The Leader of the Council,
Councillor Colin Smith, and the Portfolio Holder for Resources,
Commissioning and Contracts Management attended the meeting to
respond to questions from the Committee.
The
Leader provided a brief overview noting that things had been
“thrown sideways” last year following the Russian
invasion. This has lead to increased inflation resulting in
additional costs to the Council. Whilst it had been possible
to manage inflationary pressures within contracts, the additional
costs to the Council were likely to result in an increase in
Council Tax. The Leader paid tribute to staff for
“sticking with us” over salary increases. It was
acknowledged that inflation had meant that the previous pay
settlement had not reflected pressures around the cost of living,
and this would be reviewed during consideration of the budget
report during the Executive meeting on 18 January 2023.
The
Leader reported that the Council continued to challenge the Mayor
of London’s proposed ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) extension
as aggressively as possible. In addition, the Environmental
Team were braced for potential bad weather in the coming days and
issues with potholes were being addressed.
Turning
to the Council’s finances, Bromley had received a reasonable
settlement from the Government and senior Members and Officers
continued to lobby the Government over fairer funding.
The
Portfolio Holder for Resources, Commissioning and Contracts
Management highlighted that the unprecedented financial situation
has made it difficult to forecast and the Council had seen many of
its costs increasing with very few options for increasing
income.
Officers had worked hard on the Operational Property Review and
the Portfolio Holder highlighted that it was reasonable for the
Council to review how services were provided and the estate it
required. Once again, the Portfolio Holder reiterated that
the Council would not be engaging in fire sales of any property
deemed surplus to requirement.
The
Meadowship 2 scheme had been delivered which was positive
news. Delivery of the scheme had been made more challenging
by volatility in the gilt market in September, however Officers had
overcome these challenges.
The
Portfolio Holder remarked that a low point had been receiving a
further challenge from Biggin Hill Airport Limited.
The
Leader and the Portfolio Holder then responded to questions, making
the following comments:
- In
relation to the ULEZ, the Leader confirmed that along with 4 or 5
likeminded outer London boroughs, Bromley continued to
challenge. The Council would continue to follow legal
processes and legal advice was being sought in relation to whether
the Mayor of London needed permission to instal signs and equipment
on non-TfL roads.
- The
Leader confirmed that, in his view, it was unlikely that the
outcome of the fairer finding review would be known this side of a
general election.
- In
relation to property disposals, the Portfolio Holder for Resources,
Commissioning and Contracts Management provided reassurance that
assets would have a reserve price. The Leader highlighted
that it was difficult to predict the direction of the commercial
property market and any reserve price would be the “best
guesstimate” but it was clear that it was not the intention
to give away free money to speculative purchasers.
- The
Leader highlighted that it was highly unlikely that there would be
a reduction on the statutory obligations placed on Councils.
In recent years there had been an increase in regulations and
higher safety standards all of which placed increasing pressures on
local authorities to deliver more in an ever-tighter funding
envelope.
- The
Portfolio Holder for Resources, Commissioning and Contracts
Management confirmed that he was comfortable with capital
commitments as they were for the medium term. There was
however no spare capacity.
- In
response to a question, the Portfolio Holder for Resources,
Commissioning and Contracts Management confirmed that it was not
just Biggin Hill Airport Limited that was concerned about the
impact of the Civil Aviation Authority’s decisions around
Runway 03, residents were also concerned. The Council was
actively considering the issue and would instruct external counsel
as appropriate.
- In
response to a question around housing, the Portfolio Holder
explained that in an ideal world the Council would not consider
taking on any debt, however, were the Council to do so there had to
be a net benefit. It was possible that borrowing could be
considered to reduce the costs of temporary accommodation but there
needed to be detailed consideration of how any debt would be
serviced. The Portfolio Holder was clear that the Council
would not be undermining its general principal of remaining debt
free. The Leader confirmed that all options that represented
the best deal for the Council would be considered.
- The
Leader highlighted that for many years the Council had been lobby
for improvements to public transport in the borough –
extensions to the DLR and trams into Bromley – but every
request had been turned down. In the current climate big
infrastructure projects looked unlikely but it would be helpful if
the Council, with cross-party support, continued to push for
improvements to public transport. The Leader also highlighted
that consideration had to be given to the sustainability of the
current funding model for public transport.
- In
response to a question concerning potential threats to
Bromley’s status as “London’s Best
Borough”, the Leader suggested that one of the key threats
was compulsory housing targets, which could threaten the green
belt. It would help if the affordability index was reduced as
this could increase the supply of housing.
- In
response to a question around what it meant to rethink the
relationship between the citizen and the service, the Portfolio
Holder for Resources, Commissioning and Contracts Management stated
that Bromley was fortunate to be a settled borough with a settled
population. As such there was a plethora of community groups
all of which made a huge difference to the quality of life for
residents. As a Council, Bromley was able to leverage the
various partnerships in order to continue to deliver better
outcomes for residence. One such example of this was the One
Bromley Partnership.
- In
response to questions from the Chairman around the pending office
move, the Leader explained that the intention was to move staff in
phases starting in June. Phases 1 and 2 would involve
relocating Bromley staff. In terms of the amount of office
space required, a 50/50 balance of working from home and office
based had been decided upon by the Chief Executive and the Director
of HR. The situation was fluid and in response to a question
from the Chairman, the Leader confirmed that staff had not been
mandated to return to the office. Phases 3 and 4 of the
move could involve the potential relocation of other agencies but
before all the available space was taken elected members would be
consulted on the eventual office/working at home
balance.
The
Committee thanked the Leader and the Portfolio Holder for their
updates.