Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

None.

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2017 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2017 were agreed as a correct record.

There were no public questions.

The Environmental Services Portfolio Holder presented this report, which reviewed the implementation of the Shared Waste Service Alternative Bin Collection Day project.

Collection of cardboard

Concern was expressed regarding missed collections of cardboard. The Head of Waste Services explained that cardboard left beside the bin should be collected, providing it was small enough to fit inside a wheeled bin. Instances of cardboard not being collected should be reported to the Council to ensure that errors were rectified. He also pointed out that the Council could provide an extra blue bin for households that required it. This was a better solution than continuously having to put out side waste. The Committee recommended that the Council be more proactive in communicating how it collected cardboard side waste.

Reducing waste

It was suggested that the Council should reduce the number of plastic cups used at its offices, especially at its meeting to give the correct perception to the public. The Portfolio Holder explained that there was a complex debate about the virtues of paper as opposed to plastic cups. It was noted that the Council had recently changed the way in which it collected its office waste in an aim to increase its recycling rate.

It was suggested that more could be done to encourage businesses, particularly those that used mail order, to reduce the amount of packaging. The Head of Waste Services explained that the Council was lobbying for this, but we were one voice in a larger national issue.

Improving practice

It was noted that the Council’s collection vehicles were equipped with CCTV cameras, which could be used for training purposes. For example, bins should be placed back where they were collected from and any instances of this not happening could be investigated.

It had been reported that batteries were being mixed in with recycling, which caused contamination. The Portfolio Holder apologised for this, as the aim was to collect these separately.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the operatives were gaining experience of rounds, which meant that cover could be provided in the event of staff sickness.

In response to questioning the Head of Waste Services explained that there was no policy in place with regard to lying bins on their sides in windy weather, it was a judgement call for the operatives.

Missed bins

Whilst missed bin collections were responded to promptly, they should not have occurred in the first place. The Head of Waste Services explained that all missed collections were analysed to try and avoid repeats. If they were promptly reported then it was likely that a vehicle would only have to make a brief detour to collect it. Analysing the data could also identify instances of assisted collections being repeatedly missed. The aim was to avoid repeat errors as these cost the Council money and resources.

Training

The Head of Waste Services reported that operatives had recently received training, which covered health and safety and promoting mutual respect and dignity at work. This would help to improve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

In the absence of the Business and Customer Services Portfolio Holder, the Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder presented this report which provided the Committee with details of the Council’s performance at the end of the third quarter.

Finance

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder advised that the variances between the working budgets and the forecasted figures were all within acceptable limits.

Use of temporary accommodation

Concern was expressed at the number of families in temporary Bed and Breakfast accommodation and their length of stay. The Portfolio Holder for Housing shared the Committee’s concerns. She explained that due an increase in demand for housing there had been an increase in the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation. The longest a family had been housed in such temporary accommodation was six weeks.

Concern was also expressed at the number of under 35s in temporary accommodation. It was noted that under Government guidance, single males under the age of 35 were not a priority for affordable housing.

The Chairman expressed concern at the reference to the unpaid invoices regarding December’s figures for the amount spent on Bed and Breakfast accommodation. It was suggested that the total amount could be included in the comments field in future reports.

The Housing Portfolio Holder explained that the pressures on affordable housing were reflected nationally. The Council were looking at alternatives, such as building pre-fabricated buildings for residents who required temporary accommodation. The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing explained that the Council had set a £60,000 contingency budget for this area and it had not yet proved necessary to use it.

Risk Register

The Leader explained that the Risk Register had been improved to make it a more dynamic document where risks were regularly reassessed. Member of the Committee considered each risk in turn and focussed on recent changes to the risk ratings.

STR 2 Gypsy and Travellers

Members of the Committee queried why the importance of this risk had been reduced before the Local Plan Inspector’s report had been received.

STR 25 Risk of Designation as a Poorly Performing Planning Authority

It was queried why both the gross and net risk had been reduced to 9. The Planning Portfolio Holder explained that whilst the number of appeals lost stood at 10.8%, which was just above the 10% threshold, the majority of lost appeals related to the five year land supply. When this was taken into account the actual percentage of lost appeals was only 2%. In addition, the Local Plan was closer to adoption than had been the case when the major applications had been determined. The committee felt that the risk assessment should not be downgraded prior to receiving a letter from the Department of Communities and Local Government.

STR 12 Shared Services Initiatives and STR 14 Access to Primary Care

Members of the Committee questioned why the net risk rating had been reduced. The Leader shared Committee members concerns regarding the ability of the NHS to use Section 106 money to provide health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Chief Executive introduced this report which highlighted what the Council was seeking to achieve in 2018/19. The Committee were invited to make recommendations to Cabinet.

Members of the Committee made the following points:

·         It was important to receive feedback from residents, especially those moving in to new communities, as they could challenge pre-existing ideas.

·         It was acknowledged that the provision of broadband was led by the County Council. 97% of the District received broadband and so the aim of covering the remaining 3% could prove challenging.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the use of inspiring terms such as “Living Well”, without providing substance on how such a Strategic Aim would be delivered.

·         Concerns were expressed at how the NHS were going to deliver healthcare for villages that were expanding without using section 106 funds to build new facilities.

·         The Committee welcomed the format of the Corporate Plan. The snapshot on pages 101-2 of the agenda was praised, in particular how it highlighted that the Council no longer received any Revenue Support Grant funding from the Government.

The Committee NOTED the Corporate Plan.

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder presented the Medium Term Financial Strategy and explained that the Committee were being asked to consider the financial strategies and budgets prior to the report going to Cabinet and then Council.

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder explained that for 2017/18 there had been real surprises from the Government, as expected the Local Government Settlement was £0. In fact the Government was in effect taxing the Council. It was noted that the Council were spending less and would have to continue to find extra savings or more ways of increasing income in the years ahead.

Funding Greater Cambridge Partnership

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder explained that the amount of funding to the Greater Cambridge Partnership had been reduced, as the number of new homes built was less than expected, which meant a decrease in New Homes Bonus.

Council Tax

It was proposed that Council Tax be increased by £5 for a Band D property. The Committee accepted this proposal. The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder warned that the underlying Council Tax showed how much savings or additional income still had to be found.

Reserves

The Executive were currently recommending that the minimum reserves should remain at £2.5 million. This figure had been increased years ago from £1.5 million due to the financial uncertainty nationally.

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder explained that whilst the five year Medium Term Financial Strategy showed the Council reaching the limit of its reserves, history had shown that either additional savings or additional income would be found to push this date further back.

Ermine Street Housing Ltd

The Committee welcomed the funds that had been brought in through Ermine Street Housing Ltd, but expressed concern that the Council was relying on this. The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder explained that the funds brought in for 2017/18 were higher than expected, but the Executive recognised the risks such as fluctuating interest rates and assured the Committee that the Council was not complacent. Ermine Street Housing Ltd had its own risk register.

Business Rates

The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder explained that Business Rate appeals could be backdated to 2010 and so could adversely affect the Council’s finances. The Business Rates revaluation, which came into effect in April 2017 could also reduce receipts. The implications of the Government’s Fair Funding Review was not yet known but it was likely to mean extra funding to the County Council at the expense of the Districts.

Precautionary items

It was noted that none of the precautionary items for 2017/18 had yet been spent.

Cost of planning appeals

Whilst noting the costs of appeals, two members of the Committee stated it was money well spent as it defended local democracy and championed the views of local residents by forcing deeply unpopular proposed developments to appeal. The Finance and Staffing Portfolio Holder recognised the strength of feeling from councillors and local residents, but it was his duty to inform the Committee that planning appeals, on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Committee NOTED its Work Programme.

Scrutiny monitors are invited to report to the Committee regarding Portfolio Holder meetings attended since the last meeting and specifically raise any issues challenged and the result and/or issues where the Committee could add further value.

No updates were provided by the Scrutiny Monitors.

To note that the next meeting will take place on Tuesday 6 February 2018 at 5pm.

It was noted that the next meeting will be held on 6 March 2018 at 5pm.