Agenda item

The Committee will consider a 6 month review of recommendations from the 2020 Budget Scrutiny Task and Finish Group.

Contributors:

Martin Tett, Leader

Katrina Wood, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Resources

Sarah Murphy-Brookman, Corporate Director for Resources

Ian Thompson, Corporate Director for Planning, Growth and Sustainability

Richard Ambrose, Service Director for Corporate Finance (Section 151 Officer)

Paper:

6 month review paper

Mr M Tett, Leader presented the report and placed on record his thanks to the Finance and Resources Committee for their work in scrutinising the budget. The update paper appended to the agenda pack provides an update to each of the recommendations made by the 2020 Budget Scrutiny Task and Finish Group.

The following key points were raised by the Select Committee members during discussion:

·       A member asked what steps the council had taken in its strategy to reduce agency staff, particularly in the planning service. Mr Tett and Ms Wood affirmed that addressing agency numbers was a priority of the Council. The Committee was advised that work had been undertaken to identify the number of agency workers and understand whether their roles were to cover established posts or whether they had been employed to focus on particular projects. It was confirmed that the council used one single supplier for agency staff and the use of agency staff was understood and controlled. Work was underway to promote the Council as an excellent place to work, this included a successful social media campaign that had helped recruit other national shortage occupations within the Council, notably children’s services and adult social care. Attempts were made to convert agency staff to permanent contracts where appropriate and the wider picture of looking at reward structures and creating an excellent culture were ongoing areas of work HR were undertaking in partnership with service areas. The planning service was currently in the first wave of service transformation and as part of the transition to a larger authority some experienced staff had been moved across teams to maximise performance.

·       Mr Tett advised the Committee that much of the transformation progress planned for the April to August period had been significantly affected due to the Council’s efforts being focused on its covid response. Due to the potential of a second wave, the Committee were informed that this may further affect progress with staff potentially having to move from their business as usual roles to once again support the covid response. Cabinet Members had been asked to re-visit priorities as significant resources set aside to deliver all priorities were expected to be diverted to the covid response.

·       A member questioned the Council’s strategy for dealing with and allocating monies received from section 106 and community infrastructure levy (CIL) developer contributions and queried the influence members had over this funding. The Committee was advised that the recently published Government consultation on planning, the Planning White Paper, proposed s106 and CIL be abolished and replaced with a levy on developments over a certain threshold. Discussions had been held with the portfolio holder about harmonising the legacy councils’ approaches with the intention of involving local members.

·       Key worker housing was listed as a priority in the update report and the Committee noted that a report had been proposed for autumn to assess possible business cases. The Committee was advised that a paper to develop a strategy on affordable housing was in progress, although had been delayed, in part due to the covid pandemic. It was hoped that the report would be available this side of Christmas. Mr J Chilver, Cabinet Member for Property and Assets advised that a survey was about to commence to establish the need for key worker housing and to collect evidence so that the Council could focus on where it is needed the most and identify any further barriers to recruitment and retention of staff.

·       In response to a query around parking restrictions being the responsibility of Community Boards, Mr Tett explained that whilst TfB were funded by the Council there was no central budget for certain areas of need, including parking restrictions. These had been devolved to the former County Council Local Area Forums so that local members could look at restrictions in their areas and address whether they could be part funded through the LAF along with match funding from town and parish councils. Town and parish council partnership working remained key with community boards now exploring local parking needs and options. It was explained that introducing restrictions involved significant costs such as staff and legal costs and various cycles of local consultation. The Committee was advised that local residents’ expectations had to be managed appropriately.

·       Members were informed that the development of a parking strategy had not progressed as it had been hoped due to covid-19 and the impact the pandemic had had on residents travel patterns. A significant loss of income in parking had been evident with charges suspended into July to support retail businesses and car parks not being utilised at the level they were pre-lockdown. A strategy would be developed once post-pandemic travel patterns emerged.

·       A question was put to the Leader and Deputy Leader on the success of Community Boards to date. It was explained that due to the ongoing pandemic, many of the Boards had only recently been stood up, with many having only held one meeting so far. Mr Tett advised that success of the Boards was dependant on having a good chairman and a membership group where every voice was heard and the full membership felt able to participate. Initial meetings had been well attended, early funding applications made and a number of Boards had already started the process of setting subgroups up to look at strategic issues affecting their areas. Local consultation in decision making was recognised as being important and cabinet reports were in the process of being updated to ensure they captured the views of community boards.