Minutes:
Councillor Graham Arthur, the Resources Portfolio Holder, gave a short presentation to the Committee and answered questions on his work. He began by highlighting two events which illustrated the quality of the staff employed by the Council (the Bromley Stars evening) and the commitment of volunteers across the borough (the Volunteers Reception.) He then remarked on how the Council was changing – around six hundred staff had left the Council at all levels. It was important to ensure that the organisation was not “top heavy” with senior staff, although he recognised that losing many experienced and senior staff in recent years was a challenge and possibly more thought needed to be given to succession planning. He accepted that Members also needed to reflect on their role.
Councillors had to consider what the borough should be like in the future. As the local plan was developed there would be difficult decisions on how to develop the three areas identified at Biggin Hill, the Cray Valley and Bromley Town Centre, and, with homelessness continuing to be a pressure, also on whether to set up housing zones to attract the New Homes Bonus. The Council had to review its own land-holdings, liquidating those that were not needed, and look to generate income. While the Council was correct to be risk-averse with Council taxpayer’s money, it also had to pursue ways of getting better returns on its investments.
With around 40% of Councils stating that they would not be able to balance their books in the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years, it was vital that Bromley was not one of these, despite already having the lowest costs per head in London. The current projected overspend of £4m could not be tolerated and all portfolios would have to continue to live within their budgets.
Members of the Committee questioned Councillor Arthur. A Councillor asked why Bromley was losing money by not levying additional Council Tax on landlords who kept their properties empty. Councillor Arthur stated that it would be wrong to add an additional penalty on landlords who usually did not want their properties to be empty – it was also suggested that this would prevent landlords from investing in improvements between tenants. A Member suggested that too many staff were leaving in areas such as planning due to the commissioning programme and criticised what he saw as a move away from working in partnership with other local agencies. Councillor Arthur responded that the commissioning programme had not affected planning yet, and staff in the Customer Service Centre, for example, felt that the situation had improved since they had been outsourced. He also stated that relationships with local NHS agencies were good and continued to improve, although local NHS Leaders often had little power and had to defer to central decisions. Another Member added that although the concept of “total place” was useful the old Local Strategic Partnership only amounted to a “talking shop” and there was little incentive for partners to work together to reduce silo-working in public services.
The Chairman commented that with government grant being reduced by around 40% it was vital that new statutory obligations were not imposed on Councils and that the overall burden was reduced. Councillor Arthur confirmed that there were regular meetings with local MPs at which these issues were explained and he encouraged all Members to lobby their MPs. He could not point to any definite changes as a result, but he felt that relationships were being strengthened.
Councillor Tony Owen asked the Portfolio Holder whether the challenge to the 2012/13 accounts had been resolved, and whether this would affect the 2013/14 accounts. Officers would investigate and inform Members. He also asked whether there were any concerns about Mytime Active, where there had been a turnover of directors and rumours of substantial losses. A report on arrangements with Mytime was expected at the next Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee, and it was suggested that Councillors should address questions direct to Mytime.
(Councillor Nicholas Bennett declared an interest during this item as a Council representative on the Mytime Active Board.)
Members noted the projected overspend on Adult Social Care Commissioning and the Government’s changes to the accounting regime. The Director of Finance’s representative explained that the projected overspend was not due to the changed Government requirements, but with individual placements for people with complex needs and delays in implementing planned changes that would achieve savings.
A Member asked whether changes of planning use from office to residential under permitted development rights were having an impact on the levels of business rates. The Portfolio Holder responded that the numbers of properties involved was small, but in any case the New Homes Bonus was probably greater than the business rates lost. A Member suggested investing in developing broadband services, particularly in rural parts of the borough. This would improve services for both residents and small and medium sized businesses.
Councillor Arthur agreed that Councils needed to think three to five years ahead not just in terms of the next annual budget. He considered that it would be realistic to see a quarter of the Council’s properties sold within the next three years, but there needed to be a clear vision of how the resulting receipts would be re-invested. A Councillor commented that the Council’s attitude to risk was inconsistent and needed to be clarified. In particular he objected to investing in further retail properties with long leases and in diversified growth funds which combined a blend of high risk investments and derivatives. The Portfolio Holder responded that the Council had to take opportunities to invest its money effectively.
The Chairman suggested that a task force of Councillors should be set up to work on a strategic borough plan. Others agreed that the Council needed a vision for the Borough, as had been articulated in 2006 with the 2020 Vision document. The Constitution Improvement Working Group needed to look at the issues, including numbers of councillors and the role of PDS Committees.