Members of the Committee are requested to bring their copy of the agenda for the Executive meeting on 24 November 2021.
Minutes:
The Committee considered the following reports on the Part 1 agenda for the meeting of the Executive on 24 November 2021:
(5) BUDGET MONITORING 2021/22
Report FSD21075
The report provided the second budget monitoring position for 2021/22 based on expenditure and activity levels up to the end of September 2021. The report also highlighted any significant variations which would impact on future years as well as any early warnings that could impact on the final year end position. This report also provided an update on the Covid grant position.
In opening the discussion, the Chairman noted that most of the forecast overspend was concentrated in the Children, Educations and Families portfolio. Members noted that whilst there were some early signs of a return to normal there remained challenges in terms of the budget and mitigations would need to be put in place. SEN Transport and SEN provision remained key areas of national concern and would require a great deal of attention and work at both Officer and Member Level. One of the key challenges was that these were statutory obligations and this to some extent limited the mitigations that could be put in place.
The Committee noted that in January 2021, the Children, Education and Families PDS Committee had established a Budget Task and Finish Group to look at budget pressures. In addition to the issue of SEN Transport, SEN provision and the exponential increase in the number of Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) were regularly considered by the Committee with it being noted that Bromley was not an outlier. The Chairman of the Children, Education and Families (CEF) PDS Committee highlighted that it took only one complex case to derail the budget and that committee received data demonstrating a sustained increase in the number of cases coming through the front door. Members noted that continued pressure needed to be placed on the Government to deliver the proposed reforms to the national SEN Structure as the system was currently not adequately funded. It was agreed that the recommendations from the CEF PDS Budget Task and Finish Group would be circulated to the Committee along with some benchmarking data considered by the Task and Finish Group. A Member noted that prior to the pandemic there had been a trend in the number of looked after children and the number of EHCPs being consistently higher than the agreed budget. The Member highlighted the need to review these historic trends and set a realistic budget.
Members noted that further detailed work was being undertaken on whether some Covid grants could be used to fund some of the increases in the cost of SEN Transport arising from the pandemic. The next budget monitoring report would be more explicit around Covid funding.
In response to a question, the Director of Finance agreed to review the data around Section 106 contributions and provide an update following the meeting.
The Committee noted that the contingency budget provided cover for overspends and that there was always rigor in the use of the contingency budget. It was noted that in the previous financial year much of the contingency had gone towards housing initiatives and the contingency was currently healthy.
RESOLVED: That the Executive be recommended to:
1. Consider the latest financial position;
2. Note that a projected net overspend on services of £2,458k is forecast based on information as at September 2021.
3. consider the comments from Chief Officers detailed in Appendix 2 of the report;
4. Note a projected reduction to the General Fund balance of £345k as detailed in section 3.4 of the report;
5. Note the full year cost pressures of £10.67m as detailed in section 3.5 of the report;
6. Agree to the release of £30k from the 2021/22 Central Contingency relating to local elections as detailed in para. 3.2.2 of the report;
7. Agree to the release of £40k from the 2021/22 Central Contingency relating to Crystal Palace Park as detailed in para. 3.2.3 of the report;
8. Agree to the release of £587k from the 2021/22 Central Contingency relating to Waste services as detailed in para. 3.2.4 of the report;
9. Agree to the release of £170k from the 2021/22 Central Contingency relating to Legal Services as detailed in para. 3.2.5 of the report;
10. Agree to the release of £91k from the 2021/22 Central Contingency relating to Property Valuation as detailed in para. 3.2.6 of the report;
11. Agree to the release of £213k from the 2021/22 Central Contingency relating to Public Health grant increase as detailed in para. 3.2.7 of the report;
12. Agree to the release of £89k from the 2021/22 Central Contingency relating to Obesity Grant as detailed in para. 3.2.8 of the report;
13. Agree to the release of £69k from the 2021/22 Central Contingency relating to COVID Recovery grant as detailed in para. 3.2.9 of the report;
14. Agree to the release of £500k Education Risk Reserve as detailed in para. 3.3 of the report;
15. Note the COVID allocation and expenditure in Appendix 7 of the report;
16. Identify any issues that should be referred to individual Portfolio Holders for further action.
(6) CAPITAL PROGRAMME MONITORING – 2ND QUARTER 2021/22
Report FSD21071
The report summarised the current position on capital expenditure and receipts following the 2nd quarter of 2021/22 and sought the Executive’s approval to a revised Capital Programme.
In opening the discussion, the Vice-Chairman noted that spending on the Liquid Logic project has significantly increased. The Vice-Chairman reported that she had received a response from the Assistant Director for Strategy, Performance and Corporate Transformation concerning the reasons for the increase in costs, however, the Committee were advised that more information was needed to understand the reasons. The Chairman requested that a more detailed response be sent to the Vice-Chairman following the meeting.
Members noted that Bromley had not borrowed to fund its capital programme and as such no loan charges were paid. However, the Director of Finance advised that the situation would need to be kept under review as the current model may not work in the event of a big capital scheme in the future. There would be a need to consider how schemes were funded in the future.
Members noted that there were capital receipts in the pipeline however, anything that was not currently approved by Officers would not be presented in the Capital Programme report.
RESOLVED: That the Executive be recommended to:
(i) Increase of £57k in relation to Formula Devolved Grant
(ii) Increase of £375k for Schools Capital Maintenance
(iii) £12k decrease in relation to the Scadbury Park Moated Manor Scheme
(iv) Increase of £130k for additional costs on the Anerley and Bushell Way Housing Scheme
(v) Increase of £98k for additional costs on the Burnt Ash Lane Housing Scheme
(vi) Increase of £536k for additional costs related to the Liquid Logic implementation.
(7) COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT/REDUCTION SCHEME 2022/23
Report FSD21068
The report advised Members of the outcome of the public consultation exercise and sought approval for the scheme to be forwarded to Full Council.
The Committee noted that Officers were disappointed with the low response rate to the consultation which made it difficult to determine whether the responses provided were representative. A Member noted that some of the responses indicated that respondents had found it difficult to answer some of the questions and Members looked forward to seeing suggestions for the consultation the following year.
The Portfolio Holder for Resources, Commissioning and Contract Management highlighted that the scheme had been kept at the same level for a number of years and there had been a positive response from the respondents.
A Member suggested that further consideration was required, particularly around the ongoing impact of the pandemic and the increases in the cost of living which were impacting many families.
In response to a question, the Director for Corporate Services and Governance confirmed that there were no concerns around the legality of the Equalities Impact Assessment and that there was no standard for Equality Impact Assessments with each undertaken on a case-by-case basis.
The Committee noted that 193 households had received help from the Hardship Fund and last year the collection rate for customers in receipt of Council Tax Support was 83%. The Committee was informed that the number of households in receipt of Council Tax Support was already falling compared to the peak during the height of the pandemic, but was still above the pre-pandemic level.
The Chairman proposed that the Executive be recommended to:
The motion was seconded by Cllr Gabbert, put to the Vote and CARRIED.
(Cllrs Wilkins and Jeal voted against, all other members voted in favour)
RESOLVED: That Executive be recommended to:
(8) ACADEMY INFORMATION SYSTEM AND ASPIEN CORPORATE DEBT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SOFTWARE LICENSE AND MAINTENANCE ARRANGEMENTS
Report FSD21072
The report sought authorisation to review the license agreement for the Academy System and the Aspien Corporate Debt Management System beyond 2022.
In response to a question, the Assistant Director for Exchequer Services explained that Oracle Fusion would be implemented in April 2022. Once the system had been implemented and had bedded in Officers would look to implement advanced collections. The timeframe set out in the report would enable a full review of advanced collections and implementation in stages. Members noted that there would be a parallel running of the two systems.
RESOLVED: That the Executive be recommended to:
i) Approve the renewal of the agreement for the Academy Information system until 1 April 2024 at an estimated annual cost of £163.24k;
ii) Approve the renewal of the agreement for Aspien Corporate Debt Management System until January 2024 at an annual cost of £9k.
(9) PLATINUM JUBILEE CELEBRATION
HPR2021/062
HM The Queen’s national Platinum Jubilee celebrations were planned to take place during 2nd to 5th June 2022. The London Borough of Bromley would be enabling street parties across the Borough by waiving the road closure fee, taking part in the national lighting of the beacons and the Queen’s Green Canopy, and delivering a cultural activity programme.
Members expressed disappointment with the report which they considered provided insufficient detail of the planned celebrations for the jubilee of a Monarch who had served the country for 70 years. The Committee felt that there had been insufficient consultation with Members in order to develop a Borough-wide approach to the Jubilee Celebrations and it was noted that the report before Members provided no details of the Communications Strategy for the event and who would be leading on the various projects.
It was noted that there were a number of community groups and uniformed organisations such as Residents’ Associations and the Scouting Movement who would also want to engage in the celebrations. As such it was essential that the Council played a co-ordinating role, and it was suggested that the Mayor should write to all community groups to launch a public consultation concerning what local people would like to see from any Jubilee Celebrations and to publicise the grants that were being made available. It was further suggested that ward councillors could encourage community groups to apply. A Member highlighted that there needed to be cross-departmental input into plans for Jubilee Celebrations and stressed the importance of including the Council’s Looked After Children, for whom Members had Corporate Parenting responsibilities, in the development of any plans.
A Member also noted that opportunities for aspects such as business sponsorship needed to be further explored and every Member of the Council should be contacted for their views on the Jubilee Celebrations across the Borough. In addition, more research should be done into the history of the Borough and its relationship with the monarchy, especially in terms of the Beacon lighting. Members considered that lighting only one Beacon for the whole of the Borough was insufficient.
Whilst not wanting to see delays in publicising the availability of grants, the Committee expressed serious reservations around the £20,000 ceiling on community grant funding, noting that this would mean that some wards may not receive any funding at all. It was agreed that there needed to be more of an idea of the scale of grant applications that may be received before any grant ceiling could be established. It was important to understand what community groups wanted to do to celebrate the Jubilee and following this local ward councillors could then assist with local allocation of grant funding. It was further noted that there would need to be clear and robust criteria for the allocation of funding in order to avoid allegations of unfairness.
In relation to the road closures, a Member questioned why the Council was only allowing road closures on the Sunday, suggesting that in order to facilitate street parties and wider celebrations, road closures should be permitted across the whole of the bank holiday weekend. It was also suggested that consideration should be given to permitting a shorter notification period for road closures.
It was suggested that a dedicated Officer was required to co-ordinate the Council’s Jubilee celebrations. A Member expressed concern that there may be insufficient resources within the Regeneration Team to deliver the expectations of Members. The Committee were reminded that the Team were currently undertaking a great deal of work administering Covid Grants and Members needed to recognise that meaningful resource would be required in order to organise the Jubilee Celebration.
The following questions were raised by Members for response following the meeting:
RESOLVED: That the Executive be recommended to:
1. Defer consideration of the report to enable a more detailed and comprehensive report to be provided to Members in January 2022;
2. Request that further details of the community grant programme be presented to the meeting in January 2022, setting out the full criteria for the allocation of grants and more detailed proposals for a revised community grant ceiling;
3. Request that a cross-departmental approach be taken to preparations for Platinum Jubilee Celebrations across the Borough with particular reference to the Local Authority’s Looked After Children;
4. Request that further details be provided on the Council’s own plans for Platinum Jubilee Celebrations; and
5. Agree that road closures be permitted across the whole of the bank holiday weekend.
6. Agree that the Leader should request that the Mayor writes to community groups publicise the grants that are being made available and encourage their involvement in the Jubilee Celebrations.