Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nicholas Bennett, Nicky Dykes, Judi Ellis, Ellie Harmer, Alexa Michael, Russell Mellor and also from Councillor Stephen Carr. Councillor Neil Reddin replaced Councillor Bennett, and Councillor Mary Cooke replaced Councillor Mellor. Councillor William Huntington-Thresher apologised for missing part of the meeting as he was also sitting on the Plans 3 meeting.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop declared in relation to a report on the Executive’s agenda that he was employed by British Telecom, and he left the room during consideration of this item.

Councillor Keith Onslow declared in relation to the reports on insurance Renewals and the Insurance Fund Annual Report that he was an ex-employee and pensioner of Zurich Municipal Insurance and employed by the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

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 Friday 2^nd October 2015.

No questions had been received for the Committee Chairman.

Members raised questions about the following minutes -

Minute 193 - The Customer Services Health Checks were not yet available – Members asked for an update at the next meeting.

Minute 198 – There was no further progress with the Waste4fuel site – the issue was still with the Department for Environment who were responsible for enforcing the license.    

Minute 199 (A) - the Director of Corporate Services confirmed that flood risk was beyond the scope of a normal local land search.  

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd September 2015 (excluding exempt information) be confirmed.

Report CSD15105

The Committee received and noted a report on matters arising from previous meetings.

The Committee noted the Forward Plan of Key and Private Executive Decisions as published on 15^th September 2015.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to the Resources Portfolio Holder 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 Friday 2^nd October 2015.

Two questions had been received, from Mr Richard Gibbons and from Councillor Ian Dunn. These are set out in Appendix A to these minutes.

Orpington Ward

Report DRR15/092

At its meeting on 10^th June 2015 the Executive had decided to cease the use of the Priory for the museum service and to declare it surplus to requirements, subject to further work being undertaken by the Strategic Property Service to establish whether the building could be used by other Council services. Following this decision a feasibility study had been undertaken into the possibility of relocating the Registrars’ Service and Electoral Services from the Civic Centre to the Priory. In addition, all Council services were requested to advise whether they had a property requirement which could be met at the Priory, but none was identified.

The conclusion of the study was that considerable internal modifications and an extension would be needed to accommodate Council services. Feasibility work already carried out on the building as part of the Council’s bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund and subsequent review by an English Heritage consultant had identified the need for expenditure of approximately £1.7m and annual running costs of £120k. The study concluded that the facilities would not meet the current needs of these services and relocation would add to the costs of service provision and almost certainly reduce the revenue earned by the Registrars’ Services.

Councillor William Huntington-Thresher, who was a ward member for Orpington, stated that the Council had a duty of care to this grade 2* listed building, the oldest secular building in the borough. He urged the Committee to consider allowing a temporary occupation by community groups such as Save the Orpington Priory (STOP) which would protect the building and allow them a practical opportunity to develop their business plan. 

Councillor Ian Payne, as Chairman of Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee, commented that very substantial investment was needed in the building and the Council had to be sure that whoever took on the building would have the resources to look after it. This would be more likely if a suitable commercial operator could be found. Officers confirmed that there were no covenants restricting future uses.

The Committee concluded that officers should investigate all options for keeping the building secure in the short term, including occupation by a community group or a commercial organisation. 

RESOLVED that the outcome of the feasibility study undertaken to establish whether the Priory and former Library is suitable for Council use be noted, and the Resources Portfolio Holder be recommended to reaffirm the Executive's decision that the property be offered for sale on a long lease on the open market and to consider all options for keeping the building secure, including a short term occupation with suitable conditions.

Orpington Ward

Report DRR15/080

The building on this site was in poor condition and not suitable for letting to a third party. Because of its age and construction, it was not worthy of refurbishment, and so a decision needed to be made on its future. The report recommended that the building be demolished and the fence along the northern boundary be removed allowing the land to be incorporated into Grassmeade Recreation Ground.

The Committee discussed whether a buyer might be found for the site, which had no vehicular access. The adjoining social landlord had already been approached and was not interested, but Members considered that there was potential for a sale and this should be attempted.

RESOLVED that the Resources Portfolio Holder be recommended to declare the land surplus to council requirements and offer it for sale on the open market.

Report FSD15060

The Council’s casualty insurance (comprising public liability, employers’ liability, officials’ indemnity and professional indemnity) was tendered in 2014 and a contract was awarded to Zurich Municipal (ZM) from 17^th June 2014 on a three year long-term agreement (LTA) with an option to extend for a further two years (delegated to the Director of Finance in consultation with the Resources Portfolio Holder). All other Council insurance policies (property, motor, fidelity guarantee, personal accident, school journey, minibuses, engineering, shops blanket and mortgaged properties were due to expire on 30^th April 2016 and it was proposed to tender for all these through the Crown Commercial Services Framework with a start date of 1^st May 2016. It was also proposed that a two year extension on the casualty insurance contract be approved. This would mean that all insurances would end on 30^th April 2019, enabling the entire package to be tendered from 1^st May 2019. A joint tender from 2017 had been considered, but this would have required a short contract which would not have generated a range of good value tenders.

A Member commented that the level of claims in recent years could point to deficiencies elsewhere in the Council’s services.    

RESOLVED that the Resources Portfolio Holder be recommended to approve the proposals to take tender action through the Crown Commercial Services Framework for all Council insurances except casualty and to agree an extension of two years (from 1^st May 2017 to 30^th April 2019 to the long-term agreement in place with Zurich Municipal  for casualty insurance.

Report RES15061

The report advised the Committee of the position of the Insurance Fund as at 31st March 2015 and presented statistics relating to insurance claims for the last two years. In 2014/15, the total Fund value reduced slightly from £2,981k to £2,888k. A mid-year review of the Fund had been carried out and, at this stage, it was estimated that the final Fund value as at 31^st March 2016 was likely to remain at around £2.9m. The position would continue to be monitored throughout the year. 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Members of the Committee are requested to bring their copy of the agenda for the Executive meeting on 14^th October 2015.

The Committee noted the Executive’s agenda for the meeting on 14^th October but did not comment on any of the reports as they had been considered or were due to be considered by other PDS Committees.

Report CSD15105

The Committee considered its work programme for 2015/16, and in particular how it could scrutinise the budget process. Officers were currently looking at all options for the 2016/17 budget to close the remaining gap and detailed savings would be presented to the Executive’s meeting in December before being circulated to PDS Committees for their input.  

Some Members considered that the programme of baseline reviews was still very silo-based and not sufficiently radical and called for proper zero based budgeting. Officers responded that budgets were not determined in silos, and the Chief Executive had established a challenge group to ensure that all proposals were thoroughly tested.

The Resources Portfolio Holder commented that up to half of Councils were expecting to be unable to balance their budgets for 2016/17. Despite starting from a lower base as a low spending Council, Bromley would not be in that position. The budget was built on a baseline of the bare legal minimum, and the easy savings had already been taken. Much progress had already been made – investments were earning the Council an extra £8m pa, and staff numbers had been reduced from 2,400 to about 1,490. Private enterprise and the third sector were increasingly providing services that they were better placed to deliver. Frontline services had been protected, staff redundancies had not been enforced and staff involved in outsourcing had felt that they were treated fairly. The role of Members would need to change to focus more on reviewing and monitoring contracts and acting as the “eyes and ears” of residents – this might involve training and development for Members. He concluded by saying that the Committee’s whole-Council view combined with the detailed scrutiny of individual PDS Committees was where the expertise lay to ensure that budgets were reduced. However, he suggested that small, targeted working groups of just two or three Members looking at specific issues might be an effective innovation.

Members also discussed the need to look at how other boroughs ran their services to benchmark these against Bromley and look for ideas to improve.

RESOLVED that the work programme be noted.

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 Committee confirmed the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd September 2015.

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

The Committee scrutinised a proposal to extend these contracts.

The Committee scrutinised a proposal to extend the current contract.

The Committee scrutinised the following reports on the Executive’s agenda for the meeting on 14^th October 2015.