Agenda item

Members of the Committee are requested to bring their copy of the agenda for the Executive meeting on 10^th June 2015.

The Committee considered the following reports on the Part 1 agenda for the Executive’s meeting on 10^th June 2015.

(5)  Provisional Final Accounts 2014/15

Report FSD15034

The Committee considered the provisional outturn for 2014/15 at portfolio level and Council-wide, as well as the implications for the Council’s financial position in 2015/16. There was a net nil variation made up of an underspend on service department budgets of £2.3m, £4m underspend on the central contingency, additional interest on balances of £1.8m,  prior years  adjustments totalling £3.7m cr, a £10m contribution to the Investment Fund and other variations totalling £1.8m.

The Committee considered the Care Services Portfolio, where there was a degree of volatility from unforeseen placements and demographic changes. The Department’s task was to cope with these variations and manage within the overall budget, but Members remarked that underspends in some areas should not be viewed as opportunities to allow overspends elsewhere – there had to be culture change across the organisation that money that was not needed should be given back. This was the first time for ten years that there was an overspend on care budgets, following significant savings in 2013/14. The Department had worked hard to reduce the overspend from the much higher projections in September 2014, but cost pressures had to be identified sooner and proposals to address them put in place earlier.

Members discussed the use of a central contingency fund for unforeseen items, to be drawn down only when necessary. There were suggestions both that it should be reduced as the Council’s budgets shrank, but also that as budgets tightened and risks increased it was more necessary than ever. 

The Committee was assured that all budgets were scrutinised rigorously and the Leader stated that savings had been taken early wherever possible.

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported.

(Councillors Ian Dunn and Angela Wilkins requested that their contrary votes be recorded.) 

 (7)  Investment Property Review

Report DRR15/056

The report provided an overview of the Council’s investment portfolio and proposed a process for reviewing this portfolio. The following categories of property would be reviewed in priority order over the coming year – estate shops (freehold and leasehold), shopping centres, green belt, miscellaneous commercial properties, residential properties and sports and community uses. All properties would be challenged rigorously. 

The Executive was also asked to reaffirm a set of management policies set out in the report as (a) to (k). Members noted that policy (f) was not to grant preferential terms to charities, providing them with a hidden subsidy, as there were proper channels for supporting charities, including the 80% discount on business rates. A Member queried whether the Council could pursue policy (g) about avoiding granting leases to competing businesses – this would be considered as part of the review, but there was some scope for considering the social and economic needs of the area. Policy (k) was not to dispose of small pieces of land for garden extensions unless it was in the Council’s interest, as this often involved a disproportionate amount of staff time. Members felt that this was contrary to the aim of disposing of property that was not needed in order to achieve capital receipts and reduce maintenance costs.

RESOLVED that the Executive be recommended to support the proposed review of the Council’s investment portfolio and reaffirm the management policies (a) to (j) set out in the report, but to remove policy (k) that small pieces of land should not be sold for garden extensions. 

(8)  Bromley Museum and the Priory, Orpington

Report DRR15/046

In February 2015 officers had recommended, in the context of the need to make budget savings, that the Bromley Museum be relocated to the Central Library and the Priory building be disposed of on the open market. Since then, at the request of the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation, officers had investigated the future of the Museum and the Priory and held discussions with residents and interested parties. Although heritage and arts were highly valued by residents, the current museum standard was weak, and a new approach to provision of a local museum was needed with significantly reduced revenue costs.

Some Members suggested that as the Lubbock Collection was not related to the history of the borough it should be offered back to the Lubbock family or to a more suitable museum, such as the Horniman museum or the Natural History Museum; this would allow more space to be devoted to local history.

It was clarified that the £395k to be allocated from capital receipts for the relocation of exhibitions to the central library was capital receipts from elsewhere, not from the Priory building.

Some Members commented that maintaining a mobile collection was a luxury that the Council could no longer afford. A Member suggested that as it was not possible to display all 20,000 objects in the Museum’s collection more effort should be given to displaying them in community buildings across the borough, such as libraries and schools. 

RESOLVED that the Executive be recommended to

(1) approve the recommendations set out in the report subject to the following amendments –

·  Recommendation 2.2 to read “…for sale or disposal of a leasehold interest on the open market…”

·  Recommendation 2.4 to “…the allocation of up to £15k per annum revenue…”

(2) return the Lubbock Collection to the Lubbock family.

(11)  Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Planning Obligations: Addendum on Changes to Pooling S.106 Contributions and S.106 Threshold Changes

Report DRR15/009

The report proposed an addendum to the Council’s existing Supplementary Planning Document Planning Obligations (2010) to reflect changes introduced by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended), which came into effect from 6^th April 2015. As an interim measure, until a local CIL was in place, the Council would need to seek financial contributions from developers only for specific purposes and ensure that only a maximum of five contributions were spent for specific items of infrastructure. 

The report was considered in conjunction with the Section 106 update report on the Committee’s own agenda.

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported.