Agenda item

PRE-DECISION SCRUTINY OF EXECUTIVE REPORTS

Minutes:

The Committee looked at the following reports on the Part 1 agenda for the Executive’s meeting on 11th January 2017.

 

(5) Draft 2017/18 Budget and Update on the Council’s Financial Strategy 2018/19 to 2020/21

Report FSD17005

 

Members considered the initial draft Budget for 2017/18 with Report FSD17005 also including details of the second year of the four year local government financial settlement (2016/17 to 2019/20), an update on the new social care precept, other changes reflected in the Autumn Statement 2016, and the Provisional Local Government Financial Settlement 2017/18.

 

There continued to be outstanding issues and areas of uncertainty and any further updates would be included in the 2017/18 Council Tax report to the Executive meeting on 8th February 2017. The report would also include comments on the draft budget from PDS Committees.

 

In considering risks it was noted that in addition to using savings and investment, New Homes Bonus funds and the Council’s Contingency had been used for the first time to support revenue. Containing costs also meant that the Council started from a low cost base. Increased inflation would present a significant risk in future as would any new Government burdens. However, there continued to be a significant level of contingency (albeit reduced) to deal with risks.

 

Reference was made to the Adult Social Care precept when setting the level of Council tax 2017/18 and savings of £1.5m per annum which can be expected from the forthcoming triennial valuation of the Council’s Pension Fund. The actuary had also confirmed the benefits of gifting the Mears scheme to the Pension Fund. On behalf of Members, the Chairman thanked the Director of Finance for hard work behind the scenes.

 

Concerning inflation and contract price increases, it was suggested that a number of contracts included inflation at unrealistic levels. Concern was also expressed that the Council’s Pension Fund was not fully funded and as such remained an outstanding debt for the Council.

 

RESOLVED that the report and recommendations to the Executive be noted.

 

(6)  Children's Services Improvement Plan Update and Phase Three Spending Plan

Report CS17089

 

An update was provided on progress with the Children’s Services Improvement Areas. This included advice that the new Deputy Chief Executive had reviewed the initial Phase 3 spending Plan and had re-profiled the resource requirements to be funded from the Phase 3 allocation. Accordingly, Report CS17089 sought Executive approval for £141k (part year 2016/17) and £795k (full year 2017/18) to be released based on the re-profiled requirements.

 

Providing laptops for children’s social care staff would also enable staff to remain in the field and reduce downtime returning to the office to access I.T. It was proposed to use one-off funding of £150k from the Council’s Technology Fund to purchase the laptops and other associated hardware.

 

After discussion, it was reported that the proposals in the report excludes the additional funding of £300k per annum requested as part of the original Phase 3 proposal. The original funding identified has been utilised towards other priority areas of the service. However, no additional monies have been set aside at this stage and any additional funding for recruitment and retention required will be subject to a further report to Members.

 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

 

(14)  Update: Biggin Hill Memorial Museum

Report DRR17/001

 

In providing a project update following earlier submission of funding applications, Executive approval was sought to further develop the project prior to final grant decisions.

 

The value of S106 monies towards overall costs would be either £914k or £968k dependent upon whether Taylor Wimpey implement a scheme detailed in planning application 15/00508 or application 16/02685 and Executive was asked to underwrite the £54k difference, the cost to be met from Central Contingency.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations to the Executive be noted. 

 

(15)  Disposal of Banbury House, Chislehurst

Report DRR16/094

 

It was proposed to dispose of the site with an optimal development scheme achieving planning consent and best consideration in a timely manner.

 

Applicants would be encouraged to follow the pre-application process and seek planning consent for a scheme. Cushman and Wakefield could review available studies (appointing sub-consultants as necessary) to support an application and identify any further work to be undertaken. 

 

A planning report from Cushman and Wakefield would provide a detailed overview of the project and its context; identify planning issues to be addressed; and set out a series of recommendations on how the development will need to be presented to the planning authority. A more detailed feasibility scheme would then be developed (Stage 2) and formal pre-application discussions would then be held with the Planning Department (Stage 3). Finalisation of the design would then follow (Stage 4) and public consultation/stakeholder engagement considered (Stage 5). Continuing their work, Cushman and Wakefield would then prepare and submit a planning application and enter negotiations on the planning application with the planning case officer (Stage 7).  Following planning consent, they would market the site (Stage 8) and officers and Cushman and Wakefield would evaluate bids received and recommend disposal to a recommended purchaser (Stage 9).

 

The capital receipt from disposal was estimated to be in the range of £3.5m and Executive was asked to approve expenditure at £46k from the Investment Fund for costs related to the feasibility study, works to obtain planning consent, and marketing of the site. By gaining planning consents prior to marketing there was potential to generate a larger capital receipt.

 

The proposed process for disposing of Banbury House and the Small Halls Site represented a different approach intended to deliver the disposals more quickly and provide receipts sooner. In removing the planning risk for developers the approach could generate more interest and potentially lead to a higher receipt and more income for the Council. Cushman and Wakefield were reviewing the Council’s entire property portfolio. In going through the planning process and obtaining planning permission joint ventures were anticipated and high density developments could be avoided. Reference was also made to the benefits of an overage clause and whether the Banbury House and Small Halls disposals should be considered as part of a joint venture. 

 

A question was asked on whether the Banbury House site could be used for temporary accommodation purposes in a similar way to the Manorfields site, Orpington. It was thought the present design of the site might be prohibitive but the Chairman asked the Executive to consider the suggestion further.

 

Cushman and Wakefield were not involved in selecting the Banbury House and Small Halls sites to trial the new approach but would work with the Council strategically and provide a reasonable price for their work. Noting the hourly charges budget estimate for the planning approach and marketing stages, a Member enquired of the hours involved and Cushman and Wakefield’s hourly charge.

 

In concluding, the Committee agreed to support the recommendations but with the benefits of ensuring an overage clause and looking at whether the disposal should be considered as part of a joint venture; also that investigations be undertaken prior to the Executive meeting on whether the site can be viably used to provide temporary accommodation.  Information would also be helpful on the extent to which £46k represented value for money for planning consent on the Banbury House and York Rise sites.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported subject to:

 

(1)  the benefits of ensuring an overage clause and looking at whether the disposal should be considered as part of a joint venture;

 

(2)  investigations being undertaken prior to the Executive meeting on whether the site can be viably used to provide temporary accommodation; and 

 

(3)  information on the extent to which £46k represents value for money for planning consent on the Banbury House and York Rise sites.

 

 (16)  Disposal of Small Halls site, York Rise, Orpington

Report DRR16/093

 

A staged approach to planning consent of a scheme to dispose of the Banbury House site was also recommended for disposing of the Small Halls site, Orpington. Again, this would provide clarity to the market. 

 

The capital receipt from disposing of the Small Halls site was estimated to be in the range of £3.5m to £4m. The Executive was also asked to approve expenditure at £46k from the Investment Fund for costs related to the feasibility study, works to obtain planning consent, and marketing of the site. As with Banbury House, there was potential to generate a larger capital receipt by gaining planning consents prior to marketing.

 

A Member highlighted that a sum of £46k related to costs for Banbury House was again being requested for costs associated with the Small Halls site. Overall, Members supported the disposal but in so doing asked that relevant recommendations applying to the Banbury House disposal also apply to the Small Halls site disposal.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported subject to:

 

(1)  the benefits of ensuring an overage clause and looking at whether the disposal should be considered as part of a joint venture; and

 

(2)  information on the extent to which £46k represents value for money for planning consent on both the Banbury House and York Rise sites.

 

Supporting documents: