Meeting Details

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2016 were confirmed as a correct record. 

Councillor Davies introduced the Scrutiny Panel Work Programme for 2016/17. Councillor Davies highlighted that following discussions with the Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee, it will be proposed to Council that the quarterly budget reports and treasury management reports be moved to the Governance and Audit Work Programme.

Councillor Davies also stated that the Council is aiming to increase the use of digital agendas and suggested that the Scrutiny Panel participate in the uptake of delivering agendas digitally to devices. Councillor Higgins highlighted that in order to ensure Councillors are able to access their agendas through a digital device for the entirety of a meeting power sources would be required.

Councillor Arnold also proposed that Firstsite could return to the Scrutiny Panel at its February meeting to provide an update on the business case, following a year under the new management.

Councillor Coleman requested that the Panel look into the provision of bus services in Colchester. The Panel discussed whether holding a review of the bus services at the Panel would be effective given that previous occasions had led to only one bus company attending, and that bus companies are not answerable to the Borough Council. The Panel agreed that a letter would be sent to all bus companies in Colchester with questions suggested by Councillors. Councillor Scordis requested that the Panel look back at the previous occasion that bus services be reviewed and compare the current situation. A report outlining the process behind this be submitted to the next meeting.

The Panel also discussed the results of the waste survey, and requested that a discussion on the results come to the Scrutiny Panel as soon as possible. A provisional date of February was agreed by the Panel subject to change once further information on timescales has been received from the Portfolio Holder.

RESOLVED that:

1. a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Scrutiny Panel outlining the questions to be sent to bus companies.
2. The Waste consultation and Firstsite be provisionally scheduled for the February Scrutiny Panel meeting.
3. The Work Programme 2016/17 be noted. 

Councillor Davies (in respect of being employed by the Rural Community Council of Essex) declared a non-pecuniary interest pursuant to the provision of Meetings General Procedure Rule 9(5).

Matthew Sterling, Assistant Chief Executive, introduced the report which requested that the Panel consider the performance of the authority for 2015/16 and whether the proposed targets for next year are sufficiently realistic and ambitious. The report will then be sent to Cabinet for further consideration and comment.

Matthew Sterling highlighted that the report includes 14 different key performance indicators, with twelve of the KPI’s achieving the target set. Two key performance indicators were categorised as red; amount of residual household waste per household and the amount of household waste reused, recycled and composted both missed the targets set.

Matthew Sterling also highlighted particular successes for the Council, this included the net additional homes provided reaching 933 with an original target of 830, and achieving the target for the sickness rate in working days. With regard to future years targets these will be tougher or similar to those that are existing for the current year.

The third part of the report includes all of the actions taken throughout the year to reach the objectives in the Strategic Plan Action Plan. Matthew Sterling highlighted the new Charter Market which has higher than average occupancy rates and the fixing the link scheme which provides guidance for visitors walking from the railway station to the Town Centre. Matt Sterling also highlighted the local festivals that had taken place in Colchester, and the aim to have a cleaner town centre with the use of the hot wash machine.  

Councillor raised the following issues;

• Councillor Coleman – Are there any plans for a Winter Wonderland in 2016?
• Councillor Arnold – Is there an indication of the split between those applications that were rejected following an officer recommendation to refuse and those that were rejected when Councillors went against the recommendation from officers? Requested that the information be included in future reports. Also questioned why the houses built target was included as Colchester Borough Council does not build the properties.
• Councillor Arnold – Questioned the reasons behind the increase in residual waste per household, and asked for the number of households in the Borough that do not recycle.
• Councillor Davies – Questioned whether there had been a high number of residents reporting missed collections as a number of comments through the Gazette highlighted issues of missed collections and not being provided with recycling facilities. Councillor Davies also highlighted recycling from flats and the need for this to be improved.
• Councillor Coleman – Are there any plans for further roll out of education through schools, residents or press?
• Councillor Higgins – Highlighted issues with recycling at flats due to the space available and the need to increase students awareness of recycling at the end of University terms.
• Councillor Arnold – Questioned whether the application for the digital trail focusing on the Roman and Norman heritage of the town had been officially launched as it is on the application stores but does not included much information.

In response to issues raised by Councillors, Matthew Young and Cllr Tim Young, Portfolio Holder for Culture and Regeneration provided the following responses;

• In response to Councillor Coleman, Councillor Tim Young stated that there will not be a Winter Wonderland taking place for 2016. There is an aim to hold an event during 2017 as there is demand for an event of this type to take place. There will still be a number of events taking place in 2016 in Colchester.
• In response to Councillor Arnold’s query on Planning Applications, Matthew Sterling stated for the year so far, 33.3% of decisions taken by Officers have been successfully appealed, but there have been none so far in this quarter from Councillor decisions. For the last financial year, there were 38 appeals against officer decisions of which 36% were successful; there were 5 appeals against Committee decisions of which 20% were successful.  With regard to the housing figures these are included at Colchester Borough Council does a significant amount of work to enable the houses to be built; the wording in the report is based on a national indicator.
• In response to Councillor Arnold’s query on household waste Matthew Young, Head of Operational Services, stated that the increase in residual waste is due to households increasing the amount of waste they put out; the lower level of recycling is due to a reduction in the green waste that was collected in the previous year. Matthew Young highlighted that the trend over the past ten years in Colchester is a reduction in the amount of residual was produced by households from 63,000 to 58,000 whilst there has been an increase in the number of properties by 7,000; this is one of the best records across Essex. With regard to the number of homes that do not recycle, or only recycle one particular material, it is estimated that this totals around 25% of households. Zone teams do visit those households who do not recycle to try and educate and encourage them to do so. Councillor Young stated that incentives may no longer be providing the stimulus necessary and enforcement may be required.  Councillor Young also stated that with regard to the Waste consultation the administration will soon be analysing the results.
• In response to Councillor Davies, Matthew Young stated that he would look at the comments raised. With regard to flat recycling this is something that is being worked on. Councillor Young stated that he does not receive indication of missed collections from residents in his ward.
• In response to Councillor Coleman, the zone teams provide a lot of support for residents, alongside work with schools and the junior zone team programme. Work is also undertaken with Essex for educations around the county.
• Councillor Tim Young responded to Councillor Higgins highlighting that flat recycling is impacted by planning. Matthew Young stated that the Waste Team in partnership with Planning Services have devised a supplementary planning document to help identify the requirements for recycling facilities in flats so that the bins are accessible to the crews. Colchester Borough Homes flats have helped to create recycling areas, but further work is required with private developers and management companies to provide additional space.
• Councillor Tim Young stated that he would find out further information on the application and inform the Scrutiny Panel in due course.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Panel considered and commented on the Year End 2015/16 Performance Report including progress on Strategic Plan Action Plan.  

Councillor Davies introduced the Annual Scrutiny Report. The report requests that the Panel consider and comment on the draft Annual Scrutiny report, and that the report is recommended to Council for approval on 27 July 2016.

Councillor Davies stated that the report provides a record of the scrutiny reviews that took place during 2015/16.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Annual Scrutiny Report 2016 be approved and adopted.

Sean Plummer, Strategic Finance Manager, introduced the 2017/18 Budget Strategy, Medium Term Financial Forecast and Budget Timetable; Councillor Cory, Portfolio Holder for Resources was also in attendance for the item. The report request that the Scrutiny Panel considers and notes the report, and refers any comments or concerns back to the Cabinet for further consideration.

Sean Plummer stated that this is the first report of the budget cycle for 2017/18.  The report sets out the position of the final budget for 2016/17, which has previously been submitted to the Scrutiny Panel for review, before highlighting the forecast positions.

With regard to the forecast budget gap for 2017/18, based on a number of figures and assumptions it is estimated to be £766,000, which includes the predicted level of savings and income.

Sean Plummer highlighted the key assumptions including an offer from the Government of a four year funding settlement, to which the Council has until 14 October to decide whether to accept. The plan is to take a report to Cabinet in September to set out the options for the Government settlement.

With regard to the Government funding there is a 17% reduction in core funding from reductions in the Revenue Support Grant and Business rates. The Revenue Support Grant is expected to have disappeared by 2019/20 with payments having to be made back to the Government. Sean Plummer also highlighted that there is an actuarial review of the Essex Pension Fund during this financial year and it is expected that extra contributions will be required and that the Council has set aside £250,000 for this purpose.

In terms of the growth items included within the budget this refers to continuing the provision of locality budgets for Councillors, with £2,000 each to spend within their wards. The report forecasts also assume that the Council will be using £150,000 less from the New Homes Bonus. A review of the New Homes Bonus is being carried out by the Government and the Council is currently waiting for the Governments decision following the consultation but it is expect that it will result in a reduction in Colchester grant.

The report also includes the assumption of an increase in Council Tax, which follows the Governments settlement forecasts and is not a proposal for the Council. In addition the Medium Term Financial Forecast highlights an increase budget gap over the next four years. The level of reserves and balances is also referred to, which whilst higher than recommended levels at the moment was reported to the Scrutiny Panel at its previous meeting.

The following issues were raised by Councillors;

• Councillor Davies – What is the impact on the budget of the vote to leave the European Union?
• Councillor Fox – Is the four year funding settlement the only offer available to Colchester Borough Council?
• Councillor Arnold – Highlighted that whilst the locality budget amount per Councillor had remained the same for this financial year, the area which Councillors covered had grown due to the reduction in Councillors on the authority and suggested that the total funding be maintained at the level in the previous year.

  Sean Plummer, and Cllr Mark Cory, provided the following responses;

• Sean Plummer stated that the impact of the vote to leave the European Union is unknown; it is difficult to predict how this affects the public sector finances and the government settlement to Colchester Borough Council. It is also difficult to know the impact on collection of business rates, alterations to the New Homes Bonus and the impact if the interest rate changes. Councillor Cory stated that the Council is resilient with investments that are not at significant risk. With regard to the impact on housing and commercial will have to wait and see as some elements may be to Colchester Borough Council’s benefits.
• Sean Plummer confirmed to Councillor Fox it is currently the only offer available from the Government, if the Council does not accept the offer the settlement provided could be worse. Accepting the offer would provide additional certainty and the ability to plan for the future. Councillor Cory stated in having a settlement is easier to forecast budgets over the long term for the authority; however Council’s will still need to be aware of Governments altering deals that have already been agreed.
• Councillor Cory noted the contribution from Councillor Arnold and would consider the comment for the next year’s budget. Councillor Cory also stated that the increased income within the Borough had allowed the Council invest on projects across the Borough.

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Panel considered and commented on the 2017/18 Budget Strategy, Medium Term Financial Forecast and Budget Timetable. 

Steve Heath, Financial Manager, introduced the Treasury Management Annual Report for 2015/16. The report requests that the Scrutiny Panel consider the treasury management performance for 2015/16 and note the performance of the Council’s treasury management advisors.

Steve Heath outlined that this was the first of three reports that are scheduled to come to Committees during the year; the third and final report forms part of the budget in January. Steve Heath highlighted that if there are any other significant events that take place during the year they will be reported through the Capital Monitor reports.

Steve Heath stated that the Council use Capita Asset Services as the treasury advisors. With regard to the strategy it was anticipated that the UK bank rate would stay at 0.5% until the beginning of 2016 and begin to rise however this was not the case. The latest forecast anticipates a cut of 0.25%, and a return to the current interest rate no sooner than June 2018. The borrowing strategy is to continue to avoid external borrowing which reduces the Councils exposure to credit risk and cost of carry as the cost of borrowing was higher than investment returns. The investment policy reflects a very low appetite for risk; the average earned on investments during the year was 0.59%.

All activity complied with the strategy that was approved by Council in February 2015, and the subsequent update that was approved by Cabinet in November 2015. The changes at that time were included to allow for flexibility on sovereign credit ratings, setting out a mechanism on the cost of internal borrowing for the Housing Revenue Account and an accounting change relating to the maturity profile for the Councils debt.  With regard to the Loans Investment Account, this has a favourable variance due to the higher level of cash than anticipated and continuing internal borrowing strategy. 

The Committee thanked the officer for the hard work and the way in which the report was presented allowing for a greater understanding of a complex subject.

RESOLVED that;

1. The Scrutiny Panel considered the treasury management performance in 2015/16
2. The performance of the Council’s treasury management advisors be noted.