 budget. The savings would be rolled over to the base budget for future years.

1. The Chair sought clarification around whether there were any new growth proposals for community safety contained within the budget. Officers responded that there were no specific growth proposals in this area. The Chair commented that there were a number of staffing pressures in this area and sought clarification from the Cabinet Member whether discussion to this effect had been undertaken. In response, the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, advised that he was new in post and that no discussions had taken place to date. However, the Cabinet Member advised that he would be looking to pick this up as part of his upcoming one-to-one discussions with officers.
2. The Panel sought reassurances about a strategy for dealing with waste dumped by private landowners, such as at Somerset Gardens. In response, officers advised that this was something that had been raised in previous budgets, particularly in relation to Housing Associations. Officers advised that they were looking at how to tackle this issue but commented that previous experience had shown that it could be challenging to hold landowners to account.
3. The Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency advised the Panel that he was seeking to improve green spaces in the Borough, and he welcomed the additional investment in the parks team, which he suggested was a three or four fold increase in staffing resources. The Cabinet Member also welcomed the commitment to a net gain in tree numbers year-on-year. The Cabinet Member advised that a key priority for the budget was to increase revenue growth in climate and the environment and ensure additional resources in this area. The Cabinet Member also highlighted the significant additional investment in parks asset management that was reflected in the budget, partially in recognition of the increased profile of parks during the pandemic.
4. The Panel sought assurances around the additional investment in blocked gullies and whether the investment of £326k was sufficient. In response, the Cabinet Member for Customer Service, Welfare and the Public Realm advised that this was a £326k additional investment into the revenue base budget and that it would, therefore, be available every year, rather than a one-off sum. In addition to the revenue investment there was also a £355k investment in the capital budget for dealing with blocked gullies. The Cabinet Member advised that this funding would be used to ensure that every gully in Haringey was cleaned on an annual basis. It was anticipated that this would make a significant improvement to flooding and blocked drains the borough.
5. In relation to a question around additional investment in the budget around waste contract changes and whether this had taken into account upcoming legislative changes around waste, such as paper separation, the Cabinet Member advised that these legislative changes were not due to come in to force until 2024/25 and so would need to be factored into the next iteration of the waste contract and subsequent rounds of budget setting. Officers advised that the additional investment related to additional waste disposal costs arising from a shortfall in recycling, some of which was due to changes in what could and could not be recycled. Veolia were no longer required to cover these costs so the Council would need to do so.
6. The Panel queried whether there was scope for further invest to save proposals into increasing the recycling rate and thereby reduce waste collection costs. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that Haringey was already well ahead of many of the neighbouring boroughs in the NLWA in terms of waste separation. The budget also contained a revenue bid for a recycling officer, which was matched funded by Veolia, and would assist with the education, information and advice agenda around recycling. Officers advised that Haringey was already undertaking a number of the legislative changes that were being brought, such as a separate kitchen waste service and the separation of six items at kerbside. The Cabinet Member emphasised that the additional costs were due to a contractual issue, rather than a performance issue. The Panel was advised that the Council was also piloting a scheme to recycle small electrical items such as toasters.
7. The Panel sought assurances about deploying any staff that were no longer required as a result of the capital bid around mechanisation of street cleansing. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that the additional investment in mechanical street sweepers had been made in previous rounds of the MTFS. It was clarified that the bid in question was for £96k for additional jet washing equipment. The Panel were also assured that alongside the mechanical street sweeping machines, there was still a requirement for manual sweeping to take place in the nooks and crannies of a particular street.
8. In response to a question around overlaps in portfolios, the Cabinet Member for Customer Service, Welfare and the Public Realm assured the Panel that she spoke regularly with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and the Climate Emergency and that they worked together closely on a range of issues.
9. The Panel welcomed the additional investment into cleaning blocked gullies and commented that part of the issue related to historic underinvestment in this area. The Panel sought assurances that troublesome locations would be cleaned more than once a year and that there would also be provision to clean hard to access locations such as Haringey Passage. In response, the Cabinet Member reiterated that the additional investment would allow every drain and gully to be cleaned once a year and she assured the Panel that troublesome locations would receive additional cleaning. The Cabinet Member clarified that this did not mean that instances flooding would never happen again, not least because of London’s outdated sewage system, but that Haringey was doing what it could to prevent blockages in the parts of the drainage network that it was responsible for maintaining.
10. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member advised that part of the cleansing issues in and around Turnpike Lane related to the fact there were timed collections in place and the additional investment in pavement washing equipment would make a difference to this but, it would also be necessary to address the underlying bin containment issue. 
11. The Cabinet Member highlighted the additional investment into maintaining carriageways contained in the budget. In response to a question, it was noted that the £20m investment into this area was a significant amount and it was felt that this was an achievable level of investment.

Following the discussion on the 2022/23 Draft Budget/MTFS 2022/23-2026/27, the Panel put forward the following recommendations to Cabinet, subject to ratification by the parent Overview & Scrutiny Committee:

1)    The Panel were broadly supportive of the budget proposals and welcomed the level of investment into the borough. The Panel were particularly pleased to see the long overdue investment into the maintenance of the boroughs drains and road gullies, and a commitment that every drainage asset in the borough would be cleaned at least once a year.

2)    The Panel welcomed the commitment to invest in the borough’s tree stock and noted the aim of achieving a net neutral position. The panel advocated for additional investment in this area, above the £75k per year, rising to £100k per year with match funding, that had been allocated in the budget. The Panel felt that Cabinet should make firm commitment to a net increase in the number of trees in the borough, particularly in light of the historic decline in tree numbers over recent years due to an underinvestment in this area.

3)    The Panel sought a commitment from Cabinet that the existing inequities in tree coverage across the borough would be addressed. The Panel noted that the overwhelming number of sponsored trees to date were in the west and centre of the borough. Cabinet should commit to ensuring that the east of the borough was prioritised when planting new trees. Cabinet should also make a specific commitment that low levels of tree coverage in wards such as Tottenham Hale and Bruce Grove would be addressed.

4)    The Panel requested that Cabinet provided assurances that areas of lighting in parks where sections of the park were lit, whilst others are in shadow, were looked at as part on the investment in improved lighting. As it was felt that this could create a false sense of security for people travelling through parks at night. The Panel would also like assurances that preservation of wildlife habitat will be considered when determining lighting requirements in our parks and open spaces. 

5)    The Panel noted that a large proportion of the active travel schemes proposed were unfunded at present and would like assurances that funding for these schemes would be pursued. As part of the Road Safety Strategy, the Panel would like to see additional investment into active travel, with a particular focus on improving cycling infrastructure. 

6)    That Panel requested clarification on the funding for the Highways Asset Maintenance programme proposal. The bid was funded by council borrowing for the first year 2022-23. Thereafter it was assumed that there will be grant funding available to undertake this work. The Panel sought clarification/ further information about how robust this assumption of further funding was.

RESOLVED

That the Panels considered and provided recommendations to Overview and

Scrutiny Committee (OSC), on the 2022/23 Draft Budget/MTFS 2022/23-2026/27 and proposals relating to the Scrutiny Panel’s remit.