Agenda item

The Panel received a covering report with a number of appendices, that set out the Council’s draft budget and 5 Year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2023/2028 proposals relating to the Panel’s remit. The report was introduced by John O’Keefe, Head of Finance (Capital, Place & Economy) a set out in the agenda pack at pages 17 to 94. Cllr Davies, Cabinet Member for Communities & Civic Life was present, along with Cllr Chandwani, Cabinet Member for Tackling Inequality and Resident Services, and Cllr Hakata, Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment and Transport, and Deputy Leader of the Council. A number of officers from the Environment and Neighbourhoods Directorate were also present.

By way of introduction, the Panel was advised that the report contained a summary of the draft budget proposals that were submitted to Cabinet the previous week. The proposals related to the revenue and capital General Fund budget as well as the HRA revenue and capital budgets, and the Dedicated Schools Grant. The report noted that at present there was a £3.1m budget gap and that this was after circa £5.5m of additional one off funding (reserves) had been utilised. A final MTFS report would be presented to Cabinet In February, which would reflect an updated financial position, having taken in to account the final levies and funding precepts from the Mayor, as well as the outcome of the local government funding settlement. The Panel noted that the Council continued to maintain a wide ranging capital programme. There was around £2.5m in growth budget provision; £490k of non-delivery of savings; and £6.6m of new savings, within the Environment and Neighbourhoods budget,  

The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Panel sought clarification around the increased investment in the boroughs parks and streets identified in the report, and whether this was linked to a reduction in funding from TfL. In response, the Cabinet Member for Tackling Inequality and Residents Services advised that TfL’s finances had been hit hard by the pandemic and that its funding settlement from the government was in a state of flux. It was noted that TfL funded transport related things, such as crossings and road safety schemes, rather than Parks. In Haringey, TfL were also supposed to fund maintenance of TfL managed roads and pavements (TfL Red Routes), but this had not happened due their ongoing funding problems. In summary, the Panel was advised that the authority was clear on the funding it would receive from TfL for this year but did not know about what would be received in future years.
2. The Panel sought clarification about the reducing trend of expenditure for particular schemes within the capital budget. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that this reflected the fact that earlier tranches of investment would reduce the need for ongoing spend. The example given was replacing the borough’s street lighting and the fact that this should last for 30 years, the investment was front-loaded and so less investment was required in subsequent years of that capital scheme. Capital schemes were profiled over a five year period in the MTFS.
3. In relation to a question on self-financing capital schemes and instances where these may proceed despite not meeting their costs, officers advised that each scheme would produce its own business case and if this business case did not add up then Cabinet would be asked to review this and make a decision as to whether they would like to proceed. This was usually done in the context of where there were policy outcomes or drivers attached to that scheme. Examples of self-financing schemes in the E&N budget were given as Finsbury Park; the parks vehicles budget, upgrading these produced lower fleet running costs; and carbon reduction of parks buildings.
4. In relation to saving EN_SAV_001, the Panel sought clarification about the savings expected as a result of LTNs and School Streets programmes and how those figures had been calculated. In response, officers advised that the income had been estimated based on their experience of School Streets in the borough and also LTNs going live. The modelling assumed a higher level of compliance and reduced income as these schemes became embedded. The AD for Direct Services emphasised that the driver for these schemes was not about income and that increased compliance was what was being sought.
5. In relation to a follow-up question on the above mentioned saving, and how increased debt recovery of parking fines would support the Council’s ethical debt policy, the Cabinet Member advised that these were two separate things. The Council had delegated legal powers to issue a PCN, rather than pursue the case in court and would continue to do so. The ethical debt policy was set up to help people with the cost of living crisis where they had accumulated debt through no fault of their own, such as they could not pay their Council Tax, rather than were they had committed a criminal offense. In relation to a further follow-up question, the Cabinet Member advised that debt recovery would be increased through the new IT system and the ability to cross reference data checks to ensure that notices were issued to the correct people.
6. In relation to EN_SAV_001, the panel sought clarification about the new 4-5 area Heavy Goods Vehicle Restriction Zones CCTV Enforcement (£574K saving) and whether this meant that the Council was reducing HGV enforcement. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that they reviewed the location of the cameras every year to see if their continued presence was justified in light of the number of contraventions. The Panel were assured that there were no plans to relocate the HGV enforcement cameras in Harringay ward due to low levels of compliance there. The saving in questions related to the creation of four or five more HGV zones in the borough and was an income generating measure.
7. In relation to a question about current in-year overspends, officers advised that some of these had been corrected through base budget corrections put into next years’ budget. Officers were working a number of work streams to reduce overspends.
8. In response to a question about what was being done to meet the budget gap, officers advised that the things happening between now and February should cover that budget gap but that at present, it was just not possible to say for certain as there were a lot of things that were beyond the Council’s control.
9. The Panel queried what was included in the £1.3m saving related to the waste saving review. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that this saving was not due until 2025/26 and so the proposal was still at a very embryonic stage. The Council was currently engaging its residents to see what they would like to see as part of any future waste services contract. The administration would also need to determine the future model for any such arrangements, and whether this would be outsourced, insourced, or even a hybrid. It was suggested that there may be savings from combining a number of contracts held across the Council, with Veolia.
10. In relation to the previous saving PL20/9, the panel requested an update on getting Spurs to pay match day cleaning costs. In response, the Cabinet member advised that the wider impact from Spurs was covered under the Local Area Management Plan (LAMP). The Cabinet Member advised that talks with Spurs on paying match day cleaning costs paused due to Covid and needed to restart. It was suggested that existing arrangements were insufficient and so it was not just about getting Spurs to pay for what was being done now.
11. In relation to the previous saving PL20/17, the Panel requested clarification about whether the number of subscriptions were decreasing or whether it was the overall volume of waste. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that the number of subscriptions was increasing but that the volume of waste could be down due to a very hot summer. Subscriptions were at full capacity in some areas but not in others, so work was continuing about how best to resource this. 
12. The Panel commented on the extent to which buy-to-let landlords were selling up and queried the extent to which this had been factored into the income assumptions made on private sector licensing schemes. In response, officers advised that it was a five-year scheme and that income and expenditure would have to balance, so if there was a drop in income than the expenditure would have to be reduced. Officers set out that the savings came from efficiencies from having two schemes in place, as well as a possible increase in fees. Officers advised that they had not seen any evidence of a reduction in take up from the schemes and had received 9k application to date from 20k expected applications over the whole five year period.
13. In relation to EN_SAV_004, the panel sought clarification about not recruiting to existing vacancies within the parks service, as well as the reduction in the small green space improvement plan. In response, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Civic Life advised that this related to not recruiting to a vacant dedicated weed control post in parks. The post was to operate new machinery for removing weeds without using pesticides. The machinery would be used by other staff across the parks service instead. Officers advised that was only a two year scheme and that it would go into the budget in April 2023 and would be come out again from 2025/26.
14. In relation to concerns about the lights being left on at Stroud Green Primary School all night, Members were advised that this is something that should be taken up with the school, and the Head Teacher, directly.
15. In relation to parks and leisure income efficiencies (EN_SAV_004), the Panel queried about rent reviews for café’s in parks. In response, officers advised that these took place every five years and that when this took place for individual cafes would be determined by where they were in the five-year cycle. The value of the business was taken into account when reviews were undertaken. There were two types of lease in  parks, commercial leases and community leases, which received a 40% reduction. Commercial lease rent calculations would be based on market rates for park cafe, rather than a café on a high street. 
16. The Panel agreed to put forward a recommendation to Cabinet about seeking assurances that the authority would be engaging robustly with Tottenham Hotspur F.C., to ensure that it paid its fair share of the clean-up costs from match days and other event days.
17. The Panel also recommended that, in relation to EN_SAV_00, Cabinet reconsider the part of this saving relating to not recruiting to existing vacancies within the parks service. The Panel would like to see the weed control operative post recruited to and that net £45k saving found from elsewhere.

RESOLVED

That the Panel considered and provided recommendations to Overview & Scrutiny Committee, on the Council’s 2023/24 Draft Budget and 5 Year Medium Term Financial Strategy 2023/2028 proposals relating to the Panel’s remit.