Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ruth Bennett, who arrived late due to another meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Thursday 21^st March 2013.

No questions had been received for the Committee.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 31^st January 2013 (excluding exempt information) be confirmed.

Report RES13052

The Committee received an update on matters arising from previous meetings.

The Committee received the latest version of the Forward Plan of Private and Key Decisions.

Copies of (A) the Resources Portfolio and (B) the Corporate Contracts Registers have been circulated to Members of the Committee under separate cover and are available on the Council’s website.

The Committee received the latest version of the Contracts Register covering (A) contracts with a value above £50,000 in the Resources Portfolio, and (B) all Council contracts over £200,000. The Chairman commented that officers needed to ensure that the process of tendering was started at an early enough point.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to Executive Councillors at this meeting must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Thursday 21^st March 2013.

Two questions had been received from Councillor Tom Papworth – these are set out in appendix 1 to these minutes.

The Resources Portfolio Holder to present scheduled reports for pre-decision scrutiny on matters where he is minded to make decisions.

The Committee considered the following reports for pre-decision scrutiny where the Resources Portfolio Holder was minded to take a decision.

Report RES13068

At its meeting on 6^th February 2013 the Executive had agreed a revised capital programme for the five year period 2012/13 to 2016/17, including changes affecting the Resources Portfolio. These were re-phasings into 2013/14 and inclusion of new investment for replacement of business-critical storage area networks.

RESOLVED that the proposed changes to the capital programme be supported.

Report RES13065

The current system of Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans would be largely transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to local authorities in April 2013. While elements of the Social Fund that lent themselves to simple automated delivery would be incorporated into Universal Credit administered by the (DWP), elements of the fund requiring more intensive scrutiny would be devolved to local authorities. The report set out proposals for a Bromley Welfare Fund at appendix 1, with the corresponding impact assessment at appendix 2. Given the limited data available about past recipients of awards and potential claimants the scheme proposed closely resembled that operated by the DWP. Once established, the scheme would be reviewed to ensure that it reflected the needs and pressures of people in Bromley.

The Government had largely given local authorities a free rein over how payments would be made, but wherever possible purchase cards would be used, limiting the recipient to the item for which the payment was made. This would usually be electrical appliances or furnishings – one-off crisis purchases rather than on-going living expenses. Emergency payments could also be made to bank accounts or paypoint machines. Payments would be grants rather than loans – the DWP had found that the cost of recovering loans was excessive. Officers had been in contact with local foodbanks about the new system, although they had not had a full response. A Member expressed concern about allowing payments for emergency house repairs for owner-occupiers, stating that homeowners should insure their properties, but it was clarified that other sources of funding would be explored and this would only be for vulnerable people in very limited circumstances. 

RESOLVED that the proposals be supported.

Doug Patterson, the Chief Executive, attended the meeting to update the Committee on the headline issues that he was dealing with and to answer questions. Since he had last appeared before the Committee in September 2012, the 2013/14 budget had been put together and approved, including some savings taken earlier than required. Public Health was just about to formally join the Council - he considered that the Council’s strategy in bringing in Public Health early had been successful.  Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust’s role in running the Princess Royal University Hospital (PRUH) would be a crucial issue for the borough and close cooperation with health services was required. Kings were currently in negotiation with the Department of Health – Mr Patterson understood that their intention was to develop the PRUH as a centre of excellence rather than to seek cut-backs. There were discussions with local partners about achieving the most effective use of property assets, and Kings would be involved in this in  future. Changes to local terms and conditions for Council staff were going well, with 2,900 staff (about 80%) accepting the new contract. A 45 day consultation would be launched in April with the remaining staff who had refused the new contract or not responded (about 500). Staff could eventually be dismissed and re-engaged; however, this would not affect their employment rights and continuity of service. Staff would not be made redundant as part of this process. Other imminent changes included the Westmoreland Road redevelopment, which was due to start the following week, and significant benefits changes which were also coming into effect with the new financial year.

The Council’s role in the coming years would be dependent on overcoming the financial challenges – identifying new sources of income, using baseline reviews to identify what services would continue to be provided, and seeking value for money in how services were delivered. Some minor changes to officer structures had been put in place to help to drive this. Mr Patterson anticipated providing Members with detailed information on baseline reviews and value for money investigations in the summer. The Chairman urged him to involve Members at the earliest possible stage, and to use the expertise of the PDS Committees. The Chief Executive acknowledged the vital role that PDS Committees would have, and urged them to focus on corporate priorities.

Questioned about the impact of Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG), the Chief Executive confirmed that, with the government withdrawing more funding than schools previously received there was an effect not only on the Council’s budgets but on the Council’s role in education. Although some statutory responsibilities remained, the role of Councillors in education was likely to be increasingly as advocates on behalf of their residents. Some Members suggested that, as academies reported to the Secretary of State there might be a role for MPs but not for Councillors. Mr Patterson clarified that Members would indeed have to work with MPs, but they would have to adapt to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 317.

Report RES13053

The Committee considered the following reports on the agenda for the meeting of the Executive on 3^rd April 2013.

(5) The Armed Forces Covenant

Report RERS13072

It was proposed that the Council agree to enter into the Armed Forces Covenant and that the Mayor host a ceremony for the signing of the Covenant. A Member referred to the recent unfavourable headlines in the local press about housing for a former soldier; the coverage had been unfair, but he suggested that the Council should have been sharper in its response. 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported.

(6) Budget Monitoring 2012/13

Report RES13069

The Committee considered the fifth budget monitoring report for 2012/13, representing the position based on expenditure and activity levels up to the end of January 2013, showing a projected net underspend of £3,580k. The report included a number of recommendations to release funds from central contingency.

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported.

(7) Future Role of the LA in Education Services

Report ED13032

Following the adoption by full Council of a new set of parameters for its work with schools, the Education PDS Committee and Portfolio Holder had considered a report summarising the Council’s future relationship with schools, which was encapsulated in an Education Covenant.

The Chairman of the Education PDS Committee reported that there was now an updated version of the Education Covenant, together with some further information about the Council’s statutory responsibilities – he requested that this be circulated. He also commented that the Council needed to stop carrying out unnecessary equality impact assessments.

The Committee discussed the implications of academies for the role of Councillors. Some Members were concerned that they would not be able to act as champions for the community when academies reported to the Secretary of State and not the Council. Others recognised an opportunity to act as advocates for parents and the community, with more information having to be published, and  without being compromised by owing an allegiance to schools, in the same way that Councillors could speak up for housing association tenants. 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported.

(8) Invest to save Bid – Training Statemented Pupils to Travel Independently

Report CS12081

The report summarised an Invest to Save bid of £100,000 to finance the training of young people to travel independently rather than use specialist Council transport. Members supported the bid, although it was noted that the report had not been considered by the Education PDS Committee.

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported.

(9) Commissioning Team Programme Budget

Report DRR13/043

The Committee considered a report outlining the governance and funding arrangements for the Council’s Commissioning Programme and recommending the draw down of funding of £300,000 from central contingency. Councillor Graham Arthur, Resources Portfolio Holder, who was the Lead Portfolio Holder for the programme, reported that the Commissioning Executive Team was meeting regularly to drive the work forward, and emphasised that final decisions would be made by Members.

The Chairman appealed for there to be fixed targets  ...  view the full minutes text for item 318.

The report set out an overarching policy for Council staff, including teachers, covering all forms of communication, both internal and external, including the internet, email and social networking. Members commended the brevity and comprehensiveness of the document, but commented that the position of Councillors was different to that of employees, so the reference to the policy applying to Councillors should be removed. Councillor Nicholas Bennett suggested that this aspect could be considered by the Constitution Improvement Working Group.    

RESOLVED that, subject to removal of reference to the policy applying to Councillors in paragraph 3.3, the policy be referred to General Purposes and Licensing Committee for approval.

The Report of the Committee’s Working Group is attached – subject to consideration by the Committee, the report will be referred to the meeting of the Executive on 22^nd May 2013.

In July 2012 the Committee had set up a working group to examine the Council’s financial situation and outlook. The Working Group, chaired by Councillor Eric Bosshard, had now produced its report and  made three recommendations on (i) new business development, (ii) becoming a commissioning authority, and (iii) disposal of surplus properties.

On the issue of new business development, the Working Group had taken evidence from GL Hearn on the study they had carried out on the potential for new business parks in the borough. They had come to the clear conclusion that a single new site in Bromley could not be viable, and suggested focusing on enhancing the existing activity in Bromley Town Centre, the Cray Valley and Biggin Hill Airport. Councillor John Getgood added that GL Hearn had not been asked to look at Penge, and he suggested that there was potential for business development in his ward. It was emphasised that the three areas identified by GL Hearn, while important, were not the only areas that could see business development.  Members noted the pressure to convert office space to residential, but considered that there was still potential to provide more and better quality offices in Bromley town centre in particular. This would be assisted if there was progress towards getting the DLR extended from Lewisham. Councillor Nicholas Bennett requested information on how many people came into the borough to work.

The Leader commented that Bromley had a great deal of potential – it was regarded as a good place to live, had a good record for business start-ups and a highly skilled workforce.

Councillor Bosshard called for urgent action in response to his report and in particular for a business development team to be set up to actively pursue the opportunities for development, taking advantage of the Council’s reserves to invest effectively. The Chief Executive responded that he would take this up with Directors.

RESOLVED that the report of the Finance Working Group be approved and referred to the Executive for consideration.

Report RES13056

The Council’s Constitution required that a report was made each year to full Council summarising the work of PDS Committees. The Committee considered the report for 2012/13, which included contributions from all PDS Chairmen.

The Committee discussed the role of the street enforcement contractor, XFOR, which had recently gone into receivership and been bought by another company.

It was noted that there was a typing error in paragraph 9.9.

RESOLVED that the 2012/13 Annual PDS Report be approved for submission to full Council.

Report RES054

The Committee received updates from PDS Chairmen on their Committees’ recent work.

Report RES13055

The Committee received an update on its work programme.

As this was the last meeting in 2012/13, the Chairman thanked Members and officers for their hard work throughout the year.

The Chairman to move that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

RESOLVED that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business referred to below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

The following summaries

refer to matters

involving exempt information

The exempt minutes from the meeting held on 31^st January 2013 were confirmed.

The Committee scrutinised the following proposed decisions of the Resources Portfolio Holder.

Members considered changes to the Liberata contract in recognition of additional service requirements.

The Committee supported proposals to extend these contracts and then re-tender.

Hayes & Coney Hall Ward

The Committee considered revised offers for the purchase of this property.  

Chislehurst Ward

The Committee considered a proposal to declare this site surplus to requirements and options for its disposal.

The Committee scrutinised reports on the Executive’s part two agendas for the scheduled meeting on 3^rd April 2013 (concerning the Award of Contract for Care and Support Services in Supported Living Schemes) and the special meeting on 28^th March 2013 (concerning Opportunity Site K, Westmoreland Road, Bromley.)  

Appendix 1

Questions from Councillor Tom Papworth

(1) To Cllr Graham Arthur, Resources Portfolio Holder

To ask the Portfolio Holder for Resources, in the light of recent information provided to this committee stating that c.10% of the Civic Centre site is devoted to the storage of files and documents, if he can provide a figure for how much it costs per annum for the London Borough of Bromley to store files/documents?

Reply -

For clarification, the recent information provided an approximate estimation of storage/ filing space for the areas affected by the moves, rather than the Civic Centre site as a whole.

It is not possible to assess the precise costs of space occupied by storage/ filing as a detailed analysis of storage space on the site as a whole has not recently been undertaken, and:

• The space analysis for the Civic Centre breaks down buildings into occupiable space and non occupiable space (e.g. circulation, toilets). Occupiable space includes storage, but the precise amount of occupiable space used for storage/filing has not been assessed.

• The amount of storage/ filing space differs in each building and an analysis of each building would have to be undertaken to identify the percentage area taken up by storage. Using this information a percentage figure would then have to be calculated for the Civic Centre as a whole
• Civic Centre costs are available, but they are not broken down into individual buildings
• The Civic Centre costs include the costs of Joseph Lancaster and Ann Springman for the period in which they were open

Based on an estimation that approximately 10 -15% of the site is taken up by storage/ filing, if the running cost for the Civic Centre is apportioned this amounts to £200,000 - £300,000 for the financial year to date. This figure will include costs for the buildings that closed part way through the year and should be reduced in the next financial year.

This can only be a notional figure and does not necessarily represent a saving that could be made if all filing and storage was removed from the Civic Centre site.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Papworth thanked the Portfolio Holder for his detailed response and asked what measures were in place to reduce storage. Councillor Arthur responded that there was an accommodation review and an asset management group looking at these issues to consider how property could be used most efficiently and costs minimised.

(2) To Cllr Stephen Carr, Leader of the Council

Following the decision to make redundant the post of Technical Officer - Pest Control, what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the London Borough of Bromley can adequately investigate and prosecute cases where a landlord is not meeting their requirement to deal with vermin infestation?

Reply -

The Public Protection Service budget savings proposals for 2013/14 included the loss of 0.5 fte Technical Officer (Pest Control and Drainage).  The duties of this officer had been taken over in part by the Thames  ...  view the full minutes text for item 328.