Agenda item

Report by the Chief Executive.

18.1     The Director of CET introduced report, which is the beginning of the Scrutiny Committee’s involvement in the of RPPR process for 2018/19. Scrutiny has an important role in shaping the budget savings proposals and examining their impact. The Director of CET highlighted that finding further savings is becoming increasingly difficult.

 

18.2     The Committee discussed the items in the savings plan for 2018/19 and noted that the Committee had established a Review Board to examine the savings proposals for the Waste Contract, and had agreed to consider the proposals for savings to grass cutting via a Task and Finish Scrutiny Board. The Committee is aware of the savings proposals for Libraries and noted their contribution to the overall departmental savings plan.

 

18.3     The Committee considered the services within the departmental revenue budget to see whether there were opportunities for savings in addition to those planned for waste and grass cutting.

 

Archives & Records

 

18.4     The budget under this heading pays for the ESCC contribution to the running costs of The Keep and the modern records storage facility at Ropemaker Park. The remainder of the running costs of The Keep are paid for by contributions from Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC) and the University of Sussex.

 

18.5     The Committee asked if the modern records storage facility could be offered to other Councils and organisations. The Assistant Director, Communities explained that this service has implemented a new system to improve document storage and retrieval. It is looking to offer this service to other organisations, but cannot guarantee any additional income at this stage.

 

 

Registration Service

 

18.6     The Registration Service is a net contributor to the departmental budget, but there are constraints on what the income generated can be spent on. It is anticipated that the opening of the newly refurbished Southover Grange will increase income, but this is variable depending on the number of wedding and other services. The Registration Service is currently working with Adult Social Care to refurbish Hookstead in Crowborough to provide improved facilities in this part of the county.

 

Road Safety

 

18.7     The Committee asked if expenditure on road safety could be reduced. The Director of CET responded that he did not believe this team could be reduced further. It currently deals with over 5,000 items of correspondence each year. The Committee is aware of the project work that is underway to examine better ways of reducing road accidents. The Committee commented that there was a perception that road accidents were due to road conditions, when most are caused by driver behaviour. The Director of CET suggested that the time to tackle this perception is when project has been completed.

 

Trading Standards

 

18.8     The Assistant Director Communities outlined that the department has reduced this service as far as possible and would not want to reduce it further. There may be small opportunities for additional income generation, but this service has already undertaken structural reviews and reduced staff.

 

Travellers Sites and Emergency Planning

 

18.9     The Director of CET explained that this was a small and effective team managing unauthorised encampments and five designated sites (four residential and the transit site at Bridies’ Tan). The Service receives income in the form of housing benefit and fees and charges from the sites, as well as contributions from District and Borough Councils. This team provides good value for money and it was not proposed to make savings from this budget.

 

18.10   The Emergency Planning Team are a small team who provide a business continuity and emergency planning service to ESCC and to other local authorities. The Committee noted that it had not examined these service areas for some time and requested a report on the work of the Traveller and Emergency Planning teams at the November Scrutiny Committee meeting. The Assistant Director, Communities added that this can include further information on the net budget of these services.

 

Customer Care

 

18.11   This is the Corporate Complaints team who provide a service to deal with complaints for CET, Orbis and the Chief Executive’s department (but not Children’s Services and Adult Social Care, who have their own separate complaints teams). This team also deals with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, which have increased in number, and requests for environmental information. The Assistant Director, Communities explained that the department does not receive any income from other departments. This is in line with the corporate agreement not to make internal recharges. There is no scope for further savings from this service.

 

Passenger Services

 

18.12   The Director of CET outlined that out of total net budget of around £9.1million, concessionary bus fares account for £7.8 million of the expenditure. The provision of concessionary fares is statutory and ESCC gets £5million towards concessionary fares as part of the formula grant from the Department for Transport (DfT). There is currently a funding gap between the amount ESCC receives from central government via the DfT and the cost of concessionary bus fares. The remainder of the Passenger Service budget of around £1.2million is used to pay for supported bus services, some of which are also used for Home to School transport. If ESCC ceased to fund all the supported bus services, it would have to spend an additional £800,000 per annum on school buses, so the net saving would only be £400,000 per annum. Such a removal may also impact commercial services where subsidised bus routes feed into the commercial bus network.

 

Parking

 

18.13   The Director of CET explained that £600,000 of the parking surplus is spent on concessionary bus fares in order to bridge the current funding gap. The Committee discussed the scope to increase, or harmonise, parking charges across the areas of the county covered by civil parking enforcement arrangements. The Assistant Director, Operations explained that the parking schemes cannot be set up to make a profit, and any surplus after covering operating costs has to go back into local transport schemes. The Director of CET added that any decision on charges has to be fair, reasonable and take into account the number of parking spaces within controlled parking zones.

 

Waste Disposal

 

18.14   The Committee noted that it has established a Review Board to examine the potential for savings in this service area.

 

Rights of Way and Countryside Management

 

18.15   The Committee has been involved in the development of the Countryside Access Strategy which covers these teams. The majority of expenditure is on staff costs and there are no opportunities for further savings.

 

Transport Hub

 

18.16   The Assistant Director, Operations explained that there are no further opportunities for savings from this team after previous savings.

 

Highways Maintenance

 

18.17   Savings of £1.4million have previously been made from the Highways maintenance budget as part of the contract re-procurement. The current Highways budget, excluding depreciation, is split into four main areas:

• Contract Management – £2,041,000 which is made up of staffing costs plus £580,000 for survey and other costs;
• Contractors costs - £9,783,000 which is comprised of the lump sum and regular contract payments, including the grass cutting budgets;
• Maintenance of bridges and structures - £1,793,000 this includes the Newhaven swing bridge; and
• Street lighting and traffic signals - £1,438,000.

 

Planning and Environment

 

18.18   The Environment Team is small and has low costs. It is seeking to generate further income from professional advice provided to other local authorities. The net cost of the Planning Team is low after planning development control and flood risk management fees are taken into account. The Committee noted that much of planning is a statutory function and asked if there is scope to work with the District and Borough Councils to reduce costs.

 

18.19   The Assistant Director, Economy outlined that there were seven planning departments in the county and there is a skills shortage in this area. There might be some scope for discussions with District and Borough Councils to share staff and resources and this is perhaps something the department could explore.

 

18.20   High Weald Unit. ESCC is the accountable authority for this organisation, with contributions being made towards the running costs coming from a number of local authorities and other organisations. There is no scope for savings from this budget.

 

Capital Programme

 

18.21   The Committee asked if there were any funding issues around the capital programme. The Director of CET responded that the fundamental challenge is around revenue expenditure, not capital. However, the Committee should note that quite a lot of staff costs are charged to capital budgets where appropriate.

 

RPPR Board

 

18.22   The Committee discussed the formation of an RPPR Board which will meet to discuss the emerging budget and portfolio plans and provide comments to Cabinet. It was agreed that the membership of the RPPR Board would be comprised of the whole Committee. The proposed date of the RPPR Board meeting is Friday 8 December 2017 at 10.00am.

 

18.23   The Committee RESOLVED to:

 

1) Establish an RPPR Board comprised of whole Committee; and

2) Receive a report on the Traveller and Emergency Planning teams at the Scrutiny Committee meeting to be held on the 22 November 2017.