Agenda and minutes

Up to 15 minutes are allowed for public participation.  Participants are restricted to 3 minutes each.

There was no public participation.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting.

Members noted there were two sets of minutes, one being for approval and one for noting, with each set taken in turn, it was

RESOLVED that: -

(a)    the Minutes of the Meeting of the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee held on 29 September, 2022 be confirmed and signed as a correct record; and

(b)    the Minutes of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on 8 September 2022, be noted.

Members may make declarations of Interest at this point or may make them at any point in the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest made at this point in the meeting.

Setting out current position of previously agreed actions as at 2 November 2022

With no comments or questions raised, and with no requirement for a vote, the Matters Arising were DULY NOTED.

Members gave consideration to a report which sought agreement to amend the Discretionary Council Tax Energy Rebate Scheme, previously agreed by delegated decision on 9 May 2022.

Earlier in the year, the Government had announced the Council Tax Energy Rebate Scheme to assist residents with the rising costs of energy by making a payment of £150 according to their council tax bands.

The scheme had been split into two areas of work; the core scheme being for residents in council tax bands A-D and which is fully funded and the discretionary scheme, intended for residents in bands E-H.

Government Funding had been allocated for this purpose with any underspend to be paid back to Government.  It was also stressed any overspend would have to be met by the Local Authority.  The scheme was due to close on 30 November 2022.

The delegated decision taken in May, in respect of the discretionary element was summarised to Committee and was available publicly and had enabled automatic payments of £150 to be made to anyone in Bands E to H in a vulnerable category, leaving the remaining balance to allocate to anyone else in Bands E to H to make an application with supporting evidence of financial hardship.

Members noted that since the Scheme launched 351 accounts in bands E-H had received a payment and of the original allocation £117,300 remained unspent. 

Four options in respect of extending the discretionary scheme, to assist West Lindsey residents with their energy bills, had been considered, with each detailed within the report.  The option being recommended to the Committee was option 1; a small payment to all Band E Council tax account holders who had not yet received a payment. 

The rationale for this preferred Option was outlined to Members and contained in Section 6 of the report.

Debate ensued and Members remarked on the hard work undertaken by the team to administer such schemes since the onset of, first the pandemic, and now cost of living measures.  

Whilst acknowledging the payment to each account was small, Members considered this to be a pragmatic approach and a preference to the funding being returned to Central Government.  The approach was fully supported across the Chamber and although it was a very small amount, Members considered it would be welcomed by a large number of people, targeted those it had been demonstrated had not received assistance to date and that it would be foolhardy to return funding to Central Government.

Members sought indication as to the additional costs associated with administering such schemes and making such payments, and whether this had to be taken from the total funding allocation, met by the Authority or funded separately.

Whilst it was not feasible for Officers to provide a transaction cost for per applicant currently, Officers did confirm that only that week notification had been received from the Government, that administering organisations needed to complete an application for what were deemed “New Burdens”, which was the funding towards administering the Schemes.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Members gave consideration to the Progress and Delivery report for quarter two 2022/2023, which covered the period of 1 July to 30 September 2022.

Before considering the details of the performance, Members’ attention was drawn to page 7 of the report, with quarter two seeing the introduction of a Performance Improvement Plan.  The Performance Improvement Plan intended to provide further context and the extra level of assurance Members’ had been seeking, when measures within services were reporting as underperforming.  The Improvement Plan detailed those measures where performance had remained below target for two consecutive quarters or more, reasoning as to why the measure was reporting below target, the impact this was having, the actions in place to improve performance and when improvement was expected to be seen as a result of the actions being taken.

Officers outlined how the Plan had been developed, and how it would be managed and monitored, noting Improvement Plans would include clear linkages to the objectives of both teams and individuals.  

Turning to the performance data Members were advised over 78% of all measures were either exceeding or within agreed tolerance of their targets, up compared with quarter one at 68.4%. Similarly, measures exceeding target for two consecutive quarters or more, had increased from 76% in quarter one to 83% in quarter two.

The measures that had performed above or below target for two consecutive periods, in each portfolio area, were then highlighted to the Committee, as follows: -

Corporate Health

Two measures were reporting below target during the quarter and had been included in the Performance Improvement Plan, earlier referred to, namely, the average time taken to pay invoices and overall customer satisfaction.   Members noted the reasoning for this and the actions to be taken. Overall performance in the portfolio continued to remain positive and Members indicated they had no questions in respect of this area.

Change Management, ICT and Regulatory Services

10 measures were performing above their targets for two consecutive periods with only 2 measures reporting below target for quarter two.  Continued high performance was reported in all areas, but those areas brought to the Committee’s attention within the portfolio were: -

In-year council tax collection. Having recently received outturn figures for 21/22, the average national collection rate was 95.8% for Council Tax with the Council Tax team having achieved 98% and therefore performing in the top quartile across the country.

Completed Food Safety inspections. The percentage of completed inspections continued to remain on track for the year, evidencing the recovery from the pandemic.

Housing Enforcement Cases - The percentage of cases closed within 6 months was reporting as below target.  A number of long-standing cases which had been affecting the performance figures, had been closed over the Summer and such performance was projected to return to expected levels during quarter three.

Land Charges. Following a successful T24 review, searches were consistently being turned around within the agreed timeframes. The Market share for the service was reporting below target, with this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Members considered a report which provided the Mid-Year update for Treasury Management Indicators in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003.

The report sought to update the Committee on progress against the Treasury Management Strategy which was approved by Council in March 2022 for 2022/23 financial year, and was compliant with the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management.

It was acknowledged that the report had been written during a time of much change in the national political situation, and during a period of economic turbulence, with there having been an increase to the base interest rate since the report had been published.

The report identified that interest rates had been rising and were forecast to rise further resulting in the Council receiving additional investment income, demonstrated in the quarter two budget monitoring report, to be considered later in the evening, and was due to budgets having been set when rates were at historically low levels. Members also noted that increased rates did also mean that the Council would find borrowing costlier if it was required to source funds.

Section four of the report highlighted the movements in the Council’s prudential indicators.  Changes had arisen as a result of the Council closing its accounts for 2021/22 after the original strategy had been written and due to a revised capital programme for 2022/23, again outlined in the quarter two budget monitoring report referred to earlier.

The report concluded with an economics update which had been supplied by the Council’s Treasury Advisors, Link Asset Services, and which was useful in understanding the national and international context the Council was operating within when undertaking its treasury activities.

Members referenced the usefulness of economic forecast information, particularly during current economic turbulence.  Understanding the UK, and indeed the global economic outlook was important for everyone, not just for setting Council budgets, but also to residents in making personal decisions about their finances.  Its public nature was therefore much welcomed. 

It was suggested that in future the recommendations be more specific in identifying what the changes to prudential indicators were and indicating the relevant sections of the report, as had been the case historically, as this would aid with both Elected Members and the public’s understanding.

RESOLVED that the report and treasury activity be noted and it be RECOMMENDED to Council that the changes to the Prudential Indicators (Section 4.3 of the report) be approved.

Members considered a report which presented the forecast overspend from the Disabled Facilities Grant and requested additional top up funding from the Capital Receipts Reserve.

In presenting the report Members noted that West Lindsey’s allocation had not been uplifted for inflation and didn’t necessarily reflect the demographic of the District with many residents, not holding sufficient capital funds to pay for adaptions or owning their own homes, which allowed charges to be raised against properties.

The delivery of Disabled Facilities grants was a statutory requirement and the relevant Central Government Department had been quite clear that running out of grant funding, did not mean the Authority could cease delivery.

To ensure delivery of the grants could continue and the current service demand be met, a request from capital receipt reserves of £300,000 was being sought with an additional £234,000 having already been allocated from Section 106 monies.  

In previous years’, top-up grants had been received in January, however this payment had not been confirmed.

The spend to-date was detailed at paragraph 1.8 of the report and the reasoning for budget pressures set out in 1.9.

Members also noted the additional work which would be undertaken alongside allocating funding, to raise with the Government, and the County Council, the inadequacy of funding and the flawed formula used to calculate funding levels, particularly given the demographic of the District.

Debate ensued and Members sought and received assurance that the lobbying and letters referenced in the recommendations would be undertaken.

Members also questioned the process for determining how S106 funding was allocated, suggesting that there should be greater Member involvement and engagement in committing such Funds. The use of trusted assessors, appointed directly by the District Council, as an alternative way to reduce the delays resulting from a lack of Occupational Therapists was again raised.

In responding, Members were advised that as part of the detailed work undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee, the use of trusted assessors had been considered.  However, the need for a Disabled Facilities Grant was not ascertained until a referral had been made from the County Council. The Authority was not in a position to by-pass the County Council, as every person was entitled to an Adult Social Care Assessment. In comparison, a very small number of those assessments actually undertaken ended up in a Disabled Facilities Grant because there were so many other options that Occupational Therapists considered prior to relying on a DFG.  The possibility had been discussed with County colleagues, but it had been made clear that given the right to a full assessment and the fact that many assessments did not result in a DFG but some other form of assistance which was the County Council’s responsibility to deliver, it was not appropriate to miss out that step.   Furthermore the District Council had no expertise, in-house, to supervise an Occupational Therapist or a trusted assessor because health, in those terms was not within the remit of West Lindsey, because it was not one of its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Members considered a report which set out the revenue, capital and treasury management activity from 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022.

In presenting the report, and in relation to revenue budgets, Members were advised the forecast outturn position was a net contribution to reserves of £216,000, this represented a movement of £254,000 from the £38,000 deficit reported to the Committee in the Quarter 1 report presented July.

The movement to a contribution to reserves position was primarily due to the following factors: -

*   The Planning fee income forecasting to be overachieved by £177,000 and was based on actual income to-date, which included several applications for major developments.

*   Net interest receivable was forecast to be £190,000 above budget. This was due to the budget being set when interest rates were historically low, combined with larger balances than expected in the early part of the year, which meant that the Council was forecast to exceed its interest receivable budget.

*   This was offset by a pressure on employee costs of £37,000. With the forecast outturn now including the confirmed pay award for 22/23, and also the reduced National Insurance rate to be applied from the 6November, announced in the Government’s September mini-budget.

*   Crematorium income had reduced by £36,000, to reflect the business plan reported to the Committee in July; and there was also a pressure within Property and Asset services relating to forecast electricity costs and repairs and maintenance expenditure.

In relation to Capital, Section 3.1 of the report detailed requested approvals to capital schemes, including £6.823m which it was proposed be moved to future financial years.

Members were also asked to approve the adjustments to the capital budgets as detailed at section 3.2 of the report and to approve the revised capital budget of £10.5m, which included the amended Disabled Facilities Grant capital scheme budget, considered and approved earlier in the meeting.

In responding to questions, Officers confirmed capital costs relating to the Market Square development would be funded from the Levelling Up Fund award.

RESOLVED that:

REVENUE

(a)    the forecastout-turn position of a£0.216m net contribution to reserves as of 30^th September 2022 (see Section 2) relating to revenue activity be accepted;

(b)    theuse of EarmarkedReserves during thequarter approvedbythe Chief Finance Officer using Delegated powers (2.4.1) be accepted;

CAPITAL

(c)    the current projected Capital Out-turn as detailed in 3.1.1 of the report be accepted;

(d)    the adjustments to the Capital Budget as detailed in 3.2 of the report be approved;

(e)    the revised Capital Budget of £10.5m be approved; and

TREASURY

(f)     the report, the treasury activity and the prudential indicators be accepted.

The Committee considered a report which detailed the proposed Fees and Charges to be implemented from the 1st of April 2023 for services within the remit of the Committee (Appendix A) as well as those recommended by Prosperous Communities Committee (Appendices B and C). Service specific detail relating to performance and demand were included within the report at Appendices 1 to 19.

Members noted that two additional recommendations had been made by the Prosperous Communities Committee when considering their fees and charges, namely for the free parking period in Gainsborough to be increased from one to two hours, in line with Market Rasen to establish parity across the district; and that all charges relating to car parking fixed penalty notices be halved.  Regarding the latter Members were advised that unfortunately the Council was not able to amend such fines as they were set by statute under the Road traffic Act 2007 and as such Members should reject the recommendation on legal grounds.

The net impact of the original fees and charges review was an increase in income of £6,700 in 2023/24, rising to £58,300 by 2027/28, however, the proposed increase in free parking in Gainsborough was forecasted to reduce this by £27,000 per year. 

Members further noted inflation currently stood at 12.00% but it was being proposed that a lower rate of 6% be applied, to reflect the impact of the pay award on service provision, with employee costs and Officers, time being the main cost driver for many of the proposed fees.  This reduced inflation rise would also ensure services remained accessible to all residents given the current cost of living crisis.

Furthermore, the proposal reflected the result of the budget consultation event, where the majority of respondents had felt that a cap less than inflation be used to increase fees and charges for 2023/24.

Two service areas had had income budgets reduced to reflect updated Business plans, presented to Committee earlier in the year, these related to the Crematorium and Markets. Members were also advised that car parking permit demand had also fallen and as such it was proposed to reduce the income budget to reflect this as part of the budget setting process for 23/24, the report before Members reflected an expected pressure on income in this area.

No new fees were being proposed, but the usual one-day free parking requests usually dealt with on Annual basis had been included with the report requesting not only approval for the current year but for each year up to 2025, covering the period of the current Parking Strategy, with a further review of this arrangement to be included in the next Parking Strategy, due in 2025.

Debate ensued and Members sought indication, given that Gainsborough’s Christmas Event was held over three days, who had determined the date on which it should be held, and the process by which this would be determined each year up and until 2025. 

Members were advised this had been determined with the event organisers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Members gave consideration to a report which presented the findings from the multi-agency Cost of Living Summit which had been hosted by West Lindsey District Council on 26 September 2022.

In presenting the report the Chairman indicated she was aware some Members would feel disappointed at the lack of financial commitment within the report, but set out her reasoning as to why she considered this the best approach, given the significant unknowns the Council was facing and an ever-changing situation.   The Authority’s current sound financial position was as a result of prudent management over the last 12 years.  Reserves once spent could not be replaced easily and as such it was important that any actions taken were sustainable and addressed real need.  The impact of numerous financial support packages offered by Central Government, many of which were administrated locally, was unknown as yet and would have impact on livelihoods.   Gas and petrol prices had stated to fall and there was a concern, given the risks identified in the report any commitments now would prevent the Council from assisting further if the situation continued to persist.  There was also concern that other Council priorities which had been supported in the Chamber, would not be delivered if resources were diverted without due consideration.  

Reference was made to the already existing funding gap and the unknowns the revised Government settlement presented, as such the Chairman was of the view that it would be more prudent to wait for the outcome of this settlement.  The Council’s core business needed to be secure in the first instance.  It was not being suggested that the Council should not do anything, with the Chairman outlining numerous examples, but that there was a need to ensure the interventions had a longer lasting impact.  It was also highlighted how the Council currently supported Voluntary and Community Groups and how offering greater support to such organisations could have the potential to provide community led support which matched need identified locally.

The Leader of the Council showed his support for the Chairman’s position echoing her comments around increased partnership working and support, ensuring interventions had a real impact and the unprecedented levels and sources of uncertainties the Council and the Country faced at the current time, in respect of its finances, moving the recommendations in the report.  

Debate ensued and Members from across the Chamber commented on the success of the Summit. Engagement from partners had been excellent and the knowledge gained invaluable. Members also spoke of the amount of information they had learned and the evening had made them more informed in terms of the support that currently existed across the District.

That being said, some Members, including Opposition Members, expressed disappointment, given the success of the Summit and the ideas generated, that the report lacked indication of any direct actions to be undertaken, and as such considered the need for urgent delivery had been overlooked.  It was not accepted that all potential actions would incur a cost, and as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Chairman took the opportunity to remind Members that suggestions for inclusion could be made and would be considered, referencing the suggestion made in earlier discussions and encouraging that Member to contact Officers.

With no comments, questions, or requirement for a vote, the Work Plan was DULY NOTED.