Issue - meetings

Report by the Chief Executive.

28.1     The Chair introduced the report which asked the Committee to review its input into the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process for the financial year 2023/24 and to consider any RPPR related items that it may wish to add to the work programme.

28.2     The Committee discussed the report, and a summary of the discussion is given below.

28.3     The Committee commented that one of the potential areas of work that could be included in the work programme was the idea of developing a range of ‘shovel ready’ projects that had been costed and prioritised (with a weighting in terms of importance and benefit) for inclusion in the Council’s budget should Government funding become available. This could be developed by asking officers to include information on areas for improvement, policy changes, or service issues that require funding as part of the reports that are presented to the Committee. For example, the upcoming reports on the Rights of Way service and the Libraries and Information Service.

28.4     The Committee noted that the timetable of the RPPR process would mean that the Committee would need to agree detailed work now in order to have a range of projects ready for inclusion in the following financial years budget.

28.5     The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport commented that one of the challenges is that often Government funding is made available for specific purposes and may be subject to a bidding process. It can be difficult to find the necessary revenue funding in order to develop a pipeline of costed projects, although the Government has more recently recognised this problem and made capacity building funding available (e.g. for the Bus Service Improvement Plan). Some new policies, such as the requirement to collect food waste, are new areas but are not considered as a new burden for which the Government will provide additional funding. This can put added pressure on any revenue funding the Council has. As the RPPR process is an iterative process, the Scrutiny Committee has an opportunity to comment on where it might be better to allocate any funding that does become available.

28.6     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1) Note the report; and

2) Request that future reports include areas for improvement, policy changes, or service issues that require funding, in order to develop a prioritised pipeline of ‘shovel ready’ projects that the Committee could investigate, support and recommend for funding.

Report by the Chief Executive.

21.1     The Chief Finance Officer introduced the report and outlined that the Council had received the Autumn Budget Statement and councillors had received a briefing on its content. The Autumn Budget Statement gave an indication of where the funding for local government is going to be allocated. The announcement indicates an overall increase in the level of funding, but further details of what this means for the Council will become clearer when further announcements on the provisional Local Government Settlement are made, which is expected around 21 December. The Fair Funding Review has been delayed until 2025 and there is no indication that there will be a multi-year settlement for local government.

21.2     The Chief Finance Officer summarised the key parts of the Statement:

• The 2023 Business Rate revaluation will go ahead with £13.6 billion available for transitional relief to support businesses affected, and the Council will be protected from the impact of any changes in revenue.
• There is a range of funding for Social Care: £600 million for the Better Care Fund and £400m to support discharges from hospital; £1.3 billion increase in social care grant for adults and children but it is not yet known what other funding streams are included in this figure and what the specific allocations will be.
• The implementation of Social Care reforms has been delayed from October 2023 to October 2025, but the funding to support the reforms will still be given to local authorities to help address service pressures in this area.
• Council Tax - The referendum limit has been increased from 2% to 3% and the Adult Social Care precept has been raised from 1% to 2%.

21.3     The Committee discussed the report and asked a number of questions. A summary of the discussion is given below.

• The use of redundant shops was discussed. This reflects that fact that some high street chains have closed shops and the Council is working on a scheme to re-purpose empty shops. The Director of Communities Economy and Transport (CET) offered to provide further information on the scheme if members of the Committee are interested in receiving further details.
• Active Travel England survey to determine funding for cycling.  Active Travel England have £30 million to allocate across all local authorities and there is a self-assessment process to allocate funding. The Council is in discussion with Active Travel England regarding this funding and it is hoped that the Council will hear the outcome by Christmas.
• The Committee asked if it was possible to split the jobs created and businesses retained performance targets. The Director of CET agreed look at those targets to see if they could be split.
• The Rights of Way (RoW) maintenance performance target has been lowered from previously achieved levels of 94% and 88% to 80% and the flood authority performance measure is 62% against a target of 80%. The committee asked for the reasons behind this. The Director of CET outlined that there are challenges around having enough resources to meet the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21

Report by the Chief Executive.

14.1     The Assistant Chief Executive introduced the report which forms part of the Committee’s ongoing involvement in the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process. The report includes the RPPR update report that was considered by Cabinet on 29 September, which contains an update on the local and national policy context and the Council’s financial outlook together with an updated Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and capital programme. The Committee will be aware that Cabinet took a decision to hold most of the one-off 2022/23 Service Grant funding in reserves until the financial picture becomes more certain, and to continue to lobby central Government for appropriate and sustainable funding to meet the needs of the Council’s residents.

14.2     The Committee considered the RPPR update report and whether there was any further information it would like presented at the November meeting. A summary of the Committee’s discussion and any questions raised is given below:

• Carriageway Patching Programme – The Committee asked if it was possible to have an update on the progress of the programme and where patching work had taken place. It was clarified that there were no specific delays to the patching work, but some works may have to be rescheduled due to weather conditions which has a knock-on effect. The patching programme is in addition to existing work being undertaken under the highway maintenance contract. The Director of Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) agreed to arrange for an update on the progress of the patching programme to be sent to Committee members. He also clarified that there had been some delays to the road marking and lining programme due to supply chain issues.
• SEND Home to School Transport – The Committee noted the budget challenges faced by this service, which is provided by the Transport Hub, due to an increase in number children requiring transport. The Committee asked for more information about the cost pressures for this service and the distances travelled. The Director of CET outlined that there had been an increase in the number of children requiring transport, but also some children travel longer distances to specialist provision. The Department seeks to optimise routes where possible, but another factor is that some children have differing requirements and it may not be always be suitable for them to travel with others. The Department can provide information an average travel distances for the Committee.
• The Committee asked whether home to school transport is provided where a car has been provided from Personal Independence Payments (formerly Disability Living Allowance). The Director of CET outlined that the eligibility criteria set by Children’s Services will cover this.
• Home to School Transport – The Committee asked if children do not get into to their first choice of school, whether they get free home to school transport. Also, if highways assess that there is a safe walking route, does this affect home to school transport. The Director of CET responded that he would ask the Children’s Services Department to send the Committee the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14

Report by the Chief Executive.

5.1       The Assistant Chief Executive introduced the report which provides a broad stock take of the Council’s position as it enters into the Reconciling Policy, Performance and Resources (RPPR) process for 2023/24. It brings together two key items which are the Council’s end of year Monitoring report and the State of the County (SoC) report. They set out the Council’s performance, challenges, and reflects the high levels of uncertainty both over the last financial year and the coming year in 2023/24. The Committee is invited to consider the information contained in the report and identify any further information or items it wishes to consider as part of its RPPR work or the wider work programme. The Committee is also invited to comment on the criteria for assessing one off investment outlined in paragraph 1.6 of the report.

5.2       The Committee discussed the report, making a number of comments and raising a number of questions which are summarised below.

Monitoring Report

5.3       The Committee asked for clarification of what is meant by the term ‘eligible’ as part of the Council’s performance measure “The percentage of eligible 2 year olds who take up a place with an eligible early years provider” (page 26 of the report). The Assistant Chief Executive responded that he would report back separately on what constitutes ‘eligible’ as part of the definition of the performance measure.

5.4       A Committee member observed that the Monitoring report section on Legal Services contains information on the number of Local Government Ombudsman complaints but there is no information on the number Judicial Review cases the Council is involved in or other litigation work where the Council may be required to make a payment. The Assistant Chief Executive outlined that it is not normal practice to report back on the litigation work of Legal Services as part of Council Monitoring, which includes Judicial Reviews, contracts, insurance claims, Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) tribunals and child protection proceedings etc.. Any payments made will be dependent on the case involved and does not necessarily mean the Council has been found to be at fault. The annual reporting of Local Government Ombudsman cases is a legal requirement, and the Governance Committee has requested that they are included in quarterly Council Monitoring reports. The Assistant Chief Executive offered provide the number of Judicial review cases for the last year.

5.5       The Committee asked for clarification of the Covid funding carried forward figures contained in the report (page 16, paragraph 3.4 of the report). The Chief Finance Officer outlined that the figures in the table represents the Covid funding (both specific and general) available in 2021/22, being £30.2m carried forward from 2020/21 plus £43m received in 2021/22, less that allocated in year of £50.1m and £5.2m allocated for specific use in future years, resulting in £17.9m being available to be carried forward to 2022/23. The £17.9m represents £8.9m of general Covid funding and £9m of specific funding as determined by the grant terms of condition. The total  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5